Talk:City at the End of Time/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Maclean25 (talk · contribs) 06:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- GA review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article? for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Two images used: Fair use cover image File:GregBear CityAtTheEndOfTime.jpg and Commons-hosted CC-by-2.5-tagged File:Greg Bear.jpg.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- Notes
- 1a. In Reception, Publishers Weekly described... and The Library Journal said... — it is the person who wrote the reviews in these publications that "described" or "said" these things, not the publication itself. Perhaps, "The review in Publishers Weekly described..." and "The reviewer for the Library Journal said...".
- Fixed.
- 1b. From the introduction, City at the End of Time was nominated for the Locus Award for Best Science Fiction Novel and the John W. Campbell Memorial Award in 2009. — per WP:LEAD, the intro should only "summarize the body", however this information does not appear anywhere else in the article. I expect to find any award (or bestseller list) mentions in the Reception section.
- Done. I've created an "Awards and nominations" section, and added 2 more items I found. I'm not sure whether "Shortlisted" and "Listed" are the correct terms to use.
- 3b. In Background, the last 2 paragraphs seem to get a little unfocused. I get the point regarding his purposeful connections to those previous works and the relevance of his opinion on those works, but I don't see the relevance of some of it. The quotes about Hodgson's imagination and Irish mysticism seem unnecessary. Also, the relevance of bringing up the topic is vague, "...in City at the End of Time he honors those writers..."; honors how? It isn't until we get to the first paragraph of Analysis section that the connection (how he 'honors' the previous works) between this book and Hodgson's is made. I suggest tightening up those two paragraphs into one (they seem to be discussing the same idea anyways) and maybe clarifying what specifically honors means. Also, the Background could be expanded by clarifying "Hugo and Nebula Award-winner" (for what and when, Hugo for novelette in 1984) and noting when this book was written or when his last book was published.
- Almost done. Regarding the text "... he honors those writers ..." in the Background section, this comes from the Locus magazine citation without further explanation; the fact that you say that it is clarified in the Analysis section, makes me wonder whether the Background section should come after the Analysis section. What do you think? But I'll rework the Background section if that's what you'd like.
Thank you for picking up this review. I've attended to most of the issues you raised above – point 3b might still need some work. When you get a chance, please reassess. —Bruce1eetalk 08:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think this part of the Background should be cast as illustrating where Bear is coming from in writing this book (his influences and intentions). The rest can be left for the Analysis (like where he specifically differs from Hogson). Every sentence in that last Background paragraph has the same structure (he "said that"...) which reports what Bear said of Hodgson but doesn't really connect the dots. I'd prefer something more like Bear admired Hodgson's imagination which, in The Night Land, had created "technological preserve" in the far future to keep out monsters that humanity had previously created. maclean (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- As suggested, I've split and reworked the Background section. Please let me know if it's still not right. —Bruce1eetalk 10:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- That works. Thanks for writing the article. maclean (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pass, and for the help and suggestions. —Bruce1eetalk 05:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)