Talk:Freaky Green Eyes

Freaky Green Eyes was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 28, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed

Novels Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is currently undergoing a peer review.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Children's literature Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2010. Further details are available here.

comments

Good start. I like the use of the break out box!

Lead: Your leading summary is a bit short, and should mention in the second paragraph some of the themes. It needs to adequately describe the entire article.
Plot: I've gone through this and done some copy editing but you need to do more. Make sure your verbs are all in the appropriate tense. I'd use present tense. Make life simple. you don't need to wikilink common terms like mother, father sister and stepbrother.
themes: this is a good beginning, but it needs more detail. There also needs to be more discussion of Freaky as Franky's alter ego, and what this means.
review section: this is too short. What do reviewers say about the themes, about Oates generally, about this story particularly? What do they identify as weaknesses and strengths? There is a lot written about this book, so I'm sure you can find things.
Citations and bibliography. Be sure your entries are properly formatted. Wikipedia doesn't really care which format you use, as long as whatever format you use is consistent. I'd prefer you use MLA or Turabian for this article. It would be more in keeping with other literature articles.

Keep working on this. I'll check back on it later tomorrow when I work up grading. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I think your article looks pretty good, but I agree with some of the above suggestions. You have some grammatical and syntax errors throughout that can be easily fixed. :) Additionally, make sure you keep everything in the same tense so it is easier to understand. I think that you have a lot of great information, but you could maybe expand a little bit. For example, you mention that Oates originally wanted this book to parallel the Simpson case, but then it closely followed the Ramsey case; maybe you could add a little bit about how it does mirror the latter? Also, you could probably discuss how/if this book fits into a literary movement or some of the literary devices used throughout. Overall, however, I think this is a great review :) Santolinek (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

This makes me want to read the book! I liked much of the article and thought it was interesting, however I do feel that there is some work that can be done to improve it. Some grammar problems, minor, but go back through and make sure that everything is correct. Also, can you add a section about the Author? Doesn't have to be very large, just a few sentences, I know that Oates is a writer who is out of teh ordinary and writes odd and sometimes dark stories (Which this one would fall under) but many other readers may not know this. Also since the two cases, Simpson and Ramsaey (sp?) are mentioned I agree that the parrallels should be mentioned. Find more on the reviews as well, maybe suumarize a book review, try to find one for the book and one agaisnt the book (it will give your article a more nuetral p.o.v. But overall this is written very well and I like the topic! Megzie113 (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be really well written. I have never read this book but I am going to read it now due to the interesting themes and plot that are listed in the article. I still see a few minor grammar and punctuation errors but no major problems. Other than these small mistakes the appearance and structure of the article seems to be good. I would also like to see a section discussing the author and some of her other published works to learn more about her writing style. Overall great job on the article. (garvdog30 (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]