Wikipedia:Peer review/The Fountainhead/archive1

The Fountainhead

I've listed this article for peer review before making a second nomination for good article status. Have made a number of changes in the last two weeks to address comments from the first GA nomination. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Giving it a look RL0919, it looks good for GA but there are somethings that I found that could be touched:

• The lead is a bit unbalanced. The second paragraph is really big while the fourth one is too small.

  Added more content to the last paragraph and trimmed the second one a little.

• Shouldn't the creation of the book take more priority than the themes? Just an idea that poped out.

  I assume you mean in terms of the order of sections. This is partly about the flow of the article. It makes sense to discuss characters immediately after plot. Because the characters are archetypal, they relate closely to the themes, so it seems less disruptive to the reader to present the themes next. I also suspect the typical reader cares more about the themes than the history, although that is more speculative.

• Isn't the word rape too informal? While I don't disapprove it, I think you can also replace it some times with "sexual assault" or "violation"

  'Rape' is the word used by the sources that discuss the scene, so I hesitate to vary it lest I accidentally introduce POV.

• The film version section has a really small paragraph in regards to Zack's comment. Can it be further explored?

  There isn't much else about Snyder's interest, but I expanded with info about the history of other prospective remakes.

• Another small paragraph seems like "The Fountainhead has continued to have strong sales throughout the last century into the current one. It has also been referenced in a variety of popular entertainments, including movies, television series and other novels." Maybe I'm being too nitpicky since it's been since I nominated one article to GA but I think a reviewer might find it as an issue.

  Moved a bit of sales info from elsewhere to make the paragraph more full. I'm reluctant to mention specific examples of the movies, etc. Once the trivia-list floodgates open, people start adding bullets about how it appears on someone's bookshelf in the background for 10 seconds of a Finnish sitcom.

Other than that, I think the article is in good shape for a GA nomination. I also made a peer review here and would like if you provide some comments. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Provided some updates above related to your specific comments. --RL0919 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)