Talk:When Marnie Was There (novel)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 19:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. lead improved
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). all sources good now
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. suitable fair use for book cover, others are CC
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Things to address[edit]

I'll make a bulleted list here so we can work our way through items individually. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Background (optional): it would be nice to know when this trip occurred. That might lead in to more chronological information about the publication of the book, if known. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: There is no information about when this trip occurred, although Sheppard said that Robinson had a connection to Burnham Overy Staithe starting from 1950 and that she (Sheppard) was an adult at the time, details maybe I could add, along with the fact the manuscript took 18 months to complete, but I don't think it would be appropriate to coax the reader into triangulating a year. JAYFAX (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thanks for looking-- I agree we shouldn't try to imply a year if the sourcing isn't clear. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary: usually, only a very complex book would take 600 words to summarise -- here, I'd suggest looking for details to simplify out, aiming for perhaps 400 words. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have now truncated it to fewer than 450 words. JAYFAX (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Style: this is a standard section in the MOS:NOVELS and I think would benefit this article. Some of the quotes in the reception section actually seem like they would be useful for describing the book's emphasis on imagery of the natural world. I'd also expect that there is some discussion about there about the semi-supernatural aspects of the plot. (The supernatural element might also be able to be integrated into the "Themes" section instead.) I don't think this needs to be too complicated, mostly a "stating the obvious" for the benefit of people who have not read the book. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Both the themes and style sections are looking much better, and the quotes from the reviews are doing good work now! In the long run I think the style section would benefit from some more reorganization, to put all the comments on fantasy in one place and all the comments on the ending in another place, but for now it is solid. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • More "stating the obvious": somewhere the article should mention that this is a young adult novel, and Robinson's previous works were for children. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: This is not a young adult novel — or at least, I haven't found any sources that describe it as such, which is why the article doesn't say it's a young adult novel. I've read some reviews that say its for 11 or 12-year-olds, but there is not much emphasis on this book as a "childrens" or "young adult" novel per se in source I've found and I feel this article correctly reflects that. I've expanded the Background section that indicates Robinson intended the novel for "older children", is this acceptable? JAYFAX (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done This addresses my concern, thank you. It was mostly the difference from her previous works that I felt needed spelling out, and that seems clear now. ~ L 🌸 (talk)
  • Reception: It is odd that this article concludes with a 1967 award; since that happened the same year the novel was published, I'd put it first. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question... the book cover says it is "illustrated by Peggy Fortnum." Did the book itself have interior illustrations? It seems unusual to list an illustrator if it's just in reference for the front cover. If there were illustrations, those should be mentioned. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Peggy Fortnum did the illustrations in the book, yes. I will mention them somewhere. JAYFAX (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thanks! I reorganized this info a little bit to better match how summary & publication sections are usually structured and it is great to have this info. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have replaced the IMDb source. JAYFAX (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception: the more I look at it, the more I find the prose in this section jarring to read. Each quote is disconnected from the others. It can be hard to provide connections/flow without veering into WP:SYNTH but starting each paragraph with an overview statement like "the book recieved generally positive reviews" would help. It could also be organized by subject, e.g., the response to the prose vs the response to the ending. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • On further thought, I think what is really needed is for the descriptive information from these reviews to be integrated into other parts of the article, discussing, e.g., the fantasy elements, the depiction of childhood, the natural imagery. And then this section would be much briefer, presenting an overview like "on its publication it received generally favourable reviews in X, Y, and Z" without quotes. In other words, I think the clunkiness of the "reception" section is the flipside of my comment above about the need for a "style" section or an expansion of "themes." You may also find this more recent review useful in that process. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • These changes really improved the other sections a great deal, and I am OK with the reception section therefore being quite short. It seemed a bit too bare so I went ahead and added a little bit summarizing where it was reviewed and I think that is enough now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: for true summary style, the lead should include a sentence on the background and a sentence on the themes, summarizing those sections. I also think the lead's version of the plot summary is a bit odd: the sentence Marnie becomes increasingly elusive towards Anna, leaving her unsure of whether their friendship will last. really raises the expectation that the next sentence will tell us ending. I think either add another line summarizing the end, or delete that sentence so the lead just gives the general premise of the book. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

We can talk more generally about the article/review here if needed.~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn: Thank you for picking up this article for review. I've actioned some "easy-win" changes: shortened the plot and replaced the IMDd link. The other changes are pretty involved — restructuring the Reception section and collecting things into Themes and propsective "Style" section — but should be doable and address just about the rest of the bulleted items. JAYFAX (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JAYFAX: I've looked over the changes you've made above and they are looking really good. Thank you for all of your efforts here! I think it's much improved and I am happy to pass it as a GA! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LEvalyn: Thank you so much! You've given some fantastic guidance and additional sources and I'm much more happy with the state of the article. I'd had been muddling along at my own pace with edits with slight anxiety over how long it would take, so I really appreciate you swooped in to push it over the finishing line in a tidy fashion. JAYFAX (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:When_Marnie_Was_There_(novel)/GA1&oldid=1069317655"