Talk:Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell/GA1

GA Review

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

Some comments.

There shouldn't be any one sentence paragraphs (like the opening one). Merge one and two sentence paragraphs into others, unless they have a different subject.

Merged. Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"and based on the premise" need an "is"

Fixed. Awadewit (talk)

"fantasy novel, an alternate history" "as" instead of "an" I think. Up to you. Never mind, I'm wrong

The parallel structure is "a fantasy novel, an alternate history, and an historical novel". I don't think repeating the "as" would add much to the sentence. Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Louis Lambert (novel), To Kill a Mockingbird, and some others at Wikipedia:Fa#Literature and theatre it looks like these articles should start with some of the out of universe info before the "Plot summary" section. I recommend moving "Composition and publication" up one section.

I usually do that, too, but in this instance, I think it might be better to have the plot first because the "Composition and publication" section mentions Jonathan Strange rather specifically. I thought it might help readers to know who he is. What do you think? Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"anything she does say seems unconnected" - "disconnected" or "unconnected to reality"? Not sure since I haven't read it.

Changed to "verges on incoherence". Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to make this a sticking point, but if you're going for FA, you may want to cut down on the size of the "Plot summary" section. It reads beautifully, though. The last paragraph of the plot doesn't read as beautifully, but it's OK. I can't tell you how to fix it, though. You're a better writer than me. I'll do some more of the review in a bit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree - I'm trying to find someone who has read the novel to help me. I would like to cut it by half, but I don't know if that is possible. Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"temperaments" sp

temperament - this is the correct spelling. Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Norrell's pupil and he agrees, however he" maby "Norrell's pupil and he agrees. However, he"

Changed. Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"each time she just narrates" no "just"

Removed. Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"tephen believes it applies to him and while the gentleman" no "and"

Removed. Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"The gentleman with thistle-down hair, who appeared to Strange, becomes enraged that Strange has managed to successfully summon him." better wording?

After Strange successfully summons the gentleman with thistle-down hair, the fairy becomes enraged. Awadewit (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"eternal night" seems like your refing all the other direct quotes, might as well keep it up.

Added. Awadewit (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a little background in Uskglass. I'm not sure what a Raven King is.

This is part of the mythology of the book - I'll have to add more to the plot summary! Awadewit (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Lost-Hope is a fairyland?

Added "fairy domain". Awadewit (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"well-regarded science fiction and fantasy writers[12]" refs should go after punctuation.

Not in this case, since the first part of the sentence is reffed to one source and the second part of the sentence to a different source. Awadewit (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it 250,000 copies in each country, or total?

Total - clarified. Awadewit (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"8 September 2004, in Britain on 30 September 2004,[1] and in the rest of the world on 4 October" do 2004 once or three times.

Removed excess 2004. Awadewit (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, done with the first two sections. Very nice. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

How about using Salon and Slate instead of salon.com and slate.com (with wikilinks, of course) Same with the award refs, at least the ones that have a page here. I'm not a crazy MOS hound, so if you're way is correct, leave it. OK, that's probably it for today. I'll finish tomorrow. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know - I've changed it for now. Awadewit (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The style section looks good.

"works of J. R. R. Tolkien, Philip Pullman, T. H. White, and C.S. Lewis" needs a period

Added. Awadewit (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"The two are a "study in contrasts"[11]," ref after comma or else remove it, the whole sentence is refed - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed excess ref. Awadewit (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Genre looks good, Friendship looks good, Rationalism looks good,

"In these stories, the fairies are depicted as "capricious, inconsistent in their attitude toward humankind, finally unknowable", characteristics which Clarke integrates into her own fairies." Should that be two sentences? Otherwise Englishness looks good

Fixed so that it doesn't read so awkwardly. Awadewit (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"helped the novel sell out its first printing[28]" comma or move ref, same with "Clarke as "a superb character writer"[34]" I could be wrong about the MOS for this.

These refs are for information in the first half of the sentence - the information comes from a different source that the information in the second half of the sentence, hence the peppering of footnotes. Awadewit (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"writing that, "As fantasy" should "As" be cap'ed? How about "New York Times that "What keeps". Should "What" be cap'ed? You're probably right that they should. I think I may have learned something. Anyways, Reception looks good.

These are complete sentences and thus usually retain the capital letter. Awadewit (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Longlisted for the 2004 Man Booker Prize." has a period and the other awards to not.

Removed. Awadewit (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Film looks pretty good. Is there any info on whether they still want to make it?

I didn't find anything else. Awadewit (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The last sections looks good.- Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Image rationals look good. Nice free images, too.

Overall, this article is well written, verifiable, and broad in coverage. It's also neutral, stable, and illustrated. You're a much better writer than me, so if you know that any of my comments are incorrect, just ignore them. Anyways, look at them, fix the things that need fixing, and I'll pass this article. Good work! - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to intersperse my responses - I hope that is ok. It helps me keep track of the "mini-conversations". Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to pass it. Nice work. Leave the sections as they are, no reason to be too slavish to convention. How to format stuff like www.salon.com and www.thehugoawards.org got me interested. I looked at Washington, D.C., 4chan, Hurricane Dog (1950), and Lost: Missing Pieces which are future TFAs with web refs. It looks this is one MOS screw that is yet to be tightened. Looks like you could do Hugo Award, TheHugoAwards.com or www.thehugoawards.com. I think we're heading away from the www version, but I'm not sure. They just look strange to me because they're not cap'ed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)