Talk:A Second Chance at Sarah

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Second Chance at Sarah/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 21:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry you've had to wait so long, User:Rhain. I'll ping your talk page to see if you're still active, and I'll begin the review tonight.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   "The novel was inspired by Druckmann's interest in traveling back in time to meet his wife at a younger age, especially after he looks at pictures of her." This sentence reads awkwardly because of the change in tense. It was inspired by his interest after he looks at her. I think these ideas could be shuffled for more clarity.

   "Druckmann felt that he shares" Same issue here. "felt" and "shares" should be the same tense, probably present.

   "He used the character to deal with his own fears of adulthood, and of losing his wife, considering..." The first comma is not needed.

   The first two paragraphs of the production section seem out of place because they're discussing the finished book, then the third paragraph jumps to Druckmann's work a year before starting Sarah. This material would work better at the end of the section.

   Also, the first 2.5 sentences of the third paragraph are unsourced. I assume the information came from of the two sources in the latter part of third sentence, but it's unclear because they're separated.

   "he felt that it would be very difficult to both projects simultaneously" A word is missing here.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics#Section titles, the "Production history" section should be renamed "Publication history" or "Development". Sometimes, the PH section is subdivided into 'Development' and 'publication'. You may consider doing that here, since you have a lot of pre-publication material.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   I'd like to see more criticism, but books like this usually aren't reviewed unless the critic likes it.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The process picture is a nice addition.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pending the changes requested above, this will be an easy pass.

Thanks for the review, Argento Surfer! I've gone through and addressed your concerns; let me know if there's anything else. – Rhain ☔ 07:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Well done! Argento Surfer (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)