Talk:Fahrenheit 451/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 04:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of this review? Jason Quinn (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doing now... — Cirt (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2013 (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.	Prose is indeed clear and concise, the lede is a tad bit skimpy and per WP:LEAD could be expanded a bit more, but it's good enough for GA and that could be something to address in a subsequent peer review afterwards.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See above about lead section, and also words to watch. I did some copyediting but words like "though", "also", "althought", "but", "therefore", and "however", would be something to watch out for during copyediting and remove if at all possible.
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.	See below about citation-needed-tags.
	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).	I've added a bunch of cites-needed-tags. These will need to be addressed before the review can move on.
	2c. it contains no original research.	See above about cite-needed tags.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Okay here, covers major aspects appropriately. I'd recommend going forwards expanding more about Censorship and Adaptation sects.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes, but see above about actually expanding subsects, particularly the part about history of Censorship please.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No problems here, NPOV presentation throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	If we exclude simple vandalism by IPs, stable history, just keep an eye on this in the future.
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.	File:Hollywood10.jpg = missing fair use rationale for use on this article page.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	See above about image usage missing fair-use rationale for this page. Also, what about an image of author Ray Bradbury?
	7. Overall assessment.	GA on Hold for now. Please address above issues and post, below, with an update. — Cirt (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA on Hold for now. Please address above issues and post, below, with an update. — Cirt (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping in ... I see a few other issues :

The article seems to be a bit heavy on the plot summary, having had a quick look at a few other book GAs such as Donkey Punch (novel). If elements of the plot are important because of their relevance in social or political history, they need to be cited to a source that says so.
The lead contains the sentence "The title refers to the temperature that Bradbury understood to be the autoignition point of paper". Per GA criteria 1b, any sentence in the lead should be a summary of information in the body - however the reference to paper and autoignition does not appear in the body anywhere.
The "Adaptations" section contains a lot of short paragraphs, several containing just one sentence. Per GA criteria 1b, these should be amalgamated.

In return, I'll see if I can cite some of the ^{[citation needed]}s, but I can't promise anything. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching the changes and will take care of most of the suggestions. I disagree with a few but I'll discuss them on a case-by-case basis. I'm extremely busy right now (baby just born) and need some time to adjust to the new lifestyle. Haven't been able to edit but only a minute or two at a time, which is insufficient for the work needed here. Don't close review if goes past 7 days. Will be done. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Congratulations! And no worries, we'll give ya some more time, — Cirt (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As a father of two, I can assure you that being a new parent is several orders of magnitude more important than getting a GA to pass! I've only cited two things but time permitting I'll see if I can do more. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jason Quinn, have you had a chance yet to take another look at this? Totally no worries if you need a bunch more time, — Cirt (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Last night I started catching up on the recent edits. I'm still only editing in short bursts that don't require much concentration. In a few more days the company that is staying with us will be leaving which will free up a bit more time. Tonight or tomorrow I plan on undoing an edit that a citation bot made a while back that was poor. As for your suggestions, one of the most important is regarding the photo of the Hollywood Ten. That's going to take a bit of work to figure out. I have to educate myself a little on US Fair Use laws. It would be a real shame to lose that photo. What's extremely strange is that the information Corbis gives for the photo may be wrong. I'd really like to pin down the location of the photo with 100% certainty. At the moment I don't trust Corbis' information that it was the Los Angles Courthouse. Images of the LA courthouse don't seem to match. I've been collecting a bunch of info on the Hollywood Ten (really fascinating story actually) just to try to solve this. One small thing I don't agree with was some of the changes you made of "but" to "and". I'm aware that people often use "but" incorrectly or when "and" would be a better choice but I think you over-extend the universality of using "and" instead of "but". So long as there's some element of contradiction (and it may be quite ethereal), "but" is an acceptable word choice; also, style and flow should be considered before changing "but" to "and". I will get around to polish'ing off this review. I spent literally probably or more hours on the article just to get it to nomination status, so I'm not going anywhere. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, totally fine, no problems. Keep us posted here, — Cirt (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Quinn, any updates? — Cirt (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Been over a month since GA Hold, so closing this one for now. Feel free to let me know if you want to renominate for a 2nd GA Review at a later point in time, and if I've got a chance I'll take another look. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]