Talk:Imperial Bedrooms/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: María (habla conmigo) 14:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this article has had to wait for a review; I will begin mine shortly. María (habla conmigo) 14:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with this particular book, or its predecessor, although I did read American Psycho a few years back. :) Overall, this is a fairly good article. Here is how it stands against the criteria:

Well-written: For the most part; see comments below.
Factually accurate and verifiable: Yes.
Broad in its coverage: Mostly; see comments below
Neutral: Yes.
Stable: Yes.
Illustrated, if possible, by images: One image, with detailed F-U rationale.

My main issues with the article are the prose, which is easily fixed, and the organization/coverage of info, which may take a little more work. Detailed comments are as follows:

The lead needs to adhere to WP:LEAD, in that it must summarize the article as a whole. Nothing is said for the book's reception or characters, for example; also be careful not to include information in the lead that isn't found anywhere else, such as the significance of the title/Costello; this should be mentioned later in the article, as well. In short, expand the lead.
- Added line into background section.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead done.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The writing process for Imperial Bedrooms began after Ellis re-read Less Than Zero as part of the writing process for his 2005 novel, Lunar Park. He began questioning what became of its characters, and soon found himself "overwhelm[ed]" by the idea as it continually returned to him. -- This is quite a lengthy sentence, so I suggest breaking it in two. Also fix the repetition of "writing process".
- Fixed.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After gestating the idea, and making "voluminous notes", his detailed outline becomes longer than the finished book. -- "gestating the idea" sounds awkward; also, this is past tense -- BECAME.
- Fixed.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From there, Ellis produced the novel on his home computer. -- Is this truly necessary? How else does one produce novels this day and age? If he were doing it with quill and parchment, it may be notable enough to mention. :)
- Gone.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He feels that this process means it becomes "rare to find an idea for a novel that you want to stay with for a couple of years", and attributes having "written so few novels" to this. -- What process? Writing it on the computer, or the act of re-reading the previous novel? Keep the past tense throughout, as well.
- Clarified.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ellis enjoyed his return to minimalism... -- This is great stuff, but I'm already confused. Shouldn't this type of information be included in a "Writing style" section, or something similarly named? We're discussing the technical aspects of the work before we even delve into the plot.
- Created.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of, where is the plot section? Plot details are scattered throughout, which is not how typical novel articles are done. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (novels) for basic structure suggestions.
- Is a plot section ALWAYS needed? It would be like a sentence long and tell you nothing, OR, try and capture the non-linearity of it and be six paragraphs long. Ellis is very anti-plot, all about characters, postmodern dread and tone. I would worry that a plot section, being a reader's own synthesis, could become unduly long over time with editors adding their own favourite scenes etc. The MoS itself suggests that Characters and Plot sections are fairly mutually exclusive. At any rate, I've included one for the purposes of your next review.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Granted, it's a difficult book to summarize, but just like there are many readers who only read the lead section, there are others who only read the plot summary. As such, out of the dozen or so GA-class novel articles I've just now browsed through, I can't find one that doesn't have a separate plot section. Character/plot are seen as separate entities, as you yourself correctly state, so don't worry if there's some minor overlap; I tend to think that "Characters" builds upon what is already established in "Plot"; the latter typically has a word limit at FAC and such, after all. Your new version is a great start, but needs a little more context. For example, the first sentence as it is now ("The novel's opens with Clay explaining...") jumps into things, whereas a few simple introductions would easily set up the scene. When does this take place? Where? (Both facts already stated in the article, and could easily be reiterated/moved here). The addition of "opens with Clay, a 45-year-old screenwriter" would be great, as well. Does this make sense? It's funny, because most novel-GACs I see are only plot, with very little insight, whereas this one is the complete opposite! :) María (habla conmigo) 19:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, I think you're right about a slight compromise. I was trying not to replicate too much, but I'll do it the way you said. And thank you -- I think my degree has made me care very little about plot. And reading authors like Ellis, who basically obliterate plot.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The writer has begun looking ahead to the possibility of a film adaptation, -- The writer, meaning Ellis? He HAD begun looking ahead?
- Film section. Also, now fits into the tense of "In May 2010, Ellis..."~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two months prior to the book's release, while McCarthy holds it to be "early days" regarding any potential film adaptation, he maintains the novel would make for a "great film." -- Please fix the tenses throughout; it reads like the book still hasn't been released. Also, shouldn't this info be under "possible film adaptation" or something similarly named?
- You're right.
When compared to Less Than Zero, one observes that the "the huge shift" is a technological one. Nowadays, Internet viral videos depict executions. -- Who is "one"? When is "nowadays"? Change to "in the early 21st century", perhaps?
- That one's fixed.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removing bolding in "Characters" per MOS:BOLD; this section is not a list. Also, there are so many plot details here, that most of it can be moved into its own plot section.
- This is fixed.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian books reviews roundup observed mixed and often polarised reviews to Imperial Bedrooms -- The first few words seem jumbled. Is "books reviews roundup" the proper wording? Better reword.
- I had meant it to scan "Guardian Books... Reviews Roundup", but instead I'll go with "The Guardian, assessing..."~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tenses are confusing throughout; please differentiate between past and present tense, both with the plot points and reviews. The last paragraph, for example, begins "Andrew McCarthy, who played Clay in the 1987 Less Than Zero film described the novel as..." past tense. The last sentence, however, goes: "McCarthy described his experience of reading the book..." present tense.

There are some other minor wording/tense issues throughout, so I suggest re-reading the article in full to get a sense of wording issues, etc. I get the feeling that a majority of the article was written before the book was released, and it just needs some sprucing up. The main problem here is organization, and lack of an overview of the plot in one place. Also tackle the lead, and consider including how well the book initially sold, if such information is available yet. Once these issues have been adequately addressed, I'll review the article again. For now I'm going to put it on hold for a week's time; please do contact me on my talkpage if further guidance is needed. María (habla conmigo) 15:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Give me a couple days and I'll report back here when I've fixed the issues you've pointed out.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, take your time. :) María (habla conmigo) 17:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've done most of everything. Let me report back here tomorrow when I've given it an additional copyedit.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaand done, a full copyedit I think. Could you take a look at it again when you have time? (y) ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, this article has much improved. I've done some minor copy-editing throughout, I hope you don't mind; I also moved the film adaptation section to the bottom of the article, as that is typically how novel articles are organized. I think this article is ready to be promoted to GA now. Congrats!

A couple quick suggestions for future improvement (especially in case FAC is the next step):

You may want to tone down the use of quotations throughout the article, and rely more on mere paraphrasing. Unless the wording is key or notable, there's no reason to include a full or partial quotation. This sentence from "Background", for example, could easily be reworded to flow better, as the quoted part is not crucial to the understanding of the point: "'My most extreme act of self-censoring in Imperial Bedrooms,' he said, however, was to omit a three-line description of a silver wall..."
The novel's opens with Clay, a 45-year old screenwriter, explaining that sometime after the events of his Christmas vacation in 1985, an author adapted them into a novel which later became a film. -- "them" is vague here; although I understand it refers to the "events", this should be reworded so that vagueness isn't hanging there. Would this work? "...explaining that an author adapted the events of his Christmas vacation into a novel..."?
Tenses are still a little confusing throughout, and may need a little more work for the sake of cohesion, but it's much better than before.

Thanks for all your hard work! If you have any questions or comments about this review, please don't hesitate to contact me via my talk page. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 13:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll give it some more little adjustments and then much later, with a fresh eye, weed out the embarrassing little grammatical foibles.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 14:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]