Talk:James Branch Cabell/GA1

GA Review

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

Contributors Comments

To whomever reviews this article: thanks for taking the time to look over this article. I appear to be the only recent contributor to this page, but past contributions have left it in very good state. Comparing it to other authors on the GA Literature list, I think it compares favorably. Of course the review process is mainly aimed at improving articles; I'll be happy to put in whatever work is necessary for this article to meet GA standards. Thank you! --Thesoxlost (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. Cirt (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might look at Lin Carter's book about Tolkien and LOTR. It had a long section about Cabell and his influence on later fantasy literature, if I remember correctly. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 25, 2009, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Writing quality could be improved. Lede is a bit short, per WP:LEAD. Needs an overview from a couple copyeditors not previously involved with the article. Quotations entire subsection does not belong on en.wikipedia, could be moved (if sourced properly) to en.wikiquote.

2. Factually accurate?: There are uncited portions throughout the article. Fails here.

3. Broad in coverage?: Skims over some of his other works, and the article is lacking reception of his work by literature critics - e.g. of the time period and in a historical perspective.

4. Neutral point of view?: No issues here.

5. Article stability? No major stability issues, either in edit history or conflict on talk page.

6. Images?: One image from Wikimedia Commons.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Cirt (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also recommend changing the quotes section into parts for the "critical reaction" section and moving Cabell's own quotes to wikiquote. This article could do with some more sourcing and expansion, in the honours and criticism sections for example. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]