Talk:Paul Takes the Form of a Mortal Girl/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Sawyer-mcdonell (talk · contribs) 18:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to get through this today! Super interesting topic. sawyer * he/they * talk 18:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Done The lead could be a bit longer, to reflect the length of the article's body.
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.	I standardized the date formats in the citations
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Done I think the plot summary aspect could be longer, to make the article feel more proportional. Some of the less important reviews could be trimmed or cut as well.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I googled around looking for any major negative reviews in case there was a balance issue, and couldn't find any. I guess it's just a really good book!
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Done I'm not sure the photo of Carmen Maria Machado is necessary; the content of the review could be moved to the body or perhaps a quote box.
	7. Overall assessment.

• Thanks for the review, Sawyer-mcdonell! I'm glad we get to work together. I've removed the photo of Carmen Maria Machado. I also trimmed the reviews a bit, and started working to expand the lede. I can definitely do more of both of those, and expand the plot summary although I'll note that I try to adhere to Wikipedia:Source your plot summaries. An outside perspective could be useful – is there anything specific that you think is missing from the plot summary, or just looking for more length/breadth? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 20:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think mainly just length & breadth; as someone who hasn't read the book, I think it'd be nice to have some more specifics about what Paul gets up to, which would then give some more context to the reviews (note; I'm on the same page about sourcing plot summaries haha). Thanks for your response! sawyer * he/they * talk 20:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sawyer-mcdonell, I've made some additions. Excited to hear your thoughts! — ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  The additions look great! The plot summary really rounds out the article, & I think the lead + review sections look really nice now. Awesome work!! (I also now want to read this book lol) sawyer * he/they * talk 22:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.