Talk:Picnic at Hanging Rock (novel)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 01:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
This one, for review, I shall take. Sagecandor (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Failed "good article" nomination
[edit]This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 11, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Not sure why there are full citations in the lede, per WP:LEADCITE, unless there are truly serious controversial claims, no need for this here. Or maybe direct quotes. Or writer's preference. Blah. But anyways name the references and move the full cites themselves out of the lede and into the body.
- 2. Verifiable?: Sorry, have to "quick fail" here. I see two "citations needed" tags that have sat on the page for over two months now. Those need to be addressed.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Suggest merging sections publication history and critical analysis to just call it one big section, "Release and reception".
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Concerns about WP:No original research raised in edit summary by user that placed the "citation needed" tags.
- 5. Stable?: Article is stable since the "citation needed" tags.
- 6. Images?: One fair use image in infobox is okay. Two free use images are appropriately licensed.
Gotta get on those "citation needed" tags, disappointing to see those sit unaddressed on the page for over two months.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Sagecandor (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Sagecandor:: I have addressed the concerns raised here, primarily the citations in the lede section, as well as the original research which I have extracted as it is non-verifiable. Given this, I think the article is in good enough shape to re-nominate. --Drown Soda (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, sounds like a smart plan, good luck ! Sagecandor (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Would like to hear what Sadads thinks as user that originally placed the tags. Sagecandor (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- The particular things I had tagged are fixed, I added on more cn -- which I think would help a lot in terms of WP:V. For such a recent novel, I also find the Critical Analysis section lacking, and not up to the standard that many of our GA articles have. I think this is rather significant (and rather odd) considering the claim to broad interest, and analysis: also those two last paragraphs are odd bits to emphasis. That alone, suggests to me some significant gaps in the content, in terms of breadth of coverage. Sadads (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Sadads: I find it odd that you'd assume a more recent novel would have more critical or scholarly analysis available—the reverse is actually the case with most literature in academia. Some recent novels (c. 20th century onward) do have a fair amount of scholarly work written about them, but this is not typically the case, especially with something such as Picnic at Hanging Rock which has not been quite so widely read, at least internationally speaking—it has a following more than anything, and a small group of scholars who have written about it, but most of the attention has fallen on the film instead. Long story short, my point is that the relative "newness" of a literary work does not neatly correspond to the amount of scholarly work written on it. --Drown Soda (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- I am not asking for scholarship, but rather for book reviews or reception from the same period of time. If you are going to include the claim " is considered by many critics to be one of the most important Australian novels of all time." Then, there needs to be sufficent evidence of such -- that the novel had significant criticism about it. Otherwise, that section places WP:UNDO on the particular opinions of the two scholars, which can't actually be backed by a consensus opinion.Sadads (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Sadads: I find it odd that you'd assume a more recent novel would have more critical or scholarly analysis available—the reverse is actually the case with most literature in academia. Some recent novels (c. 20th century onward) do have a fair amount of scholarly work written about them, but this is not typically the case, especially with something such as Picnic at Hanging Rock which has not been quite so widely read, at least internationally speaking—it has a following more than anything, and a small group of scholars who have written about it, but most of the attention has fallen on the film instead. Long story short, my point is that the relative "newness" of a literary work does not neatly correspond to the amount of scholarly work written on it. --Drown Soda (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- The particular things I had tagged are fixed, I added on more cn -- which I think would help a lot in terms of WP:V. For such a recent novel, I also find the Critical Analysis section lacking, and not up to the standard that many of our GA articles have. I think this is rather significant (and rather odd) considering the claim to broad interest, and analysis: also those two last paragraphs are odd bits to emphasis. That alone, suggests to me some significant gaps in the content, in terms of breadth of coverage. Sadads (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Would like to hear what Sadads thinks as user that originally placed the tags. Sagecandor (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- Okay, sounds like a smart plan, good luck ! Sagecandor (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Sagecandor:: I have addressed the concerns raised here, primarily the citations in the lede section, as well as the original research which I have extracted as it is non-verifiable. Given this, I think the article is in good enough shape to re-nominate. --Drown Soda (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)