Talk:Skeletons on the Zahara

Skeletons on the Zahara was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 19, 2011	Good article nominee	Not listed

Novels

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Skeletons on the Zahara/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: María (habla conmigo) 13:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be reviewing this article for GAC. I'm not entirely convinced it's there just yet, but with a little hard work I think it might make it. :) Here is how it stands against the criteria:

Well-written: For the most part; see issues below.
Factually accurate and verifiable: Yes.
Broad in its coverage: Lead needs expansion per WP:LEAD. Missing plot summary? Critical reviews? See below.
Neutral: Yes.
Stable: Yes.
Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes, FU image has correct rationale.

Prose

There are various issues with the article not being well-written in parts. Some examples:

Based directly on Captain James Riley's memoir Sufferings in Africa, Amazon.com listed Skeletons on the Zahara as their #6 Best History Book of 2004. -- Amazon.com's listing has nothing to do with what the book was based upon. I suggest splitting these two thoughts and expanding on the first idea; who is Captain James Riley, for example?
King was first inspired to research the subject matter in 1995 when he was in the New York Yacht Club library researching Harbors and High Seas, which he would publish in 2000. "Research... researching" repetition, and over-wordiness. Perhaps condense, or else expand and split into two sentences. Was Harbors and High Seas his first book?
After a desperate attempt to survive in the Zaharan desert, he and his crew were forced in slavery by Arab tribesmen. -- I believe it's supposed to be "into slavery", but correct me if I'm wrong.
often using the libraries at the University of Richmond and the Library of Virginia, and even the Science Museum of Virginia. -- Not sure why "and even" is here. Is it that strange? "the University of Richmond, the Library of Virginia, and the Science Museum of Virginia"?
Knowing sailors are notorious for embellishing their histories, he crosschecked the accounts, something no academic had yet done. -- This could use a reference, since it's such a big claim.
After his initial research, King had written a proposal and already signed a $750,000 contract... -- Why the past-perfect here? "King wrote a proposal and signed a $750,000 contract" would read better.
King decided to personally retrace their struggles through the desert. -- I'm sure King's team wasn't taken into slavery, so really he didn't retrace all of their "struggles". :) Their path? Progress?

Coverage

These points need to be taken care of in order for the article to be broad in its coverage:

The lead needs to be expanded so that it touches upon the main points already present in the article per WP:LEAD. I'm not convinced that Amazon.com's ranking of the novel is more important than what the New York Times, or other notable sources ranked it as. Perhaps consider re-writing this bit?
Where is the plot summary? I wouldn't consider an article dedicated to a work of fiction (even if it is historical in nature) complete without a plot summary. For guidelines as to writing one, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Plot summaries.
The "Media coverage" section currently lists the magazines/newspapers where the novel was reviewed, but little mention of what the reviews said. Quotes would be great -- such as the one included from Entertainment Weekly, which is great -- as would a general idea of if the book was received positively, negatively, etc. In short, how was the reception?

As you can see, this needs some more work, but if the main contributors are interested I think it can be greatly improved within the week allowed for this GAC review. I'm putting the article on hold for now. If you have any questions, let me know! María (habla conmigo) 13:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been on hold for a week with no improvements. As such, I'm failing it for GAC at this time. Please ensure that the above suggestions have been taken into account before submitting this article to GAC again. María (habla conmigo) 13:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]