Talk:The Foundation Pit/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 04:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Looking at this on a first pass, I think there's the start of a good article here, but I do see some significant work that will need to be done to meet the GA criteria. (You can see the full list of them here.) Here are my suggestions:
- The plot summary is overdetailed and overwhelms the rest of the article in its length. I'd suggest making better use of summary here (Criterion 3b); also take a look at WP:WAF, one of the subsections for criterion 1b, which suggests that in-universe information (plot summary, characters, etc.) should be kept in balance with real-world context. In other words, consider expanding the background/analysis/reception sections and shrinking plot and characters.
- I don't believe Amazon.com qualifies as a reliable source. (criterion 2b)
- The article appears to contain original research in its theme section; the opinions and interpretation expressed there should be attributed to specific sources and cited. Even calling the novel "gloomy" in the first sentence is a bit POV. It would also be helpful to source some statements like "Platonov was one of the first Russian thinkers to criticize Stalin's plans for collectivization plans as inhumane." (criterion 2c)
- The article appears to still need a copyedit for some basic errors: "Stalin's plans for collectivization plans ", "The concludes The Foundation Pit", etc. (criterion 1a)
- The article should not contain significant information in the lead that isn't in the body per WP:LEAD; if the Orwell/Huxley comparison is to appear there, it should be discussed in detail in the body. (criterion 1b)
Though I'm not listing the article for GA at this time, I hope you'll continue work on it and renominate again in the future. This sounds like an interesting book--I might have to pick it up this week! Thanks very much for your contributions on this so far, and let me know if you have questions about any of the above. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)