Jump to content

Talk:The Land of Green Plums/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Sadads (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC) A little about myself: I am an English and History undergrad, with all kinds of crazy interests. I rather enjoy historical fiction, European literature and literary criticism and I am active in WikiProject Novels. Through this review, I hope to help in as many ways as possible. I do have a real life, and the initial review may take up to a week, I will make comments below in sections for you to respond to and a checklist of the GA nomination requirements, which I and only I will check off. I see GA as a stepping stone to FA, so this review will be a combination of a peer review and a GA review: I will examine every line and (likely) request many changes. If I am for some reason neglecting this review contact me on my talk page or if I am not reviewing this article properly, feel free to request a new reviewer, Sadads (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Content

[edit]

First a couple broad strokes comments. The plot is waaaaay to long for the length of the Real World content. I always suggest no more than 1/3 of the text should be plot, preferably less than 1/4 (currently it is a little more than 1/2).  Done

That being said, you also have some gaps in the content, the largest of which is a "Critical Reception" which gives us a little more information about exactly how people recieved the book. Your current article only deals with the stylistic and thematic comments which the reviewers make. For good examples of this sort of section see Quicksilver_(novel)#Critical_reception, Warriors_(novel_series)#Critical_reception, The_Historian#Reception, and El_Señor_Presidente#Reception. Done

Also, you do not have anything on the development of the book. Usually reviewers or publishers print something about what the Author did for and during the writing process of the book. Not all books have this, but most do, especially if the author has a fan base.  Done

I will need a significant expansion in that realm before we can make good headway on cleaning up the rest of the articleSadads (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadads, thanks for your careful notes, and for your help (as you saw, no doubt, trimming the plot was difficult for me). I'm on it, beginning with a section on the novel's critical reception. I am thinking about combining critical and historical reception: the novel was barely noted (in English sources) before the Nobel prize. I hope to find some German reviews as well, and those may predate the Nobel prize. BTW, Cirt had noted that the 'critical notes' section was somewhat unorthodox, but I think he thought it could work--as a literary critic, I am somewhat attached to it, especially since I felt it was relevant here to divvy up critics' comments in those subsections, rather than in endless lists of summaries, critic by critic. I hope you agree. It's cold here, and when my fingers warm up I'll get back to it. Thanks again! Drmies (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the critical notes section, I realized that it is mostly stylistic and genre comments, so I retitled the sections as is appropriate. If that is the case, we may also want to see if the critics comment on some themes somewhere. If you would like, I can begin to identify the themes for you, and you can expand the text, that way I don't have to much of a COI in doing the review. However, even if we have themes and style sections, I still want to know what the final sense of the critics opinion: did critics generally praise the book? did they generally despise it?(I don't think so but it is not 100% clear in the main body.).Sadads (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, they think it's great, generally speaking, but that is something I'll need to clear up in a separate section. The reviews since the Nobel are quite positive. I just went through JSTOR and the MLA, and got eleven articles (PDFs), a few in German, that I think will help me flesh this out--Google will, no doubt, add as many newspaper and magazine reviews. If you like, leave it be, and I'll get to work in the next couple of days. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I found a journal article that might be useful at jstor: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30161372 . If you don't have access send me a user e-mail and I will attach the pdf. With the focus on historical background in this article, I think you could write a fairly focused "historical background" section too. Again, I would do it, but I want to refrain from being a primary contributer to the article when I am GA reviewing, though I don't mind doing clean up and the sort. By the way it is pretty chilly in Harrisonburg, VA too!
I will definitely give you as much time as you need, I am currently doing finals at JMU and coordinating some WP:Campus Ambassador recruitment, so I should probably back off for a bit Sadads (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd--I'm sure I saw that title but I can't find that article, and JSTOR won't let me access it. "My" JSTOR actually doesn't even pull it up--perhaps JMU has a platinum subscription, and all we got is pewter. Yes, please email it to me, I'd greatly appreciate it. Good luck on your finals--we don't start til next week. Drmies (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--Alright, I've added chunks of texts with headings. Let me know what you think. I've covered Google News up to right after the IMPAC Award. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you covered all of the main concerns I had content wise at first. However, reading what you added about the Academic interest section, I wonder if their would be enough information in the sources you have found already to write a decent themes section? Again, for the themes, I would suggest you look at Quicksilver_(novel)#Major_themes, Warriors_(novel_series)#Themes, The_Historian#Themes, and El_Señor_Presidente#Major_themes (I like that group because it is an even balance between extensive GAs and FAs). Also, if you are finding new stuff on Style, don't be afraid to expand the style section (I see you already did that a little). Also, a background about the publication of the book would be really nice before the plot section, most FAs have them and I think it adds a nice touch before confronting the Plot of the book. Also, I restructured your reception section a little, hope you don't mind, but it falls into line a little more with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (novels). I hope I am not asking too much, really this is just a bunch of expansion and peer review putting it in a good position for FA eventually. Sadads (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sadads, thanks. I had no problems with your shuffling. I will look at the themes soon. As far as background is concerned, that it's the second one she published after leaving Romania, that's about all I can find. The references talk about style and autobiography, but I saw nothing about, for instance, partial serial publication, revisions, etc. (I assume that's what you mean, right?) I'm grading papers and doing finals in the next couple of days, but I'm still on it. Thanks again, and good luck on your finals. Anytime you want to stamp FA on it is fine with me as well! ;) Drmies (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status of this review? Started off well but no updates in nearly a month. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second read

[edit]
  • "The Land of Green Plums, as do many of Müller's books (novels, poems, and collages), illustrates the position of dissidents from the German minority in Romania, who suffered a double oppression under the regime of Nicolae Ceauşescu: the rural German-speaking community tries to preserve its culture by strictly enforcing traditional rules; once the main characters escape this environment through university study in the city, they suffer, as political dissidents, the oppression exercised by the totalitarian regime"- a little long and intimidating, suggest trying to break it up into a couple of sentences, Sadads (talk) 12:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked it; see what you think. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry it's been taking so long, I WILL finish this up tonight, Sadads (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You better. I have friends in high places. Hey, I hope you're having a good time over there. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be glad to finish this review, if there are no objections :) Give me a few days, though, so I can see where we are at in the review, etc. Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New review narrative

[edit]

I am going to just conduct this as a new review; and the improvements implemented by Sadads will stand alone no doubt, but I won't review from them as the starting point. So, for now:

  • In the Plot section, in segment "Soon after, the narrator shares Lola's diary with three male friends, Edgar, Georg, and Kurt; Lola's life becomes an escape for them as they attend college. The four are from German-speaking communities; all receive mail from their mothers complaining about their various illnesses and how their children's subversiveness is causing them trouble; ..."
  • What subversive acts are the mothers of Edgar, Georg and Kurt referring to at this point? We have just met them?
  • Also; Drmies, you may 'untrim' the section to what you think is necessary :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Robert. I've tweaked that sentence and included a quote from a Times review. I don't think untrimming is necessary, though it's a bit brief now, but I'll have a look in the next few days. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Nobel Prize

[edit]

This is the only other section we will work on, and really, we can pass it. Gotta give kudos to the work you and Sadads have done with the review; I've read the article under a magnifying glass, and its a fine piece of work! Now, for the 2009 Nobel Prize for Literature. Hello... how huge! Let's elaborate on the assessment and ruling; also, maybe mention some of that year's competition in passing. And if any profound/significant quote can be included from the ruling, etc., we can quotebox it! No hurry :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, here's the thing--the Nobel Prize is already well covered in the author's article. No it isn't, unfortunately--I was going to put a hatnote with a reference to that section in her article. Keep in mind that the book didn't receive the award, of course, and in the speech, Anders Olsson only mentions the book once, and that quote is in there. I've looked at the Swedish Academy's page and followed the links, but could not find anything that addresses the book in particular. Any suggestions? Drmies (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's all we can get... then that is well enough! The article is seriously in the green right now, so I'm not going to pick and poke at it any further! Pass :) I actually couldn't contribute much to this review, but that's a testament to the review proper! Glad I could help with the wrap up, though. Good to work with you again; feel free to holler if you get in a jam like this again...heh. Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Results of review

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)

The article The Land of Green Plums passes this review, and has been promoted to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: Pass
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Land_of_Green_Plums/GA1&oldid=410509178"