Talk:Typewriter in the Sky/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Clementina talk 04:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Comments

Hi there, I'm relatively new here, but I thought I'd just drop by and add my 2 cents. :) Feel free to yell at me if I'm being clueless in any of my comments.

Hmm, it seems stable enough (no major edit wars here), neutral, and nicely referenced. However..

A quick look at the article shows that it doesn't cover any literary sections I usually expect in good fiction articles, like themes, style, tone, and similar sections. Also, as someone who has not read this book, the plot section is a little confusing. Could this be fixed?

Damon Knight gave the book a mixed review, and commented, "The problem [of how de Wolf can 'change the story and avert his doom'] is a tough one, and Hubbard does not so much solve it as slide around it.... This weakness is more than compensated for by the ending of the story itself--Three immortal lines"[19] <-- – is better than simply --, isn't it?

It would be nice if the article's sections were generally expanded. Reception especially is a bit short.

I'm not sure that it's ready for GA yet, but it has potential. :) I've had this talk watchlisted, so I'll reply as quickly as possible if you've been able to fix any of the above suggestions. Cordially, Clementina talk 04:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Thanks for the above comments, will try to address them, and then note it here. :) -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Cirt, that was really fast (and well written and referenced, too)! :) It might be nice if the plot section was a little longer, and perhaps a section about the major characters (if there are some well-developed characters in the story; not reading it, I can't comment as specifically). Nevertheless, reading carefully over it again to find anything else to grumble about, I'm growing steadily more impressed by the quiet worth of this article. Sincerely, Clementina talk 08:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Expanded Reception subsection. Added two additional sources of reviews, see [1] and [2]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<- It looks much better, thank you. :) I especially like the new themes section. However, Reference Number 20 seems to be dead—could this be fixed? Clementina talk 00:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed link from cite, there is enough other info in the citation for verification purposes. I have also shot off an email to the author of that particular book review. :) -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: this particular cite link fix is now

Done, see [3]. -- Cirt (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<- Hi Cirt, sorry for my rather late response (I've been away for a few days). :) I have several comments here:

Great job with the link, and the plot section looks immensely improved - I'm quite amazed at how well you've referenced and clarified it in so short a time. The genre and influence sections are great, too.
There's just one part in the plot which confuses me: Mike looks up into the sky in search of this mystical device or its controller, "Abruptly Mike de Wolfe stopped. His jaw slackened a trifle and his hand went up to his mouth to cover it. His eyes were fixed upon the fleecy clouds which scurried across the moon. Up there - God? In a dirty bathrobe?" Hmm...does that mean he did see "God" in the sky in a dirty bathrobe? :p
In another section, Authors Lionel Fanthorpe and Patricia Fanthorpe noted in the book The World's Most Mysterious People, that Hubbard accomplished a difficult task of writing about two different worlds at the same time, "... even through the medium of fiction Hubbard succeeds in posing deep metaphysical questions about the mind's interpretation of experiential data, and its response to the questions about the nature of being."[2] <-- in here, I think "...noted in the book that" without an apostrophe sounds better. Do tell me if I'm wrong. :) And in the quote, is there really a "..." inside the book? Or did you just add it? Because if you added it, I don't think it would be necessary since it could just be closed off with worlds at the same time, "even through..". I know I'm probably being very incoherent, but I hope you understand my general meaning. :) Warmly, Clementina talk 05:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Clementina (talk · contribs), for these additional helpful suggestions. I have addressed these with corresponding changes to the article, denoted by "per GA Review", in my edit summaries. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderfully done, Cirt! :) I only have a few comments more (sorry for being so nitpicky, it really is a fine article :)):

He knows that the villains in stories written by Hackett often do not come to a favorable end, and therefore is eager to attempt to safely leave the realm to which he was transported.[2] Hmm. "...eager to attempt to safely leave.." Maybe we could make the sentence shorter by saying "...eager to safely leave.."
And what Horacesaid was so, was so. And what Horacesaid people said, they said."[5] <--Does the quote say "Horacesaid"? Isn't it "Horace said"? :)
...she is just another of Hackett's fictional creations.[5] "Just another of" sounds a little funny. Maybe "just another fictional creation" or "just another one of Hackett's fictional creations"? Please note that I'm not all that great at grammar or prose myself, so tell me if I'm wrong. :)
Slaves of Sleep, "moved Hubbard.. <-- not sure if the comma there is necessary.
described as, "science fiction about science fiction".[30] <-- here as well.

Well, other than that, I can't find anything else. I think this article is almost there! :) Clementina talk 03:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, these were all very good suggestions. These recommendations by the GA Reviewer are now all

Done. -- Cirt (talk) 03:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was really fast (and really well done). :) Other opinions are appreciated, but as for myself, I think this article is ready to be a GA now. Warmly, Clementina talk 05:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

As Clementina noted above, the plot section is confusing. When a major event occurs, . . . That's considerably vague. You could expand about the major events.
The "Themes" section is mostly about comparisons of Stranger than Fiction to Typewriter in the Sky. The only part about themes I perceive is "Arabian-fantasy". The remainder pertains to the novel's influence on modern works. Protector of Wiki (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional comments. I will do some research to address these. -- Cirt (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article could be used to create a "Criticism" section, but it requires a subscription for viewing. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, quite. Many thanks for the suggestion, I will do the research there and look into it. -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Still working on this, have done a bit more research, will be adding info cited to previously-as-of-yet-unused WP:RS secondary sources shortly. Will keep y'all posted here. :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Have added a significant amount of additional sourced info, a bit to each of the subsections in the article. Hopefully this is sufficient. However, still in the process of doing a bit more additional research. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the Plot section, Mike de Wolf and Horace Hackett should be referred to by either their last name or first name. You refer to the former by his first name and the latter by his last name.
  - In the Plot section: Up there - God? Is this an em dash or en dash?
  - In the Genres section: Roland J. Green of the Chicago Sun-Times also described the work as a "classic", and wrote positively of Hubbard's novel Final Blackout. I don't think that Final Blackout is relevant here.
  - In the Reception section: "Typewriter in the Sky, which first appeared in Unknown in 1940. is widely considered to be one of his best works." You may have misquoted this because the period in the middle of the sentence seems odd.
  - In the Influence section: I bet if L. Ron Hubbard had written Purple Rose of Cairo they'd have given it a Hugo ... I mean, it is sort of a hip, updated version of Typewriter in the Sky. Is Purple Rose of Cairo and Typewriter in the Sky italicized in the corresponding reference? Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Protector of Wiki (talk · contribs), for these additional helpful suggestions. I have addressed these with corresponding changes to the article, denoted by "per GA Review", in my edit summaries. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]