Jump to content

Talk:Wielka, większa i największa/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

Nominator: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 15:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 10:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • The work has not been translated into English, so will not be well-known to readers of English Wikipedia. It would be helpful to add
  • a short 'Context' section at the top, with a brief subsection on Polish young adult and science fiction literature (say from 1900 to 1960), and
  • a similarly brief subsection on Jerzy Broszkiewicz.
  • The goal is to give readers a clear idea of where this book sits in those two contexts.
  • The 'Plot' is cited, in the last paragraph to 5 sources which seems excessive, especially as plot summaries of books do not require citation beyond the implicit citation of the book itself. The refs should be moved out as they are only supporting the plot with no commentary here.
    •  Not done Perhaps en wiki has more lax rules than the pl wiki, which requires sourcing for the plot. Instead of rereading the book (which I read as a teenager), I based the plot summary on all the plot mentions in relevant sources cited. We could certainly just kill all the citation in the plot section and/or replace it with a general reference to the book (without page numbers...) but I think this would be a pointless make work. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason for separate 'Reception' and 'Reviews and analysis' is not very clear. The first paragraph, on compulsory reading, isn't exactly 'Reception', while the second paragraph seems to be 'analysis'. This needs reorganising.
    •  Done True, I have a habit of splitting reviews from academic analysis but maybe this is not a great idea. Likewise, one could argue that my chronological treatment is not ideal, but that's how I write. I concur that the split here was confusing. I have renamed the section to 'Awards and recognition' and kept awards and government inclusion in compulsory list info here, and moved the (scholarly) comments to the analysis section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Reviews and analysis' section is a very long, fragmentary, chronological procession, with some very short paragraphs (five are single sentences), each one giving one person's view of the novel. The MOS says that such sections should be reorganised by theme, possibly into subsections by those themes: I suggest that's what we should do here.
    •  Not done That would require substantial rewrite that I am not sure is necessary (and I don't have time for it today). I understand that division by theme is a valid approach, but so is arranging views by chronology. That said, I am leaning to the idea that organizing by theme > chronology. But I doubt I'll have time to split content like that until next week (very busy IRL right now, which reminds me it is time for me to start doing non-wiki work, sadly. I'll try to come back here shortly). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At a glance, recurring themes include:
  • modern fairy tale / modern Polish literature / city (urban) fairy tale
  • use in school / compulsory or recommended reading
  • combination of science fiction with ethical/moral values
  • You might wish to create subsections for each of these three themes (or others of your choosing); to sort the materials into those subsections; and to merge similar statements to reduce repetition. See also the 'pre-1989' comment below.
  • 'History of editions, adaptations, and translations' is a rather long and klunky section heading, maybe trim it a bit. Are any of the "15 editions" actually different versions, or just reprints? If different, please say what changed; if not, suggest we drop the word "editions".
  • I suggest that 'Adaptations' (for theatre, radio, film, and TV) be a separate chapter. The chapter should say a little about each adaptation, e.g. was the plot changed or cut, did it innovate, how was it received, did any of them travel outside Poland.
  • The 'Translations' section is a dry bulleted list, with four of the entries not even having dates. It might be better just to write a brief text (without a list) to say that the book had been translated into at least 10 languages by 1987, and then to give highlights. For example, it was translated twice into Russian and into Serbo-Croat (we call it that, not -Croatian, I believe): does this reflect popularity in those countries, unsatisfactoriness with the first translations, or what?
  • All the dates given for translations are pre-1989: does this imply that the book is actually or popularly thought to be closely tied to the Communist era (e.g. by its opposition to the regime then)? Perhaps this would go with the reworking of 'Reviews and analysis', i.e. is there an equation of "modern" with "of that period"? The 1992 remarks by Halina Skrobiszewska might support this theme.
  • The lead contains a claim about Długi deszczowy tydzień which is neither cited nor present in the body of the article.
  • The lead needs to be extended slightly to mention these themes.
  • I've added a couple of citation needed tags.

Images

[edit]
  • None.
  • If there are PD or CC-by-SA images of any of the adaptations available on the web, those could be included in the 'Adaptations' section. Alternatively, if there are none, and there was a production that attracted critical attention for some reason, the text could discuss that production and the source(s) used to write an NFUR for a non-free image.

Sources

[edit]
  • Many of the sources are offline (and in Polish) so I'll assume good faith on those; their titles certainly suggest they are relevant and appropriate.
  • I note the minor COI of [30] Konieczny; the source would work well for the suggested context on Broszkiewicz.
    • Right, I published an article on him in SFE based on my research for this book :) I noted nobody made the simple but (to me obvious) connection to the concepts of cold war and nukes, so I mentioned it there (partially so that we could say so hear clearly :P). Yay for getting OR on Wikipedia (but it's not OR anymore, right? :). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot-checks ...
[1]: I failed to find "1960", "Broszkiewicz", or "największa" in the source? Perhaps the search is defeated by inflections?
[4] appears to be a dead link. This is a non-fatal error for a book source.
[16] seems to verify the claim made.
[19] (in French) seems to verify the claim made from the snippets visible.

Summary

[edit]
  • Some of the items above are clearly mandatory; others are more in the nature of suggestions. Both kinds seem to me to necessitate a measure of restructuring of the article; the main specific addition needed is a bit of context for English-speaking readers. With those things done, I can see this as a worthy GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wielka,_większa_i_największa/GA1&oldid=1263691826"