Talk:Wildwood (novel)/GA3

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Delisting This has gone stale. The best advice would be to work on the suggestions below and then renominate. AIRcorn (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a disagreement between the nominator and reviewer at the intial GA review. The nominator has asked for a {{GA request}} and after speaking to both I have agreed to conduct a reassessment. At this stage I have only glanced over the talk page and given the article a superficial read. The nominator wants to incorporate some of the ideas from the original reviewer and I have agreed to give him time to do this before conducting a formal review. I am planning on treating this like any other article nominated at WP:GAN and have no reason presently to delist it. However, if other editors come across this re assessment they are welcome to comment. AIRcorn (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I finally have some time to complete this review. Will start with the plot. AIRcorn (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

This was one of the issues raised at the previous review and so I have had a good look into this. I do not know the story, which can help in some respects as we should assume the reader does not know it either. First up I still think it is a bit long. There is no hard and fast rule about plot length, but it is generally expected to be as concise as possible (focus is also part of the GA criteria). From my read through there are the following issues:

Some characters are mentioned using their name or a title. This is alright when first introducing them, but does get a bit confusing when they are used alternately. For example sometimes it is Alexadra and sometimes she is refereed to as Dowager-Governess. Same with Elder Mystic and Iphigenia. Once they are introduced I would just keep it to their name, it keeps it simpler for the reader.
There is a bit of unnecessary detail. Is Prues capture in South Wood really important?
You don't need to spell out everything. Prue is born then ten years late Mac is conceived. Mac is one when he is kidnapped, so we already know roughly how old Prue is.
Should it be The Wood or the Wood? Needs some consistency.
Comma usage is a bit excessive. You don't need it before every and (or any and for that matter). It can make it difficult to read a sentence if it has too many commas.
What is the impassable wilderness?
Who is Curtis?
Meloys imagination as a child does not really fit into this section. It would probably be better under setting or another section.
You don't need to say when we have nearly reached the midpoint and describing the position of the characters is closer to analysis (hence OR) than "say what you read" plot.
What is Prues magical relationship with the Impassible Wilderness
a stark contrast from the uniformed and well-armed officialdom of South Wood. is again leaning too close to analysis.

With some rewording the prose can be made much tighter. I have had a go at User:Aircorn/Wildwood if you want to look. It has cut over 200 words and I think it maintains most of the major plot elements. AIRcorn (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be more economical to move the Setting and Characters section above Plot? This would avoid having to explain who everyone is and where they are. The style guide suggests we should learn this information first in the plot section, but for this book that seems the longer route. I think I should also add a paragraph to the top of the Setting section that explicitly defines the Impassible Wilderness (called The Wood by the natives), South Wood, the Avian Principality, Wildwood, and North Wood. I'd draw a map but I worry about copyright. I could add labels to a CC-by-SA map, but not be overly specific with borders. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting about the map, is there one in the book? If there isn't then you may be able to draw one using the descriptions. I would still like to check with someone else. Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) is the resident expert and a nice person to boot. I think having the plot first is fine, but will read through the rest now and give you a better opinion. AIRcorn (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think having characters after the plot is fine. I would consider moving the background up as the first section. Mainly because the analysis of the characters uses descriptions from Meloy and Carson and (unless we have read the lead) we don't know who these people are. AIRcorn (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The maps on the endpapers, plus one map for each of the three sections, are important. A number of critics mentioned them, both for their own aesthetic quality, and as evidence of the book's old-fashioned design. I should do a better job of making that point. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Characters

I have only had a quick look here, but this section should not repeat too much of what is said in the plot. A brief description is fine though. More importantly it should avoid any plot details that are not mentioned in the plot or not relevant to that characters personality. For example this sentence She was deposed from South Wood and sent into Wildwood, where she wsa expected to die after it was discovered she had magically created an automaton to replace her dead son. Is more plot than describing her character. It is also confusing as automaton is not mentioned in the plot section. This section should mainly consist of the authors or critics interpretations of the characters. AIRcorn (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally I think this should give a brief background of the character using the book and then use secondary sources to describe the character. We already know what they do, this is more about who they are. It should really only contain the most important personality traits for the character. These sentence fragments deal more with plot than character and most are already covered in the plot section.

...standing up to Lars Svik the Governor-Regent of South Wood,[1]:123–130 Crown Prince Owl Rex of the Avian Principality, and even the fearsome Alexandra, the Dowager Governess, as well as her parents.
in her effort to rescue her brother, and along the way, save Curtis and The Wood itself
overcome Prue's parents' difficulty conceiving a child
After being hustled into an ill-fitting role as an officer in the coyote army, he inadvertently distinguishes himself in battle.
Later, by free choice, he becomes a full member of the bandits, and decides to stay behind with them in Wildwood, even as Prue returns home to St. Johns.
in which she intends to use Prue's brother Mac as a blood sacrifice in a spell to control The Wood's Ivy, which will then grow out of control and consume every living thing in The Wood.

You can probably cut some of the minor details. For Example:

which she repairs and tunes herself.
finding inspiration in Nancy Drew
In the past Prue and Curtis shared an interest in drawing superhero fan art, but Prue has moved on to botanical illustration, leaving Curtis and his love of comic books behind.
and takes Honors English

Some other comments:

In Wildwood, everyone is either of The Wood, or is an Outsider, or, in the special case of the protagonists, a "half breed", that is, an Outsider who is able to enter The Wood. Should probably avoid informal wordings like "that is" and "special". Not sure "in the special case" is needed here (might be better to mention separately). You could reduce the commas too. Suggestion: "In Wildwood, everyone is either of The Wood, an Outsider or a "half breed" (an Outsider who is able to enter The Wood).
I would make it clear that Prue and Curtis are "half breeds" in the top section (instead of using protagonists) or under their individual character descriptions.
I am not sure what the Postmaster General part is trying to say. If it is that he has an aura it is covered quite well by the second sentence. It is probably best not to quote from the book itself too. Same goes for the quote boxes.
Periphery Bind comes out of the blue. Could you just say "...who ought not to be able to enter The Wood."
...while only the people of the pastoral and meditative North Wood can see with an unexplained sense that Prue and Curtis have a dual nature, born outside The Wood yet unhindered by the magical barrier that keeps the Outsiders out What do you mean by "unexplained sense"? Is this saying that the inhabitants of the North Wood can recognise them as "half breeds"?
You mention Curtis as being Prues classmate in both their section. I would just use one (probably fits better in Curtis's).
With Prue's description I would keep comparisons and mentions of Curtis to a minimum (use Curtis's description if they are important as readers will already have read about Prue).
along with being an Outsider, which is what made it possible for her to cross the magical barrier that protects The Wood This is already covered a bit in the lead of this section. It could be simplified, maybe to "Prue's birth through Alexandra's witchcraft meant she shares some essence of The Wood, making her a "half breed"."
Too many comparisons in Curtis's section to Prue.
He grows in the course of the book, gaining a more definite sense of who he is after being forced to choose sides and stand up to the Dowager Governess Alexandra. This reads like an anlaysis and should be attributed (or at least sourced) to someone.

I think this section needs some trimming too. I liked how Alexandras character was presented (apart from the second to last sentence). If the others can be described as concisely as hers I think you will be right. AIRcorn (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to trim, but many of these points are critical.

Fixing her bike is the first action Prue takes in the book. Until that point, very late in the book, all she does is flee, or advance, from place to place, and talk, talk, talk. Curtis is busy taking actions during most of this time. Fixing her own bike is also evidence of her immersion in Portland-y DIY culture and trendy fixie bike culture, and evidence of her independence from her parents. They forbid her from leaving but she has her own means of securing transportation. And the repairs she makes are far advanced for a 12-year old, evidence she's either a polymath genius, or the book is unrealistic (or more charitably, soft fantasy).
Prue standing up to adults: this is the central fact of her character. Almost everything she does in the book consists of her facing down an adult authority figure. There is an almost 1 to 1 correspondence between Prue showing courage in a conversation with an authority figure, and Curtis backing down in a similar confrontation. Curitis' transformation, finding his backbone, is a critical turning point. Prue's constancy here is one example of her being a static character.
Nancy Drew is mentioned at least four times; possibly 8 to 10. I'd have to count. Prue compares herself to Nancy Drew, and explicitly calls upon her for inspiration at times of difficulty. It's an important fact about her. Negatively, Prue is too derivative of Nancy Drew.
Superhero fan art: this shows that Curtis is still a "nerd", while Prue is maturing faster than him. The superhero fan art vs botanical illustration encapsulates almost all you need to know for why Curtis is following Prue around in the first chapter, why Prue doesn't think he's capable and doesn't want his help, and what changes over the course of the book.
Honors English: Curtis seems not very bright at first; Honors English is proof that he's good at something, and can be smart in the right circumstances. Prue seems very rebellious. Honors English is proof that she can follow rules and please those in authority when she wishes too. It is also evidence of one thing they still have in common. On a meta level, Prue and Curtis are (we are told explicitly in interviews) proxies for Colin Meloy and Carson Ellis, and writing books together is the thing they share, creatively and as a married couple.

I agree with most of the other points. I'll work on clarifying or deleting the other items you mentioned, and giving better attribution to secondary sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these connections are not apparent from reading the section, they just appear extraneous. You above explanation also comes across a bit like original research. Is there some one else that describe the characters in the way you have? The interviews sound like promising source material. AIRcorn (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I will review the sources again and expand on these points based on the secondary sources. Although I feel that the plot section should emphasize events that repeat themselves in the book. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has happened here for a while now. AIRcorn (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Setting

This section confuses the real wood with the wildwood e.g.Outsiders, the people of Portland, call it the Impassible Wilderness, and they know it only as a forbidden, taboo area, never visited and rarely spoken of.
It also contains a lot of plot based information (the above sentence and the rest of the first paragraph)
The story begins in the protagonists' neighborhood, the St. Johns, before moving across the Willamette River and into the Impassible Wilderness, that is, The Wood. We dob't need to mention its other names every time. I would just stick with one here and get rid of "that is"
The St. Johns Bridge. In the universe of Wildwood, this is the Ghost Bridge, existing only when a rune magic spell is cast and not apparent in everyday life. Without the St. Johns Bridge, the Impassible Wilderness is all the more isolated. Confuses real world with in-world setting. Would just remove that sentence.
The St. Johns Bridge, however, is missing, and unknown to the people of Wildwood's Portland What is Wildwoods mportland (outsiders?). Missing is it really the right word as it does appear.
Should mention a typical stereotype for the parents in the last paragraph.

Style

The literary tone of Decemberists songs is apparent in the writing style, with a weakness for the charms of archaic language, and a bookish middle-schooler's love of stretching her vocabulary with "50 cent words", that is, sesquipedalianism This is writen too much like a book review. Who is the "her"?
When she first meets the South Wood postman Richard, he threatens her with a shotgun, which in the same paragraph is referred to a double-barrelled rifle, then on the next page it is called a shotgun again.[1]:62–63 Though the text pointedly mentions Prue's single-speed bicycle,[1]:3 the illustrations twice show her bike having derailleur gears, which are only present on multi-speed bikes. This is unfortunately original research as presented. You are implying an interpretation based on your reading of the book.