Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Septimus Heap/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Septimus Heap

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review
Result: Due to improvements made during this GAR, there is now a unanimous consensus to keep this article as a GA. The conclusion of the procedural question is: lists cannot be GAs, but this article is not and should not have been a list. Geometry guy 23:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a procedural Good Article Reassessment, following a concern raised by the original GA reviewer (Mattisse) and the subsequent community discussion at WT:GAN#Question about lists and GA. The reasons for the GAR are:

  • To resolve the question of whether this is a list or an article (lists cannot become GAs per WP:WIAGA#What is not a good article?, and should be taken to WP:FLC instead). The opinion so far is that Septimus Heap does qualify for GA, but more discussion may be needed.
  • If the article is eligible for GA, there are some outstanding issues to be addressed for the award of GA status. To quote Philcha from the discussion linked above:
  • The prose is rather immature.
  • There's a shortage of objective sources - too many have personal or commercial reasons to be enthusiastic about the books. Google (for "angie sage" review) got me only one lead, Times Online (see below.) I could find nothing relevant on Metacritic for Magyk, Flyte, Physik or Queste. Times Online lists a couple of reviews and an article about plans to make one or more films of the books. It would be worth checking the sites of the other "quality" British papers - Independent, Guardian, Telegraph - to see if they have reviews. I have not tried Google Books or Google Scholar.
  • I noticed one important but unsourced statement, "The series received mostly positive appreciation from the critic". There may be others.
  • The list of characters is far too long, as I said above.
  • The list of locations does nothing for me.
  • The obvious comparison is with the Harry Potter series and should be included if at all possible. IIRC one of the Times Online articles quoted Angie Sage as saying the Harry Potter series convinced her there was demand for kids' / young adults' fantasy. After reading 4 of the Septimus Heap books I've seen no sign of the development that's visible in the Harry Potter series, where the tone changes as the main characters grow up. (Philcha (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[1])[reply]

To sum up, I don't believe the article is GA standard yet, but it can certainly be brought into line with the GA criteria. I hope we can work together to address the issues raised above and retain Septimus Heap's GA status. EyeSerenetalk 23:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sub-character list can be removed and created into a list of characters and so can be for the universe. Then the article would not qualify for a list. As for comparisons with Harry Potter, they are already included in the reception section of the article and complies with WP:NPOV. Even the character section has few comparisons too. so i believe a removal of hte character section is necessary, otherwise the article is GA standard. "Legolas" (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the lists are too long, and are the main non-GA passing areas. I would say a list of non-notable characters / locations fails WP:PLOT and the will written part of the GA criteria. But the main (?) editor there has already started planning how to move them to a sub-article. Most of the other points are covered up to "breadth" in my opinion. Comparisons to Harry Potter has a whole subsection. Development of the series likewise, and the authors inspirations. All are well enough sourced. The lack of quality or devlopment in the books has nothing to do with the quality of the article imo - most films also have virtually no character development, but that doesn't prevent them passing GAC.
A few more independant reviews would be good to see, but i don't think there is any reason they must be from newpapers rather than reliable web-sources. Lack of metacritic type coverage does make the "generally well recieved" comment difficult, but i think if a range (5 or 6 miniumum?) of reviews are found and all are positive, then this is an acceptable way to summarise them. I see that each of the book sub-articles has mltiple sources for reception. Note, I didn't check the prose for "immaturity" rather than errors. Overall, i think with the lists removed, this can quite easily br brought up to GA during the reassessment. Until then, a weak delist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 09:53, 7 February 2009 Looking much better, so now Keep. May not be the best GA out there, but it is at least in the top half, so any further improvments are a bonus.Yobmod (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delist, at least until the prose is sorted out. Too many niggling little bits and piece for me, such as "Kimberley Pauley of Yabookscentral.com wrote that according to her ..." Who else would it be according to? "... the character of Septimus Heap and the world he inhabit was fully realized ...". I think it would be fine for GA after a bit of tidying up by a decent copyeditor though. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough has been done to persuade me that this article meets the GA criteria. It's not perfect, anything can still be improved, of course, but I think it's now a worthy GA. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's on its way, but in my view it still fails WP:LEAD. However, that is fixable, once the rest of the article is in good shape. Geometry guy 00:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you arguing with me? How dare you! ;-) Leads are easy to fix once the article's sorted. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Wise words in the mouths of fools do oft themselves belie" ;) In this case, I couldn't have put it better myself :) Geometry guy 19:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha, ha - "Legolas" (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The prose is a bit rocky, and crosses the "in-universe" line from time to time, especially in the "Characters" and "Universe" sections, which could profitably be converted into prose. I've given the "The novels" section a work-over, but the other sections need help too. Geometry guy 15:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now prosified both subsections, but they probably need additional work, so comments are welcome here or on the article talk page. With Mattisse and Malleus joining in the copyediting effort, I'm optimistic that we might be able to save this one, but I will also not be unhappy if we delist with a view to renomination. Geometry guy 22:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize to you for making necessary all this work you are doing. If you can suggest ways I can help, I will. The changes you are making now are not ones I would have thought to do. Perhaps I will learn from watching you. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A real thanks to Matisse and Geometry Guy. Your edits are so good, that i'm just spellbound. Now this article is more GA standard than its previous version. Thanks a lot, guys!! You rock!! "Legolas" (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article doesn't yet meet GA standards, but is moving in the right direction. The article needs copyediting and two sections — "Characters" and "Universe" — should be rendered as standard prose rather than bulleted lists. I also wonder if more authoritative sources exist. Majoreditor (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has been copyedited and prosified. I share your concerns about the quality of the sources, which may reflect the knowledge of the main author, rather than the best sources available. The current version is less than perfect on the source front, but it may be good enough for GA. Geometry guy 21:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a list In the current form it is not a list, in my opinion. Two lists that remain in the article are quite short. No opinion on other problems (I need to read article first). Ruslik (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it is certainly not a list now. However, overarching articles on book series like this shouldn't be lists anyway, in my view, so whether it was a list at the time of review is now doubly moot. Geometry guy 19:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Doubly agree. "Legolas" (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Retain as GA There's been some hugely impressive progress over the weekend - great work from all concerned. I too believe we're almost there; I share the concerns about the sourcing, but think it's acceptable for GA. Only one minor point - do we need "popular" in the lead? EyeSerenetalk 11:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that it hinders the acceptability for GA in any way, we can remove it. Not a big deal. "Legolas" (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you'd removed it. I think it was unnecessary - it came over as slightly POV, but more to the point such prose dates quickly (will it still be popular in six months time?). We're already told it's best-selling a few sentences later, so the reader can assume it's popular ;) Anyhow, thank vou for your hard work in response to this GAR - I'm now supporting this article's retention as a GA. EyeSerenetalk 14:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word "popular" was my mistake. I was looking for a way to assert notability in the first paragraph of the lead, but that wasn't a good choice. Geometry guy 17:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, maybe "well-received" if something needs to go in there? EyeSerenetalk 13:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Septimus_Heap/1&oldid=1084310757"