Talk:Saturday (novel)

Untitled

I think the part that says "... when she does, she reveals she is pregnant" should be changed to "... when she does, Perowne notices she is pregnant."

The word "revealed" kind of implies that she mentions that she's pregnant or something, when in fact perowne deduces that she's pregnant by noticing the "bulge"

yeah some of the language in this book is lank high tech —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.247.44.202 (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Nomiation

I've re-written most of this article, and fleshed it out to GA status. Ktlynch (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We are still waiting for a review, though in the mean time the comments from a peer review have been addressed, and the article has generally improved. --Ktlynch (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Class

This is no more than a C article for several reasons: 1. The prose it not very good, consider having an editor with good style editing clean it up. 2. You included some original research, all assertions outside of the plot, which should be verifiable 3.Article does not cover most everything about the subject: No publication history (who printed it, when, how many pages, how many editions, etc.) or Characters section

Hope this helps, Sadads (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I'll address the problems you mentioned, here and in the article.

1. The prose could be better, indeed will be, but it is FA status that demands excellent prose. Clear and error free prose meets the criterion at GA level. Putting good, cited information up is more important at the moment than brilliant prose.

2.A missing citation doesn't neccessarily mean Original Research, if you read any of the sources, or the subject, you'd see straight way that it's not OR.

3. There is no publication section because there isn't anything interesting to relate. Perhaps one or two lines about his intentions and research if that material becomes avaliable. haracters are introduced in the plot summary - there's only really one anyway, and unless there are complications, therefore a section isn't neccessary.

I must say I think C-class is a little harsh. The article is balanced and comprehensive, it is well cited with the best sources that could be avaliable for a contempory novel. A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man and Life of Pi are C-class articles, they are bitty, not comprehensive, and inaccurate. A Clockwork Orange is B-class and it includes a long, unneccessary list of minor characters (the plot of a short novel is covered in considerable detail), and again unneccessary list of eveyr edition published without explaining why that's important.

I'll get back to work, but would appreciate a second look soon. Thank you Ktlynch (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally, I assume original research in Novel articles, because that is what it is most of the time. Verifiability is very important. Remember, readers can't read your mind and know exactly where the information is.

The things that I thought were omitted are what I like to find when I read an article about new fiction (especially the publication information). They are important to some people but not to others.

Sorry if I seem harsh, but I feel that preserving quality is one of the first roles of any Wikipedia editor. I hope to be constructive not aggressive, note I leave suggestions on how to deal with each problem I noticed. Also, check out the B requirements at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Assessment I think this article failed 1, 2, and 4. Will gladly reassess, just give me a ping on my talk page.

Sadads (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

On the style point, I think what bothers me most is the way that the plot summary is approached. Instead of characterizing it as part of the book, you tell the story. This is an encylopedia, not a review. You don't need to be coercing the reader into following the tale. Tell it as it is. Sadads (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up what was bothering me and rerated, still consider cleaning up the themes section, still doesn't read very well. Sadads (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't doubting your sincerity, but you did just admit you rather dismissed mine. As I explained above, I really don't think a character section is appropiate here 1) It is a short novel with a small cast of characters 2) It is told largely from the point of view of the protaganist, so he is really the only character worth discussing, in that sense he is the book. 3) The plot summary is a synopsis of the plot, I don't like them either (have a look at earlier versions of this article, they practically are the text) but how can one not tell the plot in a plot synopsis? I'm not trying to write a short story, but don't complain about the prose being not engaging enough on one hand, and on the other being too engaging. See here for characters/plot Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines#Characters

The article is definitely not told from an in universe perspective, which is the commonest and crudest form of problem with novel articles.

Re B criteria

1) Referencing There's at at least 30-40 references in the article. I agree that themes is a little scant, but I've already but several more in. There are six solid main sources used, all are reliable. The critical and literary sections, usually most prone to OR are heavily cited. If you check sources, as you should have in a GA review you'll see that the article matches them.

2) Coverage As already stated twice, novel articles need not, indeed shouldn't, contain character lists unless it is neccessary. If that is your preference that's fine, I personally think it's inane unless it's LOTR or A la recherche du temps perdu. All the characters were clearly introduced in the plot summary. Perhaps a paragraph on the novel's backgrounds, but that is not a massive default. So the article had a lead, info box, synopsis, major themes, literary genre/analysis, critical reception, influence. That is comprehensive, Pass.

4) Writing: Again, the prose is not brilliant, but it is satisfactory. It is clear and does not contain major grammatical errors. Pass

I appreciate you taking the time to review and respond, and sorry if I sound too combative here, but I'm ready to get very specific with fixes that need to be made. Ktlynch (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your point on characters: the descriptions that were included in your original were excessively long. Perhaps a Section titled "Henry Perowne" because he appears to be the one which critics are focusing on. Characterization thought, in relation to this book, appears to be very important and should be looked at in it's own section.

The prose, was not and still is not very clear. It is alright, and as you can see I have been making small changes, but I consistently get hung up in the language and style, sorry but no you don't win that point. Besides, especially in the Plot and the Themes sections, it often feels like their is considerable amounts of supportive information left on the wayside.

Sadads (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, character sections are unneccessary, since he is the protaganist the themes are focalised through him. It's a limited point of view novel, if you have a section on him it'll duplicate everything else. What the reviewers discuss goes into the reception section. It's not Dickens here. Alright is sufficient to be a GA. The plot summary, I think, is fine now. It hits all the main events without going into too much detail. I agree more needs to go into themes, but that is the most difficult section to write neutrally. Ktlynch (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Haven't read the book, will try to help on the themes. Sadads (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't mean to be pushing you on that too much (I'm sure you'd enjoy it by the way). Working from reviews is hard since they are blending all the elements we are trying to keep apart. Theme is inextricably mixed with plot and characters. it's hard to draw substance, without overquoting on one hand or drifting into OR on the other.

On the prose, or course you are welcome to make fixes, but the article was extensively copy-edited recently. Alas, "I don't like it" simply isn't enough when we've gotten this far down the page.

In any case I'm going off to think about it. Thanks for taking the time to work on this page, and your patience to stay around. It is appreciated. Ktlynch (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, always like to help. Need to study for a test, so I to am going to take a break. Sadads (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saturday (novel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mm40 (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm Mm40 (talk · contribs) and I'll be reviewing the article for GA status. I'll be watching this page, and I'll be very active over the next few days, so any comments/questions you have for me can be left here. Thanks, Mm40 (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a number of issues are present in the article. Comparing it against the good article criteria:

1(a): "the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct" While this is not the largest issue, a copy-edit is highly reccomended. The below issues are coming just from the lead: *I don't feel "the invasion of Iraq" is enough background; someone reading this in 20 years may or may not know what this refers to

This pipe link was changed, so this is now a wikilink to the event. The date is also given. --Ktlynch (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

*"planned a series of jobs and pleasures" sounds a bit odd; why is it necessary to note that a neurosurgeon plans on going to work? Wouldn't that be expected?

'Jobs' meant chores, that is clear from the text. Changed--Ktlynch (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• "encounter with violence" is unclear; the article can be more specific

*"The novel explores a sense place in the modern world" isn't comprehensible

removed--Ktlynch (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

*Missing an "it": "very existence in are questioned"

fixed. --Ktlynch (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

*The sentence beginning with "For example" doesn't actually seem like an example of the last sentence. It also seems a bit out of place in the lead.

changed. --Ktlynch (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

*"hailed as an exemplar of fiction post 11 September 2001" as I'm guessing post-9/11 is being used as an adjective for "fiction", this should be reworded "hailed as an exemplar of post-11 September 2001 fiction"

change--Ktlynch (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)d

*Typo: "interwowen"

fixed--Ktlynch (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• In the article in general, the tone is often a bit too informal. Examples include "put some of his own life into", "checked over", and "circle of friends". There is much more present in the Synopsis section. Also, there are contractions such as "didn't" and "he's"

Fixed this problems, will watch for others. "circle of friends" isn't too familiar. Possibly request a copyiedit

Two instances of contractions have been left, since they are in quotation marks. Please change or post other examples. --Ktlynch (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• There are too many one- or two-line paragraphs; each paragraph should be at least three sentences

ok

1(b): "it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation" Pretty good in this aspect

• The lead should be expanded a bit, perhaps two well-sized paragraphs

It is about this length already. I feel it's adqueate for an article of this length. Is there anything else that can be included?--Ktlynch (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

2(a): "it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout" The biggest problem with the article is citations not backing up the information they are said to be citing. Below is a spot-check (I only checked a few claims, and most of them appear below) of the Themes section. Also, reference formatting needs work

• Reference 6 (The Times) doesn't support McEwan's earliar work dealing with "the fragility of existence using a clinical perspective"

They are not the author's words, she says (referring to his existing oeuvre) "His precise, taut prose cuts clean as a scalpel, and his forensic intelligence addresses steadily the deepest of human horrors: incest, murder, psychosis, and so on."

The paraphrase may sound a bit like OR, but it is a sincere attempt not to plagiarise the review. --Ktlynch (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

*"something must surely be waiting to go wrong" the reference given does not support this; the closest it comes is saying that the main character feels the need to keep working in order to justify his nice lifestyle

changed article to match source more closely--Ktlynch (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• "making him aware of the fragility of life and consciousness's reliance on the functioning brain" I can't find anything of this type in this cited work

Basically, all the references are formatted differently from one another, and many need publishers and retrieval dates. I suggest using the {{cite x}} templates for consistency *Reference one has an author listed on the link, and it needs a period between the date it was published and the date it was retrieved Fixed --Ktlynch (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC) *Reference 2 needs a publisher, publication date, and (presumably) an author Fixed note that this newspaper does not use by-lines.--Ktlynch (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC) *Reference 8 is formatted differently than the 3 refs above it Fixed--Ktlynch (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• etc.

2(c): "it contains no original research" perhaps the largest issue, most notably the Themes section *The entire first three lines of the section

This are really a summary of what comes below. Have been deleted with no loss. --Ktlynch (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Perowne's composure and success mean the implied violence is in the background", aside from this not making sense
• "Perowne expresses a distaste for some modern literature"

This is mentioned in every single cited work. --Ktlynch (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Perowne's world view is rebutted by his daughter, Daisy, a young poet."

Again mentioned in both the book, and numerous sources. --Ktlynch (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• "An Iraqi professor he treated has told him of the brutality Saddam Hussein's rule, but also takes seriously his children's concerns about the war."

Just a summation of what happends. --Ktlynch (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• "dealing with the change in lifestyle faced by Westerners after the 11th of September attacks"

*The sentence beginning "The protagonist's errands are..."

This one needs a citation then.

Cited from the Zoe Heller article. See the 5th paragraph of the review. --Ktlynch (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

3(a): "it addresses the main aspects of the topic"

• Mainly, the issue here is that it doesn't contain anything on the publication of the book. Outside of the infobox, the publisher's name isn't even mentioned, and that fact that there are four chapters is hidden in the Themes section

Publication information is important in a book article. I added in a line about publication in the first section. Is there anymore specific information you think should be included? I have noticed articles finding it hard to balance this, some give a needless list of different international editions. The style guidelines say that this should be emphaised only if there is interesting information to relate. Aside from the publisher and date, I don't think there is much to tell regarding that. --Ktlynch (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Much less of an issue, but it would be nice if the Reception section mentioned how long the book was on the best-seller lists

3(b): "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" This is not met in the plot summary; too many minute details are included. Please read through it and see if it directly impacts the plot. For example, you can take out *The times the novel begins and ends--Ktlynch (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

removed

*"He descends to the kitchen and has an amiable conversation with his son Theo" --Ktlynch (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed

*He lunches at home, again chatting with his son. Afterward he buys some fish from a local fishmonger for dinner and visits his mother, suffering from vascular dementia, in a nursing home."

removed luncheon, but the others are actually important parts of the novel, beaware that this is a novel about a man's ordinary day, reading the plot synopsis might seem a little boring.--Ktlynch (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Because of these issues, mainly the ones involving referencing, I will unfortunately have to fail this article. I urge you to renominate the article at GAN again once my comments are resolved, and I'd be happy to see if I agree with the changes you've made if you drop a note on my talk page. I hope this article gets promoted eventually, and wish you luck in that regard. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Saturday (novel)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Sufficient third-party sources, acceptable layout, acceptable pictures. I see no issues whatsoever with original research. The themes, plot, reception, writing, etc. are all presented in a neutral fashion. My only concern was the extra reviews at the bottom; I removed them because they didn't look reliable and/or weren't adding anything to the article as a whole. Also, I unlinked the dates per the MoS. I looked over the last GA and saw the large number of issues present there; it looks like all have been taken care of properly. Reviewer: Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

References

The links for references 18 and 19 are dead. I wasn't able to find any replacements. --Danielba894 (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

20 is also dead. --Danielba894 (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Saturday (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110616123054/http://www.publishersweekly.com/index.asp?layout=pwkprofileTitle&iMarketID=2&iReleaseID=368121&view=iReleaseID&text=368121&vchProductTitle=Saturday&iContributorID=66502&q=Saturday+Ian+McEwan to http://www.publishersweekly.com/index.asp?layout=pwkprofileTitle&iMarketID=2&iReleaseID=368121&view=iReleaseID&text=368121&vchProductTitle=Saturday&iContributorID=66502&q=Saturday+Ian+McEwan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Saturday (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927215752/http://www.crowdedhouse.com/ms/imagerepository/labelnewsimagespublic/1691811-2 to http://www.crowdedhouse.com/ms/imagerepository/labelnewsimagespublic/1691811-2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Saturday (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100126043629/http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20050228_95688_95688 to http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20050228_95688_95688
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927024752/http://www.ed.ac.uk/about/people/tait-black/fiction to http://www.ed.ac.uk/about/people/tait-black/fiction
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512200755/http://www.themanbookerprize.com/prize/archive/38 to http://www.themanbookerprize.com/prize/archive/38

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)