Talk:Birdsong (novel)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. So we're on the same page: I've not actually read the novel. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "The novel's plot follows two main characters, Stephen Wraysford—a British soldier on the front line in Amiens—and his granddaughter, Elizabeth Benson, following how she tries to recover the history of her grandfather's involvement in the war during the 1970s." I think this could be clearer. Perhaps you could split the sentence to first introduce the characters, and then introduce their respective plots. ✅
 * The last paragraph of the lead; is that the correct dash?
 * You could consider merging your short publication section into the background section to create a "background and publication" section. This would have the advantage of keeping all sections fairly long and give the article (to my eyes!) a pleasing chronology.✅
 * I confess to struggling with the background section. I don't really understand what you mean by Faulks "missing something", and the second paragraph needs attention. As a general note (I've made one change, but compare "Because so much of the existing literature about the War felt deeply influence by the World War II literaute") beware of rephrasing people's views in Wikipedia's neutral voice.
 * Ach, that paragraph was terrible: must have been tired when I wrote that. Mostly fixed I think.
 * What is "erotic-consolatory anger"?
 * I didn't write most of the plot, but was having trouble refining it: it represents the book well, but doesn't quite do it the way I would. Your secondary eye, helps alot: making refinements/clarifications.
 * "Meanwhile, Isabelle helps" The meanwhile suggests that this is taking place while she's being beaten.✅
 * "the one constant in her life – her sister Jeanne" Again, is that the right dash? ✅
 * "but soon realises her mistake" What mistake?
 * "The energetic character described in the first chapter of the novel contrasts with the depiction of Stephen hardened by his experiences of war. During his time in the trenches, we learn of Stephen's mental attitude to the war and the guarded comradeship he feels for his friend Captain Michael Weir and the rest of his men. However, Wraysford is regarded as a cold and distant officer by his men. He refuses all offers of leave; so committed is he to fighting and staying involved with the war." This feels much more like analysis/exegesis than simple restatement; it needs to be sourced and does not belong in the plot section either way. (From MOS:PLOT: "Plot summaries cannot engage in interpretation and should only present an obvious recap of the work.")
 * Wasn't reading that as analysis, but okay, sure.


 * "His story is paralleled to that of" Again, this sounds like analysis
 * Okay, described that more structurally. Sadads (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Alongside the main story, there is the inquisitive narrative of" Again ✅
 * "Weir is on leave and finds it impossible to communicate to his family how bad the war is." Is this central to the plot? --
 * there is a full chapter devoted to this, so its important in some ways, but I can see how it doesn't make sense to the unfamiliar readerSadads (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "When he meets Isabelle's sister Jeanne" Again?
 * yep, again. Fixed, Sadads (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "The novel ends with" But this isn't the last section? fixed
 * "An ending which is clearly inspired by – and deliberately echoes – Wilfred Owen's 1918 poem "Strange Meeting"." I agree with whoever placed the fact tag; this is another clear example of analysis sneaking in to the plot section.
 * Oops, I had been looking for a citation on that, because its a truth, but I didn't write it. Removed, Sadads (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * "is surprisingly supportive" Is this editorialising?
 * Fixed, that was taking the perspective of Elizabeth
 * "therefore keeping the promise which Stephen made to Jack when they were trapped in the tunnels under No Man's Land, over sixty years before." Perhaps this could have been mentioned earlier?
 * Yeah, that's a bit much, removed.
 * The plot section is currently a whopping 1005 words. This seems very long; MOS:PLOT, compliance with which is required by the GA criteria, doesn't give a precise number, but does mention the film WikiProject's suggestion that 400-700 words is appropriate. WP:NOVELPLOT says that "Plot summaries should be concise and an integral part of the article. Three or four paragraphs are usually sufficient for a full-length work, although very complex and lengthy novels may need a bit more. Shorter novels and short stories should have shorter summaries." I also wonder how useful the images are; the photo of the hotel, in particular, seems to be adding nothing.
 * I will look for a better illustration for the 1970s sections: was trying to provide context for the historical setting, but did a bit of trimming of the longer parts -- more focused on the events. I don't think I can trim much more (maybe tweak, and a little bit more refinement, but not much else.

✅
 * I wonder how useful the character list is?
 * Was debating that myself: do you feel like you understand the characters enough in the main plot? If so: feel free to kill this, its an artefact of the earlier writers of the article.
 * "Critic Jerome de Groot explicitely calls Birdsong one of the first novels of its kind setting of the trend of literary fiction rethinking and reflecting on the World War's and their historical legacy in the 1990s." This sentence needs work ✅
 * "As critic Micheal Gorra puts it" This endorses his view. How about "The critic Michael Gorra argues that"
 * I've tweaked the sentence mentioning the BMJ but it needs further work. ✅
 * "For example, New York Times reviewer Micheal Gorra, found the structure as the critical flaw." // "For de Groot, by acknowledging the personal history as it was investigated by Benson, allows Faulks to examine the "unknowability of the horror of war" and of history more generally." // "This act of reinvestigating traumatic history, mirrors the growing interest among both literary authors and historians." // "Popular reception compared well to the reception of the press". // "Reviews of the novel, often focusing on the fluid writing in the novel as well as the effective treatment of ""real" people" in their experiences of the war." // "Consistently one of the greatest critiques of the novel is the treatment of the contemporary section." // "The treatment of Elizabeth's experiences as a women, also become a challenge for critic Sarah Belo." I'm doing my best to copyedit as I go, but I'm honestly struggling to follow some of the claims being made. The third paragraph of "Trauma" is pretty opaque; I'm struggling with your commas. The "style" section comes across as rushed.
 * ✅? I think I got most of these, will do another read.


 * The publication section is lacking key information; the one sentence almost feels like an entry on one of those "trivia" lists that used to find their way into pretty much every article. ✅
 * Henry V is a dablink ✅
 * "Suzanne Ruta compared the novel to the works of Thomas Hardy, creating characters with a similar depth" Ruta created some characters?✅

I'm yet to look at the sources and images in detail; I will find time to do that. However, I have to say that I actually found the article quite a frustrating read; the plot section feels too long, some sections ("Publication" especially) are underdeveloped and the writing was quite tricky in places. I've done a little copyediting, but I think quite a bit more is needed. I do not feel that the article is ready for GA status at this time, but I will leave this review open for now to give you a chance to respond. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the candid review: sorry for not having a sooner response, life things: buying a house, WMF job had a lot of communications and writing earlier this week, and parents visiting this next weekend.
 * I did a first pass at the comments above, and will do another read through tonight. I hadn't quite expected the review to move so quickly, and I actually ordered another book (the Wheeler book -- the one chapter I use now, was visible in Google Books preview) to see if I could find some more on the "Style" section: it was supposed to come in late last week... haven't seen it yet. Though the critical praise of the novel, is frequently about the World sections, but they just describe it as "vivid", frequently, and I was hoping to find some more.... I will dig into that and maybe revist some of the extant sources. Sadads (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to check in again: I hope life isn't too busy :) Sadads (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought I was waiting on you! Are you ready for me to have another read through? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think for the most part: if you think the character sections is excess, please feel free to remove it. I am going to do another pass on the Wheeler, to see if I can find anything else substantial, but for the most part, I don't think I am going to be able to find any more substantial information. Sadads (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Second run-through

 * The background section is much improved, but I could still do with some more publisher information. You tell me that "The hardback print-run sold 14,000 copies" but not when either the hardback or the softback were released.
 * Not finding any information about the softback release, unless I did some original research (and not really confident in a reliable list there yet). Clarified on the hardback run, Sadads (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely you could find a primary source or perhaps a database listing? Josh Milburn (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not comfortable piecing together this from library records or Amazon (which is the best option that I am finding at the moment). I only have access to a couple databases, and they didn't have anything more (EBSCO was the one I used previously). Sadads (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I was meaning databases like the OCLC or LOC. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Relatedly, but I suppose this can slide, it's unusual to cite information to a particular chapter in a textbook; I'm not opposed to the citing of a textbook, but it would be more standard to cite the whole book and page numbers. I suspect there's a lot more in there worth citing!
 * Are you talking about the Wheeler? Its actually a pretty standard type literary criticism: overview a book wholistically. The series is quite interesting because its both a teaching and a literary review strategy (know the author of the Regeneration (novel) work its a really interesting work). I am doing a lot of summary of the sections, rather than diving at particular quotes, so didn't want to do just page citaitons. Sadads (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I wouldn't something like:  be more common than something like   In my experience, the latter style is reserved for citing essays in an edited collection (or texts in a sourcebook, or pieces in an anthology, and so on) rather than particular chapters in a monograph/textbook. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thats the Help:CS1 template... I don't use anything other than the CS1 template. Its also more similar to MLA which is the more style for literature style guide. Sadads (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've never used the MLA style guide directly, but I'd be very surprised if it recommends that particular chapters in single-author works are cited in this manner. The CS1 template has  for chapters in anthologies, encyclopedias, sourcebooks, edited collections, etc. It has   for citations within a work that do not correspond to page ranges/individual pages. Again: I'm happy to let this drop, but it is highly non-standard. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "Sales were strong, and as of 2010, the novel had sold over 3 million copies." This makes it sound like you're talking about the US specifically. ✅
 * "Sales were strong, and as of 2010, the novel had sold over 3 million copies.[8] Sales were strong" Repetition ✅
 * "Stephen" or "Wrayford" in the plot section? ✅
 * "Several episodes depict a persistent but downtrodden Stephen whose only respite is his guarded comradeship with Captain Michael Weir and the rest of his men." Is this analysis? -- removed some, but I think its sufficiently summary for this plot: its a very clear treamtment of Wraysford, Sadads (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder how much the images in the plot section are adding? It can look a little cluttered; especially when text is sandwiched between them. -- I find them useful, and one of the biggest complaints amongst our readers is the lack of multimedia -- this is a judgement call I think, Sadads (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed. Happy to let it slide. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "After a chance encounter with Jeanne, Isabelle's sister, while on leave in Amiens, Stephen convinces her to allow him to meet with Isabelle and finds that her face has been disfigured by a shell with scarring caused from the injury." Could this be simplified/split?
 * ✅ Sadads (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to look into the references a bit further, but the above should hopefully give you a few things to tap away at for now. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I may be missing something, but why does Benson have to translate Wraysford's diary? What language was he writing in?
 * It was encoded, clarified. Sadads (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is Robert married to Elizabeth? Or someone else?
 * Someone else :P The plot thickens -- is there a point Sadads (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I was getting confused; is Bob/Robert still with Irene at the end of the book? Is the holiday a secret? Josh Milburn (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good question, going to my copy, Sadads (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I did check this its good. Sadads (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What does "as the critical flaw" mean? ✅ -- clarifiedSadads (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Some critics have noted that this reinvestigation of the traumas of the World Wars, revisits and revives the experience of trauma within contemporary culture" I do not follow; looking at the source, I'm not sure that's what Wilson is saying; at the very least, he's offering his own analysis, not reporting what "some critics have noted".
 * ✅ per your suggestion, Sadads (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Faulks uses both changing narrators, and different perspectives on the death to depict that experience in numerous and challenging ways" What does this mean?
 * "both naturlistic and realistic and very much in the manner of the nineteenth century writers he cites as literary infleunces" Are the spelling mistakes Wheeler's or yours? Also, who are these authors, and who is the "he"? Why aren't these influences in the background section?
 * Fixed and fixed, Sadads (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Consistently, reviews emphasize the novel's imagery" Does Wheeler specify that this is something that that reviews emphasize, or is it your claim citing her as an example? If the latter, this needs to be changed.
 * Clarified? Sadads (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that you mean The Spectator and not "Spector"?
 * Checked source: your right, typo. Sadads (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Popular reception compared well to the reception of the press" What does this mean?
 * Sadads (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Reviews of the novel, often focusing on the fluid writing in the novel as well as the effective treatment of ""real" people" in their experiences of the war." This needs to be reworked.
 * ✅Sadads (talk)
 * "For critic Sarah Belo, unlike the other reviewers, its not the historical investegation that fails in the contemporary section, but the Elizabeth's experience as a woman in 1970s England." Could this be clarified? I'm not sure I understand the claim.
 * ✅ Sadads (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you check the location/publisher on the Wheeler source? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thats really bizarre: Google Books/Zotero/Citoid generated something different than what I am seeing. Fixed to the version I am working from and check pages, to make sure they were consistent (they were). Sadads (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed all of those, and hope its looking good :) Sadads (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Wanted to check in with you, any other thoughts? It looks much better than the article did previously :) Sadads (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've been away; I did leave some replies few days ago- I don't know if you've seen them. Otherwise, I'll be back for another look soonish. Feel free to ping me again in a week if I haven't gotten to this... Josh Milburn (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Didn't see a couple of those resps. I don't think they are actionable for this pass of the article. Sadads (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Second opinion requested
Ok; the article is much improved from when I first looked at it, but, first, I'm still seeing problems (whether in terms of clumsy mistakes, not-super prose or absent information) and, second, I'm getting the impression that you're getting sick of this review/my comments. As such, I'm going to request a second opinion on whether the article as it stands is ready to be promoted to GA status. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose: I feel like I have improved the article in response to all your feedback. Sadads (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * @Josh Milburn: I've read the article through, and made some minor tweaks (a few typos, a couple of minor infelicities of diction). I think it'll do ; there's one clarification tag which should either be actioned or dropped . Apart from that, the article clearly covers the 'main points' of the book; is clearly written; is summarised in a lead of reasonable length; is suitably cited to reliable sources; is appropriately illustrated. I would see no reason not to pass it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * found the error that required the clarification needed, and thanks for the feedback. how are you feeling? Sadads (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think Chiswick Chap's assessment is fair and reasonable, so I will go ahead with promoting the article. Thanks, Chiswick Chap, for offering a view, and thanks, Sadads, for your patience. I hope we can both agree that the article is now much-improved from its state at nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Much much improved! Thanks for the great work on this! Sadads (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)