Talk:Collaborative fiction/GA1

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

Reviewer: Piotrus (talk · contribs) 00:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Seems ok to this ESL, but "Legalities" should probably be renamed to legal aspects.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * First, the article does not conform to WP:LEAD: lead should be a summary; this lead isn't - it provides uncited definitions, and makes (unreferenced) claims not repeated elsewhere in the body. There is a quote box by Beth Ciotta which is discouraged by MoS, and which appears near the lead for no explicable reason. There is not enough wikilinks, starting from the lead I am seeing numerous words which should have links but don't: protagonist, pseudonym... With regards to layout, why is the academic perspective section suddenly sprouting subsections on individual novels or projects? Finally, the article seems to rely to much on quotations, I see two boxes, and at least one long (entire para) quotation in the body. PS. Dab tool notes one self-redirect, and webchecklinks notes three dead links (please see the tools in the box at the top right of this review).
 * Okay, have hacked at the lead, but now need to bulk it out again - probably best to do that after the rest of the article has been properly fixed. Fixed the redirect and the dead links. Moved the quote out of the lead but am aware there are more quotes than is probably reasonable - my long term plan was to cut them down as more pictures became available... have wikilinked a few things, but probably not enough, more on that shortly.  The three examples are there for no particularly classification - I think the MO I was working under was to focus on those academic projects that had used collaboration for the sake of collaboration and those where the only ones I found - would that be reasonable grounds for using them as examples? AdamCaputo (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It would, but we should make it clear this was the reason. Something like "several cases of cf have been reviewed by academics, those include a, b and c discussed below." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 02:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * First, reference problems. Wilson is missing page number. Numerous references are missing authors or dates. EDUCAUSE is missing a URL. I highly suggest using citation templates, and linking pages to Google Books (through this is not required). Second, not enough citations. Not only there are problems with uncited sentences; there are uncited paragraphs (first para in "Recreational collaborative writing" section) and entire sections ("The influence of tabletop gaming").
 * Doh! Have found references for first para in "Recreational collaborative writing" section and "The influence of tabletop gaming" - with some rewriting to get them to fit the references. Fixed EDUCAUSE as well (and also the dead links as mentioned above) I'm going to take some time to organised the references properly and solidly now and will convert to google books in the process. (The page number for wilson will be a pain as I don't have the ref handy anymore... hmm AdamCaputo (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Hard to say till more information is provided, some references are just titles, such as "Orion's Arm - The Early Years".
 * C. No original research:
 * Not sure, till citations are provided.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * For starters, the article does not tell us, clearly, what are the most famous collaborative works, their creators, the history of collaborative writing (I am sure it existed before 1930s, particularly in the times where works were written anonymously or told orally). What about collaborative fanfic? Collaboration in graphic novels?
 * B. Focused:
 * Roughly, but see the note below (why are those work offered such a prominent place here)?
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * What makes Caverns and A Million Penguins have their own sections, when other works don't?
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * The one that is, does.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * More images could be added, free or fair use, of writers / books mentioned.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I am sorry to say but this article has a long way to go before becoming a GA. It needs expansion and improved citations. On the bright side, there are plenty of sources out there for this topic . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 02:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to say but this article has a long way to go before becoming a GA. It needs expansion and improved citations. On the bright side, there are plenty of sources out there for this topic . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 02:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Over a week has passed, but I see work is being done. Would the editor working on this like extended time for a GA till the end of this month? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 02:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No reply here, at at least some issues where not addressed (insuffiient lead), means that I have no choice but to fail this article for now. As there have been improvements, I'd like to encouraged the involved editor(s) to resubmit it for GA when they think that all issues have been fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)