Talk:Fasana-e-Azad/GA1

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

Reviewer: Oulfis (talk · contribs) 05:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Accuracy: In the background section, the last paragraph is confusing. It says The novel evolved as it was published. Fasana-e-Azad satirizes urban life for about its first 500 pages, usually centering on a wandering figure such as Azad or a minor character.[5] This was in keeping with the influence of Charles Dickens's The Pickwick Papers and Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quixote on Sarshar.[6] As the story progressed and became popular, he decided to serialize the narrative from 1878 to 1883.[5]. Is it referring to the Zarafat series or to Fasana-e-Azad? Mentioning the "500 pages" makes it sound like this paragraph is about the book Fasana-e-Azad, but then the dates given for after the story progressed and became popular start with the year the novel began -- surely only Zarafat could have had a chance to become popular before 1878? If this is information about Zarafat I'd suggest clarifying it; if it's about Fasana-e-Azad, I'd suggest either deleting it or moving it to other parts of the article.
 * Hello. Sorry for the confusion. Zarafat is itself part of the first volume of the novel. I have clarified this in the 2nd paragraph of background section. When Sarshar started writing Zarafat series (which also sometimes centres around the character Azad), he don't had any plan about writing this novel. When the series became popular among the readers of Avadh Akhbar, Sarshar decided to transfer it into a novel with well-structured story. When the novel was published, the series was included in the first volume. What would you suggest ? Any paraphrasing needed? Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Accuracy: The statement "It is an encyclopedia of contemporary Lucknow culture" feels out of place in what is otherwise a really specific and well-supported reception section. This work is not literally an encyclopedia so the source doesn't support the statement as-is. If we want to say it's like a encyclopedia that comparison should be attributed to somebody. Maybe this can be adapted to become the first sentence of the next paragraph.
 * Oops. apologize. Originally I wrote: . It was then rephrased to the current statement by the copy-editor. I have restored it back. See. --Gazal world (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * NPOV: The section discussing whether the work is a novel contains a lot of valuable information, but the level of detail provided about the counterarguments seems to give that point of view undue weight. Especially since the work does seem to be generally assessed as a novel, it would be good to include more detail about why that's the most common conclusion, so the attention paid by the article matches what is generally said. And/or, the not-a-novel paragraph could be shortened by moving one of the quotes to a footnote.
 * Thanks for pointing out this. You are right. I should have added details about why Fasana-e-Azad is generally referred as novel. But, it will take some time (1 week or two) in research. OR As per your suggestion, should I shorten the not-a-novel paragraph? --Gazal world (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * If those three things are addressed I think you are in good shape for a Good Article! As I note I think there are 'better' ways to fix them with edits and moving things around, but they could also be addressed by deleting.
 * Optional: I wonder if the "Reception" section would be improved by combining it with the "Scholarship" section (since scholarship is its own form of reception) and introducing thematic sub-section instead, like "Status as a novel," "Depictions of Lucknow," "The character of Khoji"... Actually, "Status as a novel" might merit its own section, since that's not really a question of reception. These are just my thoughts on how to improve the organization even further, but the current organization seems good to me.
 * I think, both the section ("Reception and "Scholarship") are at appropriate places and in good shape. --Gazal world (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much starting this review. I will address all the issue very soon. Probably tonight. --Gazal world (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging. --Gazal world (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies for how long this review sat open. I did some research and editing myself to address my comments, and I now think this article is ready to be called a Good Article! Looking back at this conversation, I see that you posed questions about how to address my first and third comments... somehow I forgot that you might be waiting on me before editing further, and I was waiting on you to edit before looking at the review again. Sorry! Now, I'll figure out how to mark it officially as a Good Article :) Thanks for doing so much work on this interesting article, I really enjoyed poking through this research! ~ oulfis 🌸 (talk) 07:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. Thanks for your kind research work on article. It looks great now. --Gazal world (talk) 08:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)