Talk:Final Blackout/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sadads (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC) A little about myself: I am an English and History undergrad, with all kinds of crazy interests. I rather enjoy Science fiction and literary criticism and I am active in WikiProject Novels. Through this review, I hope to help in as many ways as possible. I do have a real life, and the initial review may take up to a week, I will make comments below in sections for you to respond to and a checklist of the GA nomination requirements, which I and only I will check off. I tend to do my reviews very thoroughly because I see GA as a stepping stone to FA, so this review will be a combination of a peer review and a GA review: I will examine every line and (likely) request many changes. If I am for some reason neglecting this review contact me on my talk page or if I am not reviewing this article properly, feel free to request a new reviewer, Sadads (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality: ✅
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: ✅
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources: ✅
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: ✅
 * C. No original research:✅
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects: ✅
 * B. Focused:✅
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias: ✅
 * 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: ✅
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: ✅
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: ✅
 * 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: ✅
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: ✅
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: ✅
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: ✅
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: ✅
 * Pass or Fail: ✅

Coverage of Major Aspects and Even coverage

 * A brief look at the article shows me that you are not covering any of the major literary elements expected to be discussed in Literature and fiction articles. See the themes, style, tone and similar sections of the following GAs and FAs for examples: Quicksilver (novel), The Tale of The Flopsy Bunnies, The Open Boat, and To Kill a Mockingbird. These sections should only be left out if the reviews and scholarship doesn't deal with them at all (which I highly doubt). This also helps repair the imbalance between plot (which is >1/2 of the written text) and the other real world stuff. Generally, I recommend plot being at least 1/3 (preferably less) of the article. Also, there is no way that a 150 pages could need as much plot summary as the extremely complicated and thematically intricate 300+ pages of To Kill a Mockingbird. I know it will be hard (you wouldn't believe how much I had to trim out of Quicksilver (novel)) but remember Summary Style, we aren't cliffnotes, but a jumping off point for people to do research (encyclopedia), Sadads (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Response: Thank you for these helpful suggestions. :) I will work to add in some information as you have recommended, as well as trimming down the Plot subsection. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: In response to GA Reviewer comments, above, I have worked to trim the plot a bit. I am in the midst of research, in order to attempt to respond to other GA Reviewer comments. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Very cool, will be reviewing the rest of the text more thoroughly this evening. Sorry, life has been pretty busy the last couple days (and I have been working on some pet projects).Sadads (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, life is similarly busy with me, might take me some time to do the research associated with above suggestions. :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will take a look at some of the newspaper reviews and see if I can begin synthesizing some of the stuff, after I take a thorough look at the rest of the stuff, Sadads (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a very kind offer of you, Sadads, thank you very much! :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I found a bibliography that might be useful http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?1956
 * I am actually not finding anything, have you had any luck? Sadads (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not much, well, not yet. However, if it is as you found, then perhaps I have done my best to satisfy WP:WIAGA, by including a preponderance of coverage from WP:RS secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, Sadads (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Images

 * Just to check: is there anything else we could represent in the article? I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Any artwork related to the book by chance? (Probably not) Anything that we could find to represent plot elements or something important to themes and symbolism? This point isn't too important (and doesn't need to be addressed to pass the review), just something we should think about as we improve the article. Sadads (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an image of the author? -- Cirt (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is debatable if that really improves the articles about books. Sometimes it is great if the book brings the author to public attention and/or the book is effected by events in the author's life and we can get a picture from that period. At other times it just clutters the page, for example, I am not so sure the mug shot of Neal Stephenson in The Baroque Cycle is really helpful, and it's inclusion led to some interesting argument (See the discussion), Sadads (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will defer to your judgment about that. :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Does Hubbard develop a new geo-political map for the alternative universe in the book, or is it essentially the same as it was in Post WWII-Europe? We could request a map, if it is significantly different. Sadads (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure I recall one in the copy I had, but could be something to consider at a later point in time. -- Cirt (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Plot

 * "The Lieutenant leads the Fourth Brigade, which is composed of one hundred and sixty-eight soldiers from multiple nations." makes me ask why multiple nations? I think I am looking for a little more geo-political background, methinks. (Are their two alliances that fought the war? etc. etc.) Maybe, if Hubbard didn't cover this, we can find some critic who comments on the effect of this lack of geopolitical awareness for the reader. Sadads (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "G.H.Q." is this ever explained in the book? Leaves the reader guessing. "General Headquarters", maybe? Sadads (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strike that, wasn't reading as thoroughly (the abbreviation wasn't explained anywhere), Sadads (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "expanded Fourth Brigade"? When did they expand? Sadads (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph in the Plot section covers alot less events in a lot long period of time. Is this correspondent with the relative weight in the text?Sadads (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I had done some trimming, in order to respond to your suggestions to cut down the Plot subsection. Will try to copyedit that a bit more. -- Cirt (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: Okay, have trimmed down the size of the last paragraph in the Plot subsection, a bit more . -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)