Talk:Give Me Your Hand (novel)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Rhain (talk · contribs) 00:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this one! Looks like a fascinating read—expect some comments shortly. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 00:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

 * In the infobox, I think Thriller novel should be piped as Thriller
 * Link thriller novel in the opening sentence
 * The novel was generally well-received...—it might throw off the paragraph sizes, but I think this sentence would fit better alongside It was praised by... in the second paragraph
 * All done! Sammielh (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Plot

 * The flashback sequences should probably be written in the narrative present per MOS:PLOT, especially as they're mostly chronological anyway
 * Link STEM
 * her father, Alex and Serge → Alex, Serge, and her father
 * Consider removing some uses of the word that where it is not entirely necessary, e.g.:
 * Diane told Kit that she had killed her father → Diane told Kit she had killed her father
 * Diane tells Kit that she has been chosen → Diane tells Kit she has been chosen
 * no one knows that Alex is dead → no one knows Alex is dead
 * All done! Sammielh (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Background and publication

 * The image looks great but its size and placement looks awkward alongside the text; consider replacing with a more recent image of Abbott, like File:Meganeabbott 2381.JPG or File:Megan abbott 9290511.jpg (both of which should be right-aligned per MOS:PORTRAIT)
 * I will admit to still being on the old Wikipedia skin so I can't always tell if there's an issue. Swapped! Sammielh (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * She interviewed female scientists → Abbott interviewed female scientists
 * Ph.D → PhD per MOS:COMMONABBR, and consider linking
 * Claudius' soliloquy → Claudius's soliloquy per MOS:'S
 * It was optioned → The novel was optioned, to avoid confusion with the audiobook
 * All done! Sammielh (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Themes

 * Consider removing the subheadings from this section, since there are only four paragraphs total and each section introduces its topic nicely without the heading
 * Link Prince Hamlet instead of Hamlet
 * Consider adding a year for Wuthering Heights—e.g., Wuthering Heights (1847)
 * It is full of references → It has several references or It makes several references
 * The mentions of Carrie, Borden, and Casablanca could probably be combined with the sentence listing the other references—e.g., novels Wuthering Heights (1847) and Carrie (1974), films Casablanca (1947) and Hands on a Hard Body (1997), singer Juice Newton, and murder suspect Lizzie Borden or something similar
 * In a 2018 interview with The Sewanee Review, she said that Give Me Your Hand and her 2016 novel → Give Me Your Hand and Abbott's 2016 novel
 * All done! Sammielh (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Blood as a metaphor
 * The sentence about Trump could probably be combined with the following one, and perhaps elaborated upon with footnotes—e.g., Abbott took remarks Donald Trump made about Megyn Kelly having "blood coming out of her wherever" and Hillary Clinton using the restroom as a "metaphor for demonizing women"


 * Done! Sammielh (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Insular setting
 * Consider removing in an interview with Crime Reads
 * rather than is used twice in close proximity—consider rephrasing
 * describes it → describes the novel
 * it could be replaced—since this seems like more of an opinion, consider rephrasing to avoid Wikivoice
 * All done! Sammielh (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Class dynamics
 * There is also a focus on class in the novel.—consider rephrasing to active voice; e.g. The novel [also] emphasizes class.
 * while Kit is used twice in close proximity—consider rephrasing
 * This class focus... → The novel's focus on class affects how Kit views Diane, believing that she has had an easier life because she was raised with money.
 * All done! Sammielh (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Kit's restaurant job seems relevant to the class dynamics, but its mention here seems incongruous with the surrounding sentences
 * I've moved it although I'm not sure it's better. The idea previously was that it fits into how Kit views Diane Sammielh (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In that case, I agree with its previous placement. I've rephrased, but please feel free to revert as you see fit. ☔


 * affluent Alex → the affluent Alex
 * which is considered a social signifier—clarify what exactly this is meant to signify (i.e., per Abbott, "kind of a trashy drink")
 * Both done! Sammielh (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Reception

 * The Observer, Cosmopolitan, Refinery29, Marie Claire, and the Financial Times → Cosmopolitan, Financial Times, Marie Claire, The Observer, and Refinery29
 * Is there a reason for this? Sammielh (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The previous order seemed random; I've reordered alphabetically. If there was a specific reason for this order, feel free to revert. ☔


 * one of her biggest → one of [Abbott's] biggest
 * the narrator Cannon's performance portraying the varying characters and emotions in the novel. → Cannon's performance portraying the varying characters and emotions.
 * praised the haunting nature of the book → the novel's haunting nature
 * Ruth Ware in The New York Times...—consider rephrasing this sentence for concision; e.g., something like The New York Times's Ruth Ware compared the focus on female friendship and competition to Abbott's Dare Me and You Will Know Me, despite its departure from teenage athletics
 * the character's teenage → the characters' teenage (I think)
 * The A.V. Club gave the novel a B+, commending its → The A.V. Club commended the novel's, and but arguing that → but argued
 * a conscious choice on the part of Abbott → a conscious choice by Abbott
 * With only three nominations, I think the awards might be better suited in prose, perhaps even in the section's first paragraph—but I'll leave this to you
 * All done! Sammielh (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Result
What a great read! This is in fantastic shape—the Themes section is especially impressive. Most of my comments are nitpicky so you're welcome to disagree with any of them—and anything written like this is purely a personal suggestion that can be safely ignored without impacting the review. I'll put it on hold while my comments are addressed, but I expect this to have its green plus in no time! – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 04:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I really appreciate your review! Comments above. Sammielh (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing everything! I've responded twice above and will do some minor edits on my way out, but I'm very happy with this article; it is certainly worthy of GA. Congratulations, this is yours: ! –  Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 00:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)