Talk:Glamorama/GA1

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

Reviewer: Kaguya-chan (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Character names are in bold for some reason.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * There are two citation needed tags in Adaptions, which has several unsourced statements. Refs 12–15 only have urls, and Refs 1, 5–9, and 16 lack an accessdate. Ref 4 lacks a publisher. Ref 14 is also a blog and may not be a reliable source.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article has no plot section, which makes trying to understand it without having read the book first very difficult. The lead is also way too short.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * There are no images in the article.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

This is an interesting article with some very nifty analysis (lit. devices and style was especially fun to read). While it has greatly improved, I don't think it meets the GA criteria at this point. The article uses quite a bit of quotes, (more paraphrasing would be nice), parts of Adaptions are unsourced, some references are not properly formatted, the lead is way too short (WP: LEAD recommends two to three paragraphs), and it lacks a plot section. A picture of the cover would also be nice. Kaguya-chan (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is better than a number of literature 'good' articles, but okay. Were this an FAN, those points would have been taken care of. But, regardless, thanks for your time in editing and for the helpful peer review. If you'd informed me sooner before failing it, I could have amended the issues and passed the GA, too...~ZytheTalk to me! 16:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Wording edited 04:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)