Talk:Hadriana in All My Dreams/GA1

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

Nominator: 00:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Averageuntitleduser (talk · contribs) 01:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Howdy, Jaguarnik! From a glance at the plot, I couldn't resist this. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for taking this review on so promptly! Jaguarnik (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Well-written

 * style of writing — in both instances, "writing style" would be more conventional.
 * Done.


 * the French literary establishment — for a split-second, I thought this was in reference to Gallimard, consider workshopping it.
 * To be honest, I got this phrasing from Dayan and Glover, who describe the reception as "received enthusiastically by the French literary establishment, but criticized by scholars"; I was originally going to change it to "received enthusiastically in France", but the fact that it also received an award from the Belgian Académie royale complicates that. Could something like "received enthusiastically by Francophone audiences" work?
 * I like that! And yes, this issue does not go further than the lead.


 * would go on to live for brief periods — "then briefly lived"
 * Done.


 * Update: I missed that. This time, it's actually fixed.
 * childhood memories of vodou — perhaps give the full "Haitian Vodou".
 * Done.
 * To me, the phrasing appearance of and apparition imply that this is a supernatural or unusual event. If this was not your intention, how about: "In January 1938, a dead woman is driven to her funeral; the locals call this phenomenon..."
 * Done.


 * at the hands of — as an idiom, this should be replaced with something more direct, e.g. "was killed by", though that may be too certain.
 * The exact phrasing from the book is "She then declared loudly that Hadriana had not died of natural causes. And it certainly would not take Sherlock Holmes’s talents to find the trail that would lead straight to the evildoer. This whole affair had Balthazar Granchiré’s signature on it!" So Losange doesn't directly state that Granchiré killed Hadriana, but that's the implication. I changed it to "Hadriana's death was caused by Balthazar Granchiré."
 * I figured that would be the case. For your consideration, I'd thought of, "Balthazar Granchiré was involved in Hadriana's death", but whether it's an improvement is a toss-up. Either way, this change works well!


 * 30 years have passed — reformulate this so "30" does not begin the sentence.
 * Done.


 * "death" — "disappearance" already modifies this word, so the quotation marks are likely not needed.
 * Done.


 * a theme that — this can be excised.
 * Done.


 * and several other awards — it would be worth noting these awards if the sources do too.
 * Found and added.

Verifiable with no original research
Not seeing any red flags; lots of established journals, professors, writers, and publishers. Formatting looks good. Earwig score is low, and I found no close paraphrasing during the spot-check.
 * I imagine a paragraph split caused this, but the sentence: "Likewise, his second novel..." needs a source.
 * The issue is both sources assume the reader knows that Hadriana was the second novel, so they don't outright state "Hadriana was the second novel." I'll look for a source that outright states it, but if one can't be found, I'll simply remove the part about how it is his second novel. Jaguarnik (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Good news : I looked at a source and noticed some details that I had missed earlier about the creation of the novel. I inserted those into the background and removed the part about his first and second novels. If you could please reexamine that, that would be great. Jaguarnik (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Both a nice addition and compromise! This wasn't necessary, but I also cobbled together the publication info with Poinsot. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Spot-check

 * Looks good
 * Looks good
 * Looks good
 * I'm beginning to gleam both sides of the reception, heh, looks good
 * Looks good
 * Faithful translation, but perhaps say, "An initial review", as "contemporary" is a bit of a contronym.
 * Fixed. - J
 * Looks good
 * Looks good
 * Faithful translation, but perhaps say, "An initial review", as "contemporary" is a bit of a contronym.
 * Fixed. - J
 * Looks good
 * Fixed. - J
 * Looks good
 * Looks good

Broad in its coverage
The range of sources, both in language and timescale, is commendable. I don't sense any missing sections or details and note that the background around Depestre helps inform the later analysis. After searching in French and English through TWL and Google Scholar, I feel the article is sufficiently broad. I've also checked the unused results, the most detailed of which is a master's thesis and a peculiar article–digital project; both are fun but not very citable.

Stable
No recent content disputes or edit wars.

Illustrated
The cover has a proper fair use rationale. The Jacmel view is an own-work and seems fairly representative of the setting.

Summary
The "zombie-writer" bit and how much Depestre's intentions differed from public perception were quite interesting. A very accessible read overall! Beginning with some prose comments. I've made a few minor tweaks myself; feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! I've addressed most of the issues, I've left a comment above about one of them.Jaguarnik (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Great work here! Alright, two more comments, and the one in the spot-chek is a nit-pick. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that's all I've got. Congrats for a well-deserved first GA! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)