Talk:Interview with the Vampire/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, I'll jot queries below and copyedit as I go (revert me if I accidentally change the meaning) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Initial impressions are that it's a bit spartan. A book such as this in a genre such as this should have spawned some more discussion somewhere that can be added to this - although it could be tricky deciding what should be here and what should be at The Vampire Chronicles (and that needs cleanup!).


 * There are a lot of sources, as you guessed, but not many of them reliable or of high quality. I had a hell of a time finding sources for criticism and commentary at Anne Rice last year. I will dig up some of those, though, and see what I can find that's directly prurient to this book. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 00:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The lead is short. I read her biography many years ago and the sequence of her depression after her daughter's death and projecting emotions into writing this book was pretty detailed. I think that needs to be expanded upon in the body of the text and mentioned in the lead.


 * I agree. Will do some work on that as well. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 00:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Added some more detail in that regard, but it will need more work. I will smooth out the prose more tomorrow (haven't slept in a while, so there's probably a few awkward spots!) and get around to adding more material in the next few days. There is a specific quote from Rice on this subject that I recall but cannot find. If I can track that down, I think it will be a big help. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 04:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I am sure I recall her writing retrospectively that she got bored of writing from Louis POV and switched to Lestat as she found him more interesting - if we can find that and work it in somehow.


 * Yes, I vaguely recall that statement as well. I'm not sure that would terribly relevant to this article, though, since the first time she wrote from Lestat's point-of-view would have been in The Vampire Lestat (another article I would like to improve when I can find the time.. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 00:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Gotta run now but will see what I've got and ask around.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Casliber! Thanks for starting this page; I've just now happened across it, in fact. Give me a few days and I'll see what I can do about the issues you raised above. Look forward to the rest of your comments! Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 04:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Should have time to dig into the sources Sunday night, west-coast time. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 00:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, where was I.....a bit of rejigging and reads better now. Forgot about this one. If possible, needs some more discussion on criticism/impact and the lead needs to be a bit larger, but reads ok and on target for GA. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Casliber asked me to look around for some sources on this novel - there are loads of excellent scholarly sources which should be used here. See Google Scholar for starters. Try also searching the MLA database and JSTOR - I found over 50 in a search for the title of the novel alone. The article really should have sections on the themes of the novel and the genre of the novel (at bare minimum). You can get this information both from works by literary scholars and from book reviews. You can find book reviews in LexisNexis and there will be hundreds since it was such a popular novel. I hope this helps! Wadewitz (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - (I shoulda realised some of this myself but all eyes are good :) ) thanks for dropping in. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: - look, I think  this has good foundations and I am sorry to do this, but this has been fallow for a while. Wadewitz points out above and I agree that it really needs a much more detailed out-of-universe treatment (critique/genre etc.) - this will take some time of reading and reviewing sources so rather than leave this on hold, I am just closing this now for the time being. After some buffing, I'd be happy to re-review. I might even have a look myself for some sources and collaborate. Can't now as too much other stuff on my plate. Anyway, give me a yell when you want to work on it, cheers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)