Talk:Marching Men/GA1

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

Reviewer: Maclean25 (talk · contribs) 05:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Good article review (see What is a good article? for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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):
 * Two images used (both hosted on the Commons): File:Marching Men Cover.jpg tagged as cc-by-sa and File:Marching Men Advertisement.jpg tagged as public domain.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Comments/Questions
 * In the lead, can "Today, Marching Men is largely forgotten..." be re-phrased. It seems to be close to Manual of Style/Words to watch. The lead should only be summarizing what is already in the article, is this sentence a summary of something more thoroughly covered in the article?
 * Agreed, the "Today" was not good form. See what you think of the adjustment I made. I believe that the sentence refers to the latter part of the "Literary significance and criticism" section. --Olegkagan (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Comments/Questions
 * In the lead, can "Today, Marching Men is largely forgotten..." be re-phrased. It seems to be close to Manual of Style/Words to watch. The lead should only be summarizing what is already in the article, is this sentence a summary of something more thoroughly covered in the article?
 * Agreed, the "Today" was not good form. See what you think of the adjustment I made. I believe that the sentence refers to the latter part of the "Literary significance and criticism" section. --Olegkagan (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the "Today" was not good form. See what you think of the adjustment I made. I believe that the sentence refers to the latter part of the "Literary significance and criticism" section. --Olegkagan (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Great Man theory would be a good wikilink for "Emersonian Great Man"
 * Done.--Olegkagan (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you add a quote from the novel? Nothing quite communicates the novel's style like a quote directly from the text.
 * There is a quote under Themes: Order versus disorder section. I can certainly pull another quote from the book, but where do you think in the article it could go?--Olegkagan (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought that was a quote from Anderson talking about the novel. I didn't realize that was a quote from the novel. maclean (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Is the novel written in first-person or third-person? maclean (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's in third-person. --Olegkagan (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This article covers all the major aspects and is competently written. Perhaps the fact that it is written in the third-person should be included into the article as it describes part of the writing style. Otherwise, it meets the GA criteria and I am comfortable with passing it. maclean (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to read and review the article! I'll see about sticking more about the writing style into the article in the future.--Olegkagan (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)