Talk:Regeneration (novel)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Maclean25 (talk · contribs) 19:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Maclean! Glad to see that you picked up this review. I am pretty busy through the 6/7th, so won't be able to respond to review comments before then. Also, can I ask what the question marks are for in #1? Specific feedback would be great! Sadads (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Sadads. I'm having less time than I expected for reviewing so there may be some awkward pauses. I placed the question marks as a placeholder until I can complete and articulate a more comprehensive comment. Specifically what I noticed is that some of the language looks defensive (e.g. there are 11 uses of the word "very", the first thing the opening sentence says is prize-winning (I see that is a remnant from when the article was a stub), and the film also received considerable success and awards). maclean (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries on the timing: as I said fairly busy for the next few days. As for the language: many of the instances of "very" are in quotes; part of this might be because many of the arguments about the novel are about writing it into a male dominated tradition, so they have to demonstrate how this novel is "more" successful than most. Looking forward to working with you :) Sadads (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2014 (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):
 * 8 images used: File:PatBarker Regeneration.jpg = image of cover, valid fair use rationale; plus 7 Commmons-hosted images with pubic domain tags.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Comments
 * "Barker had long appreciated the literary figures she draws inspiration from in the novel..." - sentence turns awkward after "figures". is this a tense shift (draws?), Barker is the subject so it should be 'for the novel' (she was not in the novel). Restructure/reword the sentence or make these fixes.
 * Why no use of contemporary reviews like NYT?
 * I chose to focus mostly on the academic materials because: a) I was doing academic research when writing the article, so was reading those works anyone, b) the Westman book surveys the reviews in depth, and her claims about the reception are sufficient to not need to work with contemporary reviews (I would be doing more OR-ish work, when academic meta-claims already cover that information) and c) its only GA review; if I were moving towards FA I would definitely do a more detailed review of contemporary reception. Eventually, I plan to go back in survey the contemporary reviews, but the legacy of the novel is more couched in its academic significance alongside the surprisingly high sales because of the contemporary reception of the later novels, Sadads (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "..."best novels of 1991", according to the New York Times.[1]" - better to be more direct. NYT placed it on their Best Books of 1992 list:
 * The article would benefit with expansions on several topics: the book's publication details, background of novel's role with Barker's career, and the film adaption.
 * Publication details: there are some details in the infobox but per Manual of Style/Infoboxes, the infobox is there to "summarize key facts that appear in the article", write in prose who published it, where, release dates, etc.
 * Background: the lead mentions it is part of a trilogy but the body does expand on this (the lead should just be a summary of the body) - was it not intended to be a trilogy?, this is also the place for who wrote the novel (she had previously written 4 other novels, dealt with subject matter of ... etc.) - the 'label' quote in there is good but should have this descriptive context of who she was when creating the novel.
 * Film adaption: what is mentioned here is vague. It should be direct: it was a British-Canadian co-production filmed at Craiglockhart Hospital, released 6 years after the book's publication, adapted by Allan Scott and Gillies MacKinnon, nominated for several Canadian Genie Awards and British Independent Film Awards, etc.
 * Should be able to do these fixes no problem. Will need a week or two to get it done though :P Other ones are a bit simpler, will definitely follow through Sunday/Monday. Been traveling a lot lately, Sadads (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "..."best novels of 1991", according to the New York Times.[1]" - better to be more direct. NYT placed it on their Best Books of 1992 list:
 * The article would benefit with expansions on several topics: the book's publication details, background of novel's role with Barker's career, and the film adaption.
 * Publication details: there are some details in the infobox but per Manual of Style/Infoboxes, the infobox is there to "summarize key facts that appear in the article", write in prose who published it, where, release dates, etc.
 * Background: the lead mentions it is part of a trilogy but the body does expand on this (the lead should just be a summary of the body) - was it not intended to be a trilogy?, this is also the place for who wrote the novel (she had previously written 4 other novels, dealt with subject matter of ... etc.) - the 'label' quote in there is good but should have this descriptive context of who she was when creating the novel.
 * Film adaption: what is mentioned here is vague. It should be direct: it was a British-Canadian co-production filmed at Craiglockhart Hospital, released 6 years after the book's publication, adapted by Allan Scott and Gillies MacKinnon, nominated for several Canadian Genie Awards and British Independent Film Awards, etc.
 * Should be able to do these fixes no problem. Will need a week or two to get it done though :P Other ones are a bit simpler, will definitely follow through Sunday/Monday. Been traveling a lot lately, Sadads (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As this review and the associated article have been inactive for a month, I am procedurally failing the article. Feel free to renominate it at a later date, ideally once you believe all the issues raised in this nomination have been addressed. --erachima talk 20:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Many apologies for being silent on this, been way to busy in the last 8 months with WP:TWL and another job, going to make these changes and renominate soonish. Thanks!Sadads (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)