Talk:Saturday (novel)

Untitled
I think the part that says "... when she does, she reveals she is pregnant" should be changed to "... when she does, Perowne notices she is pregnant."

The word "revealed" kind of implies that she mentions that she's pregnant or something, when in fact perowne deduces that she's pregnant by noticing the "bulge"

yeah some of the language in this book is lank high tech —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.247.44.202 (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Nomiation
I've re-written most of this article, and fleshed it out to GA status. Ktlynch (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We are still waiting for a review, though in the mean time the comments from a peer review have been addressed, and the article has generally improved. --Ktlynch (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Class
This is no more than a C article for several reasons: 1. The prose it not very good, consider having an editor with good style editing clean it up. 2. You included some original research, all assertions outside of the plot, which should be verifiable 3.Article does not cover most everything about the subject: No publication history (who printed it, when, how many pages, how many editions, etc.) or Characters section

Hope this helps, Sadads (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the help, I'll address the problems you mentioned, here and in the article.


 * 1. The prose could be better, indeed will be, but it is FA status that demands excellent prose. Clear and error free prose meets the criterion at GA level. Putting good, cited information up is more important at the moment than brilliant prose.


 * 2.A missing citation doesn't neccessarily mean Original Research, if you read any of the sources, or the subject, you'd see straight way that it's not OR.


 * 3. There is no publication section because there isn't anything interesting to relate. Perhaps one or two lines about his intentions and research if that material becomes avaliable. haracters are introduced in the plot summary - there's only really one anyway, and unless there are complications, therefore a section isn't neccessary.


 * I must say I think C-class is a little harsh. The article is balanced and comprehensive, it is well cited with the best sources that could be avaliable for a contempory novel. A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man and Life of Pi are C-class articles, they are bitty, not comprehensive, and inaccurate. A Clockwork Orange is B-class and it includes a long, unneccessary list of minor characters (the plot of a short novel is covered in considerable detail), and again unneccessary list of eveyr edition published without explaining why that's important.


 * I'll get back to work, but would appreciate a second look soon. Thank you Ktlynch (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally, I assume original research in Novel articles, because that is what it is most of the time. Verifiability is very important. Remember, readers can't read your mind and know exactly where the information is.


 * The things that I thought were omitted are what I like to find when I read an article about new fiction (especially the publication information). They are important to some people but not to others.


 * Sorry if I seem harsh, but I feel that preserving quality is one of the first roles of any Wikipedia editor. I hope to be constructive not aggressive, note I leave suggestions on how to deal with each problem I noticed. Also, check out the B requirements at WikiProject_Novels/Assessment I think this article failed 1, 2, and 4. Will gladly reassess, just give me a ping on my talk page.


 * Sadads (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * On the style point, I think what bothers me most is the way that the plot summary is approached. Instead of characterizing it as part of the book, you tell the story. This is an encylopedia, not a review. You don't need to be coercing the reader into following the tale. Tell it as it is. Sadads (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up what was bothering me and rerated, still consider cleaning up the themes section, still doesn't read very well. Sadads (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't doubting your sincerity, but you did just admit you rather dismissed mine. As I explained above, I really don't think a character section is appropiate here 1) It is a short novel with a small cast of characters 2) It is told largely from the point of view of the protaganist, so he is really the only character worth discussing, in that sense he is the book. 3) The plot summary is a synopsis of the plot, I don't like them either (have a look at earlier versions of this article, they practically are the text) but how can one not tell the plot in a plot synopsis? I'm not trying to write a short story, but don't complain about the prose being not engaging enough on one hand, and on the other being too engaging. See here for characters/plot WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines


 * The article is definitely not told from an in universe perspective, which is the commonest and crudest form of problem with novel articles.


 * Re B criteria


 * 1) Referencing There's at at least 30-40 references in the article. I agree that themes is a little scant, but I've already but several more in. There are six solid main sources used, all are reliable. The critical and literary sections, usually most prone to OR are heavily cited. If you check sources, as you should have in a GA review you'll see that the article matches them.


 * 2) Coverage As already stated twice, novel articles need not, indeed shouldn't, contain character lists unless it is neccessary. If that is your preference that's fine, I personally think it's inane unless it's LOTR or A la recherche du temps perdu. All the characters were clearly introduced in the plot summary. Perhaps a paragraph on the novel's backgrounds, but that is not a massive default. So the article had a lead, info box, synopsis, major themes, literary genre/analysis, critical reception, influence. That is comprehensive, Pass.


 * 4) Writing: Again, the prose is not brilliant, but it is satisfactory. It is clear and does not contain major grammatical errors. Pass


 * I appreciate you taking the time to review and respond, and sorry if I sound too combative here, but I'm ready to get very specific with fixes that need to be made. Ktlynch (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your point on characters: the descriptions that were included in your original were excessively long. Perhaps a Section titled "Henry Perowne" because he appears to be the one which critics are focusing on. Characterization thought, in relation to this book, appears to be very important and should be looked at in it's own section.


 * The prose, was not and still is not very clear. It is alright, and as you can see I have been making small changes, but I consistently get hung up in the language and style, sorry but no you don't win that point. Besides, especially in the Plot and the Themes sections, it often feels like their is considerable amounts of supportive information left on the wayside.


 * Sadads (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, character sections are unneccessary, since he is the protaganist the themes are focalised through him. It's a limited point of view novel, if you have a section on him it'll duplicate everything else. What the reviewers discuss goes into the reception section. It's not Dickens here. Alright is sufficient to be a GA. The plot summary, I think, is fine now. It hits all the main events without going into too much detail. I agree more needs to go into themes, but that is the most difficult section to write neutrally.  Ktlynch (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Haven't read the book, will try to help on the themes. Sadads (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I don't mean to be pushing you on that too much (I'm sure you'd enjoy it by the way). Working from reviews is hard since they are blending all the elements we are trying to keep apart. Theme is inextricably mixed with plot and characters. it's hard to draw substance, without overquoting on one hand or drifting into OR on the other.

On the prose, or course you are welcome to make fixes, but the article was extensively copy-edited recently. Alas, "I don't like it" simply isn't enough when we've gotten this far down the page.

In any case I'm going off to think about it. Thanks for taking the time to work on this page, and your patience to stay around. It is appreciated. Ktlynch (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, always like to help. Need to study for a test, so I to am going to take a break. Sadads (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Saturday (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110616123054/http://www.publishersweekly.com/index.asp?layout=pwkprofileTitle&iMarketID=2&iReleaseID=368121&view=iReleaseID&text=368121&vchProductTitle=Saturday&iContributorID=66502&q=Saturday+Ian+McEwan to http://www.publishersweekly.com/index.asp?layout=pwkprofileTitle&iMarketID=2&iReleaseID=368121&view=iReleaseID&text=368121&vchProductTitle=Saturday&iContributorID=66502&q=Saturday+Ian+McEwan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Saturday (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927215752/http://www.crowdedhouse.com/ms/imagerepository/labelnewsimagespublic/1691811-2 to http://www.crowdedhouse.com/ms/imagerepository/labelnewsimagespublic/1691811-2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Saturday (novel). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100126043629/http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20050228_95688_95688 to http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/article.jsp?content=20050228_95688_95688
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927024752/http://www.ed.ac.uk/about/people/tait-black/fiction to http://www.ed.ac.uk/about/people/tait-black/fiction
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512200755/http://www.themanbookerprize.com/prize/archive/38 to http://www.themanbookerprize.com/prize/archive/38

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)