Talk:Sharon Kay Penman/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sadads (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Hi, I generally do work with WP:Novels and Novels/Military fiction task force. I hope I can help you in this review. My primary research outside of Wikipedia, involves History, Literature and Historical fiction. This is my first review, so please call on someone else to consult if you fell it is necessary. It may take me a couple of days to finish the review.

Bellow is My checklist and at the bottom I will comment on what should change. This is a work in progress, I will check off all of the major criteria

✅Well-written:
 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]

Factually accurate and verifiable:
 * ✅(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
 * ✅(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and
 * ✅(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:
 * {(done}}(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and - (This article approaches everything available in good sources)
 * ✅(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). - (Would suggest focusing to book pages, but fine as of now)

✅Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

✅ Illustrated, if possible, by images:[5]
 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]
 * Removed images. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

✅ Great review

Content
Generally, I think the series should be separate pages or cut down a little here. You cannot adequately examine everything about the books within the scope of the author's article and the depth of the coverage right now appears to be too much. I think it should be split, or at reduced and refocused into another main page. See Patrick O'Brian, for detail. Also is their anymore biographical information or trend identifying information in any of the major reviews? Sadads (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think eventually each book will have its own article. When I came to this article as a brand new editor last summer it was a stub and I had no idea how to structure it. As it stands now it's a bit of everything, but I hesitate to delete material that will get moved into other articles with time.
 * Adding to above: I've removed quite a lot of material and will create separate pages for each book and/or series, but that could take some time. Shall I redlink the books for now, or wait until each has its own page to link? Let me know if you think more should be cut. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Redlinking is a really good thing, sometimes it encourages the addition of more information by other authors when they realize just how many articles are missing. Also, do a thorough search or google search to make sure that no-one else has made one of the pages yet. And don't be afraid of deleting information; you can always get the removed text from a copy found under the history tab. Also, don't be afraid of copy pasting to a new stub, as long as the section identifies author and title. Sadads (talk)
 * Done Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the major reviews. Only this but I don't know whether it would be considered reliable: Q & A with Historical Fiction Author Sharon Kay Penman. I'm pretty busy today, but think maybe I can reorganize a little more to eke a bit more from the few sources about the author. Most of the sources available are about the books. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally, though I do not speak for all Wikipedians, find interviews sanctioned by the Authors website to be legitimate, such as those found at http://www.sharonkaypenman.com/pressroom.htm. We would have to qualify that in the footnote though, pointing to both sites as the source. See Sources for information about that judgement call, Sadads (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Very nice! That page has been updated since I last visited it. Some of interviews are in publications you questioned above: specifically the formerly numbered refs # 20 & 22, and the information about the castles was found on that page as well: all of which I removed yesterday. I can add notes to qualify the interviews exist in both places if you think that's fine and then develop the article using the material. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I questioned the publications because the book reviews are not done by academics or reputable critics. However, the thing with sanctioned interviews is that the interviewer does not really do the research, rather they transcribe the author's opinion. Sadads (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One dead link Q & A with Historical Fiction Author Sharon Kay Penman here and two that I had in the article last summer but apparently the site has been reported as spam, so can't use them as I get an error message. Those are the Loaded Question interviews. Added from one other interview and can't seem to add anymore without venturing back into plot outlines. Nothing else new left. Also have reorganized completely! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Finally, my last complaint on the sources is the Ann Arbor site. The author of the page doesn't have any qualifications which suggest we should trust her. If she were published in a magazine or a newspaper, it would be easier to verify this. Is that author particularly reputable in some other realm? Sadads (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed the source. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Images
The images do not all appear to be very relevant to the author herself. Instead of including these, you should include book covers, which are directly relevant to the topic.
 * Are they allowed? Wasn't sure.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Only if you are directly addressing the text or the immediate information related to the text, i.e. author page and book page. Check out the style guide at WikiProject_Novels/Style_guidelines. When you load the image, make sure you select Fair Use:Book Cover. Sadads (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, you could contact her published and ask if they would release one of her pictures under Creative commons or public domain. Sadads (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Asked for a photo on her web page, will see what the response is. Sadads (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fantastic! This has been an extremely helpful review...I'd planned to e-mail her publisher, but will wait to see what you get. Also see my comment above about sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Finishing touches
I think this review has been productive so far, we are almost at a pass, to finish we need to ensure the following things:
 * 1) A few good and relevant illustrations, I suggest the author's picture and fair use of book covers
 * Done Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Addressing the problem of the Ann Arbor site
 * Replaced with better sources, as much as possible. Added clarification that the information is from a phone interview with Penman and added note to citation template that links to Penman's press room. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Replaced even more. Only cited once and I'm happy to lose that reference. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The AnnArbor source is gone – see comment above. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool Good job, great review if you have any other questions, feel free to contact me Sadads (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)