Talk:Skinner's Room/GA1

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

Hi, I will be reviewing your article for GA. It is a wonderful little article, and I only have a few comments. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "the Bridge is overrun and squatted by the homeless" - the word "squatted" - does it not need "on" as in "squatted on"? I am not familiar with this particular use.
 * "The girl is interested in the history of the bridge town, and at the end of the story Skinner has a dream in which he remembers being at the front of the crowd who seized the bridge (Skinner is the first onto the bridge) and scaled the towers." - Is something being left out here? I get the idea that Skinner is relating the history of the bridge to the girl, but you never say that.
 * What is the function of the girl in the plot, if not the above?
 * 'despite calling Ming and Hodgetts's reaction to "Skinner's Room" a "powerful, but sad and not a little cynical, work".' - Since this was a short article, I could look up and find that Ming and Hodgetts were architects and thaty they "contribution to the exhibition ... that envisioned a San Francisco in which the rich live in high-tech, solar-powered towers, above the decrepit city and its crumbling bridge." - Is it possible to elaborate a little more on what this "contribution" was - a little mini-city structure?
 * You have a wikilink that needs dabbing, Salvage, but I get the idea you left it that way on purpose.
 * "Craig Hodgetts that envisioned a San Francisco in which the rich live in high-tech, solar-powered towers, above the decrepit city and its crumbling bridge." - This sentence, although reworded slightly, is a little too close to the NYTimes version, although that probably is a matter of opinion.
 * I notice that you don't wikilink in the lead, at first mention of word, but prefer to wikilink in the article body. I assume you have a reason for that, although from what I have observed, that is an unusual practice.
 * I wonder if devaluations is what happened, as that is plausible, and kind of possiblity right now in today's world.
 * I am assuming that you have added all possible material, as I also reviewed Agrippa (a book of the dead) which had somewhat more "meat".

That's all I could find for now. I may add some comments later. However, everything seems to check out! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Squatted: I'm not a native speaker of English, and what the phrase is trying to get across is that all of the bridge - the road, the towers, support structure - is squatted. "Squat on" would be in reference to this sort of thing, whereas squatting is occupying property that does not officially belong to you.
 * I understand the sense you are using the word "squat" here. Nonetheless, your use of squat derives from the first use you give of "squat". I have never seen squat used without a preposition in the way you have used it. I notice that the articles on squatting carefully avoid the problem by not using the word in a sentence the way you have. Perhaps asking at the Village Pump - language could clarify. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 16:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I lack the familiarity with the vernacular use of the term to make a definitive call, so I'll abide by the decision of the venerable WP:RDL. the skomorokh  17:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked at the language desk and this was the reply: "I'd try to rephrase the sentence to use either the agentive noun "squatter" or the verbal noun "squatting" rather than the verb "squat". In this particular meaning, the verb is really a back formation from those two nouns."  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 19:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, someone added this, saying essentially that the verb form of "squat" needs a preposition, and his preference would be to use "squatters". &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 19:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, the only versions of the term in the current article are "overrun by squatters" and "squatters' town" (x2). Do these uses seem appropriate? the skomorokh  19:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't originally add the sentence about the girl and the scaling of the tower, so don't know exactly what the author was getting at, but I have relocated the text to a more relevant sentence. I'm not sure it's correct to speak of the girl's role in the plot in a Gibson story...especially not one written for a museum exhibition. However, if context is needed, she is Chevette Washington of Virtual Light, and that article has some further information (also: quote).
 * Have you read the story? Is Skinner recounting the history to her in the story? Or is the girl just "there" with no particular role? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 16:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The story takes place in the present tense, with Skinner's flashback at the end, as I understand it. It was conceived as an urbanism think piece, and though the characters are developed somewhat, there really is not much plot to it. The source material is very difficult to get a hold of, but I will try sometime this weekend. the skomorokh  17:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added some coverage of Visionary San Francisco, and you can see an image from Ming and Hodgetts' exhibit here. Perhaps if you feel the article does not give enough context on this, the New York Times comment is enough to justify including this image under fair use? There is this reference, which could be worked in:
 * Then there is Gibson's afterword to Virtual Light, in which he states "This book owes a very special debt to Paolo Polledri, founding Curator of Architecture and Design, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. Mr. Polledri commissioned, for the 1990 exhibition Visionary San Francisco, a work of fiction which became the short story 'Skinner's Room,' and also arranged for me to collaborate with the architects Ming Fung and Craig Hodgetts, whose redrawn map of the city (though I redrew it once again) provided me with Skywalker Park, the Trap, and the Sunflower towers. (From another work commissioned for this exhibition, Richard Rodriguez's powerful 'Sodom: Reflections on a Stereotype,' I appropriated Yamazaki's borrowed Victorian and the sense of its melancholy.)"
 * I'm not sure how much of this is relevant, but it's here if needed.
 * Re the fair use. I am confused as that image (Craig Hodgetts, Hsin Ming Fung, Untitled, 1989) is "ink and electrostatic print on paper" and does it portray people living in gated communities, etc. as the museum exhibition does? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It does not show the towers, as you rightly point out, but it certainly portrays the squatted bridge squatter's bridge described in our article, and is from the Mind + Hodgetts contribution (cf. "Commissioned for the Exhibition: Visionary San Francisco"). Would this + critical commentary from the NYT of their contribution not justify FU use? the skomorokh  21:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that salvage lead to a dab page, and chose to leave it like that. It probably isn't worth linking though.
 * Reworded Hodgetts sentence.
 * There is a convention to use links sparingly in the lead section, as they encourage the reader to browse different articles rather than read further into the original one. I recall WP:FAC criticised the William Gibson article for overlinking in the lede, and I assumed the practice from then on.
 * I know the wikilinking issue has become confusing. However, my observation at WP:FAC is that the wikilinking comes at the first mention. That does not mean the an article lede might not be overlinked for other reasons (e.g. trivial links, or as Tony would say, "low value links"). &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 16:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've given the wikilinking another shot, feel free to correct. the skomorokh  17:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The immediate reason for the disorder was attributed in Virtual Light to earthquakes, if I recall correctly, though again I'm not sure how much of that ought to be included here.
 * Yes, there is little to say about Skinner's Room unfortunately, as it didn't get included in Burning Chrome and has not received much attention in the 90s and 2000s perhaps as a result. That said, short articles aren't always a bad thing, and I think this article covers the most important aspects of the work.
 * Thanks again for choosing to review the article. I'll try to respond to your comments swiftly (within a day or so), if possible. Regards, the skomorokh  13:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You have some time to respond completely. As long as I know you are working on it, then time is not a great issue. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 16:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You have some time to respond completely. As long as I know you are working on it, then time is not a great issue. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 16:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)
 * You have taken care of all my concerns. A great little article.

Congratuations! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 17:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):Very well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): The sources are reliable  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Sets the subject in context b (focused): Remains focused on article topic
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: A neutral presentation
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Fantastic, thanks again for your detailed and attentive review! the skomorokh  17:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)