Talk:Strange Fruit (novel)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 15:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Once complete, I'll be claiming this review for points in the 2019 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * I have made some copyedits. Please review for accuracy and revise as you see fit.
 * Was the book published as "Jordan is so Chilly", or was that a working title? If the former, when was the change made?
 * The revised play in Boston is mentioned twice, one in 'Bannings' and once in 'Adaptations'. I think once in the second section is sufficient.
 * Boston and Detroit are linked, but not Montreal or New York. If you're going to link some cities, you should link them all.
 * I think it would be beneficial to add dates to some of the commentary in 'Themes'. All the of the citations are from 2001 or later. Is there no commentary prior to that?
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Sources 31 and 32 are bare titles. The templates need to be filled out in more detail.
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * no concern
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * no concern
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * no concern per Earwig results
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * There's not much detail on the book's publication. The infobox says January without a source, but the body never specifies a month.
 * The inbox image is labeled "first edition" - how many editions have there been? Are they all from Reynal and Hitchcock, who is only mentioned in the infobox?
 * There's a comic book called "Strange Fruit", but I'm not sure if it's related to this novel. Might be worth investigating some.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * no concern
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * no concern
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * no concern
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail: