Talk:The Bone People/GA1

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

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 23:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria I'll be reviewing this article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * The prose reads very well in most cases, and there are only a few minor things I'd like to look at more closely:
 * On a gloomy and stormy afternoon – This feels unnecessary.
 * but she is angry with him for stealing a special knife – the phrase "special knife" doesn't mean anything without context. Either a quick explanation of the knife's significance is warranted, or it should be simplified to say that he stole a knife from her.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Only a few minor issues:
 * The novel has been continuously in print in New Zealand since it was first published, and has been translated into nine languages (Dutch, Norwegian, German, Swedish, Finnish, Slovak, French, Danish and Spanish) – This presents a MOS:REALTIME issue unless there's reason to believe that this will remain true for a long period of time.
 * The end of the novel is an optimistic and hopeful one. – The summary should not have any analysis per MOS:WAF.
 * Thanks very much for picking this one up! These points should all be addressed now, I think. Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Standard reflist and bibliography. It does seem that some of the entries in the bibliography are not used in the references. Are these books that were formerly cited but are no longer needed? Or are they still relevant to the article?
 * Yeah, some of the entries were added by another user as "further reading". From memory I skimmed the ones that were available online at the time and thought they were useful but covered points I felt were already sufficiently covered. Would it be best to put them in a separate "further reading" section, do you think? (I might end up using some of them when adding content to the themes section, per your suggestion below.) Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, if they're not used as sources, then they should be removed from the bibliography. This would mean either deleting them or moving them to a further reading section. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * All sources appear to be reliable, and citations are comprehensive outside of plot summary.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * No apparent original research. Analysis is supported by sources.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * High WP:EARWIG score accounted for by direct quotes. One such quote (of Claudia Tate) is quite lengthy and should be considered against WP:PLAGIARISM. I would suggest summarizing it or reducing it to only the most important part.
 * Sure thing, reduced as suggested. Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * There are several aspects of the book that don't appear to be given significant coverage. Based on a (very brief) overlook of the sources and another summary of the book, there are a few things that stand out. Of course, I'm not terribly familiar with the book, so it's possible I got the wrong impression on some of these.
 * Plot summary:
 * Kerewin's illness seems significant, but it's only briefly mentioned.
 * Are Kerewin and Joe violent with one another? That's the impression I got from a different summary, but here it just that she "confronts" him.
 * It seems that three characters leave town on vacation together at some point, changing the setting, but there's no mention of that.
 * Have worked on this some more and hopefully addressed these points; see what you think. Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Theme: This is what seems to be the largest omission. The article doesn't go into detail on the themes of the book, and the areas it does cover is in the context of characterization. How does the book address ethnicity, sexuality, violence, isolation, etc? I feel like there's a lot more that can be said here.
 * All good points; will spend more time on these sections. Thanks for the suggestions! Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hiya, you'll see I've been working on the points raised in this section (including reception/style), and hopefully improving them. Grateful for your thoughts and any pointers as to where needs more work at this stage? In the context of themes, I've continued to cover these points in the context of characterisation, simply because that's how the sources talk about the themes (the book is really focussed on these three characters so I think it makes sense too). Conscious too of not wanting to add so much content that the article becomes unwieldy, I'm trying to focus on the key areas where there's a lot of critical coverage. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Reception: The section adequately covers general reception, but it doesn't address reception of the distinct writing style or the portrayal of violence.
 * I will try to draw these points out more. Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As above, have worked on this, grateful for any feedback. Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Style and structure: Speaking of style, what exactly is it that makes the style distinct? There's practically no discussion of the style and structure that the book seems to be known for.
 * As above. Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As above, new section added. Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * No excessive details.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * Two potential issues:
 * The term "Pākehā" is racially charged and should probably be attributed or avoided.
 * I think I'm going to disagree with you on this point, to some extent. The term is very much seen neutrally these days by the majority of New Zealanders and is commonly used in media, government documents, etc. I acknowledge that I wouldn't use it to describe a person if they didn't describe themselves that way, though, given that some people do see it as a racial term. The reason I think it's OK here is that Hulme uses the word in the book, so it's appropriate to describe the characters and her expression of culture, and it's used in many/most of the literary sources in the article. She herself described the book as "a new kind of novel, blending reality with dreams, melding Māori and Pākehā, weaving strange and hurtful pasts into strangely bright futures" . Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Significant weight is given to the opinion of C. K. Stead. Is his opinion significant enough to warrant an entire paragraph?
 * In my view, yes. He's highly thought of in New Zealand literature; probably our most prominent literary academic. It was a controversial view at the time and was commented on at the time by other critics, and the reaction of Hulme and other writers (withdrawing from his anthology) also seems to me significant. Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll take your word on both of these points, as I'm not as familiar with New Zealand literature or culture. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No disputes.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Book cover lists fair use justification. Other images are released under Creative Commons.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Images are relevant and appropriately captioned.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Overall, the article is well written. Most of the concerns I've raised are minor issues that can be addressed quickly. The only significant issue is the matter of scope; I think there are several more ideas that can be covered, particularly in regard to theme, style, and reception. I'm putting the article on hold. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughtful review! I have addressed some of these points, and will work on scope over the next few days. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , after reading over the article again, it appears to me that you've addressed all of the concerns that I've raised. I'll go ahead and pass the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)