Talk:The Colour Out of Space/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. (I just had to, this is one of my favorite Lovecraft stories!) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Just a few rough spots and possible typos
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * needs some discussion of the cover to meet fair use rationale
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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):
 * I don't see any critical commentary on the cover, which the Fair use rationale says is included.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * General:
 * Really should have the full citation to the lovecraft as the very first footnote, so the full bibliographic details are given with the first citation
 * Currrent ref 14 - which burleson is meant? there are two given...
 * Is current ref 10 a journal article? If so, Crypt should be italicised.
 * All fixed. Canadian   Paul  01:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Really should have the full citation to the lovecraft as the very first footnote, so the full bibliographic details are given with the first citation
 * Currrent ref 14 - which burleson is meant? there are two given...
 * Is current ref 10 a journal article? If so, Crypt should be italicised.
 * All fixed. Canadian   Paul  01:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Images:
 * The fair use rationale for the magazine cover claims there is discussion of the cover in the article, but I don't see any. I assume that the cover depicts the story, but this is never made clear in the article, which should be also mentioned. Also, who was the artist?
 * Honestly, I don't really have much of a rationale for the cover - it's nothing more than the cover of the magazine where Colour first appeared. Since it's not a book, the only other picture that would work for the infobox would be the cover of an arbitrary edition, which also really wouldn't conform to the non-free use guidelines. I guess what I'm saying is that the best solution is probably not having a picture at all... what do you think? Canadian   Paul  01:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably the best choice, yeah. While an image is nice... Do we have any public domain images of Lovecraft himself? That might work, if we can find one. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've elected to just remove the image, since the only PD images seem to be of Lovecraft aged 9 and Lovecraft's grave, neither of which are particularly relevant. There is some relevant illustration in the article, so at least it's not just a wall of text. Canadian   Paul  01:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Synopsis:
 * "Over the following year, the problem begins spreading to the vegetation and the local animals.." but crops are vegetation - suggest "surounding vegetation" or "non-farmland" or something similar to avoid confusion. (Or maybe I'm just easliy confused?)
 * Clarified. Canadian   Paul  01:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Soon after the vegetation begins eroding into a grey powder and the water from the well becomes tainted." Soon after what?
 * Oops, I added the last sentence of the paragraph above much later. Fixed now. Canadian   Paul  01:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Background:
 * "Lovecraft's goal for the story, dismayed at the all-too human deception of "aliens" in other works of fiction, was to create an entity that was truly alien." I get what you mean, but it's convoluted. Suggest "Lovecraft was dismayed at the all-too human deception of "aliens" in other works of fiction, and his goal for Colour was to create an entity that was truly alien."
 * I like it! Changed. Canadian   Paul  01:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Do we know when he finished the work?
 * The same month he started. I've (hopefully) clarified this in the article. Canadian   Paul  01:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Reception:
 * It's been reprinted often since, right? Are there any particularly important reprints?
 * I didn't find anything about particularly notable reprints, although I did add that the work has fallen into the public domain. Canadian   Paul  01:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Film:
 * "play[] with the idea of an alien life form completely different from anything humans can imagine" Are those brackets just typos or is something supposed to be in them?
 * It's an omission: the original sentence read "the author plays with the idea...", but to quote it exactly wouldn't make grammatical sense in the context of the article, so I indicated the change with "[]". If there's some better way to do that, I'd be happy to fix it. Canadian   Paul  01:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Usual practice would be to use ellipsis here then, as in "play ... with the idea of an alien life form ..." or you could just do "experiment "with the idea of a ..." " and eliminate the first part entirely. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone with the former suggestion, just because. 01:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are my responses for now, thanks for reviewing the article! 01:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just two responses, everything else looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! I've addressed those two responses, so please let me know if anything else needs work. Canadian   Paul  01:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)