Talk:The Famous Five/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 22:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I applaud you for taking on a topic like this, and I'm just claiming this now. My review will follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there is a real problem with the sourcing here, and until that is sorted, this simply cannot be a good article. The following are sourcing concerns:
 * There are whole sections which are completely unreferenced. For instance, the "Video games" and "Comic books" sections. There are also specific facts where citations are requested; for instance, the inspiration for George.
 * The lead contains a number of references, and that's indicative of a major problem with the lead; it contains information that is not found anywhere else in the article. For instance, details about the Survival Guide. The role of a lead section is to summarise the rest of the article; anything mentioned should be discussed further down in the article. While there is no ban on references in the lead, they will typically not be needed, as any information will be referenced further down the article.
 * Many of the references that are cited are completely unformatted; bare urls are to be avoided. Ideally, everything should be formatted in the same way as, for instance, ref 4 (Geoghegan, Tom (5 September 2008). "The mystery of Enid Blyton's revival". BBC News. Retrieved 21 November 2011.) with author and date, if known, but certainly the title, and publisher. (And URL, if it's online). Perfect reference formatting is not required for a good article, and a few slip-ups can be overlooked, but I'm afraid that the problem here is far worse.
 * Many of the references cited are of highly questionable reliability. Ideally, we'd be looking to cite information to the likes of newspaper articles and published books; for instance, the recently published biography of Enid Blyton, or books on the history of children's literature (many of which, of course, will discuss the massive impact of The Famous Five). As it is, we're seeing references to forums ("http://www.enidblytonsociety.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=770") and self-published blog ("Euro Comics in English: The Famous Five by Rosenzweig and Dufosse").

It is because of the sourcing concerns that I will have to close this review at this time; a lot of changes need to be made before this is ready for good article status. Please do not be discouraged, but I'm afraid this has a long way to go yet. A few more pointers of things that will need to be fixed. I have avoided mentioning wording/grammar issues, as the article will inevitably be shaken up during improvement:


 * Decide if you're referring to the series as The Famous Five or The Famous Five. I think a case can be made for either, but consistency is good.
 * Avoid very short paragraphs. There are a lot of one-line paragraphs. This is indicative of an article still very much under-construction; GA status is reserved for articles that have reached a level of stability.
 * "The characters, as is usual in Blyton's fiction, are outlined with very few words, and there is very limited description of scenes, but this style and the fast pace of the writing keeps children's attention and is seen by enthusiasts as fuelling their imagination and encouraging them to think for themselves. Blyton's characterisation, however, has also been much criticised as being stereotyped and encouraging sexist attitudes; and the books have as a result been extensively parodied." This kind of analysis is exactly what would be wonderful to see in a good article on a topic like this; however, in this article, it is short, off-the-cuff and unreferenced.
 * Further details of the Sarah Bosse novels would be excellent. While the article should focus on Blyton, these later novels are an important part of the history of The Famous Five.
 * Beware of dubious images. File:Famous five 1970s dvd box.JPG will soon be deleted from Commons; it's clearly non-free.
 * Careful with your italics. When referring to films or television series, the titles will definitely need to be italicised.
 * There's absolutely nothing about the publication history, and only a smattering about the writing process crammed into the lead. This kind of material is important; instead, most of the article is given over to adaptations. While these are important, they also have their own articles.
 * The "parodies" section includes some incredibly trivial mentions; if parody is important to the series as a whole, try to keep discussion limited to the important ones, and perhaps themes/reasons for parody.
 * Avoid original research- the section on the claimed "effect" reads like original research.

In all, I'd recommend taking a look at the likes of Harry Potter; that's a very solid article on a series of children's books, and so will give an excellent idea of what this article should look like. Obviously, that would be a very long-term goal; in the mean time, work on improving the sourcing, and then look to expand some areas, and trim-back others. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)