Talk:The French Lieutenant's Woman/GA1

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

Reviewer: MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk · contribs) 21:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Largely excellent article, some things I've picked out:
 * Ref 14 is without a page number.✅
 * Refs 12 and 14 spelt incorrectly✅
 * As a "free online community" I don't think debate.org (Ref 41) counts as a reliable source. Replacing with an official Golden Globe citation should be possible.
 * That was something I pulled from the movie page. I will pull up a scholarly article that discusses the adaptation (might be a good think to add to both articles, and expand some of the other sections).
 * Ref 39 takes me to "20th-Century American Bestsellers" not the actual entry for FLW; see if there is any way of fixing the link.✅
 * "Critical concerns" > "Analysis", more typical header
 * I changed it to "Themes" which is the WP:Novels standard MOS ✅
 * Remove the section on scholarly attention in "Contemporary reception" ✅
 * Link "postmodern" in the lede first sentence✅
 * Link "canon" under "Critical Concerns"✅
 * Some sections could benefit from tighter prose, particularly:
 * "Contemporary reception": slight non sequitur in the first sentence; second sentence, the "both" seems redundant since you only discuss the positive statements.✅
 * First line under "Intertextuality": what relationship✅
 * Under "Legacy" separate the adaptations remark from the remark about inspiring other writers; they are separate points.✅

That's it for an initial glance. I'll put the article on-hold. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * De-link Boston and Toronto under "Publication history" ✅
 * Thanks ! Great list of small things to work through. I will definitely do a sweep, and ping you again when its ready. May not be for a couple of days, Grad school keeps me busy :P Sadads (talk) 21:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, take your time. The article only has issues with 1 and 2 of the GA criteria (forgive me for not wanting to include the entire crtieria...), but is otherwise great, and sorting these small issues will correct that. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How are things proceeding on this ? It's now the seventh day, which is the official duration that a GAN can be on hold. I will allow slightly more time, but please if you could make the changes soon that would be appreciated. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was just avoiding the small bit of research and pulling up sources, the rest of the edits were mostly mindless copy editing. Have a few minutes right now, so will fix it. Thanks for the ping, and flexability on time, Sadads (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That should be it on those initial concerns, Sadads (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for correcting those. Ref 13 is without a page number (please correct some time), I notice now, but that alone doesn't prevent this from being considered a GA; it is excellent in every other regard. Therefore I pass the article. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If this was a Good Article on 28 Feb 2014, today it is nothing of the sort. Immature, incoherent and illiterate, it is full of factual errors and ludicrous misjudgments. I've corrected the Plot Summary, but wash my hands of the rest. --Clifford Mill (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)