Talk:The Giver/GA1

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


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

On the whole, this is an interesting article, but I feel that there are issues with verifiability and comprehensiveness that keep it from meeting the criteria for GA status.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead section does not give a clear overview of the main points of the article, which reflects a problem with the fact that the majority of the content comes from the plot section, which is wholly unreferenced save for the blockquote at the beginning. There is no discussion of what terms like "anti-utopian" mean, and such jargon should only be used if they are quoted from a source that defines the book as being such.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The sources listed are mostly correct, with offline sources taken in good faith, though I would suggest merging the bare links into the references for ease of reading, but the plot section does contain a vast amount of material that is not attributed to a source, and the Reel News link appears to be broken. Even though the actions described in the plot section may be fairly obvious to someone who has read the novel, one reader's interpretation of the events is OR unless that interpretation can be backed with reliable sources.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article, discarding the unreferenced plot summary, discusses only a fraction of the reception of the book. To be thorough, the article should discuss in detail whiy it was criticized, why it received the awards it did, and how it fits into the history of young adult literature.
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I think this article needs a great deal of work wikifying the plot section and expanding its coverage, but I will put it on hold until this can be addressed by the nominating party. Mrathel (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I think this article needs a great deal of work wikifying the plot section and expanding its coverage, but I will put it on hold until this can be addressed by the nominating party. Mrathel (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Mrathel (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Reviewer: Mrathel (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Recovered from featured article
I saw this book at GA on hold and would like to provide the following, which, while checking through the history, was removed. I might have missed some discussion or something that had this stuff removed, but it would certainly help broaden coverage. Airplaneman talk 20:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The references need to be cleaned up. Several references have bare URLs, which are discouraged (instead, hide the links behind the titles); also, online references should include access dates. Citation templates can help, although they're not required. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 18:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Extra comments from r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs

I also just noticed that the Chinese version of the article, zh:授者, actually has far more information than this does--a pretty embarrassing situation for a well-known English-language novel. The "literary significance and criticism" section lacks, for the most part, negative criticism (specifically about the appropriateness of the subject matter for children), even though the lede of this article and of Lois Lowry suggest that there should be some. I'm not the reviewer, but given that the article's nominator has shown no interest in responding to the concerns (s/he has not touched the article or the talkpage in 20 days, and in fact only ever made one edit to it) I would certainly suggest failing this nomination. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 18:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I appologize, I meant to fail the article after seven days since no real effort has been made to meet the criteria. I am doing so now. Mrathel (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)