Talk:The Golden Ass/GA1

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

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good article review (see What is a good article? for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See note below regarding Manual of Style (writing about fiction)
 * 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):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy:
 * 2) It is stable:
 * 3) 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):
 * 9 Commons-hosted public domain + 1 Commons-hosted cc-by-sa-2.0
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Notes
 * In Origin, "...the author's name is said to be Lucius... - avoid the passive voice. Specifically say who said the author's name was Lucius.
 * The Plot section is too detailed. According to Manual of Style (writing about fiction), "The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections." Don't re-tell all the action, but rather summarize the events of the story. I would even divide the plot into sub-sections (Book One, etc.) but rather just say at the beginning or in a Style section that the content is divided into eleven books.
 * For example, detail like "Lucius goes to sleep hungry." is unnecessary to understand the plot.
 * "The next morning, Lucius meets his aunt Byrrhena in the town..." - in the town is unnecessary detail
 * Google Scholar brings up several sources that can be used to help boost the analysis portions of the article that can balance out the large plot sections.
 * There needs to be additional citations, especially in the Overview section to show where this analysis is coming from. In the Style section, one citation should be dedicated to each quotation. In the Adaptations and influence section, provide a citation for each work that is influenced by this novel (for example, a reference should state that The Adventures of Pinocchio was influenced by The Golden Ass. The casual observation that both works involve a character transforming into a donkey does not necessarily mean one was influenced by another. Even better would be a description of the influence - why did Pinocchio include a scene where the transformation included - or was it just random?)
 * The Plot section is too detailed. According to Manual of Style (writing about fiction), "The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections." Don't re-tell all the action, but rather summarize the events of the story. I would even divide the plot into sub-sections (Book One, etc.) but rather just say at the beginning or in a Style section that the content is divided into eleven books.
 * For example, detail like "Lucius goes to sleep hungry." is unnecessary to understand the plot.
 * "The next morning, Lucius meets his aunt Byrrhena in the town..." - in the town is unnecessary detail
 * Google Scholar brings up several sources that can be used to help boost the analysis portions of the article that can balance out the large plot sections.
 * There needs to be additional citations, especially in the Overview section to show where this analysis is coming from. In the Style section, one citation should be dedicated to each quotation. In the Adaptations and influence section, provide a citation for each work that is influenced by this novel (for example, a reference should state that The Adventures of Pinocchio was influenced by The Golden Ass. The casual observation that both works involve a character transforming into a donkey does not necessarily mean one was influenced by another. Even better would be a description of the influence - why did Pinocchio include a scene where the transformation included - or was it just random?)


 * Conclusion
 * Based on the above notes I will not grant GA status yet. The article is well-written and I can see the editors involved have a good grasp of the material but to meet the GA standard additional references should be consulted and additioanl citations provided. After the above notes have been addressed, I encourage the editors to re-nominate. --maclean (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)