Talk:The Kite Runner/GA1

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

Reviewer: Diannaa (talk · contribs) 17:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to review. --1ST7 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi 1ST7. I have started with some copy edits; I hope you don't mind. Here are a few issues that I need your help with:


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:
 * The article contains too many quotations and not enough paraphrasing. Please put more of the material into your own words to improve the flow and make the prose more interesting to read. In particular, the section "General" ends with two very long quotations. Please consider paraphrasing one or both of these, as well as some of the other shorter quotations throughout the article. The quotes from reviewers can even be paraphrased if it is done carefully. ✅ --1ST7 (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No spelling or grammatical errors were found.
 * B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * Please place citations in numerical order. For example, [6][7][3] becomes [3][6][7] (not a GA requirement, but nice to do) ✅ --1ST7 (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Dabsolver, Citation Bot, and reflinks found no technical errors.
 * 1) Sourcing:
 * A. Provides references, with in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
 * All material is sourced to high-quality periodicals. Citation templates are efectively used throughout. No technical errors were found in the formatting of the citations.
 * B. Contains no copyright violations or too-close paraphrasing:
 * Spot checks revealed no copyright violations or too-close paraphrasing.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Main aspects are addressed:
 * We need some information on the publication history please. Please see WikiProject Books for ideas on what material could be included here. At a minimum, list the initial publication and any other editions using info available at WorldCat. All other points required for articles about books (background, summary, style/genre, analysis, and reception) are adequately covered. ✅ --1ST7 (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * B. Remains focused:
 * The plot summary section of the article is too long, and is out of balance with the rest of the article. Please reduce the overall length of the section. Please work this section over under the assumption that many of your readers will not have read the book. I especially found the material about Part 3 to be confusing and overly detailed. ✅ --1ST7 (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Opinions given are those of the sources
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * All images are properly licensed
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Nice seclection of images, all appropriately captioned
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

The article will be placed on hold for one week to complete these tasks. Thank you for tackling improvements to this important article! -- Diannaa (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think everything has been addressed. --1ST7 (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've done some more trimming. The amendments you made are good. All points are now addressed and I am passing the article to GA status. Congratulations, -- Diannaa (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for reviewing. --1ST7 (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)