Talk:The Left Hand of Darkness/GA1

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

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 11:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Caeciliusinhorto, thanks for a prompt review. I will address the comments you have provided soon. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll review this article. It's my first ever GA review, so please bear with me. I'll try to give some comments by tomorrow evening (GMT). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I had more time today than anticipated, so you get your review already, you lucky people! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
 * The article contained the phrase "thought experient" where "thought experiment" seemed to be intended. I have changed this. I don't think there are any other noticeable errors.
 * b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Lead is mostly fine. I'd get rid of "according to convention participants and science fiction writers, respectively".  The way different SF awards are judged does not seem sufficiently relevant to Left Hand to justify their discussion in what is a fairly long lead.
 * Layout: mostly fine. Strangely, the see also section contains links to Gethen and Winter's King. The word "Gethen" is used about 50 times in the article: why not just wikilink the first of those?  Likewise, Winter's King is mentioned in the text of the article, and if it needs linking I would link it there.
 * ✅ absolutely. Not sure why I didn't see this.
 * Mostly complies with MOS:FICT, though perhaps "a native of Terra (Earth)" from the lead section would be better as "a native of Earth (called Terra in the novel)".
 * Probably the section on Adaptations should be as prose, not a bullet-pointed list.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Quotations from Left Hand should be cited, as per WP:V, which says that "All quotations[...] must include an inline citation".
 * Quote that need to be cited include: the long block quote in the Style and Structure section, "trained hunch to run in harness" (in Plot summary), "false vow, a second vow", and "an heir of the body, king son" (in Primary characters), "Light is the left hand of darkness..." and "shifgrethor--prestige, face, place, the pride-relationship, the untranslatable and all-important principle of social authority in Karhide and all civilizations of Gethen." (in Themes).
 * ✅ I've added inline cites for these. I actually had them in a few cases, because the quotes were being used by the secondary sources which I used; but in any case, no harm in extra references.
 * Using ISFDB as a source is problematic; it used to be open to be edited by any user, though now edits have to reviewed (by editors with no specialist qualifications). That looks like user generated content to me.  Can you find another source for the things which currently cite that?
 * Hmm, this is oddly tricky, because the only things I use it for are little details about the publication. I've been under the impression that isfdb is okay for such things, but I can look a little harder.
 * Well, you can cite this for 1969 as the year of Left Hand's publication, and this for the Dillons' cover of Left Hand
 * Having looked into it, I am now more uneasy with ISFDB as a source, you are using it to support the claim that The Dispossessed followed Left Hand, which is not as cut and dried as it might seem, as The Word for World is Forest, while being published as a standalone work in 1976, was first published in the anthology Again, Dangerous Visions in 1972. (And if we include shorter works, Vaster than Empires and More Slow was published in 71, and Winter's King was written before Left Hand and published in the same year -- I don't know whether before or after...)
 * Agreed. I will work on fixing this pronto. AFAIK, the sequence is usually used to refer to major works in the series, rather than short stories; but that's a valid point. One of the literary analyses I have used should have an answer.
 * I've been working on finding better cites, but there's a question that needs resolving before that. I looked at the template documentation for the infobox, and I cannot figure out if the "preceded by" and "followed by" are for in universe chronology, or order of publication. I once had a conversation with User:GwydionM, where they suggested it was publication order; Gwydion, can you confirm that?
 * I think the relevant guideline here is MOS:INUNIVERSE, which states that we should avoid "Ordering works by their fictional chronology, rather than the actual order they were published." If you look at the The Magician's Nephew page, you see that the Chronicles of Narnia articles certainly follow this practice, so I would stick with publication order.
 * Alright, that actually makes it easier. I have a source from Le Guin's own website detailing the order of publication, but I'd rather use the scholarly sources used elsewhere in the article, so I'm looking through those. Should have it sorted out by the end of the day.
 * I believe I have taken care of this. The Dispossed was actually a real mistake; if it is referred to as following Left Hand, that is in error. Winter's King is more complicated, because it is a short story; so I have added the appropriate qualifiers, and also a note explaining this, with the appropriate references. I also believe that this is the last of the issues you have raised, although I am happy for you to go over it once more.
 * You should probably also put in some citations for the plot summary; otherwise it looks like WP:OR
 * This is also sort of tricky. I've put in citations for things that were very specific; but otherwise, I am the one summarizing it. AFAIK, WP:MOSPLOT says this is okay for plot (and presumably character) summaries, so long as I am not making synthetic or interpretive claims; so could you check for that?
 * Having looked at MOS:PLOT, I see that this is indeed okay, and even FAs such as To Kill a Mockingbird and Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell do this, so I'm going to consider this ✅
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * There are two pictures at the top of the article, and then non further down. It might be nice to have another image further down the article for balance, though it is not immediately obvious to me what it would be an image of...
 * I agree with you that this would be ideal, but I've trawled through wikicommons in vain for images that would be appropriate. The cover itself has an image, so I don't think anything else would qualify for fair use; and I don't have the know-how about licensing to go about obtaining a free image from an external source...happy to hear any suggestions you may have, though.
 * If you've looked and can't find anything, don't worry about it. It'd be nice to have, but I don't think it's necessary.
 * 1) Overall:
 * The article is almost there. Most of the changes that need to be made are relatively straightforward. Hopefully they will be addressed reasonably quickly, and I can pass this.
 * Pass/Fail:
 * There are two pictures at the top of the article, and then non further down. It might be nice to have another image further down the article for balance, though it is not immediately obvious to me what it would be an image of...
 * I agree with you that this would be ideal, but I've trawled through wikicommons in vain for images that would be appropriate. The cover itself has an image, so I don't think anything else would qualify for fair use; and I don't have the know-how about licensing to go about obtaining a free image from an external source...happy to hear any suggestions you may have, though.
 * If you've looked and can't find anything, don't worry about it. It'd be nice to have, but I don't think it's necessary.
 * 1) Overall:
 * The article is almost there. Most of the changes that need to be made are relatively straightforward. Hopefully they will be addressed reasonably quickly, and I can pass this.
 * Pass/Fail:

Looking good. Just going through the article one more time. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Two minor comments:
 * "Le Guin identifies herself with feminism, non-violence, and ecological awareness, having participated in demonstrations against the Vietnam war and nuclear weapons.": I know what this sentence means, but it reads very clunkily to me. Perhaps something like "Le Guin identifies herself as a feminist, and is concerned with non-violence and ecological awareness, having demonstrated against the Vietnam war and nuclear weapons."
 * The long quotation from the beginning of Left Hand in the section on Style and Structure is currently cited to Cummins (1990). If you have taken it from there, you can cite it to "Le Guin quoted in Cummins"; otherwise it should just be cited to Le Guin (cf. WP:SWYGT).  Either way, you might want to check that the quote is accurate, because it is missing the words "on my homeworld" which appear in my edition of Left Hand.
 * ✅ I've tweaked it to match the 1980 edition that I've used elsewhere in the article. I think the wording changed a little from edition to edition.
 * I think that is everything, though. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that is everything, though. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'm passing this as a good article. Congratulations. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)