Talk:The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H./GA1

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

Quick-fail criteria

 * 1) The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Verifiability. ✅
 * 2) The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Neutral point of view. ✅
 * 3) There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags. ✅
 * 4) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. ✅
 * 5) The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. ✅

All OK there, so I'll start having a look at this in greater depth.

Note to editor: I've only reviewed a few GAs in my time, but I consider myself fairly thorough. A list of previously reviewed articles can be found here, and from there you can navigate to the article talk pages, if you want to see what you're in for. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Detailed review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * (i) "The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H. is a 1981 literary novella written by literary critic George Steiner..." "literary" appears twice in quick succession here. Since the author isn't the subect of the article, I'd suggest removing "literary critic" from the lede entirely, and maybe adding it to the first sentence of the ==Background and publication== section if you think it's relevant.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Moved it to the Background and publication section where I expanded on it a bit. --Bruce1eetalk 08:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (ii) I kinda feel like the third paragraph in the lede is a bit redundant; it repeats much of the first paragraph of ==Reaction and controversy== rather than merely summarizing it. The actual summary of the critical reaction seems to be the second sentence of the first paragraph, beginning "The book generated considerable controversy..."
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Deleted the third paragraph in the lead. --Bruce1eetalk 08:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (iii) Christopher Booker and John Leonard (critic) have their own articles, so should be wikilinked. Also, I think there's a missing comma after the NYT in the sentence "..while John Leonard, also of The New York Times said..."
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Done. --Bruce1eetalk 08:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (iv) The start of ==Plot summary== is not brilliantly written, especially the slightly hyperbolic opening sentence ("in search of the ultimate prize" deserves an exclamation point after it). I haven't read the book, but this summary gives the impression that it's set in a time/place where it's known that Hitler is alive, and no further exposition is given. Is that correct?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Reworked the 1st paragraph for clarity (removed the hyperbole!). --Bruce1eetalk 08:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (v) In the list of main characters, I don't think you need the phrase "a fictional Adolf Hitler"; in the context, that's self explanatory.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Fixed. --Bruce1eetalk 08:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (vi) Do you have any more info about the PEN/Faulkner Award nomination? As it is, what's in the lede is pretty much the sum total of the ==Awards and nominations== section.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Incorporated this section into the Reaction and controversy section. --Bruce1eetalk 08:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (vii) Speaking of that section, I'm not keen on a dedicated section for a single bullet point. If you're unable to expand it, would it maybe be better to incorporate it into the ==Reaction and controversy== section instead (an award is a critical reaction of a sort, after all)?
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Done, see previous point. --Bruce1eetalk 08:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (viii) The ==See also== section I'm also ambivalent about, probably for the same reason that it's a single bullet point. Can I suggest recategorizing the article more specifically in Category:Adolf Hitler in fiction? A link to Adolf Hitler in popular culture can be found there, so you could probably ditch the section entirely. To be honest, given how many tags are on that page I wouldn't be in a hurry to link to it anyway.
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Removed See also section and refined the Adolf Hitler cat. --Bruce1eetalk 08:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * (i) It's merely a stylistic preference, but since you refer to the Bruckner interview and Dickstein's book review in two different citations each, maybe you'd want to treat them in the same split footnote/reference style as you did with the primary source? Up to you, though. Also, with regard to the citations to the book itself, I'm not sure the wikilink to this page is necessary; seems a bit circular?
 * I've removed the wikilinks to the book itself, but I feel I'd rather leave the Bruckner and Dickstein citations as they are and confine the footnote/reference style to offline references only. --Bruce1eetalk 10:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (ii) I notice that Gussow's review of the Hartford theatrical production goes to a Google cache because the original page needs registration to access. Do you know if that cache will be available long-term? (If 'yes', then that's a nifty trick for accessing NYT material which I'll use myself in future.)
 * To be honest, I don't know how long Google caches are kept, but this one's URL I originally accessed in April last year, and it still works now. --Bruce1eetalk 10:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Reading some of the sources I think there's room for expansion, but I'm a great fan of brevity and avoiding verbiage where possible, so I don't know that it would necessarily be to the article's benefit to do so. As it is you seem to have the balance right, especially in giving greatest weight to the critical reactions Hitler's speech provoked (which makes me want to read it in full for myself, given the furor [sic] it provoked).
 * The one suggestion I'd make if you want to expand it further in the longer term, is to give ==Background== its own section; many of the references dwell deeply on Steiner's past works, and analyze how they are paralleled in this book. So I think a critical analysis of the author, which is distinct from that of the book's critical reception, might not be amiss. Then, I'd split ==Publication== into its own section with ===Adaptations=== as a subsection of that, to counter the problem of any too-sort sections.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * If there was ever a POV in the article as per talk page accusations, I'm not seeing it now.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * No edits other than the nominator since last year, and few substantive edits by anyone else at all.
 * 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):
 * In an article of this size, a cover illustration in the infobox is fine.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

That should be enough to get you started. I'll have a look at #2 and #3 in greater depth either tomorrow or over the Easter weekend. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review so far. I've attended to your suggestions in #1 above. When you get a moment if you could have another look at it please. Thanks. --Bruce1eetalk 08:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, that's me ready to pass the article. There's a couple of suggestions above which might improve it further, though I'd leave it up to you whether they're worth pursuing. Nevertheless, it doesn't detract from the article as-is, which deserves to be GA-class. An interesting read which did the job I imagined you'd hope for—taking the reader into a subject he knew nothing about, and piqueing his interest in finding out more. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the pass! I'll certainly have a look at the new suggestions you've made. Kind regards. --Bruce1eetalk 07:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)