Talk:The Slaughter Yard/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sadads (talk · contribs) 04:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 21, 2016, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: n
 * 2. Verifiable?: y
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: n
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: n
 * 5. Stable?: y
 * 6. Images?: y

In general this article, is a good first attempt, however, I am going to fail the article, because I don't think the required improvements, to make it a passable good article could be achieved within a week, the typical time expect of a hold. First, and foremost, this article suffers the typical issue with fiction: focusing almost entirely on the plot (called action in this article. Maybe that is a translation error?), and though it has over 20 sources at the bottom of the article, the relevant critical opinions from those work are not summarized in a useful and coherent way (the "Readings and symbolism" section takes a very rushed brush through the perspectives). Moreover, their are substantial sections which appear to be WP:Original Research, including the whole section "Challenge to the traditional view". More substantial usage of footnotes, to WP:Verify the content within the article is needed

I think all of these are improvable issues, but would likely require substantial writing and rewriting. I highly recommend taking a deep look at WP:MOS/Novels, which also covers short story. I would also be happy to give more specific feedback on the article, other than that I have already done with tags and this brief review.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Sadads (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)