Talk:The Vegetarian/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 21:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Happy to take a look. Comments to follow. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I think, altogether, this article is a good start, but not yet at the level it needs to be for GA status. In terms of expansion, you may want to think about the following:


 * There are currently a large number of references in the lead. There is no blanket ban on this, but it does indicate that there may be material in the lead which is not in the article proper. Take a look at WP:LEAD.


 * There is no section on the background or writing process; what inspired the novel? When was it written? What was the writing process? What was the publishing process like? When was it translated/who translated it/into which languages? (I know some of this is in the lead, but see my comment above!) There will definitely be information out there, even if you limit yourself to English language sources; there're interviews in the Financial Times and The White Review which may have some valuable material, for example.


 * Your plot summary is actually quite short; it could probably be double the length. Manual of Style/Novels does not specify a number, but 500 words might be a fair target; 400-700 words is recommended for films, for instance. The current summary provides very little context; e.g., it's not clear what "proclaims herself to be no longer an animal" means.


 * Your critical reception section basically only contains two reviews; one from Slate, one from The New York Times. You refer to another, but don't cite it; perhaps there's something there worth citing? A quick Google reveals reviews in The Guardian, Publishers Weekly and the Irish Times. There will be plenty of others.


 * I'd love to hear a lot more about the film adaptation, especially as we don't have an article on the subject.
 * ✅ - Not much information about it.

Some more specific comments:
 * "This decision eventually results in uprooting her whole existence" This is a rather odd construction.


 * You have some direct quotes in the plot section. Direct quotes should always have a citation.


 * "The prize money of GB£ 50,000 will be shared by both Han and Smith" Why the future tense?


 * Are HitFix and Beyond Hollywood really the best sources we have for the adaptation?
 * ✅ - Apparently, yes. A Variety article was also found.


 * Do we have categories/navboxes for the Man Booker Prize win?
 * ✅ Yes and no. Unlike the more popular Man Booker Prize, this one won its sister version. Man Booker International is a relatively new award (circa 2005), and so does not have any navboxes. Categories were found.

On the basis of my comments above, I'm concerned that this article does not meet the good article criteria; in particular, criterion 3. However, I'm happy to hold off closing the GA review for the time being. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello ! Thanks for this comprehensive list of constructive recommendations. I plan to get on with these right away. Please give me a window of a maximum of 3 days in which I plan to convert the article into a better one. If I am not able to do so, due to any reason, I will consider re-nominating. Again, thanks for the suggestions, my friend. Have a great day and an even greater week! This is my first GA nomination, FYI. Excited. Cheers, Nairspecht   Converse  10:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello ! I have considerably edited the article with changes that you had suggested. I'd be happy if you could take a look. Best, Nairspecht   Converse  11:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a fantastic level of improvement- really impressive. I will make time for a proper look through the article very soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Second read-through
Ok, I'm having a second proper look-through.
 * If you're basically done with the expansion, you should remove the template.


 * "It primarily deals with anti-carnism and sanity, while only sampling vegetarianism as the protagonist's single main trait." This is very complex; does it belong in the lead? What part of the article's main body is this information from?


 * "The Vegetarian was received as "very extreme" and "bizarre" by the native critics and audience" Quotes always need to be cited, even in the lead.


 * "However, Mongolian Mark, the second and central part of the novella had already won the prestigious Yi Sang Literary Prize in 2005, two years prior to the book's original publishing date" I'm struggling with this.
 * It's as baffling to me as it is to you. I have removed the year from all instances except one, where I have asked fellow editors for help.


 * Could the plot summary and plot sections be merged? I'm not sure I see the value in keeping them separate, and I find the tone of the plot summary section a little off ("pretty much", "dire" consequences, for example).


 * The "parts" should probably be referred to in speech marks (eg- "Mongolian Mark", rather than Mongolian Mark or Mongolian Mark)


 * "Yeong-hye initially spends her days doing daily chores and reading, much to her husband's chagrin" I assume he doesn't mind her doing the chores; it's the reading that bothers him? If so, perhaps this should be changed to "Yeong-hye initially spends her days reading, much to her husband's chagrin, and doing daily chores".


 * "He fancies a love-making scene between a man and a woman" What does this mean?


 * "Her father's bouts of force-feeding his daughter goes entirely in vain as all the family members find out." This isn't as clear as it could be.


 * In all honesty, you probably don't need the characters section. It's basically redundant to the plot, which includes (or, at least, should include) all the necessary details of these main characters.


 * "Kang first got the idea of writing about vegetation or plants when she was in university and when she came across the writing of the noted South Korean writer Yi Sang. In particular, she was struck by the quote "I believe that humans should be plants."" Reference?


 * "which primarily deals with humanity's natural and daily choices" What does this mean?


 * "Kang received help from a video artist and a psychiatric hospital when researching the book. The second part of the book is primarily inspired by Kang's experiences with the aforementioned artist whose body of work was extensively studied." Can we have the name of the artist?


 * "narrating about her joint problems" I don't understand what this means.


 * "as 채식주의자 by" Can we have this transliterated? It's not going to be of much good to most readers.


 * I realise that this is perhaps a big ask, but could you make an effort to find the names of the other translators and provide transliterations of those names not Latin script? I'm also not sure that GoodReads is a reliable source. Sorry.
 * I spent some time on Google searching for any possible good links, but in vain.


 * "and published the novel in English for distribution in South Korea" Is this the Smith translation?
 * {{fixed} Yes.


 * "the central character's faltering attempts to understand the people around them" Do you mean "the central character's faltering attempts to understand the people around her" or "the central characters' faltering attempts to understand the people around them"?
 * The latter.


 * "The Korean Literature in Translation states that Kang's "description of some evil functions of life" is reminiscent of her previous book, Convalescence, which is a short story about a group of people each of whom have suffered different kinds of trauma. The editor argues that "since it's written from the perspective of multiple narrators it achieves a kind of overall verisimilitude and three-dimensional character".[12]" Is this a reliable source?
 * - I think it is because it 'looks like' an authoritative source for Korean literature.


 * "The book subtly stresses on the idea of veganism and its ever-losing power to shock" What does this mean?


 * "The Vegetarian received international critical acclaim after it was translated into English in 2015. Critics were vocal about their praise for Kang's writing and narration style and Smith's "creative translation"." What's your source for this?
 * Sorry, I wrote it. It has been


 * "A reviewer in The Independent calls it a "social protest" story" A find it a little odd that you mention this review but don't cite it; is it the Independent review mentioned further down? I note that the phrase "social protest" doesn't appear in that review.
 * Probably added by someone else.


 * Can I recommend not starting with the Slate review? You have a lot of reviews from highly respectable newspapers written by notable people; I'd say that Slate is a less significant publication than these (with, of course, no disrespect meant to the author of the piece).


 * "In 2005, the second part of the novella, Mongolian Mark, was awarded the Yi Sang Literary Prize, one of the most prestigious literary awards in South Korea." Reference? How can a part of a novel be awarded a prize before the novel is published?
 * Honestly, it's perplexing, and there's no clarification on the web. The prize council may know a thing or two about it.


 * "in this faultless concoction that is properly executed but with mediocre coagulation" This is not something that you can say in Wikipedia's neutral voice. However, is HitFlix even reliable? I'd stick the the Variety review.

This article is much, much better than when I first read it, but I do think that there's still a little way to go before it'll be GA-ready. I note that the article is focussed quite heavily on the English-language reception, but, given that it was the translation that won the noted prize, I think this is probably OK for GA purposes. I did quite a bit of copyediting; please double-check. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your brilliant review. One question: if I clear the doubts you have after your second review, will it be GA-ready? Or do I need to add more content. Because there's really nothing more (new) about it on the web as of June 17. Also, no more info about the translations and adaptation. Cheers,  Nairspecht   Converse  10:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's definitely getting there, but I can't promise that resolving everything here will be sufficient for GA status. I appreciate that this may be frustrating, but you've actually chosen a pretty tricky article to be your first go at GAC; stick with it, and hopefully we can get it to where it needs to be. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, there are no promises in life. Cheers, Nairspecht   Converse  11:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have made some changes since your second look-through. Comments? Best, Nairspecht   Converse  09:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, great. I'll try to get back to you soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Third look-through
This is really shaping up, but I'm still not convinced that it's where it needs to be. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Where's your source for the claim that the novel is postmodern?
 * Can't find it.


 * I get the impression that at least part of the story of the novel's publication missing; if "Mongolian Mark" won a prize in 2005, and, according to an interview, it was written from 2003-2004, the late 2007 publication date seems to be in some sense misleading. The problem is perhaps that you're relying on English language sources. I certainly don't blame you for this, but it does potentially limit the extent to which you can write about a Korean topic. (That someone has tagged the 2005 date in the awards table with "clarification needed" is telling and appropriate.)
 * I tagged it in the hope that any of our Korean friends would come and edit it, but so far in vain. I also intend to raise it on the talk page, separately.


 * "being a plant is the best way to both avoid (by no longer being a human) and cause (by no longer having to consume meat) human brutality" She believes that being a plant is the best way to cause human brutality? This needs to be rephrased.


 * I must reiterate my belief that Goodreads is not an appropriately reliable source for information in a good article.
 * I know, but better to have some source than nothing. Yeah?


 * "Smith has said that her first attempt at Korean translation involved "looking up practically every other word in the dictionary".[20]" Is this relevant?
 * I think so. Even though the translator started like this, it enabled her to translate a work which would eventually win an award. There's some relation; also why I have restricted the info to one line.


 * There's an inconsistency between "Convalescence" and Convalescence; if it's a short story, it should be the former, if it's a novel/novella, it should be the latter.
 * "It's a short story".


 * "The book subtly stresses on the idea of a non-vegetarian person resolving to practice veganism. This showcases the current trend surrounding veganism around the world and especially in the Western world, where it has gone from a niche preference to a fairly common one." This is very interesting, but I'm not sure I fully understand. What does the first sentence mean? Where are you seeing this in the cited source? Also, why is this the first mention of veganism if that is what the character adopts? (I'm not sure I like the idea of veganism being described as a "preference"; it's a bit more than that.)
 * I think I have fixed it, but not sure where I go the first sentence. I have concised it. And can veganism be called modus vivendi?


 * "Established in 2005, the prize was awarded to László Krasznahorkai in 2015." Relevant?
 * Nope. thought so.

There are some other issues (so, for example, the references list could do with being cleaned, the themes section is a bit sparse, the critical response section feels like a list of quotes, the concern about a reliance on English-language sources) which can be let slide for GAC purposes, but the above issues, I think, are still sufficient to stop this being ready for GA status. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * All great points, Josh. But there aren't any sources in the web left to cite. Let me quote, "There is an abundance of things in this world which haven't been explored before, which will improve the understanding of certain, relevant subjects. But to think that a subject is exhaustive depending upon its easily and conspicuously available material is like calling a honeybee both useless because it just jumps from one flower to another and evil because it stings." Please advice. Cheers, Nairspecht   Converse  12:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok; here's the difficulty. Many of the problems we're now running up against basically seem to boil down to you not being able to find English language sources freely available online which deal with these things. I'm not convinced that this is a particularly good answer, especially given that this is a topic which is primarily non-English. The article's much, much improved, but I'm not convinced that it's quite where it needs to be for GA status. I'm not certain what the next step should be here. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please pardon the philosophy in my previous reply, but yeah, I agree. Should we abandon this? It's clearly a waste of time now. Best, Nairspecht   Converse  07:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think closing the review at this time might be the best option; abandoning it probably isn't. The article has been hugely improved, and uncovering a few more sources (and perhaps collaborating with an editor who can read Korean!) may well be able to push the article over the line. Don't be disheartened; this is a tricky article, and I do hope you will no be discouraged from submitting content to GAC in the future. It's been good working with you, and I'd potentially be happy to review your articles in the future, but I'm going to close this review at this time. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Totally understand. Happy to have e-met and worked with you. I'll buzz you if I nominate any other articles in future. Possibly Man Booker Prize. Best, Nairspecht   Converse  16:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)