Talk:This Census-Taker/GA1

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

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 03:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I will try to review this article for you.

1a - Clear and concise prose
The prose isn't too bad. In fact, in some cases, it's engaging. There are just a few grammatical and clarity issues that need to be worked out. Lazman321 (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Look for and remove instances where you placed a comma before a conjunction when the subject of the first clause did not change for the second.
 * For an example of a sentence where the comma should be removed: "It follows the mysterious events surrounding the alleged murder, and is told alternately in the first and third-person by an unreliable narrator."
 * "It tells the story of a boy who witnesses a violent event, possibly his mother killing his father, or his father killing his mother." - Both the plot section and the style and themes section seem to indicate that the father might've killed the mother, not the other way around. Might want to edit this sentence to clarify this.
 * "...sparse and Kafkaesque, a change from..." - "...sparse and Kafkaesque; a change from..."
 * "One day, when his father is away, a man with a gun identifying as a census-taker appears." - "One day, a man with a gun identifying as a census-taker appears while the boy's father is away."
 * "...the census-taker reappears and out of sight of the boy, drops something else into the hole." - "...the census-taker reappears and drops something into the hole that the boy doesn't see."
 * "He then asks if the boy wishes to leave with him and become his associate. The boy agrees." - "He offers the boy the chance to leave with him and become his associate, which the boy accepts."
 * "Sandberg however warns..." - "Sandberg warns..."
 * "...and at the end his adult self is unsure..." - "...and at the end, his adult self is unsure..."
 * "Events such as the father's violence towards animals, and his disposal of bodies into a deep hole, add to the uncanny atmosphere." - "Events such as the father's violence towards animals and his disposal of bodies into a deep hole add to the uncanny atmosphere."
 * "...also drew commentary, Slate describing him..." = "...also drew commentary; Slate described him..."
 * All actioned. About who killed who: I've recast it in terms of what the boy recalls. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Good work. This article does ✅ this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

1b - Adherence to the Manual of Style
There are only two issues that needs taken care of to pass this criterion: all quotes in the lead need inline citations as per MOS:LEAD, and "Reviewers and readers have attempted to discern the meaning of these messages, as well as the setting of the story" could be considered an example of weasel words as neither source mentions this. The three other required MoS guidelines are satisfied. The layout is fine, the fictional elements are framed properly, and there are no lists. Lazman321 (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Lead quotes cited. That sentence is based on Baker p. 370, note 5: "Reviews and discussions of the text inevitably discuss how and where it fits into [...]". I've now specified the footnote number. If the issue is with "these messages", I have changed it to be more general (Baker says the discussions attempt to "fill in the very deliberate blanks in the narrative"). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * While the context is whether or not this novella is set in the Bas-Lag universe, I will nonetheless accept your edits to the sentence. This article does ✅ this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

2a - Identifiable list of references
By far the easiest criterion to meet. This article does ✅ this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

2b - Reliable sources
All the sources used for this article are reliable. Even The Spectator article, which is marked as situational on WP:RSP because it mostly contains opinions pieces, is reliable in this instance because it is being used for the reception section and is written by a reputable writer, Tim Martin. This article does ✅ this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

2c - No original research
I've gone through a complete source check, and I only found two issues. Eric Sandberg did not state that there was no consensus on the genre, and Jacob Brogan of Slate did not mention the ending and was referring to "the possibility of a solution" when he said "tantalizing". Other than that, the sources check out. Lazman321 (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Both concerns have been addressed. This article does ✅ this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

2d - No copyright violations
With a copyvio score of 25.4%, this article does ✅ this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

3a - Main aspects
Were you not able to find sources to create a background section? Most good articles on novels and novellas have a background section that details the influences and history behind the novel or novella. I'd recommend trying to create one, though if you can't find sources to create it, I won't require it. I'd also recommend adding to the style and themes section that the novella occasionally switches to a second-person perspective, as some of the sources do mention that. Lazman321 (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Good job on adding the background section, even if I didn't expect it also have information on the novella's setting. Anyway, this article does ✅ this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

3b - Focused
The article is entirely focused on the novella and does not place undue emphasis on one aspect over another. This article does ✅ this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

4 - Neutral
Most of the article is written neutrally, and all opinions are clearly marked as such. No minority view is given undue emphasis. This article does ✅ this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

5 - Stable
Aside from your recent edits in response to my review, the last time this article was edited was July 18. There's no ongoing edit war or content dispute, so this article does ✅ this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

6a - Copyright tags
The only image this article uses has a perfectly valid fair-use rationale. This article does ✅ this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

6b - Relevant media
The only image is undeniably relevant to this article, as it is the cover art. This article does ✅ this criterion. Lazman321 (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

7 - Verdict
I have reviewed all the criteria that do not require a source check. I will eventually perform a source check on this article to review the rest of the criteria. So far, this article is showing potential. Lazman321 (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is pretty good and decently researched. As my first literature article review, it was quite fun, even if I've never read the book before. Nonetheless, there are a few things that need to be addressed, such as the lack of a background section. I will now be placing this review for seven days. Good luck. Lazman321 (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Lazman321: All done; thanks for the review. I've added a background section, but it is a bit generic since it is difficult to source the influences of this particular book. (There are interviews like and, but I wasn't confident if they were RS, so did not use them). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Point of advice for the future: even if the source is unreliable, if there is no reason to doubt that the interview was conducted, the interview can be used as a primary source. While some sources that specialize in fake news do fabricate interviews and you should be wary of random Reddit posts, neither of the sources you listed seem to be fabricated, especially the YouTube interview which has China Mieville on screen. Looking at the GoodReads interview, which was written by the staff by the way, it seems to contain useful information about the writing of This Census-Taker. I would recommend incorporating it and, if it has useful information, the YouTube interview. I will try to respond over the weekend, as I might be too busy with school to respond tomorrow. Lazman321 (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Lazman321: Done. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Great job. This article has the review. Lazman321 (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)