Talk:Underground (Murakami book)/GA2

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

Reviewer: Olegkagan (talk · contribs) 15:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Will have this article reviewed within the next few days.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Upon thoroughly reviewing this article I must say that while it has plenty of good things about it, it will need more work to reach GA status.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * There is some unclear, awkward, and imprecise phrasing in the article.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Aside from areas mentioned below, the lead it looks pretty good. However, beyond that, several sections are so short they make the article look (and read) choppy (see WP:BODY).
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * Satsuki (1997-04-14) is a dead link. I tried searching for it on the open web and in databases but couldn't find the article anywhere. I have a feeling either the citation is wrong, or the article simply does not exist.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Aside from the dead link, the other sources look reliable.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * The summary-type sections ("Conclusions", "Common themes") are good, but other sections, such as "Motivations" and "Reception" need more work. The latter especially.
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Underground has potential, and despite the fact that it was a GA before, I do not feel that it is one now. The standard hold time of one week would not be enough to fix the issues in the article, so I am going to fail it now. That said, once the issues are resolved, it should certainly be resubmitted.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Underground has potential, and despite the fact that it was a GA before, I do not feel that it is one now. The standard hold time of one week would not be enough to fix the issues in the article, so I am going to fail it now. That said, once the issues are resolved, it should certainly be resubmitted.
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Underground has potential, and despite the fact that it was a GA before, I do not feel that it is one now. The standard hold time of one week would not be enough to fix the issues in the article, so I am going to fail it now. That said, once the issues are resolved, it should certainly be resubmitted.

Clarity and Conciseness

 * "The interviews were conducted over nearly a year, starting in January 1996 and ending in December of that same year." - Suggested fix: "...nearly a year, from January to December, in 1996."
 * "Isolation, individualism, and lack of communication were also strong themes which were common throughout many accounts of the attacks." - A little too much in the end. Could be more concise.
 * "despite the former being criticized as being "one-sided,"" - The "one-sided" is clear neither here nor in the "Reception" section. I'm assuming it's talking about the being against the attackers, but I don't have the source in front of me so I can't be sure.
 * "Underground was originally published..." - repeated twice in the History section.
 * "...allowing him to build a background picture of them that is included before each interview" - "Background picture" is not clear. Suggested fix: "...allowing him to add background information to the introduction of each interview"
 * In the second paragraph of the Conclusions section, "He further..." and "Murakami also..." The second sentence need to have more contextual transition, otherwise the two sentence don't flow together well.
 * "One of the most prominent themes was the value and importance which the interviewees..." - Value and importance seem synonymous here. Choose one or replace both with a different word.
 * "but instead waited for employees whose authority allowed them to intervene." - Unclear. Allowed who to intervene?

Structural changes

 * The "History" section should probably be called "Publication History" for clarity. The two paragraphs really need to be organized so it is crystal clear how the Japanese and English versions differ, including bringing the specifics of the number of interviews in each version from the "Reception" section (where it doesn't really belong).
 * The "Motivations" section is basically made up of a single (long) quote and a bit from the Rubin biography. It should be merged with the "Method" section and renamed something like "Development" or maybe the alliterative "Motivations and method" even.
 * Finally, the "Reception" section is tiny. It really needs to be expanded. See below.

Addressing main aspects

 * "he wanted to fulfill a responsibility he felt towards Japan's society" - What responsibility? Needs elaboration.
 * "His interviews with Aum members are intentionally more combative" - Why and how are they more combative?
 * The "Reception" section is completely lacking. This book was reviewed by plenty of mainstream outlets so I am concerned that barely anything reviewers said has made it into the article.
 * Nowhere in the article is it mentioned that The Place that Was Promised won the Kuwabara Takeo prize for non-fiction in 1999. Sources: Murakami's website, Mark Massuri's biography of Murakami for teens, and The Facts on File Companion to the World Novel.
 * OPTIONAL: I realized that both Aum Shinrikyo and sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway have their own articles, but the article for Underground should give a little bit of background on both, perhaps in conjunction with some biographical information about Murakami.