Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Private (novel series)/1

Private (novel series)

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Endorse fail. The reviewer has provided further helpful information on improving the article. Geometry guy 18:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect and appreciation for the second review, I'm seeking an additional opinion because I've found that the reasoning overlooks certain matters and is unspecific in other regards.


 * I'm more than happy for there to be a reassessment of the GA Review. I'm not here to defend that review, but to provide further information and details as requested...--jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The criticism that some of the Character descriptions are short can be attributed to several noticeable factors, each of which attempts to stay in-line with policy or decorum: 1) The original, longer versions have been shortened and spun-off via Summary style. 2) The sources cited for the character information provide only basic, limited material. 3) Adding additional, unverified character material would necessitate original research, which the section attempts to avoid.


 * The effect, however, is that much of the article ends up looking like a list rather than an article per se. If there really is nothing more that can be said about these characters (which may well be the case), then these sections can at least be consolidated.  Perhaps you would end up with two sections only: "Major characters" and "Minor characters."  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The reviewer asserts that "there is almost nothing in important areas such as 'Themes,'" but fails to specify which other important areas throughout the article contain "almost nothing."


 * Start with "Themes"! I'd say that this is a vital part of any such article.


 * As for another example: for good reasons, articles about novels or other books almost always have a "Background" section, which covers both the literary and the cultural or social background for the work. This is entirely missing (except for a brief nod in the lead to "book series about young women in posh inner-circles experiencing a rise in popularity throughout the 2000s," otherwise unmentioned; the lead and the article don't really gel).   Yet I'd say that this would be essential for this article to be fleshed out in a serious fashion, and become properly encyclopedic.  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The comment that some sections "aren't even a full sentence long" is again unspecific, and applies to a strict minority; I only noticed one upon reexamining the article. If another has been overlooked, it will be corrected. (I extend a thank-you to the reviewer for bringing this to my attention.)


 * Here are another three, each right after the other:


 * Drake House. A dormitory for upperclassmen boys. Nicknamed "Dreck" because it is supposedly where all the unsavory boys at Easton live.  Pemberly Hall.  Junior/Senior girls who fall short of reaching Billings reside in Pemberly.  Hale Hall.  Where members of staff reside, nicknamed "Hell Hall" by the students.


 * None of these are full sentences. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been left further unspecified as to what prose in the "Book releases" section was "confusing." As for the section being a "mix," it's worth noting that it was originally separated, and later consolidated via the suggestion of the previous reviewer.


 * This is the longest section of the entire article, and is mainly a list of dates of publication, with some comments about plot points mixed in. Consolidation per se is not a problem: but there are better ways to do it.  The current presentation is confusing.


 * Indeed, generally, I'd have thought that the article structure should be rethought. Why is there a "Series overview" section?  Isn't that what the lead is for?  Why not have some kind of "synopsis," which is otherwise distributed between this section and "Book releases."  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is also left unspecified as to how the criticised sentence regarding the imagery was "very confusing" when the reviewer looked upon the images; the images illustrate exactly what is stated.


 * No, they don't. What is meant by the wording (as far as I could gather) is a reference to the back cover of the book.  But what is actually stated is a reference to the "opposite side" of the image itself.    --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

With regard to why the aforementioned sentence appears in the lead, it is there to point out a recurring theme present in the series' imagery. No further ideas/speculation about this theme are offered because the article attempts to avoid original thought.


 * See WP:LEAD for what should be in the lead, and how it should relate to the article body. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect, I can accept a failure, but I would simply like to request a more specific response to the GA nomination. Thank you. James26 (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope that this more specific response has been of some help. Again, good luck!  --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 19:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Endorse fail. Reading the comments, I had a brief worry that, having recently experienced some of the most rigorous GA reviews in all of Wikipedia, Jbmurray might be applying too exacting standards. But this is not the case. Articles with short sections like this routinely fail good article nominations, and the recommendations to consolidate some of the sections are excellent, as are all of the other reviewer recommendations. I'm sorry that GAR has been so slow to provide further responses. I can elaborate if necessary, but it might be better to close this discussion sooner rather than later so that the nominator can get on with addressing the concerns of the reviewer and renominating. Geometry guy 21:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)