Wikipedia:Peer review/A Pickle for the Knowing Ones/archive1

A Pickle for the Knowing Ones


This book is a unique masterpiece that twisted the conventions of literature at the time. I created this article because, after seeing a Reddit post about it, I was fascinated after more research but didn't find a Wikipedia article. I'd like to submit this to GA in the future (and hopefully FA), and would like someone to review the article before I do so. Thank you! Thanks, MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720
Comments after a quick skim:

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is quite short. Try looking for additional sources in Google Scholar, archive.org, WP:LIBRARY, or through databases offered by your local library system.
 * Take a look at some of the featured articles in the autobiography section to see if there are sections you can include in the article.
 * A characters section might be appropriate to add to the article, even if it is not a work of fiction.
 * A themes section might be appropriate for the article.
 * I don't think the quote in the Content section is needed, as this brings the article towards essay territory.
 * I don't think the quote in the Content section is needed, as this brings the article towards essay territory.

Comments from TompaDompa
TompaDompa (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As of my writing this, the article is between 800 and 900 words long. Of these, the WP:LEAD is roughly 100 words, the "Background" section is roughly 200 words, the "Content" section is roughly 300 words of which roughly 100 words are an excerpt from the book, and the "Legacy" section is roughly 200 words. That means that the "Background" section, which is about the author, makes up about a quarter of the entire article by word count and about a third of the actual content of the body (i.e. not counting the lead or the excerpt). That is, to me, a pretty clear sign of a WP:COATRACK issue.
 * If Blumenthal wrote extensively about the book, surely there is more to say about it than just A Pickle for the Knowing Ones was written on extensively by author W. H. Blumenthal?
 * By word count, the "Legacy" section is more than two-thirds verbatim quotes. Try to paraphrase instead.
 * I would focus on expanding the article with material about how it has been received and analysed. You say here in the peer review that the book is a unique masterpiece that twisted the conventions of literature at the time—can we find sources that discuss this aspect?
 * As of my writing this, the article is between 800 and 900 words long. Of these, the WP:LEAD is roughly 100 words, the "Background" section is roughly 200 words, the "Content" section is roughly 300 words of which roughly 100 words are an excerpt from the book, and the "Legacy" section is roughly 200 words. That means that the "Background" section, which is about the author, makes up about a quarter of the entire article by word count and about a third of the actual content of the body (i.e. not counting the lead or the excerpt). That is, to me, a pretty clear sign of a WP:COATRACK issue.
 * If Blumenthal wrote extensively about the book, surely there is more to say about it than just A Pickle for the Knowing Ones was written on extensively by author W. H. Blumenthal?
 * By word count, the "Legacy" section is more than two-thirds verbatim quotes. Try to paraphrase instead.
 * I would focus on expanding the article with material about how it has been received and analysed. You say here in the peer review that the book is a unique masterpiece that twisted the conventions of literature at the time—can we find sources that discuss this aspect?
 * If Blumenthal wrote extensively about the book, surely there is more to say about it than just A Pickle for the Knowing Ones was written on extensively by author W. H. Blumenthal?
 * By word count, the "Legacy" section is more than two-thirds verbatim quotes. Try to paraphrase instead.
 * I would focus on expanding the article with material about how it has been received and analysed. You say here in the peer review that the book is a unique masterpiece that twisted the conventions of literature at the time—can we find sources that discuss this aspect?