Wikipedia:Peer review/The Good Terrorist/archive1

The Good Terrorist
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a GA and I would like to take it to FAC. I'd appreciate it if anyone has any feedback or suggestions.

Thanks, —Bruce1eetalk 07:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Quick comment: Is there any special reason why the reception is split into "For" and "Against"? It's usually merged as one to avoid focus on the negative/positive, right? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with you, but it was split at the suggestion of the GA reveiwer here. I'd be happy to remove the split if it is felt that that would be better. —Bruce1eetalk 07:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Since this has been in the backlog for long, I've invited two editors from the Volunteer list under British literature. Good day, Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —Bruce1eetalk 13:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Many of your short citations aren't working because you're missing the ref=harv parameter in Works cited entries
 * Done. —Bruce1eetalk 08:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair-use rationale for File:GoodTerrorist.jpg should be more extensive
 * Done —Bruce1eetalk 08:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What is "the Council"?
 * It's the City Council – I've added that to the Plot section. —Bruce1eetalk 08:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Some issues with MOS:HYPHEN to review
 * I think I've addressed all the issues. —Bruce1eetalk 08:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "prompted by "the race issue" that was prominent in Rhodesia" - could expand on this
 * I've reworded that sentence. —Bruce1eetalk 08:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Quotes longer than about 40 words should be blockquoted
 * Done. —Bruce1eetalk 08:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally could use more explanation and analysis of the characters involved
 * Are you suggesting a Main characters section? If I add that to the Plot section it's going to make it very long. —Bruce1eetalk 08:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends on what sort of information you have - plot-based description of characters vs analysis of characters. There's some of the latter in Critical opinion already. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit to the Plot summary. —Bruce1eetalk 12:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How are you distinguishing between Critical opinion and Reception? What material goes where?
 * This split was suggested by the GA reveiwer. "Reception" deals with reviews by critics, whereas "Critical opinion" covers "analysis" by critics. —Bruce1eetalk 08:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. Would suggest reviewing Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction and the articles linked from there - I think there may be better options for article organization generally. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Publication history?
 * Would you suggest a table or a prose section? —Bruce1eetalk 08:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, depends what kind of information you have - either could work. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a Publication history section. —Bruce1eetalk 12:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to review the article. —Bruce1eetalk 08:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the updates – I'll have a look at these issues. —Bruce1eetalk 05:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Finally, after almost a year (!), I think I've addressed your outstanding issues. —Bruce1eetalk 12:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)