Wikipedia:Peer review/The Left Hand of Darkness/archive1

The Left Hand of Darkness
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to take it to FAC eventually. I would appreciate feedback on any portion of it, but in particular I would like to hear about anything necessary that I have left out.

Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably one of the best articles I've seen today. Really possible to pass to FA but there are somethings that I have doubts. Other than that, good work in the article. On another note I also requested a peer review in Peer review/Allen Walker/archive1 and I would appreciate some feedback. Regards and good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Starting with the lead the paragraphs could be reorganized. For example, the first paragraphs talks about the premise, the second and the third could be trimmed and merged, whereas the last could talk about the reception without going too far about all the awards.
 * 2) References are normally avoided in the FAs I've seen in their lead and infoboxes. I would only keep them if I am quoting something or I'm writing controversional info that other users might change.
 * 3) Moving on to the body I would make the primary characters as subsection of the plot since they are quite related. The same goes with setting.
 * 4) What surprised me about reception is that while it is well written, it has no mentions of sales. I would question them if I were reviewing the article.


 * Tintor2, thank you for your suggestions. Point 4 is spot on; this is information I need to find. You are also correct about point 2: I only used references for very specific facts, which might also be matters of dispute. I'm a little hesitant to merge setting and characters into the plot section, partly for aesthetic reasons, partly because the weight that reviewers tend to give the setting in their analyses, often quite separate from specific plot points. I believe the MOS for good articles about fiction also suggests a separate "setting" section. Finally, can I ask you to be a little more specific with respect to the lead reorganization? I tried to be as brief as possible while mentioning major highlights; I'd appreciate suggestions as to specific things I could remove from the lead. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I would suggest to make it like "the novel won several awards and has been well-received by critics for...." "Left Hand was among the first books published in the feminist science fiction genre and the most famous examination of androgyny in science fiction" feels like a good generalization so I would remove the reference from the lead. Also, you could a bit of creation in the lead next or before the reception. The reason why I said if you could leave the characters next to the setting and plot is that all of that is in-universe information.Tintor2 (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have made some tweaks per your suggestions. I haven't gone as far as you suggested, because the multiple rankings are something that a lot of reviewers mention, but I've trimmed it. I've also swapped the order of the sections. The sentence you point to is a generalization, but it is also an exceptional claim, so I'd rather leave the reference when it actually says exactly that. I will get on the issue of sales soon. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There is nothing much for me to say. There are too many FAs that use references in the lead but I would recommend you using El Señor Presidente as a model (at least the lead). I would also suggest you to check more peer reviews to get more feedback. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Tintor2, I'm closing this for lack of participation, but I'm going to go ahead and chance FAC. If you could leave any suggestions there, I'd appreciate it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Commenting to prevent automatic archive: Ideally, I'd like another user to comment. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up that auto-archiving was moved back to 2 months. No need to bump a discussion to prevent auto-archiving unless it's getting close to that. Alternatively, works to prevent archiving. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Rob: noted, thanks! Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)