Wikipedia:Peer review/The Ruins of Gorlan/archive1

The Ruins of Gorlan
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make this article a GA or A class. Things I want done
 * I want a grammar and punctuation check.
 * I also want a full read over.
 * Do whatever you can to make this article better.

Thanks, User DarkJak495   talk  orange 00:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: I think you need to go to this WP page and study some of the book articles that have made it to GA. That will give you a better idea of what the requirements are for a book Good Article - though even here, some are much better than others. Meanwhile, here are a few comments on the article as it stands now:-

Lead: The lead is too short, and needs to be expanded to summarise the whole article.
 * Concept and development
 * "...decided to write them into a full-length novel." The verb "write" sounds wrong; perhaps "write them up..."?
 * "Horace disappears" What does this mean? Disappears magically, whooosh! or merely disappears from the stories?
 * "on the boar hunt" → "on a boar hunt".
 * "rehabilitate" does not need to be in quotes
 * "which was not in the original stories and was later incorporated into the novel." The "and" conjunction is wrong here. A possible rephrasing would be: "which, although not in the original stories, was later incorporated into the novel."
 * "He planned this parallel storyline in Battleschool to develop and show how Horace could help Will through his 'linear thinking'". I don't know what this means. What is "Battleschool", and what is meant by "linear thinking"?
 * "Flanagan was careful to make the distinction that Horace was not stupid..." No "distinction" there. Possibly "careful to make it clear that..."
 * Plot
 * "Will" needs to properly identified in the plot summary. Likewise "Sir Rodney" and "the Baron"
 * I am confused by this plot summary. In the Concept and development section the relationship between Will and Horace seems central to the story, yet the plot summary does not mention Horace.
 * Further points
 * Book articles, particularly those at GA or above, tend to have "Character" sections in which the main characters in the novel are briefly discussed
 * The Critcal reception section should be considerably expanded, and should be placed before the Audiobook information which is of minor importance. Phrases like "People consider..." should be avoided.
 * Apart from how the critics received the book, what was the publlc's reaction ,as expressed for example in sales figures?
 * Referencing does not look strong, and attention is needed to formats.

Brianboulton (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)