Wikipedia:Peer review/The Time Traveler's Wife/archive1

The Time Traveler's Wife

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I would like to take this article to GAN, so please review accordingly. Awadewit (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like Ruhrfisch beat me here! Anyway, I have also started looking at this, and will try to add comments as this is going. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 12:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments I saw the title of the article when doing the semi-automated peer reviews and was intrigued. Overall this seems very ready for GA to me, but I do have a few suggestions. (I said I would review it, then Rjanag's excellent review was added). I agree with Rjanag's comments, which seem to have already been addressed.
 * In the lead, I would clarify that MacAdam/Cage is a publisher, perhaps as She eventually sent the novel to MacAdam/Cage unsolicited and they decided to buy [and publish] it. They are not a well-known publisher and I think it helps to somehow identify them beyond the link. I also wondered if it were worth adding the bidding contest in the lead?
 * New sentence: As a first-time novelist, Niffenegger had trouble finding a literary agent. She eventually sent the novel to MacAdam/Cage unsolicited and, after an auction took place for the rights, Niffenegger selected them as her publisher. Awadewit (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * One of my rules of thumb for the lead is to include every section header in some way, so I would mention the awards and audio books here too, perhaps the audio books could be mentioned in the same sentence as the upcoming film?
 * I've included a mention of the awards but left out the audio book. Since every bestseller is made into an audio book, I think I would be more inclined to mention it if there were something distinctive about the audio recording. Awadewit (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK by me. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In the Plot section, would this read more clearly Henry's last visit [as a time traveler] takes place on her eighteenth birthday in 1989... or is it the last time visit he ever makes before his death? "Here I am without feet, make love to me for your first time!"
 * Funny! Adopted your version. Awadewit (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Does Claire's brother shoot Henry accidentally or on purpose (or maybe accidentally-on purpose)?
 * It is accidentally. Clarified. Awadewit (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it would help to give Henry's age when he dies, so that the fact he is 43 when he sees Claire the last time is clearer. We know it is close to the end of her life - my guess is that it is also close to the end of his (in the weird world of time travel) so if we know he dies at 43 and is, say, 41 or 42 when he last visits Claire, that makes it more poignant.
 * Added. Awadewit (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the author teaches at the Center for Book and Paper Arts, is she also a paper sculptor (like Claire)?
 * She makes books - should I add this? Awadewit (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your call - if she were also a paper sculptor I would definitely add it, not sure about this. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In the Composition and publication section I would also clarify that it is a publisher in In 2002, she sent her manuscript unsolicited to MacAdam/Cage..., especially since the previous sentence is about her sending ot 25 literary agents
 * Added. Awadewit (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I like how she prefers the little guy publisher for her first novel, then takes $5 million from tiny art house Scribners for her second novel...
 * Yes, there is some snarky commentary about that in the press. Awadewit (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * $ and US$ are used inconsisitently (first use is just $, second is US$)
 * Added US to first one. Awadewit (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Did it get any science fiction reviews? Was it nominated for a Hugo or Nebula (skiffy awards)?
 * I've added more award nominations. I've looked again and I still can't find any SF reviews. I think perhaps it wasn't "hard" enough SF. I'll see if can find something. Awadewit (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Overall looks really good to me, and I can see this being a FA. Hope my comments help - If they are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your help - I've peer reviewed an article. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for an interesting read and the review - you have inspired me to think about notable sf books that I could get to GA - perhaps Clarke's Childhood's End or Zelazny's Lord of Light or Banks' Use of Weapons or Heinlein's Have Space Suit—Will Travel or Asimov's The Gods Themselves .... Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So many good choices, so little time! Awadewit (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional comments from Rjanag
 * Lead section
 * I found the transition from the plot summary sentence to "frustrated in love, Niffenegger decided to write a novel that was a metaphor for her failed relationships" a bit jarring, since it takes you suddenly from in-universe to out-of-universe, so I tried to tweak it a bit. Feel free to change it further, since I think my rewording isn't perfect either.
 * I like what you did - I've just tweaked it a bit further. Awadewit (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In the second paragraph, "reviewers...praised her characterization of Henry and Clare," this is the first time their names are used. Maybe you could either add the names in parentheses within the plot summary sentence in the first paragraph, or you could add a brief appositive in this sentence, or just scrap the names altogether and stick with "the husband and wife" or "the two main characters".
 * Good catch. I used "the couple". Awadewit (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Plot summary
 * Again, the use of names is a bit awkward in the first sentence; specifically, both "Henry" and "Clare" appear twice in that sentence. There are several different ways to get around it, so I'll leave it up to you.
 * I just deleted the reference to the characters in the first clause. Awadewit (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "he runs as a way of keeping calm and remaining in the present," reads a bit ambiguously for me (on the first pass, I read "run" in the sense of "flee"), so I changed it to "goes running" in attempt to clarify. It's a bit wordier this way, so I guess either way is a small trade-off.
 * Clarity is better than concision, though. Awadewit (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Over time, they develop a close relationship. Henry even helps Clare frighten and humiliate a boy who abused her." -- is "even" necessary? Maybe "At one point, Henry..." would also work.
 * I never did like the "even". Changed to "at one point". Awadewit (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 'Henry's last visit takes place on her eighteenth birthday in 1989, during which he and Clare make love for the first time. They are then separated for two years until their timelines converge for the first time "naturally".' -- last is confusing to me here, at glance I thought that meant she doesn't see him again for the rest of her life, but that's not the right reading. Along the same lines, I'm not totally sure I understand the distinction between them meeting "naturally" vs. meeting through time travel.  Do you mean that Henry has a "default" time that is his normal time, relative to the real year in which he was born, and this is the first time they meet when Henry is in normal time (as opposed to time traveling)?  Likewise, another thing I was wondering is, when Henry travels forward or backward in time, does he remain the same age?  (i.e., when he visits 6-year-old Clare, is he a child like her, or an adult?) nvm, I understand that now...although it might help to mention it more explicity early on, so that the reader doesn't have to wonder for as long.
 * A good place to explain this would be the second paragraph, I think. And, yes, Henry has a "default" timeline which he "jumps" out of. What would be a good way to explain this? Awadewit (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I clarified this: Henry begins time traveling at the age of five, jumping forward and backward relative to his own timeline. Awadewit (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Composition and publication
 * The first sentence confuses me. By "was drawing," do you mean was working as an artist, or do you mean a specific event (she was in the middle of drawing something when the idea popped into her mind)?  Also, I'm not sure what "The Time Traveler's Wife came to her in the novel's title phrase"...do you mean that specific phrase came to her as a possible title?
 * The sources aren't very clear on the first point - they just say she was drawing (as artists are wont to do). Awadewit (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * New version: "Niffenegger, an artist who teaches at the Center for Book and Paper Arts at Columbia College Chicago, was drawing when the inspiration for The Time Traveler's Wife came to her in a phrase: "the time traveler's wife"." Awadewit (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "In another interview, Niffenegger has said that the title of the novel came from an epigraph in J. B. Priestley's 1964 novel Man and Time: "Clock time is our bank manager, tax collector, police inspector; this inner time is our wife."" -- the colon makes it slightly ambiguous; structurally, this quotation could either be what Niffenegger said along thesee lines, or a quotation of the epigraph. I'm sure it's the latter, but maybe things could be shuffled around a bit to make that unambiguous.
 * Now reads "this epigraph", which should clarify the issue. Awadewit (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In general, this section seems to have a lot of quotations. It's not a terrible problem, and they're all properly attributed (of course...you're the last person I would have to worry about quoting improperly), but it might help to cut down on some.  Some might just be unnecessary&mdash;for example, the last quotation in the first paragraph is lengthy and doesn't express a lot that you haven't already expressed with "Niffenegger has forcefully stated that Clare is not a self-portrait"...it's just the same thing in Niffenegger's words, so it may not be necessary (although for that one I suppose part of the argument for including it is that it's from a LexisNexis source which may not be accessible to everyone; if that is a problem, you could always just include the quotation within the footnote rather than the main text).  Others could be kept, but better integrated into the text to break up the quote-y style&mdash;for example, 'As she comments, "The book itself is really about the marriage. Henry is not only married to Clare; he's also married to time."' could go to something like 'A central theme of the book is marriage, and Niffenegger states that Henry "is not only married to Clare; he's also married to time."'
 * I've tried to cut down on the quotations. See what you think. Awadewit (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you know who outbid MacAdam/Cage?
 * No. Awadewit (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Genre
 * In 'Niffenegger herself "hesitates" to label the novel', where does "hesitates" come from? The same source as the long quote following it (but the journalist's words, rather than Niffenegger's)?
 * Rephrased to avoid the quotation. Awadewit (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Like I said for the above section, I'm wondering if the long quote here can be trimmed or removed-and-summarized.
 * Done - see what you think. Awadewit (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the Penelope image and caption, Penelope is never mentioned in the main text. I'm not sure what MoS says about that (maybe the caption makes up for the lack of mention in the main text, I dunno), just thought I'd point it out.
 * I like to include captions that are not mentioned in the text as much as possible - less repetition that way. Awadewit (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Themes
 * How accurate is the sentence "The love between Henry and Clare is expressed in a variety of ways, including through an analysis and history of the couple's sex life.[16]"? I looked at the source (admittedly, I only skimmed it), and as far as I can tell Lee-Potter doesn't specifically make that claim; in the third-to-last paragraph he basically says there are a lot of sex scenes, but I don't see him saying anything about what it means or expresses in general.  That's of course open to interpretation, though.
 * The first part must be from another source which I forgot to cite. Now, of course, I don't remember which one. I'll have to go back and look. Awadewit (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Walter discusses both the relationship and the sex. I have added a cite. Awadewit (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reception
 * "As a result, the novel debuted at number 9 on the New York Times bestseller list." -- I don't know much about the book industry, but logically is it fair to assume that the novel's debut is necessarily a "result" of MacAdam/Cage's drive? (ie, correlation vs. causation)  I suppose it's a minor issue, but it did jump out at me.
 * Without all of their promotion, no one would have known to buy the book so quickly. It is causation (and that is how the sources present it). Awadewit (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Where Her Fearful Symmetry is mentioned, is there any good way to clarify (in few words, "forthcoming" or something) that the novel isn't out yet? I was confused and had to go to the Audrey Niffenegger page to check it out.
 * Good catch. Clarified. Awadewit (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Carey Harrison praised the originality of the novel's concerns with the intersection of child-bearing and time travel." -- slightly complicated sentence. Does it mean that the novel is concerned with the intersection of child-bearing and time travel, and that that's a pretty original thing to be concerned with?  (Looking at it now, I guess that's exactly what it means....)  As I was reading it, it was difficult to parse; it seems there should be a clearer way to say the same thing. The problem seems to be too many noun constituents crammed into the sentence; I think "concerns" could be lost, and the sentence rewritten as such...that might make it clearer.
 * Rewritten. Awadewit (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * General comments
 * Very interesting article, and you've done a good job finding images to illustrate it; the quote boxes are also well-chosen (I don't know what MoS has to say about the background color in them, but I don't care too much). If there is any one thing to work on, I would say it's probably cutting back on the use of quotations; the rest of the things I pointed out are pretty minor copyediting sort of things.
 * MOS says nothina bout the color, as far as I know. I like having a little bit of color. :) Awadewit (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On second, I'm not sure the Niffenegger quote in the Themes section is needed.... it's a pretty quote, but it's more about books in general than about this article (other than its relation to the topic of time travel...although to be honest, her argument in the quote seems a little contrived, and it certainly doesn't seem to be the same "theme" as time travel represents within the book itself). It might fit better in the Composition section (although then it would be uncomfortably close to the quote that's already included in the Plot section, and to the image that takes up most of the Composition section already).
 * Removed. Awadewit (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

All your new changes look good. Like Ruhrfisch said, I think this is more than ready for GA (in fact, on second thought we could have just called this a GA review and been done with it! although getting another pair of eyes onto the article in another review certainly can't hurt) and should be an easy pass. Best, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 14:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm all about getting lots of eyes. Awadewit (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)