Talk:The Ash Garden/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look and start to leave some comments within the next few days. I am taking on board a batch of reviews, so it may be some time before I start to comment. I am also by nature a fairly slow and thorough reviewer who likes to check out sources, so this is unlikely to be quick. However, I am always willing to help out on the editing, and will make direct minor adjustments myself rather than list them. I always welcome discussion, and see the review process as entirely collaborative. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time. If there are any offline references you want to check, let me know and I will email them to you. maclean (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tick list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

There is a source problem with File:Ash Garden.jpg. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This {{Bsr}} template demand is new to me. Does this satisfy the requirement? maclean (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There appear to be a number of covers - [1] - the publisher currently uses this one. Unless there is a specific reason to use File:Ash Garden.jpg, why not upload from the publisher, and then link to that as the proper source? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have linked to Harper Collins. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was published simultaneously in USA, Canada and UK, yet UK is not mentioned in lead and infobox. Is there a reason for that? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer to only list Canada in the infobox as I view it as a Canadian novel (written by a Canadian while living in Canada, partially set in Canada). Would that be alright? maclean (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that it was published simultaneously by the three publishers, who are mentioned as having worked together on the editing of the novel, I think that it would be appropriate to list all three. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have listed all three publishers. I've assumed that HarperCollins is the Canadian publisher based on the HarperCollins Canadian website containing details of the novel while the Alfred A. Knopf Canadian publisher does not. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

The prose is clear and informative. The lead is adequate, though could contain a little more of the story. The conclusion of the novel is also a little unclear from the Summary, and that could be looked into as part of ongoing development. The article is well sourced and the sources check out. Tone is neutral and balanced. Coverage appears to be acceptable - though a little more clarity regarding the content and outcome of the novel would be welcome. Well done on the research and writing to get the article to GA standard. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review. maclean (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]