Talk:Acquainted with the Night (book)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel that this article is very close to GA quality, but there are a few things that came up during the review:

Lead:

• The information about naming the book is included here, but it is not found later in the article. When it is added later in the article, it should also have a reference.
  • Done [1] maclean (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Content:

• "The next 12 chapter" -> "The next 12 chapters"?
• "including," -> ", including"
• "Street lights" -> "street lights"
• The brief descriptions of chapters is sufficient to cover the GA requirement for breadth of coverage, but I felt at times that I would like to know a little more. If you plan to continue working on the article after the GA review, this would be a good place to add a bit of information.
  • Done. [2] I agree with you on the last point. It seemed logical to provide a chapter-by-chapter re-cap of the 12 hours/chapters but it resulted in a very limited overview of the subject (some of the wikilinks really help). There is no over-arching narrative to follow, but rather about 50 small essays. Not sure if it would best to do a couple words on each or more in-depth on a few, or some other format. maclean (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Style:

• The phrasing is a little confusing. In the lead, it states that it deals with the 12 hours of the night from 6pm to 5am. Here, it says that it discusses the 12 hours from 6pm to 6am. Although I understand what you're saying, this seems inconsistent and unclear.
• "to logically move the narrative along" -> "to move the narrative along logically" (split infinitive)
• "Gisèle Baxter writing in the journal Canadian Literature wrote that" - should probably be commas after Baxter and Literature, and the repetition of writing/wrote could be phrased better (perhaps replacing the second with "stated").
  • Done [3] maclean (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

References:

• A small issue that may just be because of the templates: Some reference use the "Month Day, Year" format, while others use the "Day Month Year" format. If it's possible to fix that, it should be fixed. If not, don't worry about it.
  • I don't know why it does that (uses the same templates and fields) but it can be corrected by switching the |date= field: [4] maclean (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I will place the nomination on hold for one week to allow for these to be addressed or discussed. Any comments can be left here, as this page is on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks great. As far as further development, perhaps a discussion of recurring ideas (if any) within the chapters could be added. For example, if he discusses two ideas and comes to the same conclusion or realization both time, that could be a good thing to add. Without having read the book, it's hard to say. The breadth of coverage is good for GA, though. Perhaps a peer review would be helpful if you're planning on taking this to FAC. Anyhow, thanks for the quick responses and for providing the diffs to help me see where the changes were made. I am promoting this article. Congratulations! GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your assistance! maclean (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)