Wikipedia:Peer review/The Good Terrorist/archive1
The Good Terrorist[edit]
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a GA and I would like to take it to FAC. I'd appreciate it if anyone has any feedback or suggestions.
Thanks, —Bruce1eetalk 07:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Quick comment: Is there any special reason why the reception is split into "For" and "Against"? It's usually merged as one to avoid focus on the negative/positive, right? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to agree with you, but it was split at the suggestion of the GA reveiwer here. I'd be happy to remove the split if it is felt that that would be better. —Bruce1eetalk 07:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Since this has been in the backlog for long, I've invited two editors from the Volunteer list under British literature. Good day, Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Nikkimaria
- Many of your short citations aren't working because you're missing the ref=harv parameter in Works cited entries
- Fair-use rationale for File:GoodTerrorist.jpg should be more extensive
- What is "the Council"?
- Some issues with MOS:HYPHEN to review
- "prompted by "the race issue" that was prominent in Rhodesia" - could expand on this
- Quotes longer than about 40 words should be blockquoted
- Generally could use more explanation and analysis of the characters involved
- Are you suggesting a Main characters section? If I add that to the Plot section it's going to make it very long. —Bruce1eetalk 08:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Depends on what sort of information you have - plot-based description of characters vs analysis of characters. There's some of the latter in Critical opinion already. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting a Main characters section? If I add that to the Plot section it's going to make it very long. —Bruce1eetalk 08:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- How are you distinguishing between Critical opinion and Reception? What material goes where?
- This split was suggested by the GA reveiwer. "Reception" deals with reviews by critics, whereas "Critical opinion" covers "analysis" by critics. —Bruce1eetalk 08:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. Would suggest reviewing Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Writing_about_fiction and the articles linked from there - I think there may be better options for article organization generally. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- This split was suggested by the GA reveiwer. "Reception" deals with reviews by critics, whereas "Critical opinion" covers "analysis" by critics. —Bruce1eetalk 08:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- Publication history?
Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)