Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to see if I can take it to FAC in the future (it would be my first one). Any and all feedback is appreciated!

Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Venice in lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. DanCherek (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It received mixed reviews from critics: reviewers - needs a bit of cleanup. The novel recieved mixed critical reception, with reviwers... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done as suggested. DanCherek (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• gay romance - this feels like a weird term, maybe just comment that reviewers liked the romance between the characters, rather than that the book delved into LGBT stuff, which I don't think the reviewers are commenting on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewritten as "the relationships between the characters". DanCherek (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Be wary of WP:INFOBOXCITE, but things like the genre and amount of pages aren't cited and aren't in the body. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added number of pages to the Background section and the genres to Reception (also added "thriller" as a genre per sources). DanCherek (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• US$ - unless there's some ambiguity, you can just $. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. DanCherek (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The WP:SEEALSO section seems a bit tenious to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that you mention it, I agree... I've removed it. DanCherek (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I've addressed/implemented all of them. DanCherek (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Coming from Discord) Hi Dan! Quickly looking this over, it seems ready for FAC in all the areas I'm checking. The lead does a good job summarizing the body, the body seems to comprehensively cover the topic, the sources are well-formatted, etc. A few small things:

• Perhaps wikilink overtourism in the lead? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. DanCherek (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Nicholas "Nick" Brink I'm not sure the nickname is needed per MOS:NICKNAME, as "Nick" is a common derivation from "Nicholas". ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks—I've simplified it to just "Nick". I checked the book again and it uses "Nicholas" seven times and "Nick" 1,446 times, so I think the shortened version will be sufficient for a plot summary. DanCherek (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• characters — for instance per MOS:EMDASH, I don't think there's supposed to be spaces here. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup... fixed. DanCherek (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at the external links, I'm not too familiar with what we typically do, but I question if having one link to Google books and nothing else is the best possible configuration, so that might be an area to give some thought to. Wouldn't the page for it at HarpersCollins be appropriate to include? We have Special:BookSources, which isn't the best-designed page but it is our standard, so maybe some sort of link to that rather than giving preference to Google? Comparing to the WP:ELYES criteria, the main thing the Google Books link seems to provide that the article doesn't is links to places to buy the book. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the external links section entirely, on second thought. I agree with you that the Google Books link doesn't add much to the article. I don't really want to link to HarperCollins' site with a giant "Add to Cart" button. I considered the author's website at [1], but it's kind of a mess, as the reviews are mixed up with one of his previous books and it's just the homepage, rather than a dedicated subpage of the site. DanCherek (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated! DanCherek (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how helpful my comments are. The article looks good to me and there's nothing, as far as I can see in my research, that I would add here.

• I wonder what is to be done about the extent of primary sourcing here. Having some facts only attributable to Bollen in interviews or his own articles seems problematic at first blush - the comparisons drawn between the book and his personal life (Guggeinheim etc) are quite interesting to me, but are they acceptable? I am not yet decided on this.
  • That's a good point, thank you. There are some things like the Guggenheim internship that can be cited to secondary sources such as [2], I'll go through and see what else I can find. DanCherek (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did what I could... but yes, you're right, and there's only so far that it can be taken—there are some things like the author's inspiration which are always going to originate from the author, with scant sourcing elsewhere. DanCherek (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Michael Cart of Booklist described the novel as "deftly paced and plotted" - is this a criticism?
  • No, the previous part was meant to contrast Cart's positive review and Rosenthal's negative review, but I can see why it's confusing and ultimately not that important, so I've removed "Critics disagreed on the quality of the narrative's pace". DanCherek (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Dennis Drabelle, writing for The Washington Post, similarly questioned - what is similar here? I am missing something
  • Like Rosenthal felt that various elements were not realistic, Drabelle found the optimistic relationship also kind of unrealistic, but again I can see how the distance between sentences can make that confusing so I've cut the word "similarly".
• appears comprehensive based on what I can find; new book, so little information is available
• no concerns about images
• any use for this? review which appears to have an editorial board here
  • Yes thanks, added to the article! As well as an additional review from BookPage. DanCherek (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Bollen highlights the effects of social inequality on their senses of identity and the decisions they make - this is a very general statement, but I understand if reviewers don't elaborate at all on what they mean by this. is there more to say? as in, is there anything to point to (as secondary reliable sources do...) on how social inequality in particular has altered identity or decisionmaking?
  • Expanded a little bit, based on existing sources. I'm a bit hesitant to bring in sources that aren't related to the book itself, so trying to make do with the sources that I have. DanCherek (talk) 14:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• glad that some links are replicated in the body and the lead; in the GA review, Highsmith was asked not to be linked to again, but I think this is a good choice, as it's useful navigationally and contextually
• PS: Ever read "What Belongs to You" by Garth Greenwell? you should.

Urve (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, which are very helpful! I will slowly make my way through them (and will add "What Belongs to You" to my reading list ). DanCherek (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have promise to peer review your article, and I will try to be as nitpicky as I can.

• The caption (A Beautiful Crime has drawn comparisons to works by Patricia Highsmith) is not related to the picture. Consider changing it to something more descriptive of the photograph.
  • It's a photo of Highsmith because the section discusses her works; the fact it's from a 1988 appearance on After Dark doesn't relate to the article so I would be reluctant to include that, if that makes sense. DanCherek (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove slashes, since it is not recommended in Manual of Style
  • "mystery/thriller" is taken from the LA Times source, so I think it's important to be consistent with their category name. DanCherek (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Accessibility OK
• Prose and info OK
• References OK
• Why are quotation marks present in "appraisal"?
  • It was a fake appraisal; I've reworded it as "a spurious authentication and appraisal". DanCherek (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! DanCherek (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that your article is suitable for FAC nomination, but take my word with a grain of salt - I am still new here :) Great job at your work! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]