GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Nominator: Jaguarnik (talk · contribs) 00:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Averageuntitleduser (talk · contribs) 01:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, Jaguarnik! From a glance at the plot, I couldn't resist this. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking this review on so promptly! Jaguarnik (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

[edit]
Done.
To be honest, I got this phrasing from Dayan and Glover, who describe the reception as "received enthusiastically by the French literary establishment, but criticized by scholars"; I was originally going to change it to "received enthusiastically in France", but the fact that it also received an award from the Belgian Académie royale complicates that. Could something like "received enthusiastically by Francophone audiences" work?
I like that! And yes, this issue does not go further than the lead.
Done.
Done.
The exact phrasing from the book is "She then declared loudly that Hadriana had not died of natural causes. And it certainly would not take Sherlock Holmes’s talents to find the trail that would lead straight to the evildoer. This whole affair had Balthazar Granchiré’s signature on it!" So Losange doesn't directly state that Granchiré killed Hadriana, but that's the implication. I changed it to "Hadriana's death was caused by Balthazar Granchiré."
I figured that would be the case. For your consideration, I'd thought of, "Balthazar Granchiré was involved in Hadriana's death", but whether it's an improvement is a toss-up. Either way, this change works well!
Done.
Done.
Done.
Found and added.

Verifiable with no original research

[edit]

Not seeing any red flags; lots of established journals, professors, writers, and publishers. Formatting looks good. Earwig score is low, and I found no close paraphrasing during the spot-check.

Good news @Averageuntitleduser:: I looked at a source and noticed some details that I had missed earlier about the creation of the novel. I inserted those into the background and removed the part about his first and second novels. If you could please reexamine that, that would be great. Jaguarnik (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both a nice addition and compromise! This wasn't necessary, but I also cobbled together the publication info with Poinsot. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check

[edit]

Broad in its coverage

[edit]

The range of sources, both in language and timescale, is commendable. I don't sense any missing sections or details and note that the background around Depestre helps inform the later analysis. After searching in French and English through TWL and Google Scholar, I feel the article is sufficiently broad. I've also checked the unused results, the most detailed of which is a master's thesis and a peculiar article–digital project; both are fun but not very citable.

Stable

[edit]

No recent content disputes or edit wars.

Illustrated

[edit]

The cover has a proper fair use rationale. The Jacmel view is an own-work and seems fairly representative of the setting.

Summary

[edit]

The "zombie-writer" bit and how much Depestre's intentions differed from public perception were quite interesting. A very accessible read overall! Beginning with some prose comments. I've made a few minor tweaks myself; feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I've addressed most of the issues, I've left a comment above about one of them.Jaguarnik (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguarnik: Great work here! Alright, two more comments, and the one in the spot-chek is a nit-pick. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguarnik: Well, I think that's all I've got. Congrats for a well-deserved first GA! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.