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.
Hi @Chiswick Chap, thank you for reviewing and glad you found the article interesting! I've responded to your comments below. A few questions and explanations included. Do let me know if you have anything further to add. Unexpectedlydian♯4talk‽ 21:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a line in the article with a citation.
Suggest you create a section (say, 'Publication history' or something similar) and put the publication details and translations in there.
Publication history section added now.
There is some overlap between the Plot section (last paragraph), the 'Posthumous pardons' section, and the 'Background' section, which needs to be sorted out. First, I'd remove the last para from Plot.
Have removed the last paragraph from the Plot section. I think I've fixed the other duplication now as well - thanks for spotting.
I suggest (this isn't the only possible approach) you begin with a 'Context' section, which says Morpurgo is a novelist, writes children's books, etc, has won prizes (refs). Then you have a few lines about the First World War (refs). Then I think 'Background' should be retitled 'Inspiration'; it's up to you whether this is a subsection of 'Context' but it should be next. You might perhaps want to have subsections 'Author', 'First World War', and 'Inspiration', in that order.
I have structured the article as described in MOS:NOVELS. It doesn't seem to request any sections about the author for context? I'd imagine readers can go to Morpurgo's page or just hover over his name for that info. I have renamed "Background" to "Inspiration" as I agree it is entirely about the inspiration for the novel. I have now separated out "Publication history" into its own section. Might have to expand it as it's currently a small section.
Then I suggest you have 'Plot' and 'Publication history'. Then 'Themes' and 'Reception': but the last bit of 'Reception', "Diane Samuels ... style of prose" I think basically belongs with the 'Themes' material, so maybe that section should be called 'Analysis' or something like that.
See above regarding structure as per MOS:NOVELS. The quote from Samuels is framed as a criticism of the novel in the context of the review, so I think it sits better in "Reception". I have made this a bit clearer in the article.
Then you need to go through the text and make sure you only describe the gravestone story once, i.e. merge the paragraph from 'Background' with 'Thomas...Peacefull'.
Now that "Background" has been renamed to "Inspiration", the detail regarding the gravestone in that section is now more clearly framed as being the inspiration for the name of the main character. I have also added subheading which should aid clarity. The detail in "Legacy" is now wholly about how the novel led to the name on the gravestone being corrected. I think in these contexts, it's worth mentioning the gravestone in two places? I can make it clearer if needed.
I'm not convinced that the book's postscript needs to be quoted in detail, or even at all, as the paragraph above the quotation says what is required. On the other hand, you might want to summarize a bit about the lack of knowledge of shell shock and the summary executions in the paragraph about the First World War in your 'Context' section.
I've removed the full quote. There is detail about shell shock in the "Plot" subheading of "Inspiration" - I can move or repeat if it would help with clarity?
Have linked "implemented by the UK Government in 2006" (to Armed Forces Act 2006), and Harper Collins Children's Books. Do let me know if you have further suggestions.
This is a nice piece of work which I think just needs a little reshaping to make it into a Good Article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, comments all actioned, it's a GA. There is a residual duplication between the mentions of Peaceful[l] in the Inspiration and Legacy sections. This is an example of what happens when one sticks to the letter of the law (policy) rather than varying it to suit the individual article, which is of course permitted when there's good reason for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2023 (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.