Obernewtyn (novel)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have worked on this article for so long I am unable to see what needs changing, adding or removing from the page. I feel a fresh set of eyes is needed to look at it before I renominate it for GAN.

Thanks, Limolover talk 11:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Limolover. So, I've done a quick copy-editing, and most of the article is fine. The biggest issue I see right now is that your plot summary section is much too long. It needs to be cut down a lot. Take out anything that's not important in the long run to the plot, and stick to essentials. Brambleclawx 16:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the referencing is fine, but there are a few sources, especially reviews, that might be seen as unreliable; for example, the Need Coffee reference: I've never heard of the site, and Wikipedia doesn't have an article on it. You're likely going to be asked "how is this site reliable?". Brambleclawx 00:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, plot summary shorter and remove blog reviews. Thanks Brambleclaw! --Limolover talk 03:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Review from Cunard

This article is well developed but not ready for a good article nomination.

Lead

Composition

Synopsis

  • I am unsure as to whether my fix fits prose-wise. What do you think (Context section)? --Limolover talk 10:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My question is who said it was sent by Lud to punish humanity. I see you've revised it to "later said by the Herders (leaders of the new religous order)". That looks fine to me. Cunard (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Publication history

Adaptations

Sources

  • Looking at their 'about us' section, this site appears not to be user-generated, and is rather run by the book editors of the amazon website. --Limolover talk 11:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. Judging by the "about us" page, Ominvoracious seems to be a reliable source. Cunard (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • These two quotes are widely used both by the publishers and bookseller sites to promote the book, however I can find no independent source for them. Should I use the publisher's quoting of them? --Limolover talk 10:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you can cite the publisher's website in place of the Obernewtyn source? Cunard (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information about the book's themes. I recommend creating a "Theme" section, using the structure of the featured article To Kill a Mockingbird.

The most significant issues that bar this article's promotion to GA are the use of unreliable sources, the lack of a theme section, and the prose problems. Once these issues are resolved, the article will be prepared for a GA nomination. Cunard (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks you Cunard for your thorough review. I have admittedly been having difficulty finding very reliable sources for some of these areas, but it seems silly to delete such information which is accurate merely because the sources are not well-known. --Limolover talk 00:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale for removing the sources is not because they are "not well-known" but because they are not reliable. The lack of editorial oversight and fact-checking for accuracy renders those sources unusable for a Wikipedia article. There are some sources at Google News Archive that you have not used in your article. Google Books may also be helpful. Cunard (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More sources

Some of the sources are about the series as a whole or about the other books, though some will be helpful. Cunard (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic, thanks for these Cunard. I was unaware this database existed. --Limolover talk 05:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]