Second DYK nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 01:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source: Warner, Sylvia Townsend (1983). Maxwell, William (ed.). Letters. New York: Viking. p. 78.
  • Source: Robert L. Caserio, The Novel in England, 1900–1950: History and Theory (New York: Twayne, 1999).
  • Ellmann, Maud (2017). "Everyday War: Sylvia Townsend Warner and Virginia Woolf in World War II". NOVEL: A Forum on Fiction. 50 (1): 77–96. ISSN 0029-5132.
Improved to Good Article status by Luiysia (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 5 past nominations.

Luiysia (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by SL93 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: 5x article expansion confirmed. Passes earwig and is adequately sourced in the article (may have missed to include source in hook nom entry). No close paraphrasing was found, and the hook is interesting, cited inline, and verified. QPQ done. Nom good to go. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Corner That Held Them/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Luiysia (talk · contribs) 17:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 18:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lead: say it's a historical novel? (Better do the same in 'Contemporary' when introducing Peter Abelard and Kristin Lavransdatter.
  • Normally a novel article would have a simple summary of up to 600 words. This has a multi-section chapter of some 1500 words, which is definitely over the recommended length for a "plot" section. It's an admirable summary in many ways, but not in line with Wikipedia's approach, so basically it needs to be cut down by about half.
  • In addition to the complex summary, there is a 700 word list of characters annotated with descriptions of their roles in the story. This is unusual in a novel article, and with the summary brings the purely descriptive ("plot") part of the article to 2200 words, nearly four times the recommended length. The options are to drop the list (in which case we have about 600 words available for the plot section above), or trimming the character annotations, e.g. Ursula might become "A servant, former nun".
  • The Reception and Analysis chapters are both actually of a very good length, structure, clarity, range of sources, and amount of detail. It is currently rather swamped by the very large plot chapter, but that issue should be resolved per the above comments.
  • Categories seem reasonable.

Images

  • The only image is the cover, which has a standard NFUR.

Sources

  • Article is fully and appropriately cited, mainly to critical and scholarly sources.
  • Spot-checks: [2], [11], [22] ok.
  • [5] may have verified the claim made but now it just has a brief extract of the book, not Harman's introduction? I guess there might be an archived version somewhere. Actually we don't even need the URL here as we can treat the ref as offline (doesn't matter).

Summary

  • This is a very tidily-written and well-cited book article. My only concern really is the length of the 'plot' section. Once that's sorted this'll be a worthy GA. If you have the time, I'd be delighted if you could review one of my articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the review. I'll address these comments as soon as I have time, and see if I can review an article of yours Luiysia (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressed your concerns in most recent edit - the plot + character list is now about 1200 words. I realize this is a bit longer than recommended, but due to the narrative structure of this book it's difficult to choose parts of the story to omit Luiysia (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. It would be wise to cite / repeat citations for the Reception paragraph as editors won't see that it is just a lead-in to what follows. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2025 (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.
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Corner_That_Held_Them
No tags for this post.