Talk:A Thousand Splendid Suns/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to review. I really appreciate it. --1ST7 (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. I'm guessing from your relatively new account that this is your first nomination? Don't worry, it's a really painless process. I won't have time to do detailed comments tonight, but at first glance, the article looks close to ready. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is my first nomination, so I'm not too familiar with the process but am glad to hear that it's not too complicated. Anyway, thanks again and have a good evening. --1ST7 (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

This is a strong first nomination, and seems close to ready for promotion. Thanks again for your work on it, I think it's really paid off. I'm a bit of a grammar stickler, but I found very little to pick at here; it seems well-written and to cover major aspects of the subject. I have a few concerns noted below, but I think these will be easily fixed. If you would use the {{done}} template under the points that have been done, I'd appreciate it; I'm also happy to discuss further if you disagree with any. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Together with The Kite Runner, it sold over 38 million copies worldwide across 70 countries" -- this is a slightly confusing statistic, especially as Kite Runner, which was such a monster publishing sensation, presumably outsold this one. Is it possible to give an individual figure? I know these can be hard to come by for books.

 Done I was only able to get a figure for the number of copies sold during the first week, as every other source seems to use the 38 million figure, but I think it's more clear now. --1ST7 (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• "behind her walls"" -- the blockquote ends with a quotation mark but doesn't begin with one. Since it's a blockquote, I don't think the marks are needed here in any case, but this should be fixed either way.

 Done --1ST7 (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Jennifer Marciniak's paper from academia.edu is very unlikely to meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources, which require a reputation for editorial oversight and factchecking; this seems more like a self-published source. This probably needs to be cut.

 Done --1ST7 (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• "The movie is expected to be released in 2015" -- This sentence seems like it could rapidly go out of date. Per WP:REALTIME, it would be good to fix this expectation to a date, i.e., "in October 2012, the studio was announced a tentative release date of 2015."

 Done --1ST7 (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• The lead should act as a summary of the body, rather than independent text, per WP:LEAD; the information about the book's sales should thus be mirrored in the body text, while sections of the body like "Themes" and "film" should be mentioned in the lead. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done --1ST7 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Thanks for the speedy responses. Let me do a final check to see if there's anything left. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA