Talk:And the Mountains Echoed

DABs

The National and the Star links need disambiguation--thanks as always for all of these you're writing, 1ST7. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. Hope you're having a good day, --1ST7 (talk) 23:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:And the Mountains Echoed/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 15:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: 1ST7

This article is a strong candidate for GA status. The lead correctly summarized all sections of the body, conforming to WP:LEAD. The layout is very good; I particularly like how the "Themes" and "Critical reviews" sections are structured. (Rather than being a quote-dump, they bring out the various points that critics have made.) I think all the important facets have been covered, and no part goes into excessive detail. The References section is fine. One image is free, and the other has a valid rationale; both are used appropriately.

There are only two points that need to be addressed. The direct quote "fragmented and fluid" needs a source. Is it Smith at LATimes? Similarly, for "a character who slips beneath the notice of many of the novel's noisier characters": is that Brown at the Telegraph? Besides that, all the sourcing seems appropriate.

There are a few places where the prose could be improved. Consider, for example, the repeated use of the term "bestseller" in the sentence beginning "It received favorable pre-publication reviews..." Or consider the unclear "this" and awkward construction of the sentence beginning "While there, he heard stories..." Or, for one last example, the sentence beginning "Pari suspects that she..." could use to be broken up. But these are not grammatical errors or lapses of clarity, so they're not required for GA status. (I don't mention them to be overly critical, but only to offer suggestions for improvement.)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

There are very few issues that need to be addressed.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Unambiguous sources are needed for two direct quotes, listed above.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm putting this article on hold. If the few critical issues are addressed within 7 days, the article will be promoted to GA status. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review! I've addressed the issues you mentioned. --1ST7 (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well done. This was surprisingly easy. I'm happy to promote it to GA status. Thanks for writing such great articles! – Quadell ^(talk) 13:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! --1ST7 (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on And the Mountains Echoed. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130812232903/http://scoopempire.com/post/2013/06/20/Review-And-the-Mountains-Echoed.aspx to http://www.scoopempire.com/post/2013/06/20/Review-And-the-Mountains-Echoed.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)