Talk:Orca's Song/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Most Comfortable Chair (talk · contribs) 09:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This one seems like an easy pass, but I just have one query. In the "Lead", it is mentioned that "Consequently, reprints of the book began to attribute the storyteller Klopinum for the story's inspiration". But in "Writing and publication", it says that "She credited a storyteller named Klopinum whom she knew from her youth on Vancouver Island for the story on which Orca's Song was based and said that Klopinum had given Cameron permission to share the story.", and this was before the reprints begun in 1993. Was Klopinum not officially credited prior to those reprints? Please clarify that in the prose.

Also, shouldn't it be "moralising" instead of "moralizing" in the "Lead"? Assuming that it is written in Canadian English since it is a Canadian book.

That will be all and it should pass. Thank you for your work, Bobamnertiopsis.

— The Most Comfortable Chair 09:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review The Most Comfortable Chair! I've switched the lede "moralizing" to "moralising" which makes sense for how it's written in the quote. I was writing in AmEng as an American editor but have no bones with swapping to CanEng which contextually makes sense for the work's country of origin.

In re the authorship question: as far as I can tell, it was only in 1993 and onward that Cameron acknowledged Klopinum's story as the basis for her own. That felt germane to the Writing and publication section but it didn't feel like it made sense to expand upon the controversy surrounding the inclusion of that acknowledgement until the next section. I've tried to clarify in the text; let me know if you think it would benefit from more work. Thanks kindly! —Collin^{t c} 15:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   It is a well-written article, with good choice of words and no MoS problems.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Reliable sources have been used with appropriate in-line citations. There is no concern for original research or plagiarism.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is compact and covers every major aspect that could be covered.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Criticism and praise are described with proper weight and there are no neutrality issues.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   All clear.

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):

   The file is appropriate in size and properly attributed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Definitely meets the criteria! Great work, Bobamnertiopsis! — The Most Comfortable Chair 15:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)