Talk:Private (novel series)

Other Installments

Now, why aren't there articles for the other books??? 24.196.99.246 14:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Kenna

I think that adding concise descriptions of each on this page would work better, along with character info.

Type Carefully

It's great that so many people are coming to contribute to this article. What's not so great is that many people are being quite careless with their work. Let's all remember that this is an encyclopedia -- please take the time to use proper spacing between words, and proper spelling as well. Let's also remember (and this should be an easy one) to use proper capitalization when typing names ("Reed" not "reed") and when starting new sentences. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.87.25 (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summaries

The Character section has become quite long compared to the rest of the article due to the plot summaries, some of which are redundant. This seems an appropriate case in which to follow Wikipedia:Summary style and either lessen the content, or move it to a seperate article that details the characters' story lines.

This has been improved upon now. James26 (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Failed GAN

Unfortunately, this article does not fulfill the Good Article criteria at this time. It is off to a good start, but it needs major work in order to be promoted to GA. There are issues not only with the broadness of the article's material, but also its writing and formatting. Sentences such as As book series' about young women in posh inner circles saw a rise in popularity in the 2000s... are confusing and grammatically incorrect. There is also an issue with the prose being flowery and unencyclopedic at times, such as: he comes from a wealthy yet dysfunctional family — one that is devoid of affection and love. This is perhaps due in part to obvious affection for the series, but it may be construed as POV. As for MOS problems, em dashes should be unspaced per WP:DASH. Headers should be in lowercase unless it's a proper noun (WP:HEAD) and none of the references include standard publisher/author/date information where applicable (WP:CITE), which citation templates may help with. There is also a lack of verifiability in that the entire "Series overview" and "Characters" sections are unreferenced.

As it stands now, far too much of the prose is concerned with in-universe details; plot, characters and setting. Very little information is available regarding the article's reception history and legacy as well as its thematic elements and influences. The sections are disjointed and often too small; The entire "Book releases" section, for example, can be combined into one entire section rather than twelve minor ones; some of these sections are only one sentence long. For further examples of what to add to Novel or Novel series articles, I suggest the article template found here. You can also ask for guidance at the Novel WikiProject Peer Review department. If you have any questions or concerns in regards to this review, or if you need further guidance, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Good luck on improving this article in the future! María (habla conmigo) 13:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting a response so soon. Thanks for the review. I only took issue with a few points.

"Sentences such as As book series' about young women in posh inner circles saw a rise in popularity in the 2000s... are confusing and grammatically incorrect."

Personally, I thought that sentence was reasonably clear, as it's a mere account of popularity during a certain period. Perhaps "experienced" would be the better term. Also, the "Series overview" section actually does have a reference, though I concur that the section on characters could indeed be improved in that regard.

It's grammatically incorrect because "series" should not be possessive; there is an apostrophe where one is not needed. The "As" is weak and misleading, but that's coming from someone who was taught never to begin a sentence with "As", "Because" or "But". :) I would reword it as something like "In the 2000s, book series concerning young women in push inner-circles rose in popularity." With a reference, of course!

As for the limited info on a reception history and legacy, sometimes it's merely a matter of working with what's available. This is currently a cult series that's less than two years old, and has yet to garner a significant critical legacy. I think the article contains the most it can at present from reputable sources.

In regards to personal affection for the series, I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally have yet to read one of these books to completion. I merely stumbled across them, thought they looked interesting, and couldn't resist taking up the challenge of doing some research and starting this article :) --James26 (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha, fair enough. It's true that you can only work with what you've got, but there are ways to plump up articles with a limited amount of resources; combining certain sections, for example, would give the article a less disjointed look. I would concentrate on adding less in-universe details as well as being on the lookout for more reliable sources. Lack of refs may be frustrating, but as long as the article is broad enough in its coverage and everything is verifiable and correctly formatted, it should be enough to secure GA status. Best of luck, María (habla conmigo) 12:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Article problems

There are many issues with this article. Overall, it's written like a fan site combined with Simon & Schuster marketing material.

Names do not follow Wiki MOS. Overlinking on common words WP:CONTEXT. Use of contractions. WP:PEACOCK such as "composed of select individuals". (I changed some of these.)

I removed the original research section about rising popularity of the genre. The citations did not say this, they were simply two lists of best-sellers. That the books were of a genre, or that the genre overall is more popular is speculation.

Overall, the writing is weak, informal and inflated. "anger management and alcoholism issues", "skeletons in her closet", "all the most coveted boys on campus", "physically beautiful".

One of those Wiki articles that makes a professional editor cringe. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with you on some points, it can be noted that the article has been in far worse shape actually. Look at some of the history from this year and you'll see that many greater examples of fan material and OR have been removed. The current article has been rated "B" twice, and is certainly in better shape than those for certain other Alloy books. That said, there's room for improvement.

As for your assertion that "Names do not follow Wiki MOS," I'm uncertain what you're referring to. Can you specify? I've currently reverted your prevalent use of surnames for a few reasons:

• I couldn't find anything in WP:MOS, WP:COMMONNAME, or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) stating that surnames should be constantly used when referring to fictional characters (not real people). Possible I overlooked something.
• Plenty of Wikipeida articles do not do this, including Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, which has "Good Article" status. -- James26 (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)