Talk:Warriors (novel series)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: María (habla conmigo) 18:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article for GA-status. While there's certainly a lot of information here, the article does not fulfill the Good Article criteria at this time. The main issues I see are that it is largely not well written (per criteria 1a), there is a lack of reliable, third party sources (per criteria 2b and 2c), and the article as a whole lacks broad coverage of the subject material (per criteria 3a). See below for more detailed concerns.

Writing

• There are many prose issues throughout the article, and really a thorough copy-edit is needed from top to bottom. Much of it has to do with redundancy; "The first series takes place in a forest based on a real forest called New Forest in the United Kingdom", for example, can easily be condensed to: "The first series takes place in the United Kingdom's New Forest." Or, better, yet, for more descriptive language: "The first series takes place in the New Forest, which is located in southern England."
• The plot summaries of the different series could be shorter and therefore far more succinct. I'm not familiar with the storylines, but the tangential plots are confusing; stick to what's important.
• Paragraphs consisting of one or two sentences are generally frowned upon; condense and connect the sparse info so that it's less "listy".
• Each of the first few sections ends with something along the lines of "The books in the series are: etc., etc." It may help the reader to list these books at the beginning of the section, perhaps starting with a proper lead-in sentence like "The first series consists of six books—Into the Wild, Fire and Ice, etc.— and takes place in the United Kingdom's New Forest.

Sources

• Most of the sources are primary (the books themselves), which poses multiple issues. First, per WP:RS, "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. Wikipedians should not rely on, or try to interpret the content or importance of, primary sources." When sourcing plot summary info, of course primary sources can be cited; however, this article is composed almost entirely of primary sources.
• Everything in the references does not need to be wikilinked, as that depreciates the value of each individual link. Unlink Erin Hunter, and only link the titles of the books the first time they appear.
• The Guttersnipe redirects to a new webpage -- is this what is intended? Is this reliable?
• What is Wands and Worlds? SF Bookcase? Are these reliable?
• I'm not sure if Amazon links are the best that can be used to support release dates. Surely there must be articles or press releases available out there? Amazon should be a last ditch effort, if used at all.

Coverage

• This is the biggest issue. A majority of the article is just plot summary, which goes against the Manual of Style: "Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself."
• The best section so far is "Setting and characters", although it could use some work, as well; not only does it go beyond a simple plot summary, it actually clarifies questions I had while reading the summaries of the different series. Perhaps this section should be moved to the top of the article (after the lead) to better introduce concepts throughout the books.
• Where are the critical reviews? How popular is the series? How well does it sell? Has it been compared to other book series, such as Harry Potter, etc.?
• What is included in "Inspirations and influences" should be the focus of expansion, where the rest of the article should be condensed. More, more, more.

As you can see, a lot needs to be done, and I'm not sure this article can be improved and expanded upon in the seven day holding period. Therefore, while I am not quick-failing this article, and have read and considered it in full, I must decline promoting it to GA-status at this time. I hope that with the help of my above comments and suggestions, this article will improve in time. If there are any questions, please do contact me on my talk page. Best of luck, María (habla conmigo) 18:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Brambleclawx's responses

• I have already copyedited it once (but will do so again)
• The plot summaries are quite general already; I think its mainly because the stories are very complex. However, I will try to shorten them
• I have done my best to source secondary sources; the problem is that not many exist regarding this series despite its popularity
• The Guttersnipe was an old website, which has now been moved. It was a blog that basically had its URL and name changed. I'm afraid that it cannot really be counted as very reliable according to Wikipedia, but my personal feeling is that the author wouldn't lie about their own work, so it should be acceptably reliable.
• Wands and Worlds is a Sci-fi and fantasy themed book related website (not sure how to dsecribe it). Specifically, all the references point to "author chats", which are hosted by the site. Basically, an aithor agrees to have an "author chat", and registered members of the Wands and Worlds community can ask questions of the author. As per above, I doubt authors would lie about their own work, so it should also be somewhat reliable, though I understand that it is a "chat".
• SF-Bookcase is, as they call themselves, a "reference of sci-fi and fantasy novels/authors". I myself am not particularly sure what it is like, not having checked it out myself before.
• release dates & Amazon: I'm am afraid there really are no articles or press releases, as far as I can see.
• I agree critical reviews need work: there are some meagre amounts of info on the pages about individual books, but not much.