Talk:And the Mountains Echoed/GA1

GA Review

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

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)