Talk:The Day Before the Revolution/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 14:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Happy to take this on for review, as I'm quite the fan of Le Guin's work. Thanks for submitting it for Women in Green's 5th Edit-a-thon! Per my reviewing style, I'll give section-by-section comments before checking the article against the GA criteria.

Thank you, I'll begin working on the comments now. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments

Background and setting

• "alternative history" Shouldn't it be "alternate history"?

  I've heard both, but I agree the latter is more common, so changed.

• Spotcheck: [9] Verified, although it seems quite closely paraphrased. Consider a slight rewrite.

  Adjusted.

• "the idealized anarchist society depicted in it" Two uses of the word "depicted" in this one sentence. Consider cutting one or replacing with a synonym.

  Done.

• "Odo's theory becomes practice" Oddly written. Consider rewriting to say "Odo's theory was put into practice".

  Okay, done.

• "after her death and the revolution she inspired" We already know that this is the last day of her life and that she inspired the revolution. I think just "after the revolution" would be enough.

  okay as to her death; but it's saying she inspired the revolution, not just the society on Anarres, so I'd rather leave it in.

• Link to private property.

  Done.

• You link twice to anarchism in this one section. One of these could be cut, or "anarchist society" possibly link to anarchy or List of anarchist communities?

  Good call; linked "anarchy"

• Citation [10] could include more details, to ease in verification. Consider adding links to John Moore and Foundation, as well as the issn 0306-4964 and ProQuest id 1312027489.

  This is a little above and beyond the GA requirements, but it's an improvement, so okay. ISSN added; is there any easy way to add proquest IDs?

  Aye, you use the id= field in the citation and then add the ProQuest template in there. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks...done.

Plot summary

• The protagonist is referred to as both "Laia" and "Odo" in this section. Consider standardising.

  Standardized to Laia

• "Sneaking out of the house she ventures into the city, but is exhausted before she walks far and is found by a housemate." This is quite an oddly-structured sentence. Consider rewriting.

  Tweaked.

Publication and reception

• Spotcheck: [12] I don't understand what I'm looking at on this webpage. How is this being used as a source for this section? Where does it give any information about The Day Before the Revolution?

  I fixed this, but was baffled as to what had happened until Mike Christie kindly enlightened me [1] so manual archive now added.

  Okay great! Thanks for fixing it. Verified it for Galaxy and Nebula Award Stories, but I don't see anything in there about The Wind's Twelve Quarters. Am I missing that in there or is it coming from another source? --Grnrchst (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Pardon me for jumping in: that website indexes magazines and anthologies separately, although it does seem inconsistent that Nebula Award Stories is in the magazines index. The anthologies index page for Le Guin is here, and it looks like it also covers Galaxy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  You're always welcome, Mike...I could cite philsp.com again, but we already have the anthology as a reference, which is what I was relying on; adjusted and added to make that explicit.

• "More Women of Wonder (1975)" Correction: it was published in 1976.

  It was indeed. A product of moving content around no doubt, the other anthologies are from '75.

• Spotcheck: [14] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [15] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [16] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [17] Verified.
• "The Dispossessed won the Hugo and Nebula awards for best novel in the same year." This sentence could probably be cut. This article is about the short story, not the novel. It especially interferes with the flow of the paragraph, given the following sentence refers back to the short story simply as "It".

  While it may not be directly relevant, it's very unusual for an author to win those awards for two related works in different formats in the same year, so I feel it's worth keeping. I've moved it to avoid disruption; what do you think?

  Looks much better at the end of the paragraph, thanks. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Citations [21] and [22] (Publisher's Weekly) could do with some more details, like a link and/or an issn, to help in verification.

  ISSN added, but the text was emailed to me by a helpful colleague, not much to be done in the way of links.

• Spotcheck: [23] Verified. Consider adding its issn 0024-984X.

  Done.

• "Le Guin's most successful female protagonist" Most successful how? Like the character was successful in their goals or it was the best-written protagonist that Le Guin had come up with?

  The latter, but I'm not sure how to add more information without straying into OR: the source isn't focused on TDBTR, but on Eye of the Heron. I've switched Erlich and White's assessments, which implies what White is getting at, I think: does that help?

  Looks great aye. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [26] Verified. Although the url provided links to the wrong page.

  I typically link to the beginning of the book, since google books often restricts access; but in this case it seems fine, so I've adjusted.

• Citations [28] and [29] could do with some more details, like a link and/or an issn, to help in verification.

  Ideally yes, but I accessed these via newspapers.com; I'm not aware of a means to make links available to those without access, though I'm not well-versed in the uses of that site. I do think an ISSN would be entirely superfluous for newspapers that famous.

  I think including the url, even if it's not universally accessible, is better than not. You can also include access indicators in the citation. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, urls added. I was once the trigger for an extended discussion at VPP about whether the "via=" parameter was promoting the databases...so I'll skip those, if it's okay with you. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Aye no worries. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [9] Verified. Consider converting to Sfn formatting and providing more specific page numbers.

  The trouble with sfn formatting is that a reader who clicks to the full source has no way to click back to the text they were just reading, which is not a problem with regular references. As such I prefer to avoid sfn formatting unless I really need multiple page ranges. With the Spivack source I'm using 5 pages, which doesn't seem excessive to me, so I'd prefer to leave it.

• That's fine. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Spotcheck: [19] Verified.

Themes

• Spotcheck: [30] Verified.
• Wait, so is Omelas a part of the Hainish universe, and Odo was literally one of them that walked away from it? Or is Le Guin being more metaphorical here?

  A good question, but no, it isn't; or not explicitly. Le Guin's speaking conceptually. "Omelas" (like a few other stories from TWTQ) is what Le Guin calls a "psychomyth", stories that are outside space and time.

  Ah okay, that's what I figured. Thanks. :) --Grnrchst (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead and infobox

• Per the Manual of Style on lead sections, shouldn't the title be in italics? Or is it different for short stories?

  It is indeed different for short stories, which go in quotes.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   For the most part, everything is well written. There are a couple of odd sentences that could do with tightening up.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   A couple citations could do with some more detail for easier verification, but there's no problems here.

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   One case of a citation ([12]) being unclear as to how exactly it's being used.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Found no examples of OR, most spotchecks easily verified the text.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig only flags direct and attributed quotes.[2] Found one case of close paraphrasing that should probably be rewritten.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Seems like everything that could be covered has been.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   A couple cases where it veers off to talk about The Dispossessed that could probably be trimmed.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No obvious cases of non-neutral POV.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Article hasn't been edited since its GA nomination. Last reversion was a self-revert done by the nominator in January 2023.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   No images in the article. Consider adding cover art with valid fair-use rationale for the infobox. Maybe an image of Le Guin herself in one of the later sections could be helpful. Image is licensed under creative commons.

   Missed this earlier...this is very difficult to do for short stories. NFUR of cover art is valid for a book, but I don't think it could be reasonably applied to all 17 stories therein (this is Le Guin; all are probably notable, though only eight have articles at the moment). See, for instance, the discussion in the image review section here. I've added an image of the author.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   No images in the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On the whole, this article is very well-written and a fantastic insight into the short story and its reception. There's a few issues currently holding it back from passing, namely a couple prose quirks and confusion around a citation. Though not a strict requirement, it could also benefit from some images. @Vanamonde: Ping me when you've addressed my comments and I'll give this another look over. Nice work on this. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: Thank you for a careful and helpful review. I believe I have responded to everything. In a couple of cases I've disagreed with your suggestions, but I'm happy to discuss them further. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: No worries on disagreements! Think it's all good. Just wanted to check if you have any thoughts on adding images? Images aren't necessarily need for a GA, but just thought I'd see if there were any reasons for not including one. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Grnrchst: I think I added a belated comment while you were replying, see above. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, all good. I'll pass the review now. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)