Talk:Candide/GA1

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a great article, and I approach it with humility. I assume the GA nomination is just a stopgap on the way to FAC, and I'll try not to hold it up too long. There are really just a few, minor things I'd like to comment on:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

There is good coverage of the historical background for the book, but I'd like to see a little more about Voltaire himself: just a couple of sentences about his age and at which point of his career this was written.

~~Will do.~~

I wrote a short paragraph with which to begin the section "Voltaire and the Lisbon Earthquake". I hope it satisfies... if not, I'll rework it. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much exactly what I was looking for. I moved it, with a minor rewrite, to the "Writing" paragraph - I thought it fit better there. If you disagree, feel free to move it back. Lampman (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah... I like it what you did with it. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of hidden text in the article, I assume this is because it's undergoing peer review, and there's still debate over how much should be included. In one case though - when it comes to admiral Byng - the exclusion of information in one place prevents understanding of a later passage.

There is a lot of hidden text, but only partly because of the copyediting; I just tend to add a lot of informative comments for myself and other editors. I feel such notation can be very useful, while it costs us practically nothing. I also do not like to delete writing which may be re-included in the future.
Does the omission of the Byng story from the synopsis "prevent" the understanding of ==Satire==? The whole story is explained in this section itself. Adding explanation to the synopsis would be redundant (if the info. was kept in ==Satire==, as I believe it should).

My problem is with the sentence "This depiction of military punishment trivialises Byng's death." Even though there is some background on the episode, this is the first time the name "Byng" is mentioned, but it's used as if the reader is already familiar with him. It should either say something like: "This depiction of military punishment trivialises the historical execution of admiral John Byng in 1757" or leave out the name altogether: "This depiction of military punishment trivialises the admiral's death."

I agree. I have included Byng's full name two sentences before this problem sentences, so that readers are familiar with the last name when upon it they come. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a requirement for a GA pass, but as a suggestion for further improvement: many of the events in the book appear as absurd non-sequiturs, and leave the reader of the article somewhat confused. It would be helpful to include scholarly interpretations of some of the stranger events, such as the red sheep or the monkey lovers (which, it seems, is discussed by Bellhouse). Otherwise the plot synopsis becomes filled with disjointed, meaningless episodes.

As has been discussed above, part of this is that the book itself is filled with "absurd non-sequiturs". The more information explanation there is, the longer the synopsis will be, and the last GA reviewers strongly encouraged I cut down the synopsis. By their standards, it's already too long. The next step is cutting out large chunks of the plot, chunks which deserve to be included more, IMHO, than the Byng story, for instance.

Then I would agree with that - there are parts of the plot that are not self-explanatory from the context of the story, and those should either be discussed or omitted. Maybe they are just "absurd non-sequiturs"; I'm not asking for definitive answers, but surely they must have been the subject of scholarly debate. Anyway, this was just a thought from my side. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 13:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced a few dashes with ndashes.

Thanks! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Good work so far, and good luck! Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I'll get right on addressing your suggestions. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed all of your suggestions. Of course, you may make more if you like (or find my responses inadequate). -- Rmrfstar (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, as far as I'm concerned it's a GA now. I'd recommend you put it up for FAC as soon as the peer reviews are done. Congrats! Lampman (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions and thank you for the congratulations. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I believe today's FA, To Kill a Mockingbird, shows the importance of a short author biography in an article about the work. But the one we have here now is probably enough, for more they're just gonna have to hit the link. Lampman (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]