![]() | The Cuckoo (novel) has been listed as one of the
Language and literature good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 12, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from The Cuckoo (novel) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 31 July 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
05:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
5x expanded by Oulfis ( talk). Self-nominated at 09:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC).
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Rublov ( talk · contribs) 14:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I will be reviewing this article shortly.
Good Article review progress box
|
The story relates tragedies...— this sentence is a bit of a run-on. I'd recommend splitting the last part into its own sentence.
It is a tragic melodrama about the family conflict that ensues when a young wife contracts tuberculosis.Ruбlov ( talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
broadly popular bestseller→
bestseller. A bestseller is by definition popular.
bestseller that was popular across Japanese society. However I do wonder whether this is really important enough to include in the lead. Up to your discretion. Ruбlov ( talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Namiko, the daughter of a general, and Takeo, a naval officer and son of a deceased baron, are happily married?
Navalshould be lower-case.
Then three sources of unhappiness ruin it all— tone of this sentence is not quite encyclopedic.
The first is Taneo, Takeo's cousin and Namiko's rejected suitor— possessive
Namiko'sfeels awkward here, suggest something like
a former suitor of Namiko.
Then there— this transition is too colloquial.
whose illness prevents→
as her illness prevents
absolutism— not quite the right word as it usually refers to absolute monarchy.
he refuses to take a course of action— this is confusing because it has not yet been stated what course of action he took.
divorseshould be
divorce. Ruбlov ( talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Takeo's choice is dramatically enhanced—
dramaticallyis a puff word, and I'm not sure what it means for someone's choice to be "enhanced".
She in effect dissolves her son's marriage by sending his wife back into her family→ I think it's better to flip the order here, e.g.
She sends his wife back to her family, in effect dissolving her son's marriage.
not yet a particularly successful→
was not yet a particularly successful
broadly beloved— bit of puffery, suggest merely
popularinstead.
belovedunless you have multiple sources to support that. Ruбlov ( talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
effective, tear-inducing melodrama— similar, suggest just
melodrama, also to avoid paraphrasing the source too closely.
tear-inducingas an adjective though; maybe something like
the novel was broadly beloved for its flowery language and melodrama; many readers reported crying over the book? Ruбlov ( talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
tuberculosis itself—
itselfis unnecessary.
views of tuberculosis, characterizing it as→ simply
views of tuberculosis as
Takeo himself— omit
itself.
although it may have had the opposite effect in practice— could you briefly expand on this?
hose→
thoseRuбlov ( talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
fifteen different languages→
fifteen languages
seem likely to have been→
seem to have been
We did not have access to the Finnish and Italian translations; moreover, we do not possess a good knowledge of German, Spanish or Portuguese, even less Swedish. We cannot therefore state anything for certain, but some hints seem to show that the French translation is the only one not based on the English version.(106-7) For now, I have made no change. I think it could also say "might have been" or some other phrasing offering a cautious prediction. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
likely. Ruбlov ( talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
their readers would not understand the reference to reincarnation→ this is confusing because you haven't stated Namiko's dying words yet, would recommend doing that first.
Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article.in MOS:FNNR which is part of GA criteria 2a. Ruбlov ( talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
In addition to refereed articles, we will start publishing a wide variety of writings in the future issues. There will be visual essays, critical reviews, and opinion pieces.-- the Lavelle article is clearly not a visual essay, critical review, or opinion piece, which leaves it as a refereed article. The bestseller status etc is mentioned by the other sources too so I could dig through for other cites if you think it's necessary, but I liked how Lavelle put things so I'd prefer to keep it as is. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 04:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Nice work. The article is close to meeting GA standards, so I'm putting the review on hold to give you the chance to address my comments. Ruбlov ( talk) 15:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | The Cuckoo (novel) has been listed as one of the
Language and literature good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 12, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from The Cuckoo (novel) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 31 July 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
05:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
5x expanded by Oulfis ( talk). Self-nominated at 09:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC).
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Rublov ( talk · contribs) 14:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I will be reviewing this article shortly.
Good Article review progress box
|
The story relates tragedies...— this sentence is a bit of a run-on. I'd recommend splitting the last part into its own sentence.
It is a tragic melodrama about the family conflict that ensues when a young wife contracts tuberculosis.Ruбlov ( talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
broadly popular bestseller→
bestseller. A bestseller is by definition popular.
bestseller that was popular across Japanese society. However I do wonder whether this is really important enough to include in the lead. Up to your discretion. Ruбlov ( talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Namiko, the daughter of a general, and Takeo, a naval officer and son of a deceased baron, are happily married?
Navalshould be lower-case.
Then three sources of unhappiness ruin it all— tone of this sentence is not quite encyclopedic.
The first is Taneo, Takeo's cousin and Namiko's rejected suitor— possessive
Namiko'sfeels awkward here, suggest something like
a former suitor of Namiko.
Then there— this transition is too colloquial.
whose illness prevents→
as her illness prevents
absolutism— not quite the right word as it usually refers to absolute monarchy.
he refuses to take a course of action— this is confusing because it has not yet been stated what course of action he took.
divorseshould be
divorce. Ruбlov ( talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Takeo's choice is dramatically enhanced—
dramaticallyis a puff word, and I'm not sure what it means for someone's choice to be "enhanced".
She in effect dissolves her son's marriage by sending his wife back into her family→ I think it's better to flip the order here, e.g.
She sends his wife back to her family, in effect dissolving her son's marriage.
not yet a particularly successful→
was not yet a particularly successful
broadly beloved— bit of puffery, suggest merely
popularinstead.
belovedunless you have multiple sources to support that. Ruбlov ( talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
effective, tear-inducing melodrama— similar, suggest just
melodrama, also to avoid paraphrasing the source too closely.
tear-inducingas an adjective though; maybe something like
the novel was broadly beloved for its flowery language and melodrama; many readers reported crying over the book? Ruбlov ( talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
tuberculosis itself—
itselfis unnecessary.
views of tuberculosis, characterizing it as→ simply
views of tuberculosis as
Takeo himself— omit
itself.
although it may have had the opposite effect in practice— could you briefly expand on this?
hose→
thoseRuбlov ( talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
fifteen different languages→
fifteen languages
seem likely to have been→
seem to have been
We did not have access to the Finnish and Italian translations; moreover, we do not possess a good knowledge of German, Spanish or Portuguese, even less Swedish. We cannot therefore state anything for certain, but some hints seem to show that the French translation is the only one not based on the English version.(106-7) For now, I have made no change. I think it could also say "might have been" or some other phrasing offering a cautious prediction. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 04:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
likely. Ruбlov ( talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
their readers would not understand the reference to reincarnation→ this is confusing because you haven't stated Namiko's dying words yet, would recommend doing that first.
Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article.in MOS:FNNR which is part of GA criteria 2a. Ruбlov ( talk) 12:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
In addition to refereed articles, we will start publishing a wide variety of writings in the future issues. There will be visual essays, critical reviews, and opinion pieces.-- the Lavelle article is clearly not a visual essay, critical review, or opinion piece, which leaves it as a refereed article. The bestseller status etc is mentioned by the other sources too so I could dig through for other cites if you think it's necessary, but I liked how Lavelle put things so I'd prefer to keep it as is. ~ L 🌸 ( talk) 04:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Nice work. The article is close to meeting GA standards, so I'm putting the review on hold to give you the chance to address my comments. Ruбlov ( talk) 15:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)