![]() | The End of the Road 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: June 23, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The End of the Road received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Hey, isn't the awesome book written in the late 1950's and not in 1967? Its in the 1967 category for some reason. Maybe it was written later and I'm just suffering from acute cosmopsis, the cosmic view. Teetotaler 30 June, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.22.207 ( talk) 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
First published 1958. See http://www.wordcat.org and refer to LCCN 58-9381. Revised 1967. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.38.5 ( talk) 22:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 17:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review; haven't read this particular one, but I've got more of a background in Barth than most reviewers likely to come along. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. As always, thanks in advance for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
There's been some mistake here--I thought I was reviewing this, but it's all about some crazy book from the 1960s instead?
Anyway, this looks like your usual solid work--thanks for the effort you've put into it. A few quibbles are below. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
-- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. 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). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Does a particularly good job balancing contemporary critics and later academic analysis. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |
It looks like the following books have substantial information on The End of the Road (up to full chapters):
It would be great if anyone who has access tot hese books could use them to contribute to the article. I live in Japan, so I can't access them either online or in the library, and I haven't found copies that fit my budget. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Curly Turkey ( gobble) 02:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: There was some discussion about what fields belong in the infobox (in this article specifically, and in articles-using-Infobox-book in the abstract) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels/Archive_17#The_End_of_the_Road_by_John_Barth_image_debate, in September 2013. – Quiddity ( talk) 23:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I propose removing the non-Free image File:EndOfTheRoad.jpg for the following reasons:
The End of the Road has been one of my favorite books for many years, and I've reread it numerous times. I am loath to rewrite an article, especially one that is so well sourced and has attained "Good Article" status within Wikipedia, but I think the article has several significant problems as it stands:
In short, the article reads as an overly academic analysis that loses sight of some of the basic points of the narrative. Schoolmann ( talk) 10:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | The End of the Road 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: June 23, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | The End of the Road received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Hey, isn't the awesome book written in the late 1950's and not in 1967? Its in the 1967 category for some reason. Maybe it was written later and I'm just suffering from acute cosmopsis, the cosmic view. Teetotaler 30 June, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.22.207 ( talk) 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
First published 1958. See http://www.wordcat.org and refer to LCCN 58-9381. Revised 1967. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.38.5 ( talk) 22:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 17:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review; haven't read this particular one, but I've got more of a background in Barth than most reviewers likely to come along. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. As always, thanks in advance for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
There's been some mistake here--I thought I was reviewing this, but it's all about some crazy book from the 1960s instead?
Anyway, this looks like your usual solid work--thanks for the effort you've put into it. A few quibbles are below. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
-- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. 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). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Does a particularly good job balancing contemporary critics and later academic analysis. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |
It looks like the following books have substantial information on The End of the Road (up to full chapters):
It would be great if anyone who has access tot hese books could use them to contribute to the article. I live in Japan, so I can't access them either online or in the library, and I haven't found copies that fit my budget. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Curly Turkey ( gobble) 02:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Note: There was some discussion about what fields belong in the infobox (in this article specifically, and in articles-using-Infobox-book in the abstract) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels/Archive_17#The_End_of_the_Road_by_John_Barth_image_debate, in September 2013. – Quiddity ( talk) 23:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I propose removing the non-Free image File:EndOfTheRoad.jpg for the following reasons:
The End of the Road has been one of my favorite books for many years, and I've reread it numerous times. I am loath to rewrite an article, especially one that is so well sourced and has attained "Good Article" status within Wikipedia, but I think the article has several significant problems as it stands:
In short, the article reads as an overly academic analysis that loses sight of some of the basic points of the narrative. Schoolmann ( talk) 10:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)