Independence Lost was nominated as a Language and literature good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 21, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Independence Lost appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 12 April 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
The result was: promoted by
PrimalMustelid
talk 16:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by Generalissima ( talk). Self-nominated at 06:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Independence Lost; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page. General eligibility:
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Generalissima ( talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Czar ( talk · contribs) 18:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @
Generalissima—thanks for your work on this topic! Before getting into the full review, I couldn't help but notice the short bibliography on a book that has had much a wider profile. I was able to dig up a slew of reviews for consideration in the article. These are opinions from academics that for basic GA breadth
WP:GACR#3) a reader would expect to be sampled in the article, both in terms of their scholarly assessment of the work and in their confirmation of the book's contents, which can then be used to source the Synopsis section.
Are these new or have you seen them before? I would recommend taking some time to work through them (if it'll take more than a few days) and renominate later, but let me know if you prefer to put the nomination on temporary hold. While incorporating these reviews, I recommend reading through the advice in Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections to avoid "A said B" language and in creating syncretic overviews of critical opinion. czar 18:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Reception
Synopsis
Background
I highly recommend Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections for writing Reception sections about books and create a summative picture without delving into original research. For an example of a recent history book GA that did this well, see How the Red Sun Rose. I can see some of the above edits being straightforward but others will require potentially extensive rewriting, so let me know if you'd prefer to keep the review open or closed, and I'm happy to return either way. Apologiges for the delay but I knew it would be a lot of writing. :) czar 12:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Independence Lost was nominated as a Language and literature good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 21, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Independence Lost appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 12 April 2024 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
The result was: promoted by
PrimalMustelid
talk 16:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by Generalissima ( talk). Self-nominated at 06:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Independence Lost; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page. General eligibility:
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Generalissima ( talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Czar ( talk · contribs) 18:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @
Generalissima—thanks for your work on this topic! Before getting into the full review, I couldn't help but notice the short bibliography on a book that has had much a wider profile. I was able to dig up a slew of reviews for consideration in the article. These are opinions from academics that for basic GA breadth
WP:GACR#3) a reader would expect to be sampled in the article, both in terms of their scholarly assessment of the work and in their confirmation of the book's contents, which can then be used to source the Synopsis section.
Are these new or have you seen them before? I would recommend taking some time to work through them (if it'll take more than a few days) and renominate later, but let me know if you prefer to put the nomination on temporary hold. While incorporating these reviews, I recommend reading through the advice in Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections to avoid "A said B" language and in creating syncretic overviews of critical opinion. czar 18:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Reception
Synopsis
Background
I highly recommend Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections for writing Reception sections about books and create a summative picture without delving into original research. For an example of a recent history book GA that did this well, see How the Red Sun Rose. I can see some of the above edits being straightforward but others will require potentially extensive rewriting, so let me know if you'd prefer to keep the review open or closed, and I'm happy to return either way. Apologiges for the delay but I knew it would be a lot of writing. :) czar 12:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)