The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This nicely-structured article seems to be well-cited and well-written, so I expect I'll only have minor comments to make. If you could reply briefly with "Done" or something similar to each comment, that'd be appreciated. I'll strike my comments once I'm satisfied they've been dealt with appropriately. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I'd bother to mention Publishers Weekly in the lead (specially not twice!), it's just the trade rag, and you have real newspapers right next to it. In fact I'm not sure I'd mention it in 'Reception' either unless you are going to actually quote from the review (but you'll get better quotes nearly anywhere else).
I had no idea about Publishers Weekly (or Kirkus). I've kept it in the body but removed one of the instances from the lead.
Plot is a little bit too long, 715 words as against a standard 600. It shouldn't be too hard to trim it down.
Somehow thought the recommendation was 700 words. Cut down!
"Period noir" is linked to noir fiction but the phrase doesn't occur in that article. Would be nice to add and cite a mention of it there really; failing that, best just tweak the text and link "noir fiction" directly.
Changed to noir fiction
"which became part of Little, Brown, in the United States and by Picador in the United Kingdom." --- doesn't quite work, needs a little re-punctuation or rephrasing.
"It received a critical review" --- Best start with "The novel" or "The book" here.
Done
What did Elle not like about the plot twist? Usually these are good things.
Expanded slightly although it's not the clearest explanation
In fact, the reception comments are all very brief. It would be nice to hear a bit more about what the reviewers actually liked or disliked about the book. A few more quotations would be acceptable, or of course you can paraphrase the reviewers' opinions.
Expanded
For instance, I'm not sure you've quite done justice to Hornby, who speaks of the "dangerous terrain" of teenage girls/middle-aged men. He's both clear and detailed, so perhaps we could hear a little more from him.
Some of the authors, such as David W. Brown and Hallie Ephron, have articles and should be wikilinked in the refs please. There may be some others.
Done
As mentioned, I'm not sure of the value of citing Publishers Weekly: not exactly a home of post-modern literary criticism and incisive analysis.
Kirkus Reviews is also rather a weak source, not least because publishers (and authors) often pay them to write a not-exactly-independent review: that's how Kirkus makes its loot, if I understand it right. Since we have much better sources here, up to the NYT and the LA Times, I think we could safely ditch the wobblier sources.
I removed Kirkus from the reception section so it's only used to verify the publication date; as no opinions are cited to these sources, I'd prefer to keep them for their present uses
Basically everything seems to be in order here, so I expect to see this as a GA as soon as you've addressed my mostly very minor remarks. There is no quid pro quo at GAN but of course if you'd like to review one of my articles, I'd be delighted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, you've replied above. Ok, that's fine, passing now. There's no QPQ at GAN but if you'd like to review one of my articles, of course I'd be delighted. Good work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.