Article(edit |visual edit |history) ·Article talk(edit |history) ·Watch

Nominator:DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk ·contribs)02:47, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer:CMacMillan (talk·contribs)12:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Lead

• The lead begins well, which is good, but repeats many items from the plot section and some of the less-important details of the body of the article
• WP:LEAD should be reviewed - this opening runs-on with elements that belong elsewhere ("...she decided to name the protagonist Opal as she had bought herself an Opal ring.")

2. Sources and citations

• Generally good with the exception of the quote from Jill Murphy (calling a writer 'prolific' is not a critique or review of the book).
• Spot-checked citations are valid and accurately reflected

3. Neutrality/Coverage

• Themes are included here but underdeveloped, with a suggestion toward women's suffrage and the author's approach to characters but lumped into Production and Release. The author's approach to the structure of the book, the character development, and additional research are out of place in the Production and Release section. Consider a Themes area.
• The articleWP:PoV leans positive, but that seems to be a reflection of the reception with overall information remaining neutral without lending undue credence to negative criticism given the positive reviews
• Wikipedia:No Original Research is adhered to

4. Writing Style

• Prose is clear, but uneven, with section padding including redundant information
• Some confusing writing areas ("As part of a weekend-long nother reviewer from the website...", "...noted that it provided them with much knowledge...)
• The final paragraph jumps from reviews to use of the novel in promotional material for other projects, to a weakly structured review from "a writer" with a single word descriptor ("cooker")
• While there is a separate section for Reception, the Production and Release section includes a review of the novel

5. Media

• The caption for the author's image is weak. Image is CC BY-SA and tagged.
• Cover image is present and tagged Fair Use
• 13 digit ISBN valid

Overall, I think the article does not yet meet the criteria for Good Article status but is a candidate with updates. HOWEVER as this is my first GA review, I am tagging for second opinion.CMacMillan (talk)15:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the article as I had been looking for a place to practice my reviewing too! I did a quick copy edit to address a few style points. I added a short analysis section which contextualises the book somewhat. One point for the author:

• 'Sam' should be mentioned in the premise - I've not read the book, but it sounds like there's a love story? and since 'Morgan and 'Sam' are mentioned at the end of the production and release section, it would be good to clarify Sam's role in the premise section.

Overall I support the move to GA, with the caveat that I too am new to reviewing and have edited the article now. Many thanksLajmmoore (talk)13:29, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CMacMillan andLajmmoore: welcome to GA reviewing! Thanks for joining in, it's wonderful to have folks getting involved with high-quality content. I often review book GAs and saw that this was tagged as requesting a second opinion, so here are some of my thoughts on the article and the review:

• One concern I have is that the plot summary is incomplete, as it's not clear how the story ends. At the GA level, our criteria are for "breadth" rather than complete "comprehensiveness", but I would consider the end of a novel one of the requiredmain aspects of the topic.
• Another concern is that some of the reviews are cited tothe bookstore listing. Bookstore listings and blurbs are not acceptable RS. In this case, the blurb is an excerpt from an actual RS, so it's just a matter of tracking down the original review articles and citing those instead. (The full reviews may also have some useful additional info!)
• I checked Earwig for copyvio; the high matches are just quotations that are appropriately attributed in the article, no concerns.
• Optional suggestion not really tied to a GA criteria, what about adding subheadings within the "Production and development" setting for "Composition" and "Setting"? Since those appear to be the two main topics covered and the section is rather long.
• As a comment on the discussion of themes: I tend to treat GA-level "breadth" as requiring a plot summary, a reception section, and at least one other analytical/secondary section of some kind (maybe themes, maybe background, maybe composition/development); in this case, there's a very thorough "Production and release" section, and the genre of book is not one which typically gets a lot of in-depth analysis. So I would personally combine the very small "Analysis" section with one of the other sections and call it a day.

Overall, I agree with CMacMillan and Lajmmoore's comments, some of which have not yet been addressed. I think all the GA criteria have been checked (glad the spot check was not forgotten!) so I will put the article on a brief hold whileDaniloDaysOfOurLives makes the final changes.(Procedural comment: it's not necessary to officially put a review on hold if the article author is available to make revisions quickly, but in this case I am doing it to make it clear/official that the GA review has reached the next "stage".) If DaniloDaysOfOurLives can leave a message when everything has been addressed, CMacMillan can double-check the changed and promote the article.~ L 🌸 (talk)01:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much all three of you! Apologies for my lack of response here: I was waiting to see if there were more comments before processing. I have a very few days but I will try to get everything all finished in the next week or so.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk)02:30, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, I have been so so so so busy. I will try to get this done in the next few days.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk)12:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives, you have not commented at this review since this post roughly 6 weeks ago. Are you intending to address it or no? ♠PMC♠(talk)15:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I started making progress but then got stuck and forgot about it. I am feeling very sick at the moment but I will finish this by the weekend.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk)04:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CMacMillan:@LEvalyn:@Lajmmoore: Thank you so much for your patience. I have expanded the article and tried to address most of the comments. I did not split up the Production and release section though as I think it is too short and the subsections would be too small. Please let me know if I need to do anything else to get this to GA status.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk)13:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you picked it back up! Ordinarily it would beCMacMillan as the reviewier who should check over the revisions and complete the review, but it looks like it's been a little while since they edited. If they don't conclude the review in the next few days, I would be willing to take a look and do it myself.~ L 🌸 (talk)22:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]