Wikipedia:Peer review/The Last Dog on Earth/archive1

The Last Dog on Earth

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Now that it's copy-edited, I've decided to put this article up for peer review. Primarily, I'd like comments on how to improve it to GAN quality. This includes advice on what information would be nice to include (though do note that I haven't found any conception information or sales numbers). Also, I have a question regarding the reception section. The book was reviewed anywhere from 2002 to 2003. As such, many of the reviews are difficult to locate on the corresponding reviewer websites. Because Barnes and Noble is the only site I've found the full reviews at, I'd very much like to use them (they're under the "Editoral Reviews" tab). Which could be argued means more bias. However, Barnes and Noble has chosen to include the negative portions; the reviews are all more mixed than completely praising. Ehrenhaft even uses the fast-food quote on his homepage as one of the negative quotes about his writing [1]. Seeing as they are the only ones with the full reviews and they are available no where else (that I can find), I'd like opinions on if I should use the site or not. The only other possible issue I have with them is that I've been unable to archive them using Webcite because of that dreaded tab.

In any case, thanks in advance. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to the Barnes and Noble reviews you're thinking of using? There's part of a review here that looks interesting, if you can get hold of the whole thing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of using the School Library Journal and VOYA reviews (under the Editorial Reviews tab here. The Publishers Weekly one is found both on Ehrenhaft's site and Barnes and Noble, so that one is referenced with both (and is able to be archived). Thanks for the link! The review looks complete and there's a sense a finality in the final paragraph, but a link at the bottom seems to imply there is more. I'm not a subscriber, though. Would it be fine to use quotes from that portion? It seems any more information would be simply describing already illustrated points in more detail. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be fine just to use that portion, yes, but better if you see the whole thing, given that it's a scholarly review. Perhaps if you wrote to the writer and explain it's for Wikipedia, she would send you a copy. I looked around for an email address, and the only one I can find for an academic of that name is rachel.seftel@pem.cam.ac.uk. It may not be the same person, and may not be a current address, but there's no harm in trying. The other reviews listed at Barnes and Noble look fine too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the e-mail address! Hopefully I can acquire the entire review. Though if I cannot, I at least won't have qualms about using that portion. It's much better than a one-liner on Amazon. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start my peer review now, but it will likely take more than one sitting. Please check back periodically for updates; I'll sign over in the last bullet when I'm done. BrianTung (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead would read better if the first two paragraphs were switched (except for the very first sentence); it would also better match the organization in the rest of the article. In what follows, I'll refer to the publication paragraph (which is now first) and the plot paragraph (which is now second).

Dell Publishing is well enough known that I think you don't need to mention in the lead that it's a division of Random House; it can be pushed off into the main body of the article.

The publication history can be summarized more succinctly along the lines of: "They published it in hardcover in 2003, in paperback in 2004, and for e-book reading devices in 2009." You need not list applicable devices in the lead, in my opinion.

"but criticized characterization and its use of coincidence" reads better as "but criticized its characterization and use of coincidence".

The plot paragraph could use tightening. By moving the plot summary to the front of the lead, one can dispense with identifying it as such and open the summary simply, as for example: "Logan, a lonely 14-year-old boy, adopts a dog from the animal shelter and quickly grows close to her, naming her Jack after his stepfather's dog. An incurable disease spreads across the country that causes dogs and eventually people to become unnaturally violent, eventually attacking and killing [people? other dogs?]. Logan and others struggle with the disease and what the future may hold for Jack."

It may be worthwhile to make the lead one paragraph instead of two.

As in the lead, you can dispense with "The story revolves around" in the section "Plot". This gives you an opportunity to tighten the first couple of sentences, along these lines: "Logan, a 14-year-old boy, lives [setting?] with his mother [name?] and stepfather Robert. He struggles continually with Robert over how he treats him, with his mother for allowing it, and with his biological father for abandoning them."

New Plot, first paragraph, second-to-last sentence: Reduce "While at..." to just "At..."

New Plot, first paragraph, last sentence: Jack's name does not need to be in quotes.

New Plot, second paragraph, first sentence: No reason to introduce the term "acronym" (actually, this is usually spelled out "pee-oh-ess" rather than pronounced as a word "pahz"). Instead, try rewording as "Meanwhile, the United States is dealing with a new prion disease called Psychotic Outburst Syndrome (or POS) that affects dogs." Is POS actually limited to the U.S. in this book? (As an aside, could the author conceivably have come up with a more unfortunate abbreviation than POS?)

New Plot, second paragraph, second sentence: You might want to join this to the first, by continuing thusly: "...affects dogs, causing even friendly pets to become violent."

New Plot, third paragraph, second sentence: Ordinarily (in U.S. English at least, and possibly generally), just "boot camp", not "a boot camp".

New Plot, third paragraph, fourth sentence: "While Logan is shoplifting food, Jack is found by three men, who beat her nearly to death." The phrase "who beat her nearly to death" is non-restrictive, and should therefore have a comma. If these men are suffering from POS, or if Logan suspects they are, this should be pointed out.

New Plot, third paragraph, fifth sentence: "...until he faints...", not "...until fainting..." Where is Logan trying to take her? Or is he just walking aimlessly?

New Plot, third paragraph, sixth sentence: Use "biological father" instead of "real father" to avoid questions of what "real" means in this context.

New Plot, third paragraph, seventh sentence: Better reworded as "Logan fears that Jack may have contracted POS (from the men?) and that she will either die from the disease or be euthanized." Note that "euthanized" should be wiki'd.

Back later...

Thank you for the feedback! I made the fixes, though am unsure about making the lede into one paragraph. It looks better that way, but I feel like there isn't enough transition between plot synopsis and out-of-universe publication information. Would it be fine as it is now? I've followed your suggestion for the opening of the plot section, and will cull more if you feel it is necessary. I'll await your return! WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left some more comments; see above. If you feel so inclined, I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at an article that I've submitted for peer review, Written Chinese. Thanks! BrianTung (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your other question, I think the basic organization works, and I agree with your reasoning to keep it in two separate paragraphs. I think the text still needs some wordsmithing, but I'll defer that till later. BrianTung (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes complete. I've added more to the plot. Particularly information regarding what the men were doing, how Logan winds up at his father's town/home, and why Logan fears Jack may infected (I cannot believe I forgot that plotpoint)--Jack had possibly been infected because her minor-character brother attacked at one point. I may need to go for another copyedit if it sounds too choppy. As a note, characters actually say "paws" instead of saying each letter. I distinctly remember a scene in which a lady asks an official what "'paws' is" after he mentions POS. It's strange that POS was chosen, though I wonder if the whole "paws" thing had anything to do with it...I changed the US line to be more vague. We explicitly know it was in the US, but I don't believe they ever said anything about Canada or Mexico (both of which would likely have cases pop up) or any other nation.

To be honest, I'm fairly fearful when it comes to reviewing others. I wonder if I'm up to par, and time constraints sometimes get in the way. If I get a chance, though, I will most definitely look at it (and it's a very interesting topic!). WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]