Wikipedia:Peer review/The Secret Agent/archive1

The Secret Agent

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm hoping to gain some insight into what needs expanding, or whether this is already on the right lines. My aim is to get this to FA status, but my current object is for it to become a Good Article. With this in mind, does anyone have any comments?

Thanks, Adasta 18:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article on a book I have not read. Here are some suggestions for improvement, with an eye to GA:

• In the lead there is a missing word in deals largely with the life of Mr. Verloc and his role as a spy in [place? war?].[1][2][3]

Fixed.--Adasta 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Refs should be in order, so ... with the book later inspiring the Unabomber.[4][2] should be ...with the book later inspiring the Unabomber.[2][4]

Fixed.--Adasta 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• A model article is often useful for ideas on style, structure, refs, etc. Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Literature_and_theatre lists many novels that are FA that may be useful models.
• The Plot section seems a bit long / overly detailed. This may be my impression because the Characters section which follows it basically repeats much of it on a character basis - for example is there anything about Mrs. Verloc in Characters that is not in the Plot? Or any of the characters?

Are Character Lists required for GA status? If not, we could probably dispense with that list.--Adasta 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think so, but you can check at WP:WIAGA - also helpful to look at some model GAs and see what they do Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Article is under-referenced - For example these direct quotes In The Secret Agent, she is "the only character who performs a serious act of violence against another", despite the ... and The Times Literary Supplement, that the novel "increase[d] Mr. Conrad's reputation, already of the highest." are uncited. My rule of thumb is every paragraph, every quote and attribution, every statistic, and every extraordinary claim needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V

Fixed those mentioned, but will look out for any more.--Adasta 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Adaptations section should not be a bullet list - make it prose instead.

Working on this in the near future!--Adasta 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Article could use a copyedit - I read for comprehension, but noticed several typos.

This is due to me trying to type as much as possbile as rapidly as possible. There are certainly typos; a copy edit is required.--Adasta 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps there should be a "Post September 11" section, just as there is a Unabomber section?

Might have to get rid of this comment, simply because I don't think enough information will be forthcoming.--Adasta 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Why do some books have ISBNs and others do not in the Refs?

That was laziness on my part. Fixed.--Adasta 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) You said you wished to go to FA with this, so I reviewed the sources with FAC in mind.

• Per the MOS, you don't want bald links in the footnotes or bibliography. I suggest using {{cite web}} to format your web site references, so that they look uniform and all the needed information is included. Web sites need to give publisher, title and last access date at the very least, and any other information is very helpful.
• The two newspaper article references, I'd use {{cite news}} to format them correctly.

I did not read the prose, just checked the sourcing as I would have for FAC. 15:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)