Talk:Dune (franchise)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sadads (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am User:Sadads and I will be reviewing your article per the GA criteria. Below is an outline which I will use to check off criteria that are covered/completed. I and only I can check it off. Below the criteria section I will make comments about what I think is right/wrong with the article. Please be patient, the coming week I have several major things happening in my real life (including a conference presentation). However, this subject intrigued me and I wanted to make sure I got to review it.

A little information on myself: I am a student of History and Literature, working on my BA in both subjects. I am also an active participant in WP:Novels and a coordinator for several task forces there. I have read all of the core Dune novels and own some of the others, yet have not done much in the way of reading them, also I have see the two movie/miniseries versions of the novels. If at any time you wish to request another reviewer, I totally understand, however I do not forsee that need. If I am negligent for any reason please contact me on my talk page.

Criteria

Well-written:

• ✓ Pass(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
• ✗ Fail(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. - omitting considerable information in MOS

Factually accurate and verifiable:

• ✗ Fail(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
• ✗ Fail(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and
• ✓ Pass(c) it contains no original research. -questionable, based on the removal of bad sources

Broad in its coverage:

• ✗ Fail(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
• ✓ Pass(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

✓ PassNeutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
✓ PassStable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by images:

• ✗ Fail(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and - don't think character images for franchise page is a valid use
• ✓ Pass(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Overall

Overall the information already presented in the article is well written, with considerable sourcing (though some is questionable). It provides a good overview of the fiction of the Dune Series and media derived from it. However, the title of the article is deceiving as none of the future derivative work uniquely represents the fictional universe of the books (See media franchise for my definition). In addition, the scope of the article is narrow, not covering the academically important subjects of thematic development as a critical (literary criticism) issue nor critical reception itself (both of which are considered in academic sources) despite a firm understanding of the plot and development and publication.

Content

The first major problem I have is that you are missing some rather large content gaps that are important to works of fiction, series included: Critical Reception and Themes. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines). Both are integral to the academic understanding of the series as a whole. What I would do is look first at the following link [1] and see what type of critical articles are written about the series and/or look at the themes and critical reception of the respective book pages, and bring in some stuff. You mention critical reception briefly in the intro and Production but don't really expand on it much later.

Also, again since this is a franchise it may not be necessary, but I would consider checking out the style guide above for the general outline of novels articles too. I would apply this to the article, doing the order of the sections (a kind of standardization process for works of fiction.)

The depth of coverage in existing sections is adequate, however. Sadads (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

For instance try the various articles found at http://www.jkennedycpa.com/duneacademic/index.htm, you do not consult any of these, yet they all consider the concepts of the whole series. Sadads (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Upon examining the article further, It is not wholly clear what the intention of this article is. The intro deals with several things, including critical reception, which are never addressed later in the text. Is the article to list all of the media related to Dune? Why is the article called a franchise? I would call it a Novel series which has inspired derivative works, because, from what I have read in the article thus far, all the other media does not actually expand on the universe constructed by the Herberts but instead just adapts it as supportive material. If this is a list of all media, remove the plot summary and merge the other articles related, such as the list of games which has its own article. However, the Dune Universe redirects here, so I think the intention is to deal with the universe constructed by the series, which it does not do in a well organized fashion (I think that you cover these ideas in passing at certain period but not in a complete or focused fashion). Again, thematic understanding as supplied by the academic studies of the dune series would be helpful and a fuller development of aspects of the universe such as Setting in distinct subtopics would be useful.Sadads (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

References and Sources

It is rather agitating to be going through a sentence and in the middle of a thought BAM! several numbers in brackets OH NO! Then you realize, oh wait that is a reference. You should consider trying to put references only after periods and semi-colons. Sadads (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Amazon.com nor does Fantastic fan fiction are good sources. Interpretative and questionable information should have reputable academic sources, newspaper reviews, official websites, etc as sources. Plot summary does not need citation unless it is direct quote or involves interpretative positions!!! See WP:Fiction and WP:PLOTSUM. Sadads (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)