This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles
Comment: This is an excellent start! After a look through the sources and the overall state of the article, I think this submission can be accepted. There are, however, two issues that I think should be focused on after it is published. First, the plot summary is extremely lengthy. Wikipedia's goal should be to summarize the broad strokes of the book. Consider omitting details that are not central to the main plot. Our essay at Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary has some advice on this. Secondly, be wary of Wikipedia's policy against original research. When you write in the "Historical background and inspirations" section, I noticed that in some places you cited The Voyage of the Arctic Tern itself. Avoid writing about your own analysis of the book, as that would constitute original research. Instead, try to find independent reliable sources that analyze the book, and summarize them. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia's goal is essentially to explain what the sources say, not what individual Wikipedia editors think. All in all, great work! Mz7 (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I'm still a newbie feeling her way around the Wikipedia system and rules, and any comments from you are a lot of help. I'll work on: 1.) shortening the plot summary and 2.) getting additional review sources to quote from for the "Historical background and inspiration" section (to avoid citing or relying too much on the book itself for details there). I'll try to get to work on that this weekend. Again, thanks for the support and the pointers!
SarazadeCruz (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Let me know if you need help. Mz7 (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mz7! I tried shortening the plot summary. Have a look and let me know if you think it should be shortened further (i.e., lessen the "spoilers"). Note: I'm still working on the other section. So far, it's been difficult finding more newspaper or magazine reviews of this book with complete reference details. (Not surprising; this book came out 15 years ago.) I haven't found any yet in the free archives; the only ones that I do find are thumbnails of articles hidden away in British news archives which require me to pay membership fees before granting full access. By any chance, would you have access to any of the membership-only archives of U.K. newspapers and magazines? (If not, let me know. I might go so far as to email Dr. Montgomery himself, just to get the details to all the reviews he may have clippings of, LOL!) Thank you!
SarazadeCruz (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is an excellent start! After a look through the sources and the overall state of the article, I think this submission can be accepted. There are, however, two issues that I think should be focused on after it is published. First, the plot summary is extremely lengthy. Wikipedia's goal should be to summarize the broad strokes of the book. Consider omitting details that are not central to the main plot. Our essay at Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary has some advice on this. Secondly, be wary of Wikipedia's policy against original research. When you write in the "Historical background and inspirations" section, I noticed that in some places you cited The Voyage of the Arctic Tern itself. Avoid writing about your own analysis of the book, as that would constitute original research. Instead, try to find independent reliable sources that analyze the book, and summarize them. As an encyclopedia Wikipedia's goal is essentially to explain what the sources say, not what individual Wikipedia editors think. All in all, great work! Mz7 (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)