Talk:Where the Crawdads Sing

This summary should have a “SPOILER WARNING”! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.237.91.68 (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Sequences

I believe he gave her list of publishers before he left for college not after as in the wiki plot says. 174.232.194.2 (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Where the Crawdads Sing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 19:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 20:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I will take on this review! I typically prefer to make copyedits myself and only place comments here when I have questions, though of course as always you should feel free to change or discuss any edits you happen to disagree with. Looking forward to it! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

May thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for all the thorough changes noted below -- the reconfigured article has much more contextualization of the novel and feels structurally much smoother. I made a few bold edits myself (which of course we can continue to refine if you disagree), but my concerns for the GA criteria are addressed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

• Somehow, the structure of the article feels odd without being obviously wrong. I think both "Ethology" and "Meaning of title" are surprising sections to encounter, especially in their current placement. Some thoughts about the structure:
  • Could "meaning of title" go earlier in the article? Maybe even above the plot summary?
    • Renamed.
  • Should the note about increased internet searches about "crawdad" go in "Meaning of title"? (It seems like a very lonely fact in "Reception")
    • Let's try that.
  • Can "ethology" be folded into something more conventional to book articles, like "Major themes"?
    • Done.

• From the perspective of breadth, it's clear this book got a lot of attention, but the article contains very little commentary. I like to see some kind of analysis somewhere in the article. Perhaps in "Reception", before the bestseller stats, there could be a discussion of major reviews and their frequent observations? And/or, perhaps a "Major themes" or "style" section?
  • Grouped and extended as Analysis section.

• The start of "Reception" would also be a good place to state the date & publisher for its release.
  • Added.

• Thanks for citing the info on the film adaptation so quickly! You addressed it before I even posted these notes :)
  • Thanks.

• At 800+ words, the plot summary is on the long end. An editing pass for sentence-level concision would help.
  • Edited.

• Images are good and the licensing checks out. (Good NFUR for the cover, swamp is public domain). It could be fun to have a photo of Reese Witherspoon in the reception section since her book club & film adaptation play a big role there. But just a thought.
  • It's possible.

• Copyvio check -- Earwig picks up a number of blogs etc which appear to have cribbed their plot summaries from Wikipedia, but nothing that looks like copyvio to me.
  • Noted.

• Thinking about MOS:LEAD, the cites in the lead could be removed... except for the identification of the novel as a "coming-of-age" story, which doesn't appear anywhere in the body (and probably should).
  • Done, and added coming-of-age to the analysis.

• Source check looked at cites 8, 18, 29, 31 as numbered in this diff.
  • [8] is a dead link with no Wayback archive. That's sad, but not a violation of GA criteria, and the title looks like it would verify the info.
    • Noted.
  • [18] is the author's own website considered a sufficiently independent RS for the claim that the book sold 18 million copies? Seems like a case where it would be good to cite someone else.
    • It's certainly true, fits in stepwise with the two preceding sources, and the following (publishers) sources verify it also.
  • [29] checks out.
    • Noted.
  • [31] is a casting call, which also doesn't seem like a great RS.
    • It's a reliable source.

• As I look at the film adaptation section, it feels like the prose/organization suffered from getting sporadically updated with announcements over time, and could now be revisited with a more retrospective overview. Honestly, it might work to just grab the lead of the film's article & revise/cite it.
  • Done.

• Overall, it feels like this article has some rough edges but no fatal flaws. I think it's most important to address the two questionable sources and in some way take a fresh look at the structure/comprehensiveness of the article. I look forward to seeing it improve! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Done.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reviews?

To be honest, I'm surprised this nomination passed without at least a request from the reviewer to include some information about the reviews this book received. The critical reception of a creative work is typically a main aspect of that subject. It's not like this is some obscure book where reviews would be hard to find; reviews do exist. Why weren't they included? Lazman321 (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)