Talk:Diamond (novel)

Nominator: DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk · contribs) 07:28, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Diamond (novel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Samuelshraga (talk · contribs) 03:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm planning to start on this review later today. Samuelshraga (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Samuelshraga, I'll oversee the rest of this review. So far, your comments on neutrality and due weight are very good. You seem to understand this criterion very well. I also like how you've described your process throughout the review. Generally when you're more experienced, you won't need to do this as much, but everyone should do it to some extent and it massively clarifies the process to the nominator and others reading the review. I have replied to some individual points below. Please ping me when the review is over and you are ready to pass/fail, or if you want a second opinion at any point. I look forward to the rest of your review. IAWW (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and the comments. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I've read through and determined that this won't be quick-failed and will move on to the full review. There were a number of things flagged by copyvio detectors but these seem to be false positives, quotes from reviews that appear within quotation marks and with citations here. I'll start on the full review by tomorrow evening latest. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Samuelshraga, the fair use section of your review is good. As long as it checks out against the non-free content criteria policy, it passes. Please note that I am just providing general comments, and that an experienced reviewer can take over and review your review more thoroughly than I can on a drive-by basis. kline / talk / contribs 20:31, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I agreed this is fair use as single image aiding in identification Czarking0 (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both! Samuelshraga (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I liked this article! I haven't done source spot checks yet or done research round the subject to double check that all main aspects of the subject are addressed. After a couple of read-throughs I haven't seen anything that jumps out at me on criterion 1 and I'll update the table accordingly after I recheck the MOS guidelines.

I did want to say DaniloDaysOfOurLives that I think the reception section is pretty heavy on long quotations. Mostly this isn't do do with GAC, just a personal comment. However with reference to 4 (WP:NPOV) I wanted to ask how you've assigned due weight do the different reviews? For instance the last two paragraphs are reasonably full and both based on a single review each, while the previous ones all are sourced to multiple reviews. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a really good point and valid. I would suggest this be fixed by heavily trimming down those last two reviews. Overdetail is an issue related to the GA criteria (see criterion 3b: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"), and it can be considered a copyvio issue when quotes are used to the extent they are here. IAWW (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

From doing checks on the sourcing of the Reception section, I have a new note under criterion 4. It was not obvious to me at all from reading this article that the three Guardian reviews and the Worcester News review were written by children. I think that given reviews are inherently a sort of opinion piece, this doesn't introduce reliability concerns but it's still pretty necessary context for understanding these reviews and comparing them with those done by more traditional (and presumably professional) reviewers from Books for Keeps and the Historical Novel Society.

I think it's reasonable to expect that a child's review is held to a lower standard for accuracy and insight than an adult professional's review, and should be accorded less encyclopaedic weight. It occurs to me that this may explain why the adult reviewers' coverage is longer, but given IAWW's copyvio point above the quotes from adults' reviews still need to be trimmed and/or replaced.

Even so, it seems misleading to me that opinions such as that the book is "absolutely perfect" with no flaws can be appreciated by any age group are attributed to a reviewer from The Guardian without noting that the author of the review is a child and that it was published in a section for childrens' reviews - and similarly with the following extremely critical review by a child.

Personally, I think grouping all the childrens' reviews into one paragraph, introducing them for what they are and describing them rather than quoting them at length would mitigate these issues sufficiently, but if the nominator/any other editor who wants to push this over the line has other ideas then I'm open to that too. Samuelshraga (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Review

More information Rate, Attribute ...

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Diamond (novel)#References
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	One quibble about the Argus citation for the point of view of the novel (see here), this could be replaced with a citation to the book itself. Done. Samuelshraga (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio issue with long quotes in the Reception section, see this comment. Fixed Samuelshraga (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Currently too much detail in the last paragraphs of the reception section (this can be addressed together with the 2d issue above) Fixed. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Needs to properly present the difference between the childrens' and adults' reviews, and recalibrate the weight of each. Done. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The fair use rationale for this image seems reasonable but I'm going to wait for more experienced reviewer to weigh in before passing it. UPDATE: passing per comments above and the Non-free content criteria policy.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Close

It is a wonderful world, I think this makes sense as a provisional review and I think the identified issues are mostly pretty quickly and easily fixable, even the most substantial (under criterion 4). So I want to put the nomination on hold and give the nominator a couple of weeks to address them. Does the review as is and that plan make sense to you? Samuelshraga (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes definitely. I concur with your points above that substantial changes need to be made to the reception section, but also it's not outside the scope of a review. @DaniloDaysOfOurLives is normally quite quick in responding to feedback. IAWW (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives thanks for your changes. I also made a change to address my point under 4. Could you please address the sourcing issue under 2b? It's the only thing outstanding as far as I'm concerned. It should be easy to fix if you have a copy of the novel. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry so far I have only made 1 change, I will do the rest today after work DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Great, looking forward to it. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey Samuel, thank you for your kind review. I am sorry that it took me a while to respond - as there were various comments from other editors, I was confused on what to do and hence was a bit lost. I have addressed point #4 and done some other fixes. I also merged some of the paragraphs together as they were too short to be separate in my opinion. Is there anything else that needs to be addressed? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Danilo, thanks for your fixes. I think the paragraphs were fine, but they're not so long now that it's a GA problem in my opinion, probably just more a matter of taste. I'm happy to pass this GA now. It is a wonderful world is that ok with you? Samuelshraga (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree they're still a bit verbose, especially with the long quotations from the reviews, but also it could be seen as a bit beyond GA, so I'd be happy for this to pass. IAWW (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Great job @DaniloDaysOfOurLives! This was my first GA review and it was a pleasure working with you on this one. Thanks very much again IAWW. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Samuelshraga for your in-depth review. Do you know how to pass it? (I recommend using the script) IAWW (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh I thought I already did it... I guess I don't? Samuelshraga (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah yes you did sorry. I missed it because I didn't realise you actually make no changes to the GA review page when not using the script. Thanks again for your review! IAWW (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)