Talk:The Good Terrorist

	The Good Terrorist is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 8, 2017.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 19, 2015 Good article nominee Listed February 3, 2016 Peer review Reviewed February 28, 2016 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 5, 2016 Featured article candidate Promoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 28, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a critic said that the heroine of Doris Lessing's novel The Good Terrorist is neither a good person nor a good revolutionary? Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Novels Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers 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.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Squatting Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Squatting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of squatting 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.SquattingWikipedia:WikiProject SquattingTemplate:WikiProject Squattingsquatting articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Archives

1

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is

transcluded from Talk:The Good Terrorist/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Clear: ok; concise: ok; copyright: ok in spot checks; spelling: ok; grammar: ok
	1b. it complies with the list incorporation .	Lead: ok; layout: ok; weasel: ok; fiction: ok; lists: ok
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline .
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Clearly now of the required standard.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Even coverage throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	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 audio :
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	licenses ok, lead image is of course fair usage.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions .
	7. Overall assessment.	Excellent work. This was an enjoyable article to review.

Comments

An interesting article.

Style

On style, perhaps "said she got her inspiration for the book from..." could be better phrased: Something like "said she was inspired to write by..." might do, perhaps.

I've reworded as you suggested. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the construction "Novelist X Y wrote that..." isn't an Americanism; for me, "The novelist X Y wrote that..." is far less jarring.

I've added "The" in front of the first occurrence of "Novelist X Y", the other two ("American novelist" and "British novelist") I've left as is – I'm not sure if you feel that they also "jar". —Bruce1ee^talk 06:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're all much the same, I was giving an example in the hope you'd check for and fix similar items. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Straying in the opposite direction, "unbeknownst" comes across as twee or journalistic rather than encyclopedic: "unknown" would be sufficient in the context.

I've reworded – please check if you think that's ok. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Scanlan said that Lessing's comrades in The Good Terrorist behave in exactly the same way Richard E. Rubenstein describes what happens when "ambitious idealists" are alienated from the upper and lower classes." (.. said .. behave .. describes .. are alienated .. ) Perhaps this could be simplified, split, or otherwise modified? The "same" seems redundant, at least.

I've reworded – I hope that's better. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Works cited: I've taken the liberty of putting this list back to a single column, which seems to improve readability of the alphabetic list of sources.

That's fine. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Themes

On the themes, the first paragraph makes a good case for "House" as a significant theme. What are the other themes? Perhaps it would be wise to create a named subsection for each major theme, and to state each theme and the evidence for it explicitly. For example, is terrorism itself actually a theme, or is it the contradiction between anarchism and bourgeoisie, or just the fact that we all have both good and bad voices in our heads, or what?

Is Greene the only person who thinks the book a satire on terrorists? If it's not "political", can it be satirical? Kuehn seems to think it is exactly not a satire... Mr G. seems to think there are at least a few other books that discuss the topic. Discuss.

I've added a new paragraph in the Themes and analysis section on "satire", which includes some of Kuehn's commentary from the Reception section. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to work well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'm still working on these sections – hope to have it finished before the end of the week. —Bruce1ee^talk 04:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new "Genre" section, using some of the text from the "Themes and analysis" section, plus new material. What remains to do is split the "Themes and analysis" section, which I hope to have finished before the end of the week. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've split the "Themes and analysis" section into "Themes" and "Critical opinion". I'm not sure whether it should be "Critical opinion" or "Analysis". —Bruce1ee^talk 06:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

I wonder if this selection of reviews really spans the field? Perhaps it would be useful to look at Elizabeth Lowry's comments on the book in the London Review of Books (Vol. 23 No. 6 · 22 March 2001 pages 29-30):

"She has been sharply criticised for the pedestrian quality of her prose, and as vigorously defended. In her defence, for example, Clare Hanson argued in 1990 that the inert language of The Good Terrorist should be read in the same way that we read Joyce’s ‘tired style’ at the end of Ulysses: Lessing’s book ‘is a grey and textureless novel because it is “about”, or speaks, a grey and textureless language: it is, surely, quite missing the point to see the drabness as the symptom of authorial laziness.’Unfortunately this position becomes harder to maintain as Lessing’s oeuvre increases and the leaden quality of the prose persists, regardless of its subject. The two Lessings – the tough and the pious – are at work respectively in The Fifth Child and its sequel, Ben, in the World. The Fifth Child is a potent and suggestive piece of writing, a recasting of the ancient story of the Fall as urban fable. In its own way it is as much a novel about domestic terrorism as The Good Terrorist and, like that novel, starts with the classic paradigm of the family as a microcosm of society. It is the Swinging Sixties."

Ask if you need to see more. Perhaps it would be wise to have a scan through other likely places for different opinions of the book. The question of whether the book is "leaden" or has "strong descriptive prose" seems to demand a paragraph, maybe even a section: something must be going on if half the critics find the writing exceptionally flat, the rest exceptionally lively (with nobody thinking the prose is average). Without suggesting you indulge in any

, there is freedom to group the comments for and against, to note the types of criticism, and to observe that the book divides the critics on the matter. And perhaps Lowry is exactly suitable as a cited source which comments on the divide, and could be used to organise the other quotations and opinions.

Now to "mixed": it's an easy cliché. But it right in this case? Perhaps we exactly don't have mixing and blurring, but division into two opposing camps, love and loathe? (This may affect the lead also.)

I'm not totally convinced of the split between the 'Themes and analysis' (by critics) section and the 'Reception' (by critics). Sure, bland comments like "fascinating book" and "extremely well written" (see Lowry, above, or your quotes from Donoghue for a different opinion) are definitely not "analysis" (to any measurable depth), but why for example are Kuehn's comments not analysis? Perhaps we should have a simple "Themes" section followed by something on critical opinion? (Again, this may affect the lead also.)

I've (hopefully) addressed this. BTW thanks for the Lowry source, which I used. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Thanks for picking up this one – I look forward to your comments. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start, but I'll return later today. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit more, but addressing your "Themes" and "Reception" issues are going to take a little longer. —Bruce1ee^talk 14:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible for you to put this nom on hold for a couple of weeks? I like the suggestions you've made and I want to address them, but I am quite busy at the moment and it's going to take me a little while to work through this. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, delighted to help. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all the issues you raised – thanks for waiting. Just one question: the awards and prizes the book won appear in a sentence at the end of the Reception section. I originally had it in a table here, but it was changed to what it is now – I prefer the table. What do you think? —Bruce1ee^talk 06:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to promote it. Well done, and thanks for all the hard work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and for your helpful suggestions and patience. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who finds that recent addition of an hyphen fussy, untidy, and unnecessary despite whatever the WP rule book may say. Rwood128 (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I take it you're referring to this edit: I don't have a problem with it, in fact I feel "13 hour" should be "13-hour". —Bruce1ee^talk 04:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a British novel by a British author and it was first published in Great Britain, it should use British English spelling like characterised instead of characterized. Αμπσίνθια Στέϊση (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed – thanks for that. —Bruce1ee^talk 15:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]