Talk:The Coral Island/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 22:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No real problems, and a very readable, enjoyable article. Although I confess that I'd never heard of the book or the author! My only minor issue is over in-text attribution of one or two quotes, but (if I understand the MoS correctly) you are perfectly entitled to disagree and say that they do not need attribution.

"A stickler for accuracy, he subsequently only wrote about things of which he had personal experience.": Is this because he realised he got it wrong about coconuts? If so, maybe worth saying s explicitly.
I believe it was, or at least it was part of the reason, and I'm sure I've seen someone say that explicitly, but damned if I can find it now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"dating books forward was a common practice at the time, especially during the Christmas period": It may be worth adding a reason, if this is known.
I could speculate that it was a marketing ploy to increase sales at Christmas time, and I'd be pretty sure I was right, but I've got no authoritative answer as to why it was common. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Ballantyne had a "deep religious conviction" and felt it his duty to educate Victorian middle-class boys – his target audience – in "codes of honour, decency, and religiosity"": I'm sure it is fine with MoS to leave short quotes like this without in-text attribution, but would it be worth adding who said this?
I don't have any good working rule of thumb for this kind of question. My general answer is that if the reader wants to know who said something then clicking on the citation gives an instant answer. My main objection to in-text attribution of everything is that it can get rather boring having to keep saying "Critic XYZ says this, whereas critic PQR says that". To know that it was, for instance, Short who claimed that Ballantyne had a deep religious conviction (something that nobody would dispute) doesn't seem to me to add much, if anything, to the reader's understand of the subject. Therefore I tend to attribute in-text only when I'm including quotations from two different writers in a single sentence, or when I think the claim might be considered a rather bold one. Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The novel exhibits a "light-hearted confidence" in its description of an adventure that was above all "fun"." And it may be worth attributing this.
As I said above, I don't see any reason why short uncontroversial quotes such as this from a single author should be atrributed in-text. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are one or two other examples of quotes unattributed in the text. Again, not a big deal, and fine with MoS, but it seems a little disconcerting to find some quotes attributed and others not.
"Modern critics have considered that the text features…": Any particular reason this is not just "Modern critics consider that the text features…"?
It's a tense-matching thing in my mind. The sentence starts off in the past tense with "The Coral Island was widely admired by its contemporary readers", and to jump to the present tense after that seems a little jarring to me. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"A simplified adaptation of the book was recommended for grades 7–9.": I'm never too sure of "grades", and there is potential for confusion. Maybe give ages instead?
I'm never too sure of grades either, but I understand that age range to be 12–14? I'll ask Drmies to comment on that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, grades are always mentioned in such publications from the US. My wife's eighth-graders are between 12 and (even) 15, but roughly, yes 12-14 is correct. Drmies (talk)
OK, thanks, I've changed that. I find it quite shocking that 12 year olds had to be given a simplified version of the book; I bet your six-year-old would have no bother with it. Malleus Fatuorum 16:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the book still on any reading lists that we know of?
Not that I know of, but again, I've asked Drmies. Malleus Fatuorum 23:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. It's on my nightstand--does that count? Seriously, I doubt it very much: we don't like exciting yarns with an overdose of morality anymore. I'll see what I can dig up. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In short: no. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker 1990 is lacking a publisher; and as a minor point, according to the google book preview, the coconut reference is on pp. 167–68.
I've added the publisher and amended the page numbering. Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other spot-checks fine.
Images, links, etc are fine.

I will place this on hold for the moment, but these are very minor points. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]