# Talk:Gentlemen & Players

I thought that wikipedia articles include spoilers - give away plot twists. This article does not. It also contains such statements as "Apart from the thrilling plot, Gentlemen and Players offers rich food for thought." Is the article describing or selling the book? I read the book, and have forgotten the motive of the perpetrator. This article with its lack of spoilers, did not help.--Timtak (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gentlemen & Players. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060522194640/http://www.authortrek.com:80/gentlemen_and_players_page.html to http://www.authortrek.com/gentlemen_and_players_page.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@ArthurTheGardener: Here is a 20-minute assessment of this article, as requested for Women in Green's edit-a-thon.

Something I immediately noticed was the awkward tone of the plot synopsis, which read more like a advertisement for the book than a neutral, encyclopedic synopsis. I was dismayed to find out that the entire "Plot summary" section is copied word-for-word from Joanne Harris' website (see Earwig's copyvio checker); the "Structure" section is also plagiarised from Harris' website. This is unacceptable and would be grounds for an immediate failure of any GAN review. The "Plot introduction" section also uses an awkward tone, and appears to be rather close in parts to an Author Trek article (see Earwig results).
We cite a number of sources for information in the lead that should be in the body of the article, per MOS:LEADCITE.
The "Background" section is very short and provides very little detail. Is there nothing else about the background to the writing of this book that can be included?
Some of the short, single-sentence paragraphs should be merged into other ones, per the Manual of Style on paragraphs.
Are there really no more reviews of this book that we can cite? The Reception section is currently very short.
"The St Oswald's trilogy continues with Different Class and concludes with A Narrow Door." This needs a citation. Also, if there's nothing more that can be added, this should probably be merged into another section. Having an entire section for a single sentence that says "sequels exist" makes this an awkward read.
Many of the citations are awkwardly formatted. I note that one of them is a plain link, without citation formatting, and is duplicated. A few more list the publication by their lower-case urls, rather than the name of the publication itself (e.g. The Times is listed as www.thetimes.com). Another has put "says" into the last name of the author.
Why are we linking to the Mystery novels category in the see also? This category is already covered by the categories this article is already in.
If they're not being cited, Joanne Harris' website and the Independent's review should be in the external links section, not awkwardly shoved in at the bottom of the References section.
Unfortunately, this article is a long way off the good article criteria, specifically criteria 1b, 2a, 2d, 3a and 4. The tone of the plot summary and the fact that it was copy-pasted from the author's website would be grounds for an immediate fail. Feel free to ping me if you have any questions about improving this article further. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Grnrchst, Thank you so much for that careful explanation: I'll do some work on the article and correct the problems you very kindly highlighted. Thanks also for the information on how to highlight copyvio: I'll look into how to use the tool. (As you can probably tell, I'm pretty new to this.) ArthurTheGardener (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
No bother! The copyvio wasn't introduced by you, so no worries on that part. Earwig's tool is something routinely used at GA, so it's good to know about. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Hi User:Grnrchst, I've created a temporary Talk page here [1], with an alternative Plot description: I'd very much appreciate your opinion. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
@ArthurTheGardener: Hey, here's my notes on this new plot summary:
Clarify "90s" is referring to "1990s".
More specific terminology such as Michaelmas term, form, Comprehensive school, etc. should be wikilinked, as the average reader may not be familiar with British educational language.
Mr and etc should have a point after them (so Mr. and etc.), per the manual of style on abbreviations.
What does "different breed" mean?
I'm assuming White King and Black Pawn are referring to the chess pieces?
Try not to use personal pronouns like "we", per the manual of style. The plot should be told impersonally.
Overall, it's looking good, but could do with a bit more clarity in places. Thanks for seeing to this. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello Grnrchst: I think I've addressed the problems you outlined; I've added to the Background section, added to the reviews, merged the awkward one-line section, axed the incomplete list of Mystery novels and (I think) fixed the references (I'm not too sure about this one, as I have mostly tended to let the visual editor do the work for me). I've also gone over the Plot summary on the temporary page, and made some adjustments. I've used Earwig's tool and rephrased the bits that looked dodgy. I don't have a GA mentor, but would you mind please having another look, and giving me an idea on how I could maybe get this article up to GA standard? Your help so far is very much appreciated. 14:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC) ArthurTheGardener (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi fellow Wikipedians: I've had a go at rewriting the Plot section to replace the copy-pasted material: here it is on a temporary page at [2]. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi! Here from WiG. Will take a look at the rest of the article in a bit, but will say that since the content on the temp page is copyright-free (I checked with the author's website and other websites sourced here), you should be good to remove the previous copyvio content from before and add it (assuming it's done). Spookyaki (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Okay, my immediate thoughts. I'll approach it as if I were a GA reviewer:
The St Oswald's trilogy continues with Different Class[2] and concludes with A Narrow Door. — This sentence should probably be merged into the previous paragraph. Spookyaki (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
There are still sentences in the "Structure" section that seem to be partially plagiarized, partially WP:CLOP. It should probably be rewritten. Spookyaki (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Is there a reason that the Plot introduction, Plot summary, and Ending sections are separate? It seems odd to separate them and makes the article somewhat structurally confusing. Spookyaki (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Gentlemen and Players explores themes of revenge, as well as those of "the past, guilt, perception, memory and the complex and mutable nature of friendship and loyalty. — According to who? What is the source of this quote? I would probably attribute it in-text. Spookyaki (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
It also explores the teaching profession, adolescence, coming of age and the problems of: "socioeconomic inequities, neglect at home, bullying at school, (and) unrequited love," as well as "the brittle line dividing the haves and have-nots." — Same with this. Spookyaki (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Finally, Gentlemen and Players highlights class divisions and class consciousness in Britain at the turn of the millennium. Compared to the pupils at the local comprehensive, the boys attending St Oswald's are a privileged group. In their world, if there is peer pressure, it is to fit in, learn and succeed rather than to misbehave, ridicule ambition and eventually drop out. — And this. Spookyaki (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
In their world, if there is peer pressure, it is to fit in, learn and succeed rather than to misbehave, ridicule ambition and eventually drop out. — This sentence is also a bit unwieldy and difficult to understand. Maybe try something like: In their world, peer pressure compels them to fit in, learn, and succeed rather than misbehaving, mocking ambition, (not entirely sure what this means, so should probably be further rephrased) or dropping out.
See MOS:LQUOTE for information about how to format quotations per Wikipedia MOS. Spookyaki (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
The Independent said: — Who at The Independent? Spookyaki (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
I made a few small CE tweaks myself. I also used the article cleaner script.  Spookyaki (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Hope this helps and good luck with getting the article to GA! Spookyaki (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much for all this, Spookyaki: it's really very helpful. I'll work over it and see if I can iron out those remaining problems. 08:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC) ArthurTheGardener (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Great work! Made a few more tweaks myself. Your reviewer will almost certainly bring up a few more ways to improve the article, and that's part of the process, but I think it's in a good enough condition that it makes sense to submit it now. You can find the instructions here. Good luck! Spookyaki (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Spookyaki: I really appreciate all your advice. 18:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC) ArthurTheGardener (talk) 18:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)