# Talk:The House of the Wolfings

This review is transcluded from Talk:The House of the Wolfings/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Z. Patterson (talk · contribs) 02:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
I will be reviewing the article. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: I regret to inform you that I must quick fail this GAN.  I used Earwig's Copyvio Tool to find the following similarities to Amazon reviews.
[1]
[2]
These can be seen in the lead and Plot sections of the article.  I cannot determine if the seller on Amazon copied from Wikipedia or the other way around.  This constitutes a quick failure under Wikipedia:Good article criteria#Immediate failures.  Also, I feel apprehensive about the large amounts of quotes from the On publication section, particularly in the paragraph about the Atlantic Monthly.  Although that part does not constitute a quick fail, I would suggest paraphrasing some of the quotations.
I appreciate your efforts in your endeavour to improve the article, but I apologise for any inconvenience this quick fail may cause.  If you choose to resubmit this for a GAN, please let me know on my talk page after you make the improvements and nominate this again.
Z. Patterson (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Z. Patterson: No, the two Amazon "reviewers" have certainly copied wholesale from us to knock up their pieces quickly. You may note that both use the first 3 paragraphs of our Plot section without attribution, so they cannot both be honest sources. The first one is on Spanish Amazon, but written in English, an obvious giveaway, and in Wikipedia style as a detailed summary, not a reader's  personal reflections. This is no reason to fail anything, nor to conduct a GAN review. 04:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC) Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: I undid the GAN fail at Special:Diff/1297892586.  I had attempted to follow the GAN instructions, and I apologise for the misunderstanding.


### Comments
Now that I have reinstated this GAN and we now know the copying is a false positive, I see that the article is written well.  It appears to have no original research.  It appears to be stable, broad, neutral, and illustrated for its length.  However, I have some points to address.

The novel is British, but I see an -ize spelling in "galvanized".  Does this article intentionally use Oxford spelling, or do you intend to use non-Oxford British English?
Fixed to BE.
The citations in the lead should be in the body.  The lead is intended to summarise the article.
Moved.
I am concerned about the heavy use of quotations in the On publication section.  I suggest paraphrasing some of the quotes if you can.
Done.
If you make these changes, or provide a reason the article should stay as is, I plan to make this a good article.
Z. Patterson (talk) 05:41, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Many thanks. You will also need to do some spot-checks on the sources used. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)


### Spot-checks
@Chiswick Chap: I spot-checked the sources you provided and I could access.  The sources appear to agree with what you said.  I passed this as a good article.  I commend your work. Z. Patterson (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)