Talk:Children's Fantasy Literature: An Introduction/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 22:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): Mostly fine, though queries. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Mostly fine, though queries. It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): No issues. b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reputable and the expected mix of academic, literary, and general interest. c (OR): Was queried at DYK, but no issues. d (copyvio and plagiarism): Earwig test is clean. Manual comparison of other sources to article text does not reveal issues. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): No issues. b (focused): No issues. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: I was unable to find sources demonstrating points of view on the subject not used in the article. It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: No issues. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): One image, appropriately justified fair use. b (appropriate use with suitable captions): No issues.
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Picking this up. Vaticidalprophet 22:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a beautiful little article, though I have some notes.

Your lead is very short (the second paragraph is really a half-paragraph at best). It would be worth expanding the second reception-focused paragraph somewhat. This is also a minor POV issue; the majority of the reviews are clearly positive and it's correct to focus on them, but the book did receive some criticism. The second paragraph can be expanded to discuss what specific points reviewers (both academic and general) addressed, what specific qualities they (usually) liked, and what the minority of more negative opinions found wanting.

Expanded. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The definitions in the second paragraph of the Background section are a little vague. I recognize the vagueness is feature rather than bug. However, it may be worth adding additional context, such as by discussing specifically how they related these qualities to the books analysed.

I found a more specific statement about the age of protagonists in the books they look at; added. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Englishness" linked to "Britishness" is, to put it delicately, a matter of ethnocultural tension. I'd drop that link. While I respect it's what the book uses, I'm also unconvinced we here on Wikipedia should be using the italics; our Manual of Style is not the publishing house's. Given that the word is specifically from the source and refers to a precise phenomenon there, it also might be worth putting in quotes, but this is just a suggestion. (Is "renewed sensibility of Englishness" itself a direct quote?)

Unlinked; I was able to quote "encouragement of Englishness". Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The identification throughout the article of individuals solely as 'scholars' is ambiguous, not to mention repetitive. It should be possible to contextualize their specific fields and institutional affiliations further -- although I get that it's a tricky compromise to find a succinct summary of an academic career that doesn't drown the reader in detail. This is particularly important for Levy, who should certainly be notable, but doesn't appear to currently have an article. I'd suggest redlinking him, but Michael Levy is a disambiguation page, so by itself a link would be inappropriate; the usual alternative would be creating the disambig (e.g. Michael Levy (historian)) and linking that, but without further context as to his actual profession it's unclear what title the redlink should have.

Changed the lead from "scholar" to "author". For Levy, I think the linked article should be enough for context? The two scholars in reception are both English professors; I contextualized the first one (Farris) and dropped the other's descriptor. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend dropping the parentheses in the very last line of the article; the text they cover is incorporated in the article and doesn't need it. (In general, I think there's rarely cause for parentheses in mainspace. Most things expressed in them can either be simply included in the text, or restructured as footnotes.)

Done. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All these notes aside, this is good work, and I'm looking forward to passing it. Vaticidalprophet 22:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet: I think I've responded to all comments. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with the edits, and happy to pass the article. Vaticidalprophet 03:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]