Talk:Going Down Home with Daddy/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 21:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

• Copyvio check - I reviewed the few matches over 5% found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Matches are attributed quotes, the books title, and common phrases like "the book was published by". "layered on top of one another" appears in both the article and a source but seem OK to me per WP:LIMITED.

  Thanks for the catch – that "layered on top of one another" was inadvertent, I've now rephrased it to be a bit more concise anyway. DanCherek (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

• Images are suitable. Positions, captions and alt text are OK. The FUR is fine for the book cover, and the other images have CC licences.

Synopsis

• No issues. I haven't read the book, but this summary aligns with what I've read in publicity and reviews.

Background and publication

• "she decided to write the book after she visited Colquitt, Georgia, for a family gathering at the home of her husband's grandmother" I'm not able to access the source pages from Europe as thye are geoblocked - is there any indication of when Lyons decided to write the book, and when she started and/or finished it?

  Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find more details about the timing, either in these sources or in a more extensive Google search. The articles just describe where the idea came from, without specific indications of when it took place. DanCherek (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• "she wrote the story with him specifically in mind" - again, I'm not able to access the source from Europe. This reads to me like Lyons had Minter in mind in wider terms than just as illustrator, which may or may not be confirmed by the source. Would something like "as the potential illustrator specifically in mind" (but better-phrased than I managed there) be appropriate? (Perhaps no need, as we just learnt that "the character of Alan was based on her own son"?)

  Yes, added "as the potential illustrator" – I like that. (Source: "When I wrote 'Going Down Home With Daddy,' I was thinking about (Minter), hoping he would be the illustrator," said Lyons.) DanCherek (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• "Though children's book authors typically do not choose the illustrators for their stories" -could you let me know what the source material for this is? (Seems reasonable; I'm just asking as I can't get to the source)

  Yup! From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution source: Traditionally, children’s picture book authors do not select their own illustrators. The publishing house is responsible for pairing the author and the artist, and "Going Down Home With Daddy" is no different. But Lyons did suggest Minter to Peachtree Publishing because his work actually helped inspire her story. DanCherek (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• silverware could be wikilinked, unless you think it's commonly known.

  Linked to Tableware, thanks. DanCherek (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• Some of the material about the audiobook ("In a review of the audiobook.." onwards) seems like it would fit better in "Reception and awards"

  Agree, moved (and rearranged a little bit). DanCherek (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Writing and illustrations

• Seems fine. Although the part abour "praised one particular illustration" could be part of Reception and awards, it fits here as it relates to a method used. (No action or reply needed on this.)

Reception and awards

• thinking about NPOV, I had a look in NewsBank and while there are quite a few reviews/mentions in local US papers, none of them seem anything other than positive. I didn't spot any that seemed like real omissions from the set of reviews summarised here. (No action or reply needed on this.)
• Consider adding a few words to describe both the 2020 Caldecott Honor and Lupine Award.

  Added a bit, let me know what you think. DanCherek (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

References

• Sources all seem to be suitable. No issues.
  • Spot checks on the WRAL, Horn Book, and Publisher's Weekly sources did not raise any concerns. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Infobox is fine.
• Lead is a suitable summary of the article, no issues.

Thanks for your work on the article, DanCherek. I have a couple of minor questions/comments above - feel free to challenge. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review! I plan to go through and address these tomorrow. DanCherek (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @BennyOnTheLoose:, thanks again for going through this. I agree with the feedback you provided and have made changes to the article. Let me know what you think and if you have additional suggestions or comments! DanCherek (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek:. I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so I'm passing it. Thanks! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.