Talk:Horton Hatches the Egg/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this one. Comments to follow in the next 1-4 days. Thanks in advance for your work on it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
On first pass, this looks very good. Well-written and well-sourced, covers major aspects (including contemporary and later reviews). Thanks again for your work here.
- "manager things he can find an elephant" -- should this be "thinks"?
- fixed
- "notoriety worldwide" -- why "notoriety" -- per dictionary, "the state of being famous or well known for some bad quality or deed"? Also, this probably needs citation; the later indicators--Book of the Month, NEA, Bartlett's--are all American.
- I'll need a little time to dig up a source for this one.
- No problem; the "worldwide" phrase could simply be cut if you can't find it, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah... I couldn't find anything. I guess I got ahead of myself. I mean, I hear Dr. Seuss is pretty famous across the world, but I don't have any hard evidence. So I'm just going to remove the claim. Bobnorwal (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Book sales figures are notoriously hard to come by unless you subscribe to expensive databases for them, unfortunately. Thanks for the tweak. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah... I couldn't find anything. I guess I got ahead of myself. I mean, I hear Dr. Seuss is pretty famous across the world, but I don't have any hard evidence. So I'm just going to remove the claim. Bobnorwal (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- No problem; the "worldwide" phrase could simply be cut if you can't find it, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'll need a little time to dig up a source for this one.
- My understanding is that we're not supposed to use amazon as a source, both for reliability reasons and because we avoid commercial links; it would be better to just cite the videotape itself for this info. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I tried to cite the video, but I'm not really sure how to cite a video.
- I'm not sure of exact format either, but no specific ref format is required for GA. That'll do fine. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I tried to cite the video, but I'm not really sure how to cite a video.
- "According to Geisel's biographers, " -- this phrase is slightly confusing as Cohen is also a biographer. Perhaps "official biographers"? First biographers?
- Changed. I'm looking at the book right now, and although it doesn't say "Official Biography" on the cover or anything like that, the authors did have the cooperation of both Geisel and his wife, so I guess that makes it official, right?
- Good question. Probably? I'm looking for a definition of this now. Maybe we can say "first" or "authorized" if we can't find a conclusive answer to that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- What would you say to just saying "According to G's biographers Judith and Neil Morgan" and sidestepping the issue? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm almost positive "official" is fine, but if you think the change is for the best I'll make it. Bobnorwal (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- What would you say to just saying "According to G's biographers Judith and Neil Morgan" and sidestepping the issue? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Good question. Probably? I'm looking for a definition of this now. Maybe we can say "first" or "authorized" if we can't find a conclusive answer to that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Changed. I'm looking at the book right now, and although it doesn't say "Official Biography" on the cover or anything like that, the authors did have the cooperation of both Geisel and his wife, so I guess that makes it official, right?
- "However, this account is probably spurious;" -- this is a bit POV, endorsing what seems to be the take of only one source over one other source. How about just adding "However, according to later biographer Charles Cohen, this account..."? I'd also suggest cutting the phrase "in reality", which is a bit empty anyway; simply stating those facts make it clear they take place in reality.
- I'm on it. Bobnorwal (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Checklist
[edit]| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |
1940 vs. 1954 books
[edit]Hello - Could we confirm that this article should be in Category:1940 books? It is currently in Category:1954 books (which I think applies to "Horton Hears a Who"). Thanks KConWiki (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- It was definitely published in 1940. I'm looking at the Morgan biography right now, and that confirms it. Bobnorwal (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- OK - I changed the 1954 category to 1940. KConWiki (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Inspiration
[edit]Some would neglect their kids, if they had the money, bunking off to Palm Beach, or whatnot, and leaving servants and/or relatives to care for them. This is the most likely inspiration for the story - but what made Seuss address this particular isssue? Had he had experience with it, or was there a famous case, or what? I have always wondered, and finding out could improve the article.
Another example of this in kids fiction is Eloise, at the Plaza Hotel in New York. Notice how she is left by her mom with an English nanny while her mom is off jet-setting around meeting Coco Chanel and so on. Result: Eloise sounds rawther like Nanny. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:D81E:8737:F106:7A4C (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)