Talk:A Field Guide to Otherkin/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 19:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• The lede doesn't contain any synopsis of how the book itself was actually received critically.
  • Tricky thing is the critical and academic reception blend into one another so closely -- I felt in the lead it was better to focus on its academic impact. I'll take a look over again if you think there should be more critical reception there. Vaticidalprophet 23:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

  Currently the only part of the lead that deals with actual reception is "Its limited accessibility...criticised by scholars", so there's no information on how critics actually received the book itself. I'd like to see some of the information from the second and third paras of Publication, reception, and legacy (A Field Guide...therianthropes alone".) also in the lead. AryKun (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Vaticidalprophet: Pinging as a reminder. AryKun (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Added some, AryKun -- how do we feel about it now? Sorry about the wait. Vaticidalprophet 20:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, looks gtg now. AryKun (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• "Contrary to some misconceptions" Double negative here I think, needs to be reworded to have the intended meaning.
  • I think this is fixed now? Vaticidalprophet 23:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Kitsune should be in a lang template.
  • Done. Vaticidalprophet 23:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Instead of having multiple duplicate references for the same works just to change the page number, you could use sfn cites.
  • I am not a fan of sfn for reasons I've elaborated on before -- it's unintuitive to readers from a design perspective (Wikipedia's UI design expects links in references to go to other articles) and from a "not all readers will grok academic referencing" perspective. I need to finish my essay on this. Vaticidalprophet 23:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• I understand that the book is very niche in its audience, but there seems to be very little coverage of it in any notable outlets. How are Spiral Nature Magazine, Facing North, and Panegyria significant reviewers?
  • Two of the three are very subculturally relevant in terms of neopaganism in general and one of the relatively few significant secondary sources on otherkin, respectively. Panegyria is smaller, but a review the author directly responded to (it was after she left the community), so seems relevant. Vaticidalprophet 23:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• Devin 2019 is a thesis; we can use those, but any reasons you believe this one in particular is significant?
  • It's been cited in the peer-reviewed and/or academic-press literature more than zero times, which counts as infinitely more citations than I'd expect for most dissertations from the past five years :) Proctor is also now a tenure-track professor, which is very much not a given for someone in a small humanities field. In fields like this, dissertations tend to be more important and play a relatively significant role in someone's early career, and TT positions are excruciatingly competitive. Vaticidalprophet 23:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
• A lot of primary sources used, but I guess that's justified when the article is mostly background and synopsis, so I'm fine with it.
• Spot-checks: Sources checked cited claims made.
  • Mara-McKay, Nico (6 February 2008). "A Field Guide to Otherkin, by Lupa". Spiral Nature Magazine.
  • Daven (20 February 2010). "A Field Guide to Otherkin". Facing North.
  • Baldwin, Clive; Ripley, Lauren; Arsenault, Shania (2023). "Speaking of Elves, Dragons, and Werewolves: Narrative Hermeneutics and Other-than-Human Identities". In Freeman, Mark P; Meretoja, Hanna (eds.). The Use and Abuse of Stories: New Directions in Narrative Hermeneutics. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
  • Lupa (2 April 2013). "Letting Go of Therianthropy For Good". Therioshamanism.
• That's all, nice work overall. AryKun (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Vaticidalprophet: AryKun (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping, AryKun -- I missed this one. Given circumstances, I have my hands full a little, but I'll get as many of these as I can done in the next few days. Vaticidalprophet 05:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, no problem, you can take your time if you're busy. AryKun (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

  AryKun, sorry about the wait -- replies/fixes now. Vaticidalprophet 23:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed