Talk:Crown: An Ode to the Fresh Cut

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Crown: An Ode to the Fresh Cut/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Maclean25 (talk · contribs) 05:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   See notes below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

   One image used: File:Crown An Ode to the Fresh Cut.jpg - fair use rationale provided.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• In the Plot section, Told in the second person - this is a style element, not plot. Which reference provides this interpretation?
• In the Plot section, ...the boy thinks about how great he can be after he gets a new haircut. - this is not clear. What is the connection the story is making between getting a haircut and being "great"? Is this about being better looking or about confidence? and great means "of larger size or more importance than others of its kind" - is this the correct word for what the story is saying?

Thanks for your review and the copyedits you've done. I struggled with the plot section - the book is a poem and as such the plots is less important than other elements such as the use of language which is covered elsewhere in the article. Do you think that it's better as is, with perhaps revised based on your question above, or as I had it previously Told in the second person, a young black boy narrates his getting a haircut. (maintaining the source for the 2nd person narration I've inserted)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

It is better to establish a setting (e.g. barbershop) maclean (talk) 05:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Pared back to one sentence keeping the cite and the setting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• In the Conception section, "His goal was to wow people..." - this is an idiom. Rephrase per MOS:WORDS. —maclean (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• In the Reception section, "...praise which was also echoed by several other critics." - this is another idiom.

Which part of that phrase? I'm guessing it's echoed. A secondary definition of that word is "one who closely imitates or repeats another's words, ideas, or acts" [1] Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

That is its figurative meaning and it just doesn't work here. First, these reviewers are independently making their own opinions—they are not imitating or repeating Bird's. And, second, this praise regarding "interchange between the art and the words lights the very pages on fire" isn't closely repeated in the other cites. Regarding this interchange, Martin says "...illustrations aptly capture the protagonist's bravado..." and Gilfillian says "Illustrator James deftly uses bright colors...complements Barnes’ words well." maclean (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Revised. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• In the Reception section, "Kirkus awarded it a starred reivew,..." - this sounds like it just got a highlighted review (something publishers pay for) so it would be more clear to state what a "starred review" means in this case.

I would hope from context that it would be clear that it's editorial and not advertising, but it's admittedly a term specific to book reviewing. We don't have an article on the subject. I have added a note (with sourcing) to explain. Thoughts? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• In the Reception section, "Huffington Post, who noted ... the Los Angeles Times, who called it..." - these are publications publishing someone's review. It should be the "..reviewer published in the Huffington Post who..." (if it is a free-lancer) or "...the book reviewer for the Los Angeles Times who..." (if it is a staff writer), or more accurately "children's book author Minh Le, published in the Huffington Post notes..." and "...Los Angeles Times Book Editor Carolyn Kellogg calls it..."

 Done

• Similarly, Crown was also noted as one several books with diverse authors and topics who received recognition at the 2018 Youth Media Awards. - the subject of that sentence is the "books" so "who" is not appropriate. Try "which" or, alternatively, rephrase so the author is the subject (or ideally make Crown the subject).

I tried several formulations but ended up just switching it to which. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• ...and ease off the use of "also" - it is used 6 times in this two paragraph section. Each paragraph should have its own theme or thought so you don't need to start off with an "also". maclean (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done I also think I overused it (sorry couldn't resist). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• The introduction needs to be expanded so that it "summarizes the body of the article with appropriate weight." - it currently summarizes the Plot and Reception sections, but there is little about the Conception and Themes and illustrations sections which are more than half the article. It would be useful to the reader to include a description of the illustrations here (e.g. full page oil paintings) and of the writing (e.g. rhythmic, celebratory, cool, etc.).

 Done - This is a frequent comment I make when doing GA reviews and you're absolutely right that it needed doing here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• In Themes and illustrations, "The striking cover helped the book pop from the first moments according to..." - "pop" is an idiom, state literally what is meant. Also, a more analytical statement would be more useful to the reader here, rather than leaving it to the adjective "striking" (which is fine, but what about it is striking? imagery, colors, a style, the confident close-up, etc). —maclean (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Changed pop, but I don't think the sources give me enough to state what was striking. I am summarizing a comment that it was the best cover of the year (Danielson) and a discussion of how bad books can have good covers but that's not the case with this book (Bird). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Not a GA criteria, but I am leaving a note here that the content could be presented (better I think) by splitting out 'Illustrations' to its own section with relevant content from the "Conception" and "Themes and illustrations" sections. The thematic and style content would fit with the plot information.
• The article, as is, suitably meets the GA criteria above. —maclean (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)