Talk:Don't Forget the Bacon!/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've scanned the article and have spotted a few things to deal with at once. WikiProject Novels recommends the Plot be the first section in the body of the article followed by Themes then Background, Publication history, etc. I prefer to see the Plot in this position (as it's become a standard) followed by a Themes section. What is the theme of the book? What is this book about? A Themes section should be entered following the Plot section.

• The lead is too long. The plot summary here could be trimmed.

• The prose doesn't flow and some of it has a "stodgy" feel. For example, "After studying at a local art institution under a scholarship for three years, she attended the Leeds College of Art with a focus in illustration." could better be said, "She attended a local art school for three years on scholarship before studying illustration at the Leeds College of Art." The last sentences are a prose-flow problem for me. "Hutchins's entry into children's literature was with the book Rosie's Walk, which became a 1968 ALA Notable Book. Hutchins is the author of over twenty-five picture books, and five novels. The author received the 1974 Kate Greenaway Medal, for The Wind Blew. She resides in London with her husband." More simply, "Hutchins's first children's work, Rosie's Walk, was named a 1968 ALA Notable Book, and her book The Wind Blew received the 1974 Kate Greenaway Medal. She lives in London and has written 25 books and 5 novels."

• Now that we're talking about the Author section I think there need be no mention of her husband. He appears to have nothing to do with her work or the subject of the article and a mention here is unrelated personal info. Her husband certainly belongs in a bio article about Hutchins, but not here.

• The bacon links in the See also section, the food portal, the bacon portal, the bacon cookbooks in the Further reading section, and the bacon navigation template should be removed. The book is not about bacon and these are frivolous and inappropriate. The book mentions eggs, doesn't it? Following your logic, the See also section should include 6 or 7 links to articles about eggs. The book mentions a dog so we should have 6 or 7 links about dogs. "Forget" is mentioned in the title so we should have 6 or 7 links about forgetfulness and remembering. But that's not the point. The book isn't about bacon so a See also section directing readers to Bacon Vodka, Bacon Mania, and National Pig Day are inappropriate. Bacon doesn't need to be linked in the lead. Everyone knows what bacon is and you haven't linked eggs or the other items on the list so there's no reason to link bacon. If we begin linking common words such as bacon then we will have to link child, mother, dog, etc.

• Too many citations in the Plot section. Plots in works of fiction can be written by the editor without citing any source except the original work. Too many links. Why do butterfly, bacon, merchant and junk need to be linked? In the first sentence, you can safely say "a little boy" or a "boy" rather than "a small child" which has a stodgy feel about it. "Leaves" where or what? "Along with the dog, he is accompanied on his journey by a butterfly" Why? You can safely say "trip" rather than "journey". There's a lot of stodginess in this section. Try to rework the entire section as though you were telling the story to a child about the age of boy in the book.

Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Responses to above comments by Susanne2009NYC

1. I reorganized the structure to conform to standards as specified above.
2. I have done some research and put together a Publication history sect.
3. I restructured a bit, and put together a Themes sect.
4. I have shortened the size of the lede. I have significantly trimmed down the plot summary in the lede.
5. I have implemented these suggestions to the Author sect.
6. I have removed the mention of the author's husband.
7. I have removed the bacon links.
8. I have implemented the specific suggestions about this sect. I moved all citations out of the Plot sect, instead they are now included in an Endnote.

-- Cirt (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hutchins husband is mentioned in the Background section. Mentioning him is not necessary. The reader is left wondering why he is mentioned. He had nothing to do with her career, had no influence on her art, so it's unnecessary to bring him into the picture. Any info about why she wrote this book? Did she write it deliberately as a teaching tool? Was it based on an incident in her life?
• Are any of the publications in the Publication history section in formats such as audiobook, Kindle, video, paperback? These could be noted. Many of these sorts of children's picture books were sold in book and audiocassette combinations in zip-loc plastic bags. Live Oak Media may be one of these.
• In the first paragraph of the Reception section, "reversible text" needs to be explained. Some readers will not know what this means. Paraphrase the last quote in the first paragraph for a bit of variety. Are there any sales figures on the book? Number of copies printed at release?

Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Further responses to above followup comments by Susanne2009NYC

1. Yes, you are correct, I forgot to remove this part. It is now gone. :) I have not found any info on those other questions in any WP:RS sources.
2. I have added some info on other forms of publications.
3. Done. Explained "reversible text". Done. Paraphrased the last quote in the first paragraph. I have not found any info on sales figures for the book or number of copies.

-- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Lead. There should be no citations in the lead. Also, there's a line about the success of the book in the "United Kingdom". Further in the text UK is referred to as "England". They're not the same as far as I know. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional replies to comments by Susanne2009NYC

1. Lead - removed citations from the lede.
2. UK - clarified this as "England" - it is now uniform in both places.

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Overciting in the Background section. The entire section can be cited to [17] placed at the end. There's no reason for all the additions. Delete them and just cite to [17]. In the infobox the "preceded by" amd "followed by" are for series books so I've deleted these.

Done. I moved all the cites out of the Background sect, now only contained in one cite at the end of the sect. No objections to the removal of the series-books from the infobox, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The preceded by and the followed by fields are reserved for series books such as Nancy Drew, Goosebumps, etc..Susanne2009NYC (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Background section can be cited ENTIRELY to the HarperCollins bio EXCEPT her birthdate of 18 June 1942. This date is not in the HarperCollins bio. Where did you find this date? Altho there's a Pat Hutchins bio article at Wikipedia that uses this date, none of its sources cite this date. Find a source that uses the 18 June 1942 birthdate. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The birthdate is in Preller. I've set it up in the section as a ref so please don't change it or add anything to it. The rest of the section is reffed to HarperCollins. This is all that's needed. I've eliminated the "B Endnotes". This isn't necessary when everything is reffed to HarperCollins. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. Thank you very much for your helpful edits to the article. :) -- Cirt (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The GA Reviewer withdrew from this review [1], will close it to renominate for another reviewer. -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, just set parameter to "2ndopinion", to get another GA Reviewer to go over the substance of this review, above - and check over to see if everything has been addressed satisfactorily. :) -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

2nd Opinion - Take Over

If there is no objections, I will finish this review. Racepacket (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I compared Susanne2009NYC's edits against the sources in the refs and it is not a close paraphrase. She appears to have done original work to simply the wording. I do not have access to specialized software that can do automatic searches however. Based on my review, I am willing to pass this article, assuming that nobody objects to my stepping in. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No objections to this proposal by Racepacket (talk · contribs), thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There are two disamb links that should be resolved, if possible:

• Repetition
• Responsibility

You might want to remove the links, given the general nature of the use of the words in the article. Racepacket (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Removed them. -- Cirt (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)