Talk:Grand Canyon (book)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grand Canyon (book)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 14:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Style

• Seems prose and grammar need (a lot of) work throughout. It's not incomprehensible or anything, but the style is weak compared to GA's.
• I've added number of pages from a google/amazon/worldcat check. The pages may not be numbered, but it has 54 of them, apparently.
• Needs work

Coverage

• I'm conflicted on whether I think the speculation of Caldecott should be included in the lead - this seems more like detail for the relevant section, with the fact it won the important part for the lead.
• I'd expect more reviews of the illustrations in the book to justify These illustrations were praised by critics, and give some reason for mentioning that speculation that I think is currently unsourced? At least, not mentioned in the awards section - perhaps Bird or Parravano discuss it?
• Needs work

Being a non-fiction Caldecott winner (non-biography) really was a big deal in the world of Children's literature but I've removed it from the LEAD. Bird and Parvano (at least - I frequently will choose two best sources rather than overciting and it's been long enough I don't remember the ins and outs of all the sources) do talk about the unusual non-fiction aspect and this is sourced in reception and awards to them "The book was unusual in receiving Caldecott recognition given the few nonfiction books besides biographies, and especially the few science books, that have been honored"

Yes, getting the honor is certainly notable for the lead, and I feel it may benefit more from having the rarity mentioned than saying there was speculation beforehand. Kingsif (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh that makes sense.  Done Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

• Some phrasings a bit dubious, but I think this is more because of poor style
• Pass - to be resolved elsewhere

Verifiability

• Besides the absent source mentioned in Coverage, most things seem to be referenced inline correctly.
• Sometimes the book itself is used as source (currently [2]) for things that are an interpretation of its contents, which is WP:OR
• Sources look good
• Needs attention - issue also mentioned above

The things sourced to the book come from an author's note by Chin. Chin, for instance, reveals that he created the lighting and coloring of prehistoric flora and fauna. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah! Perhaps there's a way to include that in the citation? Kingsif (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Rather than the citation, I've added a note to the synopsis of this information. Does that work for you? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure! Kingsif (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Illustration

• Fair use image of book cover
• Could perhaps incorporate one of the many good free images of the Grand Canyon?
• Given the main point of notability for the book is the illustrations, I would argue that there's good rationale for including a fair use image
• Pass

I've added two images as suggested. However, I am unaware of any non-free exception for interior illustrations and don't see any in the only FA picture book I am aware of (there are two different covers used for that article and a variety of other associated illustrations, the equivalent of images from the Grand Canyon). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

If it's not allowed, and there's an example to follow, that's fine. Illustration good to go. Kingsif (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Stability

• History and talk page good
• Pass

Copyright

• Fair use with rationale
• Check is clear
• Pass

Overall

• on hold I haven't gone into detail in style because it all needs work and I feel that too much direction may not be beneficial, if different styles (between my suggestions and the nominator's own writing) are distinct. I can give general advice to use more formal language; use more sentence variety but with more declarative phrases in particular; and to be careful with how the wikivoice reporting of Chin's personal views (for a few weeks after he was named a Caldecott honor winner he reverted to his elementary school mindset about the award), and that with tentative statements (This could reflect that Chin tried to remain true to his experience), are written. Grammar should be looked at, too. Beyond the writing, the next big concern is the inclusion of material that doesn't seem properly sourced. Currently quite far from a GA, but a good level of effort and it shouldn't take long to get there. Kingsif (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the review. I appreciate the ways this has made the article better. As you're unwilling to be specific about the ways the style falls short I think you should go ahead and fail this review as I am unlikely to be able to meet the standards you feel needed for GA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I can be specific if you like, I just didn't want to tread into making it design by committee by over-influence. I'm sure we can work on this if you want :) Kingsif (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Kingsif up to you. I'm in no rush so the idea of you failing it and me renominating it doesn't bother me. I am, as I've hopefully shown here, also happy to work on addressing issues found. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

You've been very prompt and made good edits, I'm sure it won't be too hard to push the style up :) I can draft some comments on it and get back to you soon. Kingsif (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended comments

• Ok, below is everything I can think of :)

Main comments

Lead

• Second sentence could be restructured to lead with "The book", for a more direct focus. It could also be split for easier readability.

 Done Barkeep49 (talk)

• Not sure the inspiration needs to be included.

I think that's the most relevant part of Background and publication to make sure the LEAD complies with MOS:INTRO. Barkeep49 (talk)

• Perhaps rephrase the using die-cuts part, to emphasize this more? Something like "Chin typically uses x, y, z, and this book marked...", however you want to approach this :)

I don't really have a preference but would think that putting it first gives it more emphasis. Barkeep49 (talk)

On reflection, I agree. Kingsif (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• Don't think Silbert Honor needs "and also" - 'and' alone should be fine here.

 Done

• Grammar in the last sentence - sub. clause not needed, and I believe it should be 'that', not "which"

 Done

Synopsis

• This can open better, again with a "The book..." focused-sentenced. I'd suggest introducing that it has illustrations and informative text, is framed as a day trip, then say what the illustrations and text are about.

I added the name of the book to start the sentence. I'll just note that when I write about a novel I don't start by saying it has chapters so I don't really think it makes sense to do that here either (even though it's imperfect for this kind of work I use MOS:NOVELS as my guidestar). Barkeep49 (talk)

I hadn't been looking at that MOS, but it seems good and article fit, so I went with it for the last review :) Kingsif (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• The last sentence is well-written; it was missing a word that I added, with a little tweak to not repeat 'where'

Thanks. Barkeep49 (talk)

Background and publication

• High school shouldn't be capitalized

 Done Barkeep49 (talk)

• This first sentence needs to be given some punctuation before "and so"; I also think a better connective phrasing could be used. I may think about this further
  • It could be restructured to say that Chin had been considering a book about the Grand Canyon since a visit in high school? This may be easier to follow

I reworded. Barkeep49 (talk)

• Second sentence doesn't need to repeat "Canyon/Grand Canyon" so much; 'it' should do, it's over a short space

 Done Barkeep49 (talk)

• The sentence mentioning pitching and then learning more can definitely be expanded to not rush through the information; it may also benefit from being split

 Done Barkeep49 (talk)

• The phrase to serve as the book's hook sounds unnecessary, it already says it needed a new story arc - but use your judgment

It's not really a story. It's really a non-fiction book about the topic and so the story is serving as a hook into the non-fiction aspects. I'd like to keep. Barkeep49 (talk)

This makes sense Kingsif (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• A few phrases can be substituted for synonyms that flow better, like: "his infant" -> 'his own child'; "a father and daughter trip" -> 'a trip taken by a father and daughter' or 'a father-daughter trip' to keep it short?

 Done Barkeep49 (talk)

• Perhaps make explicit it was a breakthrough for the book?

More explicit how? I use the word breakthrough and provide a quote from Chin. Barkeep49 (talk)

Sorry, this was vague - I added a little context among some other grammatical edits. If you disagree with any of these changes, though I think they're pretty minor, please edit :) Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• Done some grammar work on run-on sentence

Much appreciated. Barkeep49 (talk)

• Should probably bracket the three topic areas between dashes

I don't mess with dashes on Wikipedia because that way lie monsters but I put some in. Barkeep49 (talk)

• Is the page limit because it's a children's book? Or are there other details on the page limit?

Picture books (and other related forms) are most commonly 32 pages because of the publishing process and it's nearly always a multiple of 8. However, the sources for this book don't support more than what I've written and I feel including the explanation I just gave you would be some form of OR or synthesis. Barkeep49 (talk)

Indeed, good call.Kingsif (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• "quite" shouldn't be used; weasel-y and has different meanings in different countries anyway (in the US it means 'very', but in e.g. the UK it differs with context, often meaning 'barely')

 Done Barkeep49 (talk)

• "tied together" could be replaced with the more formal 'connected'?

 Done Barkeep49 (talk)

• fix tense in this sentence

Tweaked Barkeep49 (talk)

Writing and illustrations

• "a sort of" could be 'like a'

 Done Barkeep49 (talk)

• No need to repeat "the book" here

 Done Barkeep49 (talk)

• Shouldn't include uncertain language unless a source is unsure or speculative; if Chin says in his commentary that the map could reflect he was trying to remain true(...), this should be said. If not, what's sourcing the theorizing here?

Removed as it was a bit on the OR side. Barkeep49 (talk)

• Same with the next sentence.

There's nothing uncertain in the next sentence nor do I see anything resembling OR. Barkeep49 (talk)

• "The end result" can be informal, perhaps 'As a result, critics saw the illustrations as...'

 Done Barkeep49 (talk)

• • The assessment mentioned here seems... super basic. Images of the Grand Canyon will convey information of it no matter what - is there any qualification in sources as to if the images convey it well, or better than expected, or the best they've ever seen? Or is it saying that the illustrations supported the text in helping to document the various facts about the canyon? Should be rephrased to make clear either way :)

Added the word effectively. Barkeep49 (talk)

• The borders of each... - each what?

Fixed. Barkeep49 (talk)

• Who is using "inspiring"?

It is me summarizing phrases like "a magnificent panoramic view of the truly grand canyon at sunset" (emphasis in the original)[1] "A culminating, panoramic gatefold spread reveals a breathtaking vista of the canyon, now made all the more incredible by the wealth of information in the preceding pages"[2] and indeed Bird own collection of language from other reviews "nd yet, I look at that last spread of the book where the gatefold pages pull apart and we see a panoramic view of the canyon and I think of what the professional reviewers said of this title. They called it “breathtaking” (SLJ), “awe-inspiring” (PW), “beautiful” (Kirkus), and “immersive” (Horn Book)." [3]. Barkeep49 (talk)

Being one word, and with stronger ones in the sources, it seems like appropriate use. It could be made safer by directly quoting, but I think it should be fine as-is. Kingsif (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• The sentence on Chin's choice of art materials could be given some context; i.e. "In a Q & A, Chin explained his choice of tools. He described x as..."

Except it didn't come from a Q&A (though I think it is included in some Q&A's). I intentionally referenced it to a secondary source. Barkeep49 (talk)

Yes, I'd just seen the Q&A referencing it. If there's other context, this could still be added, but it doesn't interrupt flow too much Kingsif (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• How does Bird say Chin's die cuts connect present and past? What about them is special in this way?

"Turn the page and the die-cut pulls away to reveal an ancient world, millions of years in the past. There is an immediacy to this technique. Kids are constantly being asked to view or look at fossils, but this is one of the few books I’ve run across that makes a direct connection to the past in such a concrete way." is the quote. Barkeep49 (talk)

That doesn't give much else to add, except perhaps the "immediacy", which you could consider adding? Kingsif (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• I can picture the cut-outs that Peters is talking about, but I feel this could be described better. I've done a bit of an edit, but if you know the book it would be good to have you look at this part
• Last sentence seems awkwardly stuck on, can be incorporated better; i.e. "Because of the book's premise changing between times, consecutive pages can show different habitats, such as..."

{{done]} Barkeep49 (talk)

Reception and awards

• I can't follow the second sentence well at all. I don't think it's giving reviews, but I'm not really sure what it's trying to say?

It's a list of places that gave it starred reviews with a pull quote from Booklist. I've removed one word that was making it more confusing. Barkeep49 (talk)

• Also can't really follow the Danielle Ford sentence. Sounds like she's reviewing other reviewers?

Tweaked. Barkeep49 (talk)

• The Sibert Honor sentence loses its structure as it goes on. Needs breaking up. Does "in its citation awarding the book" need to be included (where else would the committee give comments?) - if kept, could it be simplified? Like, "In its write-up"?

Tweaked. Barkeep49 (talk)

• Sentence beginning The book was unusual in receiving also has the run-on problem

Tweaked. Barkeep49 (talk)

This section was really quickly and simple improved! Kingsif (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

• I've made a bunch of edits to what's now the last paragraph (I went in to remove "kid", and ended up altering sentence structure, but nothing done to the content)

I've removed it. It's out of scope for this article. Barkeep49 (talk)

Other thoughts

Lead

• I'm not sure if MOS covers adjectival order, but I feel it would read better if "children's" and "nonfiction" were swapped

 Done Barkeep49 (talk)

• "die cuts" and "gouache" can be wikilinked (and again in body)

There's no valid link target for die cut - the entry in the dab is redlinked. I'm obviously not opposed to redlinks but am skeptical here because if it is ever created who knows what the disambiguator will be. Anyhow wikilinked other materials that have valid articles. Barkeep49 (talk)

Background and publication

• The first sentence could maybe lead with "Jason Chin took a trip..."

I think this was left before I reformulated it? Barkeep49 (talk)

Yes, it would have been! Kingsif (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Reception and awards

• Since Kirkus is a very well-regarded review publisher, could this review be moved higher, it feels a little like a footnote.

Kirkus is no more well-regarded than the other journals I listed there (except PW which is well regarded but less for its reviews). It's a bit of an outlier here and certainly deserves mention. However, inserting it amidst positive reviews strikes me as both UNDUE and worse for the flow of the paragraph. Barkeep49 (talk)

• Though it's nice having the quotations, a lot of the content is just repeating facts; the reviews and honors could focus more on the adjectives? Like, "X described the thing as 'brief quote'..."

Which quotations are you referencing? The PW, Booklist, and Kirkus reviews, or the summary in the second sentence? Barkeep49 (talk)

• Feel free to respond :) Kingsif (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I think I've responded to everything in here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Great! I'll try get to the questions you've raised soon, but the article's looking good so there shouldn't be any problems. Re. the last comment on quote, I believe I was referring to mostly the second paragraph, but it reads good enough to me (the 'other thoughts' were more unactionable suggestions) - happy to pass this as it is now, and also happy to lend ideas if you're up for improving further. Kingsif (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for all your time and help. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)