Talk:John Green

Archives (Index)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Noteworthiness of Tumblr incident

Has really no one thought about the Tumblr thing? I am not explaining it here. If you know about it, I'm sure you understand but If you dont, get ready for a lot of cuss words

I have not heard about the Tumblr thing outside of [article], but having read it, I'm doubtful as to whether it is noteworthy enough for inclusion. Given that the article deals mainly with major works and projects written and undertaken by this individual, a social media spat concerning "a Tumblr post from user 'virjn'" seems largely insignificant; I've been unable to find mention of this incident outside of a few disreputable news outlets and Reddit. Does anyone object to removing the paragraph? Its inclusion does seem well-intentioned, it just seems like a very minor thing to mention. brendanhylin (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It was a bit more than just a social media spat, and the sources listed (including the one I just added) show this (USA Today, Slate). It was covered in sources like the Daily Mail (not reliable, just showing notability) and became a large part of his life at the time. Regardless, the section is well sourced, though it could stand to be a little shorter perhaps. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2020

Under the vlogbrothers section of the article, add: “John Green is also responsible for naming Wallet Island on the White River, a cool place that is only land part of the time, has a seating area, and one may find expired beer. He named the island because he once found a wallet there. The island also later became an official place on Google Maps. The video in which Wallet Island is mentioned appeared on the vlogbrothers YouTube page on June 16, 2020.” 216.15.59.34 (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Essayist

John's new book "The Anthropocene Reviewed" is a book of essays. As can be seen here: his book is described as a "collection of personal essays". It would be accurate therefore to call him an essayist, which should be added to his introductory sentence.

Spidermanshotuncle (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)spidermanshotuncle 27 October 2020

Given that the essays were written for a podcast and published in a book, I think it's far more accurate to call John an author and a podcaster. Those who have been called essayists (Zadie Smith, Ralph Waldo Emerson) have used essays as their primary medium for writing and expressing ideas, which can't be said for John. Many prominent writers who have published essay collections, such as James Baldwin, have been called authors, novelists, and writers more generally. brendanhylin (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Requested move 27 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Necrothesp's point regarding long-term significance is well taken, but the consensus here is that the author is primary nonetheless. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

---

• John Green (author) → John Green
• John Green → John Green (disambiguation)

– Just from a quick page views perspective, John Green (author) is the clear primary topic among John Green's. His average of 1662 views/day is unrivaled by any other listing on the disambiguation page, with the next John Green who uses a parenthetical disambiguator, John Green (headmaster), getting 4/day. The first page of a quick Google search also only returns results on the author. He has had a sustained career of success in multiple fields and is listed as a Level 5 Vital Article. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Mannysoloway (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Oh please. Most people will never have heard of this individual. Far too many John Greens for there to be a primary topic unless one is vastly better known than the others. Clearly no long-term significance here, whatever pageviews may say. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why you're choosing to completely ignore pageviews. But even regardless of pageviews, the number of people clicking through to various John Greens is important. Data from WikiNav also supports the author being the primary reason people type "John Green" into the search box. The first chart shows people not directly searching or coming from outside Wikipedia are frequently coming from other John Green pages and that the vast majority of people who make it to the disambiguation page move on to John Green (author). About 90% of the time people visit John Green, they click "John Green (author)".--Cerebral726 (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I agree with what has already been said. Asrieltheoracle (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. dwadieff ✉ 07:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom, especially their comment in response to Necrothesp's oppose. The author clearly is vastly better known than the others. Lennart97 (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support I've always thought primary article prominence is a good idea, since it benefits our readers who are clearly searching the name for this article in particular. So long as we have a disambig link at the top of this article afterwards, that should work fine. Silverseren^C 21:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reception needs changed

Instead of focusing on legitimate critical response, the section seems to get sidetracked on blogposts complaining about questionable instances of systemic sexism. I think this response is (barely) noteworthy, but should not take up half of the section when John Green’s books are most notable for their overwhelming positive reception and impact on the young adult sphere. Perhaps a section on the awards he’s received and expanded retrospective evaluations of his work. I don’t want to come across as a bad faith fan trying to push a narrative here (I’ve never read any of his books) but most reputable sources give him a positive reception, and this article presents him as much more polarizing than necessary. 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:A89B:A314:267E:CE0B (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I have been majorly overhauling this article for the past couple weeks, and haven't had the opportunity to expand this section. I think the current discussion on sexism in literature is fairly off-topic, but worth having something small about. I will reduce that section, and it will become more proportionate once I (or anyone) adds more of the overwhelmingly positive reception he has received across his career. Also, you can find all his awards in the section John Green#Awards and they are mostly mentioned for each book in the Career section, though it might be worth giving them a passing mention in the reception section as well. Cerebral726 (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

"Never go to war with a noun" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Never go to war with a noun and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 20#Never go to war with a noun until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit December 18 2022

The born field currently reads that John Green was born in Indianapolis although this is where he currently lives as to my knowledge he was not born there as he grew up in Orlando. I don’t know for certain where he was born but it wasn’t Indianapolis. 72.142.115.10 (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The source in the ariticle verifies that he was born there. - Aoidh (talk) 03:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Green/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 12:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Source review

Images are all appropriately licenced. Some comments on sources: footnote numbers refer to this version.

• The following are unreliable sources:
  • FN 20 Mental Floss -- see e.g. this discussion.
    • Replaced one MF source with an NPR piece on Ransom Riggs and an interview by the Kenyon Collegian with Riggs. I removed the other one entirely because it was already well cited.--Cerebral726 (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

      The ones you've left in are fine for what they're used for, except FN 184 -- can that be eliminated too? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

      Done, removed that one since it was covered by the Indy Star source. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  • FN 265 Game Rant -- see WP:VG/RS.
    • Replaced with local newspaper source. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  • FN 270 PR Newswire -- see WP:RS/PS
    • Removed entirely. Already have better sources for that statement. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

      Sorry, I should have done a better job listing which footnotes use which sources. FN 264 also uses it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

      Replaced. Nah you're good, I should've seen that one! --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• I think FN44, themarysue.com, is marginally reliable. It looks like you have other sources for the same material; do you need this?
  • Removed. I agree. Plenty of sourcing that is more reliable. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• What makes the following reliable sources? To be clear, I'm not saying these are definitely unreliable, just that I need to see evidence that they are reliable, and I couldn't immediately find it.
  • Jonathan Goldstein's podcast, Heavyweight
    • Kept.Heavyweight (podcast) is a podcast by recognized journalist Jonathan Goldstein (author), who has also worked on This American Life. The podcast has the editorial oversight of Gimlet Media and is being used here to back up the exact timeline and order of events regarding Green's time as a Chaplain as reported by both Goldstein and the accompanying interview with John Green. I feel comfortable keeping this one. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

      OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  • theshortreview.com
    • Removed, wasn't serving an additional purpose beyond reliable sources already included. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  • nationswell.com
    • Removed, wasn't serving an additional purpose beyond reliable sources already included. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  • tubefilter.com
    • Kept. While niche, TubeFilter seems to be a reliable source for uncontroversial statements about the creator economy. See their about page and this discussion. --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

      OK. I'd be more comfortable if they had some indication on their website of editorial oversight but I think this passes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  • webpronews.com
    • Replaced with Chicago Tribune article and Refinery29 article --Cerebral726 (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  • gigaom.com
    • Replaced and/or removed.--Cerebral726 (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

      One left -- FN 236. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

      Removed. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  • businessinsider.com -- see the entry on WP:RS/PS. FN 131 seems to be a listicle that refers to the World Economic Forum; it would be better to cite them instead.
    • Removed all instances of Business Insider. Was able to have the same information from existing sources. --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  • goodgoodgood.co -- they do appear to have an editorial staff, but the author of the article cited is not listed as a staff member.
    • Kept. Emily Wurst is listed as a Contributing Writer. Given the clearly defined editorial oversight you mentioned, as well as their purported dedication to "the truth in our writing, making public corrections when we get something wrong, and always clearly communicating when we partner with brands," I don't see any reason to doubt its reliability, especially for the uncontroversial information it is cited for (Pizzamas and the Project 4 Awesome's donation amount). --Cerebral726 (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

      OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  • voices.media -- looks like a group of freelancers. I can't tell if they have corporate backing, but maybe I'm missing it.
    • Kept. This source is being narrowly used for a quote from the Editor in Chief of Mental Floss, Erin McCarthy, about Mental Floss's YouTube channel. I added that quote to make that clear. Does that seem acceptable to you?--Cerebral726 (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

      OK for GA, but I think more evidence of reliability might be needed if you were to take this to FAC. Showing that they are treated as a reliable source by other media channels would work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

      I found this Reuters Institute article where Nic Newman cites them as a source. The co-founder Esther Thorpe was called by the Nieman Foundation for Journalism as well as one "of the smartest people in journalism and media". Do you think those would hold ground as a FAC?--Cerebral726 (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  • hypable.com
    • Replaced with Teen Vogue article.--Cerebral726 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  • bookriot.com
    • Removed, already have Deadline as a source.--Cerebral726 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

      Still used in FN 181. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

      Removed.--Cerebral726 (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  • tvseriesfinale.com
    • Replaced with a Vulture article.--Cerebral726 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  • nuvo.net
    • Kept. NUVO is an Indianapolis-based independent newspaper that lists it's editorial team. The article cited is an interview with John Green that was published in 2018, before they ceased physical publication. I think this is fine to use. --Cerebral726 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

      I'm not seeing where it says it's a newspaper -- am I missing it? You do have five cites on that sentence; is this one needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

      It's article refers to it as such, but point well taken, it's certainly unnecessary for this purpose. Removed.--Cerebral726 (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

  • corine.de
    • Kept and supplemented. Corine.de is the official website for the cited Corine Literature Prize. The prize seems to have been discontinued in 2012 so the website isn't still up. I was able to find a German-language article to back up the primary source.--Cerebral726 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  • globalpost.com
    • Replaced with Publisher's Weekly article.--Cerebral726 (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  • prweb.com
    • Replaced with official results and a CBS article.--Cerebral726 (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
  • lr21.com.uy
    • Removed, the official announcement by the awarding organization is already included.--Cerebral726 (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the separate "primary sources" section is intended to cover -- some of these are not primary sources -- the NYT bestseller list, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Cerebral726, I'm going to pause the review till these questions are addressed, as it might make quite a difference to the article if many of these sources are removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will go through these sources and see what I can dig up. In terms of the "primary sources", since they need to be used with intention and care in BLPs, I wanted to separate them out for clarity/thoroughness. In terms of the NYT Best Seller, my thought was that the list is the primary source for a book being a best seller, versus another new organization mentioning it became a NYT Best Seller. What are your thoughts on retaining or getting rid of the separation? Cerebral726 (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

For GA it doesn't matter at all; I would probably leave it as is. If you decide to take the article to FAC, you might seek another opinion. If I were doing the source review at FAC I would certainly ask about it, but I'd have to think about whether I would ask for a change. I have certainly seen other articles with a primary source/secondary source separation, but it's usually more like this, where the primary sources are over a thousand years old. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. I felt it was helpful for editors and readers understanding, but it is a bit unique/unusual for the application. I'll leave it as is for now as you suggest; they could easily be recombined at a later date if the separation was seen as detrimental or overly complicated. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie:, I have addressed all the sources. Let me know if you have any concerns about the sources that were used to replace questionable sources, or any further comments about the ones that I felt were acceptable to keep. --Cerebral726 (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Strikes and replies above; a handful left over. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources look good now. Will follow up with the rest of the review shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Prose review

I'm copyediting as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

I've agreed with all your edits so far! Strongly agree they are improvements.--Cerebral726 (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• "whom he credited with breaking down the perceived barriers to attempt to write a novel": a bit convoluted. How about "whose example persuaded him he could write a novel"? We don't need "credited" since the following quote makes that clear.

Done. Much clearer phrasing.--Cerebral726 (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• The article is quite long. I'm not seeing a lot of things that can be cut so far, but I think perhaps some of the material about Project Awesome could be trimmed a little -- there's a separate article about it, after all. I'm thinking mostly of the second and third paragraphs of the "Online video beginnings" section.

I have cut down the two paragraphs you mentioned. Let me know what you think.--Cerebral726 (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• 'In March 2014, The Indianapolis Star described Green as having, "an underground career that's rolling toward the mainstream".' Do we need this? It seems odd to describe Green as having an underground career at a point two years after he's released one of the best-selling books in history, and the comment doesn't seem integrated into the rest of the paragraph. It's followed up with "The profound success of the book and the movie further hurled Green into mainstream culture", in the next paragraph, but again this seems odd to me. Perhaps if we keep it it could be better explained? And "hurled" is not an encyclopedic way to say it, if we do keep it.

I cut the first sentence, I agree it's superfluous. The second I rephrased, and slightly expanded using the WSJ article it cites. My goal with both of those sentences were to match the sources animated descriptions (which uses phrases like "mega stardom") in an encyclopedic way. Hopefully the rephrasing helped tone it down while retaining the faithfulness to the sources. --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Again looking for little bits to cut, as the article is so long: perhaps drop the sentence "The trade paperback version of The Fault in Our Stars was the top selling novel of the year on Publishers Weekly's annual list, with the movie tie-in and hardcover versions also appearing on the list at numbers eight and nine respectively". That information can be more naturally covered in the article on the book, and it's already clear to the reader how successful the book is.

I cut some of the excess detail, hopefully that helps. I do think that the book being the top selling book of the year (especially 2 years after it's release) is notable enough to necessitate inclusion. --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Not an issue for GA, but I would suggest reducing your use of {{main}} -- in many cases the link you're providing is already easily available to the reader. I think main is most useful when there's no other natural way to tell the reader where to look for the details -- see Science_fiction_magazine#History_of_science_fiction_magazines for an example. But as I said, this is not part of the GA criteria so no worries if you'd prefer to leave them in.
• "He would serve as producer along with Wyck Godfrey and Marty Bowen under their production banner Temple Hill Productions, which produced The Fault in Our Stars and Paper Towns films": another example of the sort of detail I think could be compressed, or cut.

Cut. --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• "with an opportunity to start a Google-funded channels": looks like the verb number is wrong, but I don't know whether it should be "channel" or if "a" should be cut.

Fixed to singular "channel".--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• "The channel was teased in December 2011": "tease" is jargon in this sense; can we avoid it? It's becoming more common but it's not mainstream yet.

The tease isn't worth including anyways, cut entirely.--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• "the Green brothers ventured to find a more sustainable way to fund the projects": I don't think "venture" is the right verb. Perhaps "the Green brothers began looking for a more sustainable way"?

replaced "ventured to find" with "sought".--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• "The event evolved in 2014": what does this mean? Same question for the next sentence: "The merchandise also evolved".

Rephrased, tried to pare it down slightly as well.--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Although talks of the two companies joining forces had been discussed since their launch, they became more serious after Amazon announced a change in its payment services, which would lead to Subbable creators losing subscribers." Another sentence I think could go. If we keep it, "talks of the two companies joining forces" is a bit clumsy and needs rewording.

Cut.--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• "He had previously been a contributing writer for the magazine for a period in the mid-2000s and had co-edited the book Mental Floss: Scatterbrained, to which his brother Hank had also contributed." This has already been mentioned; here we just need to remind readers. Perhaps "From 2013 to 2018, Green was one of the hosts of the YouTube channel for the magazine Mental Floss, for whom he had worked when in New York"? And then "A new format, titled Scatterbrained, named after one of the books he had written for Mental Floss" would remind the readers of the book's title.

Integrated.--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• "in which artists encourage viewers to imitate their creative exercises": I'm not sure what this means. Again perhaps the detail can be cut? The fact that Green was executive producer is more relevant than the content of the series, which has its own article. And perhaps the last two or three sentences of the paragraph could be compressed too? This is his wife's channel, after all, not his.

Agreed, cut down.--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Despite the difficulties, he finished and submitted the first draft to his editor Julie Strauss-Gabel, before editing the book together for another year": "together" is syntactically stranded. How about "He eventually submitted a draft, and he and Strauss-Gabel then worked on the book together for another year"? We don't need "finished" as it's evident from the fact that he submitted it, and Strauss-Gabel's been introduced as his editor twice already. I also think we can cut "Despite the difficulties" -- the difficulties have already been described, and "eventually" connects the thoughts.

Agreed. Integrated your suggestions--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• I think some of the details in the paragraph on A Little Red Flower could be trimmed -- these are details that would go better in The Fault in Our Stars (film).

Pared down.--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• The "Appearances and other projects" section is very bitty, and rather WP:PROSELINE. Could some of this be assembled into a more narrative flow, or cut? In a couple of cases I think the material could be moved elsewhere -- e.g. we mention Vidcon above, so perhaps move Viacom's acquisition of it to the earlier mention.

Took a pass at integrating the content. Let me know what you think.--Cerebral726 (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Some of the material in the "Books" section could perhaps be cut -- the review comments belong more in the book articles, and the reader is already well aware by this point in the article how successful The Fault in Our Stars was.

Removed that paragraph.--Cerebral726 (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• "beginning with his first two novels Looking for Alaska and An Abundance of Katherines, which received the Printz Award and was named a Printz Honor book respectively": a bit clumsily phrased.

Cut this entirely while cutting the excessive review quotes you mentioned.--Cerebral726 (talk)

• Looks like a corrupted citation at the start of the "Online ventures" section.

Fixed. --Cerebral726 (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That's it for the content. I'll do spotchecks next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

All the above fixes look good; nice work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks

Spotchecks. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

• FNs 38 & 39 cite "Set in Chicago, the novel is about an extremely intelligent but depressed 17-year-old boy who is constantly dating (and being dumped by) girls named Katherine." I don't see support for "depressed" or "17-year-old".
  • Addressed, added source that backs those up.--Cerebral726 (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• FN 51 cites "During that year, the brothers gained a large following during the early years of YouTube, especially after Hank's video "Accio Deathly Hallows" was featured on the front page of YouTube." Verified, but now I read the sentence again you don't need both "During that year" and "during the early years of YouTube".
  • Cut. --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• FN 68 cites "The convention was a success, leading to it becoming an annual event." Verified.
• FN ai cites "The Life's Library project ended in March 2022 and the discussion Discord was archived." I don't see support for "archived".
  • Cut "and the discussion Discord was archived".--Cerebral726 (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• FN 181 cites "The coffee is ethically sourced from Colombia via the brothers' sourcing partner Sucafina. The beans are then roasted in St. Louis, Missouri and distributed through DFTBA's fulfillment center in Missoula, Montana." The second sentence does not appear to be covered by this -- or is it in the video? If so a time offset would be helpful.
  • This information was cited to BI which I cut yesterday. I didn't notice it wasn't in the Indy Star article, sorry about that. In the continued effort of paring down the article, I will cut that sentence entirely.--Cerebral726 (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• FN 118 cites "At the end of 2018, Complexly partnered with WNYC Studios to bring all of their podcasts, including The Anthropocene Reviewed, to the distributor." The source doesn't actually mention Complexly directly. In theory this could have been arranged other than via Complexly so I think this needs rewording or separate sourcing.
  • Good catch. Complexly is the parent for the podcasts (the video in the article shows Complexly and WNYC's logos in the end card). But that isn't explicitly stated as you mention. I was thinking of adding this source which shows Anthropocene as a coproduction of Complexly and WNYC (as stated in the podcasts themselves at the time), but thought it best to just match the existing source.--Cerebral726 (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
• FN 106 cites " In 2014, John and Hank began uploading videos to Vlogbrothers every weekday for two weeks during Pizzamas, and began selling more varied merchandise, including fan art printed on blankets, stickers, and pizza-scented air fresheners, with all the proceeds being donated to charity." Not all the details are sourced -- the source just says "with Hank and John adding additional videos into their upload schedule" which doesn't necessarily mean "every weekday", and there's no mention of stickers. I think the fan art mention just refers to Pizza John, but as written it sounds as if there are other kinds of fan art being sold.
  • The cited article states "by uploading YouTube videos to one another every weekday, just like they did when they launched their vlogbrothers YouTube channel in 2007." However, stickers are not one of the mentioned forms of merch. I fixed that to match the source, and specified that the fan art was of Pizza John.--Cerebral726 (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There are several minor inaccuracies in the above. I'll wait for you to fix these, and then do another pass. Passing the spotcheck is a must, so if you think there might be other slight inaccuracies in the sourcing you might want to go through and check before asking me to make another pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I will take a pass through now that I've addressed your comments.--Cerebral726 (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I have completed my check. Cerebral726 (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The spotchecks above all look good now. Second pass below.

Second round of spotchecks

• FNs 9, 95, and 96 cite 'Green had initially been hesitant to sell the movie rights for the book, saying, "I'd had some unhappy experiences before, and I didn't want a movie I didn't like being made from a book that's so important to me. This book frankly is more important to me than my other books."' Verified. Not a GA issue, but I don't think you need all three footnotes; just the Time one would work.
• FN 105 cites "Just over a year after the first film's release, an adaptation of Paper Towns was released, starring Cara Delevingne and Nat Wolff." Verified.
• FN 100 cites "Green filmed a cameo role for the movie that was not included in the final cut of the film". Verified.
• FN 235 cites 'Looking for Alaska was named the most challenged book of 2015 by the American Library Association, with some people complaining about the book's "offensive language" and "sexually explicit descriptions".' Verified; very similar phrasing to the source but there's not much you can do about that, so I think it's fine.
• FN 248 cites "That month, Teresa Jacobs, the mayor of Orange County, Florida, declared that July 17 would also be John Green Day." Should be July 24? The source is dated July 23, so I think this has to be the following Friday, not the prior one. Otherwise verified.
• FN 146 cites "In September 2015, Green announced that he would be taking a break from social media to focus on writing his next book." Verified.
• FN 155 cites "In May 2018, Green was interviewed by then-quarterback for the Indianapolis Colts Andrew Luck after Turtles All the Way Down was named a selection for the Andrew Luck Book Club. They discussed the book and their relationships with anxiety and stress for the event that promoted the PBS series The Great American Read." Verified.
• FN 191 cites "In January 2019, it was announced that Hannah Marks would direct the movie." Verified.

Just one very minor issue. Passing GA; congratulations! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Fixed that last issue. Woo! Cerebral726 (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

John Green with a "Pizza John" shirt

• ... that author John Green (pictured) fundraises for Partners In Health by selling coffee, socks, and shirts with an image of his mustachioed face? Source: [1] [2][3]
  • ALT1: ... that in addition to writing the best-selling book of 2014, John Green is the co-creator of both VidCon and Crash Course? Source: [4][5][6]
  • ALT2: ... that John Green was partially inspired to write The Fault in Our Stars by a Nerdfighter named Esther Earl? Source: [7]
  • ALT3: ... that author John Green (pictured) fundraises for Partners In Health by selling shirts with an image of his mustachioed face called "Pizza John"? Source:[8]
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Cerebral726 (talk). Self-nominated at 13:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/John Green; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• I removed the addition of two "(pictured)" added by Mandarax from the two hooks that don't mention Pizza John. Probably not worth including a picture (or at least worth including a different picture) if ALT1 or 2 are used. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Cerebral726: I think using that picture definitely makes sense, since we have it ready, so I would go for either ALT0 or ALT3. You met all the criteria, although I must address that I've slightly edited the paragraph about Pizzamas by myself, so now it should be clearer that the initiative contributes towards the donations to Partners of Health. Also, can you confirm that this is just your third DYK nomination? Just to be sure you don't need to submit a QPQ review... Oltrepier (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good, I really like both of those hooks, so I'll let others decided between the two. Thanks for fixing the lack of clarity in that Pizzamas paragraph. And you're correct, I still got a couple freebies left to go! --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cerebral726 and Oltrepier: while I'm sure the video was released under a creative commons license, I'm not 100% sure that a non-de minimis merch design was intentionally released under the same license without a non-commercial restriction. Is that something to make hay out of? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm... That's a good question worth looking into. That definitely falls outside of my expertise. I have reached out to the original Pizza John creator, since this is faithful enough to that original that they would still presumably hold the copyright to this design as well if they hold the copyright to the original. However, since Pizza John is based off a photo/screenshot of a video that John took of himself (in all likelihood), was John's face adequately transformed to constitute a separate copyright from John's photo? Cause if John holds the copyright to both, then he has definitely released it through that CC notice on the YouTube video. --Cerebral726 (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Update: The copyright holder has given permission to use the photo in this context. Not sure if that clears us, or enforces it as a copyrighted work of art! --Cerebral726 (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it would – the designer has to release the design under a compatible Creative Commons license. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I am reaching out to the copyright holder asking if they'd be willing to release the image into CC. I will provide any updates from them. --Cerebral726 (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

John Green sporting a mustache during "Pizzamas".

I haven't received a response yet. I uploaded a version without the questionable copyrighted material, hopefully that would be an acceptable alternative if we decide the other needs to be removed. --Cerebral726 (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cerebral726: well, let's wait for a response for now. I really do like the first picture. BorgQueen (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@BorgQueen and Theleekycauldron: The presumed copyright holder has decided not to release Pizza John to CC. So that leaves one other option for this being a non-copyrighted work: Is the "Pizza John" design adequately transformative from a screenshot from this video by John Green (around 3:56) as detailed by this video from Hank Green (around 1:40) to entail a new copyright? Or is it derivative enough such that the blanket CC release of all Vlogbrothers videos by the Green brothers covers Pizza John? If it is derivative, then the only hitch is that the video is not tagged as Creative Commons due to technical limitations, but they have stated that all Vlogbrothers videos are CC. --Cerebral726 (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that he declined. Why would he allow the commercial use of the design just for a 24-hour (or shorter) exposure on Wikipedia Main Page... We'll probably have to feature the hook without any pic. BorgQueen (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@BorgQueen and Theleekycauldron: So, apart from the picture, are the hooks still good to go? Oltrepier (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose. BorgQueen (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

good to go without the image, although the one in the infobox is available and could be used if a DYK promoter chooses to do so. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

"Rapid"

@GuardianH: Just wanted to clarify this edit. The GA Version has "rapid" in it. Did you intend to change it to not match the GA version? Cerebral726 (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, yes. What the sum should have said is something completely different - "rise to fame is fine without 'rapid'". The original editsum was overruled since for some reason the system auto-filled in that one (because of hovering the cursor over it briefly). GuardianH (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. After looking at the sources, the "rapid" aspect of his rise to fame is mentioned often, especially within the context of his 2012-2016 era when he shifted the YA market: WaPo describes quick timeline and how it left Green "reeling, NYT discusses "Sudden fame". The subject of that statement is his impact on YA literature which was a very "rapid" change. Since it was part of the GA and I believe it is a critical part of that opening line, I think it should be restored. Cerebral726 (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the WaPo and NYT - I no longer have any issue with including it again. GuardianH (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Sarah Urist vs Sarah Green in infobox

The infobox on this article deliberately shows Green's spouse's name as "Sarah Urist" rather than "Sarah Urist Green" which is the title of her article. Shouldn't her surname be shown as Green in the infobox since she changed it when they were married? Tagging @Cerebral726, who often edits here. Penguin314 (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. I thought it was the standard to use maiden name, but per Template:Infobox person, the spouse parameter should Use article title (if linking) or common name. Making that change. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2024

Please change "Ministry of Health in the Philippines" to "Department of Health in the Philippines". Thank you. 103.5.5.242 (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Department seems to be correct, it's not clear why ministry was used instead. I changed it to match the linked page, thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)