Talk:Shrek!/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 04:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Starts GA Review; the review will follow the same sections of the Article. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 

---

Lede

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• The lede opens well and ends with criticism and a negative focus. In the article, this is a minority view, and could be dropped for including other relevant comment in the article. (Consider the anti-hero commentary as possibly useful here.)

Background

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• Background is simple and crisp summary of Steig and the origin of his cartoons and children's books.

Plot

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• Well phrased, it is a challenge to give a plot and entice the reader. Well scribed.

Reception

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• It is important to capture that children's books are meant to be read aloud. A good point to include.
• A lot of references link to Wikipedia pages instead of the original source.
• Balanced; includes criticism, which is fair.

Analysis

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• The observation the book and its hero ask the question "What is evil? Who causes evil?" is excellent and admits for moral learning by children.

Shrek

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• The notion of self-acceptance v. imagined ideal is important learning (and experience) for children. This is good, it brings the reader to self-acceptance, where Shrek engages self-acceptance (especially of his image).

Adaptations

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• Noted. It is good to finish with Steig's comments.

Reference

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• References 9, 10, 11 point to Wikipedia articles for the sources and not the source item itself.
• Reference 13 points to the Wiki article for ProQuest, and not the source on ProQuest.
• Reference 16 points to the Wiki article for Publishers Weekly and not the source item.
• Reference 22 has a link in the Wikipedia Library
• Reference 28 goes to the Wiki article on Tennessee Tribune and not the source item.

 

---

End Matter

1. Is it is Broad in its coverage?

• Yes, broad and balanced.

1. Is it Verifiable with no original research?

• Yes, no OR is included in the article.

1. Does the article meet notability guidelines?

• Notability for the author, the text and its reception all established.

1. Does it follow WP:NPOV Neutral Point of View?

• Quite so.

1. Is it stable?

• This article started life on 9 March 2006
• There have been 567 edits by 386 edits since 2006.
• 87,336 page views over the last 90 days.
• The page (popular due the animation franchise) has experienced minor vandalism in 2010, 2013, and in April 2020.
• Presently, the page is stable and not attracting vandalism. Protection is not necessary at this time.

1. Top editors are

    * Eddie891
    * PatTheMoron
    * Shellwood
    * Alumnum
    * Kodkddd2323

1. It is illustrated by images ?

• Yes, the original book cover (by the cartoonist) is used.
• Use of the book cover in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy and fair use under United States copyright law.

Overall

• This article is well prepared and highlights several critical issues for excellence in children's fantasy picture books.

Conclusion

• There is a consideration raised with regard to the lede and the overall character of this article.
• Some issues with references were raised. May we attend to these?

 

 GA on hold       --Whiteguru (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Whiteguru, and thanks! I've added URLs to the paywalled sources that I could and removed a link to the school library journal ones (which I couldn't add a URL for). I've removed the mention of criticism in the lede and replaced it by mentioning Shrek as an antihero. I think that's everything? Do let me know if not. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Thanks, that does sort all the outstanding issues I had. We can pass the review now!

 

 Passed