Talk:Stephenie Meyer/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 15:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Review

• I've only done a quick skim of the article but noticeably absent are the kinds of literary analysis of both writing and theme I would expect from a GA of an author. The reception section gets at this a little but something more akin to what I found when doing Margaret Atwood (another GA I reviewed) is more what I would have expected.
• I think the article offers little evidence that she is equally an author and producer. I would recommend either removing it from MOS:FIRST or adding more text to justify that element of her work (best evidence seems to be that she produced the Twilight movies, which doesn't actually mean she's a producer, and that she setup a production company but there isn't evidence that I saw in a look that the production company has done significant work).
• I would ask you to do a rewrite of the LEAD as I do not think it hits the mark set by MOS:INTRO especially after the content expansion you've done.

• I would suggest changing the note about Pancho to "Spelled Christian in some sources" because Meyers' website only backs-up the spelling of the name not that it's frequently misspelled and thus the note is a bit SYNTHy to me

• I wrote that not because she said it was frequently misspelled but because I saw that it was frequently misspelled in the sources I read and for a while, had a hard time determining which was the correct spelling. I guess that's a bit original-researchy so noted and fixed.Skyes(BYU) (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Can we get a year Gabe was born to put her career arc in context? Also the infobox lists her as having three children but this isn't supported by a source in the text.

• The source behind the info in the early and pers. life section did mention that she has three sons, but I added another source for good measure. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think Changing Hands does merit some mention based on the source, but don't think the current sentence is quite supported by the source ("Books signings and events at the Changing Hands Bookstore in Tempe, Arizona helped to bring attention to Meyer's book and augment her popularity". I mean this was a 750k book deal, she was going to have major promotional support behind her (which is evidenced by Little Brown trying to get Changing Hands excited), and I think other sources suggest numerous ways that she was promoted beyond giving credit to this one book store. A possible way to include it would be to support the way that Meyers cultivated her fan base.

• Thanks, that's a much more accurate way to put it. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Why the quotes only around "most challenged"? Somewhat of a personal preference but I would also suggest that it's also important to note that it was most challenged according to the ALA (the same way we note not that it was a best seller but a New York Times bestseller).

• Should "her publishers insisted that she follow Twilight" actually be "her publisher"? I don't have access to the source but while she undoubtedly has multiple publishers internationally, I doubt any beyond Little Brown would be able to influence the direction of her work itself.
• I changed the Prom Nites sentences. Check that you're ok with this change.
• The paragraph that starts with Eclipse is a little choppy jumping between individual books and the series. Perhaps rearrange or make two separate paragraphs?
• Does her Forbes inclusion belong in the current section or the films section? Will say more about Forbes below, but I think the sourcing here meets RS standards (see WP:RSP.

• A sentence about the commercial and/or critical response to the Twilight film is probably appropriate even though this is noted for the series as a whole later - if it had failed there wouldn't have been sequels after all.
• What ticket record did New Moon beat?
• The writing in the films section as a whole isn't as strong as the other parts and I think likely suffers from being created one sentence at a time as events unfolded. Would ask for a look to improve variety of sentence structure, word choice, etc.

• Done, but possibly went a little overboard. I added info about the critical reception of each film to give the passage something of interest. I had difficulty making barebones info about rights obtainment, director and release date flow in an interesting manner without adding a little something. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

This is much improved. I did a little more editing. See what you think. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Looks great, thank you! Skyes(BYU) (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Forbes contributors are not RS and so cannot be used to support the statement "shattering stereotypes that only male-directed big-budget action films could become blockbusters". That's a strong claim and strong claims require strong sourcing so even one good RS might not be sufficient.
• "though the spoofs received even harsher criticism" feels like it fails NPOV even if being factually defensible.

• I'm not a huge fan of "Controversy" sections or the like (see WP:Criticism for reasoning behind this) and would suggest considering incorporating "Leaks and legal disputes" elsewhere in the article. So, for instance, Midnight Sun could find a natural place in Subsequent Twilight publications.

• I got rid of that section and tried to integrate the info into the article-you may want to double-check my relocation, because I'm wondering if her minor legal disputes are worth including at allSkyes(BYU) (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  Probably not which is one of the things getting rid of the section reveals. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Given the lack of subsequent development about Host books the language about the sequels could use some reworking.

• I tried rewording a bit, but I don't know if it's to your liking. I wasn't really sure what you wanted me to do here. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep that works. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how encyclopedic her Hobo Skate Company efforts really are.
• The source doesn't say The Host film was a success.

• Sorry about that, I misread the sentence, thanks for pointing it out. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• That's an awful lot of sources about a project that she ended up having to do little with (The Rook).

• The Reception section could use some sort of introductory sentence rather than just diving into quotes.
• There's no doubt that she's incredibly influential and has been named to a lot of lists. I question whether we need all the lists included here (e.g. is the Arizona Republic and Time list deserving equal WEIGHT?).

• removed less notable list mentions Skyes(BYU) (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• The Female Force comic info feels like it wants the reader to make a leap that the sources don't quite make.

• I don't exactly know what you mean by this (I actually didn't add this Female Force part to the article myself), but after looking at it and the source, I think the info pretty much represents exactly what is in the source without making odd claims. I did notice that the source behind the second sentence seemed to be unrelated to the material so I removed it and I moved the relevant citation behind the second sentence. I'm not sure if this is what you meant...Skyes(BYU) (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  I think my issue was really with the line "The comic has previously published biographies of women such as Oprah Winfrey and Princess Diana." which is probably just unnecessary detail. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• "There are over 150 fan-made..." feels like trivia. I might also consider leading the section with Twihards but that's a personal preference.

• I addressed the fan-made website comment. I moved Twihards to the beginning but preferred the previous version and so I changed it back.Skyes(BYU) (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Are there are scholarly/secondary sources that note influences on Meyer's writings?

• I added a little bit that I was able to find in my internet searches today. I have some print sources that I can take a look at and will see if I can find anything else. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  If they don't exist, they don't exist but I wanted to ask. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Two consecutive sections in Themes start the same way.
• I'm guessing from your comment below that there isn't a lot that compares the themes of the Twilight series to her other works?

• Not particularly. Finding any discussion of themes in her books other than the Twilight series has been like pulling teeth-I will keep looking...I may be able to find a little bit more about The Host but I guarantee I won't be able to find anything about The Chemist-it's a relatively new book that received little critical attention. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• "Books The Mormon People: The Making of an American Faith by Matthew Bowman and LDS in the USA: Mormonism and the Making of American Culture by Lee Trepanier and Lynita K. Newswander cite Meyer as having helped bring the LDS Church more into the mainstream" is an awkward sentence construction - perhaps flip "Meyer is cited as having helped bring the LDS more into the mainstream by the books..."
• The antifeminist paragraph from Reception probably belongs in the Feminism section.

• The text of the awards section is anemic. Recommend either adding to it (there's probably more than enough sourcing to support such an expansion) or just making it into a table.

• From what I can see, she hasn't won that many notable awards. Just made a table. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• I've fixed a few dead urls and some others remain. I would recommend considering running the archive bot to create a more stable link to the sources.

• Ran the bot. I've never used it before so I hope it worked. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• I see no issues with the images or COPYVIO.

• Revised LEAD looks good Skyes(BYU). Two sentences are redundant to other content and should probably be removed:

"Twilight was the best-selling book of 2008 in the U.S."

"In 2010, Forbes ranked her as the No. 59 most powerful celebrity with annual earnings of $40 million."

Discussion

I will go ahead and pick this up. Looking forward to reading this as it's been several years since I followed Meyer to any extent so while I am familiar with her to a certain extent I'm sure I'm going to learn a lot. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I can definitely add some writing style, I started working on a themes section in one of my sandboxes that I was intending to potentially make its own page one day, but perhaps I can add some of it to the Meyer page. Thanks for picking the review up. I just wanted to let you know that I am going to be taking a Christmas break from Wikipedia for two weeks, so I will be unable to respond to your review until January 6th. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. I saw that when I went to your talk page and noticed you'd identified Cecil B DeMille as a priority. I will be getting my review done before then but we can certainly keep this open until you return. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm back and added a writing style section. That's about as much as I can find that's relatively scholarly. A 2019 journal article I found actually said that scholarly analysis of Meyer's writing style is severely lacking. Will be working on the themes section next-there is a lot to pull from which means there is a lot to comb through-this will probably take me a little more time. I'm happy to concurrently respond to any inquiries or concerns about the rest of the article if desired. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Skyes(BYU): a well done article overall. The review is above and has mostly small tweaks with a few that will require a bit more effort. I'm placing this on hold but would guess we'll be able to finish this up relatively promptly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC) Fixing ping of Skyes(BYU). Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I will begin making improvements and will strike out comments as I attempt to address them. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Skyes(BYU), I will want to do another comprehensive read but it appears it's just the work on the LEAD that remains for the comments left so far? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, are you thinking I should do an entire lead rewrite or just an expansion to include some of the added material? Skyes(BYU) (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Skyes(BYU), personally I would find it easier to rewrite but if you find it easier to just expand go it, totally personal preference about how to best reach the destination. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, without doing a complete rewrite, I've done some expansion as well as some cutting and moving around. I tried to include at least one mention about each section from the article in the lead. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Skyes(BYU), I think pending just a couple of tweaks to the LEAD we look done here. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, tweaks made; I removed the two sentences you suggested from the lead. Anything else I can do? Skyes(BYU) (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)