Talk:The Adventures of Beekle: The Unimaginary Friend/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ReaderofthePack (talk · contribs) 18:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Hi! I'll be reviewing this! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'll try to get this finished as soon as possible! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   This looks good, I fixed an error with an non-italicized title as well as a typo.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The layout and lead look OK. The lead is a bit short, but then so is the article. If this is expanded at any point then the lead can be expanded accordingly.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   The HuffPo source was written by a contributor, which poses an issue of it being a self-published source. With the HuffPo, contributor are basically blog posts that receive little to no editorial oversight and aren't seen as being official statements on behalf of the outlet in the way that an article by a staff member would. The HuffPo doesn't really take any responsibility for their contributor posts. The only way that we could really use this would be if you could show that the list is notable. See this and this for an example of discussions about HuffPo contributor posts. The other sourcing is generally OK, although I'd recommend exercising caution with Kirkus. They're not always held in the highest esteem on here and they're not a site that I personally like to use if I can help it. They're less selective than some of the other trade publications out there (this covers some of the other criticisms surrounding the company). It's never been officially declared unreliable, so just be careful. This could definitely use more/better sources in general.

Thanks for the HuffPo background. I have removed. As for Kirkus I am aware of the criticism. In general I tend to only use them in the reception section when they're starred reviews. I did not use them there but felt that they could still be RS for the interpretation offered here and this is also why I attributed the quote rather than stating in Wikipedia's voice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

1. C. It contains no original research:

   The HB source is used to back up a claim of the book's theme changing from the creative process to focus on friendship, but this isn't really explicitly stated here per se. Also, the source states that it's still there but that the format changed per this: "Though the story itself took a step away from being about the creative process, the message is still there, on the pages where Alice shares her drawings with Beekle — each one echoing the previous pages in the story. So he got that in there after all." It's not wrong that the main theme is friendship, but it's not stated that he specifically changed the theme to this. It's not necessarily OR, but it's worth mentioning.

I changed the sentence to better paraphrase the source. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

1. The sentence "Santat's goal was to explore imaginary friends in a new way by taking the point of view of the imaginary friend" isn't entirely held up by the source. In specific, I don't see anything in it about this being his goal. I'd instead phrase this along the lines of "Santat chose to write the book from the point of view of the imaginary friend, something he has stated hadn't been approached by other writers."

Tweaked but I think my structure is a fair paraphrase of the source. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

1. I don't know that I would consider this to be OR necessarily, but I'd make sure that you edit this a bit to better specify what's in the source material. I'll leave this as neutral for the time being.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No copyvio as far as Earwig can note.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   This could be broadened some. The plot section could be expanded a teensy bit more, and maybe the reception section if there are any more reviews out there from RS, and I've found some info via sources that could be added but generally I think that you've got all of the basics here.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'd still expand the plot and reception section, but I think that as it currently stands this meets the needed criteria.

General notes

• This is something that would probably go into the broad coverage section when I get to that point, but offhand I saw that Sanat's son was a big inspiration for this. This is alluded to in the article but not outright stated. On a side note, I also wanted to say that some of the things that I've noticed I've kind of fixed or tweaked as I went along. These are typically just minor fixes or little things that I tend to have in articles. I'll leave the bigger stuff for you, if I come across them. :) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I always appreciate when others fix/tweak as they read (and try to do the same for my GA reviews). I've added the inspired by to the end of the first sentence of background (and sourced to Hsu who says it most directly). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• The mention of Robin Smith needs to be tweaked or moved to the reception section, as this is more of a review of the art in the way it's written. What I'd recommend is approaching this from a different angle, such as:

Santat's story is accompanied by his own artwork and Horn Book reviewer Robin Smith has stated that his use of greys and colors and the way that the story being told through Beekle's point of view helps readers to feel Beekle's emotions."

I've tweaked this a bit, but essentially the emphasis is shifted from an opinion on the artwork and story to Smith describing how this was used in the book. I also kind of shortened her description, as I figure that the other info could be seen if people click on the link, as the main thing here is that she's writing for the HB. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Good tweak. Done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Those Beekle tats! <3 ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I know, right? I was sad to see I had already done DYK when I found that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'm going to take a break and get back to this later today or tomorrow. I'll also see if I can Google-Fu up some additional sources as well. :) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your thoughts and time on this article. There are some other sources out there, a few other reviews in particular, but as I did not find that they had different content to add I have not included them as sources. Perhaps you will see them differently or find some sources I had not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Barkeep49 - I found some small sourcing here and there. This source from PW has a small snippet about how Sanat illustrated the book - "Beekle was probably a good 80% digital and 20% traditional." However one that I found interesting is this one from GeekDad, where it mentions that Beekle is his third book rather than his second. It also has some other info that could be good to add to the article, such as things that Beekle did to fit in and such. It can also help back up the change in focus to friendship stuff as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• I also found Santat's acceptance speech. He starts talking about the book on page five - what I found interesting was this: "A month before Beekle was released, I remember waking up in a panic. I couldn’t stop thinking about the ending to the story, worrying that it wasn’t entirely obvious to everyone that Alice, the girl in the story, had written the entire adventure about how she and Beekle met." We could use this to help flesh out the plot section. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Santat's acceptance speech didn't come up in my search of sources (and I didn't think to look for it). I have incorporated a couple of points he made into the article. As for your other changes I have been dinged by GA reviewers in the past for having too many quotes and so my more recent work has tried to pare that back. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• Huh. That's actually good to know - I generally don't have a huge issue with quotes as long as they're attributed and don't make up the majority of the content in an article. I'm more strict with students, but that's partially because they need to develop their writing skills. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• Tweaked the bit about the books. Per this (warning, this is a download link) it looks like it's Santat's third book but second picture book. That's really the only bit there that would be useful here. So far what I'm finding are typically interviews, but the outlets they're held through are typically seen as reliable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• So far so good! The only thing I haven't checked off is the broad part, since I am still sort of looking for sourcing. Offhand I think that this will definitely pass though. I can see what you mean about the sourcing. The sourcing is surprisingly light for a book that won such a major award. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• On a side note, it looks like the HuffPo contributor did write a book of his own. If we could create an article for him and/or his book (looks like it'd be easier to create one for him), that would make his list major enough to warrant mention in the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
• Oh - another side note! Since this has reached GA status you can totally submit this for DYK again and include the mention of the Beekle tattoos! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK Criteria 1d says nope. From my looking into him in the past, I think Le is likely notable enough to have his own article. I am still skeptical that his giving it a notation as a HuffPo contributor would be worthy of inclusion in a reception section given SELFPUB. I have once or twice before used him for themes or illustrations which feels more OK since his background helps suggest RS even if it is a bit of SELFPUB. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)