Talk:Tom Swift/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hey everyone. I'll be reviewing this page for possible GA status. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed. Because I tend to do very detailed reviews, the amount of writing here shouldn't reflect badly on the article. It is fundamentally a good article, but there are some issues that need to be addressed before the article can achieve GA status. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Writing and formatting

• "The character was created...and have been written" -> need verb agreement or introduction of new subject for second part if needed

Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• "The books have been translated into a number of languages and sold over 20 million copies worldwide" -> maintain verb conjugation

Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• "a neighbor...and approbation." I don't think you intended this entire section to be one long quote, as there is a reference in the middle, but there are no quotation marks between these two

The reference is not a citation, but a note. The citation is at the end of the entire quotation. Ricardiana (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• "and the third book" -> "in the third book" to match the earlier construction

Typo fixed. Ricardiana (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• "as the series progressed..." -> maintain present tense here

Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• The entire article could use a few extra internal links, especially for things that may not be familiar to all readers (for example, Ph.D, which in many countries is simply a "doctorate", or reverse engineering, an unfamiliar concept to non-scientists)

Wikilinks added. Also, American style is appropriate for an article on an American character, per MoS. Ricardiana (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

My argument was not that Ph.D. should be changed to doctorate, but that it should be linked so that readers unfamiliar with the term could "translate" it for themselves. With the link, the term is fine. I would, however, still argue for a few more internal links - terms like "nanotech" and "biotech", as well as other terms that may not be familiar to non-Americans / non-scientists. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Both terms now linked. Will look over the article for others. Ricardiana (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would argue for linking the following: red shift, wave trap, black hole, Gary Vinson (which is misspelled in the article), Willie Aames, Lori Loughlin, sound barrier, The Blue Screen of Death. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Vinson's name is not mis-spelled. Please check the source, Keeline's "Tom Swift on the Silver Screen," which gives Vinson's name as Garry while acknowledging that an actor named Gary Vinson also exists, who may or may not be the same person. To conclude that he is would be OR. ~I've added links to the other terms with the exception of "wave trap", which is not a technical term but a description. Ricardiana (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• In speaking about the second series, make sure to specify whether the Tom being discussed is Sr or Jr.

Added various clarifications except when context (e.g., "Unlike his father, Tom") indicates who is who. Ricardiana (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• While quotations are useful for expressing sentiments and otherwise unverifiable material, they should not be used where prose would be better suited. For example, "whether eighteen-year-old, blond, and handsome Tom is the grandson of the famous Tom Swift of the first series or still Tom Swift Jr., the hero of the second. Tom is just Tom Swift; no Jr., II, or III follows his name. Victor Appleton II, the presumed author, also has disappeared, replaced by plain old Victor Appleton." is an excessively long quote for the ideas being presented, and could be replaced simply by prose with a citation. However, quotes are essential for sections on racism and criticism (I see from the talk page that the number of quotations has been an issue in the past).

Re-worked. Ricardiana (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• The phrase "the young inventor" should not be used for every Tom Swift interchangeably in the series section

I am not sure what you mean. A Control+F search finds two instances of the phrase in the entire article, one of which is in a quotation. Ricardiana (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would advocate simply using "Tom Swift" in "Fourth series", instead of using that phrase. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 02:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Check that all references to "Tom Swift, Jr."/"Tom Swift Jr." either do or do not use the comma consistently throughout the article

Changed all instances of "Tom Swift Jr." to "Tom Swift, Jr." Ricardiana (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• While other sections indicate that the fifth series is called "Tom Swift, Young Inventor", this is not actually mentioned in the section on the fifth series

Added a mention. Ricardiana (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• "The series has come in for its share of criticism" - this wording is colloquial and awkward

Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• "the social good" -> "social good" or "the good of society"

All three usages are correct, unless you have a source that says otherwise. Ricardiana (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

All right, we'll leave it. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• "over the protests over people around the world" -> "of people"

While technically you are correct that "people" includes all people, in context the "around the world" is necessary, a) because it is in the source; b) because the Swift series, as described particularly in the section on the second series, are usually U.S.-centric, and it's part of Von der Osten's critique that Tom is ignoring non-U.S. countries. Ricardiana (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was unclear. What I meant was that the phrase should read "over the protests of people around the world", as opposed to duplicating "over". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I changed the second "over" to "of." Ricardiana (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think one of your edits has created a referencing error in "Character and inventions", as well as serial italicization in "Second series". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right; I think I've fixed it now. Ricardiana (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy and verifiability

• Be consistent in the way the pulled quotes are referenced

I don't see any inconsistencies. Can you explain what you mean? Ricardiana (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The first uses "title", while the second uses "From title (date)"

Aha! I see now. Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Citations needed for:

• The Tom Swift, Jr., series ended in 1971; a third series was begun in 1981 and lasted until 1984

I've added refs for publishing information when sources conflict, but there is no conflict on these. WP:CITE says, "sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, when quoting someone, when adding material to the biography of a living person, when checking content added by others, and when uploading an image." Ricardiana (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Simon and Schuster produced two other Tom Swift series: one, published from 1991 to 1993, and the Tom Swift, Young Inventor series, begun in 2006

As above. Ricardiana (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

All right. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Tom's adventures are also sometimes closely tied to current events and public issues

I'm happy to remove this, but first, a question: below you suggest citing the texts themselves re: locations; an example from a text is given here. Why is that, here, inadequate? Ricardiana (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the citations were for each individual location, one book per location. Here, while the example given tells readers that that scenario occurs in that book, it does not necessarily infer a generalization, and to give one based on that example alone (in particular when most readers would think a run on a bank to be a current event in the early 1930s) is, in my opinion, WP:OR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I see; agreed. Removed. Ricardiana (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• The Syndicate's process for creating the Tom Swift books

Added footnote. Ricardiana (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• his inventions and adventures extend from the center of the Earth to the bottom of the ocean to the moon and, eventually, the outer solar system, with stops along the way at African antimatter volcanoes, lost New Guinea cities, and various wandering asteroids (cite each story referred to here individually if necessary)

Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• "space friends"

Footnote added. Ricardiana (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• makes some slight narrative reference not to the third series but rather to the Tom Swift Jr. series

Not my sentence to begin with; happy to remove it. Ricardiana (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• The books in this series are written in first person narrative style, which is a break with the style of the previous series, but similar to the Hardy Boys: Undercover Brothers and Nancy Drew, Girl Detective series, also produced by Simon and Schuster and Mega-Books

Removed. New refs added. Ricardiana (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• ran for 40 volumes

Added ref to the more reliable Dizer, as Disch (see below) is incorrect. Ricardiana (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• As early as 1914, Edward Stratemeyer proposed making a Tom Swift film

Added ref. Ricardiana (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• a $500,000 airship that had been built as a prop was sold to an amusement park

Added ref. Ricardiana (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• In 2007, digital studio Worldwide Biggies, founded by Nickelodeon and Spike TV executive Albie Hecht, acquired film rights to Tom Swift

Added ref. Ricardiana (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• In Notes, 16 and 20 are the same, 31 and 37 are the same, 32 and 36 are the same

Fixed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Klemesrud is in References but not in Notes

Deleted. Ricardiana (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Since the syndicate was sold in 1984, shouldn't the 1981 Appleton have a different publisher?

No. The Syndicate switched publishers from Grosset & Dunlap to Simon & Schuster in 1979, a switch that led to a lawsuit as detailed on my recent Nancy Drew and The Hardy Boys FAs. Ricardiana (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Molson's DOI shows up as "not found"

I doubled-checked the DOI through Project Muse; that's what Project Muse lists. I've added the ISSN, however. Ricardiana (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Season for Swifties never mentions the singular form of "Swifties", and thus cannot be used to verify "Swifty", as the singular could also be "Swiftie"

Both forms are used in various sources; it would be awkward to write "Swifty/Swiftie", so I chose one. Sources using "Swifty" include The Linguistic Analysis of Jokes by Graeme Ritchie and Much ado about English: up and down the bizarre byways of a fascinating language by Richard Watson Todd, as well as a number of others found during a quick Google Books search; "Swiftie" seems to appear in fewer and less reliable sources. Ricardiana (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would then argue for citing one of those sources here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Added footnote. However, can you please tell me what policy requires the footnoting of a common speling? Ricardiana (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I must disagree, as -y is the common singular form in English of the plural -ies. Had I used "Swiftie", an uncommon singular form, I could see the footnote being necessary, but not here. Ricardiana (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Since, as you say, both are used, I would still argue for a citation for this form, as contradictions/controversies are generally cited. However, if you feel this is unwarranted, I won't insist on it. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Prager 1976 actually argues against Edison being a model for Tom, so shouldn't be used as a reference here without qualification

Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Prager's reference to "thirty million copies" seems to refer to the Bobbsey Twins

From later in the article: "From 1910—when the young inventor made his debut in Tom Swift and his Motor-Cycle—until the late 1930’s, the Tom Swift series held center stage with the juvenile reading public. No one seems to have an accurate sales tally, but Tom’s publishers, Grosset & Dunlap, estimate his sales at about thirty million." The Bobbsey Twins are also mentioned in the article as having sold thirty million copies. Ricardiana (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I misread. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Disch says that the second series was the longest, and that the first had only 38 volumes

Disch is woefully incorrect, as might be expected from someone writing for Entertainment Weekly. Dizer's appendix lists, correctly, 40 volumes for the first series and 33 for the second, figures corroborated by Johnson's book, although I don't have Johnson in front of me right now. Do you think this information should be in a footnote? Ricardiana (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be useful in preventing confusion, although not essential. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Broad

No issues noted

Neutrality

• The following phrases introduce a bias into the article, and should be reworded or deleted.

• Always aware of his market
• realistic, colloquial dialogue
• his proposals, however, seem to have fallen on deaf ears

All of the above cited or deleted. Ricardiana (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Check against WP:WTA - words like "finally" should not be used outside of quotes without careful qualification, as they suggest editorial bias

"Finally" used only once outside of quotation marks, and is not listed at WP:WTA. Ricardiana (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad memory on my part, but there are other words that I've actually checked against WTA, so my concern still stands even if I made a mistake in the example. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

OK; can you tell me what the other words are? Ricardiana (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Contend, however, only, just. Some uses are appropriate, but they should all be evaluated for possible bias. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've evaluated them, and I think they're fine. Ricardiana (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Stable

I see that there have been some edit wars / arguments regarding quotations and NPOV. At this point, I don't think that it is severe enough or recent enough to merit failure based on this criteria alone. However, I would encourage you to continue to pursue consensus whenever possible, and, if it becomes necessary, to take the disputes to mediation.

Thanks for the advice. Ricardiana (talk) 01:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Images

No issues noted

Hi, Nikkimaria, thanks for your very detailed review. I'll be working on your comments over the next few days. Ricardiana (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)