Talk:We Are Water Protectors/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 08:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Copyvio check

• I reviewed all matches over 10% found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. No issues. The phrases "We Are Water Protectors is a 2020 picture book written by Carole Lindstrom and illustrated by Michaela Goade" and "the book tells the story of an Ojibwe girl who fights against" both appear on the luckys.ca site but seem fine to me per WP:LIMITED.

  I'm actually pretty certain that the luckys.ca site is copying from Wikipedia, because I think they just copied the entirety of the previous stub version of the article that has been around since January 2021. There's not a really clear way to confirm that, but when I first expanded the article last December, nominated it for DYK, and ran it through Earwig, that website didn't appear to exist yet. DanCherek (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Looking at the history, I think you're right. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Images

• Suitable FUR for the cover image. Other images are CC. No issues with captions or placement. ALT text, or "alt=refer to caption" could be added to the Lindstrom and Dakota Pipeline pictures.

  Alt text added. DanCherek (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• All look to be suitable.
• Spot checks on Lockett (2021), Wilson (2021), Knapp (2021), Egan (2021), and Goade (2021) - all good.

Synopsis

• Seems fine from what I see in sources.

Background and publication

• Optionally, you could add that the book has 40 pages (per Kirkus source) and, again optionally, add this into the infobox.

  Added to both. DanCherek (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Writing and illustrations

• Seems fine.

Reception

• Optionally, add a few words to explain what a starred review denote into the body text. (I wasn't familiar with the term.)

  Added a quick parenthetical to explain (briefly adapted from Starred review with attribution). DanCherek (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Autumn Allen", "Ronny Khuri" - "Allen" and "Khuri" per MOS:SURNAME

  Done. DanCherek (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Could mention Brian Wilson as the "reviewer for Booklist" who praised the use of sound effects

  Done. DanCherek (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Looks like the book was a "#1 New York Times Bestseller" - is this worth including?

  Good point, added. DanCherek (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• "watercolor" could be wikilinked, as it is in the article body.

  Done. DanCherek (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• No other issues - the lead succinctly summarises the main points of the article.

Thanks for your work on the article, DanCherek. I did a couple of searches to see whether the presentation of only positive reviews was appropriate, and I'm satisfied that it is. I could have made a couple of minor tweaks and passed this, but I through I'd give you an opportunity to reply to the points above - some of which, as noted, are optional. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks BennyOnTheLoose for the review, and thanks for checking – I also looked specifically for any criticism from reviewers, even minor points, but wasn't able to find anything to include. Responded to your helpful comments above, let me know if you have further feedback or suggestions! DanCherek (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that the article meets the GA criteria, so am passing it. Nice work, DanCherek. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:17, 29 July 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.