Talk:A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo/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: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 05:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a fun one to review. Let's get started. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article and I'm putting it on hold until the comments are addressed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Well-written

• his alleged support for conversion therapy of gay adolescents and opposition to same-sex marriage – These two items should probably be switched. Right now, it seems like "alleged" may also apply to his opposition to same-sex marriage.
  • Switched the two
    • It seems the sourcing doesn't explicitly say that he supports conversion therapy, so I've removed that part altogether to avoid BLP issues. Feel free to restore if you can find a reliable source that's more explicit about this point. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
      • I've found IndyStar and PolitiFact sources that back the claim about conversion therapy and have added it back.
• The sentence beginning with "On March 18, 2018, the publication of both books was used as a comedy piece" looks like it would fit better in the Publication section.
  • Moved
• The third paragraph of Background (starting with "According to the publisher") looks like it would fit better in the Analysis section.
  • Moved
• Pence should not be described as the "former Vice President" because he was the incumbent at the time of publication. Just "Vice President" should be acceptable, or "then-Vice President" if clarification is absolutely necessary.
  • Changed to "then"
• The fact that Bundo isn't lonely anymore at the end of the book seems to be an important point that could be clarified here.
  • Added
• The Analysis section needs to be restructured. There's no logic or rhythm to the order of the sentences, and some of the same things are repeated a few times. Try to get them flowing better.
  • I've reordered it so the first paragraph is mostly about the message while the second is about the political positions. Before it's checked off, please take a look so I can ensure it's all good.
    • It might benefit from a copyedit, but it meets the requirements of GA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Children who do feel out of place may have a hard time handling that. – This sentence lacks context. It's unclear what it's talking about or how it relates to the book.
  • I cut it as part of reorganizing "Analysis"
• It would be helpful if the Publication section said the release date in the first sentence.
  • Added, as well as rephrased the start of the second paragraph under "Publication" to fit the addition.
• The Publication section is one long paragraph that covers a few different ideas. I suggest finding a logical way to organize it into two paragraphs.
  • Due to moving a paragraph into 'Publication", it's now two paragraphs, but I've split it into three for better readability.
• The paragraph about Focus on the Family's response is only one sentence long. It can probably be moved to the next paragraph or to a paragraph in the Reactions section.
  • Moved into "Reactions"
• Avoid the word "noted" as a word to watch.
  • Changed to "said"

Verifiable with no original research

Sourcing issues and suggestions:

• Remove both uses of New York Post as a source, as it is generally unreliable.
  • Removing the first one was fine since there's another citation to back it, but I'm having trouble finding a different source to back the statement The book's distributor reported to have 150,000... One of the others I could find cites the New York Post, and the Press Releases section for the publishing group has no information related to the statement. I've cut it for now, but if you can find another, feel free to add it back.
• Avoid overuse of WP:PRIMARY sources. Independent coverage of what someone said is usually better than just linking to the video or the tweet where they said it. Claims that are only supported by primary sources may or may not be undue.
  • Are there specific citations you're referring to? The only primary sources I can think of are a tweet by Pence and the broadcast itself.
    • There are a few claims that are only supported by the Last Week Tonight episode, where it would probably be better to find a secondary source that provides the information. If it were me writing the article, I would include the episode as an external link instead of using it as an inline citation. Posts on Twitter or Instagram are usually primary sources of that person's opinion, but this doesn't really need any change. It just means to take a quick look and make sure every opinion that's being presented is relevant (it seems that they are in this case). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• Brydon and Miller's involvement is mentioned in the lead but not supported by the body.
  • Huh, odd... I can't find their names in any of the articles or other sources, so I think I'm just going to cut it.
• Mike Pence's stated anti-LGBTQ attitudes should be cited at the end of the sentence as a potentially controversial BLP claim.
  • Cited
• Is there a source that directly says the stinkbug is a caricature/parody of Pence? If there is, that would be more useful than saying "sporting a white hairdo looking like Pence's".
  • This statement was removed per below comment
    • After checking, it seems that a few sources do explicitly make the connection between Pence and the stink bug, including the Globe and Mail review by Fitzpatrick and this Deadline article. The Analysis section should probably state directly that the stink bug caricatures Pence rather than just imply it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Changed to with a striking resemblance to Mike Pence
• The Plot section should avoid any sort of commentary. The parenthetical should be removed, and any details such as this can be elaborated upon later in the article.
  • Moved to "Analysis"
• Is it possible to find one source saying that the book got worldwide coverage? That would be better than listing eight separate sources that each provide one example.
  • After looking through the sources published after the book was released, none explicitly state that it received worldwide coverage. Do you think it could do without some of the citations?
    • A few could certainly be trimmed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Removed four of the eight citations
• Some sources need to be fixed. Check "ProQuest 2068254095", both "User account | NewsBank"s, and "'Introduction' American Library Association".
  • I was able to replace the ProQuest one with the article it linked to and the ALA link was fixed too, but I'm having a hard time with the NewsBank one. Since I don't have an account, I can't access the article to see what the original source is. Do you have access to it?
    • I have no access to the NewsBank sources. We'll probably need to find a different source for any statements that depend on one of them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
      • I've replaced the Newsbank sources, and while I was at it I just merged the two paragraphs; the second one was just paraphrasing what the first had already said.

Spotchecks:

• Perkins (2018), AV Club:
  • This source doesn't seem to directly state that Pence opposes same-sex marriage or is alleged to support conversion therapy. It should be easy enough to find a source that does.
    • Replaced with three sources regarding his views
  • The other use of this source is good.
• Klein (2018), CNN:
  • The source says it follows Pence from Bundo's perspective, which is a bit different than the claim it's being used to support.
    • Replaced with citation to the LWT episode since Oliver does draw the differences
  • The source supports that the book says Pence "isn't very fun", but it does not support the part about the stink bug.
    • The Vanity Fair source supports the statement about the stink bug, while the CNN source supports "isn't very fun". I moved the CNN source to be adjacent to "isn't very fun"
  • Third use is an accurate quote.
• Zaimov (2018), The Christian Post:
  • This doesn't seem to support that Bundo is the "one thing he liked about Pence" or that Bundo appeared on the book tour.
    • Removed and replaced with Chitnis CBS News 2018
  • This supports that it was No. 4, but not that it was No. 11.
    • Couldn't find another source that said it was initially at eleventh, so I just cut it.
  • Accurately quoted.
• McMahon (2018), Common Sense Media:
  • Doesn't appear to support the claims attributed to the publisher.
    • I think it was there to support the theme, but it was cut anyway since they're quotations to another source
  • Unclear whether this supports the plot, but the plot can probably be unsourced anyway per WP:PLOTSOURCE.
    • Removed
  • Supports attributed claim about its own review.
• Cain (2018), The Guardian: Both uses are good.
• Wilstein (2018), The Daily Beast: Good.
• Green (2018), Publishers Weekly: Good.
• Fitzpatrick (2018), The Globe and Mail: Good.

Overall, the spotchecks are mixed, but I think it's more an issue that the inline citations aren't organized rather than serious source-text integrity issues. If a citation is attached to a sentence, make sure it supports that sentence.

Broad in its coverage

There's some information about the Pences' book under Reception that feels undue, including information about the ratings of the book and the specific charities it contributed to. Try to keep focus on the subject of the article.

• Cut the stuff about Amazon reviews of the Pences' book

Neutral

One use of a contentious WP:LABEL of a living person with the use of "homophobic". Describe his beliefs rather than labeling them.

• Replaced with "anti-LGBTQ views"

Stable

No recent edits besides nominator except one disambig.

Illustrated

Cover image has a valid copyright tag and non-free use rationale. The other image is public domain.

Comments by Barkeep49

It had originally been my goal to bring both Marlon Bundo's books up to GA at roughly the same time. However, when I really began to work on this one I found it in need of much larger changes, with some of those issues persisting until today. For instance there were facts I believed to absolutely be true but which could not be supported by the sources present. Ex: For three weeks, A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo was on The New York Times Children's Picture Books Bestsellers List isn't currently sourced to anything. The spot checks above also show this issue, so I think more comprehensive work and examination is needed before this would become a GA. I will also note that in a few places things swing the otherway and there is overcitation. I'm really glad someone has taken a shine to this and is attempting to finally bring it up to GA, but wanted to note my thinking about this article before it was passed. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Barkeep49. I've addressed the NYT statement you pointed out. Thebiguglyalien, I believe I've addressed everything you commented. Considering how many issues there were in the spotcheck, if you feel you need to do another one, I'm happy to continue to help. I will admit that spotchecking was not something I focused on when preparing the article for GA! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like all that's still needed is a closer look at the sources. As I said above, I think it's more that they were just applied haphazardly than any original research. It also looks like there are still some items cited exclusively to the Last Week Tonight episode itself. If there's no secondary coverage of these facts, then they're probably not due. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the statement that was exclusively cited to LWT. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I did a quick check for all of the sourcing in Background and Analysis. Only one sentence turned up a problem: the first sentence in Analysis doesn't seem to be supported by either citation, which is especially a problem because it includes a direct quote. While doing so, I noticed that both Background and Analysis have a sentence to the effect of "they wanted to make fun of Pence and write a children's story at the same time". I also noticed an interesting fact in the amNY interview that Twiss didn't expect it to be published at first, which might be relevant for the Publication section. I'll look at the other sections sometime soon. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see the issue; the quote was cited to the Newsbank source and I forgot to rewrite the sentence. That's been fixed. I think the duplicate mentions in background and analysis is fine. Background only mentions it in the first sentence, and Analysis quotes the publisher (which I just added). As for the the amNY interview, I've added a quote from the interview about that right after the statement about large demand. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Checked the Publication section:

• I've removed three of the four citations for the first couple sentences in Publication. They simply said that Pence is homophobic without actually supporting the claims of the sentences. The remaining citation covers it adequately.
• Keep in mind that using the New York Times bestsellers list to support a claim about the best sellers list is a primary source. It's not a big deal in this case and probably doesn't need to be changed, but it's always better to use a secondary source about the list to demonstrate significance.
• I've removed two of the three sources for sales numbers: one was a video link that doesn't work and the other was a Daily Beast article. The Vanity Fair source should be good enough on its own for this claim.

I think the removals are all this section needed, and it should be good to go as far as sourcing.Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Checked the Reception section:

• Not a sourcing issue, but reading it again, I'm not sure if "sparked" is the right word here in the first sentence.
• I notice that the "all over the world" sources are all from Western Europe. Either the phrasing or the sourcing needs to change. I also wouldn't object to removing this sentence entirely if there's no source that explicitly says that it got worldwide coverage, as this is kind of in a gray area regarding original research.
• If you can find a source that talks about Charlotte Pence's tweet rather than citing it directly, that would be an improvement. But if not, then her tweet should be acceptable.
• Focus on the Family called Oliver's treatment of the Pences' book... – This should specify that it was FotF president Jim Daly, not the entire organization.
• Regnery congratulated Oliver and Chronicle Books... – Likewise; this was publisher Marji Ross of Regnery.

That should be about it. The Publication section meets the GA criteria, and there are a few notes on the other sections after a more in-depth look at the sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Replaced with "caused", cut the "worldwide" claim and added citations to just U.S. sources, added a source for Pence's tweet, and added the two people to those statements. I think I've addressed everything here. Thank you so much for the review @Thebiguglyalien! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks good! Passing the review now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2023 (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.