Talk:Fox in Socks/GA1

GA Review

Passed. RFNirmala (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 19:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: RFNirmala (talk · contribs) 08:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My fourth GA review. Will complete the table within 7 days. Ping me if I become inactive or there are any concerns. Number of points will also increase gradually as we improve the article.RFNirmala (talk) 08:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

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) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2]

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Notes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	No major concerns. Open for improvement	Undetermined
(b) (MoS)	No major concerns. Open for improvement	Undetermined

Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Properly sourced. I suggest chrcking reference formatting e.g. URL access, archives (optional)	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Reliable sources used	Pass
(c) (original research)	No original research	Pass
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	Did a copyvio check in rev 1267685637, unlikely copyvio	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	No major concerns	Pass
(b) (focused)	No major concerns. I'll let the character list through	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Article is neutral in reception	Pass

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

Comment	Result
Relatively new and no sign of edit warring or ongoing	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	The source of the book cover can be easily resolved, though not needed to be more specific.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Only media (image) is the book cover	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Undetermined	The reviewer has left no comments here

Discussion

I haven't read Fox in Socks and this is my first review on literature (a book), so I'm eager to see this as a GA. I had to refer to other articles such as The Cat in the Hat and And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street While I spotcheck sources, these are points we can do:

Add alt captions for the book cover image. May you be more specific on where the image source is? Only says "It is believed that the cover art can or could be obtained from Random House." Which edition/print? Done
Introduce Theodor Seuss Geisel as Dr. Seuss Done I'll WP:BOLD and replace instances of "Seuss" in Writing ang Publication with "Geisel".
In "Writing and Background", the transition from meeting Dimond to testing editor Cerf seems abrupt. You can add more information on background and writing so we can separate these ideas into their paragraphs. Done Section is now smoother!

I encourage you to keep expanding on the content for the article to be more comprehensive. For "Reception and Legacy", were there any reviews and reception on the book made during the time of publication ('60s)? There's only one by Kirkus Reviews. RFNirmala (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added alt text, though that's not part of the GA process. I couldn't tell you where the original uploader actually sourced the image from. I've added Theodor Seuss Geisel to both the lead and the body (and found a source to go with it). I scraped all the sources I could find for the info in this article before nominating it and have not been able to find any further information, but I've rearranged the "writing and background" section so it hopefully flows more smoothly now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To answer RFN's last question, yes, but mostly minor listings apart from Book Week. We'd have to look at reviews of children's literature from the 60s for more, not sure offhand which children's library reference works or periodicals would have been active then. czar 19:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits and replies. I'm currently doing spotchecks on the references and searching for more possible sources. so you can wait for new points. RFNirmala (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you need help getting the Book Week ref. czar 02:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK if you can post the Book Week ref here? The Book Review Digest could be a good addition! RFNirmala (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voilà czar 05:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After addressing all the points I raised, this seems ready for GA! I'll hold this GAN for a day for other comments @Thebiguglyalien and @Czar. If you're free, you can review the GANs in WikiProject Philippines and my GA nomination RFNirmala (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a little more in the Book Week article I'd recommend extracting for breadth, but not in the way of the GA criteria czar 14:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be approving this GAN shortly. You may do them when the article's now a GA, I'll focus on my GAN. RFNirmala (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content

No worries if those are all the content we can find. Article easily passes ref spotcheck on verifying content. Good work on the content! I understand these could be outside GA review scope, but resolving these may make prose smoother and help clarify more info to the article (such as Analysis).

I suggest adding another source if there are any to the date of publication in Random House, which could fall as a primary source. You can also add the book as one of the Beginner Books in Random House. Done
- I didn't see any other sources that give the exact publication date, and this one seems adequate for a simple claim like this. I've added a mention of Beginner Books.
[ref12]. This citation (Einhorn 2012, p.115) is only used when citing a quote from Fox in Socks. You can add context by considering this sentence from the book: “In almost every book, Seuss creates new words”. Done Seems the phrase can explain its being nonsense for itself
- This seems like it would be redundant since the article already gives a lot of coverage to his "wordcrafting" in the book.
[ref21] "The book is one of several by Dr. Seuss in which younger characters teach older ones, as Mr. Fox is more skilled with tongue twisters and tries to instruct Mr. Knox." This is optional, but what other books do so (or add a basis on their relative ages)? In the source, the author only states their age, not really what made them think who’s younger. Done
- I've added a few more examples.
The book is one of several by Dr. Seuss in which younger characters teach older ones ... Literary scholar Philip Nel likened this to the moral of Sam and the Firefly by P. D. Eastman and Seuss's earlier Private Snafu cartoons.

What the moral is from the plot of Fox in Socks isn’t specified (if it’s not the caution within the instance of a young person teaching an older one). I checked [ref23] which discusses that “inasmuch as both of these tales emphasize the perils of abusing one’s knowledge, the SNAFU cartoons may be considered their direct antecedent.” I recommend rephrasing and specifying the moral with the paragraph in Nel 2007, alongside the moral of age by Shortsleeve 2011. You can add what other books show younger characters teaching older ones.

Done

Added an explanation of the moral using some of the information from the previous page in the source.

Thank you for your recent edit @Thebiguglyalien! We can discuss other points I have mentioned above. RFNirmala (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFNirmala: I've added what I could find from the sources suggested here as you saw, and I've now replied to the points above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the paragraph in "Geisel also published his book I Had Trouble in Getting to Solla Sollew while he was working on Fox in Socks", may you consider adding the year he worked on the two books? In the Jones (2019) book I added below RFNirmala (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and I moved it up a couple paragraphs to keep it in order. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nearing GA status! I was a bit off in the first comma and the passive voice in Fox in Socks was published by Random House, on January 12, 1965, as part of its Beginner Books series.

May you find a soirce that mentions the book as a Beginner Book? Wanted to make the sentence like: <span style="color:green""Random House published Fox in Socks as part of its Beginner Books series (needed source) on January 12, 1965 (Random House)"

Might WP:BOLD it later if you can't today RFNirmala (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's supported by the Penguin Random House source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Sources

I found possible sources among what I've searched, which you can add at your judgement. I can only see the biography by Jones as viable, though.

Stanchfield, J. M. (1965). The Clip Sheet. The Reading Teacher, 19(1), 69–73. International Literacy Association

Contains a brief review of Fox in Socks.

Jones, Brian Jay (2019). Becoming Dr. Seuss: Theodor Geisel and the Making of an American Imagination. Dutton. ISBN 978-1524742782.

This book, in the Further Reading of Dr. Seuss, describes further context on Geisel meeting Audrey Dimond and the time period of writing Fox in Socks. I’ll search for other sources on the claim that the book’s sales surpassed “3 million copies by the end of the twentieth century”.

Two reviews cited in “Dr. Seuss: American Icon”. The NYT review is small and wouldn’t be in the article. Can’t access the review by Harmon.

Harmon, Elva. “Seuss, Dr. Fox in Socks.” Library Journal 15 May 1965: 96

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.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]