Talk:Laura Dean Keeps Breaking Up with Me/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 03:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll review this. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Checklist

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:

   All comments addressed

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

   Lead expanded to address concern.

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:

   Sources seem appropriately formatted

   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:

   C. It contains no original research:

   Spotchecks are clear.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's tool only highlights quotes; spotchecks are clear

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   No issues

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

   No extraneous material

4. Is it neutral?

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

   All (minor) comments addressed

5. Is it stable?

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

   No issues

6. 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:

   Licenses check out to the best of my abilities

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

   No issues

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Passing shortly.

Comments

• "when she desires" The "She" is ambiguous
• Do we know how old she is? "teen" is a little vague.
• "a potential crush" again, a tiny bit ambiguous; who has the crush? Freddy, or the other one?
• Can you link advice columnist? Also, wondering if "crush" could use a link either to the Wikipedia article section where "Crush (psychology)" redirects, or the wiktionary term. To a contemporary US/Europe audience, it's a known term, but it's colloquial elsewhere.
• "as well as Buddy and Eric" who are these people?
• I haven't read the book, but I'm wondering if the synopsis is complete; unless the story ends on an ambiguous note, it doesn't seem to include the conclusion...
• Who or what is Calista Brill?
• The grammar with respect to the quote is somewhat off in the third paragraph of "development"; it goes from third to first person. There's many ways to fix it, but I'll let you pick.
• Surely "CBC" is referred to as such even when it's the web service, a la BBC? If so, I'd pipe the link, or just link to the corporation page.
• Could you link "Queer"? again, it's a term whose meaning has varied historically.
• I personally despise one-sentence sections, and I think the information about a delayed release is part of development; so I'd recommend merging it with "development", and retitling it "development and publication"
• I'd link "gender expression"
• Is there a reason to say "styles" rather than "Style" (which is more usual) in the section title?
• As above, I do wonder if "Further developments" could also be folded into the "development and publication" section. It is, after all, about the publication of the artwork.
• The infobox refers to the illustrator only as "cover artist"
• The "lesbian novel" descriptor is used only in the infobox; it ought to be cited or removed, because nothing elsewhere in the article directly describes the protagonists as lesbian.
• The lead is a little on the short side. I'd add a sentence about the themes of the novel, at the least.
• The infobox describes it as being published in the US, but there's a sentence in reception describing it as a Canadian comic, which is a little confusing.
• I don't know that you've to describe Salkowitz as a "senior contributor"; it isn't clear what the title means. I'd suggest sticking with the language used for other reviewers.
• Most sources look solid, but I'm a little hesitant about "The Mary Sue" and "The Lily". Do they have enough editorial oversight to qualify as reliable sources?
• I skimmed a couple of reviews; the article does a very reasonable job, as far as I can see, of representing what they say about the quality of the book, but the reviews seem fairly clear cut in stating that this is a depiction of a bad, even abusive, relationship, and that it's Laura Dean who is responsible; the article shies away from saying that, intentionally or otherwise. I think that's something that could be made clearer in the themes section.

@Vanamonde93:, Hello. Thank you so much for your feedback and advice. I've been a little busy this past week with my classes. I'll be incorporating your feedback into the article over the next 2–3 days or so. I'm not sure if there can be an extension for the GA process, but if so, I would greatly appreciate that. Thank you and best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Soulbust: That's totally fine; there's no formal deadline for the process; I set a default deadline of a week because leaving things open indefinitely seems silly, but I'm happy to extend it. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Soulbust: have you been able to find the time to work on this? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Sorry I haven't gotten back to you earlier on this. I have been all over the place recently, except for here. I've finally started editing the article based on your feedback. I've checked off up to the Callista Brill issue so far. I elaborated that Buddy and Eric are her friends in her social circle, would this need a further elaboration, because in the novel that's essentially the only real role they play. Also, I expanded the plot, this was my bad for not having done so in the first place. Soulbust (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I've checked off some more, up to the issue of the infobox describing it as published in the U.S. That issue was also confusing to me when originally writing this article, because it makes sense to put Canada for country bc Tamaki is a Canadian comics writer, but the Infobox book template lists the Country parameter as the country of original publication. I added an efn note to hopefully clarify this in the article. Other edits I've made include linking to articles you suggested, and merging the "Publication history" and the "Further developments" sections into the "Development" (now "Development and publication") section. I have not gotten around to expanding the lead as of right now, but will do that shortly. Soulbust (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

For The Mary Sue and The Lily sources: for the former, I've cited a tweet from Rosemary that I think helps when paired with the Mary Sue reference for the information about the cover release. I'm leaving in the May 2019 Mary Sue reference because it is opinion-based, which seems okay as per these discussions. As for The Lily, I could not find a discussion about its reliability on the RS Noticeboard, but I think it's okay in this situation since it's not used exclusively to quote Tamaki and Valero-O'Connell's statements from an interview that The Lily itself conducted.

For Forbes source: I included senior contributor to describe Rob Salkowitz because Forbes listed him as that, rather than as "Forbes staff". As per this listing, it seems that Forbes contributors' pieces "may not be reliable". Taking this reference away doesn't cause the article to lose much. Of the 3 times it's invoked, I would mainly just want to keep the critical reception by Salkowitz of the novel, which I would want to keep since it touches on how the novel covers gender-fluidity of teens in the 2010s. But I am asking your advice here, so should this be kept in the article? Soulbust (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Soulbust: Those changes look good, thanks. I'll wait for you to expand the lead; also one grammar issue is still unresolved, you may have missed it. I would suggest duplicating the efn note about Canadian authorship where the book is described as "Canadian" in the prose. With respect to Forbes, I don't think there's an issue with reliability, because it's a commentary, and presented as such; I just think "senior contributor" is a little peacock-ish, and would prefer the prose to read "Writing for Forbes, Rob Salkowitz said..." or equivalent. Just omit the title, which I don't think adds anything. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, Okay, I just edited the article to address those minor issues, as well to expand the lead. I think it's good to go, but I'm definitely open for any more feedback. Soulbust (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks good, passing. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate all the feedback. Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)