Jump to content

Talk:Lots of Mommies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleLots of Mommies has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starLots of Mommies is part of the Jane Severance series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 24, 2022Good article nomineeListed
August 8, 2023Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 5, 2022.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that there is disagreement about whether Lots of Mommies, in which a girl is raised by four mothers, should be considered to be an LGBTQ picture book?
Current status: Good article

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk10:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • ... that there is disagreement about whether Lots of Mommies, in which a girl is raised by four mothers, should be considered an LGBTQ picture book? Source: Crisp 2010: "Although it is not ambiguous for Horning, in actuality, it is the semiotics that establish the text as queer. [...] While it may be easy to see why Lots of Mommies has not been counted as an LGBTQ picture book..."; Peel 2015: "and Lots of Mommies, which I still don’t agree is about a lesbian family because there’s nothing explicit there that shows that any of them are lesbians. I mean they’re living in a commune, and they have interesting names. But you know there’s nothing that says that any of them are a couple."

Moved to mainspace by Bobamnertiopsis (talk). Self-nominated at 21:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is new enough, long enough and well sourced. Hook is cited and interesting. Since qpq is done and there's no copyvio, this one looks all set. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To T:DYK/P5

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lots of Mommies/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 12:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content
  • Link picture book in lead.
  • "by Jane Severance, illustrated by Jan Jones" → "written by Jane Severance and illustrated by Jan Jones"
  • Background should be before Plot imo.
  • "her mother Jill" → "her biological mother Jill", since all of the women are her mothers?
  • Link jungle gym.
  • Lollipop Power is linked in the lead and not in the body.
  • I would like to see the Background section expanded with the stuff in When Megan Went Away.
  • "In 2012 the" → "In 2012, the"
  • Link commune.
  • Use an as of template for "As of the 2010s". Also, this is a bit dated, is there no more recent info for this?
Refs
  • "The Lion and the Unicorn" link in the first citation is to the heraldic symbol, not the journal.
  • Spot-checks done on "Southern Sisters children's bibliography" found that the reference supported the claims made.
  • Spot-checks done on "Setting the record 'straight': An interview with Jane Severance" found that the reference supported the claims made.
Images
  • The one non-free image is correctly licensed.
  • Hi AryKun, thanks for this kind review. I've addressed all of the above points as requested. Regarding the "as of the 2010s" bit, unfortunately there's no more recent info here; Lots of Mommies had a burst of interest early last decade but hasn't been written about much in the '20s so far. Here's hoping there's more scholarship in the pipeline but this really covers all there's been lately. —⁠Collint c 00:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]