Talk:Moonrise (novel)/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I made a number of minor copy-edits.[1]

The synopsis section is usually placed above details of production, etc.

Cherith Baldry said that it was hard to write the end of Moonrise and the death of Feathertail.[18] When asked why the authors kill off characters like Feathertail, Victoria Holmes, the editor, responded: "because deaths are so much fun to write about! Seriously, the essence of all good stories lies in drama and conflict, and what is more dramatic than losing a beloved character? This sentence should be in the preceding section

in the case of Moonrise, there are at least 65 named characters Be a little more specific, please.

Otherwise, the prose meets the "reasonably well written" criterion.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Amazon, Writers Unboxed, Wands and Worlds, Karen Cary's blog do not appear to be reliable sources. Can you demonstrate that they meet the WP:RS criteria?

The School Library review cites should have the "subscription required" parameter.

The Chinese article title needs to be translated into English, the language parameter should be used for foreign language sources
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
All the reviews are from US publications, it would be good to see reviews from other countries to ensure broad coverage.
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):
One image used with a non-free use rationale and caption
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The main problem is that this article has few reliable sources. On hold for seven days for these issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there seems to be little in the way of broad coverage of this subject, the cited chatroom manuscripts and the blog of another author give little or no detail about this book, so I will not be listing this. It may well be better merged into the parent article. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

In terms of the sources: I will try to replace the amazon references to references to the publisher, but I don't think HarperCollins provides a release date for its UK edition of Warriors (which is essentially the same as the US version). The next two sources you mention are Writers Unboxed and Wands and Worlds. In my usage of both sites, I have refrained from citing anything that could be seen as unreliable. What I am citing, if you check those pages, are interview tramscripts, the Wands and Worlds one being in the form of an author chat (I have only cited statements made by the authors, and not the other participants of the chat). I feel therefore that those two should be considered reliable, as they are not much different from any other interview transcript published on the internet. Kate Cary's blog: While I understand we don't normally cite blogs, the blog is written by Kate Cary, one of the Erin Hunters. If I remember correctly, what I've cited is an FAQ/about myself sort of page which she claims to have created to help students doing projects about her, or something along those lines. I'm not sure if you consider that reliable, but again, seeing as it essentially is more direct statements from the author(s), I personally feel that it is reliable (I mean, what author would stick lies about themselves on their own blog?) I may be kind of busy, this week, but will do my best to resolve the issues raised. Bramble claw x 01:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to demonstrate that these sources are reliable, which says: "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it." The onus is on the source provider to prove its reliability. I note that the blog doesn't actually support the statement that it cites. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no use of any citations about Warriors anywhere. I can't prove that the sources I use are used in a widespread fashion, because no one uses them at all. Then again, there isn't any "widespread doubt" about the reliability of the author chats either, because, again there is no use of the source by anyone, thus there is no one to cast doubts. I will admit that Scottish Highlands are not mentioned on the blog, but it does mention Loch Lomond. Bramble claw x 22:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves seems to okay the blog as a reference, and from my queries at the WP:RSN, it seems to okay the author chats as well. I think the question that needs to be asked here is not whether or not the publishers of these interviews are considered reliable by others, but rather "Is it likely that this transcript is made up, and said interview never occured?" Bramble claw x 22:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also already mentioned all reviews I could find. While I'd love to add foreign reviews, either I can't find them, or they just don't exist. There aren't many reviews in the US, so I doubt there can be many outside. I've removed all Amazon as references (which turned out to have been rather unnecessary anyway). Bramble claw x 22:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that I've written quite a lot above in my response, so I'll give a short summary of the above here: I feel that these are reliable sources per WP:RS#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. One of the points under that section is that there be no reasonable doubt to its authenticity. These sources are likely to be authentic: for example, many people can attest to having participated in these author chats, and the authors often mention the author chats themselves, proving that they likely happened. I have also asked about the usage of these sources before on the RSN, and the two sections are here and here. I hope, therefore, that you will agree with me that these sources should be considered reliable. Bramble claw x 14:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]