Jump to content

Talk:The Hate U Give

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Caela mcgee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA status, what's left to do

[edit]

Innisfree987 and any others who are interested I have put it into the GA nomination queue. I'm actively trying to find a reviewer because in my dream world this hits the main page with a DYK on October 19 to coincide with the film's release. I had initially planned to include quotes from the citations from the Youth Media Awards in the awards section but I'm not sure it really would add anything beyond just heaping more praise. At this point I think the GA basis are checked and don't have any other major changes planned absent feedback from the reviewer as I feel like I've exhausted the new sources that I found. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You read my mind about the DYK!
As for further development, the main thing I notice missing, and will try to help develop, is to be forthright about how concerns around race and racism figure into the book's significance. Right now we don't even say directly that Thomas is black, and likewise for all the people whose deaths and ensuing protests shaped the novel. We do subsequently note the book is inspired by Black Lives Matter, and mention it as diversifying authorship, but as it's a fairly central concern animating the book and attention to it, I think NPOV obliges us to be direct about indicate that.
Other points: I think we might be able get a somewhat better photo of Thomas with a screenshot from this Library of Congress video (as materials made by, I believe, government employees, my understanding is they are all reusable for our purposes--see the third paragraph under About Copyright and the Collections). Obviously a hi-res still would be the best but the video at least has a better angle on her, so we could get a freezeframe where she's looking more toward the camera rather than off-screen.
I think on what other last tweaks we might make... Innisfree987 (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49 and Innisfree987: I have gone ahead and passed this article to GA as, in my judgment, it sufficiently meets all the criteria – GA ain't FA. Congratulations, and well done! Of course, I highly encourage you to continue editing the content and improve it at your convenience, but the article is now eligible for GADYK. Thank you for your work on this one! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC) corrected "GA" to "DYK", Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK discussion

[edit]

I'm excited to have passed GA. We have a week to get into the DYK queue. Possible hooks I've thought of:

Any thoughts? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! A few more ideas to add to the pot:
We can probably include as many or as few as we like, to give DYK reviewer options. If we include Oscar Grant I might suggest using "influenced" rather than "inspired" (since inspired has a positive connotation we wouldn't use regarding the tragedy). I'm not sure about the phrasing in terms of the role in diversifying publishing--def important subject but I don't want to sell her short. When 13 publishing houses bid on a property, she's the one doing them the favor rather than the other way around :) Maybe something about her leading the way in diversifying YA, if there's a source that backs that up that phrasing? There are a couple sources I'd been meaning to re-read anyway so I'll look and see if anything sparks ideas. But this is great, definitely one of these should work, no question! And I've got some reviews "saved up" so when we're ready with the nomination we can use one of those for the QPQ credit, no prob. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a DYK expert but I believe you're technically supposed to review at least 1 hook for each one you submit so we should probably decide on our favorite two or three? I'll throw-out my favorite two (and an alt):
  • Alt: DYK that thirteen publishing houses bid for the rights to publish Angie Thomas's debut novel The Hate U Give which would stay on the best sellers list for 50 weeks?
Thoughts? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good news is, it's only one review required per nomination and actually usually reviewers like it when you offer multiple hooks to pick from, so we can include as many as we like (the reviewer will pick one, although usually in discussion with nominators). The best-seller list and length of time on it is sometimes the object of criticism since its methodology and thus credibility/significance aren't known, so I might suggest we skip that and propose:
If these sound ballpark ok to you, I'll start the nomination and then we can keep discussing hooks, starting the nom doesn't mean it's set in stone and anyone can still suggest more ideas. And that way we can get the ball moving forward for Oct 19. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These revisions work for me. Know that I'm happy to pitch-in however at the DYK. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, your input will be very welcome especially if the reviewer has any questions. I'll transclude it here momentarily! Innisfree987 (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Hate U Give/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: L235 (talk · contribs) 20:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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:
    Excellent work. I've left suggestions for improvements to the prose below, but this passes the GA standard without those changes.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  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:
    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:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    This was on the edge – I was somewhat concerned by what looked like close paraphrasing from sources. I still encourage you to reword sentences that seem structurally similar to the sources, but the article sufficiently complies with policy.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  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:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This article passes the GA criteria. Congratulations, and good work! It's clear you've put a lot of work into it – you should be proud of what you've created. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Suggestions

[edit]
  • "Starr's identity as the witness is initially kept secret from just about everyone outside Starr's family, even her younger brother Sekani. This means that Starr's two best friends, Hailey Grant and Maya Yang, and Starr's white boyfriend, Chris, who all attend Williamson Prep together, are unaware of Starr's connection to the news story." -> "Starr's identity as the witness is initially kept secret from just about everyone outside Starr's family, even her younger brother Sekani – leaving Starr's two best friends, Hailey Grant and Maya Yang, and Starr's white boyfriend, Chris, who all attend Williamson Prep together, all unaware of Starr's connection to the news story." (I personally think the "This means that" makes for bad prose, but this won't prevent GA status.)
  • "took the charge" – what does this mean? Maverick admitted to the crime? I'm not familiar with the expression, but that might just be a me thing.
  • In the reception section, consider removing "At the same time"
Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kevin for your review and the pass. I have incorporated the suggestions you made and glad you liked the article. As I think I noted to your privately Innisfree987 created and did much of the work in this article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great team effort! I definitely wouldn't have brought it up to GA any time soon on my own--not least because I hadn't ventured into GA before! Thank you both Barkeep49 and L235 for this excellent introduction! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Suggestion

[edit]

Hi, A quick note - Should there be any sources in the lead? Currently, the lead has none. Car1000 (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- As a quick suggestion, it might be worthwhile to look into adding more toward the response this book created. Due to the fact that this novel is banned from multiple schools. Just a thought, since the novel made waves in the political world as well, I feel like this point might be missed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauren cox21 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thought Lauren cox21. I'm not sure exactly what you're thinking but if you have high quality sources that covers some of the dispute over how the book has been challenged, we should definitely get that information into the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Barkeep49. Most of the information in the lead is general and known about the book with little need for anything to be sourced. However, any good sources that you find on the controversy would certainly be helpful as well. Best, Geovov (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New disambiguation page

[edit]

I recently turned THUG from a redirect into a disambiguation page, listing this book and its film adaptation, since a lot of the promotional materials for the movie indicate that "The Hate U Give" can be abbreviated as "THUG". Previously, it redirected to Tony Hawk's Underground. Qzekrom (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qzekrom, thank you for catching that! What would you think of pointing it to Thug? I was going to suggest adding Thug Life and/or Thug Life: Volume 1 since they are the source of the book's title, but all of the above (including the Tony Hawk game) are already mentioned at Thug disambiguation, so maybe just having one is simplest? Innisfree987 (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea! Thanks for the catch. Qzekrom (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steps towards FA

[edit]

I would like to get this ready to nominate to be a featured article (which would be the first such nomination from me). Here's what I am seeing as necessary:

  • There needs to be a Themes section
  • Figure out how to incorporate this source
  • Have a copyedit by GOCE
  • Think about coverage of the audiobook. Does it needs its own subsection? There is other audiobook related content currently not covered

Anything else anyone can think of? Innisfree987 I would love any thoughts you might have about avenues for improvement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources I've found which might or might not be useful:
[1]
[2]
Daniels, Greig. "THE HATE U GIVE." Collected Magazine, no. 22, 2018, p. 27. Academic OneFile, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A549719064/GPS?u=wikipedia&sid=GPS&xid=41a494df. Accessed 29 Mar. 2019.
[3]
[4]
In taking a look at this article with fresh eyes it's not quite as close to FA ready as I'd thought but still seems like a candidate that can get there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Need to make sure the cover illustrator information has a source in the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
References need to be made more consistent. Almost all of them use templates, but there are a few that need to be converted to use templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jonesey95. I fixed a couple as I was improving it but hadn't thought to systematically find them. I believe all references are now using a reference template. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note to anyone reading this, but as of yesterday I have checked off everything on my to-do list and have submitted it for a GOCE pass ahead of an eventual FA nomination. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Points

[edit]
Lead
  • Consider putting the year of publication in the first sentence.
 Done Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Yes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
  • "caused the book to be one of the most challenged books of 2017" > maybe better to be more general in the lead and say something like "The American Library Association listed it at in the top ten of its most challenged books of 2017. Also, flip out the source to cite directly to the ALA, here.
I've included who said it was one of the most challenged books in the LEAD, flipped the source, and noted its inclusion in 2018. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
  • "The book was adapted into a film by Fox 2000 in October 2018" > links needed to the studio and the film of the same name.
 DoneBest, Barkeep49 (talk)
Development and publication
  • "initially developed the project as a short story" > did she simply write a story in reaction to the shooting or did she intend to expand into a novel from the start? The next sentence says it unexpectedly expanded (as happens with such projects) so that needs to be clarified Victoria (tk) 19:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It started as a short story for a college assignment but then she realized that there was a novel to be told. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Yes, but there's a time lag. Presumably she didn't sit down to write a book in 2009, so it needs clarification. Victoria (tk) 19:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • put it aside temporarily >> for two months, two years? how long
Sources don't say directly but she was 22 in 2010 and the other stuff didn't happen until 2014, she took to twitter in 2015, so I've put a generic few years description. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
That's sort of OR, you need to pin down what happened and when. Victoria (tk) 19:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While writing the short story, the project quickly expanded, though Thomas put it aside temporarily after graduation; speaking to her hometown newspaper, Thomas said, "I wanted to make sure I approached it not just in anger, but with love even"" >> awkward sentence here. Either split in two or tighten and combine.
 Done
  • Provide dates for the subsequent shootings, Treyvon Martin, etc, because it gives context to the process (and the readers won't necessarily know)
Isn't that purpose served by the wikilinks or even just mousing over them will give the years. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Again, there's a time lag that's important to your article. Her 2009 story preceded the other events, so you should somehow incorporate those dates so the readers can understand without having to click out of the article - and possibly never back. Victoria (tk) 19:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did she have a manuscript when she started to pitch it, or was it bought before the manuscript was complete?
She had a completed draft, or something close to it, when she took to Twitter. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
  • "Since its publication, Thomas has become a symbol of attempts by publishers to publish more young adult African-American novelists" > not sure what's meant here.
Symbol wasn't my word (but was the sources which gave more context), it was changed by a well meaning editor since I posted to FAC. I changed back my wording - essentially Thomas is cited and used to show that book publishers are changing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

I've done some copyediting, will come back to look at the rest later. Victoria (tk) 15:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and feedback. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing
  • I took a quick look at the references and some seem iffy to satisfy the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria that requires best high quality sources. The higher quality sources seem to be underutilized (and substituted for the lower quality sources): the Washington Post, The Atlantic, and NPR The New York Times article has much more information than is being used here. Before going further, my advice is to re-read the linked sources above, and search for other high quality sources. Take a look at the reviews for her current book (published in February) which might have insight re themes and style, then work in all the better sources. Swap out as many of the low quality sources as possible and focus on the story - a young woman writes a short story and eight years later is in a bidding war for her first novel. That's astounding and needs more emphasis. Also don't forget, there's no deadline! I'm not around every day and work slowly so there's no need to rush this. Victoria (tk) 20:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding another source, which is quite good: Shelat, Jay. ""I swear those things are so fresh": Sneakers, Race, and Mobility in The Hate U Give." CEA Critic, vol. 81 no. 1, 2019, pp. 70-74. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/cea.2019.0011 https://muse.jhu.edu/article/721711 Victoria (tk) 23:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

[edit]

Barkeep49, I'm assuming you don't want to go ahead with this, but posting the notes I've made so they're here:

  • This PW article gives more info re the auction: [5]
  • These source would be excellent for the style & themes section (which could easily be combined), ie. explaining various literary devices in a good analysis: [6], [7]
  • Style needs to discuss symbolism and imagism, prose, flashbacks, characterizations. This list is based on a very limited sources I looked at.
  • Themes needs to discuss class inequalities, racial injustice, code switching (navigating opposite environments), fear (of speaking out) and courage (to speak out), racial inequality, income inqualities, Shakur’s THUG life, generational tensions. Again, based on a limited number of sources, so there's plenty out there to be found.
  • Eliminate excessive quoting: two of the four sentences in the style section has attributed quotes, which isn't really necessary for a subject that not in dispute. A similar pattern is found in the themes section, which is a mashup of reception and plot summary, rather than delving in-depth into the themes. A good example is To Kill a Mockingbird. Similarly the reception section is listy and filled with quotes. Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections is an excellent resource for reception sections. Because of the excellent reviews it's really only necessary to note that the book was well received. Pick one or two sources to quote from (probably the NYT), but no need to mention less well known publications. The current "Challenges" doesn't really need a subsection. Make it a para in awards, and trim down a bit.

This is a really nice story about a debut book and a young author who has quickly achieved success and by all accounts is extremely talented so there's a lot that can be done. Finally, don't forget that literature articles, especially one such as this, have the highest bar for prose at FAC. Once all the sources and content are in place, focus on copyediting.

Hope this is helpful. Victoria (tk) 23:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle, I am wishing to go ahead but as your penultimate paragraph again makes clear, it's not ready to do so by a country mile. The feedback has all been incredibly helpful and I am very appreciative of your time, thoughts, and feedback. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, not a country mile away at all! I thinks it's easily done and would be very rewarding. It's a nice story and topical. Ping me if necessary. Victoria (tk) 21:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simonverse template

[edit]

This page currently has a "Simonverse" template on it, but nothing in the article mentions those books. I've started a discussion on the template and would appreciate input from editors working on this article. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 21:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"One-fifteen"

[edit]

I notice that there has been a bit of an issue whether to call the police office "One-fifteen" or just refer to him as a police officer. I have not read the book, so I am definitely unqualified to make this decision. For anyone who has read the book, is the name of the officer at all relevant, or would it just be a better fit with Wikipedia's encyclopedic style to refer to him as a police officer? FieryRaven (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"One-Fifteen" is treated by the novel like it's the character's name. It's expedient and faithful to the source to do so here. There's more than one police officer in the story, so it helps disambiguate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hate_U_Give&oldid=1206587356"