Talk:The Lion & the Mouse

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 Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Lion & the Mouse/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 12:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll do this in a bit. Let me know if you are available yet.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham Thanks for taking this on. I will be around this week and then will be on vacation for a week where I legitimately don't know what my internet access will be like (though I will be on mobile regardless so my ability to do serious editing is limited). I am pretty prompt in replying to reviewer feedback so most of my noms have finished within a day or two of the review going up so my vacation might potentially not impact the review at all. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Article looks good, checked copvio. Will come back tomorrow, because lions and mice need to help each other out.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: Thanks for your time. See my responses below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Introduction and limitations

Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I have little knowledge on the subject of children's books. I am a great fan of Aesop though. Pinkney's illustrations remind me of the great Dutch illustrator Anton Pieck.

Overview

I have assessed the article at C now.

1. Prose:

• No copyright violations.
• The grammar is often slightly incorrect, and language used is sometimes quite unusual. Below I will do a detailed review.

2. MOS: Not much to mention here, looks good, but shouldn't the portal link be below the body of the article?

 Done

3. References layout: No dead links. Sources used can be identified.

4. Reliable sources: Yes.

5. Original research: None found.

6. Broadness: yes.

7. Focus: Yes.

8. Neutral: Yes.

9. Stable: article is stable.

10-11. Pics: Fair-use rationale is given.

Detailed review per section

I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. To keep communication to the point, you might want to use templates like  Done,  Doing...,  Not done,  Removed,  Added, and  Fixed. Please do not cross out my comments, as I will not yours but only my own. I will do the review of the lead mostly at the end.

Lead

• Pinkney, who has received five Caldecott Honors, became the first African American individual to win the Caldecott Medal for his illustrations in the book. This seems to contradict. Or are these different prizes?

A Medal is winning the award, an honor is the next level down. This is explained in the link Caldecott article and I admit causes some confusion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Okay, got it.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Background and publication

• to balance retelling a classic story and the African-American experience. and conveying the African-American experience?

 Done

• Please don't use contractions. They are not used on Wikipedia per guideline.

There were two contractions in the article. One is in a quote so obviously we wouldn't change it. The other has been fixed. The remaining uses of 's are possessives. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Great, good.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• When he showed it to his editor he gave her a version with the animals sounds and one without You have to explain first what you mean by animal sounds. I.e. words that mimic animals sounds, right?

Added the adjective onomatopoetic (with link) to clarify. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

• that the animals sounds added to the story That's spoken language. You probably need to write something along the lines of added value or improved.

 Done

• to think of the Serengeti as a place that needed saving Please briefly describe the role of this place in the book.

Added a couple words to clarify that the Sergenti is the book's setting. Does that work for you? Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Plot

The plot summary is a little short. Can we expand on it?

I am a big believer in WP:NOVELPLOT and so given that it's a wordless picture book, I think the summary is the appropriate length. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Alright, then.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Illustrations and design

• This personality can also be shown by the body parts that receive close-up illustrations Shouldn't personality be plural here? Also, receive illustrations is a bit awkward, maybe simplify this.

 Done

Story and themes

• Pinkney is able to overcome an issue many who would adapt an Aesop fable in converting a short story into a full length book. This sentence doesn't make much sense, please rewrite.

 Done

• which does not tell the plot with words Redundant, you already mentioned this.

 Done

• telling is not an English noun.

 Done Indeed but retelling is :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Reception and awards

• It featured in many best of 2009 best book lists including those of This sentence is unfinished. Edit scar?

 Done Yep; deleted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

• What is an honor book?

Same idea as the caldecott. Not the winner by an "honorable mention". Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

having drawn 5 honor books Shouldn't this be having published five books that became honor books?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

He hasn't published the book merely created the illustrations (and it's possible to be a Caldecott honor winner and not be the author). Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Broadness

These are some things i'd like you to expand on:

• Several review mention the theme of friendship. I felt you hadn't mentioned this sufficiently.

 Done Good thought. In re-reviewing the sources I found one reference to friends and so I have added it as a conjunction in the collaboration sentence. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

• In this interview and this speech, Pinkney gives some details about his creative process which led to the book, which i think should be mentioned more in this GA.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Right now both those links go to the same place so I'm not sure what speech you're referring to. I did read the Language Arts magazine interview but did not find information not already included by other sources - what specifically are you seeing that you think should be included? It is certainly a good source about Pinkney, which is why I left it as a resource for someone to use on his talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a good idea to put good sources as links on the talk page. Well, i thought some details could help illustrate the creative process preceding the book: the great-granddaughter and the idea of ownership, for example, which was the reason why he chose a wordless book. I'll search for the acceptance speech again, sorry about that.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Here is the acceptance speech i was referring to: in it, Pinkney also mentions the idea of ownership, as well add the idea of nature speaking to us. There are also several artists mentioned that inspired him in his drawings.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 18:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought you might be referring to the Caldecott acceptance speech but didn't want to presume. I have reread the speech with your thoughts in mind. I would suggest sourcing what artists inspired Pinkney from the speech would be a failure of criteria 3b - those artists were not the inspiration for this book they were what inspired him generally. He goes into great detail about his use of words to represent sound, which is the focus of the better part of a paragraph in Background and publication. The rest of that paragraph touches on the remaining elements of his connection to this folk tale specifically. As the acceptance speech is explicitly mentioned in the article now, I have tweaked that sentence some in light of your comments. What do you think?

As for children taking ownership, does the revised sentence in conjunction with idea being summarized now in "Several critics commented on how this format requires great imagination and investment from the reader in order to follow the story" work? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Perfect. Nicely done. Next, we'll revisit the lead.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead, revisited

• I missed the part about themes in the story.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  Farang Rak Tham Hmm. I work hard to follow MOS:INTRO in proportion to the length of the article. I generally go with roughly a sentence in the LEAD per substantive paragraph. Story and lead has two paragraphs but only 8 sentences and so I only gave it a single sentence, choosing, based on its coverage in the sources, to focus the difficulties in adapting an aesop's fable, given the way that this fits with other themes (pun intended) found in the rest of the article and that the rest of the section is more a scattershot than a narrative. Does the clause I've added work for you? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Before I am passing the article, I have done quite a number of copy edits. Please check whether you agree with them.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham no problems from me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Then I finish with three short messages:

• There is a similar story in Buddhism, which I have added in the see also section.
• If you do a DYK, just let me know and I can help you out.
• And last but not least, I've got a few articles still waiting for GA assessment at WP:GAN#REL myself, so if you are available, please assess one.
  That said, I'm concluding this review and passing the article as GA. Congratulations, and I look forward to working together again sometimes.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.