Talk:The Prince and the Dressmaker/GA1

GA review

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

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 05:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starts Good Article Review Page. Hopefully we will start the review shortly. Thank you --Whiteguru (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Observations

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

Consider if we need a link to Film rights in in the lead ...

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

Reference 1 loops with a network protocol error. Might another date be accessed?
References 5 and 6 are both particularly positive for genderfluid young adults. Well sourced.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):

Plot is handled well.
This is an emergent genre and the fairy tale ending attracts both criticism and praise. Well handled in this article and in the references. There is a sense that this could end up being a benchmark novel for young adults and their gender dysphoria.

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:

NPOV is presented in this article.

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:

Page created 14 January 2020
1,334 page views in the last 30 days
3,785 page views in the last 90 days with a daily average of 43 views;
Page has 52 edits by 8 editors;
10 Category edits: ok
41 links to page; 19 external links
Page history shows no reverts nor edit-warring; page is considered stable;

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

File:The Prince and the Dressmaker cover.jpg = (Book cover) ~ illustrates an article discussing the book in question; fair use is accepted.
File:Jen Wang at BookExpo (05369).jpg = Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.

Overall:

Two minor issues raised above; these are not show-stoppers.
Well scribed and well sourced! --Whiteguru (talk)`

Passed

Thanks Whiteguru! I've made suggested changes as best I can. The Forbes archive link still proves troublesome but I've swapped it around with the regular URL so that should be the one most folks click on if they click through to that ref. Thanks for your review and do check this book out if you haven't—I've read it a few times and cried each and every one. —Collin^{t c} 14:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]