Talk:When Megan Went Away/GA1

GA Review

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.

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 20:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Review

*I have not dived into sources too deeply but I am concerned that the overwhelming bulk of the article is tied to an interview with the author. I am going to ask for a second opinion about that element before continuing further with the review. I should add if a second opinion giver wants to look at the interview if they send me an email I am happy to provide a copy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information on the illustrations. As a picture book this element needs coverage.

I wish I had more to offer this aspect of the article. None of the coverage explores Schook's illustrations beyond one line in Gordon 1980 which I've added to the reception section. —Collin^{t c} 01:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can only use what the sources give you. This quote helps. Did any of the sources talk about the medium used (e.g. ink, oils, etc)? If so that is a detail worth adding. If not I feel OK now that there's some acknowledgement of the illustrations. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*I tweaked the second sentence of the first paragraph to try and make it clearer. I also did a few other copyedit clean-ups.

~~Much appreciated, I think it reads much better that way! —Collin^{t c} 02:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~I'm not sure what value the straight forward story quote in plot is adding~~

~~Probably not much. Removed. —Collin^{t c} 02:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~she finished school after a decade but was teaching preschool by the late 1970s Not sure if this is needed but if it's kept I would point out preschool is a form of education~~

What I was attempting to convey here was a slightly nontraditional chronology: she moved, then started college, then started teaching preschool, and then later finished college. It's ultimately not super important, so I've trimmed part of it, maintaining only that she moved to study education and started teaching preschool. —Collin^{t c} 02:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A substantial portion of the article feels loosely tied to When Megan. Examples include the longer author biography, the cultural impact of Heather, and details like the sentence which begins By 1979, their output included Martin's Father

I've done some trimming and rearranged sections a little; you're right that the author bio was too detailed and some of the content about Heather got tangential. There's perhaps a world where Severance deserves her own article only I think press coverage of her might not push her over the GNG (yet) so without a separate article, I do feel like some biographical details do belong in this article. Let me know if you feel that the ones that remain feel adequately connected. —Collin^{t c} 02:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Writing in 1989, Virginia L. Wolf suggested that while children reading When Megan Went Away might fail to understand Megan and Shannon's mother as lesbians, adults readers would likely understand their relationship and might be able to recognize elements of lesbian culture in Schook's illustrations, like a copy of folk singer Willie Tyson's album Full Count leaning on a sofa. feels like a close paraphrase and the "like a copy" clause is unnecessary

~~Trimmed and drastically reworded. —Collin^{t c} 21:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Since Davis doesn't currently have a Wiki page some context explaining why her opinion matters would be useful. e.g. "According to Education Professor Danne Davis..."~~

~~Did this for Davis and for Wolf. —Collin^{t c} 17:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Not sure if this is worth doing but it feels like Davis wrote that When Megan Went Awaywas "Perhaps too early for [its] time".[20] is more about it's legacy than it's reception and might even work as the first sentence of that section

~~Done. —Collin^{t c} 21:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~The fact that the word lesbian is only used paratextually doesn't need 3 citations, in my opinion, just one to the book.~~

The three different citations are for three different things but I think two will suffice: one (Crisp 2010) that says that the book doesn't use the word lesbian and then the book itself for the exact quote. —Collin^{t c} 02:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, the idea that Alyson took credit for publishing the first lesbian book and only stopped thanks to Severance needs a source other than Severance

That's fair. Without further sourcing to verify the causal relationship, I've left a simply chronological one. —Collin^{t c} 02:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technically not required for a GA, but I would recommend either choosing to have citations and then using the short form in the references or just having references and using something like Template:pn to denote page numbers. Using both formats gets confusing.

I see what you're saying. My justification for the current format was that if I was only using one page (or page span), I could afford to keep the full reference in the ref tag but I do actually enjoy the prospect of having all the refs down in a separate section. Lemme work on this. —Collin^{t c} 02:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Donezo. —Collin^{t c} 02:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Definitely cleaner. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Discussion

I might not fully get through this until next week but I anticipate I should access to most of the sources used and this is up my alley in terms of being a picture book. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barkeep49. Wow! I was definitely not expecting anyone to jump on this so quickly but I'm glad to work through the review with you. I can email you pdfs of the four journal articles cited in here, as well as a jpg of the Gordon review if that would be useful. Naidoo 2012 can be found on Google Books and Naidoo 2018 can be accessed through the "Read a sample of the book now!" link here. I also have a physical copy of Megan itself if you'd like any photos of that.

Re the issue of much of the article being sourced to the Crisp interview, a lot of the biographical info is obviously Severance's own words, as are her reactions to Heather Has Two Mommies, but other elements are Crisp's words/assertions, which I hope makes it so the article is not as solely reliant on one source. Thanks again! —Collin^{t c} 00:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

In my opinion, after having a look through the article, the use of the interview is not too concerning as it is predominantly being used to source background and writing information which is what I would expect. If there was any more sources for this information (even just other interviews with the author) and maybe a bit more third-party reception stuff then I think that would help even more with this issue. If the reviewer feels that the article meets the rest of the criteria then I would suggest they not let this issue stand in the way of passing the review. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adamstom.97. I will proceed with my fuller review in the next couple of days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding the thanks, Adamstom.97. Barkeep49, there's one more ref I'm going to try to hunt down tomorrow. It was published in Ms. in 1986 and I'm not sure if it's an article about or review of the book, but I've got to go into the local library and sift through some microfilm so hopefully within the next two days I'll be able to add any relevant info from that source to the page. Thanks —Collin^{t c} 21:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I will likely review other elements while you do that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found the article. It was actually just a reprint of the story which was mostly not useful but I added what I could here. The article is more or less stable now, I think, as I've pretty much exhausted the available information. —Collin^{t c} 16:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobamnertiopsis: I have completed my first go through the article and have left suggestions above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Barkeep49, this is a thorough review. I'll look into this stuff in the coming week! —Collin^{t c} 20:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barkeep49, I've responded to each point you've raised! Let me know if you think more is still to be done! —Collin^{t c} 21:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobamnertiopsis: Most of the way there. One question I left about illustrations. I went to do another read of the article on the other two points that I've not crossed off. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: sounds good. On the illustrations, I feel as though I've hit a wall–pretty much none of the available sources but there's one or two more things I've requested that perhaps will say anything substantive about them. Thanks —Collin^{t c} 23:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobamnertiopsis: Sorry about this - it dropped off my radar. I went ahead and made an edit to address my concerns about broadness. If you're ok with these changes great, I think it's ready to pass. If you think some/all should be added back in feel free to revert some/all and then let's discuss. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Thanks! I think your edits are fair. No worries, there is no rush whatsoever on this review. I was gonna ping you in a few days but we're here now. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve the page based on the available resources. Thanks for the review! —Collin^{t c} 00:12, 15 November 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.