Talk:Wildwood (novel)

The genre footnotes

It might be better aesthetically if all the refs used to cite the three different genres be collapsed into a note, perhaps along the lines of "Of the sources used in this article, the NYT uses a) Portland Mercury b) etc." The pile up of superscript is confusing to the eye. Just a thought. The Interior (Talk) 17:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I put the ones with 4 or more refs in the bulleted list form, which means there is some repetition in the footnotes, but it unclutters the main text. There are still footnotes with too many {{Rp}} page numbers from the book, but again the solution to that is citing the book multiple times. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm no citation wizard. Looks better now. The Interior (Talk) 19:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Plot section

The current plot summary is only a very brief paragraph. If you edit it, you'll notice that there is a commented out plot summary that is much longer and more detailed, but it only covers about half the book. It also is too detailed and will have to be pruned back, as explained in Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary. At the moment I'm leaving it as a short plot summary since that shouldn't be the focus of the article and it's better too short than too long, but I'll be expanding it later to try to hit the sweet spot required by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

“Portlandia” has become a lazy shorthand for oddball, quirky cool.

"Portlandia has become a lazy shorthand for oddball, quirky cool." From "Stop comparing everything to Portlandia" at Salon.com. Not sure if this is relevant to this article or not. While Salon's culture editor might be justifiably sick of writers comparing everything to Portlandia, it isn't really for us to judge. If lots of sources make the comparison, then it makes sense to mention it in this article. I guess. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Assessment

So right, I should have left a message. I'm sorry. Clearly this deserves to be assessed higher than a C, but I'm not qualified to do that. Since I saw you had it up for GA article, I assumed it would be fixed. I only assessed it to get it off the unassessed list. I'm very sorry if I did this wrong, or messed something up -- that wasn't my intent. I'm just a beginner who is trying to whittle down the unassessed list to the best of my abilities, and assuming if I do make a mistake someone will fix it.

I didn't do a "drive-by", I did read it. I'll un-label it and put it back on the unassesed list if that helps. Or feel free to change it yourself. Just please don't assume bad intentions, OK?Tlqk56 (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! The first time looked merely careless, and the second time appeared to be obstinacy. Without a descriptive edit summary it's hard to know what to think.

I really do think reading WP:GACN and WP:GA? will make a big difference in article assessment. It helps illustrate the degree of imperfection that is acceptable for GA, and then figuring out where B and C are in relation to that. Clearly, B must be lower than GA. FA is really the one that aims for the stars; the other grades are not nearly so strict. I think there's a tendency to fear grading too high, as if that will cause some harm. But recognizing good work has been shown to significantly influence editors to be more productive. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-04-30/Recent research. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent revisions

I can't say I support the recent round of changes. Changing Setting to Geographic setting is just wordy. What other kind of setting is there besides geographic? Same with changing Plot to Plot Summary. Moving the discussion of blunderbusses, flintlocks, and derailleur gears to an "illustrations" section is nonsensical. The point of the paragraph is that the novel doesn't worry about historical anachronism in technology, and the authors simply don't care about technical precision -- it's about the style and genre of the whole novel. It means it's soft fantasy, not hard fantasy. It isn't about the illustrations. The quotes make that clear: According to Ellis, they "just picked whatever we liked."

The plot summary in this version complies with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels -- it hits the major events and skips the bulk of the detail. Cutting it down to next to nothing is unnecessary. It doesn't make sense to cite Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels for some things, but then to completely ignore the article structure in the very same manual of style: Plot, Characters, Major themes, Style, Background, Publication history, etc. Most FAs follow this sectioning order as well. Deleting the publication history because "I'm not seeing a need for it"? Delete all mention of criticism from the lead because you don't like the word "cloying"?

It's misleading to only say it received positive reviews in the lead. It's inaccurate to make the technological inconsistency about the illustrations. Many of these edits have taken strong, specific, and well-cited statements, and generalized them with vague and bland versions, which is inaccurate and misleading. It all looks like rearranging for the sake of ownership, and Wikipedia:I just don't like it. But without being familiar with the sources, the only safe way to make rearrangements in the wording for their own sake is to make changes in the direction of specific to general. I've seen a lot of Wikipedia articles suffer this way, being "improved" by editors who don't actually know what the sources say. This can't be a good article if it isn't factually accurate.

One other question: how can the reviewer completely revise the article, and rewrite most of the wording? At that point the reviewer is promoting their own work to GA. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Setting, in fact, does not specifically refer to geography, and is used in fiction articles to describe in universe plot details, such as historical period and place. The way you used it, however, was in terms of background and development of the geographal context, which is different. The plot summary was excessive for a novel article but could certainly be worked back in; that's why I said it was a temporary removal in the edit summary. I think you have greatly misunderstood the MOS. Please read it a bit closer. I have no idea what you mean by ownership; my changes have only removed material that didn't belong (publication history sections arent used that way) and modified the layout. If there are several sentences in the illustration section that shouldn't be there, then please move them. I have little to no interest in this topic, so accusing me of ownership while I'm trying to improve this article to GA standard is quite humorous. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Update, since I'm back from work now, I'm going to complete copyediting and finish this review. I'll ignore your accusations, but I would encourage you to elevate your concerns to the project level. I will also make the recommended changes to the illustration section that you have noted. Viriditas (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at the current version, and I don't see any discussion of blunderbusses, flintlocks, and derailleur gears in the "illustrations" section, so I'm assuming you made a mistake. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Strike that, I see it now. I'm moving it. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I moved it, but I deleted the primary-sourced "goof" about the South Wood postman Richard. That's entirely irrelevant. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Your proposed plot summary version is approximately 1282 words. How does that comply with our best practices regarding plot summaries? Viriditas (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

If I eliminate the backstory, it is only 871 words, which is acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's acceptable, but poorly written, so I've removed it again. Viriditas (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Typically, this is how a "Setting" section is used. Viriditas (talk) 04:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

"Overall, the book received positive reactions." How is it misleading to say this, when you wrote it? Please see WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. Viriditas (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, you've recently claimed that the version you reverted does not meet WP:V. As I've requested of you several times now, could you please provide specific examples? This is the D stage in WP:BRD. I would be happy to agree to your edits if you could persuade me of their merits. As far as I can tell, they are not helpful, but I am willing to be convinced. Because you have not responded to my request, I will attempt to address it myself, very briefly, and expand in detail if needed. Let's start with the lead section and go from there:

Revisions[1]

• Added description of author (American singer-songwriter) as a compromise per objections raised in the review
• Clarification of plot in lead section. Previous version distracted from the plot, using peacock words such as "plucky, fantastic, epic, apocalyptic" etc. The old version also made strange claims that did not appear cited in the article, such as saying that the kids were "confronting adult authorities who are often cowardly and dishonest", which, aside from the fact that it doesn't appear discussed in the article, has nothing to do with any plot summary. Current version succinctly describes the plot without engaging in peacock language or unsourced tangents
• Removed WP:UNDUE focus on strange negative reviews when the novel clearly received mostly positive reviews. Per WP:LEAD, we should "define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight"
• Removed WP:SPECULATION about a planned series of book and WP:RELTIME and WP:FANCRUFT statements about the author's band being on hiatus

Let's address the changes in the lead section first, come to a compromise, and go from there. I'm willing to meet you somewhere in the middle. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

First question: have you or have you not read the sources? How can I persuade you of anything if your understanding of the topic is only hypothetical?

Please do not revert again. WP:BURDEN says that the editor who makes changes must provide evidence that they are verifiable. I can provide evidence that the older version is correct, but have you any idea whether your version matches the sources or not? The best thing for now is to keep the most accurate version of the article, and as time allows, I will work to incorporate your improvements, as long as they don't contradict the sources. But in the short term, it's best to be right before looking pretty.

As far as GA, please delist it. You never should have cavalierly passed it after I warned you the article no longer met WP:V.

So first tell me whether you are or are not familiar with the sources. Once we've both done the reading, there is a basis for discussion of specific facts. If you can't or won't read the sources, then you must AGF. That is, you have to either trust me or verify the sources yourself. You can't fail to verify yet also not trust me. So. What have you read? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Please show how the article fails verifiability with specific examples, as I have asked you several times now. You keep making this assertion but fail to provide any evidence. You keep quoting policies and guidelines but don't show any understanding of how we use them. Please also specifically address the points I've raised above regarding the lead section. Do not speculate about what I know or don't know, stick to the discussion. Per BRD, you should not be reverting but discussing the edits. Instead, you've tried to ignore the discussion about your edits and shift it to a discussion about editors. Please do not continue to do that. Viriditas (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no. You have not read the book, and have not even read the sources. You're bluffing here. Why? Why would anybody do that? Not just you. Lots and lots of hardcore veteran Wikipedians, guys in the 2,000 most active editors, even 1,000 most active, will fight to the death over stuff they have not, and will not ever read. Why? I don't get it. You'd have so much ammunition if you's just read the stuff. But you won't. I know I make mistakes; I'm not perfect.

Anyway, I will proceed to work through each issue, point by point. But it will take time. Please keep the more accurate version of the article while we go over this stuff. It's hard to convince anybody of anything when I'm the only one who has looked at the evidence. Per AGF, please trust, for the short term, that the current version is closer to the sources. More to follow. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You've got it completely backwards. You don't get to nominate and review the article. We go from the reviewed version, and you use the talk page to argue each point. This does not take as much time as you say, and you've been wasting a great deal of time distracting from the discussion and appealing to what you think I know or don't know. If something is inaccurate, specifically point it out and we will come to agreement or disagreement. So far, you've decided that you are both the nominator and reviewer, and that won't work. Viriditas (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I keep saying I want a third party, not you, not me, to review the article, and you keep saying you think I want to be the reviewer. That's so weird. No point in belaboring it, I guess. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

And, I keep telling you that you nominated the article and I reviewed it, not you. You can't revert the reviewed version for no reason. Great, you want a third party to review it, so have them review my version. You don't get to nominate and review, Dennis. You said there were problems with my reviewed version yet you've failed to identify any. What does that tell you? Viriditas (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, in case you forgot, while you were reverting you wrote in your edit summary, "See WP:BURDEN. the onus is on the editor who makes the changes to provide citations. I'm reverting to a version that meets WP:V." Could you please specify exactly which changes require citations and what part of the article doesn't meet V? You've said this many times now, and you've been asked for evidence each time, but you've failed to provide any. Are you making this up? Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary length

While awaiting answers for the broader issues, I will try to address some of the individual points. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels#Plot does not have specific word length guidelines, unlike Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Plot. Which makes sense, after all, feature films are usually about the same length and have much simpler plots than novels. An average novel might be 300 pages, but many run to 530, like Wildwood. And this book, for those who haven't read it, is almost all plot. If it's not plot, it's setting descriptions. Next to no character development. It's all "this happened", then "this happened", then this, then this. Etc. The one negative review was rather insightful on that point -- all the endless events become wearying. But to address the point here, the book has a really convoluted plot, and the MOS says longer summaries are OK in that case. One way I deal with the complexity of it is that is that the plot section has a summary: it goes through the whole thing in one paragraph, then goes through it all again in four sections. It takes up a lot of space and uses more words, but it makes the reader's life easier. If they really don't care that much about the plot, they can skip down. But if they do care, then I make the effort to explain it. One way to save words would be to delete the summary's preamble, but why? Really?

The rest of the plot section could be a bit shorter, but not much. It's only on the very edge of intelligibility now. Hack away at it more, and why bother at all? Might as well use the two sentence synopsis from the lead. It doesn't violate copyright or detail every event in the book. This much longer version actually comes close to mentioning every event in the book. But not all -- even that very long synopsis doesn't explain how Prue or Curis escape, or mention the rickshaw incident, and much, much more. A ton of crap happens in this book. Hopefully that's your cup of tea if you slog all the way to the end. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Please point me to a GA/FA plot section that is as poorly written and as long as yours. Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Guess we can agree to disagree about what is and isn't poorly written. I'd love to have a third opinion here. Especially from someone who has actually read the book. I tried to request a community review, but the GA process is a slow one. I'd be more than happy to dispense with this GA nonsense -- it's clearly harming the article. Please delist it from GA to end this harmful distraction. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, Dennis, you don't get to both nominate and review the article. You're operating under multiple misconceptions about how Wikipedia works. It isnt your article, and you are not the reviewer. You don't get to disrupt article improvement because you don't like the outcome. Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

And you're not Jimmy Wales. Consider just for one second that maybe you're operating under a misconception or two about how Wikipedia works. Repeatedly saying "you don't know how Wikipedia works" resolves nothing. It's bullying. We need a third opinion. Preferably somebody willing to do actual fact checking instead of just talk, talk, talk. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by talking on the talk page about problems and resolving them. Where did you directly address the problems I raised above? You've repeatedly claimed that you've reverted because the article did not meet V and was inaccurate. Please provide specific examples where the article does not meet V and is inaccurate. I've asked you to do this and you've refused. Why? Viriditas (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Because you made a massive number of changes in a very brief span, most with meaningless edit summaries like "ce". You make no reference to sources in your changes. I don't think you even realized you were deviating from what the sources said; how could you know? You weren't interested in the sources. It takes time for me to untangle something that far reaching. It's quick and easy, and no doubt fun, to do a massive, careless rewrite, shuffle words around and change them based on word counts and what sounds pretty. It takes time to fact check.

GA review isn't supposed to be a total rewrite of the article; that could never work. You should have just failed it if it was so awful. If you thought you could do better, then you should have read the sources, done your rewrite, and re-nominated it yourself.

Please be patient. I'll go over all of it here on the talk page. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

More assertions without any evidence. Provide a single example of a copyedit I made that deviates from the sources as you claim. Keep in mind, the number of unsubstantiated assertions you keep making is growing. So far, you have completely and totally failed to support them. So what we have here is an extreme case of ownership, followed by major disruption because you don't like the outcome of a GA. Have I missed anything? Viriditas (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely you could be a little more condescending. Are you really trying? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's get back on topic: here is a list of 75 good articles in the category of Children and young adult literature. How long is the average plot length? For the record, Wikipedia favors short plot summaries for good reason. Viriditas (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Negative review comments in lead

You really have to read all the reviews. Not only those cited in the footnotes, but also those not cited, in References. If not online for free, they're at ProQuest, Gale, or HighBeam. If you don't have access, email me for copies.

The reviews were almost all very mixed. Maybe "mixed but positive" should be the phrase used in the lead. The AV Club's review puts it in a nutshell: Grade B. Most of the others were more like B- or C+. The only "A" reviews were one-paragraph capsule reviews, often in quasi-independent trade journals, which shouldn't be taken too seriously. So the lead has to somehow reflect that almost all the reviews had serious reservations about this book, but on balance decided it was OK. Having one sentence that states what most of the liked about it, followed by a second sentence that enumerates what most of them agreed was wrong with it, conveys that as succinctly as possible. It is maybe not perfect, but pretty close to the correct due weight to include negative comments in the lead. The critics were not crazy in love with this book; most thought it was merely good enough, and hoped the sequel would be better.

One way to make room for this is to get rid of the Laika film option from the lead. It's a future event, not a done deal. Laika's a small company in a volatile industry. They could go bust overnight. If they are still around next year, they could decide to chase some other vaporware project. Leave it to the end of the article until it's at least in production. It's just an option (filmmaking), which is next to nothing. Frank Herbert's Dune languished as an option for decades. There are many books that suffered a similar fate. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You wrote that the book received mostly positive reviews. Now, you are saying it didn't? Have you gone through all of the reviews for this book? Viriditas (talk) 04:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I wrote that it received mostly positive reviews, but intentionally immediately followed that with important caveats. It's unfair to take one sentence out of context. There were two sentences, perhaps even a whole paragraph, perhaps even a whole article, that made a combined point. If you delete one sentence, you have to stop and think about what that does to the whole. Often it creates a false impression. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If one was to read all of the reliable book reviews published by secondary sources, what would one say? Would one say it received mostly positive reviews? Viriditas (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say, "The novel received mostly positive reviews as an engrossing story appropriate for its target age, and was praised for its illustrations and retro book design. Some reviewers said the plot dragged at times, found the use of local color cloying, or said the violence might be inappropriate for young readers." You should read the reviews and tell me what you would say. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I've read the reviews, thanks for your concern. Per UNDUE, how is summarizing the criticism by saying that the novel received mostly positive reviews inaccurate? And, per UNDUE, why would we follow that summary by highlighting three negative reviews? Per UNDUE, I should find similar negative aspects in the majority of positive reviews. Weasel words like "some reviewers said" are usually deleted, btw. Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It was not three negative reviews. It was three criticisms that appeared in several reviews, even the positive ones. "Slow" was the big one; almost everybody said that. Just as the positive points weren't just two reviews; I summarized the consensus from several. Tomorrow I will cite specific quotes from each major review that led me to my conclusion. Perhaps we will see that my phrasing was less than perfect, and we can come up with something a little better. But I doubt we will want to erase the negative comments altogether and only keep the positive. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but we work from the reviewed version, and make your proposed changes incrementally. Wikipedia is liberal in its broad scope, but as writers and editors we are conservative in our approach, preferring to say too little that is accurate rather than too much that is inaccurate. This is, in fact, how our policies and guidelines are designed. In other words, we err on the side of caution, especially so when it comes to criticism. Viriditas (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As a starting baseline, I looked at EBSCO's NoveList®, which lists four critical reviews in their entry for the novel from Booklist, School Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, and Kirkus Reviews. All were positive except for Publishers Weekly. Here's a sample:

• BookList: "Meloy's debut is the kind of delicate, elaborate fantasy that is so well versed in classic Narnian tropes that it is destined to be enthusiastically embraced." (Kraus, 2011, Booklist, (107) 21: 53)
• School Library Journal: "Meloy deftly moves back and forth between Prue's attempts to get help and Curtis's adventures with the Governess, who is not what she initially seems, and uses the parallel stories to create a constant forward motion that will keep readers glued to the page. From its attention-grabbing opening to the final revelations of Prue's true relationship to Wildwood, this book provides an emotional experience. Meloy has an immediately recognizable verbal style and creates a fully realized fantasy world in what is essentially a Portland child's backyard. It is peopled with both animal and human characters with whom readers will identify and grow to love. Ellis's illustrations perfectly capture the original world and contribute to the feel of an instant timeless classic. Further adventures in Wildwood cannot come quickly enough." (Wadham, 2011, School Library Journal, (57) 8: 112)
• Publishers Weekly: "...the story lacks a strong emotional center, and its preoccupations with bureaucracy, protocol, and gray-shaded moral dilemmas, coupled with the book's length, make this slow going. Ellis's spot art, not all seen by PW, is characteristically crisp and formal, further lending the story a detached quality. (Staff,Publishers Weekly, (258) 29)
• Kirkus: "A satisfying blend of fantasy, adventure story, eco-fable and political satire with broad appeal; especially recommended for preteen boys." (Kirkus Reviews, 2011)

So, it appears that Mr. Bratland's additions to the lead were in fact, undue, and that my original review was correct. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Those are the capsule reviews I suggested shouldn't be given much weight.

Erring on the side of caution when it comes to criticism is the policy of WP:BLP. This is not about a living person, it's about a consumer product, proffered for sale. The applicable policies are not BLP, but WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:NPOV. In NPOV, the relevant section, Describing aesthetic opinions says: '"Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g. musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse..." Etc. I'll be back to wade into the details, but the idea that we must fear speaking ill of a book, and err on the side of praising, is backwards. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Plot description in lead

Dennis, you added this plot summary to the lead section:

It tells the story of two plucky middle schoolers who are drawn out of their ordinary world into a fantastic hidden country, getting caught up in an epic struggle against an apocalyptic plot, while trying to rescue a kidnapped baby. The kids learn of their connection to a magical reality while confronting adult authorities who are often cowardly and dishonest.

I formerly removed it and replaced it with this:

It tells the story of seventh-grader Prue McKeel whose baby brother is kidnapped by crows. With the help of her friend and schoolmate Curtis, they journey together into a magical forest to find Prue's brother.

Now, while both are not perfect and can certainly be improved, I would like to ask you, which one is supported by the sources? Which source supports the addition of "The kids learn of their connection to a magical reality while confronting adult authorities who are often cowardly and dishonest" by Dennis to the plot summary?

Let's look at some plot summaries from other sources for some ideas. Here's NovelList as a brief example:

When her baby brother is kidnapped by crows, seventh-grader Prue McKeel ventures into the forbidden Impassable Wilderness--a dangerous and magical forest in the middle of Portland, Oregon--and soon finds herself involved in a war among the various inhabitants.

School Library Journal (two plot summaries), first from Sarah Flood:

As a young girl, Prue McKeel first noticed the Impassable Wilderness on her father's map of Portland. When Mac, her baby brother, is abducted by crows and taken there, Prue and her friend Curtis bravely set out and discover Wildwood. Curtis is captured by coyote soldiers, and the bureaucratic government of South Wood refuses to help Prue. Curtis meets the Dowager Governess, former Governess of South Wood, who becomes his enemy once he discovers her sinister plan to sacrifice Mac to the Ivy. Prue, directed by Owl Rex, leader of the Avians, goes to North Wood to speak to the mystics. Prue and Curtis must unite the rest of Wildwood against the Dowager Governess to save Mac and all of Wildwood.

This one is from Tim Wadham:

When 12-year-old Prue is entrusted with her baby brother for the day, the last thing she expects is that he will be abducted by a murder of crows and taken into the Impassible Wilderness across the river from her home in Portland, OR. Prue does the only thing that she can, which is to head across the railroad bridge to bring Mac back. She is followed by a schoolmate whom she reluctantly takes on as a partner. They soon discover that they are the only humans from the "Outside." Curtis is abducted by coyote soldiers, and Prue soon finds herself between warring factions--the Dowager Governess, who is marshaling her coyote troops in North Wood to take back her throne in Southwood, and the rest of Wildwood.

Unfortunately, both of those are too long for a Wikipedia lead section.

Here's Booklist:

After her baby brother is abducted by crows, 12-year-old Prue is compelled to enter the Impassable Wilderness—an ominous forest just outside of Portland, Oregon. Although Prue is initially joined by her classmate Curtis, the kids are soon split up as they become embroiled in a war between stuffy bureaucrats, bandit separatists, militant birds, and the evil Dowager Governess.

And for good measure, a sample from Kirkus (it's a bit longer than this):

When her baby brother is carried off by crows to the Impassable Wilderness at the heart of Portland, Ore., stubbornly courageous Prue McKeel, 12, sets out to reclaim him, accompanied by annoying schoolfellow and class pariah Curtis Mehlberg.

So, which version is closer to the sources? I think it is obvious that the version of the plot summary that I added follows the sources closely, while the version Dennis added does not. Please notice, there is no mention of the "two plucky middle schoolers" nor the "adult authorities who are often cowardly and dishonest". And while I find the changes that Dennis proposes to be creative, it is important to stick to the primary plot points while summarizing the story, and the best way to do this is to reflect the sources. Viriditas (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The source for plot summaries is not book reviews, but the book. Moreover, Wikipedia plot summaries include spoilers. They must include spoilers, in fact. It's a rather unique aspect of Wikipedia. Revealing that Prue and Curtis are "half-breeds", both magical natives of The Wood, and Outsiders, is a spoiler. It's a critical plot point, because it explains everything that happens -- why Prue and Curtis in particular had this happen to them, and why they were able to enter The Wood, and partially why Curtis stayed behind. The pattern of adult leaders falsely promising to find Mac figures prominently in the plot. It's the failure of the Governor-Regents, Dowager-Governesses, Crown Princes, and most particularity -- Prue's parents -- to live up to their word that drives much of the action. If the author keeps coming back to it, it must be important. It's a classic middle grade/young adult lit device: the adults are dishonest, cowardly, manipulative, dismissive, etc., and so it's up to the kids to save the day.

Saying it's about "a baby kidnapped by crows" is a nice hook, and it is meant to interest you without giving away the plot. But Wikipedia gives away the plot, and in fact the baby was kidnapped by a witch, as part of an apocalyptic plot, an apocalyptic plot they were pulled into by forces that predate their birth.

In short, a Wikipedia plot summary demystifies. I can cite examples from the MOS (Lost, Pulp Fiction) if this is unclear. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Background section

Recently, Dennis reverted the following copyedits to the background section for no reason. There's a lot of them, so we'll work our way through them one a time:

Dennis	Viriditas
The book was first conceived by Meloy and Ellis before The Decemberists were formed, when they first moved to Portland and were living in a warehouse where they, "had this idea of working on a novel together … because we enjoyed making up stories and playing off one another's creative impulses."	Meloy and Ellis first conceived the idea for the book before Meloy formed The Decemberists in 2000, an indie folk rock band in Portland, Oregon. When they first moved to Portland, Meloy and Ellis were living in a warehouse where they "had this idea of working on a novel together … because we enjoyed making up stories and playing off one another's creative impulses."

Is there a reason to prefer one over the other? Viriditas (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Publication history

Dennis added back in a publication history section that does not follow the recommended MOS guidelines for such sections, and duplicates information already found in the infobox (media_type) and in the official site link at the bottom.[2] My understanding is that "editions' sections" of the type Dennis is trying to shoehorn into the article are mostly deprecated in favor of publication history/details sections written in prose. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

We can get rid of the publication history. It's harmless, and possibly interesting to those who cared enough to have read that far, but if it bothers you so much, who needs it? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

GA request

I see that a GA re-assessment request has been made for this article. I would be willing to conduct that re-assessment if both parties are happy with that. However the article is far from stable at the moment (one of the criteria by the way). If you can come to an agreement on what version to review I will do that. Alternatively I can act as a mediator if you just want my opinion on certain points. I will try to keep any comments grounded in the WP:GACR, which means that in some cases either version might be acceptable. AIRcorn (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Please review both versions, starting with the current one I passed. Dennis is operating under the assumption that he can act as both nominator and reviewer, which I completely disagree with. Furthermore, he has failed to challenge or dispute any edit I've made. If anything, this dispute has made him question his own version of the article. See the discussion above. Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'm interested in resolving the question of a GA reviewer who rewrites an entire article, and them passes it. The spirit of independent review is to judge articles that you are not personally involved in. Viriditas promoted an article that was primarily his own work. Can that be right? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Reviewers get a lot of leeway when it comes to reviewing an article. Some won't even fix spelling mistakes while I can think of at least one case when a reviewer re-wrote nearly the whole article. Although not something we should encourage, if both nominator and reviewer are happy and it does meet the criteria then it is not a major deal. This is supposed to be a light weight process and we have a large backlog so anyone willing to review is valuable. Issues arise however when the nominator and reviewer can't agree on what makes something a Good article. In most cases it simply results in a fail and the nominator either relists it or takes it to WP:GAR. The only real problem is when a reviewer refuses to close a review after a falling out, which has turned real nasty (arbcom ended up involved in one situation), and there is now a caveat in the FAQ allowing a nominator to withdraw from the process at any time. In hindsight, that is probably what should have happened here. AIRcorn (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

My assumption was that after I posted my concerns, Viriditas would not pass the article. Either he would fail it, or continue discussion until we both agreed it should pass. Instead, told me I was wrong and went ahead and passed it. Had I realized what was about to happen, I would have withdrawn immediately. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Another question: Viriditas keeps saying over and over, "Dennis is operating under the assumption that he can act as both nominator and reviewer." I've said a dozen times that what I want an uninvolved, independent, impartial reviewer. Not Viriditas, and obviously not me. Aircorn, do you have any idea what the hell he is talking about? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No, however on the WT:GAN page Viriditas has agreed to let me take over so we should be able to move forward. I think the best solution would be to treat Viriditas's review as a fail and use his version of the article as advice on what he thinks needs fixing. There are probably some good points in there (the plot does seem a bit long in your version and the story of two plucky middle schoolers who are drawn out of their ordinary world into a fantastic hidden country, getting caught up in an epic struggle against an apocalyptic plot, while trying to rescue a kidnapped baby is a bit more dramatic than what I would expect to read in an encyclopaedia). I could then review the new version for you when you are ready, or if you want you could put it through WP:GAN again or we could go the community reassessment route. AIRcorn (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, many of the changes are great improvements. The problem is they came so fast, and are intermixed with so many substantive changes in meaning, not merely wording. But with time I will work to verify the article is factual. I keep promising I'm going to do that, and I mean it; I just need to get a little time to focus, rather than a quick read-and-reply. To be more specific, today is Thursday; the weekend is coming up and I expect to have at a minimum 6 hours that I can work without distractions. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Not too bothered on time frame, as long as it doesn't get ridiculous (two to three weeks fine, month with no activity too long). Ping me on my talk page when you are ready. I will open a reassessment page now so that it is clear what is happening. AIRcorn (talk) 13:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, so it was mother's day weekend and I got no time to myself. *sigh* Stay tuned... --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Questions about lead

• Any objection to returning the summary of criticism to the lead? The justification is in NPOV#Describing aesthetic opinions. Wikipedia articles "have a tendency to become effusive" and this is a typical case of that. The reviewers all found serious flaws with the book, and most of them agreed as to what those flaws were. None saw it as perfect. It's clearly a mistake to apply WP:BLPSTYLE to this; it's not a BLP, it's about a book, and the policy NPOV specifically admonishes us not to gloss over criticism.

• Saying that Prue and Curtis are friends is about as accurate as saying "the baby was kidnapped by a witch who is dead". Yes, Prue and Curtis are friends in the denouement, in the final pages of the book when a few loose ends are being wrapped up, but that's also when Alexandra is dead. You would at least say "it tells the story of how Prue and Curtis became friends", except that that isn't a central feature of the plot. The kidnapping by crows is the hook, but what the majority of the book is about is the plot to destroy The Wood, and Mac, Prue, and Curtis are pawns in that plot, until they turn the tables, with considerable help, at the very end. I'm saying there's confusion between the narrative hook and the central theme of the book. The lead should briefly summarize what the book is mostly about:

...the story of two plucky middle schoolers who are drawn out of their ordinary world into a fantastic hidden country, getting caught up in an epic struggle against an apocalyptic plot, while trying to rescue a kidnapped baby. The kids learn of their connection to a magical reality while confronting adult authorities who are often cowardly and dishonest. The book was inspired by classic fantasy novels and folk tales and features supernatural elements like talking animals and witchcraft, set against the scenic backdrop and culture of Portland, Oregon.

I don't understand why it is so relevant to Wildwood that Meloy is American, or a singer-songwriter. It's much more relevant to the subject (being Wildwood not Meloy) to say that it is the first in a series of at least 3 books, especially since the setup for sequels is one of the things several reviewers grumbled about. Finally, emphasizing Laika's film option in the lead violates WP:CRYSTAL. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Summarising the reception in the lead is fine as long as it is done with care, it can be easy to cherry pick. Would tone down the description of the book in the quote box, it sounds a bit to much like a blurb written by the publisher. Don't really care whether Meloy's Americanism or music career is mentioned, although I did find it interesting that he was in the Decemberists. It is only an extra two to three words so I wouldn't think it would be that big a deal. Basically as far as GA assessment goes all I would be looking for is that it accurately summarises the article and introduces no new, or in special cases only minor, information. AIRcorn (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary length

First point: There are some serious misconceptions going on placing hard limits on plot summary length, and they don't have a good basis in policy. Mostly just some essays, and one may pick and choose which Wikipedia essays one may cite to make a point, but it doesn't resolve a disagreement. Even the longest, most detailed version of the plot summary skips fully half of the events in the book. For every plot point mentioned, there could be at least one more, or two, or three, that could be pulled from the book. Which means this much shorter version is not "a detailed account of "every intricate plot twist and element of character development". Avoiding copyright is not an issue (it's only an essay anyhow, not even a WP guideline). The actual guideline is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Plot_summaries. The main worry there seems to be articles that consist of nothing but a plot summary; that's not the case here.

So I'd like to remove the introductory summary, but keep the four sections, Backstory, Part I, II, and III from here, and maybe trim it a little bit shorter. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the criteria is also focus and a detailed plot summary can run foul of that. Try and reduce it as much as you can and I can have a look and see if it can be made more concise. Personally I would keep most of the synopsis and try and expand it with the backstory and other parts, but I will leave it up to you. AIRcorn (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Layout and sections

Is there any good reason why this article should not follow the general layout of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels? It should more or less go: Lead section, Plot, Characters, Major themes, Style, Background, Publication history, Reception, Adaptations and Footnotes and/or References. Wildwood is a conventional fantasy novel in almost every way, yet for some reason it demands a unique layout of Background, Synopsis (Plot summary, Major characters, Setting), Style, Genre, Illustrations, Reception, Sequels, Film adaptation, Notes, References? Does it even make sense to place "setting" under "synopsis"? Synopsis is the plot summary. Setting is not a kind of plot summary. "Major characters" is not a subset of "Synopsis" either. It's incoherent.

I would argue for a longer plot summary because "Three or four paragraphs are usually sufficient for a full-length work, although very complex and lengthy novels may need a bit more." And Wildwood is longer and more complex than most books. But the layout should stick with the MOS and what is typical of FAs about books, and not blaze some new trail just for the sake of looking different. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

As long as the headings make sense and are formatted properly then I am not too fussed over the layout. AIRcorn (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Factual errors

List of factual errors, from the disputed diff:

1. Meloy and Ellis drew inspiration for ''Wildwood'' from their neighborhood of [[St. Johns, Portland, Oregon|St. Johns]], [[Portland, Oregon]], where they lived on the edge of [[Forest Park (Portland, Oregon)|Forest Park]] and enjoyed hiking its trails.<ref name=Robinson2011/><ref name=Miller2011/><ref name=Heyman2011/> This sentence is kind of a WP:FRANKENSTEIN, the result of many, many, sloppy rewordings. The first of the 3 sources cited, Robinson2011, makes no mention at all that Meloy and Ellis live on the edge of the park, only that Meloy's hometown is Portland, nothing more. The other two sources do tell us they live on the edge of the park, Miller2011 and Heyman2011. But they don't say that they live in St. Johns. That would be silly -- St. Johns is across the Willamette river and separated by the "industrial wastes". We actually have no idea which of several neighborhoods their house is in, but we know it "is steps from the park boundary", so it must be on the other side of the river and nowhere near St. Johns. This version is nothing like what the sources say, and it's geographically incoherent. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Saying Prue and Curtis are friends is like saying Alexandra is dead. It messes up the chronology. Already covered above. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Meloy intends to write at least two more books for the Wildwood Chronicles while his band, The Decemberists, are on hiatus.<ref name=Heyman2011/><ref name=Carpenter2011/> This one is partially my fault. User:Brianhe's correction got clobbered in the final round of the edit war. The Decemberists are not on hiatus, and are not breaking up. Meloy is cutting back on his work with the band; "Meloy's work with his band The Decemberists is on hiatus". What rest of The Decemberists members will be doing isn't clear, and not the subject of this article anyway. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Fix any errors up that you identify. I will check sources independently when I do my proper review. AIRcorn (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

4. Fixed an incoherent sentence about news articles and critics classifying it as children's, middle reader, or young adult. Children's lit is usually ages 7 to 12, while YA is more tweens and teenagers -- sex being the major point of demarcation. It's rally contradictory to call it children's AND YA. Note that I have not yet found any industry standard age definitions of children's, middle reader, or YA, and neither have the editors of the Wikipedia articles on these categories. Which helps explain why critics classify it in three different categories, plus "adult children's lit fans".
5. Cleared up some garbling of the soft fantasy vs hard fantasy paragraphs. Might still want to merge the Illustration and Genre sub-sections of the Style section, since these all make much the same point: that it's whimsical and stream of consciousness, rather than making a great effort to be plausible or consistent. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)