Talk:Big Cat, Little Cat/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 15:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's great t see developed articles on award-winning children's books; it'd be an easy area for Wikipedia to overlook.

Thanks for taking this on J Milburn. By and large Wikipedia has overlooked this area, which makes for furtile ground for me to find stuff to edit, but this overlooking seems to be also largely because they're not terribly well viewed articles. But I enjoy writing them and some people are using them. I'll respond to your review later today. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think your lead really is underdeveloped. I appreciate that the article is short, but I'd at least want an indication of plot, publisher, target audience, reception, and inspiration!

Done Yeah no doubt about that. I generally come back a few days after doing the content work on an article to write the LEAD (so I can summarize my work with a bit more detachment) and since this got picked up pretty quickly I hadn't done that yet. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

"The book was inspired by Cooper's family adopting two cats and by his growing up on a farm seeing those animals "cycling through"." This could be much clearer.

This is certainly shorter but I think some richness is lost. I've added an introductory sentence to hopefully help with the clarity. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

"The book was compared to Kevin Henkes Caldecott-winning book Kitten's First Full Moon, which Cooper later admitted to being inspired by." I don't really like the vague "was compared to"; it's good to talk about the inspiration, but I think more details would be helpful!

Done

Is it not a little unnatural to talk about publication before writing?

I normally actually start with background and publication, then do plot, then do writing and illustrations (whether together or as separate sections based on what the sources support). In this case I flipped plot and the background section, but essentially my thining is to explain how the book came to be before diving into what has been said about it. I've always read MOS:NOVEL as being more about what sections are (or aren't) appropriate than proscribing what order they should go in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

You talk a lot about monochromatic illustrations without really introducing them.

They are talked about in the background section, but I am certainly open to doing more. Are you suggesting a sentence that says "The book has black and white illustrations of the cats accompanied with solid colored backgrounds"? If so this could be added but would have to serve as an unsourced summary sentence (or sentence of observation in the same way that the plot summary is). Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

"Japanese brush painter" Could we have a wikilink or something?

Done

"Despite the spares illustrations they were able to convey a lot. The words and pictures represented the cats' point of view without being anthropomorphic" I don't understand what spares means, here (sparse?), and you're presenting judgements in Wikipedia's "neutral" voice, which isn't ideal. You do his several times over the next few sentences.

Sparse was a typo, thanks. There was one observation that was sourced to a single review (yin-yang) and so I've noted who said it rather than saying it in Wikipedia's voice. For the rest, I would suggest I am summarizing the judgement of reliable sources in Wikipedia's neutral voice while avoiding overcite. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think readers would probably be more interested in what reviewers say, rather than simply a list of places where the book was reviewed. Good for establishing notability, but not thrilling for readers.

I certainly do include what the reviewers say, just in the Writing and illustrations section. Of the 6 starred reviews I do actual quotes from 3 of them. I can do more but that will get repetitive in a different way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

You could contextualise the award by noting the winner and the other "honor" recipients.

Isn't that what the link to Caldecott Medal is for and why it's linked both in the LEAD and in the "Reception and awards" section? If I came across someone doing that in a GA review I would suggest that they're running afoul of GA criteria 3b. I looked for any sort of comment from Cooper about his win (frequently I can find these as I did in my last GA, A Sick Day for Amos McGee) but I didn't find any sourcing about his reaction to the win. In general he seems to have not done too many interviews in recent years. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Could I recommend that you make your date formatting consistent? It doesn't really matter how you do it (I like "1 January 2019"), but better to make it consistent.
I've had a play around with your references, which were a little all over the place. I hope you don't feel I was overstepping the mark. You're of course welcome to fiddle further; I'm just aiming for consistency, clarity, and MOS-compliance!

Thanks and totally fair enough on that front for both these comments. I created this article a while back and am now better about that as I know this is important to many editors - the idea that there are citation style fights is something that always blows my mind. While I did some fixing of that while expanding the article, obviously I didn't hit on everything. Thanks again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

I've also done a lot of copyediting. There were some mistakes that gave the impression that this may have been a little rushed - something to think on before your next nomination, perhaps.

Thank you. Copy editing is admittedly not my strong suit. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Is this a touchy-feely book? It's not mentioned. Neither is the target audience!

If you mean a book with textures it is not. Reviews tend to vary widely in what target audiences they identify and so speaking to the point above about Wikipedia's voice I tend to not include them unless there is uniformity or something unusual (a very wide target audience as in this GAN). Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Hope that's useful; I think there's room for expansion, here, so I'm not sure it's really ready for promotion right now. It could be soon, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your review. I always enjoy having a fresh pair of eyes to find ways the article can be strengthened - each GA review makes me a better Wikipedian. See some thoughts and questions from me about pieces above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn since I hadn't pinged you before thought I would so so now so you can see I've responded. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've seen this, and will revisit soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through[edit]

I'm still a little concerned about the illustrations section feeling a little non-neutral. I wonder whether you might be able to kill two birds with one stone and merge it with the reception section? That way, you could keep more the "critical" parts of the illustration section and get a bit more "critical" stuff in the reception section.
"The book was recognized as a 2018 Caldecott Honor book, with the award committee citing how the book's "[s]imple and joyful domestic routines underscore the deeply entwined lives of two feline companions and the impact of loss on one".[11] " You could expand and contextualise this (as well as creating some links to the other articles you're working on) by mentioning the other award winners/nominees.
I do think that the lack of information about target market is problematic. It barely mentioned that it was for children until I added it to the first line!
The references are looking much better; the Danielson reference is still a bit off, and the date formatting is still inconsistent. Perhaps you could look into these?
I only mentioned the "touchy feely" stuff because the cover looks like it has a little patch of "fur".

This is looking good, though; I've made some more edits. Please double-check. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: In case you missed this! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, I had indeed missed this. Thanks for the ping. Will come back to the comments soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I did more work on the reference. As for those other pieces:

Again in looking at our featured book content (that I didn't write) there seems to be a mixture of saying things in critics voices and saying things in Wikipedia's voice. This is always a fair concern, but where an idea is expressed across multiple RS, why isn't it fair to say in Wikipedia's voice as we summarize what high quality sources say on a subject for our readers understanding.
Target age range is not something we do as a matter of course in FA/GA articles. There was (and in some ways still is) an ongoing debate about what age The Hunger Games is appropriate for but that debate isn't in that article. We also don't do this in films. The suggested age ranges for this book among reviews (converting grades to numerical years) goes from Ages 3 - 8 but some say only 6 and one says 7. Putting anything, or even this range of disagreement, doesn't serve our readers. Ultimately we're an encyclopedia and what age a piece of content something is appropriate for, falls outside our scope, though certainly with-in the scope of some sources we use.
We have an article on the Caldecott Medal which lays out who won. Again in looking at other featured content I this just isn't something I see us doing and I would suggest that's correct under GACR3B.

Two of these three concerns seem to have the subtext that the article is not broad enough to meet criteria 3. If this is indeed correct and you feel it does not pass that criteria I would understand your failing it (and I could have the option to renominate to get a fresh reviewer). Your work both directly and through this review to improve the article are marked and genuinely appreciated so I want to acknowledge this as an option with no hard feelings from my part. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; these are all thoughtful, useful comments. I retract my suggestions concerning the medal and the target age range, as I think your responses are very reasonable. And I do agree with you about the mix of Wikipedia's voice and the critic's voice; there's a balancing act, here. (It's one I grappled with on my film and television FAs, for example.) Let me take another look. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How are these changes, for you? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn sorry, I've been too preoccupied by other events on Wikipedia to do too much serious work. I'm not sure I like how it reads but when I asked another editor for comments on the section he couldn't quite put his finger on what he didn't like but did share some of your concerns so I think I need to try and approach with some fresh eyes - hopefully tomorrow. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry at all. I do think this will soon be ready to promote, but I want us both to be happy with it! Josh Milburn (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, I went back and pulled out common words from all the sources in order to do a rewrite from scratch. I have for now left in every citation which supports a particular idea in order to show the prominence of the idea. This obviously needs changing in a final version but I hoped would be helpful as a process step. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I don't mind the multiple references. I've done some copyediting, which you should double check. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think in this instance anything more than two tends to be overkill. I have now reduced citations to two, choosing the strongest, or otherwise attempting to even out references between sources. Hopefully this works for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does "spare" mean, in relation to text?

Changed the word. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

I couldn't really understand the context of the quote from Stevenson. I gave it its own sentence, but I am not sure what is being referred to; could you look again?

Reworked. How's it read now? Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

The book apparently received a commendation for a Charlotte Zolotow Award; this should be mentioned in the article!

Indeed. Added. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

I've made some final tweaks; are you happy? If so, I'm ready to promote. Is perhaps not quite how I would have written the article, byt I can't deny that it's looking very good. (By the way: I'll be away for a few days this week, so if I don't reply, I'm not ignoring you!) Josh Milburn (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J Milburn, I appreciate all your efforts and am happy for you to pass this GA if you feel it's ready. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great; promoting now. Good working with you - and, again, I commend you for taking on what could easily be an overlooked topic. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]