Jump to content

Talk:When You Reach Me

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWhen You Reach Me has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 1, 2011Good article nomineeListed
January 5, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article


GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:When You Reach Me/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sadads (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey it's me again, I thought I would grab this one because it looks interesting. I am in the middle of another review that is a little higher up on the list then yours, but it is currently on hold for some content expansion. As before I will go through the article thoroughly and review stuff. I am in the middle of finals week, so I will be in and out the whole week and should do a lot of work Thursday afternoon, Sadads (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

[edit]

Derild is on javascript-enforced wiki-break, so I and hopefully some other tps' will help out with this one. Brambleclawx 21:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When does he come off? and how does he do that? I think that would be rather useful for me at school (sometimes I just do a little too much here). Sadads (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He'll be back by winter vacation. The enforcer is here Brambleclawx 22:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help. PrincessofLlyr royal court 22:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok school stuff has wound down for me, so I will start running through this tonight as I digest some things on my research paper due at noon, and I will finish up most of the review tomorrow when I am bright and fresh, Sadads (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review read one

[edit]

Lead

[edit]
  1. "She receives weird notes asking her to record the events that will soon follow and to write down the location of her spare key." - what does weird mean and this is a little wordy, please clarify, Sadads (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "The novel contains three storylines—the appearance of Miranda's mom on The $20,000 Pyramid, her best friend Sal suddenly not talking with her, and the appearance of a laughing man." Who is her?Sadads (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. " Stead wanted to impart that traveling back in time is not changing the past, but actually fulfilling it." feel awkward, probably needs some sort of introductory phrase to mix up sentance structure, Sadads (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "She also hoped to show her children what New York looked like in her childhood and the independence that kids nowadays no longer have." What does look like mean? are there pictures of her childhood in the text?Sadads (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "and her favorite book into the story." What favourite book?Sadads (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "instantly hooked." no, not so much, Sadads (talk) 08:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the problem I am having with reading this through (maybe it's too late, I am not sure), could someone who knows a little more about the book, do a careful copyedit? Else, we can wait for Derild and see what he can do in a careful read through, Sadads (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm fairly sure Derild may have to do some of this. I'll try my hand at a few of them. Just for clarity, how would you like "weird" changed? My instinct is to use "strange" or "unusual", but if you want a sort of explanation about why they're weird, changing the word makes no difference. It's definitely difficult to read through. I think part of the difficulty there is the complicated storyline. Our library seems to have it, so I may see if I can read it and streamline things a little. PrincessofLlyr royal court 14:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think strange or unusual should be fine in this respect, weird could be anything, whereas those are a little more specific of what type of "weird".Sadads (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completed #2, 4, and 6. Still thinking about the others. PrincessofLlyr royal court 14:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an IP here, feel free to post some concerns, I'll get back to then, but not too fast as. 68.44.27.230 (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gasp! Look who's avoiding their own enforced wikibreak! Not that we're not glad you're able to help out. Brambleclawx 01:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I can continue reviewing it and bring up mistakes, but I still want Derild to read through it a little more thoroughly when he comes back and can actually sign in!!!! (Don't cheat yourself, enjoy the break), Sadads (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concept and development

[edit]
  1. "Having developed the basic idea, Stead began researching the science behind time travel and making sure her ideas would be logical. " - tense shift Sadads (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Done PrincessofLlyr royal court 14:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "She says that this caused "a complete meltdown". Seeking assistance, Stead called her dad who enjoyed mathematics and puzzles." - what does meltdown mean and what was she looking for assistance for? Sadads (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not going to mess with the meltdown statement since it's a quote, but I tried to clarify why she contacted her dad. PrincessofLlyr royal court 14:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "A Wrinkle in Time was Stead's favorite book, which she continuously read and reread." why choose was over is? clarify please, Sadads (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he chose "was" because it was her favorite book as a child. I'll clarify that. PrincessofLlyr royal court 14:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "When You Reach Me takes place during the 1978–79 school year of Miranda, the main character, who lives in Upper West Side, New York. " run on, Sadads (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "Stead was inspired to add this setting because after reading about the man with amnesia, she moved into an apartment near her childhood home." wordy and run on, Sadads (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've attempted to correct both of the ones above. PrincessofLlyr royal court 14:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! I will start a little more review soon then, Sadads (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

[edit]
  1. "When You Reach Me follows sixth grade protagonist Miranda. Her best friend Sal is punched by a classmate in the gang." Two factual statements that appear very disconnected, add some type of phrase to give a little more variety in sentance structure and a better sense of relationship between the two thoughts, Sadads (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Later, Miranda strikes up an acquaintance with Marcus, the boy who punched Sal, and learns that he is actually a benevolent kid who is not part of the gang." wordy and clunky, Sadads (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Attempted the above two. PrincessofLlyr royal court 05:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. " who is dubbed the "laughing man" for his tendency to laugh without cause" passive, who dubs him that way? Sadads (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "The phrase refers to the means by which he will send Miranda notes" wordy, rephrase to make a little more direct, Sadads (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. " The notes, whose writer claims to be coming to save a life, offer three proofs of the sobriety of the messages" are the messages drinking?Sadads (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "When these proofs come true" - like in printing and photographic devlopment? I don't think you want "proofs" to be the noun that is used, Sadads (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tried my hand at all of the above, except the laughing man. If any of these aren't satisfactorily changed, let me know. PrincessofLlyr royal court 05:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "Miranda is satisfied with this occurrence, hating Julia for acting cocky." awkward sentance, reword to better clarify their relationship, Sadads (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. "The novel ends as Miranda reflects on the events give a short chapter on what happened afterward." - several incomplete thoughts, don't know where you were going with this, Sadads (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

[edit]
  1. "When You Reach Me is classified in the science fiction and mystery genres with other genres mixed in." - mixed in is a little colloquial, Sadads (talk) 02:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Brambleclawx 18:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Both Kirkus Reviews and Publishers Weekly found that in spite of the science fiction genre, the setting is still "firmly rooted in reality". - is it the genre that is causing the problem or the premise, I don't think "in spite" is quite correct either, Sadads (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what's being conveyed here is that even though it's science fiction, it's still written in a very realistic, real world (as opposed to really, really fantastic) sort of way. Brambleclawx 18:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. For the mystery genre paragraph, make sure you are just summarizing the content that the articles have and are not doing WP:Synthesis in the arrangement of the information. Though I haven't read all of the sources yet, it seems like only one or two place the book in the mystery genre, yet you interpret some of the other remarks on style to support the "mystery/suspense" conclusion, Sadads (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Themes

[edit]
  1. "This theme specifically deals with the fact that Sal abandons his friendship with Miranda after being hit by Marcus. " this needs to be clarified alot, I am not sure what fact I am supposed to get and the relationship between the "this theme" and the events that are mentioned, and how the charachters help. You may want to expand this explanation, Sadads (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Elli Housden of the Courier Mail found that Miranda is forced to deal with the fact that Sal seemingly abandons their friendship and ignores her for no apparent reason.[14" - wordy try to make more precise, Sadads (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In the themes section, you oscillate between the present and the past tense on the verbs related to the reviewers ("SOANDSO" finds vs "SOANDSO found"). This needs to be consistant, and I recommend the past tense. Please pick one, Sadads (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "Miranda gains a "redemptive" nature to Julia" What does "gains a redemptive nature" mean. Does MIranda gain a "nature" what is gaining a nature? Sadads (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "Roger Sutton from Horn Book Magazine feels that the moment Marcus explains the flaw to Miranda is the first exchange that shows the novel to be complicated and mysterious.[1]" - A little wordy, see if you can make it more precise or split it up, Sadads (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

[edit]
  1. I feel like you give a lot of snippets on what the individual reviewers felt, but I would really like a general consensus sentance that says something like. "Most reviewers noted xyz and praised the book" or something along that line. Right now the flow of the section suffers because there isn't a lead for the section, Sadads (talk) 18:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not too sure on what to add, I currently have topic sentence for each paragraph. The first is about how the setting and characters were praised and the second with how every detail was used. Should I add another paragraph trying to summarize that? Derild4921Review Me! 18:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think so, the way it reads right now it feels really disjointed. It could even just be a sentence or two before the first paragraph would make it easier to read. Sadads (talk)
    Got it, I'll work on this today. Derild4921Review Me! 15:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Overall Impression

[edit]
  • I think the biggest thing right now is that the article needs to choose what verb tense reviewer's actions are going to be in, as well as a decided look at the longer sentances to make sure they aren't overwordy or runons, also see the notes above. Sorry it took so long to do the first read through, but between vacation and finals, I ended up putting it off some. I am going to spot check the references also, but the article seems to be in good condition on the references and topic area covered, so I am going to pass those, Sadads (talk) 19:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second read

[edit]

Laughing man, article layout, and lead

[edit]

Just to be clear, are the laughing man, and the scary person that is mentioned under the "setting" section different people? I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't mistaken with that one.

Also, regarding the layout: looking at the novel template for WP:Novels, it seems that they have the plot first after the lead, then themes, then development and history. It is not set in stone I am sure, but it may be good to adopt the same format as many of the other articles.

Finally, before I check out for the night, I just have one suggestion for the lead, but thought I would check first before I changed it. In the lead, almost the entire story about the man with amnesia is told, which is then reiterated later in the article. Since the lead is simply a summary of the article, it might be possible to shorten that part of it a bit, which would then make the lead a little easier on the eyes. If this seems like a good idea, feel free, or if you like I can take a go at it tomorrow.

Let me know what you think about all of this, and I will be back tomorrow to finish up my copyedit. I will then spend some time doing another read-through for FA stuff. -Pax85 (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the laughing man and the scary person are the same. As for the order of the sections, while editors follow the style guideline, it is usually up to the primary author's preference as long as it makes sense. I usually prefer to give background on how the novel came alive before the plot. Thanks for noting the part about the lead, I'll work on it soon. Again, thanks! Derild4921☼ 00:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, cool. Not normally being involved in the literature articles, I wouldn't have known that. I have placed a citation needed tag in the plot section - looking at the MOS, even though it is obvious that it comes from the book that we are talking about, I think it still needs to be cited since it is an actual quote. I do not have the book, or I would do it myself. :) -Pax85 (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit, Citations, and FA review

[edit]

Well, I seem to have finished the copy-edit. If you have any questions or disagreements on something, please let me know!

Regarding citations: As I mentioned before, each quote from the book should have one. I noticed the time travel section already contained one, but it was only the generic info of the book. Ideally, I think each quote should have the page number included as well, if possible.

Over the next several days I will do another read-through, looking specifically for FA related things. Since you plan on going to FA, I usually recommend finding a second copy-edit by a different person. I am sure they would find things that I missed or perhaps have a better way of doing something. :) For now though, I will remove your notice on the GOCE board.

Thank you so much for introducing me to this book! I might go out and read it over a quiet weekend myself... -Pax85 (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in the process of having another user review my copy-edit, they in turn went over the article itself, so you have already have had a second go through from a different person. I should be done looking at it from an FA point of view this weekend. -Pax85 (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes regarding FA criteria

[edit]

Below you will find my thoughts on the different criteria. Looking at the history, I can see the article has undergone quite a bit of improvement. I would still recommend though that the more eyes that look at this before it goes to FA the better! To be honest, there are other editors that are much better than I in looking at the FA criteria with a fine-toothed comb, I just try my best focusing on copy-editing. Thank you again for introducing me to this book! -Pax85 (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;

The article is very well written, with decent structure in the paragraphs and the body overall. I would say though that there does seem to be a reliance at certain points on quoted material, and this can get a bit tiring while reading. This is really only happening in the critical reception section I think. Yes, I realize that section would necessarily introduce quotes, so this may be simply a matter of my personal taste. :)

Comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;

Not that I can see.

Factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;

Yes, although like I mention below, some of the references could be detailed out better.

Neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and

Yes.

Stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.

Seems pretty stable - no huge content revisions recently; most of the recent edits seem to be copy-edit related items.

Style: It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:

Tried my best for catching MOS stuff while copy-editing, and another GOCE copy-editor stopped by as well. Everything seemed fine after we went through it.

Lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;

Yep.

Appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents;

Seems pretty good, although I am not sure if time travel needs an entire section of its own. Others may disagree though, because I do know that it is a large part of the book. The headings seem to be formatted correctly.

Consistent citations: where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).

The citation seemed good and thorough. I think it would be good though to include the pages numbers in the actual book itself. If the book is not available to any of the main contributors to the article, I am sure someone on this Wiki could track it down. :) The formatting seems to be consistent, although this is not my strongest area, so someone else may want to look at the refs.

Images. It has images that follow the image use policies and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.

I of course like the addition of the front cover. Are there any images in the book that we could use, or perhaps real-life photos that correspond to the book? Or could we use a snippet of the audio book in the article? I would have no problem emailing the publisher myself on that one...

Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

The plot section was succinct, as were the other areas, without giving too much of the book away.


Thanks a lot for these comments, sorry for the late reply, work has been drowning me. I'll get these things and the stuff in the section above as soon as I can. Derild4921☼ 01:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

I found a review from The Guardian. Glimmer721 talk 01:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GAR?

[edit]

The GAR page was never begun by the person who requested it, and I dispute the circumstances as evidenced by the tags said person added because:

  • There are references where appropriate. There do not have to be references in the introduction if covered elsewhere and plot summary. All other sections have references where appropriate. If they do not appear at the end of a sentence, it is because the following sentence(s) use the same source and a reference appears at the end of this. This has been common practice on Wikipedia and I doubt it has changed in the year I haven't edited.
  • I fail to see how it is written like an essay "that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts" as the themes and genres sections consist of the interpretations of other sources.

Are there any other steps I should take that are more formal, aside from just removing the notices? Glimmer721 talk 23:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Glimmer721, i agree with your comments about the tags not being appropriate. As they were put there by an anonymous ip at the university of nebraska (see [User talk:204.234.74.238]) who does not appear to have carried out any improvements to the article nor commented on this talkpage with details on where improvements can specifically be made, i am being bold and removing the tags. With the GAR, im being a little more cautious and will be asking a more experienced editor about this. ps. i am concerned that some of the references have "missing or empty title" errors, and will be (hopefully:)) fixing these over the next few days. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Posting that I am removing the unbegun GAR; it's been well over a year. The "missing or empty title" seems to be an artifact of the "cite journal" template, which requires an article title; if these appear in a review section with a title, then I suppose the "title" could be filled in that way, or just use the title of the book for an individual review entry if that's what starts it. However, it's not important, and it isn't part of the GA criteria, so it isn't in itself a reason to reassess the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Newbery Medal

[edit]

Previously we provided with faux title "2010 Newbery Medal" a link to the top page (retrieved 2010) that now features the 2015 Newbery Medal [1]. I wonder whether ALSC ALA maintains a permanent archive. The candidate standard eddress we link for 1997 does not work for 2010:

Walking forward I find this works for 2003, not for 2004. Elsewhere I have cited two pages in one manuscript reference --eg Kate DiCamillo#References #7-- but I won't rock the boat by copy-paste here. P64 (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We cite the contemporary press release in biography Rebecca Stead#References #1. --P64 (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:When_You_Reach_Me&oldid=1208013330"