Talk:Mr. Peabody's Apples/GA1

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.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 06:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Review[edit]

Suggest removing The premise was set during a baseball game and was described by her UK publisher Puffin Books as having "an American retro feel" as unnecessary.
- Why do you feel it is unnecessary can you explain? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Happy to explain why. The baseball setting is clear from the Synopsis. The American retro feel is covered by independent reviewers in the Reception section. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*In the acknowledgement section, she clarified What was she clarifying? Should this be a different verb?

- I think explained should be better don't you think? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Is the book itself dedicated to teachers? If so I would suggest sourcing it to that rather than a press release

Removed good from the Madonna mom quote. Source just says she has a different reputation than controversial as a mom.
- Turned the acknowledgement reference around to source it to what Madonna says in the book.

*Publisher Nicholas Callaway marked the release as an important event, due to the simultaneous launch of the book on online, print and audio media stores. should have separate citation

- Added the citation. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No notes on the Reception section.
No issues with copyvio or OR.
I will admit I'm not the biggest specialist in photos, but does the license for the Long photo says we need to give the photographer credit with this use?
- Wrong. That is noted for any external usage of the image outside of this free CC-BY-SA version uploaded here. For example if you include the image from Wikipedia, say, in your website, then attribute it to the photographer. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Caption needed for cover in infobox.
Article is stable.

Sourcing[edit]

As someone who writes articles about Children's literature I understand the difficulty that can be had in finding sources. That said, significant parts of the Background section rely on press releases for citations. The quantity of material sourced to them suggests issues with GA criteria 2c. As solution, I would hope that non-press release citations could be found (one example of how given above) and what can't be either removed or trimmed down so as to comply with WP:PROMOTION.
- I would disagree here, there is enough non-press related citation present in the section that in no way it would fail the threshold of WP:GA2c. We have sources from BBC, The Times, Publisher's Weekly and others along with two citations for the press release. And also, WP:PROMOTION would apply if the language itself was bordering on it and the last point does mention "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery". If you feel anywhere the language is puffed up, please feel free to point them out. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @IndianBio: I agree with you that there is enough information from good sources to ensure that the article passes criteria 3a even if all the PR material were removed. However, I also continue to feel that the information present either be sourced to RS or largely removed. By definition a press release isn't going to make any attempt at NPOV and thus are problematic sources. In reviewing WP:RGA and WP:GA? the emphasis on RS in both places is clear and I think that a press release pretty clearly is not RS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - But they are already sourced to RS? The press release isn't used to reference any POV comment or criticism or praise. I have given you how WP:PROMOTION does not apply here. If you want, a second opinion can be asked because I'm not following the issue with your statement. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 03:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is a lot of information that is not cited to a RS, it's cited by things like Press Releases. Good Articles should use reliable sources and press releases aren't reliable sources. That's the idea I'm trying to express. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I was wrong. There was less information than I thought which comes from non-RS. There are 2.5 sentences I've identified which either need a RS or should be removed.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        No there is not a lot of information sourced to Press release. Ref 7. is used for sourcing "The pictures were illustrated by Loren Long whose main inspiration was American regionalist artists" line. This reference is used for sourcing the fact that Madonna partnered with Apple and Audible. You need to go and find me any discussion from WP:RSN which shows that Press Releases cannot be used for non-challenging material like that, else its your personal preference which is coming through. I will not remove the later source. The former I can since the inspiration is noted in the Publishers Weekly source. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:19, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Just want to be clear was this made before or after I corrected and said it's 2.5 sentences? If after fair enough I'll call in the second opinion but since I admitted I was wrong that it was not a lot when I went back through I wanted to make sure that we couldn't come to resolution without a second opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I checked clearly what you said and I have made my stance clear in the previous comment that why WP:PROMOTION does not apply here for Reference from the Business Wire link. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I have put in for the 2nd opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        @Barkeep49: Just to let you know I added two book sources which talk of the release strategy, along with the press release. That should suffice whatever point you were trying to make? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm just here to give my opinion on this issue. Reading through the section and checking out some of the sources used, I would be happy that WP:PROMO isn't being violated here. I think the section is reasonably neutral, and none of the content stands out to me as being out of place. The reference that is marked "Press release" is only used for brief informative passages and is supported by other references in one place as well. I wouldn't let this issue hold up the review. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adamstom.97. I am proceeding with passing this GA. To reply to a comment elsewhere my only "point" in this process is to ensure the GA criteria are met for this article. This second opinion suggests they have been. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Have a couple GA related items ahead of this but am always happy to review a Children lit candidate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:25, 29 June 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.