Talk:And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) 11:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Prose feedback
Feel free to disagree with any of this; I'm not here to enforce a particular style on anyone.


 * I notice there's almost no discussion of Seuss's drawing style. I'd expected at least a paragraph, if not a section, on the drawings.  Lurie at the very least seems to touch on it (comparisons to Krazy Kat, etc).
 * Believe it or not, I've come across relatively little discussion of his art style as it relates to Mulberry Street. But I gathered what I could and turned out a decent paragraph. Hope you think so too. Bobnorwal (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

 * No need to link "Dr. Seuss" three times.
 * done Bobnorwal (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * : Is "Publication date" synonymous with "Copyright date"?
 * I haven't the slightest. I just deleted the renewal date. I didn't put it there, and I don't think it's terribly important. Bobnorwal (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Dr. Seuss" is a "Media type"?
 * Good call. Removed. Bobnorwal (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Followed by" is intended for books in a series, not as a chronology of authors' books.
 * Done Bobnorwal (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * : consistency–you use a slash to separate lines in the "Plot" section, but not here.
 * Noted. Changed. Bobnorwal (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead

 * : if it was never published under this title, then it shouldn't be highlighted in the lead, and especially not in the opening sentence.
 * Done. Bobnorwal (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * : Seuss's real name is background material; I doubt it belongs in the lead. Even if it stays, the rest of the article should refer to him as "Seuss", not "Geisel", just as we refer to the author of Middlemarch as George Eliot and not Mary Anne Evans, and we refer to the creator of Tintin as Hergé and not Georges Remi.
 * I completely disagree with you on this one. To me, "Dr. Seuss" is a brand name as much as it is a pseudonym, so the George Eliot comparison doesn't hold. To me Geisel was the man, Dr. Seuss was the brand, and I think I've done a good job of keeping that distinction in this article. For example: "While Mulberry Street's sales grew significantly as Dr. Seuss became more famous, it is not one of Geisel's best-selling books." Bobnorwal (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you sure the reader would grasp this distinction (let alone agree with it)? At the very least, I'd reword "Dr. Seuss became more famous" to "the Dr. Seuss (brand|line|etc) became more famous". Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * : I think "only" is superfluous here.
 * It's there to show that it was a minor condition, as in "only a little." Bobnorwal (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Plot

 * : is superfluous, and mixes in-universe and out-of-universe prose.
 * Manual of Style (writing about fiction) says it's okay. In fact, it "gives the summary a more grounded tone and makes it more accessible to those unfamiliar with the source material." Bobnorwal (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Background

 * : "when he began work"
 * Done. Bobnorwal (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * : Standard Oil made bug spray? If so, can this be reworded to make it clear?
 * I tried, but I'm not sure it's any clearer.


 * : meaning the words, "a stupid horse and wagon", the idea, or ...?
 * The words. Bobnorwal (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Publication history

 * : needs an endash
 * Done? Bobnorwal (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * : drop the first comman and there'll be no chance of mistaking this for three people.
 * Done. Bobnorwal (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * : had they owned Vanguard in part before? Either way, I'd drop "entirely".
 * Done. Bobnorwal (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Reception

 * A. O. Scott needs a space between the "A." and the "O." (a non-breaking space would be a better idea—they can be used without breaking the link, so no need to use a pipe).
 * I'm a little confused by this. I'm not sure what you mean. Bobnorwal (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the only important thing is the space between the "A." and the "O." Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * it's The New York Times, not.
 * Done. Bobnorwal (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Analysis

 * : Hejji was a comic strip, no? Strip titles should be italicized, not quoted, and it should be stated that it's a comic strip, so people don7t think it was a comic book, or proto-graphic novel or something.  Also, the spelling is "jj", not "ij", and it should be linked (and it wouldn't hurt to throw in the year—1935—or to mention the strip's tragically brief life).
 * Done. Bobnorwal (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * : don't you mean "the spread of Nazism"? "the spread of Nazi Germany's "?
 * Done. Bobnorwal (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Legacy

 * : according to whom?
 * according to Pease, the reference. Bobnorwal (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It needs to be attributed. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * : typo
 * I don't see a typo here. Bobnorwal (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Donalad. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * : I'd either continue this with a comma from the previous sentence, or drop the "And".
 * Done? Bobnorwal (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * : either a comma or colon after "read".
 * Done. Bobnorwal (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Images

 * Only one, a Fair Use image with a proper Rationale. It's a PNG—they usually look nicer when converted to JPGs for reasons I cannot comprehend—not in the least necessary, but something to keep in mind.
 * No other images—not an issue, but it would be nice if there were some ... for example, if there were a free image of Seuss from the time, a map pointing out Springfield, even an image of Hitler or something Nazi-related ...

Source check

 * So far I've only checked Lurie; it checks out, with no close paraphrasing or anything. I'll see if I can get access to any of the other sources.
 * Pease, p. 85 checks out (I couldn't acces the other two pages)
 * The stuff in Nel about Geisel's "sense of line" and "sense of energy" apears to be on page 72, not 108–109.
 * Good catch! Turns out, I messed up with naming the ref. Is there anything else I need to fix before you pass this? Bobnorwal (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I couldn't access any of the other books. The online sources check out. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Overall
So far everything looks solid—almost everything that's not quite right is easy to fix. the only major concern I have is the paucity of info on Seuss's drawing style, which I think seriously needs some attention.

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review, Curly. I'm a pretty big comics fan too, and I've long been an admirer of your work here on Wikipedia. This review was... something else. It's definitely extensive! Never has one of my articles received such a demanding GA review. Some of the smaller issues you had with it gave me pause. They reminded me of the discussions I've seen on reviews for Featured Articles (which is a big reason I've always avoided submitting anything for FA status). I don't really see the usefulness of ISBN's and endashes in Wikipedia articles. Can't a reader just google the book's title? And don't hyphens separate dates just as well as endashes? Still, I think I've addressed most of your concerns, to one degree or another. I'm sure you'll let me know if there's anything more to be done. Bobnorwal (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not going to argue about dashes—I just follow the MoS. ISBNs are a different story: books are often published in multiple editions, and those editions often have different page counts.  We need to know which edition you've cited so we can be sure we're on the same page. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for finding additional sources. With your help, I would definitely be willing to push this article toward FA. As it is, though, isn't this information just a little below the water line for GA? I thought so, when I encountered most of this info in other sources. I mean, the article as it is covers the important points, and I don't see how info about one advertisement or about the initial reactions from some people in Springfield puts it over the top. Bobnorwal (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Passed. I do believe we have ourselves another Good Article here. Nice work! Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)