Talk:Cheshire Crossing

Numerous reviews - but which ones are reliable?
There are over a dozen reviews of Cheshire Crossing online, but most comes from blog sites of unknown reliability. I've tried to collate them all below and give my thoughts on which ones are reliable enough to cite in this article.

Have a Wikipedia page, so are probably notable

 * Kirkus Reviews – a long-standing, respected review magazine.
 * Publisher's Weekly – a long-standing, respected trade magazine.
 * ICv2 - Considered reliable enough a site to be cited in at least two New York Times articles and notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, so probably.

Seem to be blogs or similar with multiple contributors (but might not be)

 * Children's Book and Media Review - An initiative by Brigham Young University, this has scholarly backing and so is likely reliable.
 * The Nerd Daily - A well-established site with many authors. Very commonly used to cite Wikipedia articles. Probably?
 * Comics Worth Reading - While this appears to be a one person site (or maybe a wife-and-husband team), it has a 21 year history and is cited by many, many other Wikipedia articles. I haven't found many if any other sources talking about the site Comics Worth Reading, but it is a generic phrase that's hard to search for. So, maybe?
 * Comic Crusaders - Most articles on the site seem to be written by the same person (though apparently this one is someone else). Couldn't find any talk about it on the web. Often used in Wikipedia as a citation. So maybe?
 * Fantasy Literature - This review discusses both the print and audio versions. Reports having a large number of reviewers and has reviewed thousands of works. Describes itself as "not professional literature critics" (but you can still be reliable and not professional). Again a generic name makes searching for discussion of the site difficult.
 * The Fandom Post - Slick looking website reporting multiple reviewers. Very few people follow either its Twitter or Instagram accounts. Possibly?
 * Comics Now - The website is down, at least for now. I couldn't find much reference to the site on the web. Does not seem to be used for citations in Wikipedia - but it is a common phrase so hard to tell really.
 * The Library Ladies - A two-person blog. They won "The Liebster Award", but I can't verify that being a notable thing. Probably just a personal blog that isn't reliable?
 * The Reader and the Chef - This is a review of the audiobook, not the comic. The site is two reviewers (siblings), one of which focuses on food reviews.
 * Comic Book Round Up - Is only aggregating a review from another site. Not reliable itself.

Personal blogs

 * Adventures of a Bibliophile - Personal blog (only one contributor). Not discussed in the broader web. Not used by other Wikipedia articles. Not reliable.
 * The Neverending TBR - This is a site with a single writer. However, that writer, Jaymie Dieterle, is a judge for the Cybils Awards (eg here), which lends some credence to their reliability?
 * Moon Kestrel definitely a personal blog that is not reliable.
 * The Webcomics Overlook - established as unreliable in discussions by the Webcomics Work Group.

Summary
If we were to illustrate the critical reception for this comic, we might want to take 4-6 reviews from reliable sources, ensuring we have the most reliable ones in there but also that dissenting views (if reliable) appear. To me a good set would be:


 * Kirkus Reviews
 * Publisher's Weekly
 * ICv2
 * Children's Book and Media Review
 * The Nerd Daily
 * Comics Worth Reading

HenryCrun15 (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Lem
Current edit says that Lem is Lemony Snickett. I do not think this is correct. Is there any indication that it is him? Why should a fictional persona of a contemporary author appear in a book set in the 1910's? This does no0t make sense. The character is actually Dr Lemuel Gulliver. My source for this is the author's comments on his forum, which alas no longer exists. But even without the author's word, Gulliver makes more sense than Snickett. Gulliver is a traveller between worlds, like the other characters. Snickett tells stories that are arguably set in another world. Big difference. Also, Gulliver obtained a potion of immortality, though he didn't drink it in the original book. He could still be alive in 1910. I'm going to change it. I. R. Finch (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that "Lem" is Lemuel Gulliver, not Lemony Snickett. Another clue, in addition to Gulliver being a traveller to different worlds, is that Dr. Rutherford at one point says to Lem; " You were a surgeon, Lem.  Have you ever seen anything like this?"  Note that the full title of the book commonly referred to as "Gulliver's Travels" is actually "Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World. In Four Parts. By Lemuel Gulliver, First a Surgeon , and then a Captain of Several Ships"  (Emphasis added in both cases.) 2600:4040:2D20:F600:BC19:F34D:2320:1616 (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)