Talk:Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Wrecking Ball/GA1

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 15:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Review

 * Grammar isn't my strong point but are all those semicolons in the last sentence of the first paragraph of plot really correct?
 * I'm pretty sure this is correct, as it's a description of the character and then their name, so it clears up that Greg's father and Frank aren't two separate people or anything.
 * Spring cleaning doesn't have a clear date associated with it (like April Fools or even Thanksgiving). What makes it the spring cleaning day for Greg?
 * The book starts off in March with Greg doing his spring cleaning, so would specifying that clear things up?
 * Yes. Barkeep49 (talk)
 * The list of chores Greg does gets a little repetitive. Would suggest either shortening or trying to improve the quality of the writing in some other way.
 * I've been thinking about this part but I don't really see a way I can improve it. I tried to avoid making it redundant or overly detailed.
 * That makes sense. So I think the solution is to try and improve the writing some. You have three sentences with pretty similar structures two of which start the same way. Vary that up and it should work better. Barkeep49 (talk)
 * Is the open house tour of the school or of the house?
 * A tour of the house. I can't think of a better way to word it because "open house at a house" sounds kinda silly.
 * Fair enough but I don't think you need the word open and have removed it. If you think it necessary feel free to add it back in. Barkeep49 (talk)
 * I don't understand "he learns of a scheduling error and sees that his house is already being moved out"
 * As Greg is talking to Rowley, he sees that construction is already being done on his house and his family rushes to get all their belongings out. Could I remove the scheduling error part?
 * See if my tweak (using your words) works for you and is correct. Barkeep49 (talk)
 * Neither source listed in background actually says there's a theme of construction. Might work better as home improvement?
 * Yeah, I'll fix that.
 * There's a lot of quotes in this article. I think a fair amount of this could be changed to paraphrase (or even removed).
 * Hmm, maybe. I'll work on that.
 * Did some more work, is it good now?
 * What makes GeekDad RS?
 * It won a Webby award, is not biased, and has no spelling or grammar mistakes.
 * And it does have an editorial process. However, I would still suggest it's not RS (which is obviously different than being notable). While it has an editorial process it's not clear how much happens on any given post or if it's more blog like. The writer of that article possess no specialized knowledge/experience which suggests he is positioned to do such a review. GeekDad isn't generally used for other children's lit articles (the way Common Sense Media is) nor do other Reliable Sources really mention/use it. I don't think it's RS and I don't think you need it as a source for this article to be GA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I do cite it a lot for the Jeff Kinney interview, though.
 * Yeah you can definitely use the interview (source 4 as of this edit), just not the review (source 8 as of this edit). Barkeep49 (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Noting that the first instance of something should get the hyperlink so I've moved the link for Kinney from Release to Background
 * Ah, thank you.
 * I will suggest, more generally, that release could probably be merged with Background.
 * Hmm, maybe.
 * I don't think that source suggests it was the second best selling book of 2019. Only that it had the second most sales and was also a best seller at that time - so if a book was released in January and had fallen off the list it might have sold more. Also that link looks to still be live. You really need an archived version at a specific date so someone can verify it at a later time.
 * It was at the time; I struggled to find sales information for this book.
 * Well it was a USA Today bestseller. I think you can use the PW sales info you just need to do three things. Include an, link to an archived version (i.e. this), and delete the claim that it was the second best selling book of 2019. The source doesn't say that and it's not an infrence you can draw from the data as the archived version I link to here shows. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, cited an archived version of the article.
 * I am OK with doing a little simple math and have added in an archived version from December to show overall sales. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

-
 * With the changes there were a whole bunch of very short pargraphs and so I did some consolidation, especially in background (while also getting rid of a couple unnecessary quotes - the paraphrase being more than sufficient). Please check out that these work for you. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, this works well.
 * The current last paragraph of Background is awkward. I'm not sure you need the transition phrasing in sentences two and three. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, fixed.

Discussion
OK let's give this a go. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. Been generally busy but I think my availability has opened back up. Nothing too major in the review above - biggest issue being cutting down on the number of quotes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that this is starting again. Scrooge200 (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Is the article ready for promotion now? Scrooge200 (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I miss that you had fixed the GeekDad stuff. Should be passed now. Congrats! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)