Talk:Lollipop Power/GA1

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

Reviewer: Blz 2049 (talk · contribs) 06:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello hi I'm gonna start reviewing this soon. Cheerio :) —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 06:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks, and incredible find with the logo. I own one of LP's books but it doesn't have the logo in it so I'd assumed they didn't have one! —&#8288;Collint c 15:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I noticed when searching for a logo image that some of the earlier books may not have had the logo, and that the logo varied in small ways over time. I found only one example where "Inc." was included, and it seems like it the publisher's address was usually given directly below the wordmark when it was used. Happy to contribute :) even as a reviewer, we're all here with the purpose to improve the article. —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 09:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Blz 2049 Hi, Great review! I am seconding your review and saying that I would pass the criteria 6a and 6b. Good job. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


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

Some further notes:
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: (revised to ) —blz 2049 ➠ ❏ 11:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In general, this is a very thoughtfully and fairly presented article without any serious indicators of bias. That said I'm a little curious about the "lesbian feminist" label, which may tend to overstate the publisher's overall radicalism and/or queerness as currently applied. The publisher is forthrightly feminist for sure, and certainly open to lesbian feminism, but that perspective didn't seem to typify their output or marketing. I wonder if labelling the entire enterprise as lesbian feminist isn't somewhat reductive? To quote : "A look at the subjects of the first three Lollipop Power books reveals that our feminist was not markedly different from that of any liberal feminist group, though most of us thought of ourselves as radicals."To be sure, there's a lot of retrospective analysis from a queer lens, which is natural given that a lot of the most conspicuous most noteworthy advances the publisher made were from an LGBTQ+ perspective, but I don't know if that speaks for the whole publisher or how it was mostly represented in its own time. I certainly don't think that descriptor should be removed entirely, nor that it should be taken out of Category:Lesbian feminist literature or anything like that—I just wonder if some additional context/qualification might not be helpful in the lead and body. I don't have any strict idea of how exactly we should go about fixing this—I'm open to your perspective, knowledge and suggestions—but it is the one major thing that stuck out to me as necessary to address before GA-certifying this.
 * Great point! I think Enszer is approaching North Carolina publishing of this era with lesbian-feminist-colored glasses which tend to make everything look a little lesbian-feminist. Considering Evans's retrospective that some of the members of the collective later came out as gay and after a closer read of Enszer's text, I think it's fair to trim down the emphasis on lesbian feminism and replace in one instance the liberal feminism mentioned by Evans. I've additionally rewritten the first para of the history section to incorporate more details from the Evans piece which is tremendously useful. —&#8288;Collint c 21:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good! I think your changes are exactly on point. <i style="color:#e7dae0;">—blz 2049</i> <b style="color:#e7dae0;">➠ ❏</b> 11:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * When I started reviewing the article, I saw that there were no images. I then created and uploaded the logo image, Lollipop Power Inc. (logo).png, which is copyrighted and provided under a standard fair-use claim. Therefore I have to recuse myself from this portion of the review, and some other reviewer else will have to weigh in.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, this is a really fascinating, well-researched, well-composed article! Just a few points to clear up, one of which I incurred. Mea culpa! I'll seek out supplemental reviewers for the image.
 * When I started reviewing the article, I saw that there were no images. I then created and uploaded the logo image, Lollipop Power Inc. (logo).png, which is copyrighted and provided under a standard fair-use claim. Therefore I have to recuse myself from this portion of the review, and some other reviewer else will have to weigh in.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, this is a really fascinating, well-researched, well-composed article! Just a few points to clear up, one of which I incurred. Mea culpa! I'll seek out supplemental reviewers for the image.
 * The article says Lollipop Power got started in 1969, though North Carolina corporation records indicate its date of incorporation was 1970 and its first publication, Jenny's Secret Place, looks to be from 1970. While it's obviously not impossible that the Lollipop Power collective got started up in 1969 but formally incorporated and debuted in 1970, but it got me curious. I checked Enszer 2015 and it backed up the 1969 date without providing further detail; I was unable to access Miller 2022. In the process of seeking out sources to help clarify this, I found some accounts from Sara M. Evans (aka Sara Evans Boyte) of the early years, which you'll hopefully find useful if you haven't seen these already:
 * (Check out pp. 10–11 and 239 in particular)
 * I haven't seen these sources, these are great! The 2007 interview mostly duplicates info from the 2003 book and the 2009 paper doesn't have much new to say but Evans 2003 is a terrific resource. On the founding date, I think Enszer ultimately is pulling from Gallagher 1982 who cites the 1969 date. Since both Evans 2003 and Gallagher 1982 are primary retrospectives, I'll weight them more or less equally and incorporate the uncertainty. —&#8288;Collint c 21:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen these sources, these are great! The 2007 interview mostly duplicates info from the 2003 book and the 2009 paper doesn't have much new to say but Evans 2003 is a terrific resource. On the founding date, I think Enszer ultimately is pulling from Gallagher 1982 who cites the 1969 date. Since both Evans 2003 and Gallagher 1982 are primary retrospectives, I'll weight them more or less equally and incorporate the uncertainty. —&#8288;Collint c 21:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen these sources, these are great! The 2007 interview mostly duplicates info from the 2003 book and the 2009 paper doesn't have much new to say but Evans 2003 is a terrific resource. On the founding date, I think Enszer ultimately is pulling from Gallagher 1982 who cites the 1969 date. Since both Evans 2003 and Gallagher 1982 are primary retrospectives, I'll weight them more or less equally and incorporate the uncertainty. —&#8288;Collint c 21:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I came across some additional info about Jesse's Dream Skirt by Bruce Mack at the sources below; the former calls it "[o]ne of the first picture books about a gender creative boy," while the latter claims it to be "the first book about a boy who wants to wear a skirt or dress to school" (overly broad as literally stated—surely there's been books about crossdressing at school as long as there's been books—but more plausible when bounded by the article's declared subject of "books for children and young adult"). These claims seem noteworthy in their broad strokes and I'd be curious if there's more along these lines (tho this side quest would not be required to pass GA).
 * This bit actually is corroborated by Miller so I've added it in as best I can see how. Great note! —&#8288;Collint c 21:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This bit actually is corroborated by Miller so I've added it in as best I can see how. Great note! —&#8288;Collint c 21:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This bit actually is corroborated by Miller so I've added it in as best I can see how. Great note! —&#8288;Collint c 21:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I look forward to your response! Let me know if you have any questions. Also please note that any edits I've made to the article are offered in the spirit of collaboration. I don't wish to impose my preferences, I just find it easier as I read and research the subject to make some direct edits, rather than making elaborate suggestions here that would be immaterial to whether the article is worthy of passing the GAN process. Some of those changes (particularly such as the introduction of a table in the Bibliography section) are strictly optional. I'm more than happy to discuss them if you disagree. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:Aldus;background:linear-gradient(#6B818C,#000);padding:0 .5em 0 .2em;border-radius:9px"><i style="color:#e7dae0;">—blz 2049</i> <b style="color:#e7dae0;">➠ ❏</b> 09:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this really lovely and helpful review, ! I'm gonna take a look at these points in the next few days, and also try to beef out the list of published titles; for whatever reason it just totally slipped my mind to use WorldCat to help assemble a list of titles that they'd published but that's a great starting place. I'm also gonna see about getting Miller 2022 from my local library to see about verifying the 1969 date. More soon! —&#8288;Collint c 23:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi again ! Once again, superb notes. I've made all of these changes and will now work on beefing up the publications list (I don't think it's more than about 25 books in total). Let me know if there's anything else you think would be useful or anything else I'm missing! —&#8288;Collint c 21:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that didn't actually take that long. I'm now "done" with work on this article unless there are other bits and bobs you think can be improved! —&#8288;Collint c 21:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Great improvements, especially completing the bibliography! I'm deeming it passed, except for the media portion at 6a & 6b; I'm recusing myself from that part and requesting someone fill in there with a second opinion. Keeping in mind you feel reasonably done' with work on this article" (and for GA review purposes, I agree you've done all that's necessary), here are some totally optional bonus suggestions:
 * Bibliographical sources like Paperbound Books for Young People (1979) or Resources for Educational Equity (1988) could be used to verify/supplement the info in the table, if you choose. P. 224 of the latter mentions the press published a Bibliography of Materials on Sexism and Sex-Role Stereotyping in Children's Books, updated annually from "(1972–)".
 * It would be cool to see a column or two for permanent identifiers for first editions, especially e.g. LCCN and/or OCLC IDs, mayyybe ISBN.
 * No discussion of Lollipop Power printing at least two bilingual English-Spanish books; I haven't checked if there's much commentary on these works as American literature in Spanish. Grown-Ups Cry Too is bilingual in English and Spanish, with the alternate title Los Adultos Tambien Lloran. I Like You to Make Jokes with Me, but I Don't Want You to Touch Me, also written in English and Spanish, is alternately titled Me Gusta Que Bromees Conmigo, Pero No Quiero Que Me Toques and credits María A. Salgado for translation.

Again, great work :) <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:Aldus;background:linear-gradient(#6B818C,#000);padding:0 .5em 0 .2em;border-radius:9px"><i style="color:#e7dae0;">—blz 2049</i> <b style="color:#e7dae0;">➠ ❏</b> 11:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Finally, this suggestion would be beyond "extra credit" but I can't help but float the idea. I couldn't say for sure, but I strongly suspect there'd be some public domain material among the records at Lollipop Power's academic archive at UNC. For instance, based on this tweet from an official UNC Libraries account with a photo of a Xerox copy of a Lollipop Power flier, it looks like the original, undated, circa-mid-1970s flier got printed and distributed without a valid copyright notice. That would mean that particular flier (and the illustration/text on it) most likely entered the public domain as soon as it was published. (Pre-1978, it was required to attach a formalized copyright notice to a newly published work in order for its publisher/creator to secure copyright protection—or else, in the absence of a formally compliant notice, the publisher would automatically and forever forfeit their copyright. Generally check out The Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices: Chapter 2200 for official in-depth guidance on the topic.) Though from that tweet alone I'm not 100% positive we can see the whole flier—like, is it folded? Not sure. Either way, the archive holds many more documents like illustrated advertising or other published promo materials (publicity photos of authors, perhaps?) in the public domain. If so, the archive could be an amazing source of high-res, legitly freely reusable multimedia. The hitch is someone would have to physically go to the UNC Library and get any useable originals scanned. Could be worth asking Wikipedians with access to the UNC library, if you're so inclined. UNC marks the collection as "No restrictions. Open for research.", so scanning some of the material doesn't seem like it'd be out of the question. Up to you!
 * Thanks for taking a look at the images ! these are flabbergastingly excellent notes. I've added a sentence and source about the Bibliography that LP published. Agreed that a goal down the line should be to note which works were bilingual, and if I've ever in NC I'll absolutely hit up the archive to pull some of the PD materials in the archive. Let me know if you think there's anything else needed for the GA review! —&#8288;Collint c 16:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bobamnertiopsis Hi, Blz 2049's last edit was on 27 September, let's hope they'll come back soon. Regards. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for completing the image review. I'm passing this article now, phenomenal work! <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:Aldus;background:linear-gradient(#6B818C,#000);padding:0 .5em 0 .2em;border-radius:9px"><i style="color:#e7dae0;">—blz 2049</i> <b style="color:#e7dae0;">➠ ❏</b> 17:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Blz 2049 Welcome back! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)