Talk:Moonrise (novel)/GA2

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

Reviewer: Cptnono (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Notes
 * Sourcing
 * This was delisted from GA due to the wandsandworlds community/forum site. I honestly could see allowing the transcripts of her conversations since it appears legit but it does not apear to be a reliable source per WP:IRS. If that site is being used, it needs to be brought up at the RS noticeboard since passing the article after it was demoted would be inappropriate.
 * Kate's blog initially appears to not be RS but it could be acceptable primary source. Personally, I am inclined to accept it as a primary source but it needs to be verifiable that it is actually her blog and not an impostor.
 * This forum is probably not RS. But again, it looks like the author is actually posting. Can this be verified? I hate to be a stickler but this sort of thing has principle's for a reason.
 * Several links to HarperCollins timed out. Are these dead links or is this a temporary error? Are these links verified in anything published so that we would not need a link?
 * Several foreign sales based sites (along with the domestic Amazon) are linked to. Are these actual RS? It might depend on the context of the what is being verified but so many sales based sites instead of something that has a reputation for fact checking (newspaper, magazine, academic piece, and so on) is a red flag. Something like this (ref 17) does not verify the text from what I can tell. I do not see anything about 3-d trading card from that index page (I do not read Han but Google attempted).
 * Minor formatting errors in the refs. The New York Times should be italicized. Consider spelling out DC Public Library.
 * Image looks like its FUR is more than sufficient.
 * Why is "Clans" capped?
 * We have discussed this several times a WikiProject; the "Clans" are all capitalized in the books. ThunderClan, WindClan, etc., making the "Clan" a part of the name, not just a label. PrincessofLlyr  royal court 14:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * List of Warriors characters should be linked but some sort of summary style paragraph would be appropriate in this article. The plot section might lay out the characters enough so this is questionable.
 * The entire "Synopsis" section is not referenced. Although we can find the info in the book, an entire section not referenced won't work.
 * Direct quotes need refs.

The layout, length of the lead, image, overall base, and other aspects are perfectly fine. However, I a failing this at this time since the sourcing issue will be an in depth discussion that requires a noticeboard or a complete reworking of the sourcing. Both of which would take too long to warrant keeping this on hold.
 * Fail

Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * Pass for the most part (why is "Clans" capped, though?)
 * Pass (fiction standards applies and was not overdone but it was not sourced)

Factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
 * Fail

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and
 * Fail

(c) it contains no original research.
 * Pass

Broad in its coverage: (a)
 * Questionable (Links to a list of characters but does not summarize it)

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * Pass. Handles conflicting reviews well.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4] Illustrated, if possible, by images:[ (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * Pass.

(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * Pass

Cptnono (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply
Thank you for taking the time to review this. Sourcing is definitely a real issue with Warriors books. I will take the Wands and Worlds transcripts to RSN. I should think that Kate Cary herself is the one blogging, seeing as she seems to have the ability to reveal cover pictures before they are released. The forum should also be Victoria Holmes posting (mentioned in an author chat, so, again, it comes down to whether Wands and Worlds is counted as RS). All foreign sales sites are the actual publisher's website, so should be RS, seeing as all that's being referenced is release dates (and existence, I suppose). The 3-d trading card can be seen, if you scroll down. There is an image of it on the page. Will fix formatting. As Princess says, Clans is capitalised in the books, so per MOS, follow the sources. I considered having a characters section, but then I'd have to seek consensus on how to determine which characters are important enough to be mentioned on this page (seeing as there were at least 15 characters who played significant roles in the story). I'm wasn't aware that any of the quotes were unreferenced. I will check that. Oh and I;m quite sure plot summaries do not need to be referenced. Most FA exemplars at WP:MOSFICTION don't have references for the plot summary.  Bramble  claw  x   23:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Wands and Worlds: Taken to RSN, seems to be acceptable.
 * Kate Cary's blog: I highly doubt that it's an imposter... I'm not sure how exactly you want it proven, but it seems likely to be her, since she has access to unreleased book covers...
 * Forum is likely also not an imposter, seeing as that forum is connected to the official Warriors Website
 * I'm not having any problems viewing the HarperCollins pages, and I think these are the most reliable sources for the publication date
 * As mentioned above, these are the publisher's site themselves, and the only thing being referenced is the release date
 * Chinese ref corrected
 * Refs formatted
 * I appreciate the responses but this was already closed out so another review will have to be opened. Just for the feedback, I am responding:
 * I looked at a few FAs and it looks like some plot sections are not referenced. I was surprised by this even though it makes sense to see the external link. However, keep in mind that something that passed FA in 2007 may not pass now. I do see the precedent to not cite it even if I do not agree with it.
 * If you are going to get a section on characters in it would greatly improve the article.
 * RSN does not seem sufficient to me personally since one person over there cannot override others previously demoting the article. Hopefully more people will respond. I think it is a great example of an acceptable WP:QS. However, I have seen better sources not accepted at FA and since you would like to see this at FA I hope you appreciate a stricter interpretation of the standards. If only a couple more people seconded the assertion that it is acceptable I would not have any problems accepting it but I recommend asking some reviewers of FAs to see if they would accept it.
 * The blog really is fine as a selfpub. I think I was getting a little over picky after the other sourcing issues came up. Seemed like another possible flag so wanted to mention it. But yes, few editors will require that anything like that be verifiable that it is the author. Some editors are too strict.
 * HarperCollins is up now. Keep an eye on it since if it is not up when someone runs the check it will stall any pass. But ref 9 is unformatted and dead.
 * Good luck on this. You guys are well on your way so I hope the next nomination goes alright. Cptnono (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)