Talk:Nancy Drew/GA1

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

I am looking forward to reviewing this article. It's a long one so please be patient! Don't hestitate to contact me with questions or suggestions. ItsLassieTime (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Awesome, - thank you so much, ItsLassieTime! I do appreciate and look forward to hearing what can be improved. Ricardiana (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, the references are improperly formatted. Go here Cite book and read the material. You will need to reformat the citations.  I'm afraid that as they stand, the article will fail GA.  You must cite publisher, copyright dates, ISBN (if available) and page numbers.  Reformat your first three or four citations per Cite book, then let me know so I can check your work.  There are other problems here so only do the first three or four. ItsLassieTime (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm about to start now. Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I did for the first three, as you asked. Ricardiana (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work! Continue with the others if necessary. WP has templates for websites, journals, etc. if needed. Citations 12,13,14 appear to be from the same source and page. Just use one citation at the place where 14 is now positioned. This will cover them all. There are similar instances...78,79,80...same source, same page.  Use one citation where 80 now stands. Quotes are always to be cited and 78 is a "quote" but it can be paraphrased ('especially her wardrobe') without damaging the passage.  Your choice. Look for similar citation instances and reduce the citations to one. When you have completed the work,  make a note here. I'll be back! ItsLassieTime (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, they should all be reformatted now. There are still of couples of repeated refs that I need to work on, but at least the notes are complete now. Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please bear with me as I jog about the article from section to section.
 * Of course! :) Thank you for putting so much time into this. Also I hope you don't mind if I use your comments as a checklist for things to do. I've made some notes below mostly to that end. Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Use my comments as a checklist. I'll be making response here. Continue to check here. ItsLassieTime (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm confused about the title. Is this a "fictional character article" or one about the series of books or both or what?
 * I see your point, but changing the title would mean changing all links to the page, correct? Could re-writing the lead help, instead? Ricardiana (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't rewrite the lead at the moment. The lead will be the last part I'll review. ItsLassieTime (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Rather than beginning the article with an "Authorship" section you should start with a short "Nancy Drew" section to orient the reader. Who is she? What is she? What does she do? This can be an unsourced "plot summary" sort of thing focusing on the fictional facts of Nancy Drew that anyone can glean from reading the books.  Interpretation however must be cited.
 * Will do. Ricardiana (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Book jackets/covers may have to be removed. I understand they're only permitted in articles about the specific title.  I'll check on this.
 * There was some discussion of this re: this article specifically on Media copyright questions (near the bottom of the page). Ricardiana (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the covers! Hurrah! ItsLassieTime (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There was a Nancy Drew board game published by Parker Brothers in the late 1950s. There may have been other games, toys, paper dolls, party favors, notebooks, pencil cases, diaries, lunch boxes, Christmas ornaments, etc. manufactured in relation to the character and to the series. An "Ancillary merchandise" or "Merchandising" section would be a nice touch to the article.
 * Will do. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Film and television section

 * The title of the "Nancy Drew in film and television" section needs only be "Film and television". We know the article is about Nancy Drew so her name does not need to be repeated here. Ditto for titles of other sections and subsections. Drop her name. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Drop or expand the single sentence paragraph immediately beneath the title of the section. WP eschews single sentence paragraphs. Ditto for all single sentence paragraphs throughout the article. Drop or expand to a multiple sentence paragraph.
 * eliminate single-sentence paragraphs ✅ except for a couple in the sections listing various series like the supermysteries Ricardiana (talk) 02:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * broaden discussion of various spinoffs to eliminate single paragraphs?
 * or create new pages and put a "See [x]" on this one?


 * "Film" is sufficient for the title of the subsection. This is in keeping with other articles that have similar sections. Drop "Feature". ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is too much bulleted list-like material in the entire article. Try to work the material into paragraphs.  Example: :Nancy Drew: Detective, the first of four films, was loosely based on The Password to Larkspur Lane, and released in December 1938.  The film was followed three months later in March 1939 with Nancy Drew: Reporter ... whatever. Work the bulleted list into a paragraph. There is a trailer image of Granville as Drew at Bonita Granville's article. It could be incorporated here. Trailers are PD.
 * Add pic of Granville. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Get rid of bullets here ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * and in entire article. Ricardiana (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC) ✅ unless computer game titles, etc., count Ricardiana (talk) 02:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here: "A fifth movie may have planned or even produced, but was never released; actor Frankie Thomas believes that he and Bonita Granville made five movies, not four,[108]"  Should it be been planned? Change "Bonita Granville" to "Granville" and delink. It's been linked in a previous sentence.
 * fix tense ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to "Granville" only ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here: "Nancy Drew and the Hidden Staircase was the only film to..."  The film title should be italicized. There's also another place in the paragraph where this occurs.
 * italicize film titles ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here: "rechristened "Ted" Nickerson ("Ned" was considered old-fashioned"[111], Hannah..." The comma should precede the superscript citation thus: "fashioned,[111] Hannah".
 * fix this ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here: "To promote the film, Warner Brothers created a Nancy Drew fan club that included a set of rules, such as: "Must have steady boy friend, in the sense of a 'pal'" and must "Take part in choosing own clothes."[113]." Another single sentence paragraph. This one could be worked into the previous sentence. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here: "Critical reaction to these films is mixed; some find that "[t]he movies did not depict the true Nancy Drew,"[114] in part because Nancy "blatantly used her feminine wiles (and enticing bribes)" to accomplish her goals.[115] Bonita Granville's Nancy is also outspoken: in Nancy Drew and the Hidden Staircase, Nancy refers to the police chief as "a 'conceited tweet-tweet' - a show of disrespect the real Nancy wouldn't dream of!"[116] However, Mildred Benson, the author of most Nancy Drew books at the time the films were released, liked the films.[117]" Why is a 't' in brackets?  Delink Bonita Granville and change to Granville. Italicize the film title. The hyphen following "tweet-tweet" should be an en dash (See WP:DASH). IMO, this paragraph is hard on the eyes.  Too many punctuation marks – brackets, exclamation point, quotation marks, parentheses, colon, semicolon apostrophes – all giving the paragraph a cluttered look.  Work on this. Try paraphrasing and getting rid of the quotation marks. And here: " the films were released, liked the films". Try to rework the "films...films" duplication.  Perhaps, "the filmes were released, liked them"?
 * Letters in brackets -- this is MLA style for changing a capital letter in the original to a uncapitalized one. I believe other formats, such as Chicago, do this as well, but I take it it's not done in Wikipedia, so I'll change those throughout. Ricardiana (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * rework para for punctuation ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * rework para for repetition, Granville's name, letters in brackets, etc. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here: "Others find the movie "jolting" in part because "[h]er new classmates prefer shopping to sleuthing, and Nancy's plaid skirt and magnifying glass make her something of a dork, not the town hero she was in the Midwest." Why is the 'h' in brackets?
 * MLA habit, as above. Change ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here: "In 2002,...". Incorporate this single sentence paragraph into the previous paragraph or expand it into a multiple sentence paragraph by citing a review, its rating, or other info. Always be careful about citing IMDb. WP is not in love with sources that are user created.
 * find a source besides IMDb ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * incorporate into previous para. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here: "Broadcasting Company broadcast" wording in the last sentence is awkward. Try "ABC broadcast" instead and replace "ABC" in the first sentence with "American Broadcasting Company".
 * Not quite sure what you mean, sorry. Ricardiana (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Broadcasting...broadcast" echo has a comical, tongue twisting effect.
 * I see. I'm not sure what to put for "broadcast," however, and ABC must be called the American Broadcasting Company. Ricardiana (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Think of a synonym for "broadcast" that isn't something schmaltzy like "presented"
 * "Aired" ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tell us briefly what happened to Margot Kidder, if possible. You've tantalized us by telling us she was injured. How? When? Where? Be brief. For example, "Kidder was seriously injured when she fell on the set during the second week of shooting.  The project was canceled as a result."
 * My only source for the planned Kidder TV adaptation is Plunkett-Powell, who doesn't go into any further detail. I'll see if I can find an additional source.
 * Found one; regrettably, only People magazine, but it will have to do, I guess. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call People a reliable source and I don't know how other editors and WP regard it. Let's leave for the time being. ItsLassieTime (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Found a Canadian Press source ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Be careful about using quotation and punctuation marks. In the Margot Kidder sentence the comma should follow the quotation mark thus: "...shooting", leading...". WP prefers this style.
 * I see; MLA and other formats I'm familiar with don't, and old habits die hard. Ricardiana (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * outside punctuation ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The image of actress Martin should not be forced. Remove the 175px and use only the thumb tag. Forcing images wreaks havoc for some users. WP allows forcing an image only with the file to the right of the lead (up to 300px).
 * remove 175px ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

ItsLassieTime (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Evolution of character's appearance

 * Lead. Good citation! Is there a reason attributed to the devolution? Cite it. ItsLassieTime (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no reason is given in any of the sources I've read, and I have read everything ever published on ND, minus a Canadian journal article I couldn't get hold of. It would be interesting to know, though. Ricardiana (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Russel H. Tandy. First paragraph: needs at least one citation. General rule of thumb: Every paragraph in a GAN should have at least one citation. Second paragraph: I'd like to see a comma after "10". Italicize the book title.  Third and fourth paragraphs: Try to incorporate these into one. Perhaps material from paragraph two could be worked into paragraph three.  Short, one or two sentence paragraphs have an "unprofessional" look and should be avoided. Puff them up a bit.
 * Add citations to all first paragraphs. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Put comma after 10 - I think I will respectfully disagree on this one, as the current usage is grammatical.
 * Correct. Leave as is. ItsLassieTime (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Italicize all book titles ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-work all short paragraphs ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Bill Gillies and others. First paragraph: needs a citation. Another single sentence paragraph in this section. Try to incorporate it elsewhere, expand it into a multi-sentence paragraph, or drop it.
 * expand or drop ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Rudy Nappi and others. Second paragraph: needs a citation. Third paragraph: italicize book title. Fourth paragraph: "Often, “Nancy’s face wears the blank expression of one lost in thought.” [71] Nancy often appears passive.[72]." Is there a reason Nancy is lost in thought or passive? Cite it.  Try to get rid of the "Often...often" echo. Something like this: "Often, “Nancy’s face wears the blank expression of one lost in thought”,[71] and she appears passive.[72]."
 * I don't think a reason is given for Nancy being lost in thought or passive, but I'll re-read Stowe. Ricardiana (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Double-checked; no reason explicitly given. I could extrapolate, but that would constitute original research. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-word to avoid repetition of "often" ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nancy in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s. First paragraph: "provided cover art - but no interior illustrations - for later paperbacks." Hyphens must be replaced by en or em dashes. See WP:DASH. Should Aleta Jenks be linked? Third paragraph: "shown in peril[76] - being chased, falling". Hypen needs replacement. This sentence: "Nancy is also sometimes pursued by a visibly threatening foe, as on the cover of The Case of the Vanishing Veil." This appears to be another single sentence paragraph. Incorporate into the preceding paragraph thus: "Nancy is often portrayed pursuing a suspect,[75] examining a clue, or observing action. She is often also shown in peril[76] - falling off a boat, hanging by a rope from rafters, or sometimes pursued by a visibly threatening foe, as on the cover of The Case of the Vanishing Veil." Get rid of the "often...often" echo. Try "frequently portrayed..." or something similar.
 * Replace hyphens with em dashes. Or commas ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Link Aleta Jenks ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Eliminate repetition of "often" ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Literarture's Nancy Drew Dust Jacket Collection. What are "pristine vintage art elements"? General readers would need an explantion for this term. Is there a term that's less haute? ItsLassieTime (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reword Literarture section ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Computer games
 * Set the computer games titles in two columns. The first column with 11 titles, and the second with the remaining 10. This will get rid of all the white space on the right side of the page, and give the page a professional look. Don't fill the white space with an image! There are enough images on the page at the moment. ItsLassieTime (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I wasn't going to put an image there, but someone else might have, I guess. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good work!
Here's something I want you to think about: your article should end with a Cultural Impact, Legacy, or Cultural Resonance sort of section. This would evaluate Nancy and the series in children's literature and her impact on the culture. Did she influence the creation of other literary girl detectives? Did she have fan clubs? Are there feminist reviews about Nancy? Did she influence anyone important? Are there any testimonials? For example, did a famous mystery writer credit Nancy as an inspiration? Is she more popular than ever? Is her popularity dimishing? Are more titles foreseen? Films? TV? Is it Nancy's versatility that keeps her alive? What is her appeal to so many generations? Why is she still going strong after almost 80 years? Is she an icon? Why? Such a concluding section that evaluates/assesses Nancy and the series is a major aspect of the topic. If you take this article to FA, such an evaluation will surely be required. You're capable of writing a tip-top section on this. ItsLassieTime (talk) 05:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ItsLassieTime, that's a great idea. I'm working on it right now. Ricardiana (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi; it's not fully done, because there are some sources I have to re-read, but I've written a section on "Cultural impact." Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work on this section! ItsLassieTime (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Authorship

 * The book title The Clue in the Velvet Mask needs to be italicized. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The linking is inconsistent in this section. "Harriet Adams" is linked many times over but in one place it is not. Her name should only be linked at its first appearance in the section. De-link all the others. Ditto for the Stratemayer Syndicate, Library of Congress, and others. Link only the first appearance. The section is too short for multi-repeated links. Hardy Boys should be linked in the "Disputes" subsection. From the MoS: "Redundant links clutter the page and make future maintenance harder." ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here: "After Adams's death in 1982, the series was handled by Nancy Axelrad." Do you mean edited and revised or what?  Handled is a bit vague and casual. Be precise here. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here: "Grosset & Dunlap filed suit against the Syndicate and the new publishers, Grosset & Dunlap, citing "'breach of contract, copyright infringement, and unfair competition.'" Do you mean Simon & Schuster? Or "Grosset & Dunlap cited breach of contract, etc." or "publishers, citing breach, etc." I'm confused.  ItsLassieTime (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC) --My mistake; fix ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Character section

 * Good! Gives the reader orientation to the topic. Did Nancy have a boyfriend? I recall a Nickerson, maybe the movies?
 * Add mention of Ned ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, in the Film section, Hannah Gruen and George and Bess are mentioned. Tell us who they are even though you've mentioned it previously in the article. Perhaps "housekeeper Hannah Gruen" and "Nancy's friends George and Bess". Buttermilk1950 (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Evolution of character

 * Preamble. Link Miss America, Mara Hari, Betty Crocker, Ginger Rogers, and the Mayo Brothers to their WP articles. Many users will be unfamiliar with these names especially younger readers and non-Americans. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1930-1959. Delete 'Nancy Drew' from all subsection headings. The article is about ND so her name doesn't need to be repeated in every  heading. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC) The years in the heading must be separated by the en dash rather than a hyphen. See WP:DASH. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here: "sixteen-year-old". In the "Character" section, you use a numerals. Be consistent. 1 through 10 should be spelled out, (one, two, five, etc.) while all others use numerals, (89, 132, 409,  etc.)  Be sensible though:  "The score was 5 to 12", "Mary is eight-years-old but John is eleven." ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here: "Some critics admire most the Nancy of these volumes, largely written by Mildred Benson. Benson is credited with “[breathing] … a feisty spirit into Nancy’s character.”[25] The original Nancy Drew is sometimes claimed “to be a lot like Wirt herself – confident, competent, and totally independent, quite unlike the cardboard character that [Edward] Stratemeyer had outlined.”" Who is Wirt? Edward Stratemeyer could be linked.✅ Ricardiana (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wirt is Benson's first married name. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note 33 appears to have space preceeding it. Delete the space. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 1959-1979
 * Notes 39 and 44 appear to have a space preceeding each. Delete such spaces. Check all the notes throughout the article for this sort of thing. If the article goes to FA, you'll be taken to task on this. Take care of it now.
 * "Taken to task"? That hardly seems like a good faith attitude. But in any case, ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 1980-2003.
 * Here: "Others criticize the series for its increasing corporation of romance". Do you mean incorporation?
 * Of course. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here: "Cover art for Files titles, such as Hit and Run Holiday, reflects these changes". De-link the title. Provide an image if possible.  Expand on this area a wee bit to justify image use.  Most of the  images are clustered in one area of the article.  You should incorporate others here and there appropriately.  Do you have an image of Benson or Stratemeyer or other real world stuff?
 * There were other files, including one of Hit and Run Holiday, but others took it upon themselves to delete them. Will see about re-uploading, etc. Ricardiana (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-uploaded Hit and Run Holiday pic. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Added a pic of Edward Stratemeyer. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 2004-present. Link 'Girl Detective' only the first time it appears. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out 'cell phone'. Once it's hyphenated, once it's not. ✅

Ricardiana (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Further down: Evolution of character's appearance in Nancy in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s.
 * De-link the multiple links for the series in last paragraph. De-link the Vanishing Veil in text and image caption. Use en dash rather than hyphen. Change image caption to something like: "Nancy is shown in danger on the cover of "The Vanishing Veil" and on other covers of the 80s. Unlike earlier covers in the series, she is not completely in control of the situation."
 * Multiple links for series ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delink Vanishing Veil ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Image caption ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * en dash rather than hyphen - what hyphen? Ricardiana (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here: "provided cover art - but no interior illustrations - for later paperbacks". Use en or em dashes. Use of the hypehn is very restricted at WP. Hyphen precedes the Dash section in the MoS. ItsLassieTime (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to commas. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

New source
I don't know if anyone caught the most recent Entertainment Weekly (my issue arrived today, the Friday as I type now), but it ranks her 17th of all time top heroes and divides its section on her ranking into three: Why Her, Best Accessory, and Copycat Descendants. I have tentatively used this information as follows:. I hope that helps! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your additions, but I'm not sure about their current locations. For example, the section on EW's assessment of ND's cultural impact would I think be better placed in the "Cultural impact" section - and minus the info on EW's rankings of other figures. The other section on "General depiction..." seems to violate an earlier comment on this GA review about length of sections / paragraphs. So, when I get time I'll move things around, unless you'd rather. Ricardiana (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Never mind on the cultural impact bit - I must have been looking at the wrong thing. However, unless there's a way to incorporate the other sentence re: the flashlight, I think it will have to go, as per GA review comments. Ricardiana (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to respond so many times - I moved the info up to the first para. of the "Evolution of character's appearance" section. Ricardiana (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's looking good. If I can help any further, please let me know.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 15:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, A Nobody! Ricardiana (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The Lead
Will have to be rewritten. The lead is a summary of the entire article. There's a lot of material in your lead that does not appear in the main body of the text. All that material must be moved to the main text and then summarized in the lead. ItsLassieTime (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this ItsLassieTime? No matter. - The lead can't be a summary of the entire article, as you say that the article does not contain some of the facts / info in the lead - but I take it that the lead *is* supposed to be a summary and therefore contain no new info. Ricardiana (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There's considerable info in your lead that does not appear in the main body. It should be moved to the main and then summarized in the lead. See WP:LEAD in particular: "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article...". Statements like Stratemeyer having a view on women's traditional role require a citation immediately after the semicolon. ItsLassieTime (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do. Ricardiana (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Re-write lead ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your first sentence (tho correct) is a wee bit haute: "Nancy Drew is an eighteen-year-old girl detective and a fictional character, the heroine of the popular Nancy Drew Mystery Stories, Nancy Drew Files, Girl Detective, and other series aimed at the children-young adult audience."
 * Cut to the chase: "Nancy Drew is a fictional young detective in various mystery series for children and teens."  "Fictional" should be mentioned at once; "Young" is fine here; you can note her exact age later in the "Character" section.  "Girl" can be dropped; it's obvious in the name and in the image.  "Children-young adult audience" is publisher and librarian correct but is something of a tongue twister here.  Nancy Drew is popular literature not haute literature -- 'children and teens' is fine and subtlely communicates the fact that it is popular literature.
 * Changed to your wording. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "heroine of the popular". Popular here is what WP calls a peacock word and it's not encouraged. You can safely drop it. ✅ in the course of the above Ricardiana (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Your series titles are italicized here but not italicized later in the article. Be consistent. I've checked the MoS and have found nothing specific about italicizing book series titles. Similar articles are inconsistent. Check the MoS; you may find something I missed. ItsLassieTime (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Were all unitalicized until someone came along and changed some. Will re-change. Ricardiana (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-done. All series titles should be un-italicized, all book and movie titles should be italicized. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The final half beginning "The first four titles were published" ... Is all this info in the main body? I must be missing it; I can't find it. Is the line about Macy's Christmas order in the main text? ItsLassieTime (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's not. Will re-do. Ricardiana (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC) ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I notice a number of claims in the lead are not cited in footnotes. Anyway, I am working on citing these claims now.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, A Nobody -- thanks for pointing that out and for finding great references. (Isn't Google Books great?!) I reformatted them to match up with the rest of the citations, just so you know. Thanks for helping out ... do you see anything else that needs to be changed / added to / deleted? Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome; I'm happy to help. It looks like it's really coming together!  Hopefully it will be promoted soon.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

This section: Nancy in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s
" The covers of the Nancy Drew Files and Girl Detective series represent further departures from the bold, confident character portrayed by Tandy. The Nancy portrayed on the covers of the Nancy Drew Files is "a markedly sexy Nancy, with a handsome young man always lurking in the background. Her clothes often reveal an ample bustline and her expression is mischievous", while the new "Girl Detective" series shows only Nancy's eyes and mouth, disconnected from each other (see Girl Detective page). "


 * No italics at the second Nancy Drew Files.
 * Here: "her expression is mischievous" -- make this a sentence, finish with a period rather than a comma. The whole thing is too long and becomes confusing on first reading with the quote, the footnote, etc. Some of your readers are going to be young people interested in the books. Make it easier for them.
 * Begin a new sentence at "While the new..." Rewrite this sentence -- it's confusing. Should there be quotes around Girl Detective here? What do you mean "eyes and mouth, disconnected from each other"? It's confusing. Perhaps something like, "In the Girl Detective series, Nancy's face is depicted on the covers in fragments.  Her eyes, for example, are confined to a strip across the top of the cover while her mouth is tucked along the spine in a box independent of her eyes.  ItsLassieTime (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Merchandising
Could the section on merchandising be expanded with additional references? Here are some possible sources:, , , etc. If not cited, this book seems like an important one that should be cited somewhere. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, A Nobody. Thanks for finding some more sources. The Rehak book is cited in this article, repeatedly - Rehak just doesn't talk much about merchandising. The page you found that does only mentions how much money the Syndicate could have gotten (probably) ... but didn't. It also seems to be focused not so much on merchandise as film and radio adaptations. The other sources don't add any further information, it seems to me; what they seem to indicate, taken together, is that it's odd that Nancy Drew wasn't turned into merchandise more often (as the Hardy Boys were - much, much more so than ND) - but talking about that would fall under the heading of original research, sadly. Ricardiana (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I just noticed that it is after doing the search. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Images
Before deleting pictures on this page, please see discussion of images in the GA review, and on Media copyright questions. Thank you. Ricardiana (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Books
I may as well get this off my chest now. I don't like this section. It's deadly dull in an otherwise great article. How do you feel about moving this list to a stand alone article and summarizing it for the Nancy Drew article? Take a look at WP:LIST for possibilities. ItsLassieTime (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. You should have seen it back when every single Nancy Drew Files title was listed ... will look at WP:LIST and work on something. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Made a preliminary swipe at it. Ricardiana (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Status of review and reviewer
Ricardiana, please note Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. As the main reviewer is currently blocked for I believe a month, how does this effect this GA review? Do we need someone else to take over here? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Great. Well, thanks for letting me know, A Nobody. Looks like ItsLassieTime can't review the article anymore, or at best would have to wait at least a month. Since it's been over 2 weeks since the review began, I think that's ridiculous. I do appreciate all the great comments ItsLassieTime has given, and I would love to see more, if he or she wishes, on ItsLassieTime's talk page. But it sounds like we need another reviewer to do this officially. Would you be willing to take the job on, A Nobody? I would really appreciate it. Best,Ricardiana (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am happy to continue helping, but I think Hamiltonstone has taken up the offer to finish the review and in any event, I essentially second and agree with his post below. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking of helping, thanks for all you've done, A Nobody. It's much nicer to work on an article with someone. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My pleasure; I would be really happy to help bring the other characters in the Nancy Drew template to DYK, GA, or FA status next. All of these characters seem to at least have enough analysis in secondary sources for DYK expansion.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Finalising review
Ricardiana, this is an excellent article, with great breadth of scholarship for GA-level.
 * The section "Literarture's Nancy Drew Dust Jacket Collection" needs in-line citations. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Computer games" section needs at least a couple of cites: at least one for the Her interactive games, and one for these sentences: "Majesco has also released two other Nancy Drew games for the DS, entitled Nancy Drew: The Mystery of the Clue Bender Society (July 2008) and Nancy Drew: The Hidden Staircase (September 2008), based on the second book in the original Nancy Drew Mystery Stories series." These citatations can if necessary be links to data on company websites, but would ideally be to an industry magazine or review. The goal is to have some sort of stable source that will tell us these things really existed when, twenty years from now, you can't find them by looking on a store shelf or a distributor's webpage. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In my view, these points aside, this is a thorough article and ready to be promoted. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for taking over, Hamiltonstone. It's a great relief and I appreciate it. Ricardiana (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There's some information that says, "many commentators agree that Nancy’s character changed significantly from the original Nancy of the 30s and 40s. Commentators also often see a difference between the Nancy Drew of the Nancy Drew Mystery Stories, the Nancy of the Nancy Drew Files, and the Nancy of the recent Girl Detective series." in the Evolution of character section. Do you have any sources for these, i.e. I can't help but read that and think, "who?"  "What commentators?" Etc.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 02:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I wrote that paragraph as a mini-lead to the whole section on the character's evolution, and so I didn't give names as the rest of the article goes into specifics. But I can add a couple of names. Ricardiana (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I see; perhaps a footnote or two anyway? I'm going through sentence by sentence and I suppose that just caught me when reading it.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Footnotes added. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I really can't think of anything else pressing. Granted everything can always somehow be improved further, but it has my support for GA status!  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, A Nobody! Best, Ricardiana (talk) 03:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Finalising the references
Wow, this article is a hive of friendly activity. OK, I have now gone over the references with a fine tooth comb. Here's the deal at the current version:
 * Footnotes 11 (McFeatters 2005), 12 (Marcus 2007), and 118 (Bella 2009) do not appear to match anything in the reference list. This definitely needs correction.
 * Re-added McFeatters to references (got deleted somehow); replaced the now-mysterious Marcus with a different source; added Bella. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Footnote 119 (TurboNuts 2007) matches a reference, but the format does not seem right to me (it is alphabeticised under the webpage title for some reason: "Nancy Drew makes her debut..." etc
 * Moved under the Ts. ✅ Ricardiana (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Some two-author works lack second author listings (eg. 13) while others have them included (eg. 16). I will try and correct this myself.
 * Hmm, that was dumb of me. I see you've fixed a lot; thank you. I'll look and clean up some more. Ricardiana (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's done now - I only saw one more to fix. Ricardiana (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The reference list appears to contain several references that are not actually cited anywhere. Maybe you want to give these orphans a role in the in-line cites? These are:
 * Burton-Smiith - hmm, odd, not sure why this Hardy Boys site is here. Will probably put it on the Hardy Boys page later, but for now - deleted. Ricardiana (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Finnan - this is a leftover from the days when the article listed every single Nancy Drew book. In making a separate entry on "List of Nancy Drew books" (which I know needs tons of work), I forgot to delete this. Just as well that's going; there's been a lot of controversy over using this site in the past. Deleted. Ricardiana (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * McLeod 2007 - I forget why I originally put this on there, but not needed now; deleted Ricardiana (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Schneider - forgot to delete this; this was the first source I found re: Margot Kidder's role in the planned Nancy Drew and Daughter show, but it's from People magazine, so I replaced it with one from the Canadian Press; deleted Ricardiana (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Soderbergh - not used, don't see an immediate way to use it; deleted Ricardiana (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Szadkowski Szadkowski (both of his articles) are cited under "Computer games." Ricardiana (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Top 20 Heroes" This article is cited under "Cultural impact" and also early on in "Evolution of character's appearance." Ricardiana (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Can these points be resolved? Great work across the article, and talk about a fast reaction! Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)