Talk:Scars Upon My Heart

Expanded article
Hello fellow Wikipedians. I expanded this stub to include scholarly references that demonstrate the impact of the book Scars Upon My Heart since its publication in 1981, as well as address some of the continued debate around the contents. Treesiati (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

WIG 20-minute review
Thank you for expanding this article. The substance of it is interesting and well-written, and it is generally based on solid sources, so most of my comments are organizational in nature. I would also ideally have liked to have spot-checked some sources, but I'm struggling to find anything that's accessible, and for a brief review I don't intend to go to the library. And the content is good; my comments below may seem critical, only because I'm offering suggestions for improvement. With those caveats:

The lead is very detailed, especially for an article this length. I would generally recommend avoiding block quotes in the lead, and trimming it down somewhat; it's supposed to be a summary, not to reproduce content in the body wholesale. Along the same lines, there shouldn't be information in the lead that isn't in the body; so if it's important information, I suggest including it in the body. The Tylee paragraph is what sticks out: I would try to summarize it in a sentence, and combine it with the previous paragraph. The full quote can be retained in the reception section.

This is not strictly mandatory per WP:CITEVAR, but I would strongly recommend formatting citations using a template; Template:Cite book or Template:Cite encyclopedia should be sufficient for most of your needs. This will then allow you to link your footnotes to your sources, which makes it a lot easier on the reader to find full bibliographical information.

The pedagogy section seems to me to wander into original research; see WP:OR. I recognize the utility of documenting the uses of this anthology, but if secondary sources haven't done so, we should generally not be doing so either. GA reviewers vary in their strictness, but as a reviewer I would object to that content. It would be fairly typical scholarly practice to include this, but we're not scholars, we're summarizing what scholars write. I suggest omitting the section altogether.

Other miscellaneous notes; I think a bibliography of the editor is WP:UNDUE here, and should likely be pruned. The Last bit of "publication" strikes me as material better suited for "reception". If possible, more summary of the contents would be nice; there is a sentence in the lead that could perhaps be expanded upon, about styles. Finally, I would suggest, though it isn't required, putting the contents before the reception section. Thanks again for working on this, and please ping me if you require clarification. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)