Talk:Shrek!/GA1

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

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 04:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Starts GA Review; the review will follow the same sections of the Article. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC) 

Lede

 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * The lede opens well and ends with criticism and a negative focus. In the article, this is a minority view, and could be dropped for including other relevant comment in the article. (Consider the anti-hero commentary as possibly useful here.)

Background

 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * Background is simple and crisp summary of Steig and the origin of his cartoons and children's books.

Plot

 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * Well phrased, it is a challenge to give a plot and entice the reader. Well scribed.

Reception

 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * It is important to capture that children's books are meant to be read aloud. A good point to include.
 * A lot of references link to Wikipedia pages instead of the original source.
 * Balanced; includes criticism, which is fair.

Analysis

 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * The observation the book and its hero ask the question "What is evil? Who causes evil?" is excellent and admits for moral learning by children.

Shrek

 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * The notion of self-acceptance v. imagined ideal is important learning (and experience) for children. This is good, it brings the reader to self-acceptance, where Shrek engages self-acceptance (especially of his image).

Adaptations

 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * Noted. It is good to finish with Steig's comments.

Reference

 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * References 9, 10, 11 point to Wikipedia articles for the sources and not the source item itself.
 * Reference 13 points to the Wiki article for ProQuest, and not the source on ProQuest.
 * Reference 16 points to the Wiki article for Publishers Weekly and not the source item.
 * Reference 22 has a link in the Wikipedia Library
 * Reference 28 goes to the Wiki article on Tennessee Tribune and not the source item.

End Matter

 * 1) Is it is Broad in its coverage?
 * Yes, broad and balanced.
 * 1) Is it Verifiable with no original research?
 * Yes, no OR is included in the article.
 * 1) Does the article meet notability guidelines?
 * Notability for the author, the text and its reception all established.
 * 1) Does it follow WP:NPOV Neutral Point of View?
 * Quite so.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * This article started life on 9 March 2006
 * There have been 567 edits by 386 edits since 2006.
 * 87,336 page views over the last 90 days.
 * The page (popular due the animation franchise) has experienced minor vandalism in 2010, 2013, and in April 2020.
 * Presently, the page is stable and not attracting vandalism. Protection is not necessary at this time.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * This article started life on 9 March 2006
 * There have been 567 edits by 386 edits since 2006.
 * 87,336 page views over the last 90 days.
 * The page (popular due the animation franchise) has experienced minor vandalism in 2010, 2013, and in April 2020.
 * Presently, the page is stable and not attracting vandalism. Protection is not necessary at this time.
 * The page (popular due the animation franchise) has experienced minor vandalism in 2010, 2013, and in April 2020.
 * Presently, the page is stable and not attracting vandalism. Protection is not necessary at this time.

* Eddie891 * PatTheMoron * Shellwood * Alumnum * Kodkddd2323
 * 1) Top editors are


 * 1) It is illustrated by images ?
 * Yes, the original book cover (by the cartoonist) is used.
 * Use of the book cover in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy and fair use under United States copyright law.

Overall

 * This article is well prepared and highlights several critical issues for excellence in children's fantasy picture books.

Conclusion
--Whiteguru (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a consideration raised with regard to the lede and the overall character of this article.
 * Some issues with references were raised. May we attend to these?
 * Hi,, and thanks! I've added URLs to the paywalled sources that I could and removed a link to the school library journal ones (which I couldn't add a URL for). I've removed the mention of criticism in the lede and replaced it by mentioning Shrek as an antihero. I think that's everything? Do let me know if not. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 01:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that does sort all the outstanding issues I had. We can pass the review now!