Talk:When You Reach Me

Laughing man, article layout, and lead
Just to be clear, are the laughing man, and the scary person that is mentioned under the "setting" section different people? I just wanted to make sure that I wasn't mistaken with that one.

Also, regarding the layout: looking at the novel template for WP:Novels, it seems that they have the plot first after the lead, then themes, then development and history. It is not set in stone I am sure, but it may be good to adopt the same format as many of the other articles.

Finally, before I check out for the night, I just have one suggestion for the lead, but thought I would check first before I changed it. In the lead, almost the entire story about the man with amnesia is told, which is then reiterated later in the article. Since the lead is simply a summary of the article, it might be possible to shorten that part of it a bit, which would then make the lead a little easier on the eyes. If this seems like a good idea, feel free, or if you like I can take a go at it tomorrow.

Let me know what you think about all of this, and I will be back tomorrow to finish up my copyedit. I will then spend some time doing another read-through for FA stuff. -Pax85 (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the laughing man and the scary person are the same. As for the order of the sections, while editors follow the style guideline, it is usually up to the primary author's preference as long as it makes sense. I usually prefer to give background on how the novel came alive before the plot. Thanks for noting the part about the lead, I'll work on it soon. Again, thanks! Derild  49  21  ☼  00:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, cool. Not normally being involved in the literature articles, I wouldn't have known that. I have placed a citation needed tag in the plot section - looking at the MOS, even though it is obvious that it comes from the book that we are talking about, I think it still needs to be cited since it is an actual quote. I do not have the book, or I would do it myself. :) -Pax85 (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit, Citations, and FA review
Well, I seem to have finished the copy-edit. If you have any questions or disagreements on something, please let me know!

Regarding citations: As I mentioned before, each quote from the book should have one. I noticed the time travel section already contained one, but it was only the generic info of the book. Ideally, I think each quote should have the page number included as well, if possible.

Over the next several days I will do another read-through, looking specifically for FA related things. Since you plan on going to FA, I usually recommend finding a second copy-edit by a different person. I am sure they would find things that I missed or perhaps have a better way of doing something. :) For now though, I will remove your notice on the GOCE board.

Thank you so much for introducing me to this book! I might go out and read it over a quiet weekend myself... -Pax85 (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, in the process of having another user review my copy-edit, they in turn went over the article itself, so you have already have had a second go through from a different person. I should be done looking at it from an FA point of view this weekend. -Pax85 (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Some notes regarding FA criteria
Below you will find my thoughts on the different criteria. Looking at the history, I can see the article has undergone quite a bit of improvement. I would still recommend though that the more eyes that look at this before it goes to FA the better! To be honest, there are other editors that are much better than I in looking at the FA criteria with a fine-toothed comb, I just try my best focusing on copy-editing. Thank you again for introducing me to this book! -Pax85 (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
 * The article is very well written, with decent structure in the paragraphs and the body overall. I would say though that there does seem to be a reliance at certain points on quoted material, and this can get a bit tiring while reading. This is really only happening in the critical reception section I think. Yes, I realize that section would necessarily introduce quotes, so this may be simply a matter of my personal taste. :)

Comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
 * Not that I can see.

Factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
 * Yes, although like I mention below, some of the references could be detailed out better.

Neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
 * Yes.

Stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
 * Seems pretty stable - no huge content revisions recently; most of the recent edits seem to be copy-edit related items.

Style: It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
 * Tried my best for catching MOS stuff while copy-editing, and another GOCE copy-editor stopped by as well. Everything seemed fine after we went through it.

Lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
 * Yep.

Appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents;
 * Seems pretty good, although I am not sure if time travel needs an entire section of its own. Others may disagree though, because I do know that it is a large part of the book. The headings seem to be formatted correctly.

Consistent citations: where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).
 * The citation seemed good and thorough. I think it would be good though to include the pages numbers in the actual book itself. If the book is not available to any of the main contributors to the article, I am sure someone on this Wiki could track it down. :) The formatting seems to be consistent, although this is not my strongest area, so someone else may want to look at the refs.

Images. It has images that follow the image use policies and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
 * I of course like the addition of the front cover. Are there any images in the book that we could use, or perhaps real-life photos that correspond to the book? Or could we use a snippet of the audio book in the article? I would have no problem emailing the publisher myself on that one...

Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * The plot section was succinct, as were the other areas, without giving too much of the book away.


 * Thanks a lot for these comments, sorry for the late reply, work has been drowning me. I'll get these things and the stuff in the section above as soon as I can. Derild  49  21  ☼  01:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Review
I found a review from The Guardian. Glimmer721 talk  01:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

GAR?
The GAR page was never begun by the person who requested it, and I dispute the circumstances as evidenced by the tags said person added because:
 * There are references where appropriate. There do not have to be references in the introduction if covered elsewhere and plot summary. All other sections have references where appropriate. If they do not appear at the end of a sentence, it is because the following sentence(s) use the same source and a reference appears at the end of this. This has been common practice on Wikipedia and I doubt it has changed in the year I haven't edited.
 * I fail to see how it is written like an essay "that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts" as the themes and genres sections consist of the interpretations of other sources.

Are there any other steps I should take that are more formal, aside from just removing the notices? Glimmer721 talk  23:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Glimmer721, i agree with your comments about the tags not being appropriate. As they were put there by an anonymous ip at the university of nebraska (see [User talk:204.234.74.238]) who does not appear to have carried out any improvements to the article nor commented on this talkpage with details on where improvements can specifically be made, i am being bold and removing the tags. With the GAR, im being a little more cautious and will be asking a more experienced editor about this. ps. i am concerned that some of the references have "missing or empty title" errors, and will be (hopefully:)) fixing these over the next few days. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Posting that I am removing the unbegun GAR; it's been well over a year. The "missing or empty title" seems to be an artifact of the "cite journal" template, which requires an article title; if these appear in a review section with a title, then I suppose the "title" could be filled in that way, or just use the title of the book for an individual review entry if that's what starts it. However, it's not important, and it isn't part of the GA criteria, so it isn't in itself a reason to reassess the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

2010 Newbery Medal
Previously we provided with faux title "2010 Newbery Medal" a link to the top page (retrieved 2010) that now features the 2015 Newbery Medal. I wonder whether ALSC ALA maintains a permanent archive. The candidate standard eddress we link for 1997 does not work for 2010: Walking forward I find this works for 2003, not for 2004. Elsewhere I have cited two pages in one manuscript reference --eg Kate DiCamillo #7-- but I won't rock the boat by copy-paste here. P64 (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.ala.org/alsc/awardsgrants/bookmedia/newberymedal/newberyhonors/1997newberymedal
 * http://www.ala.org/alsc/awardsgrants/bookmedia/newberymedal/newberyhonors/2010newberymedal


 * We cite the contemporary press release in biography Rebecca Stead #1. --P64 (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)