Talk:A Different Pond

A Different Pond has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 10, 2019. (Reviewed version).

Children's literature Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Different Pond/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 21:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have started with some copy edits. Anything at all which you are unhappy with or which you thing I have got wrong, please flag it up here. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add a caption to the image.

Done Masum Reza^📞 00:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Caldecott Honor" and " Caldecott honor": you need to pick one.

I choose the former as it is common and appears to be used in other articles as well. Masum Reza^📞 00:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"can go to his second job" This leaves me unclear as to whether fishing is hid first job. Assuming it is not, then the point that the father works two jobs needs mentioning, or the text changing to something like 'can go to work'.

Used "can go to his work" . Masum Reza^📞 01:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few quotes in the article, some quite long. The MoS says, under MOS:QUOTE says:
Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate ...
It also suggests, MOS:BQ, that quotes longer than about 40 words should be separated out as block quotes. So could you have a go through seeing if you could turn a lot of those quotes into your own words? Your summary of the Kirkus Reviews at the start of the second paragraph of "Writing and illustrations" seems to do this well.

I am not good at rewritting. So I would like you to review my edit. Masum Reza^📞 18:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masumrezarock100, that was a pretty good rewrite. I have tweaked it a little. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too many quotes is fair. I have in response paraphrased the block quote in background over three sentences and restored the acceptance speech. Since it was an acceptance speech I think it the better quote to preserve. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cites 7 and 8 have stray uprights - |. Likewise 12 and 16.

Fixed Masum Reza^📞 01:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In cite 4 A different Pond should be in italics, not in inverted commas.

Fixed Masum Reza^📞 17:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In cite 8 you have missed out "A".

Fixed Masum Reza^📞 17:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cite 11, it should be 'Lê, Minh. Ditto cite 14.

Fixed Masum Reza^📞 17:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cite 20: why does it begin with "admin"?

Removed wrong author name as I couldn't find one in the source.

Cite 21: the author's name should be in title case.

Fixed author name. Masum Reza^📞 00:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave you to get on with those. Ping me if you have any queries or problems, or when you have addresses them. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, Thanks for your review. I'm traveling and so I would just ask for a chance to circle back to some of the great work done by Masumrezarock100 before you close (and to address any issues he hasn't). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barkeep49, there is no rush. Masumrezarock100 has done fine work, and I am happy to leave this open for as long as is (reasonably) necessary for you to return from travelling and find the time to address the outstanding issues. Just give me a ping when you do. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masumrezarock100, I have tweaked your changes to Hunter's comments. Previously, with Bui's acceptance speech, you were quoting spoken words, which, generally, are not copyright. With Hunter the words will be copyright, so Wikipedia can report the general sense of what they meant, but not repeat, too many, of them unattributed; or even too many of them attributed! See what you think of my changes and feel free to tweak them. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Thanks. I just checked the article using this tool and it seems that only two quotes left to be rewritten. I will try to rewrite those words. Masum Reza^📞 23:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the change of quotes I noted above, I think we're OK on this now. The remaining quotes are mostly snippets (i.e. not even full sentences) from reviews. Thanks for your review Gog and it's great to have a collaborator in Masum on this article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Apologies, but there are three fairly chunky quotes; Minh Lê, Anna Krueger and the Caldecott Honor citation. see here and here. I could take one of them, but all three is pushing things a bit IMO. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, Kruger's and Le's quotes are each one sentence. I've not thought of that as a long quote. Fair enough on the citation which I've now shortened.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote Le's quote. Masum Reza^📞 20:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are loong sentences. Nice trim on the citation. OK. You have got it to about as much direct quoting as I think is acceptable in copyright terms. Which is fair enough. Otherwise it is fine, so I am promoting. Nice work. And, as you said, good collaboration from Masumrezarock100.

Edit clash with Masumrezarock100. In terms of copyright, their revision makes little difference; having much the same words but not attributing them to a direct quote is actually worse. But, see above, I could accept the prior version - just. As the nominator I feel that you get to chose - in terms of Wikipedia protocol you and Masumrezarock100 (and any other interested editors) will need to reach consensus, but I don't feel that that needs to hold up this nomination. So I am promoting. Feel free, either of you, to continue to improve the article, but please be aware of the possible copywrite issues. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not good at rewritting words, I tried to do all I could. Thanks for promoting it. :) Masum Reza^📞 20:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are better than you think. The stuff around copyright is complicated and, to an extent, subjective. Don't thank me, thank Barkeep and yourself; you did the work, I just got to recognise it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, I will thank you for the time, energy, and good will you put forward in reviewing it. That is very worthy of thanks and I am pleased I can express that gratitude. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed