Talk:Marlon Bundo's A Day in the Life of the Vice President/GA1

GA Review

Closing as stale due to reviewers inactivity. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Auldhouse (talk · contribs) 16:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. Auldhouse (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply

]

Is it well written?

A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the

list incorporation

:

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
the layout style guideline
:

B. All
reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral
?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing
edit war
or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are
copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
:

B. Images are
suitable captions
:

Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I have some issues with this article that I think should be addressed before moving forward with a good article nomination. I read through this article, the main article on
neutral. To make it more neutral, the focus of this article should be the book itself, with the parody moving down in the structure. For example, in the reception area--the book's performance and critical reception come first. The parody (which was published later) should be further down. I also found a lot more about the conception about the book in the citations that should be in the article--take a look at the Chicago Tribune article for more information about the book's conception and publication so that should be expanded. There are good guidelines for structure for books under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Novels. There also seems to be some back and forth on the talk page that lead me to believe this also fails on "stable." Auldhouse (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I've gone through summarizing the concept of the book while writing the
Charlotte Pence
article, and I didn't find much information significant. I did summarize the Denver Post interview:
Pence and her mother thought about creating a children's book, following Bundo's popularity on Instagram and because Karen is a watercolor painter. Pence told The Denver Post that she "really [likes] children's literature and middle-grade fiction" and had "always wanted to be a writer".

There might be more information about the publishing process; I will look into it. I think that all issues brought up on the talk page have been resolved. Thanks for the suggestion about reorganizing information about the parody book. wumbolo ^^^ 19:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment. @Auldhouse: you changed "lukewarm reviews" to "lukewarm". According to merriam-webster.com, "lukewarm" is an adjective, and "lukewarmness" is the noun. wumbolo ^^^ 20:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)~~ Already done wumbolo ^^^ 21:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC) Yes, thank you. That was an error on my part. Auldhouse (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Auldhouse: Thanks for taking the time to review this and Wumbolo for jumping in to make changes while I was away. I'm happy to add information from the Tribune article but am not sure if these concerns have been addressed yet. What I see in that source about the conception is: Instagram, collaboration between Karen and Charlotte Pence, and educational role of the VP. It feels like these three points are in there already. What were you hoping to see addressed? Truly happy to add just not sure what you're seeing as missing. As for the stable it had not been edited from August 27 until your review. I don't see any current discussion on the talk page either. I would suggest it's stable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the response. I'm going to start back and go through the areas as I have some suggestions for you. Give me a few days to complete. Auldhouse (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and I look forward to your suggestions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Auldhouse: Any update? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.