Talk:Wildwood (novel)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 10:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article in the next few days, with a completed review scheduled for Tuesday, April 24. Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I've addressed everything. Let me know if it looks OK. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• by Colin Meloy of The Decemberists
  • It seems odd to say author x of band y in the lead section. We certainly don't say that about, let's say for example, John Lennon, when we talk about his books, A Spaniard in the Works and Skywriting by Word of Mouth. Meloy is an author in his own right, and the "Development history" section says the idea for the book began before the band was even formed. We should also keep in mind that Meloy will still be an author when he's no longer part of the band or the band has dissolved in the future.
    • Lennon is "
      Featured Articles that place the author's other profession (besides author) in the lead include Louis Lambert (novel), La Peau de chagrin, Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Mary: A Fiction, Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, The World Without Us, The Slave Community, and El Señor Presidente. The most common cases are probably like The Story of Miss Moppet or Night (book), that don't say anything about the author, or those like The Monster (novella), True at First Light, and The Log from the Sea of Cortez, that go out of their way to tell you that Hemingway and Crane and Steinbeck are authors, even though that's all they're really known for. Perhaps they're really phrasing it that way in order to mention their nationality, and they prefer saying "American author" rather than just "American". I don't really know for certain what the best approach is. Perhaps it varies case by case. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• The book combines real locations in Portland, Oregon with fantastic elements
  • Yes, that's what good fiction sets out to do, but it is enough to say that the fantasy is set in Portland, Oregon, which implies a real location by its very name.

• A few critics complained of a plot that sometimes dragged, the cloying use of local color, and violence that could be inappropriate for some readers.
  • Describing a literary criticism as a "complaint" gives the impression of editorial bias, indirect or not. I would rephrase this sentence with an ear for neutrality.
    • I've reworded the lead. The Decemberists are still mentioned at the end of the paragraph; in reference to Meloy working on the series while taking a break from the band. Note that almost every reviewer made much of Meloy's celebrity author status, expressing at least some skepticism that a pop musician could, or should, write. Or just discussing the band because it was of interest, or noting the common features of Meloy's song lyrics and his book. Reviewers also emphasize the importance of the setting as "a character" in the book, as Meloy puts it. But I'd also be happy to take all of that out of the lead and just say it's a fantasy novel set in Portland. (Not sure if I should be putting a {{done}} under every bullet, or one big comment, or wait until the rest of the review.) --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• for ages 9 and up
  • IMO, it is unusual to include this in a book lead and should probably be removed. Similarly, we don't list film ratings or video game ratings in the lead. Sometimes, infoboxes may be used for this purpose.

• Please describe the plot in the lead and summarize the main points of the article. Usually, development and recognition such as the E.B. White Read Aloud Award, should be added to the lead. See
  WP:LEAD for more info. Viriditas (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Prue and Curtis become entangled in the intrigue and wars of the Wood, and learn their true nature as "half-breeds", having a mystical connection to the Wood that allows them to pass through the Woods Magic barrier, the Periphery Bind, that keeps the Outsiders, or ordinary people of Portland, out.
  • Why do you have a footnote in the plot section? Was there a past dispute over content? Viriditas (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had intended to write out a much longer and more detailed plot summary, with careful footnotes with page numbers, but then I decided the initial, shorter version was closer to what the guidelines call for. There's still a commented out draft of a much longer plot summary, but it should probably be deleted unless somebody thinks greater detail is called for. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The plot section is still choppy. Please rewrite it if you can. Viriditas (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like I have some time this weekend to work on this. Plot summaries look tricky to me; this time I erred on the side of not enough detail, but with this book it's easy to get bogged down in an endless number of digressions and intricate points on how everything came about. I'll see if I can flesh it out without going to far, guided by
    WP:PLOTSUM. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • There are several techniques that might help you, but it depends on the individual editor. For me, I like to start large and then trim it down. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • One other thing that might help: most narratives have a pattern or formula that they follow. If you can identify the specific narrative pattern, it will be much easier to write a synopsis. See for example, The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The full, extensive plot is almost done. From there I'll pare it back and see if I can get it just right. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Take your time; looks like you are in the zone. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm shaving off more and more, but I'm probably reaching a point of diminishing returns. I don't think I can cut it much more without it becoming incoherent. Or else returning it to the original broad-strokes synopsis I started with. So I'll wait to hear from you, as long as there is no external deadline imposed by the GA rules. As far as I can tell it will remain on hold and not expire for a while, so there's nothing to worry about. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Good work. I'm giving it a final read now and hope to have this closed in the next 12 hours. Viriditas (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Setting

• Meloy said, "I really do think the main character of the book is Wildwood and its different provinces."
  • That quote appears out of nowhere and surprises the reader. It would work better as a pull quote on the right. You could move the St. Johns Bridge image down farther on the left to make room. Otherwise, you could paraphrase it or work it into the body of the text in a different way.

• Nearly every location in the book is inspired by a real life place.
  • Try to merge this in to the first sentence you've used. Something like this: "The setting of the St. Johns neighborhood of Portland and the Impassible Wilderness, based on Forest Park, is vital to Wildwood, as nearly every location in the book is inspired by a real place." Not perfect, but you see how I've merged this into a more coherent narrative? I'm sure you can come up with something better.

• Ellis noted there are a number of stunningly large trees
  • It's best to avoid unnecessary adverbs. What is a stunningly large tree? At what height does a tree become stunningly large? Instead, talk more about the specific reaction of the author. "When I saw this tree, I felt..."

• Because the St. Johns Bridge does not normally exist, except by casting a spell with runes, in the fictional parallel universe of the book, the only direct access Prue and Curtis have to pursue the crows into the Impassible Wilderness is a risky dash over the train tracks of the Railroad Bridge, the Burlington Northern Railroad Bridge 5.1 in our world, since there is no footpath.
  • Yikes! Please remember your reader who may not know as much about the book as you do. In fact, you should assume they know nothing about the book, so you want to hold their hand and slowly explain to them what is going on. I realize you are trying to follow
    WP:INUNIVERSE
    by adding "the fictional parallel universe" and "in our world" but you are relying only on the book instead of secondary sources, which is generally frowned upon as it could lead to editorial interpretation. Do we have other sources (besides the book) that talk about this?
    • I've revised this and explicitly pointed out that the section on the Ghost Bridge/St. Johns Bridge comes from a discussion between a reader and the authors, in the audio clip cited. It's different from the other setting elements because it's something Meloy removed from Wildwood, and its absence is conspicuous because it's this gigantic steel bridge. The bridge would take you straight up to the Impassible Wilderness, which is supposed to be a place where nobody ever goes. So it was a clever device on Meloy's part to remove it but make it a magical apparition, in order to make his story work, and it attracted interest from his readers, who were, in the case of the citation, Portland residents. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The character of contemporary Portland, or at least a popular stereotype of Portland's youth culture, is expressed in Prue and Curtis, and Prue's parents.
  • I like this very much, but does Minard or Dederer actually say this? Of course, that is what they are getting at, but as editors we want to be careful to adhere closely to the sources.
    • Minrad said she worried that the book would be "a pile of obnoxious show-off aimed at adult Decemberists fans and dressed trendily in kid-friendly wrapping. I didn't think this because I hate the Decemberists (I don't) or hipsters (ugh, that word)." but that it was "not remotely the affected bullshit I feared. Yes, its characters are bespectacled, bike-riding, vinyl-­browsing, Kurosawa-­referencing children." Certainly "pretentious hobbies", i.e. Kurosawa film, vinyl records, and an excessive love of bicycling are references to Portland's youth culture, in the the eyes of the national US audience. In the talk page is a link to a Salon article that delves into popular image of Portland. Brown's feature in The Atlantic said "Adult readers will smile at the copious modern references (Jean Grey and Kurosawa, anyone?) and the flavor of Portland is also heady throughout, from farmers' markets and craft fairs, to a scene in which the heroine threads the front fork dropout of her bicycle." Westmoore noted Prue's "hippy parents (her mother is knitting something unidentifiable from “an amoeba of yarn”)". I added some cites.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Development history

• Publication history list
  • It's a bit strange to see this list in the middle of the article sandwiched between development and reception. While you could certainly summarize the publication history in prose form, a list like this is generally included at the end of the article as a
    MOS:APPENDIX. Please correct me if I'm wrong. In my experience, a publication history section isn't necessarily a list but a prose description of the trials and tribulations related to publication. For a flawed example that I wrote, see Childhood's End#Publication
    . I'm sure there's many different ways to do this, and in the former example, I included the list of publications as an external link to the Internet Speculative Fiction Database (see the bottom of that article).
    • I began this article using Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate. I assumed there was consensus for this format, and so didn't put too much thought into the section order. Most FAs don't have a publication history. Starship Troopers#Release details and The General in His Labyrinth#Publication history have it right before references. Pattern Recognition (novel)#Publication history puts it before Adaptations, and Mary: A Fiction#Modern reprints and Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman#Modern reprints have it after the footnotes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

• The book won, in a tie with Colin Meloy's sister Maile Meloy's The Apothecary, the 2012 Middle Reader E.B. White Read Aloud Award.
  • Note: I went to The E.B. White Read Aloud Award page to find out more and noticed it wasn't updated for 2012. Should this book appear on that page? Viriditas (talk) 11:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptations

• I rewrote this material so that it wouldn't become dated. Feel free to add anything back in as long as it will stand the test of time. Saying that Laika is best known for Coraline might be true now, but might not be true a year from now. It's also not entirely relevant unless we are talking about specific production aspects that will carry over from that film, which you might be able to add. Viriditas (talk) 11:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

• De Groote, Kate (age 10)
• Ellis, James (age 13)
  • Any reason you haven't incorporated De Groote and Ellis into the reception section? Just curious.
    • There's a few things. The two reviews are just plot synopses followed by "it was good." They don't give reasons why it was good. I wouldn't expect a 10 or 13 year old to finish a 530 page book unless they really liked it, so there's a selection bias against kids who didn't enjoy it reviewing it at all. All that said, the adult reviews all come with a lot of baggage, like obsessing over Meloy's fame, or on hipster references that kids won't care about. The point of view of the actual target reader is interesting in its own right, and is worth including, but is also unique and deserves to be called out separately. If I'd written a summary, I'm not sure how I could have treated them properly, given the range of biases, so I thought it best to only link to them because anything I said would be potentially misleading. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• A few issues with the external links.[1] Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

here

for what they are not)