Talk:A Sick Day for Amos McGee

A Sick Day for Amos McGee 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: April 25, 2019. (Reviewed version).

Children's literature High‑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

High

This article has been rated as High-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[edit]

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

Reviewer: Valereee (talk · contribs) 14:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Multiple sources I can't get to because they're behind a paywall, but accept AGF
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Reviews are primarily positive, which is expected from a Caldecott medalist, but there is criticism included
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I'm wondering if we could exchange the book cover photo for one that shows the Caldecott?
	7. Overall assessment.

Thanks for picking up this review. I am on mobile so I won't be able to respond to any review in any substance for about a week. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'll start working! When you're back, be sure to ping me in case I miss it going by on my watch list.

@Valereee: I'm back. I've responded to the comments below. As for the cover illustration question above, looking at the MOS it doesn't feel like the Caldecott medal edition would be more definitive and so I think the default to first edition would apply. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shaky assertions[edit]

In the lede: "It shares a simple message that portraying kindness and thoughtfulness to others, and all species, is very important in our society." I'm not finding anything that supports this statement in the sections?

Looks like I never rewrote the LEAD after revising the article. I have done so now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

In "writing and illustrations": "Even when the reader does not explicitly notice those details they still help to serve the overall atmosophere and feel of the story." I'm not finding this explicitly stated in the sources. The Bird source says, "You notice them, but you don’t. That’s the charm." The PW source appears to say nearly the opposite: "draw subtle elements to viewers' attention"

Tweaked. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

"All of this serves to give the book a kind of timeless quality, giving no real indication of the era in which it was created." This seems to be a nonsequitur from the previous sentence, and the Bird source says it's timeless, but doesn't say anything about what makes it feel that way? --valereee (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So I've made it the first rather than last sentence. As for supporting what it says, I would suggest that the rest of the Bird article supports this assertion which is in its "LEAD". Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Those look good! I'll do one final critical read-through early tomorrow. Nice article, actually made me buy the book in anticipation of having a gifting opportunity. :) --valereee (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee It would indeed make a very fine gift. Thanks for your work reviewing and let me know if you find anything else to be fixed/improved. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Passing for GA --valereee (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]