Talk:Children of Blood and Bone

GA?

Innisfree987 anything else you would like to do before it's submitted as a GA nom? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, it’s amazing! I will do a quick copy edit on the lead later tonight if that’s ok, but apart from that I think it’s more than ready for GA. If you ever want to consider FA, I saw a few scholarly sources that could be additionally incorporated, but this already provides an excellent guide to the book (and honestly the academic press tends to run a year or a couple behind the rest of the world so it makes sense to leave that element of conversation about the book to mature a bit more before spending a lot of time digging into it.) Congratulations—this is such an excellent contribution! Innisfree987 (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate the fresh eyes you bring to this. I am currently dipping my toe into the featured content water with a list, but I had been eyeing Hate U Give as the first one that might be worth trying to make that leap with for FA. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, that's a smart idea--especially since The Hate U Give has been out a full year long, there's more opportunity for depth.

Meanwhile! I just made what ended up being a big trim to the lead. I was reorganizing for flow and it seemed to me there really needed to be something in the first couple sentences at least glossing what the book is about--but then I wasn't sure where to put the more detailed version. Or maybe it's not needed? Have a look and see what you think.

This did also remind me to go review Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Novels which in turn reminded me ordinarily we aim for 3-4 paragraphs describing plot. It's normal that a fantasy epic like this would have a longer plot section, but I will have a look (might not be til tomorrow) and see if there's anything we might be able to live without. But I think once the lead's in a place you feel good about, go ahead and list at GA. These are definitely just finishing touches IMO! Innisfree987 (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

One other point! We should probably decide whether to always use diacritics, or never do so? Generally I would tend to follow the book but we could also follow the most common use in secondary sources. What's your thought? Innisfree987 (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your general principles on the diacritics the book does use them and so it makes sense to even that out. Will take another look at your revisions tomorrow - I really did just try and do the "important parts" summary of the book but the book is plot heavy as you might expect and so it turned out long. Condensing that some is likely to be productive. I am less sure, in theory on the LEAD, but will take a look at that too tomorrow with fresh eyes. Thanks for your thinking, edits, and collaboration. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Innisfree987 I did some more tweaking of your plot summary edits - biggest one was to reintroduce the concept of who the three POV characters were. I didn't make any changes to the LEAD but think it might not do a good job of MOS:INTRO/MOS:LEADREL. However, my thinking is to leave it and see what the GA reviewer says. Speaking of which I have gone ahead and nominated. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, ah yes: that was one thought I had last night, but I was crashing: I wonder if it could help tighten up the plot section to have a brief character section to describe that? I realize it's an optional section but in this case could allow room to specify how the story's told--when it says POV character, I actually don't know whether it means the story rotates among first-person narrators or that the narrative turns to foreground their story but in the third person. So a character section could specify a bit more on form while allowing the plot section to stick to the narrative. An idea, anyway! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Innisfree987 I am pretty opposed to a character section in GA articles because I read MOS:NOVELS as pretty opposed to them when a plot section is well-written as any GA article should be. I think it leads to the kind of cruft that was present in the article before. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Children of Blood and Bone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fearstreetsaga (talk · contribs) 17:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this article. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The article looks pretty good. Here are my suggestions:

Lead

• "Critics noted" Replace noted per WP:Words to watch.

 Done

Development and inspiration

• "the second draft, which she was ultimately forced to complete in a month" Is there anything you can find that talks about why she was forced to complete the draft in a month?

Found a source which explained why so I've added that context. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

• 'though she does not like to be called the "black J.K. Rowling", preferring instead phrases like "the new J.K. Rowling"' I'm not sure what connection this statement has to the book or its development. I would consider explaining the connection, putting this in a footnote, or getting rid of it.

This was her first book so coverage of her and the book were nearly identical. The Harry Potter comparisons are rampant in coverage of her/the book and deserve mention in the article, as would I think, her response to this appellation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Ok, I see. I would mention that she made these comments in response to comparisons being made between the book and Rowling's work, because the text does seem out of place to me without this context. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Plot

• Why do Kaea and Inan want to destroy the scroll?

 Done

Themes

• "but Zélie and Amari continue" I feel this sentence ends a little abruptly. Consider explaining what Zélie and Amari are continuing.

 Done

Reception

• 'David Canfield of Entertainment Weekly called the novel a "phenomenon".' I think this could go into more detail so readers understand why Canfield likes the book or what he likes about it.

 Done Also note, as evidence about the Rowling thing, the headline on this review as one such example (of many) of that comparison. -Barkeep49

• "Less positively, the The A.V. Club said the book failed to live up to its hype." As above, consider adjusting this to explain why The A.V. Club did not like the book.

 Done

Audiobook and sequel

• I found several references talking about the audiobook and some of the awards it has won that you can consider adding to the article: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

Thanks. There's enough out there that I made an audiobook section.

• It looks like there is information about the sequels starting to pop up that you could think about adding as well.

The sequel is going to be notable in its own right (and arguably already is at least compared to movies at a similar stage) so I have simply noted it with a one sentence note in publication history for now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Fearstreetsaga (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Fearstreetsaga for the suggestions and review. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: The changes look good. I did leave a suggestion in regards to one of your responses above, but I'll go ahead and pass the article anyway because I'm happy it meets the GA criteria. Congratulations! Fearstreetsaga (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)