Talk:Daddy's Roommate

untitled

†The only difference between the two article titles is the code used for the apostrophe; in one it's ' and in the other it's ’. Her Pegship 02:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcoyne1616, Stephaniegajdjis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Merged. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 08:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Daddys Roommate.gif

Image:Daddys Roommate.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Revisions to Article

-I will create a new section titled “Summary” to detail the plot of the book

-I will create a new section titled “Genre” to address the form and style of the book, as well as how it compares to Willhoite’s other works

-I will change “Response” to “Reception”. I will then break this portion into two subsections, one for reception for the book itself, and one for the controversy and political debate surrounding the book

-I will create a new section titled “Analysis” that acknowledges the key themes portrayed in the book, citing scholarly articles and reviews for Daddy’s Roommate

-I will create a new section titled “Publication” to acknowledge Alyson Books and how the publisher is known for producing books that address issues of gender identity and sexuality

-I will update the Infobox with any information about the book’s publication that is not already mentioned

-I will add citations to improve the article’s reliability, an important element of Wikipedia’s guidelines for quality articles

-I will create a new section title “Other Works” to list Willhoite’s other publications. I will add a picture of the author Michael Willhoite, and I may add a picture of Daddy’s Wedding in the “Other Works” section as well

-I will add content to the lead section to adequately reflect the main ideas of the new information I will be adding

-If I find more information about Willhoite's motivations behind creating the book, I will add a "Background" section in between the lead and summary

-The lead is very broad and lacks any sort of continuity that could possibly grab the readers attention from the start of the article. A more in depth lead and a clearer summary of the book would make this article significantly better — Preceding unsigned comment added by Demellozach2 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Works Referenced

“Daddy’s Roommate Challenged in VT.” Library Journal, vol. 120, no. 12, July 1995, pp. 14–16. EBSCOhost.

Godwin, Mary Jo. “Special Report: Conservative Groups Continue Their Fight to Ban ‘Daddy's Roommate.’” American Libraries, vol. 23, no. 11, 1992, pp. 917–968. JSTOR.

Karolides, Nicholas J. Censored Books II: Critical Viewpoints, 1985-2000. Scarecrow Education, 2002.

Lakey, Jennifer. “Teachers and Parents Define Diversity in an Oregon Preschool Cooperative - Democracy at Work.” Young Children, vol. 52, no. 4, 1997, pp. 20–28.

Lipkin, Arthur. “The Case for a Gay and Lesbian Curriculum.” The High School Journal, vol. 77, no. 1/2, 1993, pp. 95–107. JSTOR.

Metcalf, DaVinci. “Censorship Has a Place.” American Libraries, vol. 24, no. 2, 1993, pp. 120–121.

“News Fronts.” American Libraries, vol. 24, no. 11, 1993, pp. 974–1056. JSTOR. Pistolis, Donna Reidy. Hit List: Frequently Challenged Books for Children. American Library Association, 1996.

Sova, Dawn B. Banned Books: Literature Suppressed on Social Grounds. Facts On File, 2006.

Spence, Alex. “Controversial Books in the Public Library: A Comparative Survey of Holdings of Gay-Related Children's Picture Books.” The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, vol. 70, no. 3, 2000, pp. 335–379. JSTOR.

Zeigler, Sara. "Book Banning." The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America, edited by David Schultz, and John R. Vile, Routledge, 1st edition, 2005. Credo Reference. Mcoyne1616 (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Daddy's Roommate/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Catrìona (talk · contribs) 15:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Hello, I'll be reviewing the article. Catrìona (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

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

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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 in-line citations are from 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:

   The primary problem that you have is the citation style. While most statements are cited, the books and academic papers cited need to provide a specific page number. The easiest way to do this is with the {{rp}} template. For an example of how this is done, see Sorley MacLean.

• There are also some unsourced statements:
  • Its prominence as one of the first children's books to illustrate a gay relationships has led to its inclusion in various political and social debates since its publication.
  • The table entry for Rutland library
  • His cartoons have been published in two different collections by Alyson Books.
• [1] This source is a blog, which is not considered a reliable source, and cannot be used.
• A further issue is the Help:CS1 errors in some of the references. See the linked page for how to fix them.
• "Because of these attempts, it was the second-most challenged book in the United States from 1990 to 1999"—Usually citations are not used in the lede because the information is cited in the body. Furthermore this statement, although correctly cited, seems to contradict some of the information in the body, namely "In the decade following the book's publication, it was one of the most challenged books in the country, with the American Library Association listing it as the most contested book in 1993 and 1994"
• In addition, there is the issue identified by Shalor (Wiki Ed): During the early 1990s, Daddy's Roommate was added to many public libraries following positive reviews in Publishers Weekly and Booklist. It looks like this is sourced with the PW review and a study. The PW review can't back up any claims other than it was reviewed by PW. The study is a bit problematic because it's a primary source for any claims and research conducted by its authors. What this basically means is that if this claim is backed up by the research conducted by the researchers (ie, their findings showed that it was added to libraries after the reviews) we need a secondary, independent source that reviews or cites the study and makes this same claim. This isn't a medical topic at all, but this training module does go over the reasons why studies are seen as primary sources (and what can be done with them). However, if the claim was taken from the study's literature review or they're citing someone else, then that would be OK. (In other words, it just can't be their own research.)
• For the reasons discussed above, this cannot be sourced to the PW review. However, this is a narrow enough subject (academic research isn't usually done on the publication histories of books) that I would not have any trouble accepting primary source findings of the authors, as long as their findings haven't been challenged.
• After a quick look I can find several similar cases:
  • "In particular, the line on page 26 of the book that "Being gay is just one more kind of love" was criticized for promoting a homosexual lifestyle." This is sourced to the book, but that does nothing to back up this statement, other than showing that this statement exists in the book.
  • "After a local Baptist minister protested the book's inclusion in the public library, a member of the congregation indefinitely checked out all copies of the book"—In the source, it says that a local member of his congregation checked out the books, and that was how he found out about them
  .

1. C. It contains no original research:

   The statement "Demonstrating pride that the book has been utilized to educate children about gay families" can come across as original research since technically this isn't stated in the source material. It's something that the average person could infer, but since it wasn't explicitly stated this will need to be tweaked to be more straightforward. Maybe something along the lines of "In the tenth anniversary edition Wilhoite wrote that the book was "still, triumphantly, what I first intended: a mirror in which children of gay parents can see themselves. Yet it has also been used as a tool to educate children in more traditional families about gay families in their midst."" Shalor (Wiki Ed) is entirely correct that this is an OR issue.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   It's odd that the author is not identified until the end of the article. Why not add a short section early in the article about Willhoite's process in writing the book, getting it published, etc. Then rename the "About the author" section to "Author's response" and demote to a level-3 header.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Unfortunately, the sourcing issues mean that the article is a long way from meeting Good Article criteria. Please take a look at WP:Verifiability, fix the issues identified here, double-check to make sure all sources support the content, then resubmit for consideration as a GA article.

Organization: The main issue I see in this article it's the lack of sections talking about the book itself, such as characters, style, and other literary aspects. Although there is a genre section it only consists of two lines. Let's consider other sections that can be added to give a complete picture of the article's topic. Aina2001 (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)