Talk:I Am Not Going to Get Up Today!/GA1

GA Review

Passed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2024 (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

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 21:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A kid's book article with philosophy. I'm in. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although this article is on the shorter end, which I normally complain about, it includes all the sections I would expect for broad coverage, and they are as complete as they can be based on the sourcing.

In the lead I would identify Alexander as an actor, for context (and also in the body) - you can't necessarily assume people know who he is
No gripes about the plot summary
I feel like there might be a way to condense "written by Dr. Seuss. By the time Seuss began work on this book, his health had begun to fail." into a single sentence, although I won't die on the hill of trying to find it
Since you later mention Seuss is a pseudonym, it might be worth mentioning it in the first sentence so it doesn't come as a surprise
"It was the first one" - 'first one' reads a bit casually. Maybe "First work" or "First publication by Seuss in eight years"
You managed to integrate Socrates pretty neatly, which is fun
If you're trying to get this to FA level, I might suggest noting other books that Einhorn compares it to, but that's at your discretion and not GA-prohibitive
"the method of Kenneth Burke" this is a bit opaque if you don't know who Burke is or what his method was.
"its unpopularity relative to other Dr. Seuss books" - this comes from having Reception under Analysis, but right now this comes as a surprise to the reader. I realize Reception is combined with Legacy, but I think it still makes more sense to move it above Analysis
Any particular reason why Common Sense Media is first? It's the only non-contemporary review, while the rest are from the 80s.

All of this is really FA-level nitpicking. There's nothing here that puts the article below the GACR or is worth holding up promotion over; take these as suggestions for improvement. No concerns with CV, image use (though I wish to god we had an image of a "Pineapple Butterscotch Ding Dang Doo"), and sourcing checked out. Good work! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2024 (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.