Edge Rewrite
Jump to content

Talk:Clover Moon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 5 days ago by Icepinner in topic GA review

GA review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Clover Moon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk · contribs) 05:35, 1 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Icepinner (talk · contribs) 10:25, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Danilo, long time no see... thanks for reviewing Details Cannot Body Wants and Istana Park a while back, so I thought I'd return the favour by reviewing one of your articles! Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 10:25, 19 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so so much @Icepinner:! I really appreciate it :) and I hope to review another article of yours sometime! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I have finished my review, DaniloDaysOfOurLives and I will place this on hold until all issues have been adressed. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:34, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, lists, and tables):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions and alt text):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Plot

[edit]

Publication

[edit]

Reception

[edit]

The prose is fine, but I'm concerned that this section has WP:DUE concerns. We have paragraphs based entirely on one source, so perhaps the section should be organised by general viewpoints on the book? Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 14:35, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Images

[edit]
  • Clover Moon.jpg NFC, proper rationale
  • Jacqueline Wilson 20191205.jpg CC–BY–SA 4.0. I think you might need a citation for the caption? Dunno.
  • Images have proper copyright, but they need alt text (per the recent GA criteria changes)

Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 17:51, 20 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the citation, it is referenced in the prose so I assumed that was fine DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2026 (UTC)Reply
I was told in a PR for my first FAC that some editors might want a caption in the photo. Since the fact is already mentioned in the prose I think it's okay. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 10:02, 22 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sources

[edit]
  • WP:CITEUNSEEN gives me 4 generally reliable sources used, namely the Guardian and Radio Times
  • The rest seem to be book review websites or non-independent sources. However, this is okay as most of the former are websites of reliable publications. The latter are two YouTube videos (which are cited to confirm the existence of the videos themselves) and the book's listing on its publisher's website (which is used for basic information and reviews).

Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 17:04, 26 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Spotcheck

[edit]

The square root of the total sources will be checked (four sources). Spotcheck based on this version

  • [3]: 4000 stories were submitted to the contest, not over 4000. Other instances are a pass.
  • [5]: pass
  • [10]: the child reviewer stated that they learned that children were beaten during Victorian times, so I wouldn't say that they learned "a lot" about Victorian times. Other instances are a pass.
  • [11]: pass

A couple of issues with source-to-text integrity. Given the frequency of citations to the news sources and book review websites, this is relatively minor. Out of the total usage of sources in the spotcheck, 12 of them have good source-to-text integrity (or to put it in another way, the source-to-text rate in the spotcheck is 86%). Thus, I will mark this spotcheck as a pass. While the reception might change given my above comment, most of the core ideas (quotes and reviewer's opinions) should be there, so I don't think the source-to-text integrity will be severily affected. Icepinner (Come to Hakurei Shrine!) 15:33, 27 September 2026 (UTC)Reply