Talk:Sundae Girl

GA review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sundae Girl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk · contribs) 15:46, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Edward056686 (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I will review this to fulfill my pledge at Talk:Menches/GA1. Edward056686 (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Content and prose review

• Lead: This could be expanded, it’s very short.
• I expanded it slightly. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Publication: This section is very short, it would be good if you could expand them.
  • Unfortunately I have looked and I could not find more information :( DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• The premise is also a short blurb and could be expanded.
  • I expanded it slightly. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Source spotchecks

• The website listing on BookTrust doesn't seem like a full review and maybe shouldn't be used that way.
  • It may not be a full review but it is still reception as it is the website/organisation's opinion of the novel. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
    • Alright, that's fine. Edward056686 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Are the reviews by Awesome Charlie and Ellie-May user generated? They look that way.
  • They are written by users of the website. It was determined in Talk:The Butterfly Club (novel)/GA1 that these reviews are allowed to be used as long as not too much weight are included. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
    • It looks like the compromise on The Butterfly Club was to lump them together and mention that they were sent in by the website's users. Can you do that here? Edward056686 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

      Done! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

• Reference 15 seems like a good source, can you include any more information from it?
  • I already included all of the information from it :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• Reference 16 is the product description on Scholastic, it shouldn’t be used for the reception.
  • I have removed it DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

No copyright violations or close paraphrasing that I see, and the cover art is correctly used. Edward056686 (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

These are the first things that I noticed, once those are addressed I'll take another look at the entire article. Edward056686 (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

General comments and score

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 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): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

@Edward056686: Sorry for the lateness, I did not see this! I have responded to your points. Thank you for your review :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Thank you! I only have one follow-up question. Edward056686 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

@Edward056686: Done! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

That's everything then, good job! Edward056686 (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Cathy Cassidy was praised for the way she dealt with sensitive issues in Sundae Girl?

• Source:

• • ALT1: ... that Sundae Girl was included in Judy Finnigan and Richard Madeley's bookclub? Source:
  • ALT2: ... that Sundae Girl is a children's novel that deals with dementia and alcoholism? Source:
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mecki

Improved to Good Article status by DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 52 past nominations.

DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC).

• Article is new enough (passed GA 24/04/2026, nominated same day), long enough, copyright free, neutral and well sourced. I find ALT0 and ALT2 are interesting, but I don't think ALT1 is, considering that I don't know these two people. JuniperChill (talk) 00:27, 3 May 2026 (UTC)
• Sorry, I forgot to mention about the QPQ. That is done as required JuniperChill (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Ref 10 & 11

Hey @DaniloDaysOfOurLives: - what's the difference between ref 10 and 11 in terms of content? They seem identical to me besides the color/shade of the scan.

Posting here for vis:

• Webb, Sarah (7 July 2007). "Let's hear it for the kids". Irish Independent. p. 71. Retrieved 31 January 2026 – via Newspapers.com.
• Webb, Sarah (7 July 2007). "Let's hear it for the kids". Irish Independent. p. 71. Retrieved 31 January 2026 – via Newspapers.com.

We should be only using one if the only difference is the scan type when the text is identical. Thank you. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 17:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)