Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ReaderofthePack (talk · contribs) 21:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take this on! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:16, 3 April 2019 (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, and lists):

   No glaring errors or issues that I can see.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   References back up the claims, I see no OR, and Earwig's copyvio detector brought up no copyvio

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This has all of the information that can be added at this point in time.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No perceivable bias that I can see.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   There have been no edit wars since the page's creation and looks unlikely to be the focus of any at this point in time.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No free images, unfortunately, but this is kind of par for the course for any modern person. This doesn't invalidate the article for GA, though.

7. Overall: This still has room for growth, but at this point in time the page is comprehensive and has the needed sourcing to back up the claims.

   Pass/Fail:

Notes[edit]

• Hi Bradv! I've started the review. One thing I do have a question about - I saw that the books section has synopses for some of the books, but not all. I wasn't sure as to why - I figured that it was likely due to coverage? Also, if possible can you see if there's more coverage for Barnes's life? I figure I have to ask with the last one just to double check. :) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  ReaderofthePack, thank you for starting the review. Barnes' early works didn't seem to get a lot of coverage. The only sources I can find that discuss the first couple are in the context of coverage for his later works, mostly Crown. We Could Be Brothers and the Ruby series are possibly both notable enough for their own articles, but there really isn't much available for the earlier books.

  Regarding Barnes' life, perhaps more information will come available as he continues to rise in popularity, but at this point most of the available information is in the context of coverage for Crown. Hope that helps. Bradv🍁 22:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  ReaderofthePack I've done some research behind this as well and would definitely support Brad's assertion that there isn't more biographical coverage meriting encyclopedic mention than what is in there now. This is either because it's TRIVIA or because it's not clear what weight to give it - for instance Barnes attempted to do marketing for a while but sources aren't clear if he ever did this successfully in any money producing kind of way because what's out there is SELFPUB type stuff. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds good - I figured that I had to ask, just in case. I'm not really surprised, this is kinda common with authors. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• All I have to do now is just finish up with the sourcing and this should be good to go! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I've gone through the sources, which look good. I do need to caution you that Kirkus isn't always seen as a RS by all editors so if a better source becomes available over time, I'd replace it. (cool) progeny raised an eyebrow, but it looks like it should be OK. I filled out the source information some, since they need to have all of the information (date, author, etc) in the citation. If any of the paywalled sources is missing information it needs to be added.

I removed the Amazon and Goodreads links. The Amazon one because it's an e-commerce site and Goodreads because of this discussion. I use the site, but it has its issues. In any case, this looks like it should pass. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ReaderofthePack, that all makes sense. I wasn't aware of some of the history around those sites, so appreciate the thorough review. Bradv🍁 13:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]