Talk:Daddy's Roommate/GA1

GA Review

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

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.