Talk:Goosebumps/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 17:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll review. Thoughts to follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, before I've even started to read, the first half of the article is ugly to look at. Unnecessary references in the lead (anything in the lead should be found elsewhere in the article- only particularly contentious material, quotes or possibly figures need to be attributed in the lead). In addition, you've got quoteboxes, section titles, the infobox and images jostling for space. I think, as the article is about the whole media franchise, a generic Goosebumps logo would be the best image- that's moderately iconic on its own. A book cover isn't as useful.

Now, onto the lead-

• "Goosebumps is a series of children's horror fiction novels written by American author R. L. Stine and first published by Scholastic Publishing.[1][2] It is a collection of stories that feature semi-homogenous plot structures, with fictional children being involved in scary situations." This isn't a great opening. The phrase "semi-homogenous plot structures" is completely opaque, and why "initially"? Have they been republished? How about something like "Goosebumps is a series of children's novels by American author R. L. Stine, initially published by Scholastic Publishing. The novels follow child characters, who find themselves in scary situations."
• Horror and humor aren't really themes- they're genres. The supernatural is a theme, but "supernatural horror" is a genre.
• The lead lacks a link to Goosebumps (original series)
• You can't cite a Scholastic press release for the claim that "the books have gained immense popularity and commercial success worldwide". Of course they're going to say that.
• "and has been listed in many bestseller lists, including the New York Times Best Seller list for children" The series has, or individual books have?
• Also, there seems to be shifts between referring to the original series as Goosebumps and the other series as spin-offs and referring to them all together as Goosebumps. This occurs throughout the article- there's also inconsistency as to whether the series title is italicised.
• You can't have "numerous merchandise" any more than you can have "numerous water". Merchandise is an uncountable noun.

Main body-

• "the children's fiction, horror and thriller genre," That's at least two genres.
• You mention class and gender of the characters, but not that they're children.
• "The books in the Goosebumps series feature semi-homogenous plot structures" What does this even mean?
• "kids"!
• "They contain surreal horrors" If you're meaning "things that are horrible in a surreal way", then "horrors" is a little colloquial. If, alternatively, you mean a genre, just say "surreal horror".
• "R. L. Stine explained the success of his books by their absence of drugs, depravity and violence." How about "Stine attributed ot the success of his books to their..."
• "The author has plot devices that he follows throughout his Goosebumps books. He does not have any death in his stories, except if someone is a ghost who died before the book began, and the children are never put into situations that would be considered too serious." Sudden change of tense/tone
• "movies" Colloquial
• You don't need to keep spelling out "R. L. Stine".
• "kids" again
• "The Goosebumps books in this series were written in chronological order," In-world chronological? Or they were published in the order they were written?
• Why are the Goosebumps Graphix considered part of the original series?
• "The author Gary Westfahl compared multiple choose your fate books, including Beware of the Purple Peanut Butter of this spin-off series.[34]" I've no idea what this means
• While a mention of those book series which were going to be published is important, they currently seem to get more space than the books which were published. This seems odd.
• "The books appeared in many bestseller lists, such as the New York Times Best Seller list for children,[47] USA Today bestseller list[48] and Publishers Weekly bestseller list.[49]" Again- the books collectively, or particular books from the series? I'm assuming, from what follows, the former, which is what is currently implied.
• "The Goosebumps series maintains an 82% brand awareness among kids 7–12,[59]" KIDS. Also, that was five years ago- a long time for a 7 year old...
• "The book series sells millions of copies annually.[25]" A bit empty. At the very least, it needs the year.
• kids kids kids
• " Joe. B says "there are several Goosebumps books in the series that can teach young readers good morals, such as (The Haunted Mask) teaches that there is nothing more important than the love of your family and friends."" Who's Joe B., and why should I care? There are a lot of names in this section which could do with some clarification- are these academics? Journalists? Professional critics? Educators?
• There isn't really any literary criticism in the section. How about "Reception and critique"?
• It's not immediately clear what "challenged" means in this context.
• "the banned-book list" What banned book list?
• "The Deseret News mentioned a mom in Florida who was unsuccessful in getting the books banned in her daughter's school.[81]" So what? A single isolated incident.
• You can't really "start a controversy".
• "A mother of three children, Margaret Byron, started a controversy when she attempted to have the series banned from an elementary school in the Anoka-Hennepin school district, which is in Minnesota. After discovering that her daughter continued to read the books after she told her not to, Byron complained to the school district in April 1996. She was called names such as "book burner". The National Education Association became involved, along with other organizations that are against censorship.[82]" A bit BLP-y. This, and the story above, imply that there have been efforts to remove the books from schools- I think this could be reported in more general terms.
• You jump into this legal dispute between Parachute and Scholastic, but, prior to that, the reader doesn't really have any idea of the respective roles of the publishers.
• It's in over 100 countries, but you single out that "it aired on YTV in Canada"?
• "The first attempt at a Goosebumps film was in 1998, which Tim Burton was going to produce. Chris Meledandri, the president of Fox Family Films, said, "I think you'll see us tackling a scale of story that would be prohibitive to do on the small screen".[37]" Great- what happened next?
• "Columbia Pictures acquired rights to create a Goosebumps film." When?
• "Stine said that he will believe that a film can be based on his Goosebumps series when he sees it. He mentioned Where the Wild Things Are being adapted into a film almost 50 years after publication.[92]" I know. I just read it.
• I think merging the games and other media sections would be helpful.
• Again, I'm pretty certain you can't have "numerous merchandise".
• "The books One Day at HorrorLand and A Night in Terror Tower were both adapted into a board game in 1996" is that "a [single] boardgame" or "[two separate] boardgames"?

This article has some strengths- the "achievements" section is very good, and a (quick) glance at the references suggests that they are very strong. Clearly, a lot of good research has gone into the article. However, the tone is inconsistent, the focus is unclear in places, the writing needs fixing up here and there and the top part of the article looks very cluttered. Based on the large number of problems I have identified above, I am going to close this review to give you time to work on the article- I do hope you can improve it further, as this is a worthy topic which gets a good number of views. Sadly, it's just not ready to be a GA yet. Good luck with it, and if you need any help or advice, you're welcome to contact me. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)