Talk:The Quest Begins

Requested move

Better title. – Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 09:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support Seekers: The Quest Begins is definitely a better title. But The Quest Begins is also currently a redirect to Seekers (novel series), so why not go with that instead? There's not really a need for the disambiguatory "Seekers: "... In any case, I'd support either one. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as listed. The article title should simply be the novel title, which is The Quest Begins. Andrewa (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 17:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   In regard to 3a: In the "Conception" section, there are two references that those who know nothing about this book or any in the Warriors series will understand. The first is a reference to Victoria Holmes, which seems contradictory to the statement that it was written by Erin Hunter. You may wish to state Holmes's role in creating the stories' plots, both in the past and present (ie, "Holmes had developed the plot for other books in the Warriors series including X, Y, and Z, and was again tasked to do the same for a new book about a different type of animal." Or something.) The other point is that, with no reference to the Warriors series, there is no justification for the sentence "The company suggested dogs to Holmes, but the idea was rejected since dogs behave very similarly to cats." Please consider adding some reference of why cats were not good (again, obviously, the Warriors series.) Looks good.

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This article is close to GA status. I went through and nitpicked with copyediting and syntax, and the two issues with 3a are the only I see as needing resolution before I can pass this article. Nice job. I'll put it on hold for one week. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 18:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added a mention of the pseudonym in the lead, and further mention of Holmes' role in the Warriors series later. I also added a short phrase/clause that should help clear up why dogs were rejected (not because cats were bad, but because it would be too similar to the Warriors series). Brambleclawx 14:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Okeedokee, thanks so much for the clarifications! I'll be promoting this article now. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 14:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:The Quest Begins/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I do not believe this is up to GA level. Maybe it was in 2011, but not now. Major problems:

1. Poor sourcing: there's only fourteen sources, five of which are from the publishers, one is to some Russian website. One is a chat from a fan site.
2. Poor citing: titles missing from journal articles (I don't know how the reviewer wasn't bothered by that--but it was a very cursory review).
3. Vagueries: the Russian link supposedly verifies that some books in the series were translated into Russian, but that's hardly clear from that page, and it begs the question of what was released in Canada and the UK (this book? some books of the series?) and what was translated.
4. Poor prose: throughout, the writing is very pedestrian (one example out of many: "Kirkus Reviews praised how 'Hunter creates ...'"), with repetitive syntax and too many instances of "also". Note "Somewhere is the Rocky Mountains in southern Canada", which was there already in 2011.

In all, this can be fixed, but it's not of GA level. Pinging User:Bobamnertiopsis and User:Brambleclawx. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Pardon me as I slowly make a foray out of semi-retirement; I can't really recall if I should be replying to each point below them, or just separately like I've opted to do here. Anyway:

For the sourcing, source one is a transcript of an interview conducted with the authors by said fan site; i.e., it is a primary source, and the information does not exist elsewhere. The references to the publisher are used only to reference the publication dates for the various formats of the novel. If there is a preferable source for such information to use, please let me know.

I'm actually surprised that titles are missing from the references; I don't exactly recall my level of involvement on this particular article prior to its GAN, but I would not have expected to miss that. Anyway, I will find some time to correct that soon.

Titles added. Brambleclawx 04:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll also clarify the material about other countries, and brush up the prose.

Copyedit done. I unfortunately haven't actually read this particular book before, so I was only able to give the plot summary a basic clean-up. Brambleclawx 04:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Brambleclawx 00:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Drmies: In case the replies have been missed. AIRcorn (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Aircorn--I hadn't seen the replies. I'll get on it, after more coffee. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Finished the coffee yet? Drmies Let me know if you need a hand to keep things moving here. AIRcorn (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• User:Aircorn, this article certainly has improved, thanks to Brambleclawx and esp. Yngvadottir, but I'm not seeing GA here. The prose is better and the other errors have been fixed, but we still have just a really brief article with very meager sourcing. I mean, this is in a weekly newspaper of 7,500 copies. The article, if we count verified prose, is about 22 sentences (and in "Critical reception" a couple more should be cut, since the prose there is still not GA level). So in a way one could argue it approaches GA level because the content that needs to be verified is mostly verified, but only because it's a topic that has generated very, very little coverage in the first place, and that coverage consists exclusively of reviews--no studies or comparisons or whatever. No, I'm sorry, and I appreciate the writer's effort but I do not think this is a GA. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Drmies Before you close as a delist let me spend some time, which I would hope to do no later than this weekend, seeing if I can increase the number (and possibly quality) of sources. I have not read the book so if you have issues with the plot I would not be able to help with that but since it seems like you have other concerns I'm happy to do a dive and see what's out there. However, in terms of studies or comparisons or whatever as you saw with This is Not My Hat it is not uncommon, in my experience, for a book to be able to reach the GA level, that is it broad in its coverage, through reviews alone. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Barkeep49, I am absolutely fine with that. I wasn't in a hurry before, and I'm not in one now, and I'd rather have a reworked GA than a delisted former GA--thank you so much. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Drmies and Brambleclawx I have taken a pass at improving the article. While I rewrote some sections, added a little detail, and removed the Columbus Dispatch and Half Moon Bay paper coverage, I did not find any substantially different coverage. This book seems to have received critical reviews in-line with many children's books - that is coverage by trade publications but little of note outside of that realm. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Drmies, could you finish this GAR? --MrClog (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
          • MrClog, sorry, thanks, yeah--Barkeep did a good job. Can you close it? It would take me hours to find the paperwork... Drmies (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
            • Drmies, done. Based on your comment, I'm assuming the article is kept as a GA. If I'm mistaken, please ping me. --MrClog (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Link

I want to add a link in the first paragraph, to feral cats, but there's some sort of template generating the words. Would it be okay if I just type in the words, and add my link? Ex-Borg Seven of Nine (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ex-Borg Seven of Nine, I've added the link. Thanks for the suggestion! Let me know if you have other improvements you think would benefit this article or other questions about editing! Kindly, —Collin^{t c} 15:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)