# Talk:Cliffhanger (novel)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cliffhanger (novel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk · contribs) 12:59, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Gommeh (talk · contribs) 20:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
The information appears to be well-presented and in a comprehensible form. I do not see any copyvios on the article.
Notes on sources:

YouTube is generally not preferred as an SPS, but as it's a video of the author themselves answering questions, this is fine.
I being an American have not heard of Summer Reading Challenge so I'm 50/50 on whether or not I should trust it. I'd appreciate other editors' opinions on this; however, I do believe The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph. BookTrust reviews seem like a good source to use here (good that you did) given the subject matter.
No notes on any of the other sources - the rest of them look fine.
All in all, the sources look verifiable; I've checked nearly all of them and they all verify the claims made in the article. I do not see anywhere where more citations are needed, nor do I see any unsourced claims. There are no edit wars or content disputes that I can see.
Coverage seems appropriately broad and neutral. You mentioned that Summer Reading Challenge gave the book "mixed to positive" reviews; were you able to find out specifically why some people were dissatisfied with the book? Perhaps that may be important to include. Overall, though, I think this is a minor detail and not necessarily needed to pass the GA criteria.

Hey, thank you so much for the review! It means so much :) Regarding the Summer Reading Challenge, it is a website where members (usually children) read and review novels, so I only gave it a small member to not give it undue weight. I can remove it if needed though DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
I think it can stay — the novel is targeted towards children and it's important to note what the target audience thinks of it after all. Gommeh 🎮 21:02, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
Hey @Gommeh, I'll structure this review of your review on how well you evaluated each criteria:
1a and b (prose) – You note "the information appears to be well-presented and in a comprehensible form", which is probably just enough to justify passing on this criteria. It's quite rare to find an article with has no issues with conciseness or clarity, but if you do (in this case), it's a good idea to be a bit more transparent in your evaluation. E.g. "I read the article from beginning to end and found no issues with clarity or conciseness (criterion 1a). The lead is an appropriate length and summarises the article well. Etc.". Make it clear you have evaluated everything in the criteria.
2 (refs) – There is some great evaluation of the sources. I don't think the Summer Reading Challenge sources should be included as they are WP:USERGENERATED, and I would have raised concerns about the website "primary resources" which appears to be more of a database than curated set of accurate information. You justified why it passes on every sub-criteria. It's generally expected that the review list the sources they checked, e.g. "[1]: Y, [2b]: Y, 6: N (explanation)..."
3 (broadness) – You justified passing on this criterion, but ideally you want to go into a bit more detail, like "This article follows the same structure as other GA and FA book articles. A quick search on Google does not identify any major sources which have been omitted." This article does have overdetail issues which you missed. E.g. a huge chunk of the first paragraph of the "Production" section is sourced to the book itself (a primary source). WP:PRIMARY sources should only be used to supplement the context provided by secondary sources. They should not be used on their own to build a narrative.
4 (neutral) – You justified passing on this criterion. If it were a longer or more controversial article you would want to go into more detail here.
5 (stable) – Fully justified
6 (images) – No comments were made on this criterion. You should at least state you are happy with the free use rationale of the singular used image.
I hope this helps with your reviews in the future! Since you have already passed this article, I will raise my concerns found in this review-of-review on the article talk page. Feel free to participate in that discussion. IAWW (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey @DaniloDaysOfOurLives, I found a few issues with this during my review of the GA review as part of the WP:GAMENTORship program.

I don't think the website "Primary Resources" should be used, as it appears to be more of a database than curated set of accurate information. I think it is much closer to a WP:BLOG than a reliable source of information. They even have a disclaimer on the bottom of their website saying that they don't guarantee the accuracy of their information. It is not published by RM Education, but rather the website is sponsored by that company.
A large part of the first paragraph of the "Production" section is sourced to the book itself, which is a primary source. WP:PRIMARY sources should only be used to supplement the context provided by secondary sources and provide basic information that you would expect in an encyclopedic article. They should not used to build narratives. I highlighted in green the info that I think is eligible to be sourced to a primary source, and I highlighted in red the information that I think should either be sourced to a secondary source or removed: "Cliffhanger was written by Jacqueline Wilson and illustrated by Nick Sharratt. Prior to the book being written, Wilson was contacted by a producer, who wanted to commission her to write a two-part series for Junior School children. Although Wilson was happy about this, the producer wanted the plot to be an "exciting adventure story" and for it to be centred around a boy character. Wilson had mostly written about girls as she found it easier and had never written an adventure story, but she agreed to do it as she wanted to work for television. She then got the idea to write a story about a "shy, anxious boy" who was sent off to an adventure holiday but does not like it, which Wilson empathised with. Wilson ended the first part of the series with a cliffhanger ending with Tim dangling off a cliff, which she described as a "literal cliffhanger". Wilson ended up writing the story as a novel as well"
IAWW (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I think I have addressed your concerns. The primary source was not the book itself but the forward in the book where Wilson talked about her motivation to write the book, but I trimmed it anyway. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)