Talk:Shrek!

Plot section added

Article needs a plot section. 16:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I added it. Kitia 01:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There's currently NO Plot section. someone add one please. Xylogirl07 (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A donkey here too?

Does the book have donkey or somthing like that in the movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.223.163 (talk • contribs) on April 9, 2007 at 05:16.

Yes, the book does have a donkey in it, and a talking one at that (which, incidentally, is about the closest that the movie gets to following the plot of the book) *(Ian Clelland) 00:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It should really be mentioned that it's very divergent in message and form from the story of the film(s). Pbhj (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

@Pbhj, if you've read the book and/or reviews of it, perhaps you can flesh that out? Right not it says virtually nothing about the book. 64.134.11.96 (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Book

This article seems to focus more on the movie than on the actual book :( 193.136.152.161 (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. damiens.rf 15:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Ogre?

Just check the book, it seems that the book does not directly refer Shrek as an ogre. We can only know he may not be a human as he can fire beam from eyes and flame from mouth. Unless there is any official material referring him as an ogre, I suggest we should use other term like monster or else. --TX55^TALK 08:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It's entirely possible there are reliable sources now which refer to him as an ogre, if only after the fact, but you're right. In the original text, there's no mention of what he is. I've updated it to "monster" as this shouldn't be objectionable. Scoundr3l (talk) 18:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

First Result

I'd argue the Web page for this book, rather than for the 2001 animated film, should be the primary result upon a search for, "Shrek." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commando303 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree as the film/film franchise is *much* more notable than the book.--108.31.15.173 (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Bumpf

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 04:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Starts GA Review; the review will follow the same sections of the Article. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 

---

Lede

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• The lede opens well and ends with criticism and a negative focus. In the article, this is a minority view, and could be dropped for including other relevant comment in the article. (Consider the anti-hero commentary as possibly useful here.)

Background

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• Background is simple and crisp summary of Steig and the origin of his cartoons and children's books.

Plot

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• Well phrased, it is a challenge to give a plot and entice the reader. Well scribed.

Reception

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• It is important to capture that children's books are meant to be read aloud. A good point to include.
• A lot of references link to Wikipedia pages instead of the original source.
• Balanced; includes criticism, which is fair.

Analysis

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• The observation the book and its hero ask the question "What is evil? Who causes evil?" is excellent and admits for moral learning by children.

Shrek

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• The notion of self-acceptance v. imagined ideal is important learning (and experience) for children. This is good, it brings the reader to self-acceptance, where Shrek engages self-acceptance (especially of his image).

Adaptations

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• Noted. It is good to finish with Steig's comments.

Reference

1. Is it reasonably well written?

• References 9, 10, 11 point to Wikipedia articles for the sources and not the source item itself.
• Reference 13 points to the Wiki article for ProQuest, and not the source on ProQuest.
• Reference 16 points to the Wiki article for Publishers Weekly and not the source item.
• Reference 22 has a link in the Wikipedia Library
• Reference 28 goes to the Wiki article on Tennessee Tribune and not the source item.

 

---

End Matter

1. Is it is Broad in its coverage?

• Yes, broad and balanced.

1. Is it Verifiable with no original research?

• Yes, no OR is included in the article.

1. Does the article meet notability guidelines?

• Notability for the author, the text and its reception all established.

1. Does it follow WP:NPOV Neutral Point of View?

• Quite so.

1. Is it stable?

• This article started life on 9 March 2006
• There have been 567 edits by 386 edits since 2006.
• 87,336 page views over the last 90 days.
• The page (popular due the animation franchise) has experienced minor vandalism in 2010, 2013, and in April 2020.
• Presently, the page is stable and not attracting vandalism. Protection is not necessary at this time.

1. Top editors are

    * Eddie891
    * PatTheMoron
    * Shellwood
    * Alumnum
    * Kodkddd2323

1. It is illustrated by images ?

• Yes, the original book cover (by the cartoonist) is used.
• Use of the book cover in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy and fair use under United States copyright law.

Overall

• This article is well prepared and highlights several critical issues for excellence in children's fantasy picture books.

Conclusion

• There is a consideration raised with regard to the lede and the overall character of this article.
• Some issues with references were raised. May we attend to these?

 

 GA on hold       --Whiteguru (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Whiteguru, and thanks! I've added URLs to the paywalled sources that I could and removed a link to the school library journal ones (which I couldn't add a URL for). I've removed the mention of criticism in the lede and replaced it by mentioning Shrek as an antihero. I think that's everything? Do let me know if not. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Thanks, that does sort all the outstanding issues I had. We can pass the review now!

 

 Passed

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that William Steig wrote Shrek! at the age of eighty-three, two decades after leaving a career as a cartoonist at The New Yorker?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/IOU

Improved to GA by Eddie891 (talk). Self-nominated at 22:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC).

• Substaintial article, meeting of GA criteria implicates DYK pass. Article was nominated for DYK within seven days of passing GA. Hook is interesting, short enough for DYK, and supported by a citation within the article. Only ping on Earwigs is for a pirate site that copies the plot description. Once you've done your QPQ, ping me and I'll pass this nomination. Morgan695 (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Morgan695, thanks. I've reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Abdallah Oumbadougou Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Morgan695 (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction

The infobox gives the publication date as October 17, 1990. The prose tells us the fact "Steig was eighty-three when he wrote the book." Given that Steig was born in November 1907, this would be mean he couldn't have been 83 when he wrote the book. Wrong publication date or wrong age? Nohomersryan (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I've rephrased to "over eighty" the source may have generalized. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

What? Background

In the last sentence of the first paragraph under "Background": "Steig was in his eighties when he wrote the book."; what book? What exactly is the book this sentence is referring to? Out of nowhere we get hit with that sentence, after one about Steig starting to write children's books in his 60's. What book? "Shrek!"? Well that title hasn't been mentioned yet, besides from the intro paragraph on the top of the page. So how the hell is the reader going to know they're talking about the Shrek! book? This sentence just feels very misplaced. Is this page an article about Steig or about the book 'Shrek!'? It makes it seem like the main focus in the article is the book, when supposedly this background is about the artist, Steig. I say either completely remove the useless sentence, or elaborate in order to get your point across in a cohesive way with the rest of the paragraph. Maybe at least change the sentence by specifying that the book is Shrek! and explaining why that is a relevant statement. Thank you for reading. I love Shrek the movie series and I'd love for others researching the character's origin to be able to understand what they're reading, and not be put off by a poorly-written paragraph with a confusing ending statement. The fact that Steig wrote Shrek! in his eighties is so very interesting (I personally did not know about this fascinating backstory), I would not want a nonsensical sentence to tarnish anyone's understanding of it. 2600:1700:58B3:AC0:6D52:4935:455C:B5E (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)