Talk:I Am Not Going to Get Up Today!

I Am Not Going to Get Up Today! has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 21, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Children's literature Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

Requested move 1 July 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved in accordance with the clear consensus. —usernamekiran(talk) 07:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Am NOT Going to Get Up Today! → I Am Not Going to Get Up Today! – The book cover uses ALLCAPS for "not" but we use Letter_case#Title_case. Timmyshin (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I don't see the relevance of the link given by the nominator. Libraries and booksellers use the title proper, which is given on the title page and on the title verso. Occasionally there are small differences between this title and the one on the cover, which is part of an artwork. Wikipedia follows authoritative secondary sources. The Library of Congress and Amazon both use the proposed title. Whiff of greatness (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, the title page displays the same artwork as the cover. That is to say, it gives the title as I Am NOT Going to Get up Today! (Note the lower cased "u".) The title verso gives I am not going to get up today![1] (This is also the Library of Congress title.) Whiff of greatness (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS:ALLCAPS and MOS:TM. - Station1 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, get rid of the all-caps for "not", and someone should also review which letters at the beginning of words are capitalized per MOS:CT. (Wikipedia has its own style guide and does not necessarily follow what sources do for capitalization in the titles of creative works.) —BarrelProof (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review[edit]

Passed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:I Am Not Going to Get Up Today!/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 21:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A kid's book article with philosophy. I'm in. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although this article is on the shorter end, which I normally complain about, it includes all the sections I would expect for broad coverage, and they are as complete as they can be based on the sourcing.

In the lead I would identify Alexander as an actor, for context (and also in the body) - you can't necessarily assume people know who he is
No gripes about the plot summary
I feel like there might be a way to condense "written by Dr. Seuss. By the time Seuss began work on this book, his health had begun to fail." into a single sentence, although I won't die on the hill of trying to find it
Since you later mention Seuss is a pseudonym, it might be worth mentioning it in the first sentence so it doesn't come as a surprise
"It was the first one" - 'first one' reads a bit casually. Maybe "First work" or "First publication by Seuss in eight years"
You managed to integrate Socrates pretty neatly, which is fun
If you're trying to get this to FA level, I might suggest noting other books that Einhorn compares it to, but that's at your discretion and not GA-prohibitive
"the method of Kenneth Burke" this is a bit opaque if you don't know who Burke is or what his method was.
"its unpopularity relative to other Dr. Seuss books" - this comes from having Reception under Analysis, but right now this comes as a surprise to the reader. I realize Reception is combined with Legacy, but I think it still makes more sense to move it above Analysis
Any particular reason why Common Sense Media is first? It's the only non-contemporary review, while the rest are from the 80s.

All of this is really FA-level nitpicking. There's nothing here that puts the article below the GACR or is worth holding up promotion over; take these as suggestions for improvement. No concerns with CV, image use (though I wish to god we had an image of a "Pineapple Butterscotch Ding Dang Doo"), and sourcing checked out. Good work! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.