Hi there! I'll be reviewing this article against the GA criteria listed in the table below. I have skimmed the article and sources. The content of the article looks pretty thorough, but I'll say upfront that I have some potential issues with the reliability of some of the sources used. I will conduct a review and go into more depth on any issues. If you have any questions in the meantime please just give me a shout :) Unexpectedlydian (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)Reply
A lot of the article is written clearly and is understandable to a reader new to the subject. There are, however, some sections that would benefit from a copy edit. I have made suggestions below.
Lead
The first, Warriors (later re-titled Warriors: The Prophecies Begin), was published from 2003 to 2004, and details the adventures of a "kittypet" (housecat) named Rusty who joins ThunderClan, one of the warrior cat clans who inhabit the forest and must leave his kittypet life behind to learn "the warrior code" and how to deal with and fulfill a prophecy that details his fate to unite the Clans. This sentence is too long. I'd suggest splitting into two.
The eighth sub-series is titled A Starless Clan, and released its first book, River, on 5 April 2022. I'm not sure a series can "release" a book. I think this should be something like The eighth sub-series is titled A Starless Clan. The first book, River, was released on 5 April 2022.
Alibaba Pictures acquired the film rights to the series in 2016, though no news about it has been released since. This sentence comes a bit out of nowhere. I suggest combining it with another sentence or moving towards the end of the lead.
Setting and universe
This section is quite long. I will refrain from making any suggestions before I review it under the "fiction" section of criterion 1b.
Series
The synopses for Warriors: A Vision of Shadows and Warriors: The Broken Code are very long. Again, I will refrain from making suggestions at this time before addressing criterion 1b.
Critical reception
The cat's-eye perspective of many of the panels, in addition, add [sic] a dramatic, energizing element to the book". I don't think [sic] is required here—the sentence still makes sense without it.
In general, the lead is too long—this in part due to the plot summaries of each series, which aren't necessary in the lead. More suitable information might be a general summary of all series, not each. See MOS:INTRO for further detail about what should be included in a lead.
The lead section MOS states that "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Whilst the fictional settings (White Hart Woods and Sanctuary Lake) are not referenced elsewhere in the article are borderline "basic" details, they could definitely be referenced in the Setting and universe section.
Only the title of the article, and any alternative names, should be in bold. Therefore, "Super Editions" in the Standalones section of the article should be un-bolded.
Layout
Single-sentence lines should be avoided, so as per my similar comment above, the line Alibaba Pictures acquired the film rights to the series in 2016, though no news about it has been released since. should be moved and merged into another paragraph.
The tables used throughout to list publications are ok for clarity, the Field guides section uses a bulleted list for the same thing. Consistency in formatting throughout the article would be great. Whilst it specifically refers to works published by the subject of an article, the manual of style for layout prefers a "bulleted list, usually ordered chronologically".
Words to watch
Themes
The series often revolves around forbidden love. These sorts of statements (weasel words require some sort of attribution, e.g. from a book review. Additionally, there would ideally be some examples of instances where forbidden love has played a part in the books (also from a secondary source, preferably). The medicine cat and warrior code examples in this paragraph are not backed up by any sources, which implies it may be original research (see criterion 2c).
Other media
It has been stated that there is no plan for an official video game ... Would be helpful to have an attribution here, i.e. "[Insert company/person] stated that there is no plan for an official video game".
Fiction
Setting and universe
This section conforms to the manual of style for fiction. It is presented with an "in-universe" perspective, but the section heading sufficiently notifies the reader of this.
Series
I think the heading of this section could be changed in order to prep the reader for the fact that they will be reading from an in-universe perspective. For example, the section heading could be changed to: "Series plot summaries".
General comment (no action required): The plot summaries cover basic facts about the plots and do not delve into interpretation.
The synopses of each series leaves out the conclusion. As per MOS:PLOT, articles don't need to avoid spoilers. Therefore, it would be beneficial to have a line at the end of each series synopsis stating what the conclusion of the series was. For example, for Warriors: The Prophecies Begin, the final sentence of the paragraph could start The series concludes with ...
... recruiting disgruntled living cats to their cause, brutally training them for battle in their dreams ... I think the words "disgruntled" and "brutally" are redundant here.
The plot synopses for Warriors: A Vision of Shadows and Warriors: The Broken Code are written well but it too long. I'd aim for a similar length as the previous plot summaries.
Themes
Quite a few of the themes mentioned here are not supported by secondary sources, implying that there has been original research and a synthesis of the primary sources. The manual of style for fiction states: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." I've detailed the instances here:
As mentioned above, the statement The series often revolves around forbidden love. is not backed up by a reliable source.
All books in the series feature the influence of StarClan, not just as the cats think of them, but in terms of prophecies delivered by StarClan which inevitably come true. Some scenes take place within StarClan's realm, with no living cats present. Thus, the existence of an afterlife and the influence of spirits who have passed on and yet retain their earthly identities is integral to all of the plot arcs in the series. This theme—religion and belief—is also not backed up by a reliable source. It relies on primary material instead.
This ties into the "shades of gray" theme. I can't see that the authors in the source cited here explicitly say these themes link together. Therefore, I don't think this line can be used, as it is likely synthesis.
Plays
After going to a Gathering, where it is obvious all of the Clans except for ThunderClan are starving, three cats from StarClan appear to them ... It would be helpful to continue to establish an in-universe perspective here. I.e. In the play, the characters go to a Gathering where it is obvious ... etc.
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
The references to all sources are formatted appropriately.
Done
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
Reliability
Unfortunately, there are some issues—namely reliability—with quite a few of the sources cited. I have detailed these below:
Transcripts of interviews with Erin Hunter from Wands and Worlds (which come in various parts) — The website Wands and Worlds appears to be a blog and fansite for young readers. The interviews, held with the authors of the Warriors series would suggest that we should treat these sources as primary sources. Neither of these points necessarily mean the source is unreliable. However, the "interviewees" in this instances are members of the forum, who cannot be verified as recognised journalists. Additionally, when the authors give their own opinions and interpretations of the book, these should be treated as primary material and are not ideal for citing statements in the "Themes" section of the article. Ideally, examples of themes would come from secondary sources, such as scholars or reviewers. See the manual of style for novels for more info.
Kate Cary's blog (currently ref 6) — Again, this source is both a blog and a primary source (and does also not appear to link to the FAQ?), which taken together are not ideal as a reliable source.
Tweet from Kate Cary (currently ref 15) — In my opinion, this tweet is borderline acceptable as per WP:TWEET, but it should probably be replaced with a more reliable publication, like a press release.
Edelweiss+ (currently ref 58) — This link doesn't appear to link to the correct page, so I cannot assess whether the citation within this website is reliable, as the website appears to be a platform for publishers.
Cat Tales from Nick Magazine (currently ref 78) — I think Nick Magazine here must refer to Nickelodeon Magazine. I can't identify the correct issue, as the source states it is issue December 2009—January 2009; is it December 2009 or January 2009? December 2009 does not contain an article called Cat Tales. Furthermore, I have my doubts that Nickelodeon Magazine is undeniably reliable as it is intended for children.
Books for Youth review (currently ref 82) — This source is a blog which explicitly reviews books from a Christian perspective, so not from a neutral perspective.
Storysnoops review (currently ref 83) — The link is now broken, and I'm trying to establish from the Wayback Machine what this website previously was. It appears to have been a website for parents to recommend books to children. Without knowing which part of this website and which reviewer the review comes from, it is difficult to assess its reliability.
Attribution
Where direct quotations are used, there should ideally be names to go with them. For example:
In the "Critical reception" section: The first book of the series, Into the Wild, was generally well-received, with reviewers calling it a "spine-tingling", "thoroughly engrossing", and "exciting... action-packed adventure". One reviewer praised the authors for "creating an intriguing world... and an engaging young hero". However, another criticized the characters and imagined world as being "neither... consistent nor compelling". As these are direct quotations from reviewers, could names be added? I.e. ... with [reviewer's name] writing in [publication] calling it a "spine-tingling", "thoroughly engrossing", and "exciting... action-packed adventure".
Also in the "Critical reception" section: a reviewer for Publishers Weekly believed that girls would benefit from reading about Sasha leaving the powerful Tigerstar due to his "growing violence". Could it be instead: [review's name] writing for Publishers Weekly believed that girls would benefit from reading about Sasha leaving the powerful Tigerstar due to his "growing violence".
There are other instances of unattributed direct quotations in the article I hope this suggestion is clear, but do let me know if not.
I think there has been at least some original research in this article outside of plot summaries. However, this may just be due to unclear attributions. Some examples below:
Super Editions
There is only one citation for this section, and it only links to one super edition: Graystripe's Vow. Therefore, other citations for the other books are required. Additionally, the statement Super Editions are stand-alone books in the Warriors series that are about 500 pages long, approximately double the length of a regular Warriors book. is not backed up by anything in the source (other than stating that this particular book is 480 pages), and implies that the author has researched the average length of a Warriors book.
Field guides
Similar to above—this section is backed up by no citations and also indicates that the author has researched the average length of the books.
Original English-language manga
See above. Citation needed for shutdown of Tokyopop, publication by Harper Collins, and marketing in particular.
Themes
Holmes has said that one of the good things about writing a book about cats is that "we can tackle difficult human issues such as death, racial intolerance, and religious intolerance [without seeming so heavy]". Adding "[without seeming so heavy]" here is quite a bold consequential edit, and implies an original interpretation of the quote.
Publication history
The Omen of the Stars audiobooks are spoken by voice actress Veronica Taylor. A source is required here.
Physical media
In 2019, when the official Warriors Hub app was released, several pieces of official, licensed merchandise were released as well. This included Clan-themed posters, pins, bracelets, bookmarks, stationery, figurines, necklaces, bags, and shirts. Small plush heads and full-sized plush toys of various characters have also been produced, as well as small figurines. Citation required.
Mobile application
The single citation is not totally sufficient—it would be better to not rely on a primary source. Also, there is no citation for the updated app in 2019.
Copyvio detector brings up nothing of concern. There are a number of broken links I can't access, but other spot-checks have also brought up nothing of concern.
On the whole, I think the scope of this article is ok. Some sections are probably too long (see criterion 3b), but the headings and content are suitable for an entire book series, and its spinoffs. The main series have their own articles, which helps with scope.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
In the "Series" section, Warriors: A Vision of Shadows and Warriors: The Broken Code are disproportionately longer than the other synopses. I appreciate these do not have their own article, but I still think they could be trimmed.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Content is presented neutrally.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
This article has quite an active edit history, most likely due to the popularity of the series. Some are good faith but unconstructive. However, I can't see any edits in the relatively recent history are due to an edit war or content dispute.
6.Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
The images are relevant to the topics. Two are under a fair use licence. Ideally, I think some of the wording in these licences could be changed. I.e. here, a slightly more detailed reason than it is extremely unlikely that the images will be released under a free license. could be used.
This article has the potential to be a GA—and I see it has been in the past—but unfortunately, due to the large amount of work I think it needs to get there, I am failing it in this review. I hope I've left some constructive comments in the table which should help improve the article against the criteria.
As mentioned at the top of this page, I had some issues with the reliability of the sources. Looking at the "Critical reception" section of the article, there are some quotations from sources like Booklist and Publishers Weekly—these are the types of sources which are great for critical reception, but also for identifying what secondary sources have identified to be "Major themes". Using reviews as reliable sources would greatly improve this article, I think.
I hope this is helpful, but do feel free to ping me if you need any more help!
