Talk:Wildwood (novel)

1853:: "Meloy deftly moves back and forth between Prue's attempts to get help and Curtis's adventures with the Governess, who is not what she initially seems, and uses the parallel stories to create a constant forward motion that will keep readers glued to the page. From its attention-grabbing opening to the final revelations of Prue's true relationship to Wildwood, this book provides an emotional experience. Meloy has an immediately recognizable verbal style and creates a fully realized fantasy world in what is essentially a Portland child's backyard. It is peopled with both animal and human characters with whom readers will identify and grow to love. Ellis's illustrations perfectly capture the original world and contribute to the feel of an instant timeless classic. Further adventures in Wildwood cannot come quickly enough." (Wadham, 2011, 952:

summary was excessive for a novel article but could certainly be worked back in; that's why I said it was a temporary removal in the edit summary. I think you have greatly misunderstood the MOS. Please read it a bit closer. I have no idea what you mean by ownership; my changes have only removed material that didn't belong (publication history sections arent used that way) and modified the layout. If there are several sentences in the illustration section that shouldn't be there, then please move them. I have little to no interest in this topic, so accusing me of ownership while I'm trying to improve this article to GA standard is quite humorous.

2044:

happen to them, and why they were able to enter The Wood, and partially why Curtis stayed behind. The pattern of adult leaders falsely promising to find Mac figures prominently in the plot. It's the failure of the Governor-Regents, Dowager-Governesses, Crown Princes, and most particularity -- Prue's parents -- to live up to their word that drives much of the action. If the author keeps coming back to it, it must be important. It's a classic middle grade/young adult lit device: the adults are dishonest, cowardly, manipulative, dismissive, etc., and so it's up to the kids to save the day.

2426:...the story of two plucky middle schoolers who are drawn out of their ordinary world into a fantastic hidden country, getting caught up in an epic struggle against an apocalyptic plot, while trying to rescue a kidnapped baby. The kids learn of their connection to a magical reality while confronting adult authorities who are often cowardly and dishonest. The book was inspired by classic fantasy novels and folk tales and features supernatural elements like talking animals and witchcraft, set against the scenic backdrop and culture of Portland, Oregon. 299: 289: 268: 21: 413: 604: 583: 1986:

railroad bridge to bring Mac back. She is followed by a schoolmate whom she reluctantly takes on as a partner. They soon discover that they are the only humans from the "Outside." Curtis is abducted by coyote soldiers, and Prue soon finds herself between warring factions--the Dowager Governess, who is marshaling her coyote troops in North Wood to take back her throne in Southwood, and the rest of Wildwood.

1977:

government of South Wood refuses to help Prue. Curtis meets the Dowager Governess, former Governess of South Wood, who becomes his enemy once he discovers her sinister plan to sacrifice Mac to the Ivy. Prue, directed by Owl Rex, leader of the Avians, goes to North Wood to speak to the mystics. Prue and Curtis must unite the rest of Wildwood against the Dowager Governess to save Mac and all of Wildwood.

614: 144: 63: 237: 1393:. And this book, for those who haven't read it, is almost all plot. If it's not plot, it's setting descriptions. Next to no character development. It's all "this happened", then "this happened", then this, then this. Etc. The one negative review was rather insightful on that point -- all the endless events become wearying. But to address the point here, the book has a 933:. But without being familiar with the sources, the only safe way to make rearrangements in the wording for their own sake is to make changes in the direction of specific to general. I've seen a lot of Knowledge articles suffer this way, being "improved" by editors who don't actually know what the sources say. This can't be a good article if it isn't factually accurate. 2232:

the criteria then it is not a major deal. This is supposed to be a light weight process and we have a large backlog so anyone willing to review is valuable. Issues arise however when the nominator and reviewer can't agree on what makes something a Good article. In most cases it simply results in a fail and the nominator either relists it or takes it to

1265:

address the points I've raised above regarding the lead section. Do not speculate about what I know or don't know, stick to the discussion. Per BRD, you should not be reverting but discussing the edits. Instead, you've tried to ignore the discussion about your edits and shift it to a discussion about editors. Please do not continue to do that.

1160:. I would be happy to agree to your edits if you could persuade me of their merits. As far as I can tell, they are not helpful, but I am willing to be convinced. Because you have not responded to my request, I will attempt to address it myself, very briefly, and expand in detail if needed. Let's start with the lead section and go from there: 2460:

mentioned, although I did find it interesting that he was in the Decemberists. It is only an extra two to three words so I wouldn't think it would be that big a deal. Basically as far as GA assessment goes all I would be looking for is that it accurately summarises the article and introduces no new, or in special cases only minor, information.

2236:. The only real problem is when a reviewer refuses to close a review after a falling out, which has turned real nasty (arbcom ended up involved in one situation), and there is now a caveat in the FAQ allowing a nominator to withdraw from the process at any time. In hindsight, that is probably what should have happened here. 1863:: "...the story lacks a strong emotional center, and its preoccupations with bureaucracy, protocol, and gray-shaded moral dilemmas, coupled with the book's length, make this slow going. Ellis's spot art, not all seen by PW, is characteristically crisp and formal, further lending the story a detached quality. (Staff, 2734:

Cleared up some garbling of the soft fantasy vs hard fantasy paragraphs. Might still want to merge the Illustration and Genre sub-sections of the Style section, since these all make much the same point: that it's whimsical and stream of consciousness, rather than making a great effort to be plausible

2485:

First point: There are some serious misconceptions going on placing hard limits on plot summary length, and they don't have a good basis in policy. Mostly just some essays, and one may pick and choose which Knowledge essays one may cite to make a point, but it doesn't resolve a disagreement. Even the

2019:

So, which version is closer to the sources? I think it is obvious that the version of the plot summary that I added follows the sources closely, while the version Dennis added does not. Please notice, there is no mention of the "two plucky middle schoolers" nor the "adult authorities who are often

1985:

When 12-year-old Prue is entrusted with her baby brother for the day, the last thing she expects is that he will be abducted by a murder of crows and taken into the Impassible Wilderness across the river from her home in Portland, OR. Prue does the only thing that she can, which is to head across the

1750:

I've read the reviews, thanks for your concern. Per UNDUE, how is summarizing the criticism by saying that the novel received mostly positive reviews inaccurate? And, per UNDUE, why would we follow that summary by highlighting three negative reviews? Per UNDUE, I should find similar negative aspects

1735:

I would say, "The novel received mostly positive reviews as an engrossing story appropriate for its target age, and was praised for its illustrations and retro book design. Some reviewers said the plot dragged at times, found the use of local color cloying, or said the violence might be inappropriate

1706:

followed that with important caveats. It's unfair to take one sentence out of context. There were two sentences, perhaps even a whole paragraph, perhaps even a whole article, that made a combined point. If you delete one sentence, you have to stop and think about what that does to the whole. Often it

1248:

So first tell me whether you are or are not familiar with the sources. Once we've both done the reading, there is a basis for discussion of specific facts. If you can't or won't read the sources, then you must AGF. That is, you have to either trust me or verify the sources yourself. You can't fail to

2558:

is a conventional fantasy novel in almost every way, yet for some reason it demands a unique layout of Background, Synopsis (Plot summary, Major characters, Setting), Style, Genre, Illustrations, Reception, Sequels, Film adaptation, Notes, References? Does it even make sense to place "setting" under

2303:

page Viriditas has agreed to let me take over so we should be able to move forward. I think the best solution would be to treat Viriditas's review as a fail and use his version of the article as advice on what he thinks needs fixing. There are probably some good points in there (the plot does seem a

2190:

Please review both versions, starting with the current one I passed. Dennis is operating under the assumption that he can act as both nominator and reviewer, which I completely disagree with. Furthermore, he has failed to challenge or dispute any edit I've made. If anything, this dispute has made

2165:

I see that a GA re-assessment request has been made for this article. I would be willing to conduct that re-assessment if both parties are happy with that. However the article is far from stable at the moment (one of the criteria by the way). If you can come to an agreement on what version to review

2089:

Meloy and Ellis first conceived the idea for the book before Meloy formed The Decemberists in 2000, an indie folk rock band in Portland, Oregon. When they first moved to Portland, Meloy and Ellis were living in a warehouse where they "had this idea of working on a novel together … because we enjoyed

1765:

It was not three negative reviews. It was three criticisms that appeared in several reviews, even the positive ones. "Slow" was the big one; almost everybody said that. Just as the positive points weren't just two reviews; I summarized the consensus from several. Tomorrow I will cite specific quotes

1641:

reservations about this book, but on balance decided it was OK. Having one sentence that states what most of the liked about it, followed by a second sentence that enumerates what most of them agreed was wrong with it, conveys that as succinctly as possible. It is maybe not perfect, but pretty close

1545:

More assertions without any evidence. Provide a single example of a copyedit I made that deviates from the sources as you claim. Keep in mind, the number of unsubstantiated assertions you keep making is growing. So far, you have completely and totally failed to support them. So what we have here

1519:

in a very brief span, most with meaningless edit summaries like "ce". You make no reference to sources in your changes. I don't think you even realized you were deviating from what the sources said; how could you know? You weren't interested in the sources. It takes time for me to untangle something

1397:

convoluted plot, and the MOS says longer summaries are OK in that case. One way I deal with the complexity of it is that is that the plot section has a summary: it goes through the whole thing in one paragraph, then goes through it all again in four sections. It takes up a lot of space and uses more

1279:

I'll take that as a no. You have not read the book, and have not even read the sources. You're bluffing here. Why? Why would anybody do that? Not just you. Lots and lots of hardcore veteran Wikipedians, guys in the 2,000 most active editors, even 1,000 most active, will fight to the death over stuff

2730:

Fixed an incoherent sentence about news articles and critics classifying it as children's, middle reader, or young adult. Children's lit is usually ages 7 to 12, while YA is more tweens and teenagers -- sex being the major point of demarcation. It's rally contradictory to call it children's AND YA.

2459:

Summarising the reception in the lead is fine as long as it is done with care, it can be easy to cherry pick. Would tone down the description of the book in the quote box, it sounds a bit to much like a blurb written by the publisher. Don't really care whether Meloy's Americanism or music career is

2411:

Saying that Prue and Curtis are friends is about as accurate as saying "the baby was kidnapped by a witch who is dead". Yes, Prue and Curtis are friends in the denouement, in the final pages of the book when a few loose ends are being wrapped up, but that's also when Alexandra is dead. You would at

2043:

include spoilers, in fact. It's a rather unique aspect of Knowledge. Revealing that Prue and Curtis are "half-breeds", both magical natives of The Wood, and Outsiders, is a spoiler. It's a critical plot point, because it explains everything that happens -- why Prue and Curtis in particular had this

1956:

Now, while both are not perfect and can certainly be improved, I would like to ask you, which one is supported by the sources? Which source supports the addition of "The kids learn of their connection to a magical reality while confronting adult authorities who are often cowardly and dishonest" by

1780:

I agree, but we work from the reviewed version, and make your proposed changes incrementally. Knowledge is liberal in its broad scope, but as writers and editors we are conservative in our approach, preferring to say too little that is accurate rather than too much that is inaccurate. This is, in

1500:

Knowledge works by talking on the talk page about problems and resolving them. Where did you directly address the problems I raised above? You've repeatedly claimed that you've reverted because the article did not meet V and was inaccurate. Please provide specific examples where the article does

1290:

Anyway, I will proceed to work through each issue, point by point. But it will take time. Please keep the more accurate version of the article while we go over this stuff. It's hard to convince anybody of anything when I'm the only one who has looked at the evidence. Per AGF, please trust, for the

924:

for some things, but then to completely ignore the article structure in the very same manual of style: Plot, Characters, Major themes, Style, Background, Publication history, etc. Most FAs follow this sectioning order as well. Deleting the publication history because "I'm not seeing a need for it"?

871:

will make a big difference in article assessment. It helps illustrate the degree of imperfection that is acceptable for GA, and then figuring out where B and C are in relation to that. Clearly, B must be lower than GA. FA is really the one that aims for the stars; the other grades are not nearly so

842:

So right, I should have left a message. I'm sorry. Clearly this deserves to be assessed higher than a C, but I'm not qualified to do that. Since I saw you had it up for GA article, I assumed it would be fixed. I only assessed it to get it off the unassessed list. I'm very sorry if I did this wrong,

2639:

that they live in St. Johns. That would be silly -- St. Johns is across the Willamette river and separated by the "industrial wastes". We actually have no idea which of several neighborhoods their house is in, but we know it "is steps from the park boundary", so it must be on the other side of the

2332:

Indeed, many of the changes are great improvements. The problem is they came so fast, and are intermixed with so many substantive changes in meaning, not merely wording. But with time I will work to verify the article is factual. I keep promising I'm going to do that, and I mean it; I just need to

2231:

Reviewers get a lot of leeway when it comes to reviewing an article. Some won't even fix spelling mistakes while I can think of at least one case when a reviewer re-wrote nearly the whole article. Although not something we should encourage, if both nominator and reviewer are happy and it does meet

1361:

Dennis, in case you forgot, while you were reverting you wrote in your edit summary, "See WP:BURDEN. the onus is on the editor who makes the changes to provide citations. I'm reverting to a version that meets WP:V." Could you please specify exactly which changes require citations and what part of

1335:

And, I keep telling you that you nominated the article and I reviewed it, not you. You can't revert the reviewed version for no reason. Great, you want a third party to review it, so have them review my version. You don't get to nominate and review, Dennis. You said there were problems with my

1229:

says that the editor who makes changes must provide evidence that they are verifiable. I can provide evidence that the older version is correct, but have you any idea whether your version matches the sources or not? The best thing for now is to keep the most accurate version of the article, and as

928:

It's misleading to only say it received positive reviews in the lead. It's inaccurate to make the technological inconsistency about the illustrations. Many of these edits have taken strong, specific, and well-cited statements, and generalized them with vague and bland versions, which is inaccurate

901:

of changes. Changing Setting to Geographic setting is just wordy. What other kind of setting is there besides geographic? Same with changing Plot to Plot Summary. Moving the discussion of blunderbusses, flintlocks, and derailleur gears to an "illustrations" section is nonsensical. The point of the

1448:

to have a third opinion here. Especially from someone who has actually read the book. I tried to request a community review, but the GA process is a slow one. I'd be more than happy to dispense with this GA nonsense -- it's clearly harming the article. Please delist it from GA to end this harmful

1264:

Please show how the article fails verifiability with specific examples, as I have asked you several times now. You keep making this assertion but fail to provide any evidence. You keep quoting policies and guidelines but don't show any understanding of how we use them. Please also specifically

951:

Setting, in fact, does not specifically refer to geography, and is used in fiction articles to describe in universe plot details, such as historical period and place. The way you used it, however, was in terms of background and development of the geographal context, which is different. The plot

2524:

One of the criteria is also focus and a detailed plot summary can run foul of that. Try and reduce it as much as you can and I can have a look and see if it can be made more concise. Personally I would keep most of the synopsis and try and expand it with the backstory and other parts, but I will

2255:

My assumption was that after I posted my concerns, Viriditas would not pass the article. Either he would fail it, or continue discussion until we both agreed it should pass. Instead, told me I was wrong and went ahead and passed it. Had I realized what was about to happen, I would have withdrawn

2085:

The book was first conceived by Meloy and Ellis before The Decemberists were formed, when they first moved to Portland and were living in a warehouse where they, "had this idea of working on a novel together … because we enjoyed making up stories and playing off one another's creative impulses."

2001:

After her baby brother is abducted by crows, 12-year-old Prue is compelled to enter the Impassable Wilderness—an ominous forest just outside of Portland, Oregon. Although Prue is initially joined by her classmate Curtis, the kids are soon split up as they become embroiled in a war between stuffy

2046:

Saying it's about "a baby kidnapped by crows" is a nice hook, and it is meant to interest you without giving away the plot. But Knowledge gives away the plot, and in fact the baby was kidnapped by a witch, as part of an apocalyptic plot, an apocalyptic plot they were pulled into by forces that

1943:

It tells the story of two plucky middle schoolers who are drawn out of their ordinary world into a fantastic hidden country, getting caught up in an epic struggle against an apocalyptic plot, while trying to rescue a kidnapped baby. The kids learn of their connection to a magical reality while

1976:

As a young girl, Prue McKeel first noticed the Impassable Wilderness on her father's map of Portland. When Mac, her baby brother, is abducted by crows and taken there, Prue and her friend Curtis bravely set out and discover Wildwood. Curtis is captured by coyote soldiers, and the bureaucratic

1306:

You've got it completely backwards. You don't get to nominate and review the article. We go from the reviewed version, and you use the talk page to argue each point. This does not take as much time as you say, and you've been wasting a great deal of time distracting from the discussion and

1177:

Clarification of plot in lead section. Previous version distracted from the plot, using peacock words such as "plucky, fantastic, epic, apocalyptic" etc. The old version also made strange claims that did not appear cited in the article, such as saying that the kids were "confronting adult

823:. Not sure if this is relevant to this article or not. While Salon's culture editor might be justifiably sick of writers comparing everything to Portlandia, it isn't really for us to judge. If lots of sources make the comparison, then it makes sense to mention it in this article. I guess. -- 966:

Update, since I'm back from work now, I'm going to complete copyediting and finish this review. I'll ignore your accusations, but I would encourage you to elevate your concerns to the project level. I will also make the recommended changes to the illustration section that you have noted.

717:

It might be better aesthetically if all the refs used to cite the three different genres be collapsed into a note, perhaps along the lines of "Of the sources used in this article, the NYT uses a) Portland Mercury b) etc." The pile up of superscript is confusing to the eye. Just a thought.

2731:

Note that I have not yet found any industry standard age definitions of children's, middle reader, or YA, and neither have the editors of the Knowledge articles on these categories. Which helps explain why critics classify it in three different categories, plus "adult children's lit fans".

2212:

I'm interested in resolving the question of a GA reviewer who rewrites an entire article, and them passes it. The spirit of independent review is to judge articles that you are not personally involved in. Viriditas promoted an article that was primarily his own work. Can that be right?

1463:

Well, Dennis, you don't get to both nominate and review the article. You're operating under multiple misconceptions about how Knowledge works. It isnt your article, and you are not the reviewer. You don't get to disrupt article improvement because you don't like the outcome.

1657:, not a done deal. Laika's a small company in a volatile industry. They could go bust overnight. If they are still around next year, they could decide to chase some other vaporware project. Leave it to the end of the article until it's at least in production. It's just an 1178:

authorities who are often cowardly and dishonest", which, aside from the fact that it doesn't appear discussed in the article, has nothing to do with any plot summary. Current version succinctly describes the plot without engaging in peacock language or unsourced tangents

2276:

Another question: Viriditas keeps saying over and over, "Dennis is operating under the assumption that he can act as both nominator and reviewer." I've said a dozen times that what I want an uninvolved, independent, impartial reviewer. Not Viriditas, and obviously

1766:

from each major review that led me to my conclusion. Perhaps we will see that my phrasing was less than perfect, and we can come up with something a little better. But I doubt we will want to erase the negative comments altogether and only keep the positive. --

1401:

The rest of the plot section could be a bit shorter, but not much. It's only on the very edge of intelligibility now. Hack away at it more, and why bother at all? Might as well use the two sentence synopsis from the lead. It doesn't violate copyright or detail

1398:

words, but it makes the reader's life easier. If they really don't care that much about the plot, they can skip down. But if they do care, then I make the effort to explain it. One way to save words would be to delete the summary's preamble, but why? Really?

2402:. Knowledge articles "have a tendency to become effusive" and this is a typical case of that. The reviewers all found serious flaws with the book, and most of them agreed as to what those flaws were. None saw it as perfect. It's clearly a mistake to apply 1526:

GA review isn't supposed to be a total rewrite of the article; that could never work. You should have just failed it if it was so awful. If you thought you could do better, then you should have read the sources, done your rewrite, and re-nominated it

2347:

Not too bothered on time frame, as long as it doesn't get ridiculous (two to three weeks fine, month with no activity too long). Ping me on my talk page when you are ready. I will open a reassessment page now so that it is clear what is happening.

1964:

When her baby brother is kidnapped by crows, seventh-grader Prue McKeel ventures into the forbidden Impassable Wilderness--a dangerous and magical forest in the middle of Portland, Oregon--and soon finds herself involved in a war among the various

1307:

appealing to what you think I know or don't know. If something is inaccurate, specifically point it out and we will come to agreement or disagreement. So far, you've decided that you are both the nominator and reviewer, and that won't work.

2014:

When her baby brother is carried off by crows to the Impassable Wilderness at the heart of Portland, Ore., stubbornly courageous Prue McKeel, 12, sets out to reclaim him, accompanied by annoying schoolfellow and class pariah Curtis

2439:

not Meloy) to say that it is the first in a series of at least 3 books, especially since the setup for sequels is one of the things several reviewers grumbled about. Finally, emphasizing Laika's film option in the lead violates

2020:

cowardly and dishonest". And while I find the changes that Dennis proposes to be creative, it is important to stick to the primary plot points while summarizing the story, and the best way to do this is to reflect the sources.

1410:

much longer version actually comes close to mentioning every event in the book. But not all -- even that very long synopsis doesn't explain how Prue or Curis escape, or mention the rickshaw incident, and much, much more. A

793:. At the moment I'm leaving it as a short plot summary since that shouldn't be the focus of the article and it's better too short than too long, but I'll be expanding it later to try to hit the sweet spot required by 2306:

story of two plucky middle schoolers who are drawn out of their ordinary world into a fantastic hidden country, getting caught up in an epic struggle against an apocalyptic plot, while trying to rescue a kidnapped

2774: 345: 2692:

is cutting back on his work with the band; "Meloy's work with his band The Decemberists is on hiatus". What rest of The Decemberists members will be doing isn't clear, and not the subject of this article anyway.

2333:

get a little time to focus, rather than a quick read-and-reply. To be more specific, today is Thursday; the weekend is coming up and I expect to have at a minimum 6 hours that I can work without distractions. --

1952:

It tells the story of seventh-grader Prue McKeel whose baby brother is kidnapped by crows. With the help of her friend and schoolmate Curtis, they journey together into a magical forest to find Prue's brother.

843:

or messed something up -- that wasn't my intent. I'm just a beginner who is trying to whittle down the unassessed list to the best of my abilities, and assuming if I do make a mistake someone will fix it.

1916:"Knowledge articles about art and other creative topics (e.g. musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse..." 549: 509: 1622:

the reviews. Not only those cited in the footnotes, but also those not cited, in References. If not online for free, they're at ProQuest, Gale, or HighBeam. If you don't have access, email me for copies.

526: 2627:, makes no mention at all that Meloy and Ellis live on the edge of the park, only that Meloy's hometown is Portland, nothing more. The other two sources do tell us they live on the edge of the park, 2412:

least say "it tells the story of how Prue and Curtis became friends", except that that isn't a central feature of the plot. The kidnapping by crows is the hook, but what the majority of the book is

2769: 872:

strict. I think there's a tendency to fear grading too high, as if that will cause some harm. But recognizing good work has been shown to significantly influence editors to be more productive. See

538: 2566:

is longer and more complex than most books. But the layout should stick with the MOS and what is typical of FAs about books, and not blaze some new trail just for the sake of looking different. --

2490:

of the plot summary skips fully half of the events in the book. For every plot point mentioned, there could be at least one more, or two, or three, that could be pulled from the book. Which means

2416:

is the plot to destroy The Wood, and Mac, Prue, and Curtis are pawns in that plot, until they turn the tables, with considerable help, at the very end. I'm saying there's confusion between the

2130:

My understanding is that "editions' sections" of the type Dennis is trying to shoehorn into the article are mostly deprecated in favor of publication history/details sections written in prose.

846:

I didn't do a "drive-by", I did read it. I'll un-label it and put it back on the unassesed list if that helps. Or feel free to change it yourself. Just please don't assume bad intentions, OK?

1482:

operating under a misconception or two about how Knowledge works. Repeatedly saying "you don't know how Knowledge works" resolves nothing. It's bullying. We need a third opinion. Preferably

736:

I put the ones with 4 or more refs in the bulleted list form, which means there is some repetition in the footnotes, but it unclutters the main text. There are still footnotes with too many

494: 2562:

I would argue for a longer plot summary because "Three or four paragraphs are usually sufficient for a full-length work, although very complex and lengthy novels may need a bit more." And

1321:

I keep saying I want a third party, not you, not me, to review the article, and you keep saying you think I want to be the reviewer. That's so weird. No point in belaboring it, I guess. --

445: 981:

I've looked at the current version, and I don't see any discussion of blunderbusses, flintlocks, and derailleur gears in the "illustrations" section, so I'm assuming you made a mistake.

1389:. Which makes sense, after all, feature films are usually about the same length and have much simpler plots than novels. An average novel might be 300 pages, but many run to 530, like 873: 355: 2309:

is a bit more dramatic than what I would expect to read in an encyclopaedia). I could then review the new version for you when you are ready, or if you want you could put it through

2145:

We can get rid of the publication history. It's harmless, and possibly interesting to those who cared enough to have read that far, but if it bothers you so much, who needs it? --

2615:

Meloy and Ellis drew inspiration for ''Wildwood'' from their neighborhood of ], ], where they lived on the edge of ] and enjoyed hiking its trails.<ref name=Robinson2011/: -->

1843:: "Meloy's debut is the kind of delicate, elaborate fantasy that is so well versed in classic Narnian tropes that it is destined to be enthusiastically embraced." (Kraus, 2011, 2554:? It should more or less go: Lead section, Plot, Characters, Major themes, Style, Background, Publication history, Reception, Adaptations and Footnotes and/or References. 2495: 1579: 148: 2499: 936:

One other question: how can the reviewer completely revise the article, and rewrite most of the wording? At that point the reviewer is promoting their own work to GA. --

483: 321: 1362:

the article doesn't meet V? You've said this many times now, and you've been asked for evidence each time, but you've failed to provide any. Are you making this up?

789:

plot summary that is much longer and more detailed, but it only covers about half the book. It also is too detailed and will have to be pruned back, as explained in

902:

paragraph is that the novel doesn't worry about historical anachronism in technology, and the authors simply don't care about technical precision -- it's about the

794: 504: 32: 2071:

Recently, Dennis reverted the following copyedits to the background section for no reason. There's a lot of them, so we'll work our way through them one a time:

861:

Thanks! The first time looked merely careless, and the second time appeared to be obstinacy. Without a descriptive edit summary it's hard to know what to think.

1575: 513: 440: 398: 312: 273: 1721:

If one was to read all of the reliable book reviews published by secondary sources, what would one say? Would one say it received mostly positive reviews?

431: 2559:"synopsis"? Synopsis is the plot summary. Setting is not a kind of plot summary. "Major characters" is not a subset of "Synopsis" either. It's incoherent. 683: 2673:

Meloy intends to write at least two more books for the Wildwood Chronicles while his band, The Decemberists, are on hiatus.<ref name=Heyman2011/: -->

1637:, often in quasi-independent trade journals, which shouldn't be taken too seriously. So the lead has to somehow reflect that almost all the reviews had 1223:

First question: have you or have you not read the sources? How can I persuade you of anything if your understanding of the topic is only hypothetical?

2166:

I will do that. Alternatively I can act as a mediator if you just want my opinion on certain points. I will try to keep any comments grounded in the

1578:

in the category of Children and young adult literature. How long is the average plot length? For the record, Knowledge favors short plot summaries

2764: 1918:

Etc. I'll be back to wade into the details, but the idea that we must fear speaking ill of a book, and err on the side of praising, is backwards. --

165: 1524:, to do a massive, careless rewrite, shuffle words around and change them based on word counts and what sounds pretty. It takes time to fact check. 2784: 674: 664: 1873:: "A satisfying blend of fantasy, adventure story, eco-fable and political satire with broad appeal; especially recommended for preteen boys." ( 1230:

time allows, I will work to incorporate your improvements, as long as they don't contradict the sources. But in the short term, it's best to be

1208:

Let's address the changes in the lead section first, come to a compromise, and go from there. I'm willing to meet you somewhere in the middle.

920:-- it hits the major events and skips the bulk of the detail. Cutting it down to next to nothing is unnecessary. It doesn't make sense to cite 478: 1781:

fact, how our policies and guidelines are designed. In other words, we err on the side of caution, especially so when it comes to criticism.

1288:

read. Why? I don't get it. You'd have so much ammunition if you's just read the stuff. But you won't. I know I make mistakes; I'm not perfect.

790: 1037:

Your proposed plot summary version is approximately 1282 words. How does that comply with our best practices regarding plot summaries?

47: 42: 2789: 2632: 640: 1546:

is an extreme case of ownership, followed by major disruption because you don't like the outcome of a GA. Have I missed anything?

2779: 2551: 1902:. This is not about a living person, it's about a consumer product, proffered for sale. The applicable policies are not BLP, but 1382: 921: 917: 498: 906:

of the whole novel. It means it's soft fantasy, not hard fantasy. It isn't about the illustrations. The quotes make that clear:

2759: 2399: 1911: 930: 38: 1386: 2050:

In short, a Knowledge plot summary demystifies. I can cite examples from the MOS (Lost, Pulp Fiction) if this is unclear. --

2658:

Saying Prue and Curtis are friends is like saying Alexandra is dead. It messes up the chronology. Already covered above. --

1808:

As a starting baseline, I looked at EBSCO's NoveList®, which lists four critical reviews in their entry for the novel from

1633:

review puts it in a nutshell: Grade B. Most of the others were more like B- or C+. The only "A" reviews were one-paragraph

304: 1009:

I moved it, but I deleted the primary-sourced "goof" about the South Wood postman Richard. That's entirely irrelevant.

693: 627: 588: 533: 248: 2406:

to this; it's not a BLP, it's about a book, and the policy NPOV specifically admonishes us not to gloss over criticism.

1881:

So, it appears that Mr. Bratland's additions to the lead were in fact, undue, and that my original review was correct.

689: 820: 1156:. As I've requested of you several times now, could you please provide specific examples? This is the D stage in 20: 2740: 2698: 2663: 2649: 2571: 2514: 2502:. The main worry there seems to be articles that consist of nothing but a plot summary; that's not the case here. 2449: 2372: 2338: 2286: 2261: 2218: 2150: 2055: 1923: 1771: 1741: 1712: 1674: 1565: 1535: 1491: 1454: 1420: 1326: 1296: 1254: 941: 881: 828: 802: 751: 412: 129: 110: 91: 2505:

So I'd like to remove the introductory summary, but keep the four sections, Backstory, Part I, II, and III from

1903: 520: 207: 467: 1960:

Let's look at some plot summaries from other sources for some ideas. Here's NovelList as a brief example:

1650:

crazy in love with this book; most thought it was merely good enough, and hoped the sequel would be better.

37:, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the 2620: 1816: 769: 727: 402: 317: 2494:

version is not "a detailed account of "every intricate plot twist and element of character development".

2581:

As long as the headings make sense and are formatted properly then I am not too fussed over the layout.

1751:

in the majority of positive reviews. Weasel words like "some reviewers said" are usually deleted, btw.

1193: 459: 254: 158: 785:

The current plot summary is only a very brief paragraph. If you edit it, you'll notice that there is a

463: 2736: 2694: 2659: 2645: 2567: 2510: 2445: 2368: 2334: 2282: 2257: 2214: 2146: 2051: 1919: 1767: 1737: 1708: 1670: 1561: 1531: 1487: 1450: 1416: 1322: 1292: 1250: 937: 877: 824: 798: 747: 489: 2709:

Fix any errors up that you identify. I will check sources independently when I do my proper review.

1381:

While awaiting answers for the broader issues, I will try to address some of the individual points.

236: 2420:

and the central theme of the book. The lead should briefly summarize what the book is mostly about:

2196: 2135: 2101: 2025: 1886: 1786: 1756: 1726: 1693: 1658: 1587: 1551: 1506: 1469: 1435: 1367: 1341: 1312: 1270: 1213: 1138: 1102: 1070: 1056: 1042: 1014: 1000: 986: 972: 957: 143: 62: 639:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

320:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2403: 2300: 1201: 1185:

focus on strange negative reviews when the novel clearly received mostly positive reviews. Per

746:

page numbers from the book, but again the solution to that is citing the book multiple times. --

1684:

You wrote that the book received mostly positive reviews. Now, you are saying it didn't? Have

2720: 2592: 2536: 2498:

is not an issue (it's only an essay anyhow, not even a WP guideline). The actual guideline is

2471: 2441: 2435:

that Meloy is American, or a singer-songwriter. It's much more relevant to the subject (being

2359: 2324: 2247: 2181: 1822: 1654: 1415:

happens in this book. Hopefully that's your cup of tea if you slog all the way to the end. --

1197: 761: 719: 453: 195: 2624: 1630: 2628: 1226: 1189:, we should "define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight" 851: 786: 203: 183: 177: 1653:

One way to make room for this is to get rid of the Laika film option from the lead. It's a

288: 267: 1182: 1130: 2398:

Any objection to returning the summary of criticism to the lead? The justification is in

2367:

Well, so it was mother's day weekend and I got no time to myself. *sigh* Stay tuned... --

2120: 1430:

Please point me to a GA/FA plot section that is as poorly written and as long as yours.

925:

Delete all mention of criticism from the lead because you don't like the word "cloying"?

868: 2417: 2192: 2167: 2131: 2097: 2021: 1907: 1882: 1828: 1782: 1752: 1722: 1689: 1634: 1583: 1547: 1502: 1465: 1431: 1363: 1337: 1308: 1266: 1209: 1186: 1134: 1126: 1098: 1066: 1052: 1038: 1010: 996: 982: 968: 953: 864: 544: 421: 199: 603: 582: 2753: 2310: 2233: 1899: 1157: 619: 1121:"Overall, the book received positive reactions." How is it misleading to say this, 2710: 2677: 2582: 2526: 2461: 2349: 2314: 2237: 2171: 1501:

not meet V and is inaccurate. I've asked you to do this and you've refused. Why?

191: 2550:

Is there any good reason why this article should not follow the general layout of

1736:

for young readers." You should read the reviews and tell me what you would say. --

2623:, the result of many, many, sloppy rewordings. The first of the 3 sources cited, 1291:

short term, that the current version is closer to the sources. More to follow. --

2002:

bureaucrats, bandit separatists, militant birds, and the evil Dowager Governess.

1242: 1153: 847: 740: 471: 187: 1336:

reviewed version yet you've failed to identify any. What does that tell you?

632: 609: 294: 1171:

Added description of author (American singer-songwriter) as a compromise per

929:

and misleading. It all looks like rearranging for the sake of ownership, and

2644:

is nothing like what the sources say, and it's geographically incoherent. --

2123:

for such sections, and duplicates information already found in the infobox (

1152:

Dennis, you've recently claimed that the version you reverted does not meet

152: 2035:

The source for plot summaries is not book reviews, but the book. Moreover,

1444:

Guess we can agree to disagree about what is and isn't poorly written. I'd

1237:

As far as GA, please delist it. You never should have cavalierly passed it

2744: 2723: 2702: 2667: 2653: 2595: 2575: 2539: 2518: 2474: 2453: 2376: 2362: 2342: 2327: 2290: 2265: 2250: 2222: 2200: 2184: 2154: 2139: 2128: 2105: 2059: 2029: 1927: 1898:

Erring on the side of caution when it comes to criticism is the policy of

1890: 1790: 1775: 1760: 1745: 1730: 1716: 1697: 1678: 1591: 1569: 1560:

Surely you could be a little more condescending. Are you really trying? --

1555: 1539: 1510: 1495: 1473: 1458: 1439: 1424: 1371: 1345: 1330: 1316: 1300: 1274: 1258: 1217: 1142: 1106: 1074: 1060: 1046: 1018: 1004: 990: 976: 961: 945: 885: 855: 832: 806: 772: 755: 730: 1896:

Those are the capsule reviews I suggested shouldn't be given much weight.

1810: 1051:

If I eliminate the backstory, it is only 871 words, which is acceptable.

2191:

him question his own version of the article. See the discussion above.

1990:

Unfortunately, both of those are too long for a Knowledge lead section.

1486:

willing to do actual fact checking instead of just talk, talk, talk. --

688:

Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at

2281:. Aircorn, do you have any idea what the hell he is talking about? -- 2170:, which means that in some cases either version might be acceptable. 636: 2090:

making up stories and playing off one another's creative impulses."

1702:

I wrote that it received mostly positive reviews, but intentionally

1629:. Maybe "mixed but positive" should be the phrase used in the lead. 1478:

And you're not Jimmy Wales. Consider just for one second that maybe

1944:

confronting adult authorities who are often cowardly and dishonest.

1530:

Please be patient. I'll go over all of it here on the talk page. --

817:"Portlandia has become a lazy shorthand for oddball, quirky cool." 812:“Portlandia” has become a lazy shorthand for oddball, quirky cool. 2500:

Knowledge:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Plot_summaries

1065:

It's acceptable, but poorly written, so I've removed it again.

230: 41:. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be 2775:

Low-importance children and young adult literature articles

1646:

to include negative comments in the lead. The critics were

401:, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to 1939:

Dennis, you added this plot summary to the lead section:

1249:

verify yet also not trust me. So. What have you read? --

908:

According to Ellis, they "just picked whatever we liked."

631:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the 2681: 2641: 2607: 2506: 2491: 2487: 2313:

again or we could go the community reassessment route.

2116: 1669:. There are many books that suffered a similar fate. -- 1516: 1407: 1165: 913: 898: 874:

Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2012-04-30/Recent research

556: 390: 385: 380: 375: 122: 103: 84: 1385:

does not have specific word length guidelines, unlike

1094: 1520:

that far reaching. It's quick and easy, and no doubt

405:. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. 2770:

B-Class children and young adult literature articles

316:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 51:

of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

2684:got clobbered in the final round of the edit war. 1204:statements about the author's band being on hiatus 1948:I formerly removed it and replaced it with this: 760:Yeah, I'm no citation wizard. Looks better now. 484:Knowledge:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature 2096:Is there a reason to prefer one over the other? 2424: 1688:gone through all of the reviews for this book? 819:From "Stop comparing everything to Portlandia" 795:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction 2127:) and in the official site link at the bottom. 1972:(two plot summaries), first from Sarah Flood: 2119:section that does not follow the recommended 8: 2688:are not on hiatus, and are not breaking up. 2509:, and maybe trim it a little bit shorter. -- 2431:I don't understand why it is so relevant to 1661:, which is next to nothing. Frank Herbert's 427:Tag the talk pages of related articles with 420:Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the 336:children and young adult literature articles 995:Strike that, I see it now. I'm moving it. 330:Knowledge:WikiProject Children's literature 577: 555: 363: 333:Template:WikiProject Children's literature 262: 56: 15: 2073: 539:Create a requested article on literature 1241:I warned you the article no longer met 579: 264: 234: 2039:plot summaries include spoilers. They 1383:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Novels#Plot 791:Knowledge:How to write a plot summary 33:Language and literature good articles 7: 2006:And for good measure, a sample from 1097:is how a "Setting" section is used. 625:This article is within the scope of 310:This article is within the scope of 1387:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Film#Plot 1196:about a planned series of book and 253:It is of interest to the following 2640:river and nowhere near St. Johns. 2400:NPOV#Describing aesthetic opinions 1576:here is a list of 75 good articles 14: 2606:List of factual errors, from the 2304:bit long in your version and the 1910:. In NPOV, the relevant section, 1625:The reviews were almost all very 694:Women of the West, Oregon chapter 514:Children's literature WikiProject 495:Articles with notability concerns 441:WikiProject Children's literature 432:WikiProject Children's literature 399:WikiProject Children's literature 313:WikiProject Children's literature 2676:This one is partially my fault. 2674:<ref name=Carpenter2011/: --> 2552:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Novels 1832:. All were positive except for 1614:Negative review comments in lead 922:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Novels 918:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Novels 612: 602: 581: 460:cleanup listing for this project 411: 297: 287: 266: 235: 206:kids save a baby kidnapped by a 142: 61: 19: 2765:Knowledge Did you know articles 2010:(it's a bit longer than this): 1173:objections raised in the review 669:This article has been rated as 350:This article has been rated as 2785:Low-importance Oregon articles 2488:longest, most detailed version 1957:Dennis to the plot summary? 1707:creates a false impression. -- 931:Knowledge:I just don't like it 194:, "bespectacled, bike-riding, 1: 2617:<ref name=Heyman2011/: --> 2616:<ref name=Miller2011/: --> 1981:This one is from Tim Wadham: 1912:Describing aesthetic opinions 807:16:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC) 773:19:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 756:18:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 731:17:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 643:and see a list of open tasks. 397:Here are some open tasks for 324:and see a list of open tasks. 1665:languished as an option for 1225:Please do not revert again. 649:Knowledge:WikiProject Oregon 554: 550:Improve a stub-class article 305:Children's literature portal 2619:This sentence is kind of a 690:Oregon Women of Achievement 684:collaborations of the month 652:Template:WikiProject Oregon 172:The text of the entry was: 2806: 897:I can't say I support the 863:I really do think reading 833:05:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 675:project's importance scale 356:project's importance scale 45:. Editors may also seek a 2079: 2076: 1574:Let's get back on topic: 1517:massive number of changes 1172: 681: 668: 597: 472:the index of WikiProjects 362: 349: 282: 261: 217: 174:Did you know ... that in 139: 130:Good article reassessment 111:Good article reassessment 59: 55: 2790:WikiProject Oregon pages 2745:20:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC) 2724:08:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC) 2703:23:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC) 2668:22:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC) 2654:22:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC) 2596:08:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC) 2576:22:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC) 2540:08:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC) 2519:22:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC) 2475:07:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC) 2454:21:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC) 2377:05:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC) 2363:13:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC) 2343:01:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC) 2328:23:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 2291:15:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 2266:01:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC) 2251:23:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 2223:15:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 2201:09:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 2185:09:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 2155:15:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 2140:09:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 2106:09:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 2060:15:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 2030:09:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1935:Plot description in lead 1928:15:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1891:08:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1791:06:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1776:06:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1761:06:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1746:05:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1731:05:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1717:05:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1698:04:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1679:04:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1618:You really have to read 1592:07:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1570:06:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1556:06:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1540:06:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1511:06:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1496:05:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1474:05:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1459:05:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1440:04:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1425:04:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1372:10:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1346:07:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1331:05:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1317:05:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1301:05:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1275:04:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1259:03:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 1218:03:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC) 151:appeared on Knowledge's 2780:B-Class Oregon articles 2728: 2115:Dennis added back in a 1143:05:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC) 1107:04:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC) 1075:05:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC) 1061:04:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC) 1047:04:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC) 1019:04:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC) 1005:04:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC) 991:04:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC) 977:04:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC) 962:03:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC) 946:16:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC) 886:18:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC) 856:17:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC) 462:is available. See also 443:and list yourself as a 2760:Delisted good articles 2428: 2017: 2004: 1988: 1979: 1970:School Library Journal 1967: 1954: 1946: 1855:School Library Journal 1851:School Library Journal 1817:School Library Journal 1234:before looking pretty. 916:version complies with 499:WikiProject Notability 243:This article is rated 149:fact from this article 2012: 1999: 1983: 1974: 1962: 1950: 1941: 403:children's literature 327:Children's literature 318:Children's literature 274:Children's literature 220:Delisted good article 39:good article criteria 2525:leave it up to you. 2393:Questions about lead 2047:predate their birth. 1836:. Here's a sample: 912:The plot summary in 479:Deletion discussions 468:the tool's wiki page 464:the list by category 424:of related articles. 92:Good article nominee 2546:Layout and sections 2481:Plot summary length 2299:No, however on the 2117:publication history 2111:Publication history 1659:option (filmmaking) 1515:Because you made a 1406:event in the book. 1377:Plot summary length 713:The genre footnotes 510:Unassessed articles 2496:Avoiding copyright 2067:Background section 628:WikiProject Oregon 534:Requested articles 525:Add references to 249:content assessment 67:Article milestones 2735:or consistent. -- 2492:this much shorter 2094: 2093: 1904:WP:NOTADVERTISING 1865:Publishers Weekly 1861:Publishers Weekly 1834:Publishers Weekly 1823:Publishers Weekly 1123:when you wrote it 710: 709: 706: 705: 702: 701: 576: 575: 572: 571: 568: 567: 564: 563: 559: 527:Unreferenced BLPs 367:Tasks you can do: 229: 228: 225: 224: 166:December 18, 2011 2797: 2718: 2686:The Decemberists 2675: 2618: 2590: 2534: 2469: 2357: 2322: 2245: 2179: 2074: 893:Recent revisions 767: 764: 745: 739: 725: 722: 657: 656: 653: 650: 647: 622: 617: 616: 615: 606: 599: 598: 593: 585: 578: 436: 430: 422:See also section 415: 408: 407: 364: 338: 337: 334: 331: 328: 307: 302: 301: 300: 291: 284: 283: 278: 270: 263: 246: 240: 239: 231: 218:Current status: 184:The Decemberists 146: 125: 106: 87: 66: 65: 57: 27:Wildwood (novel) 23: 16: 2805: 2804: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2750: 2749: 2737:Dennis Bratland 2712: 2695:Dennis Bratland 2672: 2660:Dennis Bratland 2646:Dennis Bratland 2621:WP:FRANKENSTEIN 2614: 2604: 2584: 2568:Dennis Bratland 2548: 2528: 2511:Dennis Bratland 2483: 2463: 2446:Dennis Bratland 2429: 2395: 2369:Dennis Bratland 2351: 2335:Dennis Bratland 2316: 2283:Dennis Bratland 2258:Dennis Bratland 2256:immediately. -- 2239: 2215:Dennis Bratland 2173: 2163: 2147:Dennis Bratland 2113: 2069: 2052:Dennis Bratland 1937: 1920:Dennis Bratland 1847:, (107) 21: 53) 1768:Dennis Bratland 1738:Dennis Bratland 1709:Dennis Bratland 1671:Dennis Bratland 1642:to the correct 1635:capsule reviews 1616: 1580:for good reason 1562:Dennis Bratland 1532:Dennis Bratland 1488:Dennis Bratland 1451:Dennis Bratland 1449:distraction. -- 1417:Dennis Bratland 1379: 1323:Dennis Bratland 1293:Dennis Bratland 1251:Dennis Bratland 938:Dennis Bratland 904:style and genre 895: 878:Dennis Bratland 840: 825:Dennis Bratland 814: 799:Dennis Bratland 783: 765: 762: 748:Dennis Bratland 743: 737: 723: 720: 715: 655:Oregon articles 654: 651: 648: 645: 644: 618: 613: 611: 591: 560: 449:in the project. 434: 428: 395: 335: 332: 329: 326: 325: 303: 298: 296: 276: 247:on Knowledge's 244: 213: 212: 202:-referencing" 170: 123:October 5, 2012 121: 102: 83: 60: 29:was one of the 12: 11: 5: 2803: 2801: 2793: 2792: 2787: 2782: 2777: 2772: 2767: 2762: 2752: 2751: 2748: 2747: 2732: 2727: 2726: 2706: 2705: 2670: 2656: 2603: 2602:Factual errors 2600: 2599: 2598: 2547: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2482: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2418:narrative hook 2408: 2407: 2394: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2294: 2293: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2226: 2225: 2206: 2204: 2203: 2162: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2126: 2121:MOS guidelines 2112: 2109: 2092: 2091: 2087: 2082: 2081: 2078: 2068: 2065: 2064: 2063: 1936: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1879: 1878: 1875:Kirkus Reviews 1868: 1858: 1857:, (57) 8: 112) 1848: 1829:Kirkus Reviews 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1615: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1378: 1375: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1206: 1205: 1194:WP:SPECULATION 1190: 1179: 1175: 1168: 1167: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1125:? Please see 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 894: 891: 890: 889: 839: 836: 813: 810: 782: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 714: 711: 708: 707: 704: 703: 700: 699: 679: 678: 671:Low-importance 667: 661: 660: 658: 641:the discussion 624: 623: 607: 595: 594: 592:Low‑importance 586: 574: 573: 570: 569: 566: 565: 562: 561: 553: 552: 541: 530: 517: 501: 486: 475: 450: 437: 425: 416: 394: 393: 388: 383: 378: 372: 369: 368: 360: 359: 352:Low-importance 348: 342: 341: 339: 322:the discussion 309: 308: 292: 280: 279: 277:Low‑importance 271: 259: 258: 252: 241: 227: 226: 223: 222: 215: 214: 171: 141: 140: 137: 136: 133: 126: 118: 117: 114: 107: 99: 98: 95: 88: 80: 79: 76: 73: 69: 68: 53: 52: 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2802: 2791: 2788: 2786: 2783: 2781: 2778: 2776: 2773: 2771: 2768: 2766: 2763: 2761: 2758: 2757: 2755: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2722: 2719: 2717: 2716: 2708: 2707: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2671: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2609: 2608:disputed diff 2601: 2597: 2594: 2591: 2589: 2588: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2560: 2557: 2553: 2545: 2541: 2538: 2535: 2533: 2532: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2503: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2480: 2476: 2473: 2470: 2468: 2467: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2438: 2434: 2427: 2419: 2415: 2410: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2396: 2392: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2361: 2358: 2356: 2355: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2326: 2323: 2321: 2320: 2312: 2308: 2302: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2275: 2274: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2249: 2246: 2244: 2243: 2235: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2183: 2180: 2178: 2177: 2169: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2124: 2122: 2118: 2110: 2108: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2088: 2084: 2083: 2075: 2072: 2066: 2062: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2048: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2016: 2011: 2009: 2003: 1998: 1996: 1991: 1987: 1982: 1978: 1973: 1971: 1966: 1961: 1958: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1940: 1934: 1930: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1876: 1872: 1869: 1866: 1862: 1859: 1856: 1852: 1849: 1846: 1842: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1835: 1831: 1830: 1825: 1824: 1819: 1818: 1813: 1812: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1705: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1651: 1649: 1645: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1631:The AV Club's 1628: 1623: 1621: 1613: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1528: 1523: 1518: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1447: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1409: 1405: 1399: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1376: 1374: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1287: 1286:will not ever 1283: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1246: 1244: 1240: 1235: 1233: 1228: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1174: 1170: 1169: 1166: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1159: 1155: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 993: 992: 988: 984: 980: 979: 978: 974: 970: 965: 964: 963: 959: 955: 950: 949: 948: 947: 943: 939: 934: 932: 926: 923: 919: 915: 910: 909: 905: 900: 892: 888: 887: 883: 879: 875: 870: 866: 860: 859: 858: 857: 853: 849: 844: 837: 835: 834: 830: 826: 822: 818: 811: 809: 808: 804: 800: 796: 792: 788: 787:commented out 780: 774: 771: 768: 759: 758: 757: 753: 749: 742: 735: 734: 733: 732: 729: 726: 712: 697: 695: 691: 685: 680: 676: 672: 666: 663: 662: 659: 642: 638: 634: 630: 629: 621: 620:Oregon portal 610: 608: 605: 601: 600: 596: 590: 587: 584: 580: 558: 551: 548: 546: 542: 540: 537: 535: 531: 528: 524: 522: 518: 515: 511: 507: 506: 502: 500: 496: 493: 491: 487: 485: 481: 480: 476: 473: 469: 465: 461: 457: 455: 451: 448: 447: 442: 438: 433: 426: 423: 419: 418: 417: 414: 410: 409: 406: 404: 400: 392: 389: 387: 384: 382: 379: 377: 374: 373: 371: 370: 366: 365: 361: 357: 353: 347: 344: 343: 340: 323: 319: 315: 314: 306: 295: 293: 290: 286: 285: 281: 275: 272: 269: 265: 260: 256: 250: 242: 238: 233: 232: 221: 216: 211: 209: 205: 201: 197: 193: 189: 185: 180: 179: 175: 168: 167: 162: 160: 159:Did you know? 154: 150: 145: 138: 134: 132: 131: 127: 124: 120: 119: 115: 113: 112: 108: 105: 101: 100: 96: 94: 93: 89: 86: 82: 81: 77: 74: 71: 70: 64: 58: 54: 50: 49: 44: 40: 36: 35: 34: 28: 25: 22: 18: 17: 2714: 2713: 2689: 2685: 2678:User:Brianhe 2642:This version 2636: 2625:Robinson2011 2605: 2586: 2585: 2563: 2561: 2555: 2549: 2530: 2529: 2504: 2484: 2465: 2464: 2436: 2432: 2430: 2425: 2413: 2353: 2352: 2318: 2317: 2305: 2278: 2241: 2240: 2205: 2175: 2174: 2164: 2114: 2095: 2070: 2049: 2045: 2040: 2036: 2018: 2013: 2007: 2005: 2000: 1994: 1992: 1989: 1984: 1980: 1975: 1969: 1968: 1965:inhabitants. 1963: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1942: 1938: 1915: 1897: 1880: 1874: 1870: 1864: 1860: 1854: 1850: 1844: 1840: 1833: 1827: 1821: 1815: 1809: 1807: 1703: 1685: 1666: 1662: 1655:future event 1652: 1647: 1643: 1638: 1626: 1624: 1619: 1617: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1483: 1479: 1445: 1412: 1403: 1400: 1394: 1390: 1380: 1360: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1247: 1238: 1236: 1231: 1224: 1207: 1151: 1122: 935: 927: 911: 907: 903: 899:recent round 896: 862: 845: 841: 821:at Salon.com 816: 815: 784: 781:Plot section 716: 696:(historical) 692:(modern) or 687: 682:The current 670: 626: 543: 532: 519: 503: 497:, listed at 488: 482:: listed at 477: 452: 444: 396: 351: 311: 255:WikiProjects 219: 198:-browsing, 192:Carson Ellis 181: 176: 173: 164: 156: 128: 109: 90: 48:reassessment 46: 31: 30: 26: 2635:. But they 2404:WP:BLPSTYLE 1867:, (258) 29) 1704:immediately 1413:ton of crap 1202:WP:FANCRUFT 1093:Typically, 446:Participant 188:Colin Meloy 104:May 8, 2012 85:May 8, 2012 43:renominated 2754:Categories 2682:correction 2633:Heyman2011 2629:Miller2011 2442:WP:CRYSTAL 2161:GA request 2125:media_type 2080:Viriditas 1644:due weight 1198:WP:RELTIME 838:Assessment 633:U.S. state 521:References 490:Notability 163:column on 2637:don't say 2193:Viriditas 2132:Viriditas 2098:Viriditas 2037:Knowledge 2022:Viriditas 2015:Mehlberg. 1883:Viriditas 1783:Viriditas 1753:Viriditas 1723:Viriditas 1690:Viriditas 1584:Viriditas 1548:Viriditas 1527:yourself. 1503:Viriditas 1466:Viriditas 1432:Viriditas 1364:Viriditas 1338:Viriditas 1309:Viriditas 1267:Viriditas 1227:WP:BURDEN 1210:Viriditas 1164:Revisions 1135:Viriditas 1099:Viriditas 1067:Viriditas 1053:Viriditas 1039:Viriditas 1011:Viriditas 997:Viriditas 983:Viriditas 969:Viriditas 954:Viriditas 210:of crows? 153:Main Page 2564:Wildwood 2556:Wildwood 2437:Wildwood 2433:Wildwood 1995:Booklist 1845:Booklist 1841:BookList 1811:Booklist 1484:somebody 1391:Wildwood 1282:have not 1192:Removed 1183:WP:UNDUE 1181:Removed 1131:WP:UNDUE 766:Interior 724:Interior 204:Portland 200:Kurosawa 178:Wildwood 135:Delisted 2168:WP:GACR 2077:Dennis 1993:Here's 1914:says: ' 1908:WP:NPOV 1877:, 2011) 1667:decades 1639:serious 1187:WP:LEAD 1127:WP:LEAD 865:WP:GACN 673:on the 512:in the 454:Cleanup 381:history 354:on the 245:B-class 155:in the 75:Process 2721:(talk) 2593:(talk) 2537:(talk) 2472:(talk) 2360:(talk) 2325:(talk) 2311:WP:GAN 2301:WT:GAN 2279:not me 2248:(talk) 2234:WP:GAR 2182:(talk) 2008:Kirkus 1900:WP:BLP 1871:Kirkus 1826:, and 1480:you're 1395:really 1284:, and 1158:WP:BRD 869:WP:GA? 848:Tlqk56 770:(Talk) 728:(Talk) 646:Oregon 637:Oregon 589:Oregon 251:scale. 208:murder 97:Listed 78:Result 2690:Meloy 2414:about 1627:mixed 1404:every 1280:they 1239:after 1232:right 545:Stubs 439:Join 391:purge 386:watch 196:vinyl 2741:talk 2715:corn 2699:talk 2664:talk 2650:talk 2631:and 2587:corn 2572:talk 2531:corn 2515:talk 2507:here 2466:corn 2450:talk 2444:. -- 2373:talk 2354:corn 2339:talk 2319:corn 2307:baby 2287:talk 2262:talk 2242:corn 2219:talk 2197:talk 2176:corn 2151:talk 2136:talk 2102:talk 2056:talk 2041:must 2026:talk 1924:talk 1906:and 1887:talk 1787:talk 1772:talk 1757:talk 1742:talk 1727:talk 1713:talk 1694:talk 1675:talk 1663:Dune 1588:talk 1566:talk 1552:talk 1536:talk 1507:talk 1492:talk 1470:talk 1455:talk 1446:love 1436:talk 1421:talk 1408:This 1368:talk 1342:talk 1327:talk 1313:talk 1297:talk 1271:talk 1255:talk 1243:WP:V 1214:talk 1200:and 1154:WP:V 1139:talk 1129:and 1103:talk 1095:this 1071:talk 1057:talk 1043:talk 1015:talk 1001:talk 987:talk 973:talk 958:talk 942:talk 914:this 882:talk 876:. -- 867:and 852:talk 829:talk 803:talk 797:. -- 752:talk 686:are 557:edit 508:the 505:Rate 470:and 376:edit 190:and 116:Kept 72:Date 2711:AIR 2680:'s 2583:AIR 2527:AIR 2462:AIR 2350:AIR 2315:AIR 2238:AIR 2172:AIR 1686:you 1648:not 1620:all 1522:fun 763:The 721:The 665:Low 635:of 346:Low 182:by 2756:: 2743:) 2701:) 2693:-- 2666:) 2652:) 2610:: 2574:) 2517:) 2452:) 2375:) 2341:) 2289:) 2264:) 2221:) 2213:-- 2199:) 2153:) 2138:) 2104:) 2058:) 2028:) 1997:: 1926:) 1889:) 1820:, 1814:, 1789:) 1774:) 1759:) 1744:) 1729:) 1715:) 1696:) 1677:) 1590:) 1582:. 1568:) 1554:) 1538:) 1509:) 1494:) 1472:) 1457:) 1438:) 1423:) 1370:) 1344:) 1329:) 1315:) 1299:) 1273:) 1257:) 1216:) 1141:) 1133:. 1105:) 1073:) 1059:) 1045:) 1017:) 1003:) 989:) 975:) 960:) 944:) 884:) 854:) 831:) 805:) 754:) 744:}} 741:Rp 738:{{ 466:, 458:A 435:}} 429:{{ 186:' 147:A 2739:( 2697:( 2662:( 2648:( 2570:( 2513:( 2448:( 2371:( 2337:( 2285:( 2260:( 2217:( 2195:( 2149:( 2134:( 2100:( 2054:( 2024:( 1922:( 1885:( 1785:( 1770:( 1755:( 1740:( 1725:( 1711:( 1692:( 1673:( 1586:( 1564:( 1550:( 1534:( 1505:( 1490:( 1468:( 1453:( 1434:( 1419:( 1366:( 1340:( 1325:( 1311:( 1295:( 1269:( 1253:( 1245:. 1212:( 1137:( 1101:( 1069:( 1055:( 1041:( 1013:( 999:( 985:( 971:( 956:( 940:( 880:( 850:( 827:( 801:( 750:( 698:. 677:. 547:: 536:: 529:. 523:: 516:. 492:: 474:. 456:: 358:. 257:: 169:. 161:" 157:"

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index