Talk:Pennywise/GA1: Difference between revisions

GA review

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Gommeh (talk · contribs) 11:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Rollinginhisgrave (talk · contribs) 15:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey Gommeh, I'll get this review. Before I start, can you make sure you add citations for any sentences that don't end in an inline citation? I can see a few in the Appearances in literature section; although plot summaries don't have to be sourced, because you're doing a survey of appearances across literature it's difficult to establish what is being given appropriate weight. I also see a comment "symbolize Its death" which is interpretive and will certainly need an inline citation. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 15:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Sure. I've removed the section dealing with 11/22/63 entirely because I see it as minor coverage at best that I was unsure whether to leave in or not. The rest of that section deals with the Stephen King novel It - I didn't use any other sources other than the novel in that section because I wanted to strictly state the facts as seen in the original source material. If you would like me to see if I can find other sources to use in that section or insert more citations from the novel, please let me know and I will do so.

I'm surprised that I can't find a source that I consider acceptable to cite for "symbolize Its death" so I've removed that part too. Gommeh 🎮 15:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Valnet

I'm about 50/50 on whether the WP:VALNET sources used in the article should stay or be taken out or not. Currently those would be just these (but please let me know if I missed any):

WP:VALNET lists ScreenRant as marginally reliable in certain situations, and MovieWeb isn't mentioned at all. Let me know your thoughts on these sources. Gommeh 🎮 00:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the Screenrant information is crucial, and can be cut or better sourced. Movieweb is just repeating the claims of an interview in Collider, which wasn't acquired by Valnet until 3 years after the publication of the piece. So should be fine. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I got rid of ScreenRant to be safe. If another more reliable source is discovered that has the same information we can easily cite that instead. What about Cinepunx? Gommeh 🎮 03:01, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

How about you tell me why you think Cinepunx is reliable for this information and I'll make an assessment based on that. - RIHG

A few very light comments at the outset:

• Suggestion: after asking himself what children feared "more than anything else in the world", and feeling that the answer was clowns. → after determining that what children feared "more than anything else in the world" was clowns.
• Who are "The Losers"?
• Its resemblance to a "Lovecraftian horror" The source isn't saying it resembles one, it is saying it is an example of one. You also don't have to put it in quotes.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 02:44, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I made the suggested change and also adjusted the wording about the Lovecraftian horror source. In response to your question, the Losers (or the Losers Club) are the main protagonists of the story - a group of friends led by Bill Denbrough who fight It as teenagers and are called back to kill It once and for all 27 years later. This is touched on in the very first paragraph - think it should be revised? Gommeh 🎮 02:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for making these changes. I skipped to the body so I could double back and see if the lead adequately summarizes. Adding it to the body would be nice, but probably isn't necessary for GA. - RIHG

Prose and content

• I think the structure can be cleaned up. I don't really understand what "Concept" is covering: it jumps from creation to a description of its nature to the character design in the 90s miniseries and later films. This seems to crossover with Appearances, which is similarly messy. That section starts with what I would put under "Concept" as it describes him as a shapeshifter and what that means. I don't know what to make of the description of "appearances" in the 1990s miniseries, it's just one sentence. It's also worth splitting analysis from reception.

Suggestions

• Add the year of when King was writing The Stand.

Other

Can you elaborate on why Roy (2022) is a RS?

I'm terribly sorry to do this. I can see Encountering Pennywise: Critical Perspectives on Stephen King's IT is available through WP:TWL (via Oxford Academic). A GA doesn't have to be comprehensive, but this is a huge amount of critical literature not engaged with, omitting discussion of several key themes, which is needed to comply with WP:GACR#3A (broadness). Going beyond that, there are several reviews of that text available on Proquest which provide meta-analysis, and Steven King's Gothic gives several pages of analysis, and is available on EBSCO. Both Proquest and EBSCO are also available on TWL. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 01:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

References

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.