The lead looks short. Recommend expansion to better meet MOS:INTRO
Lead is definitely better. The themes section should be summarized and the last paragraph probably made a bit more summary and less specific to represent those sections. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sentences with quotes in Background need in-line cites
Cannon wasn't a librarian, but rather just worked in a library
having a degree in library sciences isn't necessarily a prerequisite for the term "librarian", but I've removed the term nevertheless
Not to belabor a point that's already been addressed but it says she was working in graphic design. She did not hold the title of librarian nor responsibilities that would be of comparable professional equivalent. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I question if the Merlin Tuttle source is RS
the Sandiego Tribune source corroborates what is said by Tuttle ("Over the next two years, she exhaustively studied and painted bats, inspired by a National Geographic photo essay on the African epauletted fruit bat")--I added that citation at the end of the content as well. Let me know if that works for you.
It does
I would recommend second level headings for plot and pictures in my interpretation of how to follow MOS:NOVELS for picture books
they've been added
The text just says it was a warm and sultry forest - there's no textual support I see for it being Africa
removed
Also doesn't seem to be textual support for ould never let anything happen to her.
removed
Who is Barabara Stoodt? (e.g. Professor Barbara Stoodt, children's librarian Barbara Stoodt)
I'm not seeing a job title readily available, so I added the name of the publication in which she wrote the quoted material
So it appears that book might have been written by 3 authors? Are we sure what we're referencing is attributable to Stoodt?
I missed that there were other authors! Have revised phrasing to make more precise (and updated the citation)
I'm not sure how the Scholastic ref is supporting what it's citing but it's definitely not RS (the guide MIGHT be, but should be cited directly not the web page)
The scholastic ref supports the statement about the book's illustrations. Specifically, from that webpage, it says "Full-page paintings done in colored-pencil and acrylic depict Stellaluna's adventures, while small ink sketches showing her mother's search for her make for reassuring counterpoint on the facing text pages" which I use to support "Each full-page illustration is accompanied by a page of text. At the top of each page of text is a small, black-and-white ink illustration of Stellaluna's mother searching for her". I admit that as a vendor that Scholastic is not independent of the subject, but per WP:BIASED, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective".
Themes shouldn't be sourced to the book itself (makes it OR) only to to RS
I'm citing the 25th anniversary edition, which has a forward from Cannon that explicitly states the themes [1]
I was admittedly not working off the 25th. In that case I think we can say that Cannon says they're the themes but since it's her interpreting her own work, we shouldn't say it in our voice. Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources used in the reception section could be used to help flesh out the Themes and illustration sections. These seem rather sparse.
I added quite a bit more to the themes (thank you for the recommendations below of where I could find more coverage). I was able to add a sentence to the illustrations section, but it's still quite short. What do you think about moving the illustration-based reception to this section from "Reception and cultural impact"? Enwebb (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I was looking at the incorrect date on the page
In 2005, Cannon received a Bat Conservation Award from the Organization for Bat Conservation. Feels more about the author than the book
removed
Fiction DB doesn't seem RS and seems redundant with UCF
removed ref; added more references to the award section
Does the Stellaluna movie have any RS reviews that be included to give a sense of how it was received? It seems weird that it has less coverage than the puppet shows
The movie was straight to VHS, not theatrical release. It seems that the puppet shows were actually a much bigger deal. There's very little coverage of the movie itself.
I did find two reviews, so I added them
Optionally, here are some other sources I found which you might be interested in including (if you are able to access):
A Time to Mourn: The Loss of the MotherKaren Coats.Looking Glasses and Neverlands: Lacan, Desire, and Subjectivity in Children's Literature. Iowa City, Iowa:University of Iowa Press, 2004. p46-57.
School Library Journal, June, 1993, Marianne Saccardi, review of Stellaluna, p. 70
Park, M.. Mothering Queerly, Queering Motherhood: Resisting Monomaternalism in Adoptive, Lesbian, Blended, and Polygamous Families. Albany: State University of New York Press, 201
Novy, Marianne. Imagining Adoption: Essays on Literature and Culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2011