Talk:Margaret Atwood/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 19:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Review

Lead

*I would encourage a review of MOS:INTRO. The way I read this suggests that the Lead should be a preview of the article to come. Much of the first paragraph after sentence 3 is just a listing of her many accomplishments, which aren't strictly necessary to establish notability. I would suggest limiting this, perhaps moving up the final paragraph which actually does preview major swaths of the article, and giving thought to whether anything else belongs in the Lead to help give an accessible overview.

• • So I have edited back in some information in the LEAD. For an article of this length I would generally expect 3, maybe 4 paragraphs, in the lead. My issue above was the long listing of accomplishments rather than just suggesting it was too long. Would again ask if there is information that feels relevant that deserves some scope of coverage in this section.

Sorry for the confusion over the lead edits. I think as it is looks good.

Still think more might be preferable but think it satisfies criterion as written now.

*Also, while not prohibited the number of references currently in the lead are not strictly necessary, see MOS:LEADCITE.

Early Life and Education

*Source 17 appears that it should be linking to this but that particular page doesn't actually establish most of what precedes that in that sentence. *What makes luminarium (source 18) WP:RS?

Unclear as to what is being asked here. Are you asking if this is a reliable source?

Nevermind. I see what you mean. Removed this source.

*Luminaries feels like WP:PEACOCK. (If I were writing this I would probably not include the Bob fact at all but that's personal preference)

Career

*Does it make more sense to include Pratt award in Early Life or here? Arguably both sentences could actually go in 1960s section comfortably. No right answer just asking question.

moved award here

*What is citation for teaching posts in 1960s?

citation added

*Taking on WP:AGF that " As a social satire of North American consumerism, many critics have often cited the novel as an early example of the feminist concerns" accurately summarizes, rather than synthesizes, source.

• What is source for York teaching post?

citation added

*Items do not need to be linked everytime they appear. In general only the first instance needs linking, but there are some exceptions. See MOS:OVERLINK. I have fixed some of these but many more remain.

removed any multiple links in a a given section

*Source for "explore identity and social constructions of gender as they relate to topics such as nationhood and sexual politics"? (Note: I also did a slightly change of sentence for clarity. Please make sure it's still accurate)

citation added

*Taking on GF that source says Surfacing and Survival "helped establish Atwood as an important and emerging voice in Canadian literature"

• Atwood's webpage (source 30) should probably not be used. Can alternative citation for her winning of St. Lawrence Award for Fiction be found?

alternative source found and citation added

*It feels like there's more blistering criticism of Handmaid's tale than that NYT quote per HuffPo article. Also should probably be balanced with a positive quote as demonstration of the mixed reviews.

I ended up removing this entirely. In general, I tried to keep comments on her writing brief, as these all have their own detailed pages. Ultimately I found that this quote wasn't needed as it doesn't really add anything to the page and other novels do not have similar discussion.

*Having one critic's review of Cat's Eye being autobiographical doesn't demonstrate larger point that critics and reviewers do this more generally

added an additional citation; source discusses critics' desire to read autobiographical elements in novel

Can you point me to this?

citation #31

*Suggest "Regarding her stints with teaching, she has noted, "Success for me meant no longer having to teach at university.” change to "Atwood was happy to stop teaching noting, "Success for me meant no longer having to teach at university.”

kept original wording; quotation does not support assertion that Atwood was "happy" to stop teaching. Original wording is more neutral.

*Source for "Although vastly different in context and form, both novels use female characters to question good and evil and morality through their portrayal of female villains."?

The two sentences that immediately follow this sentence are provide the source material for how the two novels are different in form but have female villains

Think this is borderline OR. I want to give it more attention/thought as to which side of the line I think it ultimately falls.

Still think this might be OR but tie goes to the editor since I consider it borderline. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

*Source for Blind Assassin having critical acclaim (without source this is WP:PUFFERY)

the fact that it won the Booker Prize and Hammet Prize support the novel's critical acclaim.

You're right. Was thinking more of book criticism but the awards more than show this.

*Source for themes in MaddAddam?

citation added

*Source for theatrical adaptation of Penelopiad?

citation added

• Beyond awards what can we say about the arc of her career? Some more critical summary and detail regarding sales would be positive throughout the career section.

I feel this is covered in themes. I'll keep looking for sales figures or something that might help here. I feel the awards list at the bottom of the page covers this.

The only recent figures I can find regarding sales have to do with The Handmaid's Tale. I still feel the whole section on themes/criticism covers this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlbrandt (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

*More context (1 sentence plot summaries) around some of the novels would be positive. I think right balance is struck with Alias Grace which has short summary (as compared to Robber Bride which we just learn takes place in Toronto and which through inference we learn has an evil woman character.

I avoided this since most of her works have their own pages.

Going too in depth doesn't make sense. In looking at some FA authors I think you've struck good balance.

• Why are the different forms broken out in the 2000s vs other decades? I think this section has right level of depth for each book (see above comment) but am curious about this organizational choice. At minimum would move LongPen to the end of this section.

Moved LongPen. I am open to other forms of organization. Without the breakdown it seemed like the section was too long and hard to navigate.

This section is longer than others. Granted it covers nearly two decades vs 1 decade for others but also worry we're slanting towards the more recent because most of those things occurred since Wikipedia started and thus has received more editor attention. Thoughts? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree and I see your point. But it also includes things such as the Long Pen, Future Library Project, etc. that she wasn't doing earlier in her career. At this point her career started going in additional directions, which is why I originally started to break out the sections. I'm open to other organization, I just don't know how else to do it that makes it easier to read or navigate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlbrandt (talk • contribs) 19:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

*Hag seed sentences don't technically need a source but if one is easy to add wouldn't hurt.

citation added

*Payback section needs sourcing. Also am confused about what exactly Economist was criticising.

Removed part about the Economist.

*I did some editing of Chamber Opera section.

• Angel Catbird could use 1 sentence summary.

summary added

Recurring themes and cultural contexts

*Strongly suggest the first subtopic be renamed. Could be "Canadian Identity" or "Theory of Canadian Identity"

Changed name and re-organized this section. Hopefully this address or clarifies other suggestions for this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlbrandt (talk • contribs) 15:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

*Taking on GF that source says that, " Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature, is considered outdated in Canada but remains the standard introduction to Canadian literature in Canadian Studies programs internationally." Even so a single source for such a broad statement is a bit worrying. *Can "Atwood’s Survival bears the influence of Northrop Frye’s theory of garrison mentality; Atwood instrumentalizes Frye’s concept to a critical tool." be reworded to be easily understood by a wider swath of readers? *Should not generalize Pivato's critique based on current sourcing (but can and should leave it in attributed to him)

I originally wanted to remove this statement in my first edits of the article because there was not a source for this. Another editor added the source and wording. I'm actually okay with removing it; it seems redundant to me.

• Since it's Howells not Hutchinson applying Historiographic metafiction tag to Atwood is Hutchinson's coinage of the term pertinent in this article?

Not sure what is being asked here. The sentence in the article seems clear to me.

The way I'm reading the reading the sourcing, he author saying Atwood is writing Historiographic metafiction is Howells. Hutchinson coined the phrase, but is that pertinent here or is it relevant that Howells suggests it's true of Atwood? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This is pretty standard for literary criticism. Typically you attribute the theory to the person who coined it in cases like this; otherwise, it could look as if someone was trying to give Howells credit for the term. So, in her work, Howells is discussing how Huthinson's theory applies to Atwood's works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlbrandt (talk • contribs) 19:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

*I'm torn about need for Speculative Fiction section as compared to what is (or could be) present in Career. Since I'm torn just noting it. *Is there some theory or critical basis for the animals section? This seems to be close to WP:OR and thus could use some greater grounding (or else be removed).

I think this section is more appropriately named ecocriticism. I've moved some things around to see if this makes more sense. In general, I tried to leave other contributors' information in the article and add citations or context. I'm open to discussion on removing the lines from the works. I do, though, think the section should be here.

Revisions work well. Thanks.

*Political involvement could use some sort of introduction/summary before diving into Handmaid's Tale.

Re-arranged this section, removed unsubstantiated claims or provided sources.

*Source for strong support of May?

• Sourcing for PEN connections?

*I'm not sure any of the Sudbury, Gaza, or University of Toronto pieces of information is necessary in terms of GA criterion 3.

I'll defer to you/others on this; I don't really have strong feelings either way.

Removed the Toronto bit. Left Gaza because of its connection with PEN and did a copyedit of Sudbury but left it as evidence of her environmentalism.

*Last paragraph should be merged with current first paragraph.

Adaptations

• This section is a bit of a mess right now reading like a list more than anything. If it's just going to be a list (and I'm not sure it needs to be more than a list) it should be a list, like the Awards are.

I think this section has more information in it than just a list. It also leaves the possibility for additions as adaptations continue. I am open, though, to continued discussion if others feel it should be reduced to a list.

How about a table that could allow some of the other information without trying to be Prose when it's really not?

I'm open to that idea, but I am having a hard time envisioning what the cells would be. Is there an example you can point to?

Let me see what I can find/do.

Future Library project

*Would suggest that this section be incorporated into career as appropriate.

moved to 2000s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlbrandt (talk • contribs) 15:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Personal Life

*This section feels bare but also very important. Can more information/sourcing be found? If not can it be merged with Early Life & Education?

I feel strongly that Atwood is notable for being an author, not for her personal life. I feel the section is appropriate as is and where it is placed.

Most Wikipedia subjects are notable for whatever they did not their personal life. So I say important in terms of needing coverage in order to adequately cover their subject (GA criterion 3a). Still suggest merging it with section up top would be best but defer to you.

Okay; that makes sense. I moved up top and changed the section header to "Personal life and education"

Sources

• It is best practice to note when a web source requires a subscription (but not strictly required for GA).
• Single sources are listed multiple times in the reference list. How intentional was that? It would be better to use {{refname}} & {{rn}} to group together.

I used the citation generator for my citations, so they just appeared in the reference list. I'm not sure how to proceed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlbrandt (talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

So let's say you have the book "Smith, Joan (2011). Atwood Best Author Ever. Prestigous Place, Canada: Reputable Press.". Over the course of the article you cite this source three times but a different page each time. As you have it each source would be listed once in the reference list. If you use the Template:RP (sorry for wrong link above) you could combine that with refname so that the specific page number is cited but the source is only listed once in the reference list. Does that make any more sense?

Ah, I see; yes, this does make sense. Thank you.

Discussion

Can @Jlbrandt: or another interested editor confirm they're willing to go through the GA review process before I begin this review? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Barkeep49: I encouraged Jlbrandt to send this article to GAN. I believe they will be around to discuss your review and make any necessary changes, if applicable, but I have this page on my watchlist, too, and can help out as needed. In other words: confirmed. :) Thanks for volunteering to take it on. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Barkeep49: I am interested in going through the GA review process. Jlbrandt (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Great. Will begin read through in earnest tomorrow. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I have begun my review of the article. My process is to do a read through of the article, and then to go back through and do a detailed read through, commenting on prose, balance, and sources. I then go back through and check-off the other elements of GA (including some other elements of sources). This detailed read through can take a couple of days depending on my availability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Barkeep49: This is my first time going through this process, so I'll wait until you are finished before working on your suggestions. Everything so far is very helpful. Thank you. Jlbrandt (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Some editors find it useful to do work as I go along but it's also totally fine to wait. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jlbrandt: I have completed my detailed read. I still have a couple other GA areas to check, like images and some aspects of sourcing, but the lion's share of the work is done and would welcome any responses or questions you might have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, @Barkeep49:; this is very thorough and detailed. I've started working on the edits on a sandbox page, and will continue over the next day or two. I will let you know if I have any questions. This is my first GA; what is standard for next steps?Jlbrandt (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jlbrandt: Standard next steps are to fix items listed, push back on items where I might have missed the mark, and ask questions about what you don't understand. Generally indicated beneath each item that you've addressed it, disagree with it, or have questions is the way to go. If you're looking for a place to start I'd actually encourage you to look at the sources feedback and address those first. The second bullet point, about eliminating the repetition of sources, is, absent a compelling explanation, something I am going to insist upon for criteria 2a and completion of that will make the remaining work I have to do to evaluate sources much easier. I know this might seem like a long list - don't fret. This is a normal length list for an article of this size in my experience observing GAs and having done some myself. This very much has the bones of a GA and through this process anticipate a successful review. Please feel free to keep asking questions as you have them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Barkeep49:. I'll start with the sources. This may take a few days, but I am working on it.Jlbrandt (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm placing the review on hold while you make these changes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Jlbrandt (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I am beginning to move the edits per your GA suggestion to the Atwood page. Jlbrandt (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jlbrandt: It's generally helpful if underneath my comment you either note that you made a change, ask a question, or explain why you don't think my suggestion is right. This helps keep things organized. Again feel free to ask any questions as you move through this process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Barkeep49:. The page is now edited with comments here under your suggestions. Jlbrandt (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Nearly there. I've struck through points I consider closed. Couple places for you to response and a couple where I just want to give it more thought. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Thanks @Barkeep49:. I will respond to comments by end of day. Jlbrandt (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Think things are very close. I want to explore the adaptations a bit more. I think the sources as listed are adequate to pass GA but would encourage you to think about doing it anyway as reader friendly (at least for those readers who care about such things). Think there remain just a couple other points for you to respond/act about at this point. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Barkeep49: I believe I've responded to everything but what we want to do about the adaptations. Maybe a list would just be easier. Let me know if I missed anything else. Jlbrandt (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jlbrandt: Yeah I think it's just adaptations at this point. Best comparison I could find among existing GA is Anne_Rice#Adaptations. This passed GA in 2012 when standards were lower but even still think it offers a nice point of comparison. Based on that I would suggest adding another sentence (or so) to Surfacing, Payback, Wandering Wanda and Handmaid's (given number and importance of adaptations it can be longer). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Great. How does it look now @Barkeep49:? What are the next steps?

The next steps are it's passed! Thanks for all your hard work and congratulations. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

This is so exciting! Thank you @Barkeep49: for all your help with this process!