Talk:Strange Fruit (novel)

Strange Fruit (novel) has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 16, 2019. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Strange Fruit (novel) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 November 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the ban on mailing Lillian Smith's Strange Fruit within the United States was repealed upon a request from the First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2012/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Strange Fruit (novel).

Wikipedia

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Georgian?

Isn't this term more properly applied to a period of design parallel to the reign of George III? Wouldn't it just be "...a Georgia town..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimelgort (talk • contribs) 00:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of used either way. I've heard people use it fairly interchangeably in the South. It's used in the same way you'd hear someone call themselves a Californian, a Mexican, or a Floridian. How it's depicted depends on where in the world and in which group you're in. I live in the South, so I hear it most often used as a term to describe people, places, or things that have to do with Georgia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Strange Fruit (novel)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Argento Surfer (talk · contribs) 15:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Once complete, I'll be claiming this review for points in the 2019 WikiCup. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
I have made some copyedits. Please review for accuracy and revise as you see fit.

Was the book published as "Jordan is so Chilly", or was that a working title? If the former, when was the change made?

The revised play in Boston is mentioned twice, one in 'Bannings' and once in 'Adaptations'. I think once in the second section is sufficient.

Boston and Detroit are linked, but not Montreal or New York. If you're going to link some cities, you should link them all.

I think it would be beneficial to add dates to some of the commentary in 'Themes'. All the of the citations are from 2001 or later. Is there no commentary prior to that?

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
no concern
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Sources 31 and 32 are bare titles. The templates need to be filled out in more detail.

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
no concern

C. It contains no original research:
no concern

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
no concern per Earwig results
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
There's not much detail on the book's publication. The infobox says January without a source, but the body never specifies a month.

The inbox image is labeled "first edition" - how many editions have there been? Are they all from Reynal and Hitchcock, who is only mentioned in the infobox?

There's a comic book called "Strange Fruit", but I'm not sure if it's related to this novel. Might be worth investigating some.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
no concern
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
no concern
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
no concern
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
no concern

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
no concern
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Notes

Hi! I fixed the sourcing issues! Thank you for reviewing this and I look forward to your other notes! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping to finish my read through today, but work unexpectedly got busy :( Argento Surfer (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! This is actually the first time I was able to get back to this GA nom - I'll work on this later today or tomorrow! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added a publications section. It's a little hard to track down every publisher since there are a lot of reprints through the same publisher and it's kind of hard to track some of them down, at least to reliable sources. I'll work on the other issues. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited stuff as far as the first part (well written) goes. With the commentary prior to the 2000s, this was mostly omitted because it was difficult to find and access content that was put out before then. I'll check out the comic. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the comic. As far as I can tell, it took its title from the Billie Holiday song, which isn't really surprising. The book isn't absolutely unknown but it's never gotten a super huge-huge amount of attention. It's still known in academia and some bibliophile groups, but outside of that it's kind of steadily falling into obscurity. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Argento Surfer, what do you think? Let me know if I missed something. I feel like I did. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ReaderofthePack Thanks for the new additions. Given the book's age, I can understand that older commentaries and editions can be hard to track down. I'm satisfied with what you've found. Nice work!

Book Review Digest

Did you check BRD for contemporaneous review sources? Ping me if that would be helpful (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 11:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]