Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zelda Fitzgerald

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 4 June 2008 [1].

Zelda Fitzgerald

[edit]

This is my first attempt at a literary FA, so I've been moving slowly through GA and PR where this has been thoughtfully reviewed by Scartol, Brianboulton, Giggaman, and Yllosubmarine. I look forward to addressing whatever weaknesses remain. --JayHenry (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose The majority of the references all came from one source, which is most likely a book or something. One source ain't gonna do it. Try adding different sources. Dabbydabby (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

  • Well, can you try at least 10 different sources? And please, they shouldn't all be books. They should be internet sources, newspapers, whatever reliable source you can think of. Just not one source, or one type of source. If you can do that, I'll change my vote to support. Dabbydabby (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh...first time I've ever encountered anyone opposing based on some arbitrary set number of sources. And since when has relying on book sources become taboo?! For what it's worth, by my count, more than one-third of the footnotes are from a source other than Milford (including, yes, a few non-book sources). BuddingJournalist 00:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Opposing because book sources are used is, well, a bit daft. If anything, book sources should be preferred over newspapers, internet sites, and the like. — Dulcem (talk) 00:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm opposing this because almost all of the book sources are used. It would've been inconvenient for a reader to go find that particular book because very often readers do not have the book right in front of them. Internet sources on the other hand are just a click away. I would believe that the reference list should have a variety of different sources. Dabbydabby (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that this is a valid oppose. I don't mean to offend you, but there is a significant amount of scholarship that exists other than on the internet. Also, we are supposed to find the best possible sources, not the most easily accessible ones. For older subjects, often the best sources are printed and not available on the internet. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dabby, we judge sources on reliability not accessibility. BuddingJournalist 02:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter now; you can delete my oppose vote if you want. (Just don't change it to support.) However, I'm still holding my own opinion. Dabbydabby (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Dabby, I think your point is fair and wouldn't want to see your oppose deleted. I think that I'll be able to find some Web available but highest quality sources. Here are two that I think I could use:
I'll look for more, but I think these two (in addition to the Web sources already there) will be a worthwhile improvement. --JayHenry (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I checked, and those are indeed reliable internet sources. The only concern I initially wanted to address was its variety of different sources. If you can access book and internet sources (maybe even a visual source too?), I think it would be a great addition to the article. If you ever needed help with formatting the references, you can always come to me for reference. (No pun intended. :D ) [And on a side note, why is everyone calling me Dabby when my username is currently Dabbydabby? (Yes, I'm aware of my usurpation request going on.) ] Dabbydabby (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We call you Dabby because you're our new friend :) You can call me Jay in return, if you'd like. I didn't realize you were actually renaming to Dabby, but it's a good name. --JayHenry (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I asked Dabby about this on his talk page. He said "I still believe that the article needs more internet sources still, but I see you have been working hard to find reliable sources. I will not change my vote to support; however I crossed out my oppose vote." I'll keep looking to make sources easily available, though I do think it satisfies WP:WIAFA in this regard. --JayHenry (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Nothing I see wrong with using mainly printed sources, considering the lady died in 1948. Personally, I think this is one of the more reliably sourced articles at FAC right now.
All the sources look fine to me, and the links check out fine also. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • JayHenry, be a dear and fix me a gin fizz you incorrigible harlot I love you. In normal words of the hopelessly boring (and unfortunately sober), this means Support. I am terribly sorry I did not read through this again when you asked me to. I went through and fixed teeny things, but a question or two:
  • With the affair of Jozan, who didn't know Zelda asked for a divorce? That's confusing.
  • Amid the families' bereavement is that the one family? Zelda's? Should that be family's?
I think it's very well-written, and the quote by Woody Allen made me laugh out loud. Well done. --Moni3 (talk) 00:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Moni. You're beautiful, like a May fly. My great fear is that I was far too sober when I wrote this article. (Hey, at least I haven't tried to tackle Hunter Thompson yet... that will be a deadly task.) Jozan didn't know she asked for divorce. I'll fix that. I just meant one family. Thanks! --JayHenry (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The day Wikipedia disparages printed sources is the day that this librarian packs her pencil case for good! Hrumph. This is a splendid article, one that is a joy to read; well written, a little dramatic here and there, not heartless but not over-involved; I approve. My previous concerns were fixed during the PR, although the Zelda thing still bothers me -- when scholars refer to well known male writers' wives simply by their first names, even when they're the subject of the biography, it's demeaning. The usage is far too familiar, implying that the women are not taken seriously (or at least as seriously as their husbands), which is something I feel that Wikipedia should strive to do as an encyclopedia. Are we ever to rewrite F. Scott's article using Francis or E. A. Poe's using Edgar? Are these equally important "wifey" articles to take second seat to that of their husbands? Oh, well. I'm willing to let my gender-related paranoia rest, however, if only because this is a particularly good article. Well done. María (habla conmigo) 13:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the too-familiar issue, but (now I'm curious) how does one get around referring to Zelda as Fitzgerald and F. Scott as Fitzgerald? Mr. and Mrs. sounds like the society page. I haven't checked the Hilary Clinton article, but when spouses or close relations with the last name are both newsworthy, how do you differentiate? --Moni3 (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Mr. and Mrs." makes me cry a little, but what's wrong with using full names when differentiation is needed? "Zelda Fitzgerald", "Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald", "Fitzgerald and her husband, F. Scott"? I don't know if it's important enough to warrant a rewrite, but I think it could be done if consensus is found that just plain "Zelda" seems less encyclopedic. María (habla conmigo) 16:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zelda and her obsessive drunken ballet dancing may warrant an alteration of the MoS, which would potentially apply to Eleanor Roosevelt, Hilary Clinton, Coretta Scott King, Nancy Reagan, and on and on. I think seeing Zelda Fitzgerald as a full name throughout the article would be tedious to read, but I agree with your issue. I don't know what the alternative is. --Moni3 (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happyme22 ran into this with the Reagan articles, so you might want to check that out.--Rmky87 (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have run into at Mary Shelley as well. You might want to take a look at what we did. Certainly I've run into harsh comments by Mary Shelley scholars regarding the use of "Mary" or "Mrs. Shelley" exclusively. "Mary Shelley" or "Shelley" seems to be preferred. We use "Mary" only to differentiate from "Percy" - never "Mary" to differentiate from "Shelley" (i.e. Percy Bysshe Shelley). Awadewit (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everbody, I really apologize for this but I was unexpectedly away from my computer all day today and am going to be all day tomorrow as well. If you wanted to take a stab at this I would be forever indebted. Please, I really welcome people just jumping in. If not, I'll work on it myself on Wednesday. (Really apologize about this. Very unexpected for me.) --JayHenry (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked for examples where I can do this and attempted to reduce the amount of times she's called Zelda. Again, if you feel this is a weakness, this is one you can fix yourselves. Access to the sources aren't needed and I'm honestly stumped to go any further without introducing severe ambiguity into the text. I'm not willing to confuse the reader and please note that Zelda is always differentiated from Scott--not from Fitzgerald. --JayHenry (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Since there were questions about the sources used in this article, I checked in the MLA database for sources on "Zelda Fitzgerald". There are 33. Most are journal articles about Zelda Fitzgerald's writing. I'm a little nervous that more of these aren't used. However, it could easily be that the material contained in these articles is replicated in the books used in the article. If the article editors could reassure us that they checked this, my concerns will evaporate. Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Awad! Bruccoli, Cline and Milford all have chapters devoted to her writing. Haven't gotten all the way through Prigozy or Curnutt yet (they're more Scott books, but from the chapter names it doesn't look like they go into this). I felt that this was sufficient, but to be honest I didn't realize there were that many Journal Articles on the subject. Her prose is generally described as florid, and perhaps containing potential, but ultimately unpolished. I don't have access to the MLA database. Awad, if you really think the article needs it, would it be too much imposition to ask to e-mail me the best papers? I'm happy to work to integrate additional material, and would even enjoy reading some of those different perspectives. I am Jay.Hank, at the wonderful e-mail provider of Yahoo.com. Like I said, if the chapters in the books aren't sufficient (and I'll defer to your judgment on that), I'd really be deeply grateful for help. And I will (promise) have time to read, ponder and integrate before the end of the week. --JayHenry (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading the article and looking at the material available, I do think that more could be added about her writings, especially since that is the way that the scholarship seems to be moving, as you note in the "Legacy" section: to recognize her as an author in her own right. Unfortunately, most of the material that I think will be helpful is not available electronically. I emailed you three articles. Here are the others that, from what I can tell, look like they will prove useful. If you want me to request them from my library, I will. The only one I can't send you is the book, obviously. Awadewit (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shurbutt, Sylvia. "Zelda Fitzgerald 1900-1948". American Writers: A Collection of Literary Biographies: Supplement IX: Nelson Algren to David Wagoner. Ed. Jay Parini. New York, NY: Scribner's, 2002. 55-73. - Although an encyclopedia entry, this looks like it might be focused on her writings, so it might be useful.
  • Felber, Lynette. "Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz: Household Plagiarism and Other Crimes of the Heart". Literary Liaisons: Auto/Biographical Appropriations in Modernist Women's Fiction. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois UP, 2002.
  • Castillo, Susan. "(Im)Possible Lives: Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz as Surrealist Autobiography". Writing Lives: American Biography and Autobiography. Eds. Hans Bak and Hans Krabbendam. Amsterdam, Netherlands: VU UP, 1998. 55-62.
  • Nanney, Lisa, "Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz as Southern Novel and Künstlerroman". The Female Tradition in Southern Literature. Ed. Carol S. Manning. Urbana: U of Illinois P; 1993. 220-32.
  • Hartnett, Koula Svokos. Zelda Fitzgerald and the Failure of the American Dream for Women. New York: Peter Lang; 1991.
  • White, Ray Lewis. "Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz: A Collection of Reviews from 1932-1933". Fitzgerald-Hemingway Annual 1979: 163-68.

Here are the citations for the articles I emailed you:

  • Tavernier-Courbin, Jacqueline. "Art as Woman's Response and Search: Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz". Southern Literary Journal 11.2 (1979): 22-42.
  • Davis, Simone Weil. "The Burden of Reflecting': Effort and desire in Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz". Modern Language Quarterly 56.3 (1995): 327-362.
  • Wood, Mary E. "A Wizard Cultivator: Zelda Fitzgerald's Save Me the Waltz as Asylum Autobiography". Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature 11.2 (1992): 247-264.
  • Support Oppose (for now) This article is an excellent piece of biographical writing. I was drawn in: the editors have made Zelda Fitzgerald come alive. However, I'm going to oppose for the time being on comprehensiveness: I feel that her writings need to be better explained. The themes, style, and genre of her writings can be better explained. I have every confidence that the material I have sent JayHenry and listed above will allow him to rectify this problem. I know he is a diligent editor and I look forward to seeing the new material. (It would be nice to have a painting of Zelda's. Can we use anything from The Romantic Egoists: A Pictorial Autobiography from the Scrapbooks and Albums of F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, edited by Bruccoli, Smith, Kerr, and Lyons?) Awadewit (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for those papers, Awadewit. I will start reading them this evening. I have a structural question though. Where do you think it would be best to integrate this material? As I see it, I could include it under the Save Me the Waltz subsection, under its own section between the Biography and Legacy sections, or as a "Critical reappraisal" subsection of Legacy. My initial preference is the latter, but would welcome your thoughts.
As for including a paiting, I do have access to Romantic Egoists. But since Zelda painted after 1923 and died in 1948 it's my understanding that a painting would have to be uploaded under a claim of WP:FAIRUSE. Unfortunately, I've noticed that Wikipedia's WP:FAIRUSE policy is increasingly divergent from the actual legal and moral obligations of "Fair Use" and I'm reluctant to devote my energies explaining why it satisfies "NFCC#8" to editors who clearly have no legal or professional background whatsoever with Fair Use. --JayHenry (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure? I think it depends on what kind of material you get out of the articles. So much of it is focused on Save Me the Waltz, I would be tempted to put it there, but if there are general statements, a "Critical reappraisal" section would work as well. Why don't you just do what seems best to you? We can always revise! :)
  • I do think that a painting would greatly enhance the article. ZF was clearly an artist in many ways - I think it would help readers to see her work. If you upload the image, I'll work on the fair use rationale, if you want. We don't want policy to get in the way of producing the best article possible! :) Awadewit (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm making a concerted push to address the rest of the objections tonight. Have added to the sourcing per Dobby and Mojska and have added information on style and themes. I'm going to rewrite the final critical reappraisal section here in a bit, but will probably save detailed discussion of themes, style and genre of her novel for the Save Me the Waltz page. Also removed the hip flask image discussed below. --JayHenry (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I am not quite finished yet! I will leave a note on your talk page when I'm ready, Awad. Sorry, been an awful week... I don't have the time for this hobby! --JayHenry (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm supporting now, but I'm kind of disappointed that only the articles I emailed you were used. Since I volunteered to go to the library and get copies of the other ones if you needed them, I assumed when you didn't ask that you had access to them. I'm absolutely certain that these three articles do not represent the entirety of scholarly opinion on Zelda Fitzgerald's work. The only way to figure out what is to read a range of sources and see what they all agree on or what is considered most important in the field. Perhaps after you have written the Save Me the Waltz article, you can come back to this one. Writing author or artist articles is a huge amount of work because one has to read about the author/artist AND their works. Awadewit (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm not knowledgeable enough to question the article's comprehensiveness as Awadewit has done and as I read it, I felt it was clearly up to FA quality. The sources are well used and the prose, (apart from an excessive use of semicolons), is professional and engaging. All articles can be improved, (even FAs), and no doubt this one will be. I have to support this FAC because there are quite a few FAs that fall short of the standard set here. Allow me a couple of nitpicks.
    • Please do something about the semicolons; they spoil the flow. A high-point of the prose,(IMHO), was the simple sentence She complied."
    • And, she composed a novel - aren't novels written?

Thank you for this contribution; it was really engaging. GrahamColmTalk 18:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham, I will do some semicolon surgery. --JayHenry (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the flask image per below. --JayHenry (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. --JayHenry (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Disclosure - I reviewed this article for GA, when I felt it was close to FAC. Since then various improvements have been incorporated and I am satisfied that it meets all the FA criteria. A couple of suggestions:-
    • The "Last Flapper" image in Expatriates section looks better if placed after the first para of the section (I've tried it, trust me.)
    • The brief last section "Critical reappraisal" seems somewhat formidably titled, given the sparse content. Perhaps a less ambitious title would be more suitable?

Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian! I was actually in the middle of rewriting that last section when I had to go out of town at the last minute, and you caught it in an unfortunate state. It will make more sense when I'm finished. Working on it tonight. --JayHenry (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've opted not to do that for this article. Because of the somewhat unusual nature of her life, Zelda's biography doesn't break down into factoids very well. I support infoboxes in general (where they're providing uniform information across a clearly defined group of people), but this is an example of an article where an infobox would impart little useful information (beyond what's already in the first sentence), so I've opted for this style. --JayHenry (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: After much deliberation, I feel as though I'm not as concerned about variety of sources as other folks. While I feel the article can be improved by adding info from more sources, I feel that it is currently at a standard I consider Feature-worthy. – Scartol • Tok 00:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should add in the interest of full disclosure that I did a review during the article's gestation. – Scartol • Tok 00:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through this evening and added overviews from more of these sources. I think it's best not to go too much more in depth on topics like Save Me the Waltz's place in asylum autobiography on this article. I'd like to go through, however, and add more of that information to Save Me the Waltz. --JayHenry (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Pretty sure that's everything. If anybody still has concerns let me know. Thanks everyone for the careful reviews and for your patience with my hectic schedule on this one! --JayHenry (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to WP:MOSBIO, section "Subsequent use of names" suggests that Zelda should be avoided in favor of using the last name. It also provides recommendations how to handle the case when there are multiple family members with the same last name, as in this case. (*They* get their first names used for clarity, but not the topic of the article.) This is one of those strange things that bother me, like news anchors calling Secretary Rice by "Condi". Because I also agree that this isn't a simple cut-and-paste because so much of the article necessarily relates to Mrs. Fitzgerald's interactions with her husband, I leave this as a comment only, not an oppose. But I hope that we at editors look carefully at our gender biases when writing biographies. JRP (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please feel welcome and encouraged to fix this in any case that you can identify. I have really, honestly and seriously, tried to address this throughout and have literally begged for help with it. Please note this article conforms relentlessly to WP:MOSBIO. Zelda always contrasts with Scott; Fitzgerald never refers only to him. Furthermore, I can only advise those with this concern not to read biographies of Zelda. They do not call her Fitzgerald. --JayHenry (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, this is not at all the same as Condoleezza Rice. She was born a Rice, there is no other Rice implicit or explicit in any of the writing about her, (it's always implicit and often explicit in this article) and certainly not a Rice that shares her vocation, let alone a more famous Rice with whom she is principally known by association. --JayHenry (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Zelda_Fitzgerald&oldid=1138476079"