Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 2

Update 8 Jan

A mere 3 1/2 days from AleatoryPonderings's bold addition of literary analysis material, many of the major issues here have been addressed with almost 400 edits, and the article is to a state that fine-tuning can begin. This is phenomenal progress in a very short time; we have other articles at FAR right now that have pages and pages of talk commentary after nine months at FAR, with still unresolved issues.

Aside from looking indepth at the Transgender people section, and rewriting the lead (best left 'til last); fat, bloat and choppiness has been reduced; citations and sourcing have improved to what looks like an acceptable place now (including removal of the WP:ELNEVER accio-quote problem); MOS issues have been mostly cleaned up; and most of the first To-Do list has been tackled.

Even with the addition of 1,900 words of literary analysis, prose tightening has taken the article from 8,500 words when it came to FAR to 7,700 words now (a respectable WP:SIZE).

There was one brief edit war on January 5, in the Transgender section, with multiple editors adding and deleting some recent newsy material. It would be helpful if the admins/arbs on board would explain to those of us for whom that is above our payscale how we can implement the discretionary sanctions mentioned on talk to help avoid any more of that, as I noticed that not one of the multiple editors who added and removed the material ever started a talk discussion.

Some questions (please add to this new To-Do list):

• Ealdgyth has indicated on talk that we might make more use of the Sean Smith bio, as that seems to be the best we have; does anyone have access to that? During the FAR, we have somewhat reduced the strictly personal biographical info (as opposed to her work) because of the absence of a good bio and the accio-quote problem. I am wondering if we can now work in a bit more.

  Everyone has access to Smith, Sean (2002). J.K. Rowling: A Biography. London: Arrow Books. ISBN 0-09-944542-5. OCLC 51303518. I've switched out some low-quality refs to refer to this book instead, but it's pretty comprehensive (albeit published in 2002) so could fuel expansion if we think there's need for that. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  D’oh on me … I will have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  Still working through this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  Killed that one, now needs trimming and copyediting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Recognizing that it is still being worked on, a significant percentage of the article is now devoted to Critical analysis, Reception and Legacy. Are we at about the right size or should any of the new material be worked back in to sub-articles? How much more (or less) do you all expect to see (that is, @AleatoryPonderings, Barkeep49, Johnbod, Vanamonde93, and Victoriaearle: ? Dated, being re-worked on talk, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Comment here re length of critical analysis, which may have been lost in the shuffle. Stopping now to wait for feedback. Victoria (tk) 17:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, Victoria; yes, I had missed that. You all are the experts; I'm just keeping the list going :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think we're close to the level of coverage I'd want to see re: analysis, but not quite. I was planning to add a little more to "influences" today, which is rather heavily based on her own words at the moment (I do not propose removing her statements, but some trimming is likely warranted). The promotes witchcraft vs Christian allegory debate likely should get a short paragraph; I think some of the material for this is already present, but reorganization is necessary and slight expansion likely worthwhile. The total length is a lot more appropriate now, but I think we will lose a fair bit when redundancies are omitted and the whole lot copyedited. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, particularly on witchcraft v. Christianity, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  AP added info in the Reception section: Vanamonde93 are you still planning more work in this area, or is it considered nearly done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  Planning, yes, but health has kept me off-wiki. I hope to do more this weekend. I cannot really speak to completeness before examining the sources I meant to read, though I note that scholars offer a counterpoint to the "witchcraft" argument that is covered in the previous section but deserves brief mention. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93 sorry to hear, and hope your health matter is nothing serious. In reading the Smith bio, I see he places the beginning of the religious debates chronologically after the film deals and before her re-marriage. Looking at the structure of the article, at this point, we have a muddle, with the religious debates sub-article linked below in her Views. I was wondering if (when you get to this) you want to create the religious debates summary as a section in the chronology after Films, before Remarriage and wealth, and then, depending on how that hangs together or what you produce, we may end up moving some of the content now under Views: Religion to either early life or your new section. (I have stuff in my head about what needs to be done still in Early life to tell her story, but haven’t found time to put it together yet, and am actually worried about starting to work there with still no much active editing happening, so will announce when I’m ready to start adding content there.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  Religious debates over the Harry Potter series may have some material that can be incorporated on that front. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Fwiw, I'm not even close to being finished and honestly can't work at this pace and haven't managed to follow the many posts here let alone what's happening in the article. There's quite a bit of reading to be done, then bits and pieces added here and there and then polishing it all to an acceptable word limit. I have a pdf on Christianity and have managed to add only a single sentence because I've only read the first page or so. And also working on the "Friendship" section and looking ahead the "Ordinary vs Extraordinary" needs reworking, then the adult mystery series. At least that's the plan in my head. The notes that I've only begun to work up are here for anyone who wants to comment there or watch or opine. Victoria (tk) 23:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I agree we shouldn't rush it. The stuff I listed is just material I have seen that I know should be represented; I haven't gone through even a tenth of the sources I would want to if I were writing this solo. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  No problem, Victoria; I just started the new section because we had addressed everything in the old. The progress here has been at a rather extreme pace. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Re witchcraft, found a nice essay in this book, McEvan, Em. "'Harry Potter' and the origins of the occult". in J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter, Eds, C. J. Hallett and P. J. Huey. (2012) J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter. New Casebooks series. Macmillan International Higher Education, ISBN 9781137284921, g-book link here. Review of the chapter gives a synopsis, see Croft, Janet Brennan (2013). "[Review of J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter. New Casebooks series, by C. J. Hallett & P. J. Huey]". Mythlore. 31 (3/4): 139–143. JSTOR 26815879.. I've read the review and skimmed the first two pages of the book chapter. Parking this here. P.s Vanamonde, sorry to hear re health issues. Be well. Victoria (tk) 03:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the well-wishes, much appreciated. Hopefully on the mend now. Trying to engage with this once more. I have access to the book, and as I was about to engage with two essays that explore similar themes (the first two chapters of "Critical Perspectives", Heilman 2008), I can try to work this one in as well; unless you'd rather I wait for you? Vanamonde (Talk) 04:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  Since you have access to Heilman (I don't) carry on with your plan. I parked this here so as not to forget about it if we need it. Victoria (tk) 13:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Victoriaearle: I've taken a stab at expanding the material in "Reception" about allegations of Witchcraft, and responses to it. Take a look, if you would. There's plenty more material, but as it quickly turns to explorations of puritan thought (McAvan), theology (Ciaccio), or children's psychology (Taub & Servaty-Seib), I think much of it belongs in sub-articles, if someone can find the time to rewrite them. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• In terms of how to tackle the Transgender people section, I have been disappointed in my searches for high-quality reliable sources. There are a few things from 2020 in the BBC and the New York Times, but google searches are overwhelmed by NOTNEWS-y recent stuff. Is anyone aware of a single, high-quality analysis of the whole matter? Could we start a list on talk here of sources we believe to be the highest quality ?

  Add Vanamonde93 note here, so we can wrap up the earlier ToDo List. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Some of the literary/peer-reviewed sources on the Trans controversies are this one, this one, and this one. Newimpartial (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Added to list on talk, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  AleatoryPonderings has placed a draft on talk here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  All moved to talk, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• We might do some analysis of how many words to devote to the recent events, and come up with a target. I have done some preliminary looking, but don't think it helpful to move forward on that until we have identified best sources.

  Draft is within reasonable word range and overall page size has stayed manageable (8,147 words). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• I have been chipping away at duplicate links with User:Evad37/duplinks-alt, but leaving some that may be useful (I don't subscribe to the notion of zero duplicate links). Others might want to have a look.

  Under control well enough for this point; all of MOS issues will need a new look in the final copyedit phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

That's all I've got; please add to the list, and thanks to all for such excellent speedy work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• What is the intended order of Publications? It looks random now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Converted to Table. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• The Awards and honours section is not properly sourced. Should we trim it to that which is significant and for which sources can easily be found? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I would say award should definitely be trimmed to those that are notable; perhaps even further trimming is warranted. Personally I'd prefer to see the truly significant awards worked into the prose as part of "reception", and the rest split into a sub-article; but I don't think it's an FA-fail issue by itself. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think awards could easily be its own sub-article with only some high level prose remaining in the main article. It would actually make judging what should remain a bit easier in my opinion because we could better defer to secondary sources to determine what the cut-off should be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I had best go put back the split template I just removed then, so no one agreed with it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  As original proposer of the split, I support this idea. On the topic of honours, I wonder if the honorifics following her name should be shortened to two or three. I don't mind them in the infobox as much, but between the honorifics, the IPA, her date of birth, and her pen name all the information you get in the first line is she's a British author. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  The awards is a FL-able list -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe someone will do that, but I’m in favor of now summarizing the list that is there to prose. Keep the first para (add OBE there), add a second para for her National Book Awards and British Book Awards, a third para for all other literature awards, and roll the rest in to what is now the second para, moving it to the fourth para at the end.

  Since there is a 700-page Bibliography on Rowling’s work (which I now own), that would make an interesting FL ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  Complete rewrite accomplished, with sub-article, by Olivaw-Daneel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• I do wonder if the bibliography would be better off as a table. Normally I'd suggest splitting it into a separate article, but there's not very many in total, so perhaps that's not worth the effort here. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I like that idea, because it's whacking out the Table of Contents. If anyone can point me to an article that uses a table for Bibliography, I'm happy to do the conversion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Any of our bibliography FLs ought to have an acceptable structure, I'd say. P. G. Wodehouse bibliography, for instance. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Do you know of one that has sub-sections like this one? I can work on this tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Never mind, I located one with a structure that should work, and will work on it tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I put the table in, not sure I like it, we need someone good with tables to prettify it, and I can later add refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  SG, you said tomorrow! Anyway, re refs for the biblio: there is a volume-length bibliography of Rowling, but I don't know how to find it other than in hard copy, which is probably hard to come by. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Now really mañana, but COVID cancelled our dinner party :( :(, so I got some work done. I'm pretty sure we already have refs for most of that in the article, I just need to plop them in. But we need someone who knows how to improve on the table; it's not great. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  I now own that Bibliography if anyone wants to fix some of the GAs in the suite, which are all kind of a mess. I can send page nos if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  It looks much better, but is still quite long, and though not long enough to require a split I'm wondering if we should create J. K. Rowling bibliography and filmography? BilledMammal (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Do we really need to include the books she wrote Forewords on? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I would prune them unless secondary sources make a big deal of it; and if they do at all, it's likely only of a couple, which ought to go in career rather than bibliography. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I have finished the chart by using everything that was there when I was started. Since I am not a literary type, I’ll leave the pruning to all of you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Is the ROH-ling part of the pronounciation section in the lead sentence (I really have no clue how to call it) necessary? Wouldn't the IPA be all that is needed?Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  I would take it out as the pronunciation is not difficult or unusual; others may have different opinions though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC). Apparently it is an issue, as most bios mention it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  The alternative seems to be ROW (as in "now" or "plough")-ling, which was evidently confusing enough in the early 2000s that plenty of profiles start out "J K Rowling (as in 'row your boat')" or something. The {{Respell}} doesn't take up much real estate and ... uh ... who can actually read IPA anyway ... AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 07:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'm unsure about the sentence attributed to Byatt. There's no question that that criticism represents a thread in the overall body of literature, i.e., it's not a fringe opinion. As written, though, I'm not sure it's aiding understanding, because it's not elaborated in the least. The same goes for the neo-Marxist critique later. AleatoryPonderings, I think you wrote those; I wonder if you could flesh them out a bit? Vanamonde (Talk) 01:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'll see what I can find. I am not wedded to either of them, btw, so no need to keep them at all on my account. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  This is re: Byatt. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  A second look re: neo-Marxism gave me pause, since that's much more strongly associated with criticism of the movies, for obvious reasons (eg [1]; doi:10.1080/14791420601151289, which argues that the books are less commercial than the movies, but it's all in the context of the movies). I commented that out for now. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• First sentence of "themes", as written here, needs a citation; I suspect it came as a summary of the rest of that section, in which case it's possibly unnecessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, it was a summary, including of content in the "ordinary and extraordinary" section. I don't think there is a single source that says all those things; it amalgamates a bunch. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think it's probably okay as a summary, though I generally wait to write summaries until we're done with the rest. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Commented out for now. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Elaborating on a point I made above; I think we are making judicious use of Rowling's words where influence of older writers is concerned; but I'm not sure about the whole paragraph about Mitford, which comes from an interview. I'm sure any number of interviews could be found in which she goes on at length about Lewis, or Austen, or other literary stalwarts. I'm considering omitting it unless some substantiation can be found; or perhaps we mention the name, but not much else. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
• Can anyone find academic commentary on non-HP stuff, especially Cormoran Strike (which, at least by number of words/books, is her most substantial non-HP work). Tison Pugh's recent book Harry Potter and Beyond: On J. K. Rowling's Fantasies and Other Fictions has a decent chapter on Casual Vacancy and CS, but that's the only substantive bit I could find. Would like to have more than newspaper reviews if possible. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I have looked and looked and found nothing. Pugh seems to be the only thing going. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

    • @AleatoryPonderings, (hello, just popping in!), did you see and reject Peter C. Molin, "A 'Phrase Too Cute to Do Our Ugliness Justice': Portraying 'Wounded Warriors' in Contemporary War Fiction" (WLA ; War, Literature and the Arts, 27, 1-21)? Maybe it’s not what you’re looking for; admittedly I am fried and didn’t read it super closely but seemed to have some material on CS. Via ProQuest. Apologies if this is unhelpful meddling! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

      @Innisfree987: Very helpful and not meddling—and nice to see you around. Special:Diff/1065543399 is what I pulled out of it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

      @AleatoryPonderings, oh excellent—and so efficient! (Across the board—you all have done remarkable work here!) Innisfree987 (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Figure out whether we should be mentioning her two non-fiction books, Very Good Lives: The Fringe Benefits of Failure and Importance of Imagination and contributor to A love letter to Europe : an outpouring of love and sadness from our writers, thinkers and artists (haven't yet had time to check whether they received significant secondary coverage, but suspect that Outpouring belongs with her political views on Brexit). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  I uncovered no significant secondary coverage on these, yet it seems odd to leave her non-fictions books out of the table. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Some of the content here may be belong better back up here and here; some of the “Critical analysis” is duplicating some of what is back up in the description of the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC) All reworked, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

  Also, this (which I found and used when citing the Bibliography) may be useful in Reception (unless that is better covered by the more scholarly sources in our talk page list). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• I'm in the midst of reading biographical info, and it is becoming clear that the uncited, "rags to riches" OR in the lead will have to go. But I am loathe to edit the lead 'til we are done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Also based on bios, we may be overplaying Amnesty International in the lead … she was a temp secretary with several jobs, and that was one … feels like namedropping … but all of that can be reworked in the lead after I finish bio work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, the way AI is mentioned in the lead now is flat out false. I will try to work on this tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  Struck, further reading, not so much false as just overplayed. I am still at least a day or two away from incorporating more early life biographical detail (finding it slow to complete that work with discussions forking). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  This is now addressed in the article; we will revisit entire lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Does anyone have an elegant solution for (what is now) J. K. Rowling#Publication history? It's now a chronological list of books and large sale figures with a few personal anecdotes. After Philosopher's Stone, there aren't very many interesting stories about the publication of the books themselves that we haven't covered in thematic sections elsewhere (eg they were historic bestsellers; publishers started releasing them worldwide at the same time; etc). But it does seem important to give at least a few details there? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  On a first reading, it feels somewhat whiplash-like to read about her life (Inspiration and single parenthood), then Harry Potter's concept (Synopsis), and then the publication history of HP (Publication history). Sentences like Rowling said that she "nearly died" when she heard the news should probably be removed, as I'm not sure what encyclopedic value they have. As to an elegant solution, I'm not entirely sure what to suggest. Some sentences could certainly be simplified (e.g. The decision to publish Rowling's book owes much to Alice Newton, the eight-year-old daughter of Bloomsbury's chairman, who was given the first chapter to review by her father and immediately demanded the next. to Bloomsbury's chairman was compelled to publish the book after his daughter's "glowing" response to reading the first chapter.). Additionally, if the last four books kept breaking the previous one's record it would make sense to just say that in one sentence rather than to repeat it for each of them. Things like the Nestle prize record mention seem more appropriate for the awards section. There's probably other things I missed, but this is all I can think of this late into the night. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  I did some consolidating. Not sure what to do about "whiplash". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  That's a terrific start. The image is especially nice, as well. Things like grammar and sentence flow is best left for later, so this is probably good for now unless someone else raises an issue. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  I've struck it; this has been resolved through trimming and ordinary editing by me and others. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  It's not bothering me at all; maybe I'm just tired :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• (This section seems to be where our granular to-do list is now, but anyone can move this elsewhere to consolidate as needed.) Per my comment at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft, we are missing coverage in Reception about Harry Potter and race. Sources include doi:10.1353/uni.0.0488; The Dark Fantastic (already in Works cited; I don't have a freely accessible version but perhaps Olivaw-Daneel has it—OD as I recall you added that reference, but I may be wrong); and doi:10.1057/9781137016546_4. I'm thinking a graf about the same length as the paragraph on gender in Reception. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  @AleatoryPonderings I have access to The Dark Fantastic and Politics of Harry Potter, but not the journal paper; I'll give them a read and see what I can come up with. At a brief glance, some of the pureblood vs. mudblood stuff may fit better in Themes than Reception, but can't tell without reading. They are quite highly cited. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'll take a look at "Harry and the Other" and we can get something together. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  I added a graf about blood purity, which the commentators talk about more than (our/Muggle-world) race per se, and OD and I discussed the use of Dark Fantastic, which (unlike most commentators) addresses real-world race issues head-on. I'm not delighted with how the section turned out but I've addressed my own concern for now. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Little thought: what about "Interpretation" instead of "Critical analysis"? I feel like it's simpler and more what we're aiming for, plus "Critical" could easily be misread as "Criticizing-ical". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  AleatoryPonderings, changed to "Literary analysis". Victoria (tk) 03:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Works for me - no particular preference for any of the alternatives; was really just a little thought :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  I've struck this, as Literary analysis is a good compromise. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Any good secondary sources summarizing her philanthropic endeavours? Special:PermaLink/1066334001#Philanthropy is mainly primary sources and news stories. I know Pugh's intro has a little bit and this book may have a bit more but I can't get a good preview. Published by an imprint of Bristol University Press, which I'd never heard of before looking it up, but as a university press it should be ok. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Pugh has some, and Smith has a chapter, but Smith is dated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  AleatoryPonderings I will work in Smith and Pugh on this today, as I pick up the leftover bits of both that have not been used yet (recognizing that some trimming and reorganizing of all bio bits will later be needed). I believe both sources have enough coverage that it should be possible to remove primary concerns. (And I owe you an Errington check.)

  Vanamonde93 when you have a free moment, might you strike anything that you entered in the original #To Do List that is now addressed/resolved? These pages are getting long, and I have set up Archives on talk where we might begin to remove old sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'll do so, but I do think it's more urgent that we move away from long multi-topic discussions like this one into threads by topic; page length is not yet causing me troubles, but finding where someone pinged me in this sub-section is near impossible. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  AP, I'll set up a section on talk to continue this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  Good to know; considering that I have now set up archives on talk, maybe we should all move towards threads by topic on FAR talk, and this page only for a weekly update for the Coords? I am guilty of randomness as to what I put here and what I put on talk. Also, Vanamonde93 (no ping :), if you have a chance, please let me know on talk if you agree with archiving spent discussions there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Politics 2

Not familiar with UK politics, need terminology check.

• Pugh, page 6, says: "Rowling’s political views run strongly to the left."
• We have, sourced to Vox, centre-left, which links to an article that says that is moderate.

How do we reconcile these? (Me not political person.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking at that. Suggest removing Vox. Generally my view is that many of the web sources should be treated as primary sources, and we go with the secondary sources - who take from the primary. Looking at Labour Party (UK), the second sentence defines it as centre-left. That's probably right; what Americans consider strong left would be center-left in the UK. Victoria (tk) 00:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

If "strongly to the left" is "moderate" in the UK, what do I wikilink to ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I trimmed it down. Vox didn't say "centre-left" (I think it had progressive), but the definitions differ country by country and it gets tricky. There are a lot of little factoids in that section, in all of those sections, and because they're presented chronologically I think we can fold into bio. Victoria (tk) 02:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Victoria … sorry for dashing out with so many loose ends, thanks for fixing. Once I get caught up (may be too old to stay out with friends til 2 am), I will continue on bio today: I want to focus first on straightening out the chronology of her mother, father, “middle class” “rags to riches” business first, as it pains me that Wikipedia was part of furthering that myth since 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Is Pugh American? His "run strongly to the left" is rather vague. Note that the Vox piece covers her attacking Labour's then leader, Jeremy Corbyn, from the right. So she is certainly not on the left of the Labour Party. In British (and European) terms "centre-left" seems right, but what that conveys to Americans heaven knows. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Johnbod Yes, I believe Pugh is in the US … is the section OK now? Victoria eliminated labeling. Victoriaearle is waiting to get a copy of the Kirk book, to work through what I dropped in to Early life yesterday, so not to do too much work on improving it before she gets that book, but are you interested in checking through my writing for BrEng? I am going to work on the second section (Inpiration and single parenthood) today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Spanish source - needs evaluation

This 2008 interview is in Spanish, diff. It's being used in two sections, "Politics" and "Religion", and has long quote embedded. I can't evaluate b/c I can't read it. Can someone else take a look? It looks interesting. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 00:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm Spanish, I can take a look at it in the morning. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks. Victoria (tk) 00:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I speak fluent Spanish, and I was the one who added them. The quotes are there per WP:NONENG, so a Spanish-speaker can easily see exactly what the original quote was. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

A. C. a much easier-to-read version is here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll ignore it then. Wasn't sure. Btw - if I'd been watching each edit, I wouldn't be stepping on so many toes since I started editing in main space. Will try to keep up in the future. Victoria (tk) 00:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I knew that :) I haven't had time to read the entire article. It was in the article when I first started editing, so I just cleaned up what it was being used for and made sure it verified what it said (earlier on, it didn't, IIRC). It's possible there is more good stuff in there; I haven't had time to get through the rest of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:BLAME is a good tool for this purpose, Victoria. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz could you glance at my notes at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox6#El Pais interview? Every source I read talks about how much of her is in Harry and her books, and I am not sure we have given this enough attention. Still putting together bits and pieces for biographical sketch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Added two comments there, the notes are nice. Quite lucky such a lengthy, personal interview is accessible. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

User:A._C._Santacruz I agree that there is some impressive material in there; El Pais consistently gets meaty interviews. I'd like to make more use of some of that, if you agree. AleatoryPonderings have we worked in yet to Legal disputes the considerable issue with the privacy of her daughter ? I have that from Smith, and now El Pais as well, but you may find better sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Nothing in legal disputes re daughter's privacy but I remember this article in the portion I got rid of and then put back this morning EST. I rewrote Legal disputes thinking that it was exclusively about HP legal issues but there is nothing in principle saying that personal legal disputes couldn't be included as well. Altho (not having read the sources) if the privacy cases are mainly notable for what they say about her family life and not - as with the legal disputes about copyright in the series - notable for in part for their specifically legal aspects (her/Warner Bros aggressively protecting their copyright, going after fans, encouraging fans to do stuff and then suing them when they do things the brand managers don't like), the privacy stuff could fit in one of the bio/personal life sections instead. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Catching up … yes, once we get all the bits and piece written, a lot can be folded in to bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Legal issue over Jessica’s privacy continued below in new section, so this section can be archived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Reception

A small re-org and copyedit in this sandbox. Some reception had crept into Legacy, which this moves; I also took a stab at Victoriaearle's comment about following WP:Reception and WP:SS. I realize there's some work planned on religious debates, but how's this for a base? (Feel free to edit.) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This is really, really good. Beginning to look like a chapter in some Companion or other and not a crowdsourced smorgasbord. I added one inline comment and had (I think) added another while it was in mainspace; idk what to do about those. I think you can add this to mainspace whenever you feel ready. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes to adding it. Olivaw-Daneel, I have another next idea for you to work on, unless you are otherwise busy; still gathering my thoughts for the day and getting organized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Done! (AleatoryPonderings, "non-readers" was based on this quote from Levy: The Harry Potter books are also, in terms of both plot and vocabulary, highly accessible to people who rarely read fiction. I removed it for now; I can see how it might be confusing. And Eccleshare's quote already spells things out.) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Olivaw-Daneel I have bits and pieces here and there about her writing process. As she recently described herself as having severe OCD as a child (original research alert), I find her extreme planning, organization, note taking, spreadsheets, cross-referencing etc most interesting. If you are interested in writing two to four sentences about her writing process, and if others think it worthy, I will gather those notes in one place for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, sure. I have a few other things to get to (the to-do-list comment on Harry Potter and race, and a couple of GA reviews), but I can work on this after. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

After again spending an entire day getting sidetracked on the little stuff (like her college degree), I haven't typed up anything yet, but will ping you when I do. Thanks; your prose is awesome (well, anyone's is next to mine, but still ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Olivaw-Daneel took a shortcut; there is much more in Smith about how insanely organized she is, and how she had it all in her head years before she wrote, crazy amounts of detail, spreadsheets, cross-referencing, etc. Think we can have a a para on her writing method/process? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, thanks! I will try to get to this later today (unless someone's already done it); have been pre-occupied. Yes, I think a few sentences on her process would be a good idea. Re. planning: I remember hearing that she wrote the final chapter of the series before starting it; will see if I can find it in Smith/other places. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk page is getting long again; can this be archived? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Philanthropy

AleatoryPonderings raised a question about secondary sourcing for Philanthropy. Pugh (pp 5 to 6) has basically all of it, except the recent COVID-related, and the overall numbers summary (eg, second-highest UK donor after Elton John-- but both Pugh and Smith single her out in a similar vein).

• Pugh (pp. 5–6): "While pursuing her extraordinarily successful writing career, Rowling has energetically contributed to a range of philanthropic endeavors, primarily those dedicated to alleviating poverty and deprivation. ... In recognition both of her Harry Potter novels and of her charitable endeavors, Rowling has been honored with prestigious awards and commendations."
• Smith (p. 234): now "rich and famous" she now had "confidence … that emboldened her to stand up and be counted on issues that were important to her" … although she "sought to avoid publicity".

Smith (2002) devotes all of Chapter 14 (out of 17) to her philanthropy, contains considerable detail, but (of course) doesn't include anything after 2002. Smith does include one we've left out (Maggie's Centres, cancer related), naming it as one of her three earliest causes. Unclear why Pugh has left that out, but it seems OK that we have, too ?? I've added secondary sources on all but COVID, but left the news reports that provide more detail. I think the section is a good and due summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

There is also a section in Kirk, beginning at p 92. Haven't read it yet. My concern is now not so much sourcing but content: Philanthropy reads as a list of things she did as opposed to a summary of her philanthropic work. Does Pugh or Smith describe the philanthropy in general terms? My sense is that the vast majority of it is either for medical issues or children's welfare, but I don't have citations to back that up. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The best overview is Pugh (above) because Smith summarizes them to three main causes, but that summary is dated. He lists the second of the three as Maggie's Centre, which Pugh leaves out, so that leaves me kind of stuck on an overview. The short answer is yes to mostly medical and those dedicated to alleviating poverty and deprivation, but I can't really do that without synth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

AP, are you satisfied with this? Can this section be archived? We are over 150KB again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, satisfied. I think it's more about massaging the prose than getting sources at this point. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Dashes

Most of the article text uses unspaced WP:EMDASHes, while most of the citations and tables use spaced WP:ENDASHes. We need to pick one and be consistent. I prefer unspaced emdashes in text, but at this point, it may be easier to switch them to spaced endashes, as there are considerably fewer emdashes than en. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

No response; unless anyone object, then, I’ll switch the unspaced emdashes in the body of the article to spaced endashes, which will make the body consistent with the citations and tables. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Victoriaearle I’ve corrected the EMDAShes to ENDASHes twice, but they are back again; is this by design? I don’t mind continuing to fix them, but am unsure if you are introducing them intentionally … pls let me know if you would rather discuss converting the entire aricle to WP:EMDASHes (else I will just keep fixing them, no probl). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

No of course not, not intentional, I wouldn't do that. I am half-blind and misread your earlier edit summary. Huge apologies. I think I've found them and fixed, but have turned on the highlighter to try to read the text between the citations, and well fixing one problem just leads to another. Getting my coat now, as Ceoil says.Victoria (tk) 04:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Not to worry … I am happy to fix the little stuff like this … by intentional, I meant maybe you were just copying old text over from sandbox … carry on! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Notes and queries from Kirk

I am starting in to Kirk; from my first read, it is very similar to Smith, although a year newer, so I will switch to Kirk from Smith where I can, and remove some attribution (Smith or Pugh) when all sources agree.

• Chapter 6 is ten pages of "Controversies and criticism". I am assuming, because the book is 2003, that anything useful in here has already been covered in the literary analysis, but it would be prudent for others to have a look. I don't plan to read this chapter, so leave it to those writing the literary criticism to make sure we haven't left out relevant criticism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Chapter 5 is fifteen pages describing her writing process and production details; if someone is working that up, Kirk could be useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• @Olivaw-Daneel and Johnbod: and AP; I've done all the damage I can do to the first two sections, 2.1 Early life and family and 2.2 Secondary school and university; please have at them whenever you'd like, although I'm still unclear on how we resolve the footnotes that tie her early life to her Harry Potter books. I am still working on the rest, but this sections are ready for pruning, copyediting, and BrEng check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

No response, so I checked it over myself. Best I can tell, and considering Kirk is almost 20 years old, we have reflected all of the controversies and criticism covered then, which include:

• Religious controversies (we have an entire section using newer sources)
• Authenticity and copyright, eg Stouffer, we have updated info since this 2003 book
• Formulaic quality to her writing; we have updated sources on literary analysis that address criticism of her writing
• Bias against children's book, eg New York Times, we have

My take is that we have used newer and better sources to address literary criticism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Done, that's all I've got. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Literary analysis redux

Continuing from Special:PermaLink/1064860872#Update 8 Jan. Trying to get a sense of how much there is left to go.

I'm now not sure whether subsections, as in Special:PermaLink/1064859562#Critical analysis, are warranted. "Characters" was always a stretch as a heading and is not really accurate now; I haven't found great lit-crit sources on individual characters, aside from bits on Harry himself (many of which are already in the article) and Hermione Granger (book I don't have access to). "Ordinary and extraordinary" is just a paragraph so I don't think the heading is needed—but the contrast between ordinary and extraordinary it is a constantly recurring theme in the scholarship.

As for sources, I think we now have a representative list of the current academic scholarship in Special:PermaLink/1064859562#Works cited, and most of those sources are used to a decent degree. The only source that sticks out for me as highly underused—because I have highly underused it—is Gupta's Re-Reading Harry Potter. I have, er, re-read (or rather, re-skimmed) it a few times and find it difficult to pick out any clear conclusions I'd feel comfortable summarizing, either as attributions or as wikivoice statements.

I think the section is more or less comprehensive. The only bit I would like more on is Cormoran Strike. Aside from Pugh's book, there isn't much on the series by academics. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to keep chipping away at it if that's ok with people. I have found info re characters and until all the sources have been read, material extracted, text rewritten, there's no way of knowing how the structure will change. But I have to work slowly, (just got in from a medical appt), so if there's a rush I'm not the person for it. Let me know whether to keep at it at my slow pace or to stop now. Victoria (tk) 17:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's ask Nikkimaria how we're doing. I was pushing/rushing early on to forestall what I viewed as early delist declarations, but feel like we are now solidly in hold in FARC territory, with the restored star within reach, meaning if Nikki agrees, it should be fine to take a slower pace at fine-tuning the literary analysis. I cannot recall a FAR article having advanced as quickly as this one has, acknowledging that we are leaving the touchy Transgender section 'til last. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Slow is good for me if it's good for the coordinators. It occurred to me that we may want a capsule (1-2 graf) plot summary of the Potter series somewhere. I had been sort of assuming it was common knowledge but it's obviously not for everyone. I'll give that one a shot. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's necessary for a plot summary in the bio. The bio is bio, plus why this person is notable, i.e author, and lit criticism of her works. I'm kinda following the structure I used for Ernest Hemingway, which has a "Style" section, then a "Themes" section. Looking at The Sun Also Rises there's a plot summary and another, more specific, "Style" and "Themes" section. If that makes sense. Victoria (tk) 21:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I had drafted a bit of text before I saw this and decided to drop it in under #Reception. It's part of a more general line of criticism so I think it fits there. Won't go any further though. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I may be an oddity, but never having read a Potter book or seen a Potter movie, I appreciate a bit of the plot, so I can understand who’s who and what’s what. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Slow progress is fine by me. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Based on my read of the bios so far, and notes I am taking, I can see about another 500 words of biographical info— just to give everyone a heads up on the overall. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Pasted in an updated version tonight. I condensed and flattened the section headings. At the moment it comes in at 1106 words. Victoria (tk) 23:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• I've been looking through "Hermione Granger Saves the World : Essays on the Feminist Heroine of Hogwarts", and I think we do need a short paragraph or a least a mention of Hermione as a feminist model. Are there any thoughts on what I should be looking for as I go through those essays? BilledMammal (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  I've got that essay in my "to read" folder; basically we're tapped out on word count in the main article so there's really only room for a sentence or so. But it would be great to add to any of the Harry Potter sub articles. Victoria (tk) 03:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  As I recall VM suggested way at the start that Gender in Harry Potter would be a worthy split, so if there's enough "leftovers" we could start that too. (Not that I am suggesting even more work ...) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'll see if I can find the ideal sentence; a lot of the essays refer back to "Hermione Granger and the Heritage of Gender", in "Ivory Tower and Harry Potter : Perspectives on a Literary Phenomenon" (currently used as a source under Whiting, though that particular section is unused) so I should be able to find something along the line of what User:AleatoryPonderings suggests. Otherwise, I'll keep notes and perhaps they will be suitable for Gender in Harry Potter. BilledMammal (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal: A sentence about Hermione would fit well after the one about Molly Weasley (though I'm wondering if that character deserves mention there at all). Vanamonde (Talk) 04:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  PS: Please do ping me if you start Gender in Harry Potter; with a little more time I'd love to write it myself, as gender in speculative fiction is something I've read a fair bit about; but alas, RL leaves me little time for Wikipedia these days. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Will do, though I have articles from October last year that I need to finish first. I've replaced the Molly Weasley example with a Hermione Granger example, but I would also like to introduce some of the opposition to the ideas presented in the last two sentences of that paragraph, though I'm not certain how yet. BilledMammal (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not particularly happy with this insertion. It wasn't where I suggested it be placed; it's separating content from the source used for it, it's very hard to understand, and it's attributing to Berents a piece of an argument made by Heilman. Also, I really don't think the ideas in the last two sentences misrepresent scholarly sources on this topic. The weightiest sources are the ones used there; they are uniformly mixed in their assessments. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed, even Berents acknowledges that Hermione's character is generally analyzed as a sidekick, while disputing that argument herself. I don't think we can reasonably include more counterpoint than already exists in this article, though it's all the more reason to write the sub-article. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  I placed it there after checking to make sure that Berents had made the same argument, forgetting about the quotes - apologies, and thank you for catching that. You have a good point about the split of; the view is sufficiently prominent to warrant mention, just not here. BilledMammal (talk) 22:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I think I've got through all the major sources discussing gender at this point, and I'm happy with where that paragraph is at; I hope you are too. I did add another sentence about Hermione elsewhere, not sure if you saw it. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  I typically look for cases where one critic is summarizing, quoting, or responding to another critic's work. That's a sign that the analysis presented isn't just some person's opinion, but a view about the text that's gained some adherence in the literature. A rule of thumb, not an iron-clad law, but I've found it helpful in weeding through the reams of commentary. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Harold Bloom's review/commentary in the Wall Street Journal might be worth a mention. Firefangledfeathers 04:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Some literary criticism would be due, but I'm not sure that is the right article for it, as for the most part it criticizes without explaining the criticism. BilledMammal (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Pugh: general biographical info, Philanthropy, Honours and awards, Political views, and Transgender people

In a seven-chapter, 168-page 2020 book, Harry Potter and Beyond, Tison Pugh gives a 20-page biographical sketch in Chapter one.

The first four pages debunk the "rags to riches" myth (in ways that make Wikipedia sound irresponsible, as we have have hosted that uncited original research since mid-2008), and is largely in agreement with the 2002 Sean Smith bio, which paints the picture of a solid middle-class upbringing, with Rowling falling on hard times after her mother's death, the birth of her daughter, her divorce, and single parenthood as she was struggling to write her first novel.

Also New Yorker scoffs at the myth.

Page 1 contains material we have not covered at all:

• Yet by whichever name one calls her, Rowling has skyrocketed into the popular consciousness as the author of the phenomenally successful Harry Potter series. In the process, she has sold hundreds of millions of copies of her novels, launched two blockbuster film series, inspired a seemingly endless array of merchandise, including games, toys, clothes, and school supplies, and sparked an online fan community both enthusiastically passionate as well as sharply critical in their responses to her creations and achievements. Rowling’s impact on contemporary popular culture is unparalleled, with her Harry Potter novels transcending the realm of children’s fiction—an oft-contested categorization—to reveal both her engagement with a wide range of literary traditions and her reformulation of these fields.

On pages 5 to 6, Pugh covers her philanthropy, beginning with:

• While pursuing her extraordinarily successful writing career, Rowling has energetically contributed to a range of philanthropic endeavors, primarily those dedicated to alleviating poverty and deprivation. (cite to Pugh|2020|p=5)

and containing some useful material we might add.

On pages 6 to 7, Pugh covers awards, honours and recognition. Some excerpts:

• In recognition both of her Harry Potter novels and of her charitable endeavors, Rowling has been honored with prestigious awards and commendations (from page 6, hence my concern that we list Premio Principe de Asturias, as her commendations are not strictly based on literature, rather also philanthropy).

We have left out (cite to Pugh|2020|p=6):

• ... and in 2008 she won the Life-time Achievement Award at the British Book Awards and the James Joyce Award of University College Dublin.
• also from page 6, honorary degree from Dartmouth College.

Pages 6 to 7 cover political views, beginning with:

• Rowling’s political views run strongly to the left. and including:
• Rowling frequently expresses her political views on her Twitter account, with sharp, sardonic, and sometimes snarky responses to political leaders and their pronouncements. Rowling strongly supports multiculturalism and, in a passionate defense of its benefits, she summarizes her lineage by describing herself as "the mongrel product of this European continent" and thus as an internationalist."

Half of page 7 is devoted to the gender issues and more:

• Notwithstanding these personal endorsements of multiculturalism, many readers have found Rowling’s treatment of race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, and other related issues sharply limited. Characters of color are relegated to the margins of the Harry Potter story lines, and her depiction of European wizards colonizing the Americas in “Ilvermorny School of Witchcraft and Wizardry” deploys unsettling tropes of Indigenous peoples as uncivilized. Rowling announced Dumbledore’s homosexuality to her fans, but she does not noticeably depict this aspect of his identity in her novels, thus closeting this character for unexplained reasons. ...<snip>... In response to these events, Rowling tweeted, “Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill.” Given Judge Tayler’s eloquent rebuttal against Forstater’s disregard for the reality of transgender experience, Rowling’s endorsement of her position evinces a narrow view of the dignity and rights of trans people.

Pages 7 to 8 continue with discussion of how her political views are seen in her literary themes, and on page 10, Pugh discusses how her biography enlightens aspects of her fiction and writers influenced her voice as an author. The Sean Smith bio does a lot of this as well; her early life is reflected in her writing.

Based on Pugh:

• <Olivaw-Daneel would you want to incorporate the James Joyce Award, the Dartmouth honorary degree and do some rejigging to reflect that her awards and honours recognize humanitarian and charitable endeavors? Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• I will make a post to Talk:J. K. Rowling suggesting that, given the amount we have already trimmed from awards, and the continued trimming as we work to convert the list to prose, would previous participants revisit their opinions as the usefulness of a separate "List of ... " ? I now support a separate list, as we are leaving out more content from this summary version. Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• "Rags to riches" needs to go, but I am loathe to touch the lead until everything else is better settled. Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• Pugh gives a good overview of the gender issues, and the book overall gives us a good measure of due weight.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings as the speedy-generator-of-excellent-prose, might you find a place to work in the stuff I excerpted above from page 1? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Isn't that in Reception and/or Legacy? The only things it mentions that we don't are (1) merchandise, which (unless additional research shows otherwise) I would assume is a Warner Bros. thing; and (2) transcending the children's literature genre. That might fit in Legacy, with something like "Tison Pugh argues that, owing to its extreme popularity and incorporation of diverse influences, Harry Potter is not properly classed as children's literature." But since he doesn't say what it is, but rather what it isn't, I don't see how such a statement is that helpful beyond what we already have re genre and popularity. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes to merchandise, yes to legacy, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I've created List of awards and nominations received by J. K. Rowling. It has the awards from Pugh; will also add above. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Olivaw-Daneel Beautiful. And now that it’s done, I can’t see any reason not to go ahead and make the change to her article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 13 January 2022 (UTC) Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Promoting literacy

It strikes me that I have not seen the "HP promotes literacy" argument, or its rebuttals, in very many sources: indeed I can't recall any instance of it outside the ones cited. I think it may be a candidate for removal to a page about the series. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It's already in Special:PermaLink/1064944392#Social_impact with greater detail. The narrative seems to be "a few librarians said this, but there's no evidence for it". Not worth debunking if the theory isn't widely held—and I agree, I haven't seen it elsewhere. So I cut it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Mendelian inheritance

While I confess I enjoy the anlaysis of genetic inheritance in Harry Potter, I've removed it as being too much detail in this article. I've copied the text here, so it may be places elsewhere as necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC) "Magical powers in the Harry Potter universe are passed through genetic inheritance, although the mechanism is not clear. A 2005 article in Nature suggested that magical aptitude is a recessive trait inherited on the classic Mendelian model."

References

Vanamonde (Talk) 20:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

While I'm generally staying out of the literary analysis sections, I agree with that removal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

To do: Resolved

• (Continued at #Reversion in literary analysis section SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC) )
  Are Farah Mendlesohn's views overweighted in Literary analysis? I don't recall seeing the "lost prince" idea elsewhere in the scholarship. Also, I don't really know what the literary tradition of the lost prince amounts to and a search for lost prince motif isn't that illuminating. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I'm glad you raised it AleatoryPonderings. I meant to put back this version but haven't been feeling well and wanted to wait until I feel better. Since it's being raised before I feel better I'll post my thoughts now and then bail out: in my view it's difficult to meld two versions of text; sometimes it works sometimes it's best to start fresh. In this case I think it's best to start fresh with the version you wrote. Currently there's a quite a bit of criticism in the reception section, which technically shouldn't be a critical analysis section, that I think should be moved to themes or whatever it gets called, i.e the section to do with women and race. Usually the lit crit sections also addresses an author's style; I'd added a teensy bit re Rowling's descriptive characterizations that was taken out, but probably Bloom's analysis could go to literary analysis, whatever we call it, and there are other sources who mention pedestrian writing and so on. On the small point of "lost prince" that goes to the Arthurian legends; it's a fantasy motif that's not uncommon, but I honestly don't care either way. Since the section has been edited since I last dropped in a version and then thought I'd revert, I don't really know what to do now. I think I'll go ahead and revert to the original. Going forward, I have to bail out of this project. I'll keep it on watch and might chime in with opinions, but it's more work than I'm able to take on. Victoria (tk) 19:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think it's necessary to revert back to my original version. Your changes were helpful and made the flow better. I agree that a bit on her prose style would be good. (I've been rereading Order of the Phoenix concurrently with this and I've been struck by the overuse of adverbs in places where every style guide would recommend against them.) Really sorry you're unable to continue—your input and edits have been extremely valuable. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  (Posted after the section was reverted to Jan 4): The current version has a cite error (Mendlesohn is cited but not in the source list); it also replicates parts of Influences, Reception and Legacy in "Literary work". It may be easier to start with the revision from earlier today even if we want to restructure, which I don't object to. (I also liked the Its overarching theme is death sentence.) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  We have two sections named Legacy now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  As an interim solution, we can simply delete the level-4 sections titled "Influences" and "Legacy". My view remains that Victoria's edits were an improvement and it would be a shame to revert all the way. We can always reintegrate material from prior versions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I have not followed the development of that material and cannot opine :( :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  More issues: all the chapter citation fixes have been rolled back. I agree with AleatoryPonderings that Victoria's (and others') edits were an improvement over what we have now. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I can refix as needed, no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Could someone please sort this HarvRef error? Who is Bell? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Strike, resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Bell 2012, pp. 1–8. Harv error: link from CITEREFBell2012 doesn't point to any citation.

  It's a reference to Berents, Helen (2012). "Hermione Granger Goes to War". In Bell, Christopher (ed.). Hermione Granger Saves the World: Essays on the Feminist Heroine of Hogwarts. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. ISBN 978-0-7864-7137-9. The problem there is that the cited chapter—"Hermione Granger Goes to War"—begins at p 142 (see [2]). BilledMammal, I think you added this—can you resolve? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  No, that's my fault. I'll fix it shortly. BilledMammal did add the source, but I reworked their additions, and intended to cite both Bell's introduction to the volume and Berents' chapter. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• HarvRef error: Oppermann, Eva (2018). "The Heterotopian Qualities of the Fantasy Worlds in J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter Books and Cassandra Clare's The Mortal Instruments". Journal of the Fantastic in the Arts. 29 (3): 402–421. ISSN 0897-0521. JSTOR 26728148. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFOppermann2018. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  I removed that as I got rid of the reference to Oppermann above in a trim of Literary analysis. Her view seemed to be a minority one. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Sfn error for Clark 2003 in this passage: The wizarding world is populated with legendary creatures and characterized by motifs drawn from British history; it also features the use of magic instead of technology.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Abravanel|first=Genevieve|title=Americanizing Britain: The Rise of Modernism in the Age of the Entertainment Empire|publisher=[[Oxford University Press]]|year=2012|isbn=978-0-19-975445-8|location=New York|pages=[[iarchive:americanizingbri0000abra/page/161/mode/1up|161–163]]|oclc=747530801}}</ref>{{Sfn|Clark|2003|pp=165–166}} I can't find Clark in the history—anyone know where this came from? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  Fixed. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Trimming

We are still working, and at 9,547 words.

In looking for places to trim,[3] I cut one book dedication, as we haven't mentioned others. This list can all be verified to Errington; does this content belong anywhere in this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

After chopping Philanthropy,[4] this version is at 9,443 words. I can't see any way to further cut Politics or Awards and honours. We should be able to bring the prose size under 9,300 when we trim Transgender people to summary style, and under 9,000 by tightening the first four sections of Early life and career. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Where do we stand on the literary analysis sections size-wise? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

PS, when looking at WP:SIZE, Section sizes in bytes as generated by Template:Section sizes is not of readable prose, rather is also chunked up by citations. What contributes to making an article hard to read, and harder to maintain, is words of readable prose, which doesn't include tables, doesn't include citations, and doesn't include footnotes, which readers can easily skim over. I always aim to stay under 9,000 words of readable prose for both readability and maintainability, but other editors disagree on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping that template would help with relative section sizes. Re. literary analysis, I'm planning to add to it and then condense a bit; and Vanamonde was planning to work on social division in Reception. Once all the material is in, I think copyedits/tightening of all the literary sections would be the next step. If I had to guess, I'd say we'll end up around the same word count as now (for those sections combined). Perhaps that can be a target. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! So more work to be done, and more tightening as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• AleatoryPonderings if the mention that the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry was a subconscious tribute to where her parents were married is insignificant, shouldn't we also be removing the name of the church ?
• In that same diff, I am uncertain about "the navy" as opposed to "naval life" as relates to upper/lower case, proper nouns, she was a WREN, and all that ... not sure, hence, I hedged.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the name of the church should go too. What did you mean about (N/n)avy? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what I mean :) I don't know if we should be using lowercase navy when she was a WREN (Women's Royal Naval Service) and he was British Royal Navy (Kirk, p. 10). Did they leave the navy, the Navy, or naval life? @Ian Rose and Nick-D: re "As their relationship developed, they decided to leave the navy and seek a country home to raise the baby they were expecting." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Ooh I didn't realize there could be a content difference. I read "naval life" as if it were some sort of Horatio Hornblower type gung-ho let's all get aboard the ship type thing, not as a compromise between two things that may not all be the (n/N)avy proper. I defer to experts. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: no answer from Ian or Nick; are you able to help on the navy query above ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping SG, and I hate to be a trimming party-pooper, but the "naval posting" bit is completely without context. There is no mention that either of her parents were in the navy prior to this point in the article. Surely there is space to at least mention that they were serving in the RAN and WRNS respectively at the time they met? But with regards to the original point, the usual term in Commonwealth countries would be "navy life" (like "army life") which is a general reference to being constantly posted between and living on naval stations with long periods at sea, which obvious affects both naval personnel and their non-serving spouses and children. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Peacemaker67. I suspect my ping to Ian and Nick failed, as it’s not like them to not respond, but no need to re-ping them now. For context, earlier in that section, we say, “They met when they were both 18, sharing a compartment on a train from King's Cross Station, London, to a naval posting at Arbroath, Scotland.” Do you still think we should add their actual branches? It wouldn’t take that much extra in terms of our trimming concerns, but I am unsure if the detail is warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That's what I mean, at that point, the reader is not even aware they were in the navy. Why not a sentence before that explaining that they joined the RAN and WRNS respectively? Assuming the sources provide confirmation of that? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks PM; going in to do that (I do have the sources). Thanks again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Unclear why the Adult fiction section is larger than either Harry Potter section or Harry Potter films section, but it strikes me that some of the plot descriptions could be trimmed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Not what I was pinged here for, but I agree that the plot descriptions could be trimmed, some of the detail belongs in the book articles. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I have trimmed it to bring it more in line with other sections (now at 309 words). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Sentence or title case in citations

This issue (which I typically address towards the end of a FAR) came up at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by J. K. Rowling/archive1, and Olivaw-Daneel switched all citations to title case for consistency.

My practice is to use title case on books, and sentence case on everything else (web sources, news and journals) as that seems to be what most of them do. It doesn't matter which we choose, but we need a consistent citation style. I am happy to make all the adjustments, but we need consensus (similar to #Dashes) on this. At this point, it appears to me that most of our non-book sources use sentence case, so switching the others to sentence case would be fastest, but I am happy to implement whichever case has the most support here. Please opine whether you prefer:

a) use uppercase on all citation titles,

b) use title case as required on books, but sentence case on other sources

c) something else I may be unaware of

and I'll do the converts bit by bit. WIAFA 2c requires a consistent style, but doesn't care which we choose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Option b since it seems the easiest overall. But is it really necessary to do this at all? Speaking as a FA newcomer, I assumed "consistent citation style" meant like "using CS1 or not", not minutiae like the case of a title, and I wouldn't want people spending precious minutes changing the capitalization of every NYT article (whose house style is title case) just for the sake of consistency. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, it actually is necessary, and would be enforced if this article went to FAC, although this is less consistently enforced at FAR. Since it was raised at FLC, we might as well deal with it. And I don't mind doing it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong opinion, but a question: if we go with option b, how would this be titled? "Person of the Year 2007: Runners-Up: J.K. Rowling". Would year be in lowercase, or would we change to "'Person of the Year' 2007: Runners-up: J. K. Rowling"? Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  I would guess the second. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  Should book chapters inside sfn be in sentence case? (I just cited a bunch in title case and was wondering if I should switch.) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  MOS calls for title case on books and major works. We have opted for a citation style that uses sentence case on everything else, which includes chapters (which are also in quote marks).

  But we have another problem; our short notes are no longer consistent. Some of the Heilman short notes include chapters, others don't. Some of Berndt & Steveker short notes use chapters, others don't, eg, Berndt & Steveker 2016, p. 55.

  Also, when we are all done, we may want to re-consider breaking out the chapters into separate sources on some of these, rather than using loc= , because our short notes are now getting more out of control than our References would be if we broke them out separately. If you look at the Kosaka citations at Dementia with Lewy bodies#References (DLB), which was my original recommendation for using loc = , we are a long ways away from that and our short notes are becoming unpleasant, between all the chapter breakouts and the reliance on websources. A sample short note at DLB is short:

  Kosaka 2017, Asada T, Chapter 2, pp. 11–12.

  where here we are taking up so much real estate (both in terms of editing around them and how long the notes are) that we may as well break them out:

  Heilman 2008, "Controversial Content: Is Harry Potter Harmful to Children?" by Deborah J. Taub and Heather L. Servaty-Seib, ch. 1, pp. 23–27.

  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with breaking them out; these are also unpleasant to use when you want to cite a source two or more times. I wonder if there's a way (in the references list) to list all the chapters underneath the book they're from. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  OK, if others agree, I'll go in and do that work (you all keep being creative, I can deal with the tedious stuff). Vanamonde93 we are back to proposing breaking out the chapters on books that have separate authors for chapters, but some of the short notes are missing chapter info. Let me know if you all are in agreement, and I'll do the busy work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  Also, Vanamonde93, do you have an article with a preferred format where you have broken out multiple chapters from the same book using sfns? If not, I have an idea for how to do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  No strong opinions; I'm fine with any consistent format. I have previously used "cite encyclopedia", which allows separate fields for title of piece, title of volume, and editor names, which is really all we need. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  Got it ... I'm going to experiment a bit in sandbox first, to see if I can find a way to list the chapters under the book as Olivaw-Daneel suggests, and then I'll get on it (by today). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Breaking out chapters

@Vanamonde93, Olivaw-Daneel, Victoriaearle, and AleatoryPonderings: apologies for pinging all of you, but I want to get going on this so you can stop editing around long citations. Vanamonde's trick of using cite encyclopedia does the job; in fact, the documentation at Template:Cite encyclopedia says it is to be used for this purpose. We can list them all alphabetically under the book by adding a ref=none to the book. Have a look at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox6#Breaking out chapters and speak now or forever hold your peace, as I'm ready to do the work. (Once I start you may want to hold off on editing for a bit, to avoid edit conflicts.) While I'm doing it, can you all look through the citations for inconsistencies mentioned above? That is, some of the citations are missing chapter info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Are these the same?

• Natov, Roni (2001). "Harry Potter and the extraordinariness of the ordinary". The Lion and the Unicorn. 25 (2): 310–327. doi:10.1353/uni.2001.0024. ISSN 1080-6563. S2CID 144758150. Project MUSE 35514.
• Whited 2002, "Harry Potter and the Extraordinariness of the Ordinary" by Roni Natov, ch. 3, pp. 134–36.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the essay was originally published in Lion and Unicorn and then reprinted in Whited's collection. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

So can we ditch the loc= to Whited, and stick with Natov? If so, we would need to adjust the page nos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I cited the second form because I don't have access to Project Muse. Whited 2002 is available for free on archive.org, so if they're merged, the book might be better for verifiability. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Got it, but I am to eliminate Natov, then I need page nos on that citation from Whited. Does my sandbox format give you what you wanted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! I believe Natov p. 315 (in the journal) = Whited p. 129. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, will do when I get to it. I am sensitive to the fact that these long "short" notes are slowing down editing, and anxious to get moving on this, but don't want to do so until y'all give me the green light. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The chapters are now all commented out in Works cited, and I'm ready to start converting.[5] So far, Anatol is only citing one chapter, so unless someone is going to continue using it, we can go direct to that chapter. Same for James & Mendelsohn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Good grief. When I was converting James/Mendelsohn to Butler I encountered this via ctrl-f: and the feminist gender theorist Judith Butler.[387][388][389][390][391][392] There's a tipoff to a problem. This diff shows where we'll end up if I continue converting the chapters; more bulk at the bottom of the article, but shorter "short" notes and less to edit around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Going in: we haven't heard from Victoria, but Vanamonde is OK with this, so am I, and neither AP nor O-D opposed when they commented, so give me about an hour to do the switch over. I am also going to strip out the duplicate DOI and ISBNs, as they will be in the main book citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I hadn't seen this when I edited; will hold off until you're done. Thanks for making the switch! Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks for doing this work. Victoria (tk) 20:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Still working, but diff to check so far; when the Intro is by the same author, we don't need a separate chapter-- the sfn can go directly to the book. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Please check this one[6] and my change to the edit conflict Anatol ... 2003, Intro, direct to the book? Still working, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Full diff of all changes, please check carefully! [7] There are still several citations that did not identify the chapter before I started, so all should be reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Move all books to works cited ?

If you all are happy with how that looks, and don't think the bottom of the article is too chunked up, I'd be happy to move all of the book citations to sfns (as of now, any book that has only one citation is still inline, chunking up the edit mode for copyediting). Please let me know, happy to do the work, but ya gotta give me an answer! I don't want to move web citations cuz that just makes a ton of duplication, since they don't need page nos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've meant to raise the issue. It's best to have books as sfns citations. Victoria (tk) 21:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree, this is a good idea. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I started moving them (hidden inline) and there are only nine, so may not help much, but won't hurt either! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me. My rule of thumb when adding inline book refs was whether the book was likely to be cited more than once, but of course that was just a conjecture which could turn out to be false. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

All done, diff for checking. That's a full day for me ... have at it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Victoriaearle why are we going back to cite book in line? (Maybe you are pulling old content from sandbox or something?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

We are back to five Harvref errors; let me know if I should fix them again, but if text is still being pulled from a sandbox, it won't help for me to fix these. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I think I got them all, but don't have the harvref script installed. Finished pulling from sandboxes. Victoria (tk) 00:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The only straggler seemed to have been Bettig, which I deleted, pls check? No more sandbox? I don't mind continuing to repair, but give me a heads up! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see that one (because I'd removed it). No I need to stop for tonight. Because it's hard to keep synced I'll pull the most recent version when I get back to it, and work on it immediately. Also, I'm expecting there will be further edits now that copy/paste is in mainspace, so things might still get shuffled around. Victoria (tk) 00:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Citation overkill

Taking a look at Victoria’s concern about overciting, while cleaning out the cruft, I noticed this passage as a sample:

• Casual Vacancy combines comedy with tragedy. Little, Brown promoted the novel as a black comedy, while the critic Ian Parker described it as a "rural comedy of manners".[27][205] The novel is a contemporary take on 19th-century British fiction about village life, such as Austen's novels and George Eliot's Middlemarch.[27][206] Reviews were mixed.[200]

  If Little, Brown did x, and Ian Parker said Y, why aren’t the citations attached to the piece they are citing Does 27 cite Little, Brown, and 205 cite Ian Parker? Same question for citations 27 and 206 in the next sentence. There seem to be many places where the double or triple citation isn’t needed, but it’s hard to tell which can be dropped, because what is citing what?

  Fixed this myself. Since Parker sources "rural comedy of errors", presumably Pugh sources Little, Brown, but I don't have those pages of Pugh, so the person who added that should check. [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Similar here:

• Harry Potter and the Cursed Child premiered in the West End in May 2016 and on Broadway in July.[225][226]

  Presumably 225 cites one piece and 226 the other (West End, Broadway); if they both cite the whole thing, we don’t need both.

  Fixed; pls check. [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Here’s another example of double citation I don’t understand:

• After the revelation, sales of Cuckoo's Calling quadrupled.[210][213]

  The first is paywalled, and the second does not verify quadrupled. Victoria is on to something about the density of citations here.

  Recast the whole thing myself, along with lots of trimming, now resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Does this need double citation?

• Rowling wrote the screenplay, which was released as a book.[171][172]

A solid second look may be in order; the citation density makes reading, and editing, hard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll keep double citations in mind when doing line edits from here on out. Some of the examples above are artifacts of copy-editing where I or someone else have removed portions of a sentence and didn't want to get rid of the citations at the end if they could still be useful. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyediting and moving pieces around will be easier if we make sure citations are attached to the text they're citing, particularly when sources are not freely accessible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Small points

• Br Eng check done to graduation - just these. Also:
• "...Wyedean School and College, a state school which she began attending at age eleven[56] and where she confronted bullying" - "was bullied" or "stood up to to bullies" - not clear as is.
• "Biographers attribute her rejection to privilege, as she had attended a state school and not an independent sixth-form college" - Odd "sixth-form colleges" are almost invariably state-run, so not "independent" in English terms. "attended a state school rather than a private one" perhaps? Perhaps an unlikely excuse by 1980 anyway, though often heard (in general).
• More later. Johnbod (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod; got those, but somehow your comment ended up in the archive/Archive, so I’ll have to move it back to the FAR talk. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Moved out of Archive 2, where Johnbod placed it accidentally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Legal/press daughter privacy

Can this be folded in somewhere, as part of her mistrust of the media?

• Smith pages 261 to 262
• I think (?) this is the actual finding.
• Some media reports: [10] [11]
• Google book

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

If it doesn’t fold easily in to legal or press, it could fit in the re-marriage section, just before they bought the home for more privacy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Added: [12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Alkestrand

Is this going to be used? It's returning a HarvRef error now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Alkestrand, Malin (2020). "Harry Potter and the curse of aetonormativity: age-related cognitive scripts and a disruption of 'the Harry Potter literary schema' in Harry Potter and the Cursed Child". Children's Literature Association Quarterly. 45 (1): 43–58. doi:10.1353/chq.2020.0003. ISSN 1553-1201. S2CID 213962904. Project MUSE 749930. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFAlkestrand2020.

  I think I used it in one version of the Cursed Child section but it got weeded out. Will remove from Works cited for the moment. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Relationship with father

Some text I originally added has gone missing and we are leaving an incorrect impression now. We have:

• Amid "rumours of a rift", biographer Smith raises the question of why Rowling chose to stay with her sister rather than her father.[112] Smith writes that Pete had married his secretary within two years of Anne's death,[113] and The Scotsman reported in 2003 that "[t]he speed of his decision to move in with his secretary ... distressed both sisters and a fault-line now separated them and their father."[22] In 2012, Rowling told Parker, "We've not had any communication for about nine years."

Which leaves the clear impression that the issue with her father was only his re-marriage, which is not an accurate reflection of the sources. The sentences that were between [22] and In 2012 are:

• Pugh quotes Rowling as telling Oprah Winfrey that "It wasn't a good relationship from my point of view for a very long time but I had a need to please and I kept that going for a long time and then there ... just came a point at which I had to pull up and say I can't do this anymore."

References

She also told Parker that it had to do with her father auctioning a signed copy of an original book she gave him. We should not leave the wrong impression here; there was more going on than her father's re-marriage, she had a troubled relationship with her father, and she chose to live in poverty rather than move in with him. Could someone add something back, even if it needs pruning? We are now over-emphasizing only one piece of a larger issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't remember reading that, but I was out for quite a few days. Doing a search for one of the days I was gone, it's here in the Jan. 18 version the article. Presumably it can be retrieved and reinserted? Victoria (tk) 22:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I don't want to just re-insert it myself; if someone else thought it irrelevant, that means I didn't do a good job on the writing and explaining (no surprise there :), so I'm hoping someone else can better convey what needs to be said there, using the sources I indicated. The bottom line is her relationship with her father was long troubled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree with what you're saying. I also think that we shouldn't use "rumours of a rift" without context. It was a rumor in 2003 because Rowling had never spoken of it. That changed after 2010 (per Pugh and New Yorker), so Smith is outdated for this piece of information. I'll try to think of how to phrase it. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, O-D ! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. I didn't add the auction; the New Yorker piece seems to say that they had already stopped speaking prior to that incident (unless I'm misreading it). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, O-D; much better ... I made one small tweak. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Next, I changed the flow of the subsequent paragraph to lead better into her period of poverty; please fix as needed. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Muggles need fixing

Not sure, but I think Vanamonde93 wrote most of this? See inline comment. Don't want to mess with this myself, as I haven't read books and don't know what a muggle is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I think that was our good robot. I agree it should be defined when used, I think we could simply substitute "ordinary people", or "non-magical people". Vanamonde (Talk) 15:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Muggles do not need fixing, we are perfectly normal, thank you very much. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Reversion in literary analysis section

Victoriaearle recently restored the text with which I began the section that is now titled Literary work. (VE: I apologize for pinging you after you indicated that you were no longer able to participate in this FAR, but I wanted to keep you updated on discussion that concerns you.) Somewhat ironically, I object to the restoration of the content that I originally contributed, and so has Olivaw-Daneel. Neither version is perfect and there is, of course, always room for improvement. However, given the issues that OD and I have raised, I propose to restore the version current as of Special:PermaLink/1066698860. We can always refactor as appropriate, taking material from older versions. But as, in my view, Special:PermaLink/1066698860#Literary_analysis has technical, stylistic, and substantive advantages over Special:PermaLink/1066733449#Literary_work, we should restore the former. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not a literary type, cannot offer a strong opinion, and defer to the rest of you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Let me reiterate what I wrote earlier using different words. First, it's difficult to meld two versions and the version I dropped in is choppy, which we want to avoid. So regardless it needs another full rewrite. Second, quite a lot of literary criticism went into the reception section while I was reworking the other section. Technically reception is reception - we should discuss the huge print runs of many millions of copies, the crowds waiting at stores until midnight and standing in hours-long lines to get the books - quite a bit has been written about this and in my view it goes to reception. Criticism goes to the criticism section. I'd suggest leaving what I reverted to, moving all the criticism paragraphs out of reception to the current criticism and then start another rewrite. I'll come back in a moment with a link to my sandbox so you have the most recent version I finished (but that's already been re-edited) if pieces from that are used to. It's okay to do a restart. I've done this before and it's always resulted in a better product. It's actually easier to do this type of rewrite from scratch. Victoria (tk) 23:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

A more general question: this sounds like reception would be purely commercial – don't such sections usually discuss Critical reception as well? I'm coming at this from the point of view of the Ursula K. Le Guin article, whose Reception is mostly commentary from critics (the literary analysis there is titled Themes (and Style), which I guess better differentiates things). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Section is here. Also, it might be useful to check other literary biographies for a section title. I noticed that I called it "Themes and analysis" in the Brothers Grimm, which is one idea. But we have lots of FA biographies about writers, some have themes, some don't. I believe firmly what we have to discuss the product that makes the subject notable, and there's so much criticism/analyis about Rowling available that we need a section discussing it, where all the criticism/analyis is bundled together and then we have tell our readers clearly what the section is about. Victoria (tk) 23:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

For now, I've removed the Legacy and Influences sections in the current version, which are duplicated elsewhere. In my ideal world, the combination of Themes (or whatever we end up calling it), Influences, and Legacy should cover, in no particular order:

1. Themes such as death and love
2. The Christian allegory/psychomachia bit, which was well developed in Special:PermaLink/1066698860
3. The books' massive commercial success
4. Depictions of race and gender
5. The difference between the wizarding and Muggle worlds—closely connected to the "ordinary/extraordinary" divide—which I had some additional content for and then removed in Special:Diff/1065754989
6. Literary influences including Austen and Lewis
7. Maybe something about HP characters, although I'm ambivalent about that
8. A little bit each about Cormoran Strike and Casual Vacancy
9. The paragraph, now in Reception, that combined criticisms from Harold Bloom and others that HP is too simplistic
10. Something about her writing style

Between the various versions, the only thing I think is not covered is a description of her writing style. I would propose:

• Restoring the section about Christian allegory
• Restoring the section about death
• Adding a section about her prose style (if sources can be found about it)

I don't think it's reasonable to meld everything into one section. Over the past few weeks, through ordinary editing, the content naturally divided itself into Themes (or Literary analysis, or whatever), Reception, and Legacy. I think that's a fine division. What we should aim for, IMO, is to cover the aspects of her work that are described in the scholarship, which—based on the progress we've made in the last couple weeks—seems to consist of the items I've listed above. How they are organized is a matter of accessibility to the reader and the flow of logic or prose. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Well, rather a lot seems to have happened since I last looked in here, and unfortunately I've been under the weather again, so I can't dive in today. Perhaps over the weekend. A few thoughts, in no particular order.
  Victoriaearle, I'm sorry to hear you don't feel able to continue with this. I tend to work in bursts of activity (there's a reason there's a wikidragon on my userpage), but if what you need to continue here is some time with nobody else mucking around, I'm happy to give you that. If your decision is final, I will respect that, but you will be missed.
  I'm not wedded to a particular structure. I like the structure at Ursula K. Le Guin, but I wrote all of that, so obviously I'm a little biased. I think there's plenty of other structures we can make work, and also we should choose divisions based on the source material. There's considerably more coverage of the commercial success of Rowling's work than for most other prominent authors, I think, simply because she's contemporary and has sold phenomenally well.
  I do think there's value to separating material about style from material about themes, archetypes, etc, from material about what critics think Rowling did badly or well, from material about the impacts her work had. This can be done via sections, sub-sections, paragraphs, or a very well-written single section. I disagree with VE in that I don't think scholarly views about good/bad writing should be separated from popular reception.
  I agree entirely with VE that a rewrite of the analysis section is needed. I don't particularly care which version we start from. I also meant to work on the reception paragraph about race; I think there's considerably more material there that should be considered, though I don't mean to lengthen it much. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde93, unfortunately I'm under the weather again and don't know when I'll surface again. If and when I have more energy I'll happily be back. In the meantime, because the analysis section isn't coming together well I decided to punt it back for someone else to try. Like you, I don't care which version is the starting point; it did seem to me that it might be easier to go back to the original starting point, but I could be wrong. Re reception sections, the biography FAs I've worked don't have them, whether artist or author, whereas individual works do. That's not to say what this article should or should not have, but it seemed there might be better path towards writing a less choppy analysis if most of the analysis is combined. Again, I could be wrong. It's hard to think well when under the weather so it's best to step away. Victoria (tk) 14:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Victoria’s statement re Analysis that “biography FAs I’ve worked don’t have them, whether artist or author, whereas individual works do” has concerned me since 5 Jan as to how much belongs here and how much belongs in sub-articles. I believe Johnbod indicated similar when he read the first version (that it didn’t need an analysis section), but I could have misinterpreted, and Barkeep49 was in support (along with VM) of having analysis here (so I am pinging BK here since this discussion has restarted). Like others, I agree it matters not what the starting point is for the new rewrite, but I bring that point forward in case it can be helpful in the decision. I think the only other editor who worked in the analysis, but isn’t already aware of the revert, is BilledMammal (but I could have that wrong, too). Can any of the reverted bits be re-added to different sub-articles for now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if it's super responsive to your concern, but I would note that in the present version we already have three well-developed sections that deal with her literary work in some respect: Influences, Reception, and Legacy (none of which were affected by the recent reversion). A quick fix would be simply to retain the first paragraph now under Themes (beginning "Harry Potter has been understood as a fairy tale"), drop that in Reception, and delete everything else or move it to Harry Potter or somewhere. That would leave us with, by my count, 14 substantial, well written grafs about the reception and impact of her work. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, just to clarify, I wrote "Re reception sections, the biography FAs I've worked don't have them, whether artist or author, whereas individual works do", (reception emphasized). We should have an analysis section, but it might have been the presence of the other sections that threw me off, beyond the other difficulties I ran into - trying to flesh out the foundation already there, but needing to stay concise. Basically I failed miserably and it's best restart the discussion and decide which section to use to highlight analysis. I think that's a good way forward.Victoria (tk) 17:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC) P.s adding an example: Vincent Van Gogh has "Style" where we put the analysis but no reception. Victoria (tk) 18:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec) I know more about artist's bios, and plenty of them do have them, but I think they become more important for older figures, where the reputation has often undergone great changes, sometimes including spectacular backflips and so on. Somewhat the same for critical analysis. I don't myself think there's a vast amount to say about JKR's actual writing style, but clearly there is quite a lot to say about the fictional world she conjures up, although I'm dubious about over-specific schemes, like some mentioned above. Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I (again) defer to all of you on all of this, and am not particularly concerned which way you all decide to go. (I’m more concerned that we don’t just lose track of any of the good bits that have been written.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Oops, another PS, as bits that do affect the early life portions I am writing. I have now read most of Kirk, and am still/again finding what I found in Smith (they tie so much of her early life to her later writing, mentioning aspects of her life reflected in the books). I have, so far, handled this in the early life inconsistently (sometimes footnotes, sometimes in the text, and often leaving out bits that could be significant). I’m not sure how to reconcile this, although it can be addressed later in the process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful to discuss in the abstract whether we do, or do not, have a reception/literary analysis/whatever section. What I see in the article as it stands is content that indicates how HP has been interpreted and what its cultural impact has been (and, to a much more limited extent, similar content about her other novels). HP is what makes Rowling notable, ergo we ought to explain what HP is, how it's been understood, and how it has changed our culture. As I understand the original comments at FAR, that was what reviewers were asking for: a strong summary of the impact of Rowling's literary work. Such a summary should include a brief description of HP's plot and themes, major currents in how it's been interpreted, and whether critics and the reading public thought it was good or bad. I think we have that material already, either in this version of the article or previous versions.

SG: I think the bio bits can proceed more or less independently for now. If you've included material (like the "food" stuff, as I recall) that touches on her literary work, we can think about whether it's worth working that into analysis/reception/etc on a case-by-case basis. I don't think it's necessary to hold off on either bio or [whatever we call literary analysis] on the off chance that some pieces in one section might work better in the other one. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Great, we are on the same page, and the details on the early life bits can be worked out later. For now, I add, knowing pieces may later be chopped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I really wish I was able to give this all the attention I would like, but I definitely support the plan Victoria lays out in terms of providing appropriate coverage in this article, with further detail in other Rowling related articles. Namely I don't think we need a reception section here, per se, but some of the current content may be appropriate to include in the sections which remain. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• A sandbox attempt here at grouping some of the themes/archetypes; just some food for thought. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think this is an improvement over the previous two versions of Literary analysis and would endorse adding it to mainspace where we can fiddle with it by ordinary editing. I would exclude the section on heroism and the bit from Kakutani. I agree with moving "Gender and social division" to Literary analysis and out of Reception.

  I have also been thinking of moving the brief grafs we have about Cormoran Strike and Casual Vacancy to where those are first mentioned in the text, since they either haven't been around long enough or haven't been as interesting to critics to generate substantial commentary on their themes that isn't just part of a book review. Not wedded to that approach though. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah those cuts are fine with me; the heroism part (as written) relies too much on a single critic. And I agree that Cormorant Strike doesn't need a separate section in Literary analysis; sectioning by themes rather than the work seems more natural. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  I do agree that Cormoran Strike doesn't need a separate section, and grouping by topic is cleaner. I'm less certain about moving the gender and social division part. In this schema, I assume religious reactions and influence stay where they are at the moment? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think gender could go in either section. It's just social division that seems more like a theme to me, and since those two were together I moved them. I'm open to a different structure.

  And yes, I think book banning/religious reactions fits better in reception. (I'll remove mentions of witchcraft from the allusions graf). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  I do agree about social division as currently written, I'm not sure what the best location will be once it's done: I mentioned below that that's the paragraph I mean to work on next. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, I've left those parts untouched and implemented the other changes discussed above. Since there's only one set of themes at this point, I changed "Love and death" to "Themes". Perhaps there's a better title. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Now I need to write "Love and Death in Harry Potter: The Pensieve, Psychoanalysis, and the Role of Memory in JK Rowling's Epic". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Initial notes on some themes here. Planning to get to a few more sources; if any of the topics get bigger (support from 3-4 sources); they could get a graf in Analysis. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Propose archiving this section (some discussion broken-off below). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Z1720's comments

RE comments from User:Z1720.

Scottish Arts Council

• On the grants from the Scottish Arts Council, I think we can do better. Smith, p. 176, she got the first grant when the first book was not yet published, but she had the contract for it to be published. Being a published author was a requirement for the grant, and they fudged it for her, as she had a contract; she explained to the Council that she intended to write seven books, but had childcare costs, and was awarded the first grant (8,000 pounds, $12,000). Kirk, p. 62, the grant allowed her to keep writing the other books, and also mentioned that she got it before the first book was published, although she already had the contract. Kirk, pp. 76–77, used part of money to buy a word processor (she had been typing the manuscripts on a manual typewriter). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  The source now cited, Eccleshare, has a different number. I cannot read the second source, even via ProQuest. From my reading, I do not know where two grants comes from. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, I've looked through a few sources and found 4(!) possible grants.

  • 1994 – grant from the Scottish Arts Council per Shapiro p. 71.
  • Unspecified time before 1995 – grant of £8,000 per Nel p. 21.
  • 1996 – grant of £4,000 in Eccleshare p. 7.
  • 1996 Unspecified time in 1996 or 1997 – writer's grant of $12,000 (£8,000) in Kirk pp. 62, 76; Smith p. 176; Anelli p. 56.
  • 1997 – artist's grant of $13,000 per Kirk p. 119. A different amount (£8,000) per McDougal.

  I'm not sure how to resolve this. Should we keep 1996 but discard the rest? Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for doing that, O-D.

  On Shapiro, reading just that one page gives a pretty good indication of why we're not using that children's book. (Back to query to Ealdgyth on sources.) It is such a cursory treatment as to be unusable, and has 1994 (the year of the Dementors, the depression, Arantes coming looking for them, the depressing flat) as a turning point, and has her teaching before she got her certificate. That chronology is superficial and can't be trusted. The timeline doesn't work.

  Nel's treatment is also superficial. That's two strikes, and I think we should be looking at removing Nel entirely from the article. While Smith went out and did his homework and got it right on the birthplace (which Rowling now acknowledges as Yate, with Smith being the only one to get it right, see our footnote 1), we are wasting space in the article on Nel getting it wrong. And now in this case, Nel is contrary to Kirk, Smith and Anelli (considering Anelli's relationship to Rowling, I think we can trust 'em on the amount). Concerning ... Nel has Rowling denying herself food so Jessica can eat. From my read of every other source, that is just sensationalist BS.

  That Kirk, Smith and Anelli (well known to Rowling) agree on timing and amount, with more serious research and chronology than is found in Nel or Shapiro or Eccleshare, is good enough for me. What is significant is that you had to be a published author to get the grant, and she wasn't yet published, but had the contract, so they fudged it for her. That sets the timing (even if we don't need to include all of that in the article).

  Eccleshare's treatment is even more superficial than Nel's. All of these books were published about the same time, but Smith did his research.

  I think we only need to clarify that she got the grant while under contract, before publication, and that allowed her to secure childcare to keep writing (she already had the seven planned).

  But. This raises the question of why Nel and Eccleshare are being used in reception when they are 20 years old and we have newer sources on reception. We are forced to use the old bios in early life because that's all we have, but we don't need to be using Nel and Eccleshare on matters like reception, where more recent scholarly literature is available. We aren't using Shapiro. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  O-D how's this? Please fix as needed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  Kirk actually notes in her introduction (p. xii) that Nel has some biographical errors such as the birthdate, but she thinks he is reliable for literary criticism. So I think using Nel/Eccleshare in reception is ok; we're mainly citing their personal opinions as critics. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, OK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

  I've re-read Smith/Kirk and now I think there was only one grant. I corrected the years listed above – the books kind of fudge the exact year. I think Kirk made a mistake in listing $12,000 in one page and $13,000 in another, when she meant the same grant. Made an edit to reflect this. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 06:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  Looks good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

ISBNs

• Should we be including the ISBNs on all books in the Bibliography table? If so, which ISBN does one use, when there are so many editions and versions, or does it not matter? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Re ISBNs: WP:MOS-BIBLIO says to only include the ISBNs if it is helpful, and "ISBNs are unlikely to be helpful for books that either have had or are to have many editions". I think either all of or none of the entries in the Bibliography should have ISBNs in order for the list to be standardised. Z1720 (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks Z; in that case, I would rather remove the others, to lower the visual clutter. Will wait to see if others agree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

  How about this? I just moved the ISBNs on the lesser published books to the footnotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Laird of Killiechassie

Does it actually matter that she has this courtesy title? It reads like monarchy/nobility cruft to me. Also, the Times ref uses scare quotes to refer to her as "laird".

Rowling acquired the courtesy title of laird of Killiechassie in 2001 when she bought Killiechassie House and its estate in Perthshire, Scotland.

References

AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I doubt it; it was in the article when we started, so I left it. If we ditch it, we can also lose a websource which is only there to support it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Removed, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Rita Skeeter

Our wording needs some adjusting to account for this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we delete the Rita Skeeter mention completely; we don't mention the other speculative connections between her real life and the book characters within the text of the article, and this is another she has denied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with removing for the reasons you state. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Done, [13] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)