Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 4

Update 14 January

The progress here has been amazing, but I've now surfaced to take a critical look after spending more than a week reading sources and working in a sandbox. Keeping in mind this is a rewrite to FA quality, at this point I'd suggest a pivot towards the following issues:

1. Sourcing. The sourcing throughout needs evaluation. This is a rewrite to FA standards, which requires high quality sourcing. In my view, there are too many low quality and web sources, many of which can be eliminated. Taking a look at only the first 10 citations (of 400+) shows The Bookseller, Guinness World Records, BBC News, CNBC, MSM, Business Insider, Daily Telegraph, Sunday Times, Time Magazine. I realize these are used in the lead, which we've not redone yet, but it illustrates the problem throughout. Almost all of these can be and should be swapped out. Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC is helpful for evaluating sourcing and verification.

   Agree that some of the news sources are substandard (I have a particular issue with WP:BUSINESSINSIDER, as I ran a RfC on it a while back) but what's the problem with orgs and papers of record such as BBC—which is explicitly stated at Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC as a high quality source—and The Times? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

   I think there's still unnecessary citation density throughout, with multiple citations per sentence in many cases in the sections beyond the bio section. Just my view though. Also, we should standardize short/long cites; sometimes both are present in a sentence or a para. Victoria (tk) 21:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

2. Summary style - this article should be written in summary style throughout. Because there are so many sub-articles, detail can go there. At the moment there's still bloat, excessive wordiness, excessive detail, etc.
3. Reception - suggest following this excellent essay Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections for that section
4. Prose - needs a copyedit throughout.
5. Speed - in my view the work is progressing at too fast a pace, too many discussions in too many places, to the point that's impossible to keep track. If we slow down a bit, read the sources closely, pay attention to prose issues, etc., it will pay off at the end.

I'll start working on pulling substandard sources, and copyediting from top to bottom (I know we're rewriting, but I can ce the newer sections). Victoria (tk) 15:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC) Sorry, won't get to this. Victoria (tk) 21:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Oopsie, I listed my concerns about the speed at which we are proceeding on your talk page before I saw this post.

On 1 sourcing, we are still using children’s books as a source, when we have others. Should we be using The Scotsman at all, when it basically repeats Smith, or should we prefer Smith? I dunno; asking. I do think we can make use of some news sources, because of the absence of an authorized biography, but we seem to be overusing some at this point.

On 2 summary style, I do not understand why so much critical analysis is not being written in the sub-articles, and then summarized back to here. But I am not a literary type, so what do I know. On a medical article, I would write “Management of … “ before trying to summarize back to the overview article. An FA on a figure of this importance will need to use a strict application of SS, and we need to leave room for her life, which is still missing here.

On 3 reception, defer to literary types.

On 4 prose, please please leave final polish, copyedit, MOS ‘til later in the process; think structure, length, summary style, due weight, for now. I have hesitated to begin chunking in my ideas on early life for fear of edit conflicts as my sucky prose inevitably will need copyediting. We can smooth prose last, particularly knowing now that we have several fine writers on board.

On 5 speed, I feel responsible for the early pressure, as I tried to forestall what I viewed as premature delist declarations. But once Nikkimaria indicated we could slow down, that was the path to take. We have moved prematurely to discussion of the most difficult parts of the article (transgender), when we still have much work to do here on the basics. We need to keep the long view here; FAs are not built or restored in a week and we will shoot ourselves in the feet by moving too fast.

Generally, Victoria, I feel like under Life and career, 2.1 and 2.2 are not even written yet, so please don’t start trying to copyedit them. Could we get some feedback on whether people think we should leave sources like The Scotsman, or replace them with either Smith or newer news sources, when they all say the same thing? I have lots of small bits and pieces to add there, which will need smoothing by the rest of you once I do … which sources should we use? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings re the sourcing your question is a good one. Keep in mind that I stopped after the first 10, but could have looked at all 400+. Featured articles use high quality sources, scholarly sources if they exist, which they do. For an article like this web sources should be used sparingly, only if something doesn't exist elsewhere, and even that's a judgment call. Let's take a look at the Cormoran Strike section - btw I've not been following the main space edits because of the speed (which is another issue), so I don't know who wrote it or when. The uses 15 sources, including Sunday Times, New Statesman, London Evening Standard, The New York Times, Daily Telegraph, just to look at the first five. This section can adequately be sourced to this NYT article, this Guardian article, and Pugh, page 116. As an aside, Pugh who has all the space in the world give only a couple of sentences to the issue. My preference would be to outsource much of this to the sub article, and emulate Pugh in our main bio article. Victoria (tk) 16:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia some sections need copyediting now. Going through and copyediting is how I get a sense of what's what. I'll leave the early bio sections, and having spent this much time on won't get to the article until later. Re bio sources, I've not even gotten to them yet! Except for Pugh. Will add that to my mental list. Re critical analysis - there's a devoted section, which honestly can be hacked down more or even pulled down and completely rewritten. That's how I write featured articles, try one thing, let it sit for a bit (in some cases years!), reevaluate, rewrite, rewrite, rewrite. But maybe that's just me. Dunno. Victoria (tk) 16:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, do go ahead and copyedit the early parts if you want (but they are barebones and I question some of the sourcing), because I am a day or two away from rewriting anyway. Once I am ready to put in text, I’ll give you all a heads up, as I know you will want/need to smooth my prose. Pugh also seems to just rework Smith, so even though Smith is old, it seems to be still the benchmark and more thorough than anything else I have yet read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

In the vast majority of cases I agree that book or journal > news. Given the high visibility of this page, though, I do think WP:V (in spirit, if not in letter) suggests that we should not eliminate good news or web sources simply because the material is available in book form. Pugh is a case in point. Unquestionably the best broad-sweep survey of Rowling around, but one needs access to ebrary or JSTOR to get it for free online. For a page that gets roughly 600,000 views a month, doubtless most of which do not come from people with university subscriptions, it seems unfair to insist on using the absolute best source if there are high quality, more accessible alternatives. (Incidentally, although Pugh is Tison Pugh (yes, I stubbed that the other day, but he passes WP:NPROF), it's not as if University of South Carolina Press is the crown jewel of academic publishing—so I would hesitate to say he's clearly better than a thoroughly reported piece in a newspaper of record.) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I am finding most sources are telling the same story, which makes me lean towards more use of those that are freely available to readers. That is why I have left The Scotsman so far (our internet archive links are easily readable, as opposed to getting a subscription to read other sources); I am finding little variance, and in those cases where I do, working it in to footnotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I can only reiterate that if one section is adequately covered in three high quality sources, two of which are available online, then there's no need for fifteen. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria says "representative survey of the relevant literature". Literature is the operative word there, and it's not saying that every section should be stuffed with as many sources as can be found, which is a common misconception. I can also only reiterate that this an FA rewrite. The bar here is different. This is not meant as criticism; if I were reviewing for FAC, it's the first thing I'd mention. In my view, some web sources are fine, but there are too many right now. If this is a sticking point, I'll wait until it gets sorted. Victoria (tk) 17:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I support the general idea of reducing WP:OVERCITE in favour of fewer, better sources. I would only ask that, if/when you or others are pruning sources, you keep the idea of accessibility as well as quality in mind. So not a sticking point unless, say, all of J._K._Rowling#Cormoran_Strike were replaced with a cite or two to Pugh. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

To both, so would this work? As long as we link things like The Scotsman, NYT, The New Yorker as at least one citation, we have provided accessibility for our readers, so maybe then I can switch most of the rest of the citations to first choice Pugh, second choice Smith and so on? (I am going on a fifteen-minute stall on google play loading Smith, so ugh on that … ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I wrote "This section can adequately be sourced to this NYT article, this Guardian article, and Pugh, page 116.". One book; two web sources. But this is only an example. A quick dipstick at the refs shows 14 uses of Daily Telegraph. Maybe we don't need those? It's hard to tell without getting in, copyediting, tightening prose, looking at the sources. It's a process. Victoria (tk) 17:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes to SG's idea, and (as an example, keeping in mind that, as VE says, this is not something that will be determined in the abstract but is rather a judgment call while working through the prose) agree with the suggested approach to CS. The Daily Telegraph is AFAIK also a paper of record (to this American, sort of like the Wall Street Journal to The Guardian's New York Times, though I obviously defer to people from the UK on this), and is green here. So it's high quality, but from an accessibility perspective isn't great because the paywall is unusually strict. All in all, if it can be replaced with something else, I'd probably support that. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Victoriaearle and AleatoryPonderings: I started trying to swap in Pugh for some of the lesser-quality sources, but ... futile. The entire first two sections need to be rewritten. Almost all of the lesser quality sources can be eliminated, and I will do that (following the plan above, to preserve some free full newsy text links for reader accessibility while prioritizing Pugh, then Smith), but it makes no sense to do it piecemeal, as too much needs correction. Today archive.org has some sort of maintenance outage, so I'm making little progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm running into. There's not sense in doing it piecemeal, we just have to hack them out. It's very slow going because everything has to be checked, some sources are old behind paywalls (the BBC has just cut me off, the Wash. Post old articles behind a wall though I have a subscription to the paper), and those are citing stuff from 10 years ago. At this point secondary authors should have published what we need. It's taken forever to fix the teeny tiny "Press" and "Religion" sections and I've only started. Victoria (tk) 21:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

New To do list Per commentary above and on talk, let's start keeping it on talk: Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#To do list SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Update 24 January. Most of the article has been revamped and is in good shape. The pace has slowed to allow for ongoing work in all Literary analysis sections. Work on the Transgender section and the Lead is still pending, with a list for final fine-tuning on talk. There has been no instability since one brief edit war on 5 January.

@Vanamonde93, Victoriaearle, and AleatoryPonderings: If you can review #Update 8 Jan and #Update 14 January above, and transfer anything still useful there to either the To do list on talk, or a new section on talk, we could archive those sections. (Everything I have entered on this page is resolved or struck.) NO Hurry, but let me know when I should archive those sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I've struck or moved every thread I started. (Or, I think I have ...) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia, I'm sorry, I put up a list thinking I'd be able to pitch in to work through. Much of the work is underway so I've struck. When I can get back here and work for a bit I'd like to look through the article again re sourcing and citation density. It's not a big deal but at least from my perspective it's difficult to edit when the text is interspersed with what appears to be more sources (often in long citation form) than necessary. Again that's just my perspective. Victoria (tk) 21:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

There will be time :) I am comfortable with the citation style as is. It consistently uses short form for books and journal articles, and longer for web citations, which keeps the Works cited to only major journal articles and books, rather than duplicating every websource used. (It happens to be the same style I use in articles I write.) With the exception of the sections we haven't yet worked on, I am comfortable with the sourcing. But we should explore other opinions on talk. (Different than a James Joyce or Ernest Hemingway, we can't entirely avoid news and websources for a popular, contemporary author.) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind; have struck. Victoria (tk) 21:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Cursed Child

(Re. Victoria's comment above about queerbaiting) I think we may be giving too much weight to queerbaiting. Pugh talks about it, but he spends even more time talking about the play's other controversies, which are plentiful – heavy use of time travel, character alterations, the play being written like fan fiction, etc. And then there's the black Hermione, discussed in The Dark Fantastic and other places. Do we attempt to summarize all of that into a sentence or two? Or just replace it with a boilerplate sentence like "reception among fans has been mixed"? Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't have all of Pugh (only the first chapter). From what you write above, it does sound like we may be overusing one book devoted to one aspect (queerbaiting) relative to the broader literature. If that can be fixed, my preference would be to add one more summarizing sentence. I strongly dislike the boilerplate "mixed reviews" which says nothing.

More generally, I was looking at why we are using Brummitt & Sellars throughout the Cursed Child, and why any of that text needs doubleciting. I noticed that we say "Reviews were positive overall and the play won several Laurence Olivier Awards in 2017", when the New York Times tells us it won a record-breaking nine categories at the Oliver awards, so we seem to have something off in that section. [1] Record-breaking should not be left out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Award-winning and controversial are not mutually exclusive. (t · c) buidhe 11:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I think this has been fixed. Pugh gives roughly equal weight to the play, Casual Vacancy and Cormoran Strike; so the article does the same. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Secrets of ... April release

Ragnarok861 added Secrets of to the Bibliography with a non-reliable source, a WP:CITEVAR change, and I believe it would belong in Filmography rather than Bibliography. Here is diff of my removal, with the named ref that we would use rather than IMDB, which is not a reliable source. We need to track down the info to add it to Filmography. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking now at how we've set them up, she did write the script, so it does seem to belong in both tables. Citations for completing the Filmography are needed. I can work on adding it correctly to Bibliography when not iPad typing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

And I see the film is already in the Filmography table, but commented out until release. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Sectioning

Moved from Special:PermaLink/1067768211 § To do list

 – AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there a better way to approach Religion, remarriage, and wealth? On their face, religion, remarriage, and wealth have little to do with one another. I'm almost tempted to just create a "Personal life" section, although I generally don't like those. It seems like the only thread that connects these otherwise disparate elements. I personally have no problem with small sections either, so taking religion, (re)marriage, and wealth seriatim wouldn't seem bad to me either. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It’s chronological. With the books came money, then came fame and movies, with fame and money and movies came the religious/witchcraft charges, the need for privacy, the need to deny witchcraft, then she bought a more private house and got married. Maybe just take religion out of the heading. The whole Life and career section is chronological. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It vacillates between chronology and thematic organization elsewhere. Harry Potter and Harry Potter films cover each series from beginning to end, and Pottermore (2011) (in Later Harry Potter publications) predates The Casual Vacancy (2012). Perhaps it would be better to split into two top-level headings, one for Life and another for Career. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It’s a trade-off; that could be done, but will necessitate other adjustments (eg, what is now in the remarriage and wealth section will be missing the context that came before w/Harry Potter section). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I think I'd prefer splitting it into Life and Career, but I'm not wedded to the idea. Interested to see what others think. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

This discussion should probably be in its own section. Where do you define the start of career and the end of being a student (teacher training and period of relative poverty). She was writing for years before her “career” started. How do we split out the details now spread among sections? Have a look at James Joyce— a chronological bio, light on book detail, with works at the end, and works mostly covered in their own sub-articles. I have never been clear on how all of this book analysis would fit in a bio, so I’m at a bit of a loss for what to recommend. As Victoria mentions, the Harry Potter book and film sections should get cleaner sourcing and mention of the significance of the production numbers, and then experimenting with moving pieces around will be easier, once others weigh in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If we can do it, it would be nice for the biography article to focus on biography. One problem is that the biographies only go through 2002/2003. From 2003 until present has to be cobbled together. As it is now, we have her writing the first Harry Potter, then a section about all of the books and movies, going all the way to 2022. But while all that was happening she was living a life. Some of the later books took longer to write, (Whited mentions this briefly, in her Introduction, pages 3-6); she was distracted by the Stouffer lawsuit from 1999-2002; involved with the making of the films; the philanthropic endeavors; and generally managing fame, family, life. It would be best to focus on biography here, not the least because of the many extremely long sub articles (i.e Harry Potter comes in at more than 11,000 words). I've not worked on a bio where the lists of works are in the middle of the biography and I'm not sure how common that is. Anyway, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 21:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not bothered by our focus on her writing. It is her primary claim to notability and the lack of such material was by far the most substantial concern raised at the beginning of the FAR. This article is WP:NOTPAPER and we are following summary style in sections on literary work in particular, with more trimming all the time. This is really a separate concern than sectioning per se, although if people were minded to cut the bits on her work even further it would be easier to do so if there were two macro-sections—Life and Work—than the current hybrid. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It might be helpful to put together a timeline. It might be worth experimenting a way to keep the "Life and career" section chronological and try to get as close to the present as possible.

Basically for many years all she was doing was writing and that absolutely should be woven in throughout. From 1997/98 onward Philospher's Stone is published; she sells rights to films; she meets Murray and marries him; has children; continues to write, attend events, take care of legal issues, publish, write, publish, and so forth. Whited tells us in the intro that witchcraft accusations and book bannings began in 2000 (try to weave the religion section w/ the context of the accusations), the Stouffer case went on from 1999 to 2002, Order of the Phoenix was late, not published until 2003, just to mention a few bits.

Trawling through the NYT database there's info on Deathly Hallow publication in 2007, then A Casual Vacancy in 2011, then the Galbraith books (another lawsuit re doxxing the pen name), which gets us to the present. In between there were many various events and appearances, Nel mentions that by 1999 she is a superstar and appeared in front of 15,000 fans in Toronto for the publication of The Goblet of Fire, in his introduction on page 24.There were also the many awards some of which might be able to be folded into the text. Someone explains that winning the Nestlé Smarties Book Prize (awarded by children readers and never to debut author before) was instrumental in bringing attention to her work (sorry, can't remember where I read that but will try to find it and link here), which sparks the high sales, fame, money.

The section called "Harry Potter" is now chronological and could be renamed. Some of the section called "Harry Potter films" is now chronological; the rest could go in front of the "Filmography" section. Essentially the "Life and career" section could focus on the life and career in prose, with as much detail we can cobble together, then the books (not the writing of them!) goes down towards the bottom of the page. If that makes sense? If no one is editing right now, I'll give it try, self-revert, and post a diff here and we can continue to discuss. Victoria (tk) 20:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Link to importance of winning Nestlé Smarties Book Prizehere in Eccleshare, page 12. This is important because it brought her to attention of booksellers. Victoria (tk) 21:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Rough example of possible reorg is here. Victoria (tk) 21:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

It has always made sense to me, for two reasons. 1) That’s pretty much what both Kirk and Smith do; they have a clear timeline, which even includes the legal, media, religious debate etc. 2) I recognize that I’m probably unusual among all of us here, but I have no interest in reading literary analysis; I want to read a bio about her life. I’d enjoy the article more if they were separated. I acknowledge I may be a minority in that, and don’t mean to appear not to appreciate the literary expertise here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The biographies I've worked on have been about the artist's life, making art, folding it all together, then separate and discrete sections for analysis, reception, legacy, etc. It would be nice if we could tease out how remarkably productive she's been; the writing of the Potter books, the second part of the series during pregnancies; screenwriting; legal issues; the philanthropic endeavors; the adult fiction, and so on. It would be interesting to see if it could all be woven together chronologically, though probably a lot of work. My sense is that it would make a less listy article throughout. Victoria (tk) 21:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I like what you’ve done so far, but I’m afraid we’ll hit the same wall we’re hitting elsewhere once we try to move beyond a certain date— that the bios end at 2003, and then we’ve only got news sources and little new info to tease out. All of the bios seem to saying the same things, no matter the date (eg Pugh 2020 adds almost nothing to Kirk or Smith from 20 years earlier). I certainly prefer that, and I’m not saying it can’t be done, only that I’ve hit a wall on where to come up with the material to make it happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's the big problem. She fell off the map, so to speak, in the early 2000s. I was wondering why, dug around a bit, and realized how very busy she was. Plus, with fame & money came reticence and privacy. Some tidbits can be mined from Anelli (2008), then possibly use the best possible web sources? That's why I was trawling through the NYT database and not finding much. The thing is, we have it all in the article cited to web sources, but it's sectioned out. Victoria (tk) 21:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't really edited the bio section much, but one comment. I noticed that there are some early sentences referencing terms like Mirror of Erised, Ron and Hermione that assume the reader has knowledge of Harry Potter. But I think this section should be accessible to someone who knows nothing about the series. Perhaps the terms should be glossed (briefly) on first use, or relocated to after Harry Potter is introduced.

(Apologies if this was already mentioned, but I haven't been following all parts of the bio discussion.) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

What I had tried to do was move all such mentions to footnotes, but I knew that we would need some smoothing of this after the dust settled, and am not sure how to best handle it. My idea was to chunk in the pieces, and leave the moving around to all of you, as I haven’t read the books or seen the movies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I like those references, so I think we could use this to integrate parts of the plot summary (as needed) into the text. The first mention of Harry Potter in the bio section is in "Inspiration and mother's death": In mid-1990, she was on a train delayed by four hours from Manchester to London,[95] when the characters Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, and Hermione Granger came plainly into her mind. If you look at the book (Kirk) this is sourced from, there's immediately more detail:

Jo Rowling sat looking out the window at some cows, when Harry Potter, in the form of an eleven-year-old boy with disheveled black hair, green eyes, and broken round glasses, walked into her imagination. She knew he was a boy who thought himself to be normal, but he was on a train to go to a boarding school for wizards. As soon as she saw him, she knew he was a wizard but that he didn’t know his own true identity or that he was very powerful. She knew he was an orphan, too, but she didn’t know why or how. I'm not suggesting we go into that level of detail, but since we already have a plot summary elsewhere, relocating a relevant part of it here seems like it would be appropriate. (We'd then delete the later graf on the plot.) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

O-D, there is boatloads of similar detail that I left out because, as I was reading, we were looking at the size of the article being increased by about a third to accommodate lengthy literary analysis, so I left out detail that I might have otherwise highlighted. Reworking in some mentions like you've highlighted above would be a good thing, IMO. I like what Victoriaearle had done here (although some tweaking would be needed, and she self-reverted that sample edit), and I like your idea to use some of the sourced text to create a better chronology. But, as has been happening, we are not getting responses from others. I am sidetracked on important other problems (see my talk page), and will be out most of today. I suggest you ask User:Vanamonde93 and User:Johnbod to have a look at Victoria's version, and if all of you agree, just install that asap so we can get to work. Sorry to busy elsewhere, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to be a stick in the mud, but I don't like the idea of integrating her literary work and biography. The main reason is this article has to be useful to readers. If I am given the choice between reading 8000+ words of biography integrated with literary commentary and 4000 words of biography, followed by 4000 words on literary commentary, I will choose the latter. No one will be reading this article start to finish and we should accommodate that. Analytically and conceptually, it's also better to keep literature and life separate. Combining them runs the risk of encouraging ORish type connections between episodes in her life and episodes in the books.

The best way to organize this, IMO, is to have a single section about her life and a single section about her books. Literary analysis, legacy, and reception could be folded in as subsections of the latter. I'm not particular about whether the book section also includes the bibliography, but I do think it's weird to put all the literary commentary near the top of the article and smoosh all the bare-bones info about the books (who Harry Potter is, what the series is about) to the bottom.

The basic issue, as I see it, is that the FAR began with concerns from many people about the lack of literary analysis. I agree with that concern. Her work is central to her notability and the article should reflect that. We have responded to that concern by adding literary analysis. Now, there are concerns that the article is not enough of a biography. IMO, the best framing is not "this is a biography, it must focus on her life and every bit of content must be tailored to that focus". Rather, it is "this is an article about a popular literary figure that should comprehensively and accessibly cover the relevant information about its subject, understood as such". I seem to be in the minority here, however. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

In a hurry, but I didn't mean to imply "not enough biography"; I think our balance is good, it's just how to organize it, which could mean working in some other bits for chronology, but again, I leave that to all of you, as I recognize I'm not a literary type. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a single long section (Life and career is over 4K words) is a bit difficult to read. But the connections between her life and HP are already in the article, and sourced to books (Kirk, Smith). I'm not sure if they can be ignored as OR, regardless of what kind of sectioning we do. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Some of what's currently in the "Life and career" section looks as though it can be trimmed back a bit. The "Harry Potter" section is 368 words; "Harry Potter films" 322; "Adult fiction" 428; "Later Harry Potter publications" 267; "Childrens stories" 191. That's c. 1600 words. I wonder if the film section can be trimmed back or some moved down the "Filmography", and the rest trimmed, bundled together and titled something like "Beyond Harry Potter"? That would be a beginning, then maybe we can move the material in notes back to the bio section. Would that work as beginning steps? I did experiment a little earlier today, combined the Harry Potter & Harry Potter films sections, trimmed it all a bit, added a bit re composing/publishing the books. Diff is here. It's just an idea. Victoria (tk) 02:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree; trimming those sections sounds like a good idea. I like the "Beyond Harry Potter" header. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll play in a sandbox and see where it goes, but it will take a few days because I'm very slow. Ideally it would be nice to fold in sections like "Legal disputes", "Philanthropy" etc., but it's way too much work and probably doesn't gain much, except that those sections will be easy to edit and might bloat up. Which is a minor concern.

At the moment the way to go might be enough of a trim to the following sections: "Harry Potter (films)", "Adult fiction", "Later Harry Potter publications" (which wrecks the opportunity to have a "Beyond Harry" section), and "Children's stories", to allow a bit more biographical detail in the "Life and career" section and maybe bring some details out of notes. AleatoryPonderings would that work for you as a compromise? It's best if we're all happy with the structure before going forward. As an afterthought, should we re-name this talk section "Structure"? It would be nice to get input from others too. Victoria (tk) 00:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

IMO the sections ripe for trimming, if trimming is to be done, are Harry Potter films and Later Harry Potter publications. (I rewrote the latter section entirely so someone else is better suited to do that.) I say that because the evidence of her involvement in non-book parts of the HP universe is quite thin. By contrast, Adult fiction and Children's stories are all about books she's written, so I think they need discussion of what the books are about and how they've been received. So I'd agree that trimming the films/other media adaptations sections would be worthwhile as a way to focus the article more clearly on JKR.

More broadly, however, I am puzzled by the implication that trimming is necessary to "make room" for content elsewhere. WP:SIZERULE (which is a guideline, not a policy) says articles might warrant splitting or trimming at over 50kb of readable prose. My script says JKR is at 53 kB of readable prose at the moment. I don't see the point of trimming unless it increases the focus of the article on JKR/her work or makes the prose quality better.

No one besides me seems to think a sharper distinction between life and work is warranted, so I won't continue to flog that horse. What I don't get is what the alternative is supposed to be and how it will improve the article. If more biographical detail is needed—and having looked over the purely bio sections several times, I don't know what that would be—why not just add it in using the current structure? Unless we're talking thousands more words, I think the extra detail can just go in without any overall changes to structure.

The above may sound cranky and I don't mean to come off that way. Mainly I'm frustrated because I don't see the purpose of the changes we're contemplating. The remaining sections to rewrite—lede and transgender—are incredibly vexed and I've already made one failed attempt on the latter. Those sections need to be rewritten, but that will require heavy lifting. Aside from those big tasks, and general line editing to improve prose quality, I can't think of other substantial changes that would result in a substantially better article. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

On overall size, we are under 9,000 words now, and Transgender hasn't yet been trimmed, so unless there is considerably more content coming, I am comfortable with the size. (Is there considerably more content coming?) I hate huge articles as they are hard to maintain and hard to read: this article is no longer in that territory; I was talking trimming when we were well above 9,000 words. Adult fiction has a bit more plot than I feel necessary, but I'm not too fussed and leave that to all of you.

I think we are at a place where we can rest a bit on content, and focus on sorting out the structural differences, if there are any. And in that territory, I have to leave it to the rest of you. Her life story is interesting to me; I glaze over at the literary critique, but I understand we must have it. I'd like to read about her life without having that interspersed, but I seriously doubt I am the norm on that.

Yes, the idea of having to tackle the Transgender material has been hanging over our heads, adding pressure, and probably keeping us on edge; we should try to set those concerns aside for now, and get through the rest. Carry on; you all have written a beautiful article, no matter our concerns about what remains. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

So responding to AP's comment of 25 Jan re making a split between life and career. Not being snarky, but does life stop when career begins? In the case of Rowling, do biographical details go by the wayside in favor of only published works, films, etc. after 1998? In reply to that question, my answer is no. That's all. Feedback was requested; I gave it. The posts above have only been opinion, nothing more. Re trimming, that was in response to a comment that the single long section of 4000 words is too long. Nothing has been trimmed in mainspace, or very little and it can all go back, so it's all good. Generally the subject of the article, in this case J. K. Rowling herself, is the focus and I have views about how the various sections present material as though she's not the focus, which I have an opinion about, but that doesn't mean I'm right. Or wrong. Simply brainstorming. Anyway, I'll stop now. I think we've flogged this horse long enough and it's time to move on. Let's leave the article as it is. Victoria (tk) 02:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• I have lost the thread of this conversation a little; are we proposing folding the literary analyses sections into the biography? I'm not a big fan of that. The philanthropy section, I have no position on; and while the legal issues to my mind flow well where they are, I don't really object to moving them. re: SandyGeorgia's question, I don't anticipate adding much more content; at the very most one medium-sized paragraph might become two short ones, in the reception section. I've been feeling a bit better, with luck I'll get to it soon. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93 I don't believe that any of us are clear on what the various proposals on how to structure the article are, and that has made it very hard to advance here. At minimum, the material relating her early life to her later books that I have put into footnotes needs to be decided on (does it stay in footnotes, is it irrelevant and should be deleted, or does it get merged to text somewhere?). We moved Religion out of Views as its own section, but I'm unsure if how I folded it in is seamless. We would have a similar situation if we tried to fold in Legal or Philanthropy, for example. Proposals are introduced via test edits and then withdrawn, making it even harder and leading to understandable frustration. I am concerned that the perfect is becoming the enemy of the good here, and we are spinning our wheels on issues that don't impact FA status. I am happy with whatever you literary-accomplished settle on for the structure, but do wish we would get some concrete proposals so that others can opine and come to consensus. We have a fine article already, but with the Transgender section and lead issues yet to be resolved, it is frustrating for this literary situation to be still unclear, and we really need for the proposals to be laid out clearly with a suggested TOC so that others can come to consensus and move on to the harder work that faces us in other sections of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

  I've rearranged a little so that all things Rowling are closer together and the literary analyses sections are moved down a bit. In the past I've reverted to allow discussion, but realize those edits get lost quickly and simply cause more confusion and frustration. Victoria (tk) 21:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Propose archiving this section (continued below in "Ordering"). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Reception/politics of Harry Potter

Breaking-off into a section. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know if this the place to put it, but at "... the series has drawn a less positive response from literary critics: Harold Bloom regards Rowling's prose as poor and her plots as conventional,[292][293] while A. S. Byatt..." I think it should be worked in that, athough also an English Lit academic, Byatt is mainly known as a novelist, & I dare say has put her main effort into that. Reading the section just now, it seems ok, but I'd hope to see more on the essentially conservative and middle-class (English sense) nature of Rowling's fictional world - rather a contrast with most YA fiction which (not that I read it) seems to bend over backwards to be street. Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  Mendlesohn claims HP is small-c conservative in JSTOR 43308531, but she's the only critic I've seen do that explicitly. I don't know if it's DUE to add such a comment if it's only Mendlesohn saying it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I suppose not, but there must be more - perhaps the net needs to widened beyond academia. Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

This spirited web journal post by Ben Judah is the sort of thing I mean, and from the sub-only Daily Telegraph (a Tory paper to its fingertips) "In work and in life, JK Rowling embraces the middle-class values she claims to despise, writes Jenny Hjul...". Then there's Toby Young in The Spectator on "J.K. Rowling’s schizophrenic politics". He also mentions "Christopher Hitchens ... in his New York Times review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" - have we seen that? These are just the most respectable pics from the first page &1/2 of this google search. Johnbod (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hitchens is is here. It's covers quite a bit of ground. I thought Mendlesohn did a good job of explaining that although Rowling is centre-left/progressive/liberal, depending on the terminology, which we do seem to be keeping, the world in the books is not - hence the schizophrenic politics. The medieval aspects in the books are also discussed in another pdf I read and used a little bit; knights, feasts in a feast hall, on and on. The book is not street; once one enters the portal the magical world is anachronistic, medieval, a world where the purity of one's blood is paramount. These are motifs found in Tolkien and C. S. Lewis, school stories, and books about lost orphans (who inevitably are wealthy/noble/royal). Victoria (tk) 18:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't see Hitchens unfortunately. The medieval aspects of Potterworld are essentially picturesque, but there is a strong underpinning of 1950s-ish social conservatism throughout. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The essay is reprinted here. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, though I only get the first 2 pages without "borrowing" it. Johnbod (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Mendlesohn is the only one who comments on this; the politics of Rowling's world was the next piece I was going to work on, and I believe several scholars talk about this, though they use more subtle terminology than liberal/conservative. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

There is doi:10.1057/9781137016546, although I was not that impressed with the small portions I've read. As for commentary from Hitchens and others: there is such a vast quantity of HP criticism that it's hard to know what to include and what not. I think VM's approach—thinking in terms of topics (in this case, politics/HP's cultural outlook) as opposed to individual writers or critics—is a good idea. So many notable figures such as Hitchens have weighed in on HP that limiting our attention, eg, to the views of notable people would still turn too much up. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a meta-criticism article on Harry Potter from 2015 that we could use for weighting things. There are 20 more pages that aren't in that PDF sample; if anyone has access to the book it's from (OCLC 945993526), it could be useful. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, useful stuff. Johnbod (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Template blindness

Kinda like banner blindness? Look at the bottom of the article.

• Works by, OK
• Harry Potter; does that template belong here or only in the works articles?
• Hugo Award; does that belong here or only in the works articles?
• Locus Award; here or works?
• 2011–12 News corporation scandal ... which scandal was that? Have we mentioned it? Or do we delete her from the template and remove the template?

Except for the News corporation scandal, which seems problematic (as uncited), I have no particular knowledge or preference as to when to include these templates or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It must be the Leveson inquiry; maybe the link in the template could be more direct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

"Argue"

Victoriaearle, what's wrong with the word "argue"? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:Reception is quite positive about it for scholarly opinions (particularly avoiding "stated", which is overused and never sounds natural. These are generally opinions and assertions from academics and reviewers so we should use verbs that help convey that -- "considered", "argued", "regarded", "asserted" and "makes the claim" are examples.) The ones Victoria edited weren't from critics, so maybe there's a difference there? Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

That goes against MOS:CLAIM, which says not to use "asserted". Argue, though common and often over-used in academic writing, isn't great for an encyclopedia. We have to be careful to use NPOV language for encyclopedic writing. I believe "argue" used to be in WP:Words to avoid but going back to 2011 I only see claim and assert. Nonetheless, it indicates a controversial position, i.e an argument (which is a rhetorical pattern or discourse) and when writing in summary style, as we should be in this article, we should only be presenting the most mainstream positions, because the mode of discourse here is informational and always neutral. I've not deleted any of the claims, only deleted argue. But I may go back to evaluate some of the places where I've seen it. Victoria (tk) 03:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

"Argue" denotes that the person making the argument has a point of view (namely, that the proposition for which they are arguing is true). Unlike "claim", however, "argue" does not denote that the text describing the argument has a point of view on the argument or its proponent. That WP:WTA does not list "argue" is, I suggest, evidence for this. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

AP you're free to revert any edit as has been the case since the beginning and has been happening all along. In future something like this doesn't rise to the level of a ping or a thread in my view. Having bowed out of writing the analyis and reverting all of my work, I have no problems doing the same with the copyediting given the issues that my work seems to generate. Shall I revert all the copyediting as well? Working on this very much not worth the energy. Victoria (tk) 04:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

You seemed to be systematically removing "argue". I took issue with that global change and thought it merited discussion. I have no issue with any other copyedits you or others have made, I don't know what other issues you were referring to, and I am not suggesting that you revert your contributions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

P.s for people reading this thread, I wondered whether queerbaiting is a mainstream view of Cursed Child or whether we even need reception/analyis in the middle of the bio section. It would be nice to see that question resolved. Victoria (tk) 04:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I am happy with the new organization, which gets literary analysis out of the bio, and at the bottom of the article. But in the Adult fiction and Later Harry Potter works, the reception/analysis is still stuck back up in the bio, and could be teased out, and put back with the rest at the bottom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I have teased out the literary analysis from the bio, and moved it to Reception. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Text size

User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox6#Rowling text size

@Johnbod, Vanamonde93, and Barkeep49: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Measured in words of prose. I will keep it updated there as we make changes. I have trimmed everything I think reasonable from early and personal life, but this is her bio, and I can't find more to trim.

The individual works and other sections do have sub-articles.

I am concerned that we have added text to literary analysis without necessarily adding it to the sub-articles, and we should a) do that, b) discuss whether these sections are sufficiently summarized, and c) discuss whether we are happy with an overall of about 8,500 words of prose (that is always my target, others disagree). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• My view is that Reception and Literary analysis are not sufficiently trimmed. They now take up one fifth of the word count of the article, and Rowling is still a young woman (her bio isn't finished yet). I believe a 7,800 to 8,000 word count is a better target here, to allow for growth as her life continues to unfold. I am not aware of any other FA bio that allocates 20% of its content to literary analysis, when there are sub-articles where that content can go: if someone knows of one, please inform me. This FAR has resulted in some excellent content being written, but does that content all need to be in this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  I agree about summary style and revisioning, but in terms of text size, it doesn't seem out of place to me. Ursula K. Le Guin devotes more than 50% to analysis/reception. P. G. Wodehouse is closer to 30% I think. Enid Blyton seems sizeable as well, maybe 20-25%. For Rowling I would say 20% is fine. I personally think it's the core of the article, and certainly what the vast majority of scholarly sources about Rowling focus on. Especially since she "transformed children's literature". Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  Rowling is notable for her writing; commentary on her writing is essential. Of the body of scholarly literature mentioning Rowling, more than 90% is literary analysis. Devoting 20% of the space in this article to analysis and reception seems, if anything, on the low side to me. A large reduction from what we have currently would be grounds for me to !vote "delist" here. We really haven't gone into detail on the analysis; it's all at the summary level. I intend to copy-edit it some, and I believe Victoriaearle does too, but I would oppose removal of any substantive sections. If anyone wants to copy that material over to the sub-articles, they're more than welcome to do so; but the material is written for here, it may not fit in nicely anywhere except at Harry Potter. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  I hesitate to do the copying, as the structure of literary analysis isn't my suite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with Vanamonde. More generally, I do not understand the point of setting numerical word count targets for individual sections. The sections on biography should cover all the major points about her life so far. Likewise, the sections on literary analysis should cover all the major points about her work so far. The limit is qualitative, not quantitative. If the whole article gets bloated over time, it can be trimmed over time. I don't see why it needs to be aggressively kept to numerical limits before size presents a readability or rendering problem. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  And that I will explain. But not before everyone has weighed in, so that my views aren't dominating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

  All have spoken, so I'll just go on record as saying that in my experience, the path you are choosing will only lead to difficulty. Victoria explained it here: It's always good to remember that keeping a star or gaining one is simply an indication of a good or best stable version, and I always try to think forwards in terms of how much tending will be needed, does the structure lend itself to bloating, is there enough detail to prevent future bloating while still staying within a reasonable size. Making a choice not to establish, stick with and enforce a strict summary style usually means constantly having to fight bloat. Which means constantly dealing with POV and "due" claims. It usually means having to re-litigate the page contents every time a new newsy issue takes over, and editors can claim that the weight is the event du jour, usually because, those are the sources they are most reading. The religious controversies of yesteryear are the transgender controversies of today and something else in the next iteration.

  The historical examples I offer are of what became of Catholic Church and Islam. The writers of Catholic Church refused to invoke a strict summary style, so everyone had an opinion of what Just Had To Be Included, so it failed after at least five horrific FACs; the article is today a bloated sprawling claim to a GA (actually not even a GA, but nobody notices). Islam established a strict summary style and was able to become featured. It was a broad overview, that was enforced, and detail went to sub-articles. As soon as the editors who achieved that stopped editing and it became bloated again, it lost its featured status and sprawled to another piece of black goo on the internet.

  In my own editing experience, the only way I am able to maintain a broad topic like Tourette syndrome at featured status is to rigorously force detail to the many sub-articles.

  In this article, because I have no interest one way or the other (not a literary editor or a Potter fan), I keep trimming the personal bio and excluding interesting material (in spite of numerous full books written about her life, including some we haven't even tapped), while literary analysis keeps growing. Is that really due weight, or does it just reflect which sources literary editors are most likely to be reading? Are all of the full-length bios accounted for? By choosing not to use a strict summary style, y'all are signing yourselves up for a lifetime of maintenance issues and constant re-litigation as everyone wants to add everything and the article bloats. After all this work, that's not my wish for those of you who will continue to watchlist the article after the FAR, but I will respect and help you enact your consensus as we negotiate this FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  And since content there gets viewed more than content here, it seems more useful to put the expanded content there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  Adding to say: I don't agree with the recent re-ordering of sections. I think a core part of the article is her writing; it is what I would come here to read about. It doesn't belong at the very bottom. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe start a new section here on that topic, with a proposed structure, so we can archive off the indecipherable sections above (Reversion in the literary analysis section and Sectioning)? The talk page is again at 150KB. I, for one, have been unable to decipher what structure is wanted by the various editors here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  The idea that Rowling is still a young woman cuts both ways. She's not done living, but she's also not done writing and the academic study of her writing is also ongoing. 20% - 30%, which is also the range indicated in other bios by Olivaw-Daneel, seems about correct. I have less strong feelings about what the overall length should be but 8500 words doesn't strike me as too outrageous an amount. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm generally ok with the size and weighting as they are, but why is "Gender and social division" under "reception" rather than literary analysis - that seems clearly wrong? I'm not too worried by leaving room for new works, as the pace of these, and their relative importance, seems to have slackened in recent years. Probably we will need a split-off article on criticism at some point. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Johnbod: I placed the gender section in "reception", because to me that material reflected criticism and praise of Rowling's depictions of gender, rather than detailed analysis; this mirrors my practice in other articles. I don't love "literary analysis" as a section title, which is part of the issue, I suppose: I see that section as representing analysis without judgement. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93: How about calling the section "Style and themes"? Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Olivaw-Daneel: That works for me. Also, to answer your question on Victoriaearle's talk page; I appreciate your offer, but I don't necessarily know exactly what, if anything, is lacking. My feeling is that several sources have looked at social division in HP not just as an example of how Rowling is entirely conventional in the politics of her world; but I've to read my sources again, which is why it's taken me a while. I've been doing a good bit better, and I have a little time this week, so hopefully I'll be done soon. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  No hurry; glad to know you're feeling better. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Olivaw-Daneel: Just so you are aware, I'm essentially done with the reworking I had planned; I've gone through the sources, and I think the social division section is comprehensive, for its length. There's some material about class divisions, too, but I'm not sure we have the space, or that it would be due weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Olivaw-Daneel has copied relevant text to Harry Potter,[2] and I have done same for Religious debates over the Harry Potter series.[3] At 12,600 words of prose, I suggest that Harry Potter is exceeding size, and all of this literary criticism and reception should be extracted to its own main article, where it could be re-summarized back to here as well as back to Harry Potter. The arguments made above about how much literary critism there is make that case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The length problems there stem from wildly excessive plot summary, and an enormous amount of detail about tourist attractions and such. The literary criticism we have written here, now copied there, is already a concise summary, covering as it does only bare outlines of commentary about the entire series. I would oppose any further reduction in substance here, beyond any concision that can be achieved via copy-editing. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree and have no plans to cut material here. I copied some content to Harry Potter simply because the Themes section of that article was quite lacking. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Ordering

(New section so that some older discussions can be archived) Some content was recently moved from bio to reception, which I think was a good idea. Reception now talks about Rowling's work as a whole, as suggested in the FAR feedback. There was also a re-ordering (B) which I don't think is a good idea, because it pushes core sections to the bottom of the article. As noted above, writing is what Rowling's known for and what 90% of sources focus on. I'm switching back to (A) while we discuss.

A. Name, Life and career, Influences, Literary analysis, Reception, Legacy, Legal disputes, Philanthropy, Views, Awards and Honours.

B. Name, Life and career, Legal disputes, Philanthropy, Views, Influences, Literary analysis, Reception, Legacy, Awards and Honours.

Any opinions/other ordering ideas? Version A seems to work just fine to me; but I'm not tied to it. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Style & allusions, paragraph 2

Reading over this after some time away from the article, it feels a little haphazard. I know it grew of the "ordinary and extraordinary" piece by Natov, which is well-cited enough that it needs to be represented; but at the moment, Gupta's sentence, and Pennington's, feel a little out of place. I wonder if we should simply omit them, and replace them with a slightly fleshed out version of Natov's argument (I see references elsewhere, for instance, to the notion of Harry as an "everychild"; perhaps we could mention that instead?). Olivaw-Daneel, I think this was your writing, thoughts? Also; please don't see this criticism, it's still a considerable improvement on the early infodump you were working with, which in turn was necessitated by us trying to knock this into shape quickly. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Fwiw, for comparison, "ordinary and extraordinary" was a discrete subsection when I added it in Special:Diff/1063820350 on 5 January (which feels like a lifetime ago). Maybe some of those sentences could be added in instead of having to redo this out of whole cloth. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with focusing on ordinary/extraordinary and removing Gupta/Pennington. Butler also mentions it (she calls the setting a blend of exotic and familiar). I suppose we could start with the setting and then transition to the character also being a mix of everychild and fairytale hero? Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 05:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

That sounds pretty solid to me. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Added; let me know how it looks. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Aza24 comments

Per Aza24's comments on the FAR, I have flattened the TOC, removed ISBNs, and removed locations (one interspersed edit added the word prominently).

To note, we have now three Works cited with HarvRef errors (Abravanel, Clark, and Pennington); you can install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js to view ref errors.

Unclear on the rest:

1. BBC; are we using BBC or BBC News?

   Switched to BBC News in sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

2. Wikilinking sources: AP link; BM no opinion; O-D link; SG unlink (not a strong pref); VM link (not a strong pref). I think that is a consensus to link; please speak up if I'm wrong.
3. Italicize or not on work: AP italicize newspapers and magazines; BM no opinion; O-D italicize all (includes websites); SG (italicize only newspapers, journals and magazines); VM no pref. Not sure what to do here; I can be disregarded, so rest need to come to agreement.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

PS, I will wait a few days to work on these, depending on what y'all come up with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

1. Switching to BBC News would be easier (only 3 BBCs).

3. Mine isn't a strong opinion, so feel free to go with the other choice. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I've started adding the links, and can't help but notice that Wikipedia does get the italics correct on the article titles. For example, see the articles for:

• BBC News
• The Times
• The New York Times
• Royal Society of Literature
• Variety (magazine)

That is, in our article titles, we do correctly italicize magazines, journals, and hard-print news sources, but not, for example, BBC BBC Radio or BBC News or ABC News or Associated Press. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a difference between MLA and APA citations; the former italicizes all websites, while the latter does what you state. I think it's an element of CITEVAR. And thanks for making things uniform. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

So we should now have a consistent APA style; Aza24 do you see anything wonky? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe I have now added all the links, although it was messy work and I could have missed some. I noted very few exceptions to correct use of italics, so we may also be set on that now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks much better and professional, bravo! Aza24 (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

HF comments

While I'm seeing some definite issues with the lead, based on my reading of the FAR, the lead and the transgender sections don't seem to have been fully addressed, so will not be making comments on those for now.

• " During the Leveson Inquiry into the practices and ethics of the British press, she gave evidence under the name of Joanne Kathleen Rowling" - this appears to be sourced only to the deposition itself. If this is truly significant, surely a secondary source would have reported on it?

  She seems to use different names, but is very private. One Guardian source stated (off-hand) that Joanne Murray was her "real name", although one can find it used nowhere else. That she has no middle name, and yet used her pen middle name for a legal proceeding that affected her is something we should keep in, just to sort all the different names she uses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  I removed it, but I wouldn't fight to keep it out. I think it's interesting, but they only Google News hits for ["Joanne Kathleen Rowling" Leveson] were the Daily Mail and the Spectator. Maybe someone who has been in the books more knows of a secondary source mention? Firefangledfeathers 02:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Her mother died of MS on 30 December 1990" - acronym of MS should be defined when the ailment is first mentioned

  The acronym is defined in the lead, but I added it on the first occurrence in the body. This is something we will get on the final pass, though, after the lead is finalized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Around October 1998, Warner Bros. purchased film rights to the first two Harry Potter novels for a "seven-figure sum"" - I see the source is from 1998. Any chance the exact figure has come out since then?

  AP and O-D, see Kirk page 114 ... you may know of something better ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  Smith p. 210 says the same figure ($1 million) but says "reported to be"; I am not sure how certain the number is. Perhaps we could footnote it as "reported to be 1M ?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  Added inline with a more recent source. (Feel free to footnote it if that works better.) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• " Crimes of Grindelwald, was released in November 2018" - don't think the comma should be there

  Firefangledfeathers got it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• " Secrets of Dumbledore is scheduled for release on 15 April 2022" - should this have an as of date, since COVID has been raising heck with movie release dates?

  The date has already been adjusted for COVID, so I think it's good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. Firefangledfeathers 02:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Rowling purchased Killiechassie House and its estate in Perthshire, Scotland,[175] and the couple had a small, private wedding there, officiated by an Episcopalian priest who travelled from Edinburgh" - is this 2001 or 2002? Chronology isn't clear

  Better? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  I see SandyGeorgia is working on it. I was thinking maybe to split the paragraph. Right now it's mixing marriage and home purchases in a strange way. Firefangledfeathers 02:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  Kind of because of how it happened ... they planned to marry sooner, had issues with the press, decided they needed a more quiet and private place to live and work, bought the house, got married there shortly in SuperSekret shortly after buying it. It's all related to her privacy problems with the press, when they published photos of her daughter. You might find a way to do it better? I suggest signing up for a free archive.org account so you can "borrow" Smith for an hour and read ... if it's busy, just ping me so I'll log out :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that works much better. Hog Farm _Talk 02:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Ready for influences, will be back soon. Hog Farm _Talk 02:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Religious debates over the Harry Potter series suggests some Islamic opposition as well, but this article seems to focus on Evangelicalism solely?

  There was some opposition from conservative Islamic institutions; Guanio-Uluru, for instance, mentions it. The focus among sources is decidedly on the evangelical opposition though. I'll try to work some of this in. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Done. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93 you've been on a roll and got quite a lot done in the last few days. Are we ready now to begin looking at the lead (setting aside the TG text)? There is a first draft above. If we're not, then maybe we should begin to focus instead on the TG people section-- unless you had considerably more work planned in other areas? We seem to be in a lull, with nothing happening (perhaps I am too impatient :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Well, I finally finished reading the sources I'd meant to, meaning I could write again. I'm done with additions to the text. I'd vaguely promised more copy-editing and had a few sections left on that, but I'm happy to examine the lead or the transgender section, with a slight preference for tackling the latter first. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  I wish we could at least get an interim improvement of the lead, before we turn our attention to the last section, just because it's so awful right now, and even an interim improvement would help. We could then do the final lead polish once TG people are settled. AP and O-D ? How would you prefer to proceed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  I think lede, then TG, then lede again to conform with any changes to TG, is good. I can do a draft 2.0 in the next couple days. I was waiting for more comments on your lede draft but they don't seem to be forthcoming. Does anyone else have thoughts on SG's draft 1.0? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• "Rowling's Harry Potter series transformed children's literature" - WP:RS/AC - do the sources indicate that this is academic consensus?

  They just say it plainly, but I found another source with the type of language you're looking for ("is often seen as the catalyst"). I'll work it in. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  Done. Stated the transformation more explicitly; the sources indicate it's a widespread view. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• " As of 2011, she had taken more than 50 actions against the press" - any hope of update here?

This is in pretty good shape (not reviewing lead/transgender material), although I don't envy the mess that repairing the transgender section will be. Hog Farm _Talk 19:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Wedding paragraph proposal

Sandy, you don't know me, so I'll forgive you for thinking I don't have a gazillion Open Library tabs open at all times. How about something like the paragraph below?

Rowling married Neil Murray, a doctor, on 26 December 2001. The couple intended to marry earlier that year in the Galapagos but had to change their plans after a leak to the press. After the UK Press Complaints Commission ruled that a magazine had breached Jessica's privacy by including the minor in a photograph of the couple vacationing together in August 2001, Murray and Rowling sought a more private and quiet place to live and work. Rowling purchased Killiechassie House and its estate in Perthshire, Scotland. The couple held a small, private wedding there, officiated by an Episcopalian priest who travelled from Edinburgh. Their son, David Gordon Rowling Murray, was born in 2003, and their daughter Mackenzie Jean Rowling Murray was born in 2005.

The Galapagos tidbit can be cited to this Guardian source if an existing citation doesn't cover it. I cut the bit about her homes in Kensington and Edinburgh, which could fold in neatly to the following paragraph about her wealth. Firefangledfeathers 03:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks fine ... do you want to do the honors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

But is that clear per Hog Farm's concern about which year? Hog Farm? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Done, but I had to add Mauritius to distinguish two different vacation/plans. [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think that does work. Part of my original concern with it was missing the first sentence giving the date of the wedding because I was trying to keep a hyperactive cat away from a computer program my wife was writing for work. Hog Farm _Talk 14:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Archiving

I propose to archive the following so we can continue work here on the lead and the TG people section: if anyone needs these still active, pls speak up! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• #Reception/politics of Harry Potter
• #Template blindness
• #"Argue"
• #Ordering
• #Style & allusions, paragraph 2
• #Aza24 comments
• #HF comments

Update 1 February 2022

Most of the article has been brought close to standard, with addition of literary analysis and early life bio material, while holding the line on article size (8,600 words) by pruning fluff and using tighter WP:SS everywhere. Citation overkill has mostly been dealt with, and sources have been upgraded to reflect recent scholarship. MOS issues have been addressed, and considerable WP:ELNEVER (copyright hosting) has been eliminated. With at least six editors actively working on the article, editing is in a lull as we wait for final smoothing and review of the near-finished portions from our literary contributors.

The Transgender section has not been touched yet; it and the lead are being left 'til last, but this may be a good time for FAR regulars to glance over the article to determine if there are other areas (aside from the lead and Transgender section) that need work. There has been no instability since one brief edit war on 5 January. @Aza24, Buidhe, Extraordinary Writ, Hog Farm, and Z1720: could you suggest any areas that need attention? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

Thoughts about the article while I review. Per above, I am not looking at the Transgender section or lede.

• Why is the "Name" section first? I would put name after the life and career section, or integrate it into life and career.
• "Smith writes that the Rowling sisters "never attended Sunday school or services"," Who is Smith? This person should be introduced in the text.
• "Biographer Smith raises the question of why Rowling chose to stay with her sister rather than her father." I'm not sure this paragraph is needed. It's been established that Rowling had a troubled relationship with her father; as a reader, I'm not surprised that an adult woman would rather live with her sister than estranged father. I'm also worried that this is going a little off-topic with information about her father's personal life.
• " she moved to a depressing flat" what makes a flat depressing? Was this how Rowling described it?
• "Pugh writes that the "grinding effects of poverty," Pugh should be introduced in the article.
• "Rowling received grants in 1996 and 1997 from the Scottish Arts Council to support writing Philosopher's Stone and the sequel, Chamber of Secrets." Why is Rowling receiving grants to write Philosopher's Stone after the book was released?
• "She assumed some "some input" on the scripts," Not sure how this was supposed to be phrased...
• "Little, Brown promoted Casual Vacancy as a black comedy," -> "Casual Vacancy was promoted as a black comedy" ?
• I think the two paragraphs about Harry Potter and the Cursed Child can be merged.
• I think the paragraph about Christmas Pig needs to be expanded with information on its creation/inspiration.
• The literary analysis section focuses exclusively on Harry Potter. Considering that she has written other works, is it possible to discuss those works, even if it is briefly or in comparison to Harry Potter? I'm concerned that this is becoming a literary analysis of HP and not of Rowling's writings as a whole.
• "The judgment did not close the door" -> "The judgment did not prevent publishing Lexicon" to remove an idiom
• Why are non-fiction books in the bibliography given ISBN numbers, but not the fiction books?

Those are my thoughts. Considering the length of the article, these seem very few. Z1720 (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick review, Z! I made these adjustments on the parts I have worked on (introducing Smith, Pugh, removing the word depressing, and moving up why she needed grants); others may address the rest. On some of the individual points:

• The name is an ongoing issue, there are multiple archives and uninformed edits and an FAQ, and it needs to be clarified right up front.
• The difficulties with her father are a) the subject of much rumour, hence being clarified here; and b) were significant enough that she chose to live in poverty rather than with him (her sister was recently married and did not have room for a mother and child). Rowling's alleged "rags to riches" story is one of going from living on government assistance to being one of the wealthiest women in the UK; why she had to write the book from a position of poverty, when she came from a middle class background, is a significant part of her story.
• On the ISBNs, all of the fiction have their own articles, so no need to chunk up this article with detail like ISBNs (especially when there have been so many publications of the core books that they have multiple ISBNs). ISBNs are given on those that don't have articles.

Parts after that I leave to others. Thanks, again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

"She assumed ...": done with a little rewording.
"Little, Brown" done, a noticeable improvement, thank you
Merging Cursed Child paragraphs: done.
I plan to work on expanding the Christmas Pig content, but I'm going in blind, so anyone with prior knowledge or their fingers on the sources should feel to go at it. Firefangledfeathers 22:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I wrote the Christmas Pig part and the reason it's so short is there is not much out there. The existing sources are the best I could find so maybe it's just a matter of pulling a bit more from them. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The Christmas Pig has more on creation/inspiration, but it's sourced to op-eds by Rowling. Usable, I'd say, for non-controversial WP:ABOUTSELF info, but there's no demonstration that more detail would be due for the bio article. Firefangledfeathers 02:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Re, adding more content on her lesser known works, I think the weight is about right now; her most known works relate to Harry Potter, and we have to watch the size here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

For context, there is a 700-page published Bibliography of her work. (And now I own it.) We have to stick to weight here, or the amount of content given to her works would overwhelm the biography, when they all have sub-articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Continued on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Why is the non-attendance of Sunday school WP:DUE? (t · c) buidhe 22:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Considering considerable Religious debates over the Harry Potter series, her religion is an issue that should be given its due weight. Unfortunately, sources disagree on her religious upbringing, so both sides had to be stated. One makes a point of stating the family did not attend church, even though they lived literally next door to their church, while another source says she did attend church. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Re. literary analysis: I've added an intro with the genre/style of her other works, also noting their lower critical attention. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Fine job! Olivaw-Daneel, my prose isn't very tight (ever :); maybe you can address Buidhe's point above. Because her religion (or not) was controversial, we need to address it. She lived literally next door to the church her family belonged to, but we don't know if she attended church because one source says she did, one says she didn't. (Smith did some looking into the actual church registers, and says she didn't). Can you find a way to chop that down to half of the words I used? Perhaps one solution to Buidhe's query is to move some part of the text to the Remarriage section where we mention the religious controversies surfacing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe and Olivaw-Daneel:, I reworked that content and moved it to where we had it eons ago, in a religion section, where context is more clear. See here; is that better? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The current location looks fine to me (footnote in the religion section). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I saw the ping, but am now only getting around to looking at this. The references need to be looked over for formatting consistency, examples:

• BBC is formatted differently throughout, BBC, BBC, BBC News, BBC News. It should ideally always be italicized as a new cite, whether it includes the "News" or not is up to debate, but should be consistent
• Linking of news sources is inconsistent, The Guardian is linked sometimes in refs but not others. Should be either every time, none at all, or just the first time (the last of which I personally do not recommend)—just needs to amount of consistency
• Inclusion of locations for publications in the Works cited is extremely inconsistent
• Since the amount references is huge, I would personally prefer the "Works cited" be a separate section (i.e. with "==" not "===") but this is certainly not required
• What is going on with the inclusion of ISBNs in refs 467–469?? Aza24 (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in, Aza24. No responses from others, so I'll dig in. (I hope you noted that we have not addressed yet any of the citation overkill in either the lead or the Transgender section.)

• Formatting of non-print sources has changed over the years; there was a time when we absolutely did not use italics except for hard-print sources, but this seems to have migrated (to the point of uselessness re MOS:ITALICS). I can do the edits to enact whatever the main editors of the article prefer, but need to hear from them. (Personally, I still use the work field to impose italics only on hard print sources, but it seems that these days we italicize everything.)
• The article generally uses mainstream news sources, so my preference is no links. But again, once we hear from the main editors of the article, I am happy to do the edits to enact whatever they choose.
• I don't think location is ever needed in this article (I recommend it when disambiguation is needed, for example, with sources like El Nacional). If the main editors of the article agree on the style, I can make the edits.
• I always prefer to keep them together, but not a big deal, and again, whatever the main editors of the article decide is fine with me.
• The ISBNs in refs was my idea to avoid having inconsistency in the Bibliography table. See this discussion. Most of Rowling's main works have multiple editions, and ISBNs are unhelpful, while they may be helpful for the lesser known works. As an attempted compromise, I put them in the refs. If others dislike this, we might remove them altogether.

We need to hear from @Vanamonde93, AleatoryPonderings, and Olivaw-Daneel: as to citation style; I am happy to make the edits to enact their preferences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts about ref formatting. I am once again surprised that this level of detailed consideration is necessary to satisfy WP:WIAFA 2(c). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• My preference for BBC and other agencies such as Reuters is to use the publisher param because I see italics as reserved for publications such as newspapers and magazines, and BBC isn't really a publication. I think this opinion is supported by Template:Cite_news/doc#Publisher.
• I think news sources should be linked every time since not all of them are as well known (e.g., The Hollywood Reporter).
• Yes, get rid of location of publication in all cases, it is almost never helpful unless you're citing a very old book that was published only in one city by someone obscure.
• It would flatten the toc a bit to put works cited in a top-level heading. I have no preference other than that I like flat tocs.
• I don't understand the isbn point and I suspect readers wouldn't either. Does it do any harm to remove them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AleatoryPonderings (talk • contribs) 17:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I think it would be best to remove the ISBN's; it took me a while to work out what was going on with them, and I had the benefit of this discussion; I think it will just confuse our readers. BilledMammal (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

    That's two, and I'm indifferent, but will hold off to see what others think. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

    I have no strong opinions on any of the questions raised above. Slight preferences if favor of linking works. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  My preferences are to: italicize all websites (but I'm fine with whichever takes less work to implement); link all websites and sources; remove locations; separate out works cited; remove ISBNs. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  I do agree about removing locations; publishing locations mean very little any more. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I have flattened the TOC, removed ISBNs, and removed locations (one interspersed edit added the word prominently); will move to talk for the rest, since consensus is unclear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

ISBNs are required for cited sources by most FAC source reviewers because different editions of a book have different pagination. Without knowing the ISBN, there can be issues with verifiability. However, in your edits Sandy I see you just removed the ISBNs for books that are not cited which seems fine to me. I also support removing location as it does not help with verifiability or anything else. (t · c) buidhe 03:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Correct: those deleted were only ISBNs in her bibliography--not used as sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

To Do list (partial, resolved)

Please add new items here. If you have added an item, please revisit to strike once your concern has been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• *We will need, once prose re-writing is complete, to check chapter citations again. I'm possibly the worst offender with respect to not formatting these correctly, but I've little time for this to begin with, so I'm going to hold off of tinkering for now. Anyone else is welcome to do so, obviously. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  I have gone through, and am happy to do this kind of tinkering. I’ll do dupe links later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

   Done Best I can tell, our citation formatting is good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• When we get to it, Amnesty International is overplayed in the lead: she was a temp secretary, and didn't even like her work at AI, according to Smith. We are namedropping :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• The lead will obviously need a rewrite once we're done with the body, but flagging my concern now that it's weighted wrong; I would expect not more than a paragraph on philanthropy and earnings, with the rest devoted to biographical detail, and coverage of her books. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Agree the weight in the lead is all wrong now, and once we finish writing, pruning, trimming the body, that will be even more apparent. From well-written articles, more naturally flow compliant leads. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

   Done Addressed with interim lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Due to its accessibility, the series has drawn a less positive response from literary critics:". This point needs rewriting; I do not believe any critic is complaining about accessibility as such. I'll try to address this at some point if nobody else gets in before me. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think this has been fixed. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• Is there any secondary commentary at all on the "expanded creative partnership" re Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them and its progeny? Did she write for any of the films/consult/produce? That whole graf can come out if there's nothing substantial about her involvement. All I'm seeing is coverage like [5] which might deserve a place in Transgender but is the opposite of work on the films. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  She was a screenwriter (Pugh p. 5 if you want a scholarly source) and co-producer (per your link). I think you can trim that graf, but probably keep those two roles (they're in the lead's first sentence). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  @AleatoryPonderings and Olivaw-Daneel: is this resolved? I want to do some archiving on old before we start on TG section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, resolved through a lot of intermediate edits. I'm satisfied with the current version. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• (copied from Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1) 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)
• Two related points re: Death as a theme. 1) Death as the main theme is so non-controversial that inline attribution weakens it; we should just say it plainly. 2) I don't think there's any disagreement that all books explore death as a theme, but that can't be cited to 2001 and 2002 sources, the series was completed in 2007. Flagging these for later attention. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  Fixed. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Tackling the lead

It has been two weeks since the last update to the main FAR page, three independent editors have looked at the text and found only quibbles, and article editing seems to have slowed. I propose that we start nibbling away at the lead, still leaving the Transgender text untouched, doing that work last and separately.

In the first draft below, I have taken liberal portions from User:AleatoryPonderings/Rowling lede, but retained some existing portions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

First draft

First draft

Joanne Rowling, CH, OBE, HonFRSE, FRCPE, FRSL (/ˈroʊlɪŋ/ ROH-ling; born 31 July 1965), known by her pen name J. K. Rowling, is a British writer and philanthropist. She is the author of the Harry Potter series and, as Robert Galbraith, the Cormoran Strike series. The Casual Vacancy, her first novel for adults, was released in 2012. After graduating in 1987 from University of Exeter, Rowling was working temp jobs as a bilingual secretary in 1990 when the idea for the characters of Harry Potter came to her while she waited on a delayed train. The seven-year period that followed saw the untimely death of her mother from multiple sclerosis, birth of her first child, divorce from her first husband, and relative poverty as a single parent. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone was first published in 1997. It had six sequels, of which the last, Deathly Hallows, was released in 2007. The series, in which Harry Potter and his friends battle Lord Voldemort, has been enormously successful. It has sold 500 million copies or more, been translated into at least 60 languages, and spawned a film series. A story of the battle between good and evil whose central theme is death, its influences include the Western canon and juvenile fantasy. Harry Potter been viewed as a Bildungsroman, a school story, a fairy tale rooted in European legend, and a Christian allegory. Its success changed children's literature in the English-speaking world, reviving fantasy as a genre, spawning a host of imitators, and inspiring an active fandom. Critics have described Harry Potter's story and literary style as conventional. Rowling has progressed from living on benefits to the best-selling living author in Britain. The 2021 Sunday Times Rich List estimated Rowling's fortune at £820 million, ranking her as the 196th richest person in the UK. She has used her wealth to establish or contribute to philanthropic endeavours. She co-founded the charity Lumos and established the Volant Charitable Trust, named after her mother, whose love of reading and death greatly influenced Rowling. Her charitable giving centres on medical causes and supporting at-risk women and children. Rowling has won numerous accolades for her writing and charitable work. She was appointed a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour (CH) for services to literature and philanthropy. Time named her a runner-up for its 2007 Person of the Year, noting the social, moral, and political inspiration she has given her fans. Rowling is an active political commentator. She opposed Scottish independence and Brexit and has criticised the press. Since late 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals. References

Discussion of first draft

I am not a fan of introducing the word Bildungsroman in the lead, as we should never oblige the reader to click out to understand the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

It could be changed to "coming-of-age story". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but piped to Bildungsroman. Johnbod (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Elsewhere, I've written "Bildungsroman, or coming-of-age story, to overcome the minor easter-egg problem; but I would still prefer a piped link to none. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you and O-D to gather all comments on the first draft, and launch the second draft on this page :) I just wanted to get this ball rolling! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to see us work in the themes of love and death in her writing, as she has so clearly acknowledged how her mother's death inspired her writing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I would like to remove the post-nominals, or at least the most obscure ones (perhaps we could leave her OBE) because I think they are distracting and not particularly illuminating. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure where MOS stands on that; DrKay might inform us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Found MOS:POSTNOM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

When an individual holds a large number of post-nominal letters or seldom uses them (common among heads of state and members of royal families), they should be omitted from the lead, and the titles only described in the main body of the article ... seems applicable here, although she's not a head of state. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Since they are all listed in the infobox, it seems to me that deleting them from the lead sentence would be OK, but I defer to DrKay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, I think these are accorded undue weight. In particular, the FRSE and FRCPE. She's not known as either a scientist or a physician and these organizations are not 'regularly associated with the subject'. Lead sentences should be concise. DrKay (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

FYI, there was a recent talk page discussion about the post-nominals here. Looks like rough consensus to retain them. Firefangledfeathers 16:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting (and many quoted only the portion of MOS:POSTNOM that supported their case). It may not be worth the trouble to revisit this so soon after that discussion. I do see several suggestions to keep only the OBE, which was my inclination as well, but I don't think this the best time to re-rock that boat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"After graduating in 1987 from University of Exeter, Rowling was working temp jobs as a bilingual secretary in 1990 when the idea for the characters of Harry Potter came to her while she waited on a delayed train." This sentence is pretty long—could we change to "Rowling graduated from the University of Exeter in 1987 and worked temp jobs thereafter. The idea for the characters of Harry Potter came to her while she waited on a delayed train in 1990." AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Can we remove "untimely"? It reads like a memorial. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

No prob; waiting for you and O-D to produce a new-and-improved second draft :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Figured gathering some more comments on draft 1.0 would be good before proceeding to 2.0? Propose to give it a week or so and integrate whatever thoughts I and others have into a new version. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like the opening paragraph to do a bit more to define Rowling. The genre is typically mentioned close to the top; here, the second sentence seems a good fit (HP as fantasy/children's lit). There's usually context on either commercial or critical renown depending on the author (Blyton, Fitzgerald). With Rowling, something like the current version's in 2008 became the best-selling book children's series in history seems notable. This record is not currently in the body, but it can be sourced to a book; there are other options. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Responding to O-D's request for comments below. The material in this draft seems to me a generally fair summary of what we have. I have minor quibbles with the content of the literary portions, and other quibbles with the structure. Literary pieces first; "Influenced by the Western canon" doesn't strike me as a very useful thing to say; the western canon is widely influential by definition. I don't love the "viewed as" sentence; I think our source material is clear-cut enough that we can state plainly that Rowling blends elements of many genres. I also think school story should be listed in influences. I think it's an important point to make that HP is generally viewed less favorably by critics than by the public: though this is somewhat inevitable, given it's mind-boggling popularity with the public, I believe it's clear enough, and given that we cannot discuss critical commentary much in the lead, it's perhaps necessary as a summary. It could be a lead in to what the draft says about story and style. Finally; have we intentionally dropped the "best-selling children's book series"? Seems important to me, but I haven't kept up with whether sources bear this out.
  With respect to structure, I have the following suggestions. I would place information about Rowling's success (awards, wealth, and possibly impact of HP) in the third paragraph, and what Rowling has done with her wealth (philanthropy) and views in the fourth paragraph. I might even suggest placing her pre-HP biography in the first paragraph; I'm not a huge fan of the bare-bones first paragraphs; but I recognize this has become WP convention, so this isn't a strong objection. I'm also willing to be persuaded as to any of the rest of my comments. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft 1.5

User:AleatoryPonderings/Rowling lede is my suggested revision to the first draft above. Some major changes, some minor, I've hit some but not all of the comments made above. Keeping it in userspace for now where I invite, in no particular order, SandyGeorgia, Vanamonde93, and Olivaw-Daneel to incorporate any suggestions I have missed (or new ideas I have not anticipated). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It's customary (although not obligatory) to get a WP:LEAD for this size article in to four paragraphs. I don't think we need to cover where she was born, or where she grew up, or her second marriage in the lead (she didn't necessarily "move with him" to the "Scottish estate", as they have three houses, so I don't think we need that at all). Other than that, almost there ... I leave the rest of the literary portions to those of you who know that area best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Isn't a person's birth place and early life important biographical information? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Birth place may be (but that is often included with birth date), but that she grew up in several towns doesn't add anything of interest that compels one to want to read further. That is, if you want more early biographical detail, growing up in a historic cottage surrounded by books and influenced by her mother's love of books and reading are more on point. Also, on point to her literary career, is how much she was impacted by the early death of her mother; there are other ways to work in her early life that relate more to her literary, political and philanthropic future. Death is thematic in her writing, and what her mother went through with MS, as well as what Jo went through with single parenthood, are thematic to her politics and philanthropy. Also, I would have to go back and re-read, but I'm pretty sure their main residence is the house in Edinburgh, not the Killiechassie Estate. Also, making the fifth para stand-alone is inviting it to grow, which could result in a labored lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• I think this is pretty close to what we ought to have, but there's some repetition, and I don't love having the HP material split up or in the first paragraph. I do think you've addressed most of my content points. I would suggest something like this (now reverted). Feel free to use any of that material. Minor points; I do not love the specificity of "196th richest"; surely "one of the wealthiest" would do fine? Also; I would use "mixed" rather than "muted" for critical response; it hasn't been muted, it's been loud, it just has been loud in many directions, if you'll forgive an odd turn of phrase. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with this proposal and have tweaked it a bit in this revision, mainly for flow. (And to reduce the focus on "battle"). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• I would suggest combining the comments about her wealth into a single paragraph; "In 2004, Forbes named Rowling the "first billion-dollar author", and in 2021 the Sunday Times stated she was worth £820 million, making her one of the wealthiest people in the UK." BilledMammal (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The current revision of User:AleatoryPonderings/Rowling lede now incorporates Vm's, O-D's, and my edits. My two big changes were getting rid of "best known" because that always strikes me as OR and deleting the specific figure about her wealth—unclear to me how it helps readers to know it's precisely £820 million (according to the estimate of one list, whose inclusion criteria for net worth are not clear). I think I ended up restoring some of the phrasing from prior versions, as I also don't like using "with" as a catch-all conjunction as in Her series has been enormously successful, with sales of 500 million copies or more. Other than that there were just minor tweaks. If we're satisfied here, should we bring it to Talk:J. K. Rowling? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft 2

I find it very hard to discuss text I can't see on this page, so I am copying User:AleatoryPonderings/Rowling lede to here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft 2

Joanne Rowling, CH OBE HonFRSE FRCPE FRSL (/ˈroʊlɪŋ/ ROH-ling; born 31 July 1965), known by her pen name J. K. Rowling, is a British writer and philanthropist. She wrote the seven-volume Harry Potter series, published from from 1997 to 2007. Born in Yate, Rowling grew up in a middle-class family in several English towns. She graduated from the University of Exeter in 1987 and worked temp jobs thereafter. The idea for the characters of Harry Potter came to her while she waited on a delayed train in 1990. Her mother's death in late 1990 deeply affected Rowling and her writing. In the years that followed, Rowling's first child was born and she divorced her first husband. The first Harry Potter novel, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, was published in 1997 as she experienced relative poverty as a single parent. Seven years later, Forbes named Rowling the "first billion-dollar author". The Casual Vacancy (2012) was her first novel for adults. She writes Cormoran Strike, an ongoing crime fiction series, as Robert Galbraith. Rowling's Harry Potter series was published over ten years, concluding in 2007 with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. It follows a boy named Harry Potter as he attends Hogwarts, a school for wizards, and battles Lord Voldemort. Its influences include the Bildungsroman, or coming-of-age story; school stories; European fairy tales; and Christian allegory. Death and the divide between good and evil are central themes. Her series has been enormously successful: it has sold 500 million copies or more, been translated into at least 60 languages, and was adapted into a film series. It revived fantasy as a genre in the children's market, spawned a host of imitators, and inspired an active fandom. Critical reception has been more mixed. Many reviewers see Rowling's prose and plots as conventional; some regard her portrayal of gender and social division as regressive. Rowling is a philanthropist and active political commentator. She co-founded the charity Lumos and established the Volant Charitable Trust, named for her mother, whose love of reading and death greatly influenced her. Rowling's charitable giving centres on medical causes and supporting at-risk women and children. Rowling has won many accolades for her writing and charitable work. She was named to the Order of the British Empire in 2000 and was appointed a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour (CH) in 2017 for services to literature and philanthropy. In politics, she opposed Scottish independence and Brexit and has criticised the press. Since late 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals. References

Draft 2 discussion

The lead of Vincent Van Gogh is a perhaps helpful example of a Victoriaearle/Ceoil collaboration. Four paragraphs would be about right here; there is a lot of information in each paragraph now, making for dense reading. Besides providing the concise overview expected in an encyclopedic lead, the lead should entice the reader to continue reading. That she grew up in several towns gives nothing of interest to either the casual fan or the literary analyst. The line about everything she went through in the seven years she was writing the books is central to her story, and is now gone. Perhaps the way we divided up the work here (literary vs. personal life) means that some of the flavor of how much, and in what ways, her early life affected her writing is lost? I don't think we're ready yet to bring this to the talk page of the article, but when we do, we should take care to specify that this is only an interim suggestion, as work is ongoing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

If you're referring to The seven-year period that followed saw the untimely death of her mother from multiple sclerosis, birth of her first child, divorce from her first husband, and relative poverty as a single parent, all that material—except "untimely" and "multiple sclerosis"—is retained in this draft. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know who wrote the wording now in the article, but I find it more compelling than the proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to restore the earlier version of the seven-year sentence. One comment – in sentence 2, I think the genre (children's fantasy) is more important than the years, which are repeated in other parts of the lead and distract a bit. Also, "best known" is easily sourced to books... but not going to insist on it. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there critical consensus that the genre is children's fantasy? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes.. see for e.g. the Oxford Encyclopedia of British Literature. Some Oxford encyclopedias even call Rowling "British children's author" rather than "British author" in their first sentences. (Not saying we should do that.) Also, you mention "Casual Vacancy was her first novel for adults" later on, which doesn't make sense without this earlier context. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft 3 (SG)

Draft 3

Joanne Rowling, CH OBE HonFRSE FRCPE FRSL (/ˈroʊlɪŋ/ ROH-ling; born 31 July 1965), is a British author and philanthropist known by her pen name J. K. Rowling. She wrote a seven-volume children's fantasy series, Harry Potter, published from 1997 to 2007. The series has been enormously successful: it has sold over 500 million copies, been translated into at least 70 languages, and was adapted into films. The Casual Vacancy (2012) was her first novel for adults. She writes Cormoran Strike, an ongoing crime fiction series, as Robert Galbraith. Born in Yate, Rowling graduated from the University of Exeter in 1987 and began working temp jobs as a bilingual secretary. In 1990, the idea for the characters of Harry Potter came to her while she waited on a delayed train. The seven-year period that followed saw the death of her mother from multiple sclerosis, which deeply affected Rowling and her writing; the birth of her first child; and divorce from her first husband. She wrote the first Harry Potter novel, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, while experiencing relative poverty as a single parent. Seven years later, Forbes named Rowling the "first billion-dollar author". Rowling's Harry Potter series was published over ten years, concluding with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. It follows a boy named Harry Potter as he attends Hogwarts, a school for wizards, and battles Lord Voldemort. Its influences include the Bildungsroman, or coming-of-age story; school stories; and European fairy tales. Some view it as a Christian allegory, while others see anti-religious subtext. Death and the divide between good and evil are central themes. It revived fantasy as a genre in the children's market, spawned a host of imitators, and inspired an active fandom. Critical reception has been more mixed. Many reviewers see Rowling's prose and plots as conventional; some regard her portrayal of gender and social division as regressive. Rowling is an active charitable donor and political commentator. She co-founded the charity Lumos and established the Volant Charitable Trust, named for her mother, whose love of reading greatly influenced her. Rowling's charitable giving centres on medical causes and supporting at-risk women and children. Rowling has won many accolades for her writing and charitable work. She was named to the Order of the British Empire in 2000 and was appointed a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour (CH) in 2017 for services to literature and philanthropy. In politics, she opposed Scottish independence and Brexit and has criticised the press. Since late 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals. References

Draft 3 discussion

My main objectives were a) four paragraphs, b) get back the seven-year period, and c) reduce a small amount of repetition. Other than that, all I did was move things around (kept all of AP and O-D's literary wording). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

PS, I didn't get the change O-D mentioned about genre over date ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I like this, I would only delete She had fully explored the characters and their story in her imagination before she reached home and began to write.. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Done ... I wish we could improve the flow/choppiness of the last paragraph, but I can't see how. But then, that's the sort of thing I can envision we will fix on a later pass; just need to get something up for now.

AP, once you are satisfied that everyone is in sync, would you like to make the post to the article talk page? Making sure to emphasize that we have made no changes re Transgender people, and will work next on that ... And install the new version ... With a careful edit summary, so as not to trigger edit warring? I feel like my % contribs on the article are making it look like I did more than I did, when I mostly did grunt work on what is the writing of you, O-D and VM, so want to let you install the fruits of your writing :) Bst, S SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, Johnbod, Firefangledfeathers, Buidhe, Hog Farm, Aza24, BilledMammal, and Z1720: pls have a look at proposed third draft for interim lead (still keeping old wording on TG people, as we haven't worked that section yet). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

PS: 446 words to the 465 currently in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I too like this. Re. SG: in sentence 2, I would incorporate either "fantasy series" or "children's fantasy series". (A more minor point: 1997 and 2007 are repeated later on) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Does this do the trick? I removed the first set of dates, as they are explored in more detail later, which also meant rejigging the sentences left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me; made a minor tweak. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

But now I'm worried about date inconsistency; we have a date associated in first para with Casual Vacancy only. Is that odd? Also, do we need the detail of the dates of her OBE and OCH in the lead? Should I put the Harry dates back in para 1, and reduce them from para 2 instead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I personally don't care for those dates (too much detail), so I'd remove the ones for Casual Vacancy, OBE, CH. But up to you. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Oops, we crossed in the mail; I just did the opposite :) Will wait now to see which AP prefers ... all dates, no dates, or something in between. I got to worrying that someone would complain if we didn't have publication dates in the first para, for time context (ie, she's not Jane Austen or Louisa May Alcott :) We can juggle that either way later on ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

No issues; this looks consistent. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Typing on a phone. I am on an indefinite wiki vacation due to real life events and therefore cannot comment on this for the foreseeable future. Z1720 (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I like the length, organization, and prose. I would sneak the pub year of Philosopher's Stone in if length allows, though I know it's stated earlier. Coupled with the next paragraph's "over ten years", it helps keep the reader in the chronology. — Firefangledfeathers 22:32, 27 February 2022 — continues after insertion below

Holding off on date inconsistency to see which way AP prefers to go, as we've gone back and forth several times on this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• "it has sold 500 million copies or more" → "it has sold over 500 million copies"

  The way it is written now is (technically) more accurate; we know that it was 500 million as of a few years ago, so is probably more ("or more") by now. But I'm not fussed if AP prefers to go with your wording on next or close-to-final version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'd be glad to hear some feedback from others as well. Right now, the cited source and the body of our article say that it was more than 500 million sold as of 2018. I suppose we could conjure up some possibility whereby the number sold would have decreased to exactly 500 million, but if we're being realistic, the number sold is still higher than 500 million. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 23:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

  True dat! Probably justifiable either way, but I will leave that to AP's next version. I've fiddled a lot already. I am basically happy and wouldn't mind if, after we sort this and the date issue, it went live. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

   Done (since AP didn't object  :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• For the beginning of the second paragraph I'd prefer "Born in Yate, Rowling graduated from the University of Exeter in 1987 and began working temp jobs as a bilingual secretary. In 1990, the idea for the characters of Harry Potter came to her while she waited on a delayed train."

   Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'd prefer "She wrote the first Harry Potter novel, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, while experiencing relative poverty as a single parent."

   Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the draft. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 22:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Religious controversies

Will we be accused of POV for leaving religious controversies out of the lead ? If so --> Many reviewers see Rowling's prose and plots as conventional; some regard her portrayal of gender and social division as regressive; and there were religious debates over the Harry Potter series. (Adds 10 words to the sentence, which leaves the lead about the same size as now.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd move it a couple of lines earlier, alongside the Christian allegory. "Its influences include the Bildungsroman, or coming-of-age story; school stories; and European fairy tales. Some view it as a Christian allegory, while others see anti-religious subtext." Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Like that, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

If the dates are causing grief we can remove them. I generally like them for context: for example 2012, pub date of Casual Vacancy, is now ten years ago and edging into history (gasp). But it seems the rest of us are more opposed than in favour. Could we finesse the 500 million by just saying "the Harry Potter novels were consistent bestsellers and broke publishing records" or something like that? The figure itself isn't that informative if not contextualized against other sales figres in a way it couldn't be in the lede (and isn't really in the body anyway). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The dates may be OK now; my concern remains that, if we remove then, someone will come along and ask for them (Firefangledfeathers wanted a date added). Rather than fiddle with dates, let's see what others say (so we don't have to keep switching back and forth). I'm OK with the 500 million, too; for context, have a look at the change I just made, where I linked to List of best-selling books#List of best-selling book series. I also made the Religious change suggested by O-D, and the "over" (500 million) suggested by Firefangledfeathers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Generally fine with this as far as content and structure goes. Slightly dissatisfied with the literary analysis summaries, because we are essentially equating scholarly commentary on gender with religious fundamentalist commentary on alleged satanism. Also, it's not really anti-religious subtext, is it. Even if the allegations are correct (and scholars agree they are not) it's satanism and paganism the books are supposedly promoting; not atheism, or a critique of the religious establishment. I'm busy at the moment, and will try to come up with alternative wording later; flagging this for others who may have more time. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  Ah ha ... will wait for this to be fixed before advancing then. Would it work to go back to my proposal, at 23:44 27 February ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  That is,

  Many reviewers see Rowling's prose and plots as conventional; some regard her portrayal of gender and social division as regressive; and there were religious debates over the Harry Potter series.

  while restoring the earlier,

  Its influences include the Bildungsroman, or coming-of-age story; school stories; European fairy tales; and Christian allegory.

  Vanamonde93 will that resolve it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  I would break the first sentence in two: "Many reviewers see Rowling's prose and plots as conventional; some regard her portrayal of gender and social division as regressive. There were also religious debates over the Harry Potter series." Otherwise this addressed my concerns. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks; I will get that in a new (hopefully) final draft, after others weigh in on everything else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft 3, addition ?

Re:

• The series has been enormously successful: it has sold over 500 million copies, been translated into at least 70 languages, and was adapted into films.

What do others think about:

• The series has been enormously successful: it has sold over 500 million copies, been translated into at least 70 languages, and spawned a global media franchise including films and video games.

It would add six words, bringing the lead to 453 words. I feel like that's a better reflection of Pugh's weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I like this addition. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Date problem

As Firefangledfeathers pointed out, there is still a date problem. We are requiring the reader to do too much work to get the dates, when we say:

• Seven years later, Forbes named Rowling the "first billion-dollar author".

The reader has to go from 1990, when the idea came to her, through the seven-year period until the first was published (1997), to seven more years to get to 2004, when she was declared a billionaire by Forbes. We can fix this on the next iteration, with Draft 4, when we solve the religious issue, and possibly add the "global media franchise". We may want to remove some dates from para 4 then (OBE and OCH), to deal with word count. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The "seven years later" relied on 1997 in the previous sentence; I'm fine with bringing that back. I think dates are more useful in a chronological para like this one, than in the others. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

A different point: Rowling disputes the billionaire claim. Not sure if it's an issue, but if it is, we could switch to one of the other superlatives. E.g. Forbes named her the world's highest-paid author in 2008; The Times said she was richer than the Queen in 2003. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I like the 2008 idea .... will do that in the am. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Topic sentence of fourth paragraph

We fail to make it clear why/how we tie everything together in paragraph 4. Smith, p. 234, sums it up in a way we could make use of:

• "The confidence that Joanne now felt emboldened her to stand up and be counted on issues that were important to her. Now that she was a seriously rich and famous woman, however much she sought to avoid publicity, she had a public image that she could use to the advantage of others."

This covers a lot of territory. Her political outspokenness, her wariness of the media, and her charitable activities. And the final chapter of Kirk also ties her stances to the recognition she received, following on a difficult period as a single parent who rose to wealth. If we can work this in to the article somehow, I believe we could make a better introduction to the fourth paragraph, with more clarity about why all of that goes together. The fourth para still feels too choppy to me, like it is trying to tie together unrelated things, when they are in fact related. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Added this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

So, rejigging the fourth paragraph for a (hopefully) more logical flow, with a theme: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Rowling has won many accolades for her writing and charitable work. She was named to the Order of the British Empire and was appointed a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour for services to literature and philanthropy. Although she is critical of the press, Rowling has used her public image, recognition and wealth to advance causes important to her. She co-founded the charity Lumos and established the Volant Charitable Trust, named for her mother, whose love of reading greatly influenced her. Rowling's charitable giving centres on medical causes and supporting at-risk women and children. In politics, she has donated to Britain's Labour Party and opposed Scottish independence and Brexit. Since late 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals.

This would add 10 words, bringing total for lead to 463. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the first sentence is appropriate as a topic sentence. The topic is her public image and non-writing activities, not her awards. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Could you put a version here that works? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I did it this way because we've already established her wealth; now we have to establish her accolades so we can use them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

One way to do that might be to attach her accolades to the end of para 3, which is about reception anyway. Then this para becomes about her image and how she uses it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Nah, that won't work either, because we have to establish her philanthropy before we award her for it. <sigh> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe ... ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Rowling has used her wealth and public image – despite being critical of the press – to advance causes important to her. She co-founded the charity Lumos and established the Volant Charitable Trust, named for her mother, whose love of reading greatly influenced her. Rowling's charitable giving centres on medical causes and supporting at-risk women and children. Rowling has won many accolades for her writing and charitable work. She was named to the Order of the British Empire and was appointed a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour for services to literature and philanthropy. In politics, she has donated to Britain's Labour Party and opposed Scottish independence and Brexit. Since late 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals.

• I don't like linking press criticism and philanthropy this way; it makes no sense to a reader without access to the quote presented above. Furthermore, that quote does not jive with the press content we currently have in the article; that says nothing about Rowling avoiding publicity, but discusses lawsuits against the press, primarily. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

  So, should we leave out the press portion entirely? Where it is now in the proposed lead is awkward; In politics, she opposed Scottish independence and Brexit and has criticised the press. She hasn't only criticized the press re politics, so I don't know how to fix this other than leave it out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with the topic sentence in the last draft:

Rowling is an active charitable donor and political commentator.

To connect this with her wealth and newfound prominence following HP, we might say, instead:

Harry Potter brought Rowling fame and wealth. She has used her wealth and public image to advance political and charitable causes.

I don't like "important to her" because it's clear that someone would speak in favour of causes that are important to them. What matters is the nature of these causes. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I was trying to improve the sentence in the current draft because it a) doesn't tie everything in the para together, and b) uses "active charitable donor" to avoid saying twice that she is a philanthropist. And I'm trying to avoid repeating that Harry made her wealthy, as we've already said that. What about ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Rowling has used the wealth and recognition that Harry Potter brought her to advance political and charitable causes. She co-founded the charity Lumos and established the Volant Charitable Trust, named for her mother, whose love of reading greatly influenced her. Rowling's charitable giving centres on medical causes and supporting at-risk women and children. Rowling has won many accolades for her writing and charitable work. She was named to the Order of the British Empire and was appointed a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour for services to literature and philanthropy. In politics, she has donated to Britain's Labour Party and opposed Scottish independence and Brexit. Since late 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals.

I support this version. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, all, I'll get back on this in the morning (after spending a miserable day cleaning up horrific citations on another FAR, my neck hurts), with a whole new draft, incorporating everything so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft 4

Joanne Rowling, CH OBE HonFRSE FRCPE FRSL (/ˈroʊlɪŋ/ ROH-ling; born 31 July 1965), is a British author and philanthropist known by her pen name J. K. Rowling. She wrote a seven-volume children's fantasy series, Harry Potter, published from 1997 to 2007. The series has been enormously successful: it has sold over 500 million copies, been translated into at least 70 languages, and spawned a global media franchise including films and video games. The Casual Vacancy (2012) was her first novel for adults. She writes Cormoran Strike, an ongoing crime fiction series, as Robert Galbraith.

Born in Yate, Rowling graduated from the University of Exeter in 1987 and began working temp jobs as a bilingual secretary. In 1990, the idea for the characters of Harry Potter came to her while she waited on a delayed train. The seven-year period that followed saw the death of her mother from multiple sclerosis, which deeply affected Rowling and her writing; the birth of her first child; and divorce from her first husband. She wrote the first Harry Potter novel, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (1997), while experiencing relative poverty as a single parent. Forbes named her the world's highest-paid author in 2008.

Rowling concluded the Harry Potter series with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (2007). The novels follow a boy named Harry Potter as he attends Hogwarts, a school for wizards, and battles Lord Voldemort. Death and the divide between good and evil are the central themes of the series. Its influences include the Bildungsroman (coming-of-age story), school stories, fairy tales, and Christian allegory. The series revived fantasy as a genre in the children's market, spawned a host of imitators, and inspired an active fandom. Critical reception has been more mixed. Many reviewers see Rowling's writing as conventional; some regard her portrayal of gender and social division as regressive. There were also religious debates over Harry Potter.

Rowling has won many accolades for her work. She was named to the Order of the British Empire and was appointed a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour for services to literature and philanthropy. She has used the wealth and recognition that Harry Potter brought her to advance philanthropic endeavours and political causes. She co-founded the charity Lumos and established the Volant Charitable Trust, named for her mother. Rowling's charitable giving centres on medical causes and supporting at-risk women and children. In politics, she has donated to Britain's Labour Party and opposed Scottish independence and Brexit. Since late 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals.

References
References

Draft 4 discussion

This version has (hopefully, pls check carefully):

1. Incorporated Vanamonde93's final comments at #Religious controversies
2. Expanded one sentence to include global franchise mention
3. Rejigged the #Topic sentence of fourth_paragraph
4. Switched per O-D's suggestion to eliminate the billionaire wording, which Rowling disputes,[6] and used instead the 2008 data, which ties nicely to the 1997 to 2007 publication dates given.

Which leaves the overall date issue. We were making too much work for the reader, and had introduced some inconsistency and repetition in how we handled dates in the lead. Since the dates in the lead already mentioned the series was published over a ten-year period (1997 to 2007), I economized some wording by removing that mention from the start of the third paragraph, and just mentioned instead when the last was published. So I hope we have now bracketed the dates for context, used them consistently in parens after the title, and given context for her wealth relative to the publication dates.

This is 460 words, to the 447 now in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

PS, we've mentioned the influence of her mother twice, so we might discuss removing the second mention, "whose love of reading greatly influenced her". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Fourth paragraph redux

• Looks pretty solid to me. Two suggestions; I'd agree with leaving out the second mother's influence; and I'd prefer to have, in the fourth paragraph, to move current sentences 3 & 4 before 1 & 2. The current first sentence refers to recognition due to Harry Potter, which is only mentioned later. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

So, moving as you indicate, your proposed fourth para is:

Got this wrong

Rowling's charitable giving centres on medical causes and supporting at-risk women and children. Rowling has won many accolades for her writing and charitable work. She has used the wealth and recognition that Harry Potter brought her to advance charitable and political causes. She co-founded the charity Lumos and established the Volant Charitable Trust, named for her mother. She was named to the Order of the British Empire and was appointed a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour for services to literature and philanthropy. In politics, she has donated to Britain's Labour Party and opposed Scottish independence and Brexit. Since late 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals.

That flow isn't working, so I may have misunderstood your proposal. If this is what you meant:

Rowling has won many accolades for her work. She was named to the Order of the British Empire and was appointed a member of the Order of the Companions of Honour for services to literature and philanthropy. Rowling has used the wealth and recognition that Harry Potter brought her to advance charitable and political causes. She co-founded the charity Lumos and established the Volant Charitable Trust, named for her mother. Rowling's charitable giving centres on medical causes and supporting at-risk women and children. In politics, she has donated to Britain's Labour Party and opposed Scottish independence and Brexit. Since late 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals.

Then I think we should remove from the first sentence "and charitable work", as this version has us mentioning that before defining it. I would (TYPO wouldn't !!) object to removing it. But I'm not fond of this version, as it eliminates the idea of a topic sentenced that ties everything together; perhaps we can find another way to solve your concern about the first mention of Harry recognition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• On reflection I think it's okay. The OBE cites the charitable work, so there isn't anything further down in paragraph four that's purely literary. Willing to support draft 4 as it stands. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  Sandy, if you have no objections to removing "charitable work" from the relevant sentence, I'd slightly prefer your modified version beginning "Rowling has won many accolades...", but the preference is slight. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93 have a look now; I may have solved it by switching from "writing and charity" to just ... her work. I'm OK with this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  Looks fine to me, thanks. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think I now also prefer the Alternate para 4; @AleatoryPonderings and Olivaw-Daneel: ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  Agree. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  Fine with either. The paragraph is maybe too grab-bag for a comprehensive topic sentence. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 20:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

   Done [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  Still not thrilled with beginning the graf with a reference to her awards, when those really only serve to show the recognition she has received. What about removing the specific references to the OBE and CH and saying "Rowling, who has won many accolades for her work, has used the wealth and recognition that Harry Potter brought her to advance charitable and political causes." AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  If we remove OBE and CH from here, we can give up on the idea of maybe achieving this in the final round, in the event we need another RFC:

  "I would like to remove the post-nominals, or at least the most obscure ones (perhaps we could leave her OBE) because I think they are distracting and not particularly illuminating. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)"

  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

At any rate, that would leave us at: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Rowling, who has won many accolades for her work, has used the wealth and recognition that Harry Potter brought her to advance philanthropic endeavours and political causes. She co-founded the charity Lumos and established the Volant Charitable Trust, named for her mother. Rowling's charitable giving centres on medical causes and supporting at-risk women and children. In politics, she has donated to Britain's Labour Party and opposed Scottish independence and Brexit. Since late 2019, she has publicly expressed her opinions on transgender people and related civil rights. These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals.

So, we've now removed all mention of her accolades from the lead, and expect the reader to click out to another article to understand what those are. That's giving her short shift—especially in a paragraph that already devotes two full sentences to one controversy (along with paragraph 3, that gives another two sentences to controversy and criticism). I'm losing the sense of a best-selling phenomenon here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I mean, the first graf is entirely about her being a best-selling phenomenon. But your point is taken. I am fine with the draft of the fourth paragraph, located immediately below the hatted text headed "Got this wrong", that you signed at 16:42, 1 March 2022. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback from Firefangledfeathers

• Sure I'll have more later, but I'd switch charitable and political in the fourth paragraph intro. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  Agree on that,  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• In the the third paragraph: The second sentence, "It" → "The series" or "The novels" in order to avoid some possible pronoun-antecedent ambiguity. Some subject-verb agreement tweaks would follow the change. I'd take out 'European' as a descriptor of "fairy tales".
  Fourth paragraph: how about changing the link text to "Rowling has won many accolades for her writing and charitable work"?
  If we're looking to trim the word count, I agree that the mother's influence bit could go. I'd also put up "prose and plots" → "writing" if we're really digging deep. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 18:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  Partially done; If I change the "it" in the third paragraph, I get into a choice between a) repetition of the word series or b) subject-verb changes that make a mess. I am unsure how to fix this; could you put up a sample? I also did not take out "European" as prefer to wait to hear from AP, O-D and VM on text like that, which I have no knowledge of :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  Something like "The novels follow a boy named Harry Potter ..." Happy to hear from others on European. It's not in the body, maybe it should be. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 18:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I can do that, but I get into trouble when we hit ... "Its influences ..." and " It revived fantasy ... " where we have the same problem ?? Do I switch to they, or what? I need the whole thing; maybe I'm just tired :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm ok with removing "European"; I haven't seen it specifically used in sources. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

   Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Third para

Do you mean this (there are two more subsequent uses of "it"): SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Rowling's Harry Potter series concluded with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (2007). The novels follow a boy named Harry Potter as he attends Hogwarts, a school for wizards, and battles Lord Voldemort. Their influences include the Bildungsroman, or coming-of-age story; school stories; fairy tales; and Christian allegory. Death and the divide between good and evil are central themes. The series revived fantasy as a genre in the children's market, spawned a host of imitators, and inspired an active fandom.

I just wasn't looking far enough ahead! What if we flip the first sentence instead? "Rowling's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (2007) concluded the Harry Potter series."

Like this ? (I'm concerned with "its influences include ... ".) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (2007) concluded the Harry Potter series. The novels follow a boy named Harry Potter as he attends Hogwarts, a school for wizards, and battles Lord Voldemort. Death and the divide between good and evil are central themes. Rowling was influenced by the Bildungsroman, or coming-of-age story; school stories; fairy tales; and Christian allegory. The series revived fantasy as a genre in the children's market, spawned a host of imitators, and inspired an active fandom. Critical reception has been more mixed. Many reviewers see Rowling's writing as conventional; some regard her portrayal of gender and social division as regressive. There were also religious debates over the Harry Potter series.

I have a slight preference for a focus on Rowling, so perhaps: "Rowling concluded the Harry Potter series with... ", and "... are Rowling's central themes. Her influences include". Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Which gives us ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Rowling concluded the Harry Potter series with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (2007). The novels follow a boy named Harry Potter as he attends Hogwarts, a school for wizards, and battles Lord Voldemort. Death and the divide between good and evil are Rowling's central themes. Her influences include the Bildungsroman, or coming-of-age story; school stories; fairy tales; and Christian allegory. The series revived fantasy as a genre in the children's market, spawned a host of imitators, and inspired an active fandom. Critical reception has been more mixed. Many reviewers see Rowling's writing as conventional; some regard her portrayal of gender and social division as regressive. There were also religious debates over the Harry Potter series.

Thumbs up from me. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 20:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Death and the divide between good and evil are Rowling's central themes. Her influences include ... doesn't seem right, because we're just talking about HP and not all of her work (no indication that the divide between good and evil, etc, is central to The Christmas Pig, for example). Could we change to "Death and the divide between good and evil are central themes of the Harry Potter series. Its influences include ..."? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Almost a triviality, but: we say "series" a lot; could we pipe the link to the religious debates article, so we avoid repetition? How about something like "There were also religious debates over Harry Potter.", or equivalent; I'm not fussy. If it proves difficult to word, the current version is fine by me. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

   Done (that was bugging me, too). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Done ?

I think I got everyone's comments worked in now; have a look at #Draft 4, which should be close to final. We might sit on it for 24 hours.

Who should install? I am increasingly bugged about having my contribs show so high, only because I copied in chapter URLs that I earlier told everyone we didn't need (my earlier citation style). That sort of thing tends to come back and bite you (like people thinking I actually wrote Samuel Johnson, when I only did the Tourette syndrome portions, and know nothing else about Samuel Johnson, which was written by Mally and Ottava. I feel like having Vanamonde install this will put the contribs more in line with where they belong, with AP, O-D and VM at the top. In any case, a careful edit summary is needed upon copying this over, pointing to this page of the FAR, and indicating it is interim per work still pending in Transgender section. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Now at 452 words, compared to the 447 now in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Struck, still working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Happy to install it if you'd like me to, and I do support this revision. I'm not too fussed about the contributions. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Wonderful. We are positioning this as "interim", so I think it's good enough, and we can continue tweaking as we continue working, if needed. Whenever you're ready; my talk notification was at 17:14, March 1, 2022. (My excess representation on the contribs does bother me, as the citation copying appears to take due credit away from those who really did the work, and one never knows how that can be misconstrued somewhere down the road.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

PS, upon install, one named ref will need to be swapped into the lead (the Forbes 2008 mention, cited to BBC News, which I named BBCWealth2008). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It is ready from my perspective. Thanks, SG, for your hard work on this. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

AP, the hard work is yet ahead of us. Do you like the way we worked here, which didn't branch to a sub-page or userspace, but kept all drafts here, on one page? I find that an easier way to work, and also keeps everything in one place relative to {{Article history}}, as the FAR gets filed in Articlehistory. I just lose track having to work on two pages at once. I hope you are planning to take the lead on the TG prose, although I'll continue to do all of this bookkeeping, tracking, pinging, updating sort of stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I find collaborating on text when one is not in mainspace is cumbersome no matter how it's done; I have no particular preference for one way of working over another. I do not want to take the lead on the prose for the transgender section as real life is getting busier and I have already made one failed proposal. It's not clear to me how that should proceed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yikes; ok, who volunteers then to get that ball rolling, when we're ready? Not I, said the little red chicken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

PS, AP, I don't think you have a "failed proposal" ... just that you weren't aware of how much opposition any proposal would attract, hence the need to move very slowly and cautiously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Lead installed, with luck this won't turn messy. I'm watching the talk page though. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)