Talk:Jo Clifford/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

into various languages: would be interesting to know how many languages she's been translated into. Maybe pick one play that's been much/most translated and give the figure for that?

80 plays: 'Works' lists 17: are they at random, or are they known to be the most popular, or what?

Unfortunately I can't seem to find a total list of languages or works, and don't want to engage in too much original research, so I've removed this. Evidently we won't be able to list all 80 in the article if this were the case, so I have added citations to third-party sources (per request below). If there are any others which I have missed, or others which are worthy of inclusion, please let me know. --GnocchiFan (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Karena evidently has an allusive title, but it seems to be a mistake as Clifford's actual play is titled Anna Karenina. Suggest a) fix b) add this source c) use source in 'Reception' (or maybe 'Analysis' if going into that sort of detail) as per items below.

Argh, I should have spotted that! I think I've fixed this now. --GnocchiFan (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only 7 of the 17 are cited; one of them, Gospel has a remarkable 4 sources, and Tree of Knowledge has 2, not sure why. It would be much nicer to have a source for each one.

I've trimmed away some of the excess sources now, and included more analysis (see below). If anyone wishes to re-add content from some of the deleted sources I will not object. --GnocchiFan (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be much nicer to have a 'Reception' section with comments, favourable or not, (from sources [21] and following) on the quality and importance of her playwriting.

Not sure what you mean by from sources [21] and following; as far as I can tell they don't tend to go into too much detail about the reception? I've added a section with comments and analysis, I hope this is an improvement. --GnocchiFan (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As well as original works Clifford has also written - too much 'As well as' and 'also', in fact neither of these is necessary here.

Thanks, this has been reworded. --GnocchiFan (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

with Ferdy Woodward. - what does this mean, and why is it encyclopedic? It's unusual to make an account of early life and education anything other than simply factual (X studied at school S, graduated from uni U).

Not sure why this was included; removed. --GnocchiFan (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for 33 yrs - please spell this out.

Done GnocchiFan (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a modern version of the medieval play, Everyman ... Great Expectations: it seems there's a thread of adaptation and modernisation here, maybe with The Leopard and Faust etc, too: I think we should have some sort of section about these themes. Could be in 'Reception' or might be a more scholarly and critical 'Analysis'.

I agree and understand with what you're saying here – I can find a number of sources talking about the universal themes within her plays, but I cannot seem to find anything specifically on the theme of adaptation and modernisation. --GnocchiFan (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help noticing that Gospel, Eve, Tree of Knowledge, and maybe Faust have a Christian ring to them. Is this accidental or a key element of Clifford's writing? Clearly it could be either pro- or -anti, or some third way position, but whichever it is, it sounds as if it might be rather important? It seems to me that we are definitely missing an 'Analysis' section, which might cover this or other themes in Clifford's work. The throwaway line in 'Career' The play features Jesus as a trans woman. sounds to me as if it is not even scratching the surface of a major theme, for example.

I've expounded a little more on Clifford's religious views in the Reception and analysis section; I hope this is an improvement. --GnocchiFan (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Awards and honours' makes use of three different formats within the list of three items! Please pick one and stick with it.

Done GnocchiFan (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The only image seems to be suitably licensed, with the caveat noted on the Commons page.

Sources

The sources I see are fine and relevant, but what they say about Clifford is scarcely mentioned in the article.

@Chiswick Chap: I have added some more content per the sources and suggestions you have made above. As it stands, is there any particular source or aspect mentioned in them (not covered above) that you think would be helpful to improve this article? Thank you for your patience in reviewing this. --GnocchiFan (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[23], [29], [31] are primary and are provided presumably only to establish the fact of publication. This isn't necessary (is simply duplication) in a list of 'Works', which is already a list of (abbreviated) citations; it would be better to provide brief bibliographic details (publisher, at least) for every work in the list.

Summary

This article looks promising, but it seems to me to be rather incomplete. In particular, while the Awards and honours establish notability, the article says almost nothing about why Clifford is notable. The trans aspect is obviously important, and it looks as if the Christianity aspect is too. It is certainly discussed in reliable sources (e.g. 'I want to be a threat': Jo Clifford on her transgender Christ and overcoming fear (The Guardian) (already in article, but barely used to date), Jo Clifford: 'I see writing as a way of resisting prejudice' (British Council) ... there are many other good sources), so to clear GAN the article will need to add at least "the main points" in an 'Analysis' or 'Reception' section (probably both, as these will be at different levels - the Reception detailing how much people liked or disliked the plays, the Analysis exploring scholarly and other discussion of the significance of Clifford's work). Currently the only 'analysis' is a few remarks in the second paragraph of 'Career', where they do not fit well: they should be migrated to one of the new sections. The effect will be quite a major addition to what is rather a skimpy article at the moment, so we will likely have to have a second pass through the review criteria when the article has been extended. Review is On hold until this is actioned. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, second time around, the article is plainly much improved by the increased depth of coverage. I'm certain that more could be said, but the main themes are now at least mentioned, which is the GA criterion. It is likely that as Clifford's career progresses, more will be needed, but for now, this is a GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.