Wikipedia:Peer review/Fun Home/archive1
This article just passed GA, and I was wondering how much work would be required to get it to FA standard. Is it too hagiographic? (I really haven't found any negative reviews of the book. I've added one criticism that occurred in two otherwise positive reviews.) Should there be a section discussing the art the narrative strucutre (which isn't chronolgical, but thematic)? Any and all comments welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: listed at Wikipedia:Peer review, Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review and Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Peer review, for general and subject-specific specialist attention. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- It might be a bit short for an FA, but then again short FAs aren't necessarily a problem if they say all that can reasonably said about a subject. Certainly it seems very well-written and well-referenced. I don't think a lack of negative reviews is a problem if you have done your best to find some — I had a similar problem with the Quatermass articles I have worked on, and many of them made FA status anyway. The only suggestion I could possibly make would be perhaps some material dealing with the influence of the book on other writers and works, but then again as it's such a recent book there might not be much of that around yet. Otherwise, it seems very good. Angmering 08:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- A few reviewers, while praising the work overall, commented that Bechdel's extensive use of literary and mythological reference was "forced"[9] or "opaque".[11] - I don't like this specific statement, as it leaves reviewer's opinions open to whatever the reader interpretes. A few can be 3, 5, 10, anything. It's much better to state which reviewer (s) made the comment (s), and which publication (s) they were writing for. LuciferMorgan 20:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've made this change, but I now worry that the section gives undue weight to the negative criticisms, which really are in the minority. The vast majority of reviews I've found have been completely laudatory. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
OK — on LuciferMorgan's advice, I'm going to bite the bullet and submit this for FAC. Thanks to both of the editors who replied. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)