Wikipedia:Peer review/Nancy Drew/archive1

Nancy Drew

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have worked on it a great deal; it just reached GA status and I would like to try for FA status. I would be very grateful for any suggestions for improvement.

Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... - subsequently done Brianboulton (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Brianboulton - I appreciate it. Ricardiana (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Initial comment: I will do a full content review, which may extend over a day or two. In the meantime I wonder if you would comment on your use of non-free images. There are seven in the article. WP:NONFREE gives ten conditions, all of which need to be satisfied the use of a non-free image. Given that reviewers at FAC are taking an increasingly tough line over non-free content, I wonder how you are going to justify all these. Have you discussed their use with, for example, User:Awadewit or User:Jappalang, each of whom has image reviewing expertise? Brianboulton (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I didn't know about these users, but I will ask one of them about the images and I'm reading the policy page right now. The images were discussed somewhat during the GA review and also on the Media Questions page, where I was told everything was cool, but it makes sense that the FAC standards will be more rigorous. So, again, thanks for the heads-up - I'll see what I can see. Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are the links to previous discussions in case they are helpful: [[1]]; [[2]]. Ricardiana (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to keep adding, but some further thoughts on justification: I'm happy to get rid of the non-free images for Edward Stratemeyer and perhaps the cover of Hit and Run Holiday, but I think that the images within the "Evolution of character's appearance" section are necessary to the understanding of that section of the article. Ricardiana (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am taking a look at the images now. (By the way, since I'm a children's lit person myself, I'll probably do a full review in a few days.) Awadewit (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Awadewit. And a review would be wonderful; I would really appreciate it. Ricardiana (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton: prose review (beginning)

Here are some prose comments on the lead and first few sections. They are mainly fairly minor quibbles and/or suggestions you may take or leave. As mentioned, I may have to extend the review over a couple of days, but I will return to it.

• Lead
  • Suggestion: "...Edward Stratemeyer, founder of the Stratemeyer Syndicate, a book packager,..." would, in my view, read better as "...Edward Stratemeyer, a book packager and founder of the Stratemeyer Syndicate,..."

I would do that, but an individual can't be a book packager. Ricardiana (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• • I wonder, is there any alternative description for Statemeyer's function in the publishing house? It's just that "book packager" suggests that he spent his life wrapping up parcels; I know the link explains otherwise, but not everyone will use the link.

Point taken. I'll try to work in a brief explanation of what a book packager is. Since the lead is a summary, though, I'm thinking that the quick explanation might be more appropriate when the subject comes up in the authorship section. Do you think it needs to be in both places? Ricardiana (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the fault is mine. I read the "book packager" as referring to Stratemeyer rather than his company. I now see that it means "Edward Stratemeyer, founder of the Stratemeyer Syndicate book-packaging firm." (Would it be possible just to say that?)

Yes! That's much better, thanks. Ricardiana (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Suggestion: "...the original, outspoken heroine's character..." might be better phrased as "...the heroine's original, outspoken character..." I also think it unnecessary to link "heroine".

Agreed. Ricardiana (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Second para, final sentence: I think the use of the term "likewise" in this sentence could be misleading and would be better replaced by a simple "also"

Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Final paragraph: The "from - to" format for presenting your list of prominent women suggests a range, from one type of person to another very different types. Are they not all of a rather similar type – successful, educated, professional class? No problem with the list, just a mild query on how it's formulated.

Perhaps this is my bias here. I find a difference between a First Lady, who is famous because of her husband, and women who are famous in their own right. That was my basis; while it does reflect a bias, I would think that most people would agree with the phrasing, if only because fans of Laura Bush tend to dislike (shall we say) Hillary Rodham Clinton, and vice versa. ~ My other reason for phrasing the sentence this way is that the first half is made up of relatively liberal people and the second half (rep only by Laura Bush) of more conservative ones, which speaks to the last point in the entire article, that Nancy Drew is a figure that can be approved of as a role model by readers of varying beliefs. Ricardiana (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• • The words "docile", "unconventional" and "demure" are used as descriptions in the lead, but not otherwise in the article. The lead should not contain material that is not otherwise discussed in the article's main body.

Added to main article under 1959–1979. Ricardiana (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Character
  • General point: Does this brief Character section summarise the character Nancy has evolved into, or how she has always been? The lead suggests that she has changed a great deal over the years, but that is not reflected here. Bearing in mind that the creation and evolution of the character are discussed in lengthy following sections, I wonder whether this short summary really needs a section of its own.

Hmm. I was told to add this section during the GA review process, in order to orient readers completely unfamiliar with the books (on the talk page, for example, someone asked something like, "So is she a professional detective? How come she doesn't go to school?") but I can take it back out again. For now I'll make the changes you suggest, and then delete it later if you think I should. Ricardiana (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• • First sentence: "Nancy Drew is a fictional 18- (16 in some versions) year-old amateur sleuth." There must be a more elegant way of phrasing this. Perhaps "Nancy Drew is a fictional 18-year-old amateur sleuth (16 in some versions)."

Re-phrased. Ricardiana (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Creation of character
  • First paragraph doesn't seem to belong in this section - unrelated to creation of character

I think I can move this info around. Ricardiana (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• • You give various names under which the stories might have appeared, but you don't say why the eventual selection was "Nancy Drew", a name which doesn't figure in your list.

The source doesn't really say, but I'll add some info. Ricardiana (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Why have double quote marks round the "can you let us have" and "Nancy is the greatest" quotations?

Because I wasn't quoting the source directly but quoting a source quoted in the source, if that makes sense. That's my understanding of correct MLA format; I guess I should change it. Ricardiana (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• • On reflection, this subsection is about the creation of the series rather than the creation of the character, and perhaps the section title should reflect this?

I agree, except for one problem, which is that there are multiple series and this article has in the past talked almost exclusively about the hardcover versions of the first series, the Nancy Drew Mystery Stories. So I was trying to avoid that. I'll come back to this after I make the other changes to the article, if that sounds all right. Ricardiana (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ghostwriters
  • Mildred Wirt Benson already linked

Removed Ricardiana (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Missing word: "Other works were written (by)..."

Filled in Ricardiana (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• • "After Adams' death in 1982..." As year of death has just been given, the "in 1982" here is superfluous.

Removed superfluity Ricardiana (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• • What, precisely, was sold with the Stratemeyer Foundation, to Simon & Schuster

I added a little more info here. I'm afraid I couldn't find out anything more detailed. Ricardiana (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Legal disputes: Grossett & Dunlap, and Hardy Boys, already linked

Removed Ricardiana (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Evolution of character
  • Since the quote in the first line can only have been said once, the word "often" should be removed

Re-worded Ricardiana (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• • More overlinking. Nancy Drew Mysteries Stories linked twice in the same paragraph (having already been linked earlier, as has Nancy Drew Files

Fixed Ricardiana (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• • "What hasn't changed ... are": Hasn't/are? I imagine the omitted text resolved the grammatical problem here. Without that text you have to find a different solution.

Well, I filled in the missing part of the quotation, but that's the grammar of it. Should I re-write it, maybe using brackets...? Ricardiana (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A little more:-

• 1930-59
  • There is more overlinking here. I'm not going to keep raising this, but the general rule is to link at first mention and not thereafter, and not to link commonplace words at all.

Sorry; I thought that the rule was to link only at the beginning of a section (I know I overlinked even by that standard) - so a link should be given only at the first appearance in the article? Will go over article at the end and look just for links.... Ricardiana (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Strange phrasing: "prior book notices indicate that some seasons and time elapse gradually." I think I get the sense intended, that much happens without the main protagonists getting older, summers go on for ever, etc. - it's a common feature of childen's books. I just think it could be expressed better.

I'm not sure when that got in the article. I removed it; it is expressed badly and I feel like it's more detail than needed ... maybe that's wrong. Ricardiana (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• • "Nancy is also unhindered by the Great Depression, although many of the characters in her early cases need assistance as they are poverty-stricken, and World War II." "Unhindered" is an awkward choice, and the sentence needs rephrasing anyway. Suggest: "Nancy is affected neither by the Great Depression—although many of the characters in her early cases need assistance as they are poverty-stricken—nor by World War II."

Agreed. Changed to your wording; thanks. Ricardiana (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Why has "sympathetic, kind-hearted and lovable" got double quote marks around it? I have further trouble sorting out the rest of the quote marks in this paragraph

Right, that's the MLA format coming out again, where you use quotation marks within quotation marks to indicate that you're quoting a source that itself is quoting a source... I'll remove them. Ricardiana (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• 1959-79: No issues with this section apart from the linking problem.

Pruned links. Ricardiana (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• 1980-2003
  • Could we have a wiktionary link for "moxie"? Not a familiar term over here.

Yes, I forgot that that's a very American term ... added, but I'm not sure I did it right. Ricardiana (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• • "A notorious example..." This is big POV, unless someone said it, in which case it must be cited to them

Er... I know people have said this, but I can't find any references in searching through the sources I have. For, I'll just delete "notorious." Ricardiana (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• • "For the first time, the character of Nancy Drew was used in a new series." This is a bit confusing; the character was firat used in a new series in 1930. I think you need to rephrase, along the lines: "In 1987 the character of Nancy Drew was used in a new series" and then amend the following sentence.

Agreed. Ricardiana (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• • "often dressed provocatively, often in short skirts..." Try to avoid the "often" repeat here, and perhaps deal with further "oftens" later in the paragraph

Pruned some "often"s. Ricardiana (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• • The quote after "Other critics argue that" is too long. This material should on the whole be paraphrased.

Paraphrased. Still needs more work, I think. Will come back again. Ricardiana (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• 2004-present: Who says the Newsweek title is typical? POV?

Yeah... no authority for that but me, although it is true. Forgot about original research. Sorry; removed. Ricardiana (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

More to follow: Brianboulton (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Still more....

• Evolution: "Some contend..." is followed by one contention. That's fine, but it should be specified as an example. Thus: "Some contend that Nancy's portrayal devolves significantly over the years. For example:"

Since only one person argues this or really analyzes the cover art at all, I changed the sentence to credit that person. Ricardiana (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Russell H Tandy
  • "the artist for volume 11 is unknown" - it is the cover artist that is unknown. I think this sentence would be clearer if the parenthesized part was omitted, and the sentence ended: "but the cover artist is unknown."

Re-worded; hopefully it's clearer now. Ricardiana (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• • The quote in: Tandy "read every text..." etc. should be paraphrased. This is unexceptional wording that does not require to be quoted, merely reported.

I see; I changed it. Ricardiana (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• • "generally visually" – adjacent adverbs not a good idea. Rephrase?

I believe I was trying to avoid yet another "often" there... re-phrased. Ricardiana (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Close repetition of the phrase "in the center of the action"

Yes; ugh ~ not good. Eliminated. Ricardiana (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Not sure that "secretively" is a good word choice here. It suggests tight-lipped, taciturn, furtive. Perhaps "unobtrusively"?

Stowe, my source here, uses the word (Stowe 28). I've added another reference, which should have been there before. Ricardiana (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• • I have rearranged the last para a bit (you had two "finallys"), and repunctuated. Hope its OK.

Hmm, I did not write that last paragraph. Must be a recent addition; I don't want to seem like I think I own the article, must say I'm not wild about it, mostly as it's unsourced. It also uses terms like "normal" and "outdoorsy" in a very vague way. However, something like this was in the original version of the article and so someone is really invested in talking about this. I've tried to re-work the info, moving up into the first para. with the earlier mention of Nancy's clothes and only keeping what statements can be sourced. Ricardiana (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Bill Gillies
  • "fully appears to reflect" should be "appears fully to reflect"

More additions from the clotheshorse editor. Re-worded. Ricardiana (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• • "Beginning in the 1940s, and continuing throughout the 1950s, Nancy is less likely to be depicted as in the center of the action." I think this can be reported as fact rather than likelihood. Thus: "Nancy is depicted less fdrequently in the center of the action."

Re-worded. Ricardiana (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Last sentence appears to contain uncited POV. Whose opinions are these?

Erg. The clotheshorse editor's. Removed. Ricardiana (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Rudy Nappi: "titian" could be linked to auburn (color)

Good idea - thanks. Done. Ricardiana (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Nancy in the 80s etc: Rather than the "See Girl Detective page" note which ends the subsection, it would be consistent with elsewhere in the article if you had a mainpage link under the subsection heading.

Done. Ricardiana (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Literarture's Nancy Drew Dust Jacket Collection: What is "Literarture"? This should be explained in the text. What is the reason for the capitalization in the section title?

No reason; changed. I added a bit of explanation as to what "Literature" is - basically a company that reproduces Nancy Drew jackets. That's really it, it seems. Ricardiana (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Books:
  • "Nancy Drew has appeared in hundreds of books in a number of different series, in particular the Nancy Drew Mystery Stories, the Nancy Drew Files, and Girl Detective." This sentence is very vague ("hundreds of books", "in particular"), and unnecessarily so since the numbers of books under each label are precisely known. I suggest you frame this introduction in more precise terms.

Re-framed. Ricardiana (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• • (Foreign publications): "...in most countries, not all Drew books are available in translation." Awkward phrasing; suggest "in many countries only a limited number of Drew books is available in translation."

Re-worded. Ricardiana (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

One more session should finish the review. Brianboulton (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I really appreciate all the time you've put into this. Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Final stretch...

• Film and television – preamble: "The films and television shows have enjoyed only limited success;" - this seems to be an editorial POV. I'd omit this part of the sentence. Also, as there seems to be some doubt about an unnamed fifth film, shouldn't the paragraph begin: "Four, possibly five, feature films..."

The "five" refers to the four undoubted Granville films + the 2007 Emma Roberts film. Changed to "Five, possibly six". Also, omitted POV. Ricardiana (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Film
  • End of second paragraph, rules for fan club: in one instance "Must" is included in the quoted rule, the next, not. Best be consistent here.

The word "must" is only in the source in the first sentence and not in the second. Ricardiana (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Tenses clash: "...reactions were mixed. Some see..." (past followed by present)

As a lit. student, this is how I have been taught to write about texts: "Reactions were mixed" uses past tense because it refers to the reactions at the time the film came out, which is of course in the past; "Some see" refers not the time at which the critique was published, but to the text of the critique itself, which is discussed in present tense. Do you still think it should be changed? Ricardiana (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What you have done makes good sense. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Computer games
  • Her Interactive should be properly introduced, i.e. the sentence should begin: "Computer games publisher Her Interactive..."

Done. Ricardiana (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• • After "E", say what the rating signifies. Thus "...are rated "E" (Everyone) by the..." etc

Done. Ricardiana (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• • The list of games is preceded by: "A number of games have been released, including:" "Including" suggests that this is not a complete list. What was the basis for selecting these and excluding others? Can you say how many are excluded from your list?

It's not incomplete at the moment, but it might become so as new games are being released. Changed wording. Ricardiana (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Cultural impact
  • First sentence: whose statement is this?

Any number of people. I've added a footnote. Ricardiana (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Likewise, summary paragraph openers such as "Nancy Drew's popularity continues unabated" have a ring of editorial judgement about them and should perhaps be avoided. Other suspect terms in this same paragraph are "even" (as in "surpassed even"), and "So pervasive is her cultural impact..."

Eliminated "even" and "so pervasive..." For now, I am keeping the opening statement of the paragraph because, while you're right that it has a judgemental ring, it's immediately followed by facts which are used in the sources to make this point about popularity, so I don't think that this is original research or my own POV. Ricardiana (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• • No hyphen in "schoolgirl"
  • What is the basis for saying "many critics agree"? One critic's viewpoint only is presented.

Ah, laziness in finding a precise citation to another source making a similar statement, of which there are several. Looking for another.... Ricardiana (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Found another. Ricardiana (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Phew, that's me done. I have made minor fixes as I have gone through. This has been a general review, not a full copyedit, and it may be worth getting a fresh pair of eyes to look over the prose, which I believe to be generally OK subject to the points I've raised. Also, a children's literature expert such as User:Awadewit ought to check it over, particularly the Cultural impact section. All in all, a thoroughly enjoyable article, and I will quite miss my daily session with Nancy. Brianboulton (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Brianboulton! I'm glad you enjoyed the article, and, again, I can't say how much I appreciate your time. Thank you also for the fixes you made as you went along. I do appreciate it. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Origndtsotoc.jpg - The purpose of use for this image is not specific enough. The purpose listed is usually one used for articles discussing a single book, not a series. I would suggest explaining why the reader needs to see this particular cover. Is it discussed later in the article? What is said about it? If the cover is never discussed, I would suggest replacing it with one that is.

Hmm. I have a question, the same one as for [[:File:Origndths.jpg], below. I guess what my question boils down to is, Do I have to upload the same image as a separate, differently-named file for each article use in order to write an appropriate FUR for each article use? I'll hold off on changing or replacing this image for the moment, until I figure this out. Ricardiana (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, one copy is fine, so long as the image description page contains a separate fair use rationale for each use. You can either use ad-hoc rationales, like File:Yearzero cover323.jpg does, or (better yet) templates, like File:Shazam-no-1.jpg) – Quadell ^(talk) 00:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, you just have to write a separate FUR for each article. I've created a separate FUR template for you on the image description ipage. We just need a new purpose of use for this image. I've linked some sample images at the end of my comments. Awadewit (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's awesome - thanks, Awadewit - and thanks, Quadell, too. ~ I don't have time to do much right now, but I'll get on it soon. Thank you very much for the help. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have uploaded a different picture to be at the top of the article - the cover of the current edition of "The Secret of the Old Clock", and written a justification for it. I hope it's good enough! Ricardiana (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• File:Stratemeyeredward.jpg - We need the date, author, and source information for this image. That will help us determine the copyright issues surrounding it.

I don't know where the person who uploaded this got the image, and a look on Google's image source doesn't seem to provide helpfully identified images. It's not essential to the article, so I think I'll delete it. Ricardiana (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving the original uploader a note and asking them. Also, you might look at the Library of Congress website. they have lots of images like this. If they don't have this one, they may have a similar one. Note that the search engine at the LOC isn't the best, so sometimes it takes a while to find an image. Awadewit (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the LOC and couldn't find anything through various searches. I've left a note for the original uploader, but for now I took the image off. Ricardiana (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• File:Ndharh.jpg - This FUR does not list the copyright holder. The purpose of use is generic, not specific to this article. Note that it says "The image is placed at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for." Again, we need a specific explanation of why the reader needs to see this particular cover.

Edited "Purpose" section. There is a little header that says "This image is of book cover(s), and the copyright for it is most likely owned either by the artist who created the cover(s) or the publisher of the book(s)," which is also on other images. Is this not enough for this image? Ricardiana (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The purpose section is better. However, it should be made much more specific. I would include the ideas from the article that it is trying convey: "Cover art for Files titles, such as Hit and Run Holiday, reflects these changes; Nancy is often dressed provocatively, often in short skirts, shirts that reveal her stomach or bust, or a bathing suit. She is always pictured with an attentive, handsome male in the background, and often appears aware of and interested in that male." Including the references for this material makes the FUR that much stronger. Awadewit (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a reference to the article as you suggested. Ricardiana (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes the cover artist is listed on the back of the book. Do you happen to have the book? (My copy is in a box, unfortunately, otherwise I'd check.) If you don't have the cover artist, listing the name of the publisher is enough. Awadewit (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I weeded my collection a while ago. I guess the publisher will have to be enough. Ricardiana (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• File:Origndths.jpg - There is no FUR for the Nancy Drew article. Note that each image has to have a separate FUR for each article it appears in.

Re-did "Purpose" section, but I have a question: the image is used in two articles. I wasn't able to list both articles under "Article", and I didn't want to delete the rationale someone wrote for the Hidden Staircase article, so I just added another. Can that be right? Ricardiana (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There is supposed to be a separate FUR for each article. I have added an entirely new FUR for Nancy Drew. Could you add more to the purpose of use, describing Nancy's original physical appearance and how it appears on this cover (see example for Nancy Drew Files cover above)? Awadewit (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I added more to the purpose of use section. Ricardiana (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• File:Secondndths.jpg - There is no FUR for the Nancy Drew article.

Re-done; I changed the "Description" and "Purpose of use" sections to be more specific to this article. I hope it's better now, at least. Ricardiana (talk) 04:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"It illustrates a moment in the evolution of Nancy Drew's physical depiction" - This needs to be expanded to explain what "moment" (see Nancy Drew Files example above). Awadewit (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I added more to the purpose of use section. Ricardiana (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• File:Ndtsmitpbkcvr.jpg - There is no FUR for the Nancy Drew article.

Re-did, but I have the same problem as above with [[:File:Origndths.jpg]. Just not sure I did the right thing. Ricardiana (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I added another FUR. The purpose of use needs to be more specific - " it illustrates the evolving depiction of the character". Please add some details regarding the nature of the evolution (see Nancy Drew Files example above). Awadewit (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me how to add more templates to image, Awadewit. I added more to the purpose of use section. Ricardiana (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• File:Ndtcotvv.jpg - This FUR does not list the copyright holder. The purpose of use is generic, not specific to this article. Note that it says "The image is placed at the top of the article discussing the work, to show the primary visual image associated with the work, and to help the user quickly identify the work and know they have found what they are looking for." Again, we need a specific explanation of why the reader needs to see this particular cover.

Re-did "Purpose of use" section. There is a little header that says "This image is of book cover(s), and the copyright for it is most likely owned either by the artist who created the cover(s) or the publisher of the book(s)," which is also on other images. Is this not enough for this image? Ricardiana (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"It illustrates a later phase in the evolution of Nancy Drew's physical portrayal " - What is this later phase? The FUR needs to explain these details (see Nancy Drew Files example above). Again, you can check the back of the book for the cover artist (and, again, my copies are in a box!). Awadewit (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I added more to the purpose of use section. Ricardiana (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There are no rules about how many non-free images can be included in an article, although we try to limit the number. Each image is evaluated on its on merits in relation to the criteria for non-free content. Once we establish specific reasons for the inclusion of each image, we can see if any of them need to be deleted. This dispatch on non-free images will help you understand FURs. There is section at the end on "purposes of use" in particular that will help you. Awadewit (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Awadewit. I will try to re-work these. By the way, is a "FUR" a "free use rationale"? I don't see the term elsewhere. But I'll get to work on these and do what I can. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes, FUR = fair use rationale. It is one of those wiki abbreviations that we pick up and then forget we're using. :) Awadewit (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Awadewit! Ricardiana (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Example FURS: File:ManWithThistledownHair.jpg and File:LadiesGraceAdieu.jpg. Awadewit (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the FURs and they all look much better. You may still have to defend the number of fair use images at the FAC, but I think you can ably and convincingly do so. Awadewit (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and further comments?

Many thanks to Brianboulton, Awadewit, and Quadell for their help. I have tried to follow all suggestions given. Does anyone see anything that needs further modification? If not, I will nominate the article for FA in a few days. Ricardiana (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was still planning on peer reviewing it. I'm just rather slow - I don't really operate in wiki-time. If you would rather not wait, I'll just review at FAC. Awadewit (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, no -- I'll wait, and gladly. Thanks, Awadewit! Ricardiana (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit

This is an excellent article! It is clearly thoroughly researched and it is well-written. I just have a few questions:

• Over the decades the character has evolved in response to changes in American culture and tastes. The books were extensively revised, beginning in 1959 - We need to indicate the beginning of the ND series - it is suddenly being revised before it has started. :)

True; but the first paragraph says "the first character appeared in 1930." Should I repeat that info in the 2nd para. as well? Ricardiana (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I must have missed that - sorry. No, don't repeat. Awadewit (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Could you include the first publication date in parenthesis for all of the book titles mentioned in the text?

Good idea. Will do.  Done

• One of the early quotes mentions ND books as costing "50 cents". :) I was wondering if it would be worth mentioning the rising price of the books as well as more of the economics of their production, particularly the low pay received by the ghostwriters.

Will add. The new essay by James Keeline has some stuff on this. --Doing, now  Done

I did not add anything about the rising price of the books, as no sources I've found discuss this; I did add something about the pay received by the ghostwriters, as I do have sources on that. Ricardiana (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• The beginning of the "Evolution of character" section, with the long quote seems like it might be more appropriate in the "Character" section. What do you think?

Sounds good to me. Moved. Ricardiana (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• As you want to take this to FAC, all WP:MOS concerns have to be dealt with. I noticed two that kept cropping up: WP:PUNC and WP:ELLIPSES. I suggest you read these two sections of the MOS and do a quick run-through of the article to fix the quotation/ending punctuation issue and the any non-breaking spaces that need to be added.

Fix quotation/ending punctuation  Done (I think!)

Add non-breaking spaces  Done (I think - thanks to Brianboulton for fixing an issue a while back)

Fix ellipses  Done

• The sentence structure of the second paragraph of the "Tandy" section is repetitive.

Eliminated repetition. Ricardiana (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Often, “Nancy’s face wears the blank expression of one lost in thought.”[95] Nancy frequently appears passive. - Would it be fair to write this as "...lost in thought', making her appear passive."?

Absolutely; that's much better. Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• You may be able to get an image from one of the older ND films. Have you tried tracking down the trailers (which are probably out of copyright)? See File:Greer Garson in Pride and Prejudice.JPG this image for an example.

Hmm. I had an image from a trailer before, but someone took it off and said it wasn't okay. I'll look into it further. Ricardiana (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Image was of Bonita Granville - I looked and it has been removed from Granville's page as well, and from Commons, as it is in copyright. I suppose I could re-add it as a non-free image and write up a FUR, but I'm not sure that inclusion of the image would "significantly enhance readers' understanding".... Ricardiana (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

An image from the trailer would probably be ok, since most of the trailers from that time were never claimed under copyright. A non-free image is probably out of the question for the reason you outline. Awadewit (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It is in copyright, as it turns out. Oh, well. Ricardiana (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• What have the reviews of the computer games been? This section simply relates that there are games - it does not really explain how they fit into the ND evolution.

Reviews I've seen have mostly focused on the technical quality of the games - their graphics, etc. Will see if I can dig anything else up. Ricardiana (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just looked for some more reviews... couldn't find anything of substance, except, again, re graphics, etc. Ricardiana (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

These are minor issues. I think this article will do very well at FAC. Please let me know when you nominate it. Awadewit (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, Awadewit ... I am beginning to work on them, and I'll definitely let you know when I nominate the article for FAC. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Applying for FA status

Many thanks again to Brianboulton and Awadewit for all their comments and advice. I am eager to hear comments at FAC, but I see that I have to close the peer review before nominating the article for FA status. I still welcome any and all comments, but I think that I will close this peer review in order to nominate the article for FA status. Ricardiana (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)