The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:09, 24 October 2011 [1].
Middlesex (novel) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
The 2003 winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, Middlesex is my first featured article nomination. Prior to my first edit to the article on 1 February 2010, the article looked like this. Since then, I've made over 450 edits to the article.
I have used a variety of sources in building this article. Several include the literary journals
London Review of Books,
Mosaic,
The Southern Review, and
The New York Times Book Review; feminist journal
Signs, medical journals
Archives of Disease in Childhood and
Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine; and the LGBT magazines
The Advocate and Lambda Book Report.
For newspaper book reviews, I've used sources published in various countries:
The Guardian,
The Independent,
The Economist, and
The Times in Britain; the
Toronto Star and
The Globe and Mail in Canada;
The National Herald,
The New York Times,
The Washington Post, and
The Christian Science Monitor in the United States;
The Prague Post in the Czech Republic; and
The Sydney Morning Herald in Australia.
Several users have provided invaluable advice in polishing the article:
Without the guidance of the seven above editors, I am certain I would not have had the confidence to nominate Middlesex at FAC. Their collective experience with the FAC process, prose, and references have taught me much about writing and researching articles.
Cunard ( talk) 08:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Would you clarify what you mean by "Bibliography formatting should match that used for complete citations in footnotes" by providing an example of an inconsistency between the two? I don't know what you mean. Thank you, Cunard ( talk) 00:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
I fixed the formatting of FN 35, 97, and 146. I revised the wording of Book Magazine to Book because the article and its sources generally call it Book.
I have revised the "location" parameters to omit state names for major cities. I have spelled out all the state names. Cunard ( talk) 07:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment: These remarks are not on the basis of a complete review. I have read the lead and the first couple of sections and taken a general look. These points may be indicative of other issues requiring attention.
My time is a bit restricted at the moment. I will try to add further review comments later. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The "Criticism" subsection consists of reviewers and scholars critiquing Eugenides' style of writing ("uneven throughout", "verbose voluptuousness", "footloose", having a "preachy and nervous" tone). Cunard ( talk) 23:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
A few more comments:
The "Critical reception" subsection of "Reception" is meant to be a holistic review of the book: It details the skill with which Eugenides discusses gender issues and Detroit and the deficiencies in the scope and structure of the novel. It explains how critics have called Middlesex a " Great American Novel" and contrasts it with Eugenides' debut novel, The Virgin Suicides.
The two subsections are about two distinct topics.
What do you suggest I do with this subsection? I can think of five options: (i) remove the subsection header and place the content under the section "Style"; (ii) move it to the "Critical reception" section; (iii) leave it as is; (iv) retitle the subsection header to something like "Criticism of writing style"; and (iv) delete it.
I placed "Hermaphroditism and intersexuality" in the style section because it pertains to Eugenides' writing style: of why he chose in some cases to use the word "hermaphrodite" instead of "intersex". I am open to suggestions about restructuring the content in this subsection but believe it falls under the style section.
Comments: I gave a favorable opinion at the article's peer review, but I agree with Brian's comments on the placement of "Hermaphroditism and intersexuality" under "Style"; the choice of a word does not seem to reflect the style of writing for the book. Re-reading the sections and bits of the article, I think the contents of "Hermaphroditism and intersexuality" can be reworked into "Gender identity". Jappalang ( talk) 02:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Media Review - All good. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:09, 24 October 2011 [1].
Middlesex (novel) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
The 2003 winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, Middlesex is my first featured article nomination. Prior to my first edit to the article on 1 February 2010, the article looked like this. Since then, I've made over 450 edits to the article.
I have used a variety of sources in building this article. Several include the literary journals
London Review of Books,
Mosaic,
The Southern Review, and
The New York Times Book Review; feminist journal
Signs, medical journals
Archives of Disease in Childhood and
Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine; and the LGBT magazines
The Advocate and Lambda Book Report.
For newspaper book reviews, I've used sources published in various countries:
The Guardian,
The Independent,
The Economist, and
The Times in Britain; the
Toronto Star and
The Globe and Mail in Canada;
The National Herald,
The New York Times,
The Washington Post, and
The Christian Science Monitor in the United States;
The Prague Post in the Czech Republic; and
The Sydney Morning Herald in Australia.
Several users have provided invaluable advice in polishing the article:
Without the guidance of the seven above editors, I am certain I would not have had the confidence to nominate Middlesex at FAC. Their collective experience with the FAC process, prose, and references have taught me much about writing and researching articles.
Cunard ( talk) 08:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Would you clarify what you mean by "Bibliography formatting should match that used for complete citations in footnotes" by providing an example of an inconsistency between the two? I don't know what you mean. Thank you, Cunard ( talk) 00:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
I fixed the formatting of FN 35, 97, and 146. I revised the wording of Book Magazine to Book because the article and its sources generally call it Book.
I have revised the "location" parameters to omit state names for major cities. I have spelled out all the state names. Cunard ( talk) 07:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Comment: These remarks are not on the basis of a complete review. I have read the lead and the first couple of sections and taken a general look. These points may be indicative of other issues requiring attention.
My time is a bit restricted at the moment. I will try to add further review comments later. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
The "Criticism" subsection consists of reviewers and scholars critiquing Eugenides' style of writing ("uneven throughout", "verbose voluptuousness", "footloose", having a "preachy and nervous" tone). Cunard ( talk) 23:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
A few more comments:
The "Critical reception" subsection of "Reception" is meant to be a holistic review of the book: It details the skill with which Eugenides discusses gender issues and Detroit and the deficiencies in the scope and structure of the novel. It explains how critics have called Middlesex a " Great American Novel" and contrasts it with Eugenides' debut novel, The Virgin Suicides.
The two subsections are about two distinct topics.
What do you suggest I do with this subsection? I can think of five options: (i) remove the subsection header and place the content under the section "Style"; (ii) move it to the "Critical reception" section; (iii) leave it as is; (iv) retitle the subsection header to something like "Criticism of writing style"; and (iv) delete it.
I placed "Hermaphroditism and intersexuality" in the style section because it pertains to Eugenides' writing style: of why he chose in some cases to use the word "hermaphrodite" instead of "intersex". I am open to suggestions about restructuring the content in this subsection but believe it falls under the style section.
Comments: I gave a favorable opinion at the article's peer review, but I agree with Brian's comments on the placement of "Hermaphroditism and intersexuality" under "Style"; the choice of a word does not seem to reflect the style of writing for the book. Re-reading the sections and bits of the article, I think the contents of "Hermaphroditism and intersexuality" can be reworked into "Gender identity". Jappalang ( talk) 02:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
Media Review - All good. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC) reply