Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 12

FAR notice

An editor has nominated J. K. Rowling for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Status update at Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Update 8 Jan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about converting the Awards and honours section to prose on the Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of new section on comments re transgender people

As part of the ongoing featured article review, I have prepared an entirely new draft of the section on Rowling's comments regarding transgender people. The current version of the section is at Special:PermaLink/1065510593#Transgender people. The draft is at Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft. Feel free to make copyedits or other minor changes on that page, but more major discussion should happen at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft so that we can reach consensus on any content issues.

If this draft, or something close to it, is eventually added to J. K. Rowling, we will need to modify the lede accordingly. The recent RfC, currently at Special:PermaLink/1065356439#RFC_on_how_to_include_her_trans-related_views_(and_backlash)_in_the_lead, closed as no consensus at 15:42 on 1 January 2022. That meant there was no consensus to change to change the relevant text in the lede of Special:PermaLink/1063145723. If my draft is adopted, we will need to change the lede in some parts. In particular, we will need to remove the word transphobic—since, to my knowledge, none of the academic sources cited in Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft use that word to refer to Rowling's comments.

Pinging, in no particular order, @Firefangledfeathers, Newimpartial, Victoriaearle, Olivaw-Daneel, SandyGeorgia, Vanamonde93, Barkeep49, and A. C. Santacruz, as users interested in this article, the FAR, or both. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting previous discussions at the FAR talk page (although new comments should now go to the talk page of the draft, as AP indicates). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The focus on secondary sources in the rewrite of the section is good and this is a definite improvement on the current writing. My only comment is that I think the Comoran Strike sentences seem to be intentionally vague while still hoping I reach some sort of conclusion on them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Crossroads and I agree that the Cormoran Strike bit should come out. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to my fellow editors I am not sure where to write this, it is a repeat of my comment at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Transgender draft#The Current Draft is appallingly One Sided ...but the process is being split over several pages so I do not know what is the best place to add this.

The current draft regarding her views is extremely (add missing words) one sided and I do mean have been seriously extremely rewritten to be WP:UNDUE & WP:POV in favour of Rowling's fringe views, despite these being a minority view. Tthe current balance has been removed entirely. Why do we mention the support of a single trans entertainer but hide the criticism of several national and international trans specialist organisation including Mermaids, GLAAD and Stonewall that represent the views of 1000's of trans persons and whose views are far more notable. Why do we mention Bindel whose trans critical views are a minority amongst feminists, not mention it is a minority opinion and not balance it with views of more mainstream and qualified Judith Butler. What is the relevance of her domestic violence and sexual assault, does it have any relevance or why is the empty detail that she might have been tricked into becoming a man. Why are we including the Reuters report of her unsupported claim that the is a threat that people who she claims are men (questionable) are a danger to women in bathrooms as reported in reuters article of which the is no evidence with out balancing with the numerous UK and USA articles that report the is no such threat including Reuters which reported Explainer: J. K. Rowling and trans women in single-sex spaces: what's the furore? the next day that, in the United States, women's rights groups said in 2016 that 200 municipalities which allowed trans people to use women's shelters reported no rise in any violence as a result; they also said that excluding transgender people from facilities consistent with their gender makes them vulnerable to assault.

Sorry this is a copy paste of my comment on the draft page, but I am not sure how to challenge this white wash of a rewrite. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure if implemented it will be immediately challenged here and end up going straight to the BLP noticeboard with an another huge RfC. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 15:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not even remotely close to being implemented, and there is still much work to be done on the rest of the article—work which needs at least a couple more weeks—before full attention can be given to this one section. Patience, and keeping discussion in one place would be helpful in the meantime. It is unfortunate that the discussion is now forked to three places, when we had barely begun to discuss sources at the FAR talk page; the draft was premature. I hope it is OK if I merge your comments on the FAR page to the section where we can keep everything in one place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry I am far less experienced or skilled in writing or knowledge of processes than some editors and I apologise I am not at my best atm. Thank you for being helpful. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to apologize; concern that the FAR had progressed further than it has is understandable. I merged your section at the FAR talk page, so that it can be considered before drafting based on a consensus of sources can begin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia Sorry could you give me a link to where correct FAR place is, I admit I am lost ? ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 17:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where we had begun gathering sources on the FAR. I moved your comment to there, after the first draft was launched in user space, and then moved to Wikipedia space before it had broad consensus. Most of the people working on the article are quite busy and hard at work on other sections, so brevity is a virtue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of possible sources for Transgender people section

On the talk page of the Featured article review, please discuss best sources per WP:WIAFA at the Discussion of source list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interim lead proposal

The Featured article review has resulted in considerable improvements, with early life and literary analysis beefed up, WP:ELNEVER sourcing removed, and prose bloat addressed throughout. Work on the Transgender people section has been delayed, but should start next.

Meanwhile an interim lead is proposed on FAR talk. Please join the discussion. (Interim because this lead proposal leaves the Transgender section wording in the lead unchanged; the intent is to put a better lead in place for now, while work progresses on the Transgender people section.)

The work so far is mostly the fruit of the efforts of AleatoryPonderings and Olivaw-Daneel, with literary analysis work from Vanamonde93 and early life bio work from me. (The tools show an unrepresentative amount of contributions from me, because I copied in most of the lengthy chapter sources at works cited when we split chapters out of books.) In examining the authorship stats, I noticed two FA stalwarts involved early on in this article: Rodw and Slp1, might you want to review the work so far, and participate in the FAR? Serendipodous I see some recent activity from you; might you be enticed to join the effort? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been deliberately staying out of this; as a former Potterhead with a trans brother in law, it's just too personal. I can't be objective. Serendi ^podous 20:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you anyway; hope you're well! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead installed, archived discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name (revert)

I agree with this revert as the previous edit left an incorrect representation vis-a-vis her real name and her pen name. She has no middle name or initial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keir Starmer content moved

14Jenna7Caesura, I have moved this addition to Politics of J. K. Rowling and trimmed it to reflect what the source says (while also removing the citation template error in the date ... dates in citation templates should not contain the day of the week, which generates a citation error). Please be aware of the following:

The lead is a summary of content in the body of the article. Please refrain from adding content directly to the lead, and examine the body of the article for where content may be a better fit.
When examining the body, one finds there is a subarticle covering the transgender issues at Politics of J. K. Rowling. This (already long) article uses summary style; in the future, consider adding content first to a sub-article and then examining whether or how it might be merged into the main topic.
Please read WP:FAOWN. This article is a Featured article and its lead has been very recently rewritten with consensus of multiple editors. Please discuss suggested improvements on talk and gain consensus for changes.
This article uses British English (that is, criticised rather than criticized).
The source does not say she is "vocal on 'misgendering'"; it says she accused Starmer of misrepresenting the law. Please take greater care not to insert original research into a BLP under double discretionary sanctions.
You have previously received discretionary alerts for both sexuality issues and BLPs; this article is covered under both. When inserting content about a living person, please be absolutely certain that the source supports the wording you choose to insert into a very highly visible article that affects a living person. If you breach discretionary sanctions again, you are likely to be blocked.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charitable giving before 2011

Rajan51 you have twice introduced the statement that Rowling's charitable giving in 2011 was $160 million.

Your first addition used this source which says New information about Rowlings' estimated $160 million in charitable giving combined with Britain's high tax rates bumped the Harry Potter scribe from our list this year.
Your second addition uses this source which has the same wording as the first.

Neither source states that the 160 was her giving in 2011; the implication (particularly based on her other comments when she denied that she was ever a billionaire) is that Forbes got a better estimate of her charitable giving, but without specifying to which year it applied. It is also incorrect to say she lost a billionaire status that she denies ever having because of charitable donations; it was also because of high UK taxes. At any rate, we don't know what time period is covered by the statement about the 160M.

I have adjusted your entry because you have now made it twice, [1] but don't believe this information belongs in the article because of this problem with its vagueness. Could you please have a look at WP:FAOWN and gain consensus on edits before re-adding something twice? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed that the reports meant the donations were made in 2011 because Forbes' lists are annual. Sorry about that. I think we should keep the information in the article because of the significant size of the donation. This report from Politifact references the donation as well. Not sure if it helps with the vagueness. From what I understand, it also seems to imply that the donation was made after her net worth reached $1 billion in 2011, but I may be wrong. -Rajan51 (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that they first identified her as a billionaire in 2004, which she denied in 2005. (Reading this may help). Forbes is based on estimates, and they had, among other things, probably mis-estimated her charitable giving. So the 160 million could be going all the way back to 2004, or even earlier ... we really don't have sources that clarify. They seem to have caught up with the problems in their estimates in 2012, and never explicitly said their adjustment was because of 2011 donations; it could have been cumulative. The problem with keeping it in the article is whether what I have changed it to (before 2011) is accurate, since we don't have good sourcing on the exact timeframe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A minor suggestion

I imagine this has been debated at length and consensus is somewhat entrenched, but I would suggest changing criticised as transphobic [...] by some feminists, but have received support from other feminists to criticised as transphobic [...] by some feminists, but have received support from some other feminists. This is a minor nitpick, and I could see why some might think this is unimportant or irrelevant, but I think it would be good for balance to add the "some" qualifier to both of the mentions of feminists' opinions. It's not impossible to read what's currently there as something like "some feminists criticise her but others largely support her", even though that's not really what the sentence actually means and nor is it what it was intended to mean. Just to make it abundantly clear to readers that Wikipedia is not trying to take sides I think it would be better to add the word "some" to both instances. Endwise (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endwise have you accessed the Featured article review (listed at the top of this page)? The entire article has been reworked over many months, involving many editors, but we have not yet tackled the section on Rowling's views on transgender issues. It is the only section that has not yet been brought to WP:WIAFA standards, and that is the next order of business on the FAR. What form that sentence or those sentences will take is to be determined. Here is the FAR discussion of the work remaining (which is ongoing at the talk page of the FAR). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, I hadn't seen that. My comment is probably not all that relevant then. Endwise (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will keep in mind as we move forward; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After the mammoth RfC last year on the lead, I don't envy that task. I look forward to what is proposed though, and I'm more than happy to receive a notification when those talks begin if you feel my input may be helpful. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sideswipe9th please watchlist the FAR page, and read the latest section at the FAR; we don't anticipate considerable changes-- more like trimming. I will try to remember to add you to the ping list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've had it on my watchlist since the process started, but haven't felt able to contribute thus far. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, all, that I was sidetracked on starting the discussion of the transgender section on FAR talk; I hope to get that rolling today. If anyone prefers to be pinged to those discussions, please add your name at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Ping list (or just watchlist the FAR page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FormalDude re this edit, are you reading the talk page and following the FAR? (I assumed you were since you initiated it.) Everyone is collaborating so far pretty well, and holding off on editing until consensus forms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See further discussion of some at the FAR talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reworking the transgender material at the FAR

The transgender section is being reworked at the Featured article review; see Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Workshopping the transgender section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry dies?

"According to Maria Nikolajeva, Christian imagery is particularly strong in the final scenes of the series: Harry dies in self-sacrifice and Voldemort delivers an "ecce homo" speech, after which Harry is resurrected and defeats his enemy." - from memory, I don't think he actually dies, & we shouldn't say he does. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's debatable whether or not Harry died in Deathly Hallows. Whenever he goes to the forest during the battle, his intent is to die to Voldemort to destroy the final Horcrux piece that resided inside him, per the revelation from Snape's memories. The King's Cross chapter that follows is hinted to be some sort of magical limbo state, where Harry can chose to pass on or return. An additional hint that Harry died is that the sacrificial protection, that he received from his mother in the first book, was applied to all of the Hogwart's defenders, evidenced by Voldemort's body-bind and stunning spells not taking effect on Neville. However there is no confirmation that I'm aware of, either in the book or on Pottermore as to what exactly happened between the casting of the killing curse, and Harry returning to consciousness in the forest. Anything that I could say about the "ecce homo" speech would likely be OR. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Olivaw-Daneel: ? (Also, on the query Johnbod left just above this one, that text was in the article when we started; are you able to correct it?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's Nikolajeva's interpretation (and she's not the only scholar with this view; I could cite more). I thought the "According to" at the beginning of the sentence was sufficient attribution, but if not, we could say something like "She writes that Harry dies...". Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strike tv wrong

"BBC One released Strike, a television adaptation of the Cormoran Strike novels starring Tom Burke, in 2017." - no, see the article. 3 different series over 2017-2020, & another to be released in 2022 it seems. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that turned out to be surprisingly hard to cite (and even harder from an iPad). [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4, this featured article has recently undergone a rigorous review involving about a dozen editors. Please have a look at WP:FAOWN, and discuss proposed changes on talk to gain consensus. It is also under discretionary sanctions, so if you have been reverted once, you should not re-install changes without gaining consensus. It is important that additions are supported by the cited sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AleatoryPonderings, Olivaw-Daneel, and Vanamonde93: are these edits supported by the sources? (I see at least one grammatical error, but this has already been reverted once, so awaiting feedback.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely now, I would say (based on what I know of the reception sources) that the content is not supported by sources, as there has been criticism of plot, themes and characters. So my recommendation would be to remove this series of edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These edits are not supported by the sources and should be reverted. We do not edit this encyclopedia to add "balance" or portray people in a more positive light than that in which reliable sources portray them. We show what the sources say, which is what this article did before this series of edits. This also goes for the string of edits to the lede which I didn't notice until after posting this. The lede has been extensively edited recently to clearly and fairly represent the sources. This string of edits undoes all that work. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the ongoing edits, I am likely to revert (unless someone else does first), as the edits have deteriorated the article in several ways. Hpdh4 could be proceeding in a more collaborative way, considering the consensus and months of work that has involved many editors so far. But I will first type up an explanation of the problems with the edits, and suggestions of a better way to proceed, including discussion (with sources) of the changes Hpdh4 suggests. Along with doublechecking to see if any of the changes can be kept. Need an hour or so, and to get to a real computer rather than iPad to type up list of problems with all new edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following these comments, I have restored (what I take to be) the last good version. Newimpartial (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will type up a summary as soon as I get on a real computer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All that talk about sources is good and all . Then explain why majority of the article reads like an anti Rowling manifesto . Look Rowling's books are both bestsellers and each has been positively reviewed with some detractors. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous. I'm not saying her books are perfection of biblical proportions but they do well and are recieved well irrespective of Rowling's politics and this should and will be reflected in this article, futher more individual articles for most of Rowling's books have more positive reviews than mixed ones. I will try to cite more sources . If you were to look at the Ickabog, Christmas pig - I put some citations regarding their sales/reception. Hpdh4 (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to express agreement. This article was revised to claim that all of Rowling's work has received mixed reception, with particular attention given over to cherry-picking negative reviews of the Harry Potter series that overwhelm the mildly positive reviews that the editors also cherry-pick. The article routinely infantilizes and trivializes the Potter series on top of that, and appeals to articles with a tangible amount of bias that do the same. 98.253.186.130 (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please confine your commentary on talk pages to discussion of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove praise for the novels then remove critique has well . I didn't remove critique and try to make her look perfect but nor have I tried to make her books look like critical flops. Neutrality is in dispute here. Hpdh4 (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the sources? Do you have a comment on them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xxanthippe: you have reinserted (part of) this content stating that it is supported by sources. Care to elaborate? That is not my impression. Newimpartial (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for following WP:BRD. Sources have been added by User:HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of revert

Regarding this revert of content added by HPDEATHLYHALLOWS4, I will list below some of the issues for discussion.

My first suggestion to Hpdh4 is to read WP:FAOWN, WP:WIAFA, Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 and Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1, taking note of the talk page archives and the considerable consensus-building that has taken place over several months in the rewrite of all of this article (with work on the transgender issues pending). Many editors have worked collaboratively, in spite of differences that were all resolved amicably. Please avoid edit warring and discuss issues and proposed changes on talk.

The problems in the reverted edits are listed below, and numbered for reference in subsequent discussion.

Please see WP:SIZE. All sections in the article (except the section on her views on gender identity) have been trimmed considerably to reflect [[WP:SS|summary style}}, while overall article size was maintained even as the missing literary analysis, about a fifth of the article now, was added. Before Hpdh4's edits, the article was at 8,865 words of readable prose; those edits added 200 words to an already large article. When working on a featured article, it is important to gain consensus and to keep wording a trim, succinct, and concise reflection of the highest quality sources, and using summary style where called for. Two hundred words is a lot to add to this article without having developed consensus. Whether some of the additions are warranted could be discussed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The edits also added several grammatical and spelling errors like received, has-->have and more. They also introduced a citation style that is not in accordance with the style established in the article; Featured articles must maintain a consistent citation style. These are not of major significance, as others can correct such issues. It is, though, something to be aware of going forward; if changes are first proposed on talk and gain consensus, they can be worked in with proper grammar and citation style, with less consternation and time misspent for all editors involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LEAD; leads summarize what is in the article. The edits introduced a topic to the lead (theme parks) that is not discussed anywhere in the article. Whether they should be discussed in the article depends on what high quality sources cover. I personally find it interesting that they aren't included, but the person who wants to include them should make the argument based on due weight in high quality sources. The most recent broad scholarly overview of Rowling and her work is Pugh, 2020; he does not mention theme parks. He says:
Yet by whichever name one calls her, Rowling has skyrocketed into the popular consciousness as the author of the phenomenally successful Harry Potter series. In the process, she has sold hundreds of millions of copies of her novels, launched two blockbuster film series, inspired a seemingly endless array of merchandise, including games, toys, clothes, and school supplies, and sparked an online fan community both enthusiastically passionate as well as sharply critical in their responses to her creations and achievements. Rowling’s impact on contemporary popular culture is unparalleled, with her Harry Potter novels transcending the realm of children’s fiction—an oft-contested categorization—to reveal both her engagement with a wide range of literary traditions and her reformulation of these fields.
I find it odd that we haven't mentioned more about the merchandising, and if someone has an equivalent high quality source that covers theme parks, these two items could be added with a minimum impact on word count. When proposing additions or changes to the article, please base those on analysis of high quality sources.
Do other editors believe we should work in theme parks or merchandise? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose redundancies. The edits introduced "best sellers" (both in the lead and in the body) when that content was already in the article, and indeed, in the same paragraphs where they were again added. If there is a concern that something is not adequately conveyed or covered in the article, please discuss how to better work that in. In the case of "best sellers", these additions only added to the readable prose size, and deteriorated the writing with redundancies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the text about Lint and King that was inserted mid-paragraph: However the series was well received by acclaimed writers such has Charles de Lint and Stephen King ^[1]^[2]Thus, some critics argue, Harry Potter does not innovate on established literary forms; nor does it challenge readers' preconceived ideas. See overuse of however and User:John/however. Vanamonde93 might comment on this source; I am not familiar. The word acclaimed is WP:PUFFERY. The insertion was made with citevar, prose, flow and punctuation errors. And, inserting it mid-paragraph rendered the word thus out of place and the next sentence as poor flow.
Do other editors agree that we should work in something about Lint and King? If so, it should be done in a way that is consistent with WP:WIAFA. Hpdh4, Harold Bloom, for example, is cited because secondary sources mention his review. Do secondary sources cover Lint and King and have we given them due weight in this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reception section overall. This section was crafted with paragraph one about commercial success, paragraph 2 about critical reception, and paragraph 3 about her other (non-Harry book) works, moving then into two sub-sections on Gender and social division and Religious debates. If the coverage here amounts to an WP:UNDUE amount of criticism, sources that have been omitted or not covered should be provided, and corrections discussed. Also, it seems there is some confusion about the distinction between commercial success and critical review.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant: While Rowling has supported fan fiction, her statements about characters – for instance, that Harry and Hermione could have been a couple, and that Dumbledore was gay – have complicated her relationship with some readers. ... The addition of the word some here is redundant. Her relationship with her readers is not different from her relationship with some of her readers. The subject is her relationship. This is distinct from the comment made in the next section by Endwise, where the some is specific to individuals and is not used in parallel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITATION OVERKILL, see second paragraph here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, Hpdh4, it seems that your concern is that the article does not give due weight to Rowling's literary successes. If you review the entire FAR and its talk page, you can see that to date, editors have worked collaboratively, respected and talked through differences, and done so without edit warring and agida. Presenting your concerns, along with the sources to back them, would be a much faster, expedient, and more collaborative way to seek the changes you wish to see in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Wild About Harry". archive.nytimes.com. Retrieved 2022-03-20.
^ "Fantasy and Science Fiction: Books To Look For by Charles de Lint". www.sfsite.com. Retrieved 2022-03-20.

This must be a joke . First editors asked about citations now you've got those citations and it's not enough

Here's my problem new impartial and sandy and the rest

This entire section of reception is not impartial and neutral.

Rowling's books don't have mixed reception and you lot trying to make it look like that.

Consensus will never be achieved as long as you lot have their way.

nyways I give up

Go on try and make her look like a critical flop entirely

Remember I never removed the critique of her work. I only want to add the fact that her work has a higher critical success ratio than mixed reception.

I never hid behind Weasley worded arguements.

Anyways....Continue ruining Wikipedia. Hpdh4 (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I resent being distracted from my mission to continue ruining Wikipedia, I wanted to react to Rowling's books don't have mixed reception and you lot trying to make it look like that. As far as I can tell, that is what the highest-quality sources have concluded. Are these sources wrong? Newimpartial (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hpdh4, if you believe the section is not impartial, I have laid out for you above how to go about addressing that. As it happens, I could be convinced to agree with you on a few of these points, but it is up to the editor wanting to add material to make that case based on sources, which you haven't done (perhaps the NYT review you added of King could be added). If you believe the article "makes her look like a critical flop entirely", others would be more likely and more willing to make corrections if you worked towards improvements collaboratively, instead of making unilateral edits (after they were reverted once) and insulting your fellow editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources discussion

From this version, here is one entire paragraph inserted (and removed), along with other changes:

Critical response to Harry Potter has been generally positive with some aspects receiving mixed reactions from critics. Many Critics reviewed the early Harry Potter novels positively often comparing Rowling to renowned writers such has Homer ,Jane Austen, Roald Dahl, Enid Blyton, J.R.R Tolkien .Many Critics have praised the series for its depiction of contemporary ethical and social issues such has Facism, Racism and Bullying. Critics have both praised and critiqued the novels for its writing, tone, darkness, violence, themes, plotting and character work ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]. The later novels in the series drew both acclaim and criticism for its maturing plotline and character work with many critics complimenting Rowling has a first rate writer and referring to her as a more adult writer while some other critics have reviewed Rowling's works less favorably and more harshly calling her unimaginative ^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13].

Sources

References

^ "TLS - Times Literary Supplement". TLS. Retrieved 2022-03-20.
^ Eccleshare, Julia (2002). A guide to the Harry Potter novels. Internet Archive. London ; New York : Continuum. ISBN 978-1-84714-418-8.
^ Nel, Philip (2001-09-26). JK Rowling's Harry Potter Novels: A Reader's Guide. A&C Black. ISBN 978-0-8264-5232-0.
^ Schoefer, Christine (2000-01-13). "Harry Potter's girl trouble". Salon. Retrieved 2022-03-20.
^ "Children's Book Review: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J. K. Rowling, Author Scholastic $29.99 (0p) ISBN 978-0-439-13959-5". PublishersWeekly.com. Retrieved 2022-03-20.
^ "Harry Potter reviews". web.archive.org. 2012-05-24. Retrieved 2022-03-20.
^ "Book Review: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix". web.archive.org. 2006-05-08. Retrieved 2022-03-20.
^ Schillinger, Liesl (2005-07-31). "'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince': Her Dark Materials". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-03-20.
^ "'Prince' shines amid growing darkness - The Boston Globe". www.boston.com. Retrieved 2022-03-20.
^ Leonard, John (2003-07-13). "Nobody Expects the Inquisition". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-03-20.
^ "Archives". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2022-03-20.
^ Kakutani, Michiko (2007-07-19). "An Epic Showdown as Harry Potter Is Initiated Into Adulthood". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-03-20.
^ "Book Reviews & Recommendations". Kirkus Reviews. Retrieved 2022-03-20.

From the mess of HarvRef errors that was left in sources, the best I can reconstruct, these seem to be the sources Hpdh4 sought to add overall. Many of them are links that go nowhere, some of them are low quality, but a few are worthy of consideration (eg The New York Times):

As well as reusing some already cited in the article for the Reception section (without creating named refs for duplicates). I may have missed some, as the diffs were hard to follow. We might discuss whether the New York Times or any others should be reflected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whited/Pharr (which we use as sources) mention Stephen King along with Harold Bloom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the enormous number of reviews, we should rely on secondary sources – surveys of reviews – to determine the due weight to give to criticism/praise. I've listed 3 such surveys below, based on which I think "mixed" reception remains the correct summary. For weight, the surveys indicate a ratio of 50/50 criticism/praise. Survey 1 has a short summary that resembles our 2nd paragraph in Reception; based on it, I think a couple more lines on praise could be added at the end of para 2 (after Nel/Pharr). Perhaps the Observer review cited in survey 1, plus a review of a later book such as ref #10, Michiko Kakutani's NYT review, which is cited in survey 3.

Here are the surveys: (1) The Oxford Encyclopedia of British Literature (accessible via TWL) has a section "The Critical Response", whose 2nd para summarizes the reception and is about 50/50 criticism/praise. (2) Philip Nel, who we have cited, covers the first 4 books. In page 63, he says a 50/50 split "embodies the range of opinions" on books 1-3; he also says earlier that reception to book 4 was "decidedly mixed". (3) Lana Whited's "A survey of the critical reception of the Harry Potter series" (EBSCOhost 108515151 has a PDF, accessible via TWL) is the most detailed of the three, covering all 7 books. Seems to generally agree with surveys 1 and 2. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, O-D. Might you craft and propose two more lines as you mention? If the best sources are about 50/50, I'm not sure our Reception section is in line with that now, and one or two more sentences would not be remiss. But the Whited/Pharr review of Stephen King indicates that's perhaps not one that rises to the level of consideration. Also, are we missing anything on the "bestseller" issue? I think we have it covered, and the additions were just redundant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will do. To clarify re. 50/50, I was only speaking about para 2 (not the gender/social division aspects, which are fine as they are). And I don't see anything missing about bestsellers. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been offline for a couple of days. I'm not seeing much merit to HPd4's arguments; the edit-summaries sound a lot like original research to me. I ready several dozen sources about HP in considerable detail while working on the reception section, and I really cannot summarize them other than by saying reception was "mixed". Those sources which reviewed previous critique (and there's many such; see Gupta, for instance) echo this assessment. I see that HPd4 has been indeffed; is there anyone still pushing their line of argument? Vanamonde (Talk) 03:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: to the question about this source; it's acceptable, as a standard book review in a sci-fi magazine; but it doensn't get more weight than any other book review, and less weight than scholarly material. Importantly, it's a review of the second book in the series, whereas our article needs to give more weight to broader sources where possible. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, HP has been indeffed in one of the broadest block explanations I have ever seen; perhaps I should have checked more carefully, but I was just approaching it as business as usual. So, as to whether O-D should proceed with plan to add two more sentences, it does seem that the way we have constructed the three paragraphs leaves the impression that her work was a commercial success from the first para, more weight to critical negativity in the second para, and then other stuff in the third para. The first and third seem fine, but in the second para, if reception was mixed, it does seem we have more weight on the negative, and could do more to achieve the "mixed". It's not just the three paras; it's that the overall can appear more negative than mixed, when we add in the entire sections on Gender and social division and Religious debates. Would we be unweighted if we added one or two sentences to para 2 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think perhaps I didn't explain myself in sufficient detail. The overall reception has been mixed; when there is positive commentary in the scholarly material, it is generally to do with the books' popularity, which we have already covered. As such I don't think two entire new sentences are needed. I would add one sentence about positive commentary from scholars, and in my view the most common opinion (besides noting the popularity with the general public) is that Rowling has synthesized elements from many genres and many influences in a way that draws readers. The chapter on genre in Heilman summarizes this well, IMHO. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable; trust you and O-D can get this one addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the extra bit I propose adding (last sentence). It's sourced to Westman and Whited, who pair newspaper reviews such as Bloom/Byatt with similar critics on the other side. (I've also sourced the topic sentence, just in case anyone attempts to change it again). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with adding that to the body; I though we were discussing a lead sentence, though? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I wasn't proposing any change to the lead. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great addition, O-D. Vanamonde93, I didn't think we were addressing the lead, but revisiting it per your comment, we have: 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. That seems shaded a bit towards the negative ?? And perhaps it could be more illuminating. If we were to add another clause or sentence about success, it might be here: The series revived fantasy as a genre in the children's market, spawned a host of imitators, and inspired an active fandom. Maybe working in some of the sense of Pugh that I quoted above, or a synopsis of some of what O-D just expanded. But since we worked long and hard to gain consensus among many of us on the interim lead, it would be optimal to hear from more editors before adjusting. (I was out all day, so will start work on the transgender section tomorrow.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lead looks okay to me as is, but I wouldn't be opposed to adding a half-sentence about impact or about mixing of genres. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding such a sentence sounds good to me. Arguably popular success is at least as big a part of the topic for any bit of mainstream culture as the rarefied academic analysis. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest The series contributed to a revival of fantasy as a genre in the children's market.... While I would dispute there was a "revival" per se (fantasy never went away), other fantasy targeted at the YA market and accessible adult fantasy was arguably just as successful as Rowling and contributed just as much to the genre, at roughly the same time: Darren Shan, Terry Pratchett, Eoin Colfer, etc. Not to mention the contribution of Peter Jackson's adaptation of Tolkien, releases beginning in 2001. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Olivaw-Daneel could you do the honors on inserting something here? There does not seem to be any opposition ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SG - I had a really busy week IRL, but will get to this and the FAR #Nitpicks section. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 08:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; Need Your Prose Help, can't do it myself :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: A week-late reply to your suggestion, but that sentence summarizes the Legacy section, where the sources give much higher weight to Rowling than "contributed to". Perhaps it helps to restate what they say: children's fantasy went from a genre with declining interest from readers, writers and publishers (in the 1980s) to a commercial hit (in the wake of Rowling's success). Some sources even call the revival the "Potter boom", as publishers sought books that would be the next Potter. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 09:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)#[reply]
Fair enough - I'm just going by the children of my own acquaintance around then and subsequently, who were already also reading - where they were reading books at all - the authors I mentioned, all of whom were successful contemporaneously with or in advance of Rowling. Obviously, my experience is not a WP:RS, though! 🙂 Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I too like Pratchett and Colfer (haven't read Shan). But we're talking about impact on the rest of the market; not their own success. One source mentions Shan and Colfer as following in the wake of the Potter boom. An amusing bit I found was that Diana Wynne Jones, who well precedes Rowling (and influenced her), had her books republished with the tagline "Hotter than Potter". Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft 3 of transgender material at FAR

Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Draft 3. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please review and enter declarations or comments at Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#JKR FARC break SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bulleted citations

AleatoryPonderings I can't figure out why your simple change generated HarvRef errors, but that it did. Are you able to screenshot how the citations render for you and email that to me, so I can try to figure a work around? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the errors are really errors? The script just flags cases where you use a CS1 template in a reference in a nonstandard way (eg with bullets around it) because it's expecting to see the template linked from {{sfn}} or similar. Also sometimes does that when you use CS1 for a "Further reading" section. I'll send a screenshot in any case. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's sorted now; the HarvRef errors are removed by adding ref=none, and to fix the wonky way it viewed on my browser, I had to add a heading on the first line ... you may have a better heading idea than those I used? What browser do you use? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recently switched to Safari on macOS (mostly as an experiment for non wiki reasons) and had been using Firefox. Fwiw Special:PermaLink/1082407290 rendered asterisks and not bullets on Firefox as well as Safari. If we need to go back to (what looked to me like) asterisks for any reason, it's no big deal. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're good now ... just doublecheck the headings I added? It needed something to avoid the weird blank line ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They look fine to me. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AP, some FAs divide the Works cited section by books and journals; what do you think of doing that? The reason I bring it up is it would make our citation consistency more clear; that is, we use title case on books and sentence cases on journals. If you agree, I'll divvy them up. Then I would also need a third category for non-eng sources, as I added Cruz to works cited only to avoid having the long non-Eng quotes take up massive space in the References section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dividing them could make it easier to follow since we often have individual book chapters listed up under the book title. Those lists—while they help with accessibility if you're looking for an individual chapter—is otherwise a little confusing/imposing for the reader. Ultimately I have a slight preference for dividing them. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; will do! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 26 TFA nomination for 25th anniversary

Please see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/J. K. Rowling for the WP:TFA request to run the article on the main page on the 25th anniversary of the publication of the first Harry Potter novel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments can be left there both on the question of whether the article should be Today's Featured Article on the date specified, and on the contents of the main page blurb that will introduce the article to those viewing the main page.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Harry Potter has been described as a fairy tale"

Who is describing Harry Potter as a "fairy tale"? Harry Potter is not akin to a fairy tale in mechanics, construct, tone, theme, characterization, plotting, etc, whatsoever. Rowling has written actual fairytales. I'd strongly suggest that this element is deleted. I see a lot of revisionist history, overall, that tries to denigrate the Potter series, and I'm not sure why.98.253.186.130 (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many scholars; the source says "Rowling’s books were both praised and criticized as fairy tale, bildungsroman and schooldays series". For details on its fairy tale elements, see chapters by Alton or Ostry (in "Works cited"). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-transgender activist"

As everyone editing this Featured article knows, it is subject to both BLP and gender discretionary sanctions. This edit (now reverted) has numerous problems. It is unsourced, it adds content to the lead that is not contained in or sourced in the body of the article, the rationale in the edit summary amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS with WP:RECENTISM as the justification for the edit, but more importantly, the edit likely violates WP:BLP, which states that:

Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.

and

Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.

Additionally, the lead of the article was the subject of a recent very lengthy and well attended RFC, as well as a Featured article review that was also well attended and also revisited and reaffirmed the lead. User:Amanda A. Brant, please have a good look at WP:LEAD, WP:BLP, WP:WIAFA, and WP:FAOWN, as well as the discretionary alerts you have already been issued, and gain consensus before making marginal edits to the biography of a living person. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not appropriate, especially listing it as the 2nd item in the opening sentence of the lead. This has also been removed from the lead in the past. — Czello 08:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other instance was less surprising as it came from a very new editor who was not already aware of the discretionary sanctions and probably less familiar with policy and guideline than an established editor should be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly empathise with Amanda. As I said just now in a reply on her user talk page, given the escalation in both frequency and controversy of Rowling's trans related statements (compare her 2018 "middle aged moment" with the five separate transphobic tweets and threads, over the last week, on her Twitter feed) I suspect there will come a point in the not too distant future where we will be able to say that in the lead, albeit with a rather substantial citation bundle. But that point is not now.

Though when that day does come, even assuming a mountain of good faith I still predict that discussion on Wiki will be fraught, due to the diversity of views on this topic. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If/when multiple high-quality reliable sources use that label, only then would we discuss adding it, and we would first discuss whether it belongs in the body (rather than dumping it into a summarizing lead). The FAR has shown that such discussions need not be fraught. Slow and steady, focus on sourcing, wins the the race. Disruptive editing is ... disruptive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moray

Could anyone find the time to deal with this edit warring? We need DS alerts, WP:FAOWN, WP:WIAFA, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the whole deal; the edits are incorrect. Moray became part of Edinburgh in 1998. I can't do this while iPad editing from car. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FrederickIIisg. Would you please self-revert your re-addition to the infobox? Even assuming your version is the better, the issue is not so critical that we need to edit war over it. We'd be glad to hear your thoughts here in greater detail than an edit summary allows. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Firefangledfeathers; FredeeerickIIsg, it was not Edinburgh when she went there, and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Please gain consensus and avoid edit warring on a Featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the classy move, FrederickIIisg. I don't think Edinburgh belongs in the infobox, the claustrophobia of which prevents nuanced explanation. Should we mention merge in the Marriage, divorce, and single parenthood section? Sexton (p. 63) does, so there's at least some precedent in the RS. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We could do it via a footnote ... using Smith 148 to 149 which explicitly mentions it is now part of Edinburgh but was not then ... I can do that when not on iPad. Echoing thanks, with apologies for my piecemeal editing from car. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Smith pages 148 to 149; at the time she went to Moray, it was part of Heriot Watt University. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Firefangledfeathers; done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish translations added

Firefangledfeathers I've added the Spanish translations requested,[3] but with one dilemma, that was discussed during the FAR when we were trying to settle on wording. Because of the way Spanish handles upper and lower case, it is unclear if she intended democrat or Democrat. I'm unsure how to add that uncertainty into the translation. For now, I've left it with a lowercase d, but she could have meant uppercase D. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SandyGeorgia. I capitalized the D. It's vanishingly unlikely that speakers familiar with American politics would say "I want a democrat in the White House", meaning "supporter of democracy" and not the party. We're making a call either way, and I'm confident this is the right one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough ... although noting that we handled the in-article text with care, to reflect the uncertainty, opting to leave out that part of the quote and let the reader decide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not an improvement

I see that a simple light copy edit that removed abbreviation, corrected elementary grammatical errors such as incomplete clauses separated by semi-colons (one of which even begins with 'and') and used the correct ENGVAR named 'after', has been reverted. Anyone care to explain how this is not an improvement?NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Discretionary notices delivered

I am traveling and hotspot/iPad editing from the car; could someone please be certain that NEDOCHAN receives the discretionary alert notices? (Both BLP and gender?) NEDOCHAN, please see WP:WIAFA and WP:FAOWN (no, I don't see any improvements in the edit indicated above, and agree with the revert ... please gain consensus on talk for changes). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note so others don't duplicate efforts: I placed a BLP DS notice. NEDOCHAN has a current gender/sexuality notice until November. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ! (On the road back home now.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope it all went well! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to reply with the diffs to it. BLP notice. GENSEX notice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semicolons are also used to separate list items that are themselves slightly complicated or inclusive of commas. See MOS:SEMICOLON. I'm fine with either "named after" or "named for"; I didn't realize that was an ENGVAR issue. "Temp jobs" has a distinct meaning from "temporary jobs". I'm not opposed to some of your other changes, but don't necessarily see them as improvements. I'm not sure if you're aware of the context here, but the lead was wordsmithed by many users during the featured article review process, which is a factor in the backlash you're currently experiencing. Not saying there's not room for improvement, but I counsel moving more slowly and collaboratively than you have been. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Temp jobs" has a distinct meaning from "temporary jobs"" seems pretty fair nonsense to me; you'd better spell out the distinction. Do you have any references? Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Temp jobs", aka temping, a series of short-term employments, where the temp steps in for periods from a day to a couple of weeks, covering leave or exceptionally busy periods. As opposed to a "temporary job" where one is employed on a fixed term contract for a period of months, perhaps covering something like maternity leave or a leave of absence. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody- this is the talk page, so please realise that advice to discuss on the talk page isn't really needed. Semi-colons separate independent clauses (whether that's in a list or otherwise). 'and divorce from her first husband' is not an independent clause. NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, please review the text at WP:FAOWN for why discussion is appropriate in this circumstance. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did I miss a meeting? I agree that 'discussion is appropriate in this circumstance'. What am I doing if not discussing?NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for misinterpreting. When you said so please realise that advice to discuss on the talk page isn't really needed, I read it as such that you were disagreeing that discussion was appropriate. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. So far, Firefangledfeathers has opined that 'temp jobs' has a distinct meaning from temporary jobs. The wikilink goes here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_work NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NEDOCHAN I am unclear whether the "temp" issue is settled? Kirk (2002) uses the words temp and temp jobs; according to temp, the only link we have for that is Temporary work; that article does cover temping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more appropriate not to abbreviate. Temp is short for temporary and doesn't have a different meaning.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is more in line with Bastun's post of 09:51 4 May. More relevant is that the sources I used refer to temp jobs; it feels safer in a case like this to stick with the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editing method that has served us well so far is to put up a side-by-side proposal of changes and then to get feedback before implementing; you can find a blank template at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox5. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NEDOCHAN: semicolons do not only separate independent clauses (whether that's in a list or otherwise, as you said; they are also used to separate list items that are themselves slightly complicated or inclusive of commas, as Firefangledfeathers said. I don't feel personally invested, but a whole Featured Article Review collaboration happened over this article, including the lead section, and comments where you mistake the role of semicolons don't really incline editors who participated in that collaboration to take your commentary seriously. Just a thought. Newimpartial (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In long, complex and elaborate lists, you can have semi-colons, but in this instance they're obviously not needed and make the article hard to read. Either way, there's no such thing as an 'Oxford semi-colon'. If you have 'and' after a semi-colon, you have made a mistake.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be in disagreement with the MOS. You might consider proposing a change at WT:MOS. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NEDOCHAN, you are making an assertion that internet style authorities [4] [5] do not support. Newimpartial (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on the merits of NEDOCHAN's copyedit in general: the first two sentences affected by their changes, in the first paragraph, reduce the variety in sentence length and structure, and therefore do not strike me as improving the prose. Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Internet style authorities. Gotcha. The list is three or four items long, semi-colons are totally unnecessary. I agree with the MOS.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question is the internal complexity of each item, not the number of items. In cases like this one, where some items within the list contain commas, semicolons are recommended - including one before the final conjunction, in a style that uses such serial punctuation. But since you apparently can't even be relied on to follow LISTGAP on Talk pages, I don't know why other editors would take your "style" interventions seriously. Newimpartial (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If people can't be calm on a talk page about a copy edit, there is something wrong. LISTGAP on a talk page is totally irrelevant, yet remaining CIVIL is.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A single non-defining relative clause is not 'internal complexity'.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For determining the use of semicolons in lists, the standard practice is that any comma adds sufficient complexity to invoke semicolons - the point of the semicolons is to remove from the reader the task of evaluating the function of each comma to parse the list. And also, I'm not sure what you regard as "civility" issues arising in this discussion, though your false claim about elementary grammatical errors - in a structure you clearly did not understand and where you have offered no support for your claim that all other editors are mistaken about this - could be seen as pugnacious, I suppose, Newimpartial (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My comments related to content. Here's yours, which isn't civil and relates to me.

But since you apparently can't even be relied on to follow LISTGAP on Talk pages, I don't know why other editors would take your "style" interventions seriously.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you think that is any less civil than your use of sarcasm (Gotcha) and hyperbole If people can't be calm on a talk page about a copy edit.... And in both instances, your comments appear to "relate to" editors, rather than content, AFAICT. Your ASPERSIONS that other editors are not being "calm" seems a good deal more of a CIVIL issue than my observation that you are not following a style policy, which might make you seem less of an authority about style than you might otherwise appear. Newimpartial (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal on semi-colons

Anyway, I'd suggest either putting the NDRC in brackets (which deeply affected...) or em dashes. It would then read much better. Named for is also not used in UK Engvar. NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses spaced WP:ENDASHes rather than unspaced WP:EMDASHes; I would not be opposed to separating the "which deeply affected" clause to en-dashes if others agree. On the other hand, it's not necessary, and may make the construct look more convoluted. Not fussed either way.

Johnbod do you have an opinion re "named after her mother" vs. "named for her mother" wrt BrEng? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think "named after" is the true Brit way. Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; thanks to both. I see also that we have multiple other instances of "named after" in the article, but no other instances of "named for". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy. I don't see how adding brackets or em dashes (or en if that's more consistent) would make it appear more convoluted than it does currently with the semi-colons. In the UK, we use after. Please see https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/name-sb-sth-after-sb-sth NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current (diff)	Idea 1	Idea F
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.	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.	The death of her mother later that year from multiple sclerosis deeply affected Rowling and her writing. The seven-year period that followed saw the birth of her first child and divorce from her husband.

I find the proposal to be more convoluted than the original; if I have misunderstood the proposed change, please put up a side-by-side for others to comment. These discussions need not be fraught: propose, discuss, come to consensus, implement. Without personalization. Waiting to hear from others on BrEng re named after her mother or for her mother. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Re for/after, please see the link I provided, which I hope is pretty clear and addresses it unambiguously. Imo the second version you've posted is miles better.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with either one. I might prefer something like The death of her mother later that year from multiple sclerosis deeply affected Rowling and her writing. The seven-year period that followed saw the birth of her first child and divorce from her husband. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding, and sorry for belaboring the methodology over a punctuation issue, but we hopefully all learned during the FAR that "slow and steady wins the race", and consciously deliberative methodology works when dealing with a controversial article. We can take our time to get it right, and before the article runs on the main page, we should understand how to best work together, and why it is so important for everyone to focus on content and sources and a consensual decision-making process. What is most likely to happen here is that a third party will come up will a whole 'nother way to skin this cat, with a third option that is better than both of those above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangled, we crossed in the mail as I was just saying someone would do it better; the problem is the seven-year period is how we backed into dates without having to belabor the dates (WP:PROSELINE). She came up with the Potter idea in 1990, didn't get published til 97. If we take out "the seven-year period", we're left with undefined dates, which we worked hard to construct without using too many "in year xxxx"s. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the implication that "later that year" is belaboring the dates too much? I think that's the only additional time reference. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I always prefer putting up the whole thing when changing the lead; need to see the big picture without going back and forth (harder for me on iPad). I don't think, in this case, you've lost any dates now that I look at it ... but what we want to convey is how much she went through in the seven-year period that she was writing the novel. That seven-year period starts almost simultaneously with the death of his mother, hence the one sentence tying them all in for that effect. Your version sounds like the seven years was after her mother dies, when it's included in the seven-year that started as "fight or flight" with her mother's death ... But ... me ... too tired to think ... will leave to all of you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The impreciseness of "seven-year period" is a weakness in my proposal. It's a little more than 6.5 years and crosses from 1990 to 1997, so I think it's fine, but fair enough. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current (diff)	Idea 2	suggested compromise 1
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.	In the next seven years Rowling experienced the death of her mother from multiple sclerosis, which deeply affected her and her writing, the birth of her first child, and divorce from her first husband.	In the next seven years, Rowling experienced the death of her mother from multiple sclerosis – which deeply affected her and her writing – the birth of her first child and divorce from her first husband.

Adding a second idea with slightly different wording & punctuation. I'm lagging in the discussion (as usual!), so feel free to ignore if it's been hashed out already. Victoria (tk) 20:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be supportive of the second idea.NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'd probably stick a comma after years; it's not actually necessary but nearly every article on here uses it in similar instances.NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Victoriaearle. I'm agnostic on the wording changes. For the punctuation, I think Idea 3 2 and the current semicolon version both have the same potential parsing issue. It's easy to start interpreting the list as things deeply affected by the death of her mother. It stops making sense quickly, so I'm sure readers are figuring it out, but I'd like to avoid leading them down the garden path. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC) striking and inserting 20:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Firefangledfeathers, I see what you mean. I've added another suggestion, called "Idea 3", splitting the sentences so that we have idea for the Potter characters in 1990, mother dies at the end of the year, affecting Rowling & her writing (full stop); then a baby is born and there's a divorce; then the sentence explaining the writing continued during the period of poverty. That might work, but it does add a few words to the lead. Victoria (tk) 21:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to others, I don't feel strongly about it. I seem to be comma dyslexic and am not feeling great at the moment, so they just sort of land where ever. Victoria (tk) 21:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. Maybe the comma after "year" is unneeded? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comma after year not needed, but I still prefer Compromise 1 ... this seems to water down the breathless feel of "all this shit happened in the seven years while she was writing", which is what sets the stage for the themes in her writing and her philanthropy. I'd even add back the marriage, but too many words.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. The stacato presentation of death, birth, divorce in a short period is what we're getting and Compromise 1 is good, so I'm fine with that. I do, however, understand that the reader not acquinted with the subject might have difficulty following. That's why I tried another tack, but am fine with whatever we decide. Victoria (tk) 23:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is idea 3? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idea 2, sorry. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having perhaps figured out the table markup, here is a suggested compromise. Newimpartial (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, too. Thanks NI! Victoria (tk) 20:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please could someone diff where Newimpartial's suggested compromise is? NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the table just above this commentary, it is the third (of four) columns, labeled "Suggested compromise 1". Somehow, the tables have grown horizontally rather than by adding separate, new proposals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was the proposal; these were Sandy's fixes to it. Newimpartial (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also confusing is that the column labeled "Idea 3" contains the surrounding text as well; sorry this got hard to follow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I would certainly support that compromise. Reads much more easily.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've never used that kind of markup and simply tacked on. I've commented out. Diff is here. Apologies. Victoria (tk) 23:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need; just trying to make sure subsequent people coming to the page will be able to follow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current version is fine. Idea 2 and suggested compromise 1 look wrong in British English. The use of commas in idea 2 reduces clarity, as the comma before which deeply affected her and her writing marks a pause in the text, whereas in the other two uses it represents a separate list item. This same problem exists in suggested compromise 1, with the dash again implying "deeply affected" is a separate list item and not a pause in that part of the sentence. Idea 3 meanwhile doesn't really add any clarity that's lacking from the current version, it just adds more information in total which I'm not sure we need. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the dash indicates a list item, but ambiguity isn't a desired characterisric here. Newimpartial (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-colons: Idea 4

Current (diff)	Idea 4
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, 2017 and 2019.	Born in Yate, Rowling graduated with a degree in French 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. In the next seven years, after her mother's death from multiple sclerosis, Rowling moved to Portugal, married, had a child, fled to Scotland when her marriage failed, divorced, and completed the first Harry Potter novel, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (1997). She wrote while living on state assistance as a single parent, deeply affected by her mother's death. By 2008, Forbes had named her the world's highest-paid author.

Discussion of Idea 4

Since we don't seem to be settling on any version, trying out a whole new idea above. In fact, looking more closely at our text, the seven years has gotten distorted by committee editing. The time period in which her mother died and she married and divorced is five years, not seven, so adjustments are needed anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can almost support this; I would support it, if a semicolon were introduced after sclerosis and "Rowling" were introduced at this point, with the next mention of "Rowling" replaced by "she". Pronoun ambiguity is annoying. Newimpartial (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better now? I didn't do quite what you suggested, but hopefully got the idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this new approach makes it more clear that it was her mother's death that prompted the "fight or flight" that led to the "short but catastrophic" abusive marriage ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And "relative poverty" has been bugging me for some time, although I can't explain why. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The new version seems ok to me. Newimpartial (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like, while writing the TFA blurb, we had to explain the seven horrible years as they relate to other themes so often that we might as well ... go for the breathless "stacato" presentation, to use Victoria's words ... that's what prompted me to head this direction... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the road, driving again, @Victoriaearle, NEDOCHAN, AleatoryPonderings, Olivaw-Daneel, Johnbod, Sideswipe9th, and Bastun: does the new version above satisfy all concerns? If so, I will install tonight when I have a driving break. Newimpartial, are you satisfied? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfied Newimpartial (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion and defer to the community on this. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's great, but there is one grammatical point. As you say 'By 2008,' you're suggesting that the things had happened before then, so you need to use past perfect (if it were 'in 2008', you'd use past simple). So it'd be better to write (without my emphasis), 'By 2008, Forbes had named her the world's highest-paid author.' Other than that, I'd be fully supportive. Thanks, this is a huge improvement in my opinion.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added had, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chopped liver here: I like it, though it does have the same issue as my proposal (Idea F a few tables up). I think most will interpret the seven years to be starting after her mother's death. I'm fine with that level of rounding in the timeline. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers my sincere apologies for failing to ping you; senior moment plus a whole lot more going on here :) When I hit the button, I knew I was leaving someone out, but couldn't get it together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against the term "fled", which has very specific connotations of meaning - I'd want to see sources that also used the term. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources decidedly do use that term; it may be hard for me to come up with them while I am iPad editing on the road, so someone else may find them before I do. Arantes abused her and kicked her out of the house, she returned with the police to recover baby jessica the next day, she went in to hiding for several weeks before she could arrange to leave Portugal and go stay temporarily with her sister in Scotland ... definitely fled is used and appropriate to the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does imply domestic abuse, though from what I recall when Rowling has mentioned that topic she has referred to spousal abuse in her first marriage. We could probably use one of those sources here if that addresses the concerns? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Smith pages 131 to 134 ... it is freely available via archive.org ... I would excerpt it for you all but cannot do from iPad ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is freely available,

But Arantes has described his shameful and violent behaviour. The extent of the domestic violence Rowling endured is not known, but Arantes admits slapping her "very hard" early in the morning of 17 November 1993 and throwing her out of the house without her daughter. When Rowling returned the following day with Maria Ines Augiar, a policeman accompanied them and it did not take long before Jessica was handed over. For two weeks Joanne and Jessica stayed in hiding with friends whom Arantes did not know. Then she boarded a flight to Britain and flew from Arantes and his terrifying temper. Her precious cargo included a cherished daughter and three chapters about Harry Potter, her surrogate son.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding adding sources per "fled" as raised by Chaheel Riens, I'm largely OK with idea 4. It does make the events of 1990-97 more explicit. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are in second para here (we don't need to cite the lead when it is cited in body). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True. But if it is something that gets or is likely to get challenged again, we should add that source per MOS:LEADCITE. Domestic violence, even if it doesn't directly name the perpetrator of it in our text, is still well within the realms of BLP requirements due to its inherent level of controversy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have no cites in the lead now; if we have to add one, I'd rather downgrade the text to simply say she left for Scotland ... really don't want to start citing text that is already cited in the body, as that could lead us down a slippery slope on other controversial text. That she had to flee an abusive marriage is pretty well documented everywhere ... will check Pugh when I next unpack computer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's fair. Personally I don't have a problem with it leaving "fled" in as present. As you say it's adequately sourced elsewhere in the article, and in any other off-wiki context where the topic of Rowling and domestic violence intersect. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's just weird to cite something that Arantes admitted himself, hence, not controversial and mentioned by all bios. At any rate, if someone who reads the article still thinks that word choice would require citing, I would rather leave it out of the lead ... just don't want to start down that slippery slope on a lead that now has no cites. I would just change fled to moved (can't say returned or moved back as she previously lived elsewhere in the UK, but chose Scotland as she needed a place to stay and her sister was there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unpacked computer; Pugh just has her "leaving Portugal". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Sought refuge with her sister in Scotland when her marriage failed" ... ??? Trying to find a way to avoid using moved twice in same sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"went to Scotland when her marriage failed"? That might work. Is there any way to put the idea for Harry Potter and mother's death in the same sentence, because those two events happened in 1990? Something like "In 1990, the idea for the characters of Harry Potter came to her while she waited on a delayed train; later that year her mother died of multiple sclerosis." Then say that in the next seven years she moved to Portugal, married, gave birth, left Portugal, got divorced, finished writing Philospher's Stone. But I'm not fussed and feel guilty about having you work on this while travelling. Victoria (tk) 02:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Victoria; not to worry. We were in a panic, sharing straight-thru driving, and rushing to get home prematurely, as most of the wedding party now has COVID. But we are symptom free so far so have slowed down the driving, having found a hotel with contact-free check-in. I should be home by tomorrow, hopefully not sick. Version 5 below, pls review ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:58, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-colons: Idea 5

Current (diff)	Idea 5
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, 2017 and 2019.	Born in Yate, Rowling graduated with a degree in French 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; later that year, her mother died of multiple sclerosis. In the seven years before publication of the first Harry Potter novel, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (1997), Rowling moved to Portugal, married, had a daughter, relocated to Scotland when her marriage failed, divorced, and earned a teaching certificate. She wrote while living on state assistance as a single parent, deeply affected by her mother's death. By 2008, Forbes had named her the world's highest-paid author.

Discussion of Idea 5

Victoria, I think I got it ... pls check. To accomplish that, I had to change it up a bit, since she didn't actually move to Portugal until later in 1991 ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Thanks again for doing this. Hope all is well. Victoria (tk) 19:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Installed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reads very well. NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section is now very poor.

A simple comparison between this article as of a few months ago and today will show that the introduction is now far worse. I'd go so far as to say it's dreadful. Much of it is a plot summary/literary analysis of the HP saga, which would be fine if this article were about the HP saga and if it were well written, but neither of those is the case. I would propose restoring the introduction from, say, January 22 and starting again; as it stands it's totally disjointed and near enough impossible to read.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a sensitive article, I won't do it, but this paragraph is not about JK Rowling, is poorly written, and should probably be removed in its entirety.

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.

NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the extensive discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/J._K._Rowling/archive1/Archive_4#Tackling_the_lead. This revision is a drastic improvement on the previous version and I strongly oppose removing the paragraph you have quoted. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I agree with that. The current lead is the result of many months of collaborative drafting, the process of which you can review if you wish at the featured article review archive. The article itself was recently reconfirmed as meeting the featured article criteria, and has just been scheduled for Today's featured article, which appears on the main page, on June 26th. As such, with all of these considered, I would be very hesitant to do any major changes to the article at present. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also recommend reading WP:FAOWN before making any further edits to the article, especially as the changes you're proposing are significant with respect to the current version which has a very strong consensus. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above comments by AleatoryPonderings and Sideswipe9th. The article text is not set in stone (and nor should it be), but the current version is a very marked improvement over what had been there back in January, arrived at after a lot of work by many editors. If it wasn't, it wouldn't have been reconfirmed as a featured article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the lead NEDOCHAN proposes to return to; quite obviously inferior, over emphasizes wealth at the expense of other due weight content, and contains inaccuracies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it's far better, and at least it's about JK Rowling - the section I have highlighted above is about Harry Potter, and would be fine in said article.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was not the consensus of the editors who worked on the WP:FAR, many of whom stated that WP:DUE indicated that considerable Harry Potter content and literary analysis belongs in this article as a reflection of the highest quality secondary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what Sandy says. When the featured article review was opened the lead was different, contained innaccuracies, etc. During the course of the many months long Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 review, which consists of the review page, and many archived workshop pages, (see Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 1, Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 2 , Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 3, Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 4, Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 5) the article has undergone substantial changes, which need to be reflected in the lead. Workshopping the lead is in archive 4, tackling the lead, so you get a sense of how this is a product of collaborative editing and consensus. The current lead reflects the new sections and thousands of words of literary analysis/critical reception added during the rewrite - all of which was needed for the article to maintain featured article status. When the article changes so much, the lead must follow, so to speak. Any changes now should go through a similar process. Victoria (tk) 19:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third para of lead

Back to NEDOCHAN's original concerns about the third paragraph of the current lead; could we revisit in case others have the same issue on TFA day? As Victoriaearle explains just above, the lead incorporated thousands of words of new literary analysis content. Nonetheless, I question whether we might excerpt content more relevant to her the person for the lead of her bio; that is, would it be worthwhile to consider replacing:

Its influences include the Bildungsroman (coming-of-age story), school stories, fairy tales, and Christian allegory.

with a sentence that focused instead more specifically on influences in Rowling's life; that is, the authors who most influenced her along with Jessica Mitford? C.S. Lewis, etc? This would make the influences sentence more focused on Rowling the person, rather than Harry Potter the novels. Query for @AleatoryPonderings, Olivaw-Daneel, Vanamonde93, and Victoriaearle:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to adding content about Lewis and Mitford; indeed that seems appropriate; but I do think this sentence belongs in the lead also, possibly shortened by piping Bildungsroman, as I have done elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third paragraph proposal 1

Current (diff)	Proposal 1	Proposal 2
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.	Growing up surrounded by books, Rowling was influenced by her early reading of C. S. Lewis, Elizabeth Goudge, and E. Nesbit, and the autobiography of her heroine, Jessica Mitford. Harry Potter was also influenced by the coming-of-age story, school stories, fairy tales, and Christian allegory. The novels – which follow a boy named Harry Potter as he attends Hogwarts, a school for wizards, and battles Lord Voldemort – concluded with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (2007). 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 and religious debates. Critical reception has been mixed. Many reviewers see Rowling's writing as conventional; some regard her portrayal of gender and social division as regressive.	Growing up surrounded by books, Rowling was influenced by her early reading of C. S. Lewis, Elizabeth Goudge, and E. Nesbit, and the autobiography of her heroine, Jessica Mitford. Harry Potter was also influenced by the coming-of-age story, school stories, fairy tales, and Christian allegory. Death and the divide between good and evil are its central themes. Rowling's impact on the book market has drawn comparisons to Enid Blyton and Roald Dahl. Her series revived fantasy as a genre in the children's market, spawned a host of imitators, and inspired an active fandom and religious debates. Critical reception has been mixed. Many reviewers see Rowling's writing as conventional; some regard her portrayal of gender and social division as regressive.

Discussion of third para proposal 1

An attempt to get the paragraph focused more on Rowling than Harry, to address the concern raised that the lead is too much about HP. (Net addition of 17 words.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made proposal 2 above. I added Blyton and Dahl from Legacy, to focus a bit more on Rowling's legacy than HPs. Removed the plot summary to keep the word count down, but ok with adding it back. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overrall, I like what you did with Proposal 2. I was ambivalent on removing the plot summary. I am not the norm, but as someone who has never read a Potter book or seen a Potter film, and did not know a warthog from a hogwart, the one-sentence plot summary was just enough to orient me for the rest of the article. Let's see what others think. ~~"Potter was also influenced of" is not a construct I'm familiar with.~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That last bit was a typo; fixed! Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Struck ... I feared it was BrEng :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else have an opinion re proposals above, and whether we should include or not the one-line plot summary? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Italics in hatnotes

Does anyone understand this edit by User:Thrakkx re WP:ITHAT? I don't; it seems backwards, need to understand the intent. Why do we unitalicize exactly that which is usually in italics? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So obviously we know the purpose of italics on Wikipedia is, among other things, to indicate the name of some published works. For example, the sentence: "My favorite book is Harry Potter." However, ITHAT states that when the entire sentence is italicized, like in hatnotes, the italics need to be switched so that the italicized words can still be identified within the sentence. It looks strange because we rarely write sentences entirely in italics, but it is the correct convention. Thrakkx (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, Thrakkx; if that's what WP:ITHAT intends to say, someone needs to re-write it in English :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is quite bad at explaining its purpose, I agree. Thrakkx (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost story writer?

Should the category "Ghost story writers" be applied to her? I mean, while the HP books are not primarily ghost stories, they heavily feature ghosts. 2A00:23C7:ED18:A301:7CF6:DEE7:B4AA:37DC (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think the term “ghost story” refers to “any story featuring ghosts.” I would say it’s generally synonymous with “scary story,” though it usually implies ghosts are involved. 24.240.33.230 (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2022

This edit request to J. K. Rowling has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would love to edit as it will be all words will be fixed up and will be easy to read for kids and adults. I do good in editing and that’s why I am getting A+++ which my highest score so far as I always am use to getting A+ 49.185.46.43 (talk) 23:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ––FormalDude talk 23:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Wild About Harry". archive.nytimes.com. Retrieved 2022-03-20.

[2] "Fantasy and Science Fiction: Books To Look For by Charles de Lint". www.sfsite.com. Retrieved 2022-03-20.

[3] "TLS - Times Literary Supplement". TLS. Retrieved 2022-03-20.

[4] Eccleshare, Julia (2002). A guide to the Harry Potter novels. Internet Archive. London ; New York : Continuum. ISBN 978-1-84714-418-8.

[5] Nel, Philip (2001-09-26). JK Rowling's Harry Potter Novels: A Reader's Guide. A&C Black. ISBN 978-0-8264-5232-0.

[6] Schoefer, Christine (2000-01-13). "Harry Potter's girl trouble". Salon. Retrieved 2022-03-20.

[7] "Children's Book Review: Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J. K. Rowling, Author Scholastic $29.99 (0p) ISBN 978-0-439-13959-5". PublishersWeekly.com. Retrieved 2022-03-20.

[8] "Harry Potter reviews". web.archive.org. 2012-05-24. Retrieved 2022-03-20.

[9] "Book Review: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix". web.archive.org. 2006-05-08. Retrieved 2022-03-20.

[10] Schillinger, Liesl (2005-07-31). "'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince': Her Dark Materials". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-03-20.

[11] "'Prince' shines amid growing darkness - The Boston Globe". www.boston.com. Retrieved 2022-03-20.

[12] Leonard, John (2003-07-13). "Nobody Expects the Inquisition". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-03-20.

[13] "Archives". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2022-03-20.

[14] Kakutani, Michiko (2007-07-19). "An Epic Showdown as Harry Potter Is Initiated Into Adulthood". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-03-20.

[15] "Book Reviews & Recommendations". Kirkus Reviews. Retrieved 2022-03-20.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]