Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Middlesex (novel)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:09, 24 October 2011 [1].

Middlesex (novel)[edit]

Featured article candidates/Middlesex (novel)/archive1

Nominator(s): Cunard (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 2003 winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, Middlesex is my first featured article nomination. Prior to my first edit to the article on 1 February 2010, the article looked like this. Since then, I've made over 450 edits to the article.

I have used a variety of sources in building this article. Several include the literary journals London Review of Books, Mosaic, The Southern Review, and The New York Times Book Review; feminist journal Signs, medical journals Archives of Disease in Childhood and Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine; and the LGBT magazines The Advocate and Lambda Book Report.
For newspaper book reviews, I've used sources published in various countries: The Guardian, The Independent, The Economist, and The Times in Britain; the Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail in Canada; The National Herald, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Christian Science Monitor in the United States; The Prague Post in the Czech Republic; and The Sydney Morning Herald in Australia.

Several users have provided invaluable advice in polishing the article:

Ginsengbomb (talk · contribs) copyedited the article. His strong edits and advice improved both the prose and concision in the article.
March–April 2010: Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Peer review/Middlesex (novel)/archive1 provided not one, but two, rounds of insightful comments. I thank her for her patience and willingness to re-read the article.
April 2010: SMasters (talk · contribs) at Talk:Middlesex (novel)#Copy edit April 2010 proofread the article, polishing the prose and fixing overlinking errors.
April 2010: Hunter Kahn (talk · contribs) at Talk:Middlesex (novel)/GA1 provided a detailed GA review of the article, improving the article's prose.
April 2010: Brianboulton (talk · contribs) at Talk:Middlesex (novel)#Some general (and hopefully useful) comments improved the article's prose with his excellent suggestions. His third opinions here and here resolved conflicts about the article's content. I thank him for his timely and shrewd feedback about each issue.
May 2010: Awadewit (talk · contribs) at Talk:Middlesex (novel)#Comments from Awadewit provided numerous comments about the article's structure. Her list of sources at Talk:Middlesex (novel)#MLA citations were very helpful in further expanding the article.
September 2011: Jappalang (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Peer review/Middlesex (novel)/archive2 facilitated further improvements to the article. Through his precise comments, I was able to improve the prose, structure, and MOS of the article.

Without the guidance of the seven above editors, I am certain I would not have had the confidence to nominate Middlesex at FAC. Their collective experience with the FAC process, prose, and references have taught me much about writing and researching articles.

Cunard (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine names should be italicized; publishers should not be italicized. Check for consistent italicization
FN 34: publisher?
Be consistent in whether you cite online sources using the website/publisher name or the URL - for example, Salon vs Salon.com
Book Magazine is bi-monthly; when in 2002 was FN 53 published?
Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
FN 86, 95: page(s)?
Be consistent in whether you provide locations
FN 96: check page formatting
Bibliography formatting should match that used for complete citations in footnotes
Check formatting of quotes within quotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the source review. I have added locations to the references, fixed the inconsistent italicization, and standardized the naming of the Salon references. I will address the other issues later.
  Would you clarify what you mean by "Bibliography formatting should match that used for complete citations in footnotes" by providing an example of an inconsistency between the two? I don't know what you mean. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 34: I've fixed the reference to show the publisher.
- I've fixed Salon as I mentioned above.
- I've added the month for Book Magazine
- I've fixed the double periods.
- For FN 86, I've added a period. The source does not give a page number for FN 95.
- Locations added as I mentioned above.
- I've revised the {{ndash}} template to –.
- See my question above regarding the inconsistencies between the bibliography and footnote sections.
- I've formatted the quotes within the quotes to be single quotes. Cunard (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay. Inconsistencies remain in the citations as to when you provide publisher and location information - check please. Check formatting on FN 35, 97, 146. Some italicization issues remain - for example, according to our article on the subject, Book Magazine, not Book Magazine, is correct. As for bibliography/citations: for the most part, your magazine citations provide both location and publisher; your magazine bibliography entries mostly do neither. Also, in citations you spell out or omit state names, whereas in bibliography you abbreviate them. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I omit the "publisher" parameter for newspapers. When the publisher of a journal is an individual person instead of a company (such as the London Review of Books), I omit the "publisher" parameter as suggested at Template:Cite news. I include the publisher parameter for journals, books, and university publications. For the journal The New Republic, I was unable to find a publisher.
      I fixed the formatting of FN 35, 97, and 146. I revised the wording of Book Magazine to Book because the article and its sources generally call it Book.
      I have revised the "location" parameters to omit state names for major cities. I have spelled out all the state names. Cunard (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Graham, for checking. Cunard (talk) 21:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These remarks are not on the basis of a complete review. I have read the lead and the first couple of sections and taken a general look. These points may be indicative of other issues requiring attention.

A few prose matters
- "evasive historical figure": I think you mean "elusive"
- "Set in the aftermath of the 1922 Greco-Turkish War and amid graphic scenes of the Great Fire of Smyrna, the siblings are forced to seek refuge by emigrating to America." The word "set" should be removed, otherwise the sentence doesn't make sense.
- Another sentence which is put very oddly is "Praising MacDowell Colony for its settling solitude and quiet, which Eugenides felt fostered productivity, he traveled to the New Hampshire art colony to write Middlesex". This needs rephrasing. Then, it is followed by "It took Eugenides nine years to write the novel." Does this mean he stayed in the colony for nine years?
- General prose style: There is a tendency to begin rather too many sentences with the "ing" verb form – "Praising..." (see above), then "Discussing...", "Believing...", "Researching..." etc. Sometimes this works, but generally it doesn't, and overuse of the form can be tedious to the reader.
Couple of general points
- For consideration: try reversing the order of the second and third paragraphs of the lead. To me, that reads better.
- Structure: "Background and publication" seems an odd combination of topics for a section, particularly as the only publication information given is date and publisher's name. I notice other structural oddities in the article; for example, why are "Genres" and "Criticism" included as subsections of "Style"?

My time is a bit restricted at the moment. I will try to add further review comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian is right about all those -ings; they are tedious and produce a monotony of style that is not engaging. Graham Colm (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded to say "elusive".
Removed "set".
Reworded to say he began writing Middlesex at the colony. He did not stay there for nine years.
I've fixed the "ing" verb forms you've pointed out. I will check the rest of the article later for more "ing" forms.

I've revised one more instance of the "ing" verb form. The rest do not have the convoluted form you noted above ("Praising MacDowell Colony for its settling solitude and quiet, which Eugenides felt fostered productivity, he traveled to the New Hampshire art colony to write Middlesex.") They are sufficiently spread out in the article so that the reader will not be overwhelmed. Cunard (talk) 08:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reversed the order of the second and third paragraphs of the lead.
I've removed "publication" from the header. "Genre" was included as a subsection under style because I based Middlesex's structure on To Kill a Mockingbird's. Genres of a novel are based on a set of stylistic criteria (from Genre), so I believe "Genre" fits under the "Style" section.
The "Criticism" subsection consists of reviewers and scholars critiquing Eugenides' style of writing ("uneven throughout", "verbose voluptuousness", "footloose", having a "preachy and nervous" tone). Cunard (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments:

You have dealt with most of my minor points, though there are still a few dodgy "...ing" beginnings to sentences. I suggest you check out "Flashing...", "Depicting..." and "Participating..."
Your response to my point that "Background" and "Publication" were an odd combination in a single section was to change the section title. Do you propose to give no other publication details? A summary of the book's publishing history (number of editions, overseas publications, translations, paperback rights, etc) would be helpful, within a subsection of its own, perhaps.
I still have some problems in following the logic of the article's structure. For example, it is confusing to have "Criticism" and "Critical reception" as subsections of two different sections. And I don't understand why "Hermaphroditism and intersexuality" comes under "Style", while "Incest and intersexuality" appears under "Themes". The organisation of To Kill a Mockingbird, I have to say, looks a liitle tidier. Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional comments, which I will address over the next few days. Cunard (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised the "...ing" beginnings to the sentences.
I have added a section about the book's publication history.
The "Criticism" subsection of "Style" is meant to be a summary of the critiques of Eugenides' writing style in Middlesex.
The "Critical reception" subsection of "Reception" is meant to be a holistic review of the book: It details the skill with which Eugenides discusses gender issues and Detroit and the deficiencies in the scope and structure of the novel. It explains how critics have called Middlesex a "Great American Novel" and contrasts it with Eugenides' debut novel, The Virgin Suicides.
The two subsections are about two distinct topics.
What do you suggest I do with this subsection? I can think of five options: (i) remove the subsection header and place the content under the section "Style"; (ii) move it to the "Critical reception" section; (iii) leave it as is; (iv) retitle the subsection header to something like "Criticism of writing style"; and (iv) delete it.
I placed "Hermaphroditism and intersexuality" in the style section because it pertains to Eugenides' writing style: of why he chose in some cases to use the word "hermaphrodite" instead of "intersex". I am open to suggestions about restructuring the content in this subsection but believe it falls under the style section.
The "Incest and intersexuality" subsection of "Themes" discusses how incest led to the birth of an intersex and the societal implications of correlating the two. A scholar and an intersex activist wrote about the message, or the theme, the book is giving readers: Intersexuality results from incest.
Although I believe the article's structure is sensible and accurate, if there is a better way of structuring the article, feel free to propose how you would do so. Cunard (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I gave a favorable opinion at the article's peer review, but I agree with Brian's comments on the placement of "Hermaphroditism and intersexuality" under "Style"; the choice of a word does not seem to reflect the style of writing for the book. Re-reading the sections and bits of the article, I think the contents of "Hermaphroditism and intersexuality" can be reworked into "Gender identity". Jappalang (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My justification for including "Hermaphroditism and intersexuality" under "Style" is that Eugenides' word choice represents a stylistic decision he has made. Your suggestion is a good resolution to the issue, so I have revised the article accordingly. Cunard (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media Review - All good. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sven, for checking the images. Cunard (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.