Talk:Debby Applegate/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 19:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, you have to bear in mind that Applegate spent almost her entire adult life so far working on a single project, and that project in turn is the sole reason that she's notable. If you'll take a look at some of the article's sources, or Google Applegate independently, you'll see that this is the way other sources discuss her, too; for example, her Contemporary Authors entry consists of two paragraphs of prose, exclusively discussing MFMIA and its reviews. Perhaps some of the confusion is just over the headers here; obviously, even though it's under MFMIA, the description of her twenty years of work on the book is still part of her "biography", as is her work on Peggy Adler.

To keep this constructive, maybe you can be more specific about what "main aspects" you're seeing in reliable sources that aren't covered in the article? I'm up for including more information on her history if it can be found, but I've done a pretty thorough search. I'm not sure what you're looking at here for this part that I'm not. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've told you my feeling on reading the article. If it were true that Applegate had done nothing notable apart from the book, the correct option would probably have been to fail the GA at once, but I've already not taken that course. Given your comments, I think what we must do is refocus the article so that it is on Applegate, not the book.


 * A conventional biography - and I suggest that is what we must aim at - will describe what made her a good writer (even a great one, if that can be justified - it would help); what factors in her family background may have contributed; influences from other places; her own reports in interviews of what brought her to write as she did (these do not demonstrate notability, but since we have that already, it doesn't matter: we need insight-providing facts); critical discussion of the nature of her thought and the structure of her writing; perhaps (and this might be crucial) the reasons why she chose Beecher as her subject (ideally, find statements by her, maybe with critics' commentaries, on the reasons for her choice). In short, we are lacking anything much about her - her mind, her upbringing, her habits of thought, her early environment, her training in perceptiveness, all of that. The sentence in the 'Madam' section "The decision to write the book..." is the right thing, but we need much more of it, and certainly for TMFMIA as well.


 * If you want practical guidance on reshaping the article, I'd therefore suggest that we might have sections something like 'Fascinated by Beecher' (you get the idea, I hope, please choose an appropriate title), 'Learning the craft of fiction writing', 'Constructing TMFMIA', and 'Achieving fame' (or something of that sort). That way, the focus is on her, not the book. The current 'Reception' section is unquestionably on the book, and that needs to be turned around. To repeat, I suggest you make rather full use of interviews (e.g. WIRB) to provide the reader with Applegate's view of herself, combined with other people's assessments of her. Then we may have a Good Article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel that where this review is going off the rails is two different interpretations of the "main aspects" criterion: I think the criterion speaks to main aspects covered by sources, where you seem to feel that it's main aspects you would like to see in biographies generally. While I understand where you're coming from, I'm somewhat limited by the way Applegate's been covered so far. To put this another way, yes, in Wikipedia terms, Applegate has done nothing notable apart from the book. To my knowledge, no one has profiled her childhood, her teaching, or the cast of her mind, though a few dozen sources talk about her authorship of TMFMIA.
 * For example, have you seen enough reliable sources that detail "her mind, her upbringing, her habits of thought, her early environment, her training in perceptiveness" that you believe these to be main aspects of the topic? I can add perhaps another sentence on this, from a primary source, but you appear to be looking for significant expansion.
 * So maybe we can focus on that point first: can you give me the sources you're looking at that treat this early background stuff as a main aspect of her coverage? Or is your point that you don't need to look at sources to determine this is a main aspect of this article? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I'm sorry to say we seem to be miles apart on this. I don't think sufficient material exists to make your points actionable, and you've already stated your intention to fail the article if Applegate turns out to have no notable coverage outside of her writing of TMFMIA, which she doesn't. Already, this article is the most comprehensive source on Applegate in existence; you can compare it to another encyclopedia article on her here, for example. I'd argue it therefore meets and dramatically exceeds the "main aspects" criterion.
 * I've scraped a few more details out of some sources, but the major expansion you propose does not appear to me possible. It's probably best if you proceed with your fail so that I can renominate and start fresh. I do appreciate your time in reviewing and I'm sorry we weren't able to find more middle ground. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * edit conflict - I was working on the following text, which I may as well publish in the hope that you'll reconsider:


 * This is going to take some answering, in several steps. Firstly, I would be grateful if you could avoid phraseology like "off the rails" and "to keep this constructive": I can assure you I am focussed on the task and am working carefully to assist you in making this the best article it can be. Secondly, it is for the reviewer to drive the process.


 * To reply to your questions: I already indicated you could use interviews as evidence of what she says about herself. These do not, as I also said, prove notability, but since we don't think that is at issue, it is fine, with suitable caution, to use reports of interviews (these almost always combine primary and secondary levels, as they aren't written by the subject, and contain commentary; even the "answers" attributed to Applegate are filtered by the interviewer, except in those rare cases where an unedited transcript is made from a recording). The interview on the book's own website is an exception, being primary, but is usable as an expression of the subject's thought, which we do want to know.


 * You may certainly use the book itself as evidence of what its author wrote, and in quotations of how she actually wrote, and with caution what kind of person she is, though secondary sources should support that.


 * Further, yes, the article needs to be expanded; and yes, definitely, a biography of an author needs to say something about their being, their nature, their background, experiences and influences as an author, it would be really peculiar not to include such things. So I agree, these form the main aspect of an article on an author, just as early life, education, career, family, awards and so on are "major facets" of all good biographies. If you believe as you imply that the available sources on all this cannot supply enough information to make up a reasonably informative and "decent" biography, then we would have to agree that this article does not yet meet the GA criteria. Consider the hypothetical case of a marine worm species that is covered very poorly by the existing sources:
 * Researcher F has written in detail about the worm's water filtration system;
 * Researcher M has written about its distribution off Mozambique.
 * Nothing is known of its taxonomy, phylogeny, reproduction, embryology or abundance. I think you'd agree that while it's fine to have a Wikipedia article on this species, it will remain a start class article because the sources are simply inadequate to bring it up to GA standard, where the major aspects of a worm's life must be covered. Just covering the few aspects that happen so far to have been illuminated in print is not enough.
 * However, I believe enough has been published in reliable sources about Applegate to make a decent article: it just needs to be worked into the text.


 * Finding sources is a content editor's role, not a reviewer's. However, I've indicated one interview source already, and there are others. The interview at Amherst may be of special interest for what she says about herself to a professor at her alma mater; it's over an hour long so there should be some useful details there. There's an article by Pamela H. Sacks, Worcester Telegram & Gazette, Apr 24, 2007. There is more "meat" to be extracted from Kazin's review in the NYT: for example, he says Beecher "is a splendid subject for any writer who aims to break the tradition of literary mediocrity" and that Applegate "tells this grand story with aplomb, intelligence and a sure feel for historical context. The contradictions of Beecher's crowded and prosperous life, she explains, stemmed directly from his desire to straddle the warring enthusiasms of his family and his time." Well, perhaps 'literary mediocrity' and 'warring enthusiasms' are clues. I guess that "an eloquent preacher could be a sexy celebrity, the leader of one or more reform movements and a popular philosopher — all at the same time." is a clue also.


 * I don't get the feeling from all this that there is no usable source material out there. On re-reading the article, I do not feel it currently adequately covers all the bases, but it could be extended to do so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments, but I'm sorry to say I fundamentally disagree with your approach. You're coming at this from the top down--"What have I decided all articles of this type should look like?"--rather than the bottom up--"What do the reliable sources say about Applegate?" I'd argue that the latter is the way Wikipedia articles should be written; certainly, it's what the GA criteria emphasize. What the Good Article Criteria are Not, for example, lists "Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources" as a common reviewing mistake, and that's clearly what's happening here. Applegate's influences, early life, the origins of her perceptiveness, etc., haven't been found by you or me in any reliable source so far. It's possible I've overlooked one, obviously, but the "main aspects" covered by a range of reliable sources are clearly here.
 * Another problem with your proposal is that Wikipedia articles should be primarily based on secondary sources, not primary, per our policy at WP:RS. That's why I'm reluctant to expand this article's already heavy use of interview and self-published material, and the secondary source material appears insufficient to mount the radical expansion you propose. I do appreciate your finding that local newspaper story about Applegate, and will include a quotation or two from it, but this source doesn't really touch on the many aspects you want covered. In any case, demanding use of all reliable sources seems closer to the FA standard of comprehensiveness rather than the GA standard of "main aspects": " This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics."
 * Again, I appreciate your time and suggestions, and by pushing me to gather a few more details, it's improved the article. (And again, thanks for that Worchester news story--I've long hunted a quotation on her reaction on the Pulitzer, and now I finally have one.) Unfortunately, I do feel we're well outside the bounds of the GA criteria, and I'd prefer to start fresh with a review with a more traditional approach. Please feel free to fail this with no hard feelings on my end; though we've disagreed, disagreements make Wikipedia a better and more vital place. Thanks for taking the time. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll do that, but you are still assuming that topics which pass the GNG must automatically be convertible using the available sources into a GA, and I really do not agree on that. The WGN essay suggests that 'the "main aspects" of the topic, according to reliable sources' should each be addressed. What it doesn't mention is the possibility that a topic may not have an RS which describes explicitly what the main aspects are, and I guess that may be the case here. Reviewers are enjoined to look for balance in an article, and I have not found it here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)