Talk:To Kill a Mockingbird/Archive 2

Scout Incest?
Many times in the book it mentions Scout wanting to marry Jem, is this incestrous or just pure childishness. (i.e Scout says here and jem want to have a snow baby, " If I marry Jem that emans I'll be second coousins with Dill", and many times Scout doesn;t like being away from Jem and would cry whenever he told her to go away.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.92.85 (talk • contribs).


 * Normal childish behaviour = "incest" is your personal interpretation that doesn't belong in the article. See No original research. -- Stbalbach 14:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It's funny you bring that up, Actually their is clear evidence in the book of incest such Bob Ewell and Mayella and the fact that Dill is Scout's cousin.


 * Dill is not Scout's cousin, Bob did not have sexual relations with Mayella, and Scout was only a child. Where did you get these ideas?  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where in the book that says Scout and Dill (which would subsequently mean Dill and Jem also) are cousins. However, there are plenty of references about Dill and Scout marrying one another in the future and their obvious acceptance of that possibility. Also, the reference you make about Scout talking about marrying Jem was in relation to her attempting to figure out some comment Atticus makes towards her. Thus, I don't see how that's incestious. Likewise, Scout acts (IMO) like a pretty typical younger sister and Jem like a pretty typical older brother of their respective ages. They are, by books end, something like 13 and 9. Lastly, I do agree that it is pretty clear that Bob and Mayella Ewell had incestuous relations - I don't recall whose testimony it is, but I believe Tom Robinson testifies that Mayella, while seducing him, says something like "I want a real man, and not what my daddy does to me..." Obviously correct me if I've misquoted or am straight up wrong, but I remember reading it that way. Anyways, hope that clears up some stuff about the incest. And no, I don't think that should be a section that is part of the article.


 * Scout is Dill's cousin - I'm pretty sure of this as it is mentioned in the book several times. Furthermore, Bob Ewell did have sexual relations with Mayella. This is demonstrated when Tom Robinson says that Mayella said she has "never kissed a grown man before" and that she "says what her papa do to her don't count." Also, the fact that Bob Ewell was prepared to beat and 'possibly rape'(it is not concluded) Mayella for kissing and hugging Tom implies that he has done it before - he certainly has the character and history of being drunk and violent (Mayella nods at Atticus's question that Bob is not tolerable when he has been drinking). Scout does not seriously consider incest - she is simply trying to work out how somebody could have a double first cousin (as the Cunninghams are incestuous), so it is a cute childish episode of humour in the book. Scout crying when Jem tells her to go away is understandable - she's a young girl and being shouted at by your older brother (especially when you get on well with him) is not a nice thing. Scout and Dill do agree to be married and Dill says "Let's get us a baby", but again this is a cute childish episode which shows their innocence and purity - they haven't got the foggiest what they're on about. I have read this book and analysed it thoroughly in the past, so I should hope I know what I am on about! Hope this clears things up. Shrub of power 17:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have read the book throughly several times, but no where can I find references made to Dill being Scout's cousin. I entirely agree that Scout and Jem did not in any way have an incestous relaionship and that it is fairly certain that Bob Ewell most probably did have a sexual relationship with his daughter Mayella, but as to Scout and Dill being cousins and thus considering incest I cannot agree with. Of course Scout and Dill were too innocent to know what they were talking about when they spoke of making babies together etc but I do not see any evidence to back up the claim that Dill and Scout were cousins and that such a relationship later in life would not be possible. Forgive me if I have miread the passages where such a thing is mentioned, I do not mean to be difficult. However, as I will soon be sitting a GCSE examination on this book I would like to make sure that I am familiar with all the different relationships between the characters. Thank you.

I am having to read the book for school and am already to the halfway point. Nothing has been mentioned about Dill being Scout's cousin.
 * I'm pretty sure the mistake that has been made is the fact that Dill came to Maycomb to live with his aunt Miss Rachel Haveryard. The book covers this in the first couple pages. Thus to return to the initial question posed, there is no incest, just children being children. b_cubed 15:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Boo killed Mr. Ewell?
I thought that Atticus said Heck Tate was trying to protect his son, not Boo, by saying Mr. Ewell accidentally stabbed himself.

Also, this article doesn't thouroughly explain the title and how it relates to the book.


 * the common interpretation is that because Boo wouldn't want to expose himself in the court and all that, the incident was hushed and it seems that Boo really was the one who killed, though it's between the lines no doubt. Amoruso 17:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I had to explain it to some of my friends who are in my Literature class. Boo Radley saved the children when he stabbed Bob Ewell. Thsi is why he tried to explain Atticus that he tripped on his knife. Boo did nothing wrong, and had to endure horrible rumers when he actually was a very wonderful and kind man. He watned to protect him from the outside world he was so frightened of. Its OK if you didn't understand. I was like one of the few that did. -Ell

Boo didn't kill Bob Ewell. What happened was when Jem broke his arm, Boo caught him and somewhere along the line Bob tripped and fell on his knife. Boo didn't stab him, Heck Tate proved it.

Tate "proved" it only to make a point to Atticus. Atticus was sure that Jem stabbed Ewel. But then Tate states "I ain't worried about Jem" proving that he is worried about the only other person who could've stabbed Ewel, Boo. Like Ell said, if Boo was known as a hero to the people of Maycomb (for killing Ewel and saving the children) he would attract attention, one thing Boo seems to have avoided. Then Scout points out, that revealing the truth to the town that Boo killed Ewel (and thus giving him attention) "would be sort of like killing a mockingbird" -- Psi edit 18:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Tate wasn't trying to protect jem, he was trying to protct boo. at the end of chapter 30, theres a long quote by heck tate- "... All the lady's in maycomb includin' my wife'd be knocking on his door..." he's saying that everyone would go and thank boo for saving the children and killing bob ewell, when he just wants to be left alone. "...Taking the one man whose done you and this town a great service and draggin' him with his shy ways into the limelight-to me, thats a sin." thier protecting boo from the townspeople.-Dizzydark 23:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes that's true, when the kids return Atticus immediately starts thinking about how to put his own son through the court system! It's then revealed that it was Boo, and Atticus is very reluctantly put down by Heck Tate who then makes up a cover story. 81.129.196.8 10:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically, in the end, Boo did it (inferred) but since there was no evidence Jem was the prime suspect. Not wanting any complications, including the ones you all mentioned above, Tate invented a cover story that Ewell simply fell on his knife and stabbed himself. 24.15.53.225 13:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Split character section
I'm suggesting this because:
 * According to the Peer review/To Kill a Mockingbird, we need to reduce the "listy" organization.
 * Looking at the literature FA's, most have some sort of character page.

An alternative would be to merge the entire thing into the text, which would make it not a summary, but a lecture.  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the characters section should be split into a new article.
 *  T  yson Moore   22:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I will go ahead and split it now.
 *  T  yson Moore   21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I put the primary characters back into the article. I agree that not every character needs to be mentioned but I don't think it would be entirely proper to leave out a synopsis of the characters. Which leads me to my next point. I put the character info into the article however, I plan on going through the article within the next week or so and trimming down as much of the information as I can. I quickly glanced at some of the information and I don't think this will be too hard to do. If people reading the article want to read more about characters the character page is still up, and i feel that they can check that out. b_cubed 00:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

some important topics not stressed on the main page
Hello! I am in 8th grade and i just finished reading To Kill a Mockingbird. I have some important topics that I believe are quite valuable to the way the book is percieved. First of all, the part in the story where Tim Johnson, the mad dog, comes to the Finch's street, represents all sorts of predjuce. Atticus represents the "hero" who is "defeating" predjuce, because he kills the dog and the dog represents predjuce and how it is affecting the town. Second, the character descripiton on the To Kill a Mockingbird page explains that Jem and Scout do not call Atticus "dad" or any other name because it is "horrific". Actually, in the beginning to the novel, Scout refers to Atticus as "satisfactory". She does not call him "dad" because she believes that he is not a real dad. Towards the end of the book, though, she sees him more as a father. Also, Scout did have mother figures: Calpurnia, Miss Maudie and in a way, Aunt Alexandra. And Atticus taught Scout to read, not Calpurnia. I am wondering why there were no symbolism, or figurative annalysis section on the Mockingbird page. There is so much symbolism and figurative meaning to the entire book. Many primary characters are not listed in the primary characters section: Miss Maudie, Miss Stephanie, Aunt Alexandra, Dill, Mr. Avery, Mrs. Dubose and Miss Caroline. Yet, some characters that are only in the trial are considered "primary", such as Mayella Ewell. I will post more later on more symbolism and figurative meanings.

- An Up-and-Comming Writer


 * Symbolism is such a subjective thing. In fact, the instances you mention there about Tim Johnson and why the children don't call Atticus dad I disagree with. So your teacher's example of symbolism I think is taken out of context. But that doesn't mean you're wrong and I'm right. It just means I think what I do because of how I see the characters and the story. I see Tim Johnson as one more beautiful thing, "the pet of Maycomb" that had to be harmed for reasons beyond his poor control. And Atticus had to do it. And I think Harper Lee is wonderfully laconic and dry in her prose, so she states, as a child who wasn't too thrilled to have a boring old dad like Atticus, as "satisfactory". Recall that Scout goes on a quest to find something Atticus is good at doing - which culminates in his killing Tim Johnson. The discussion of perceived symbolism is probably better had back here on the Talk page.Moni3 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Moni3


 * I agree with Moni3's comments regarding symbolism, but I also think it's true that there are some important themes in the book which are not captured in the novel: Scout's and Jem's coming-of-age, and social morals of the South to name two.


 * In general I think this article could be greatly improved by:
 * Rewriting the Themes section: in addition to the additions mentioned above the section suffers from poor writing, shallow analysis, and excessive listiness.
 * Adding sections for Characters and Quotes. (There is currently a proposal to merge the Atticus Finch page into this one.)
 * Eliminating obscure pop culture references and film-related information from the Trivia section


 * UPDATE: Look what I found in Theme (literature):


 * Examples of themes in To Kill a Mockingbird are: Importance of Education, Bravery and Cowardice, Racism and Acceptance, Role of Women, Maturity, Friendship Social class structure and Inequality, Sacrifice, Prejudice, Code of Conduct, Loss of Innocence.


 * --Meyer 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the update, I don't see what is significant about that as you are referencing another wikipedia page; an unreferenced one at that. Cheers b_cubed 20:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sparknotes
Why is it that the summary is the same on sparknotes.com? Who copied this from sparknotes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SuperGerbil (talk • contribs) 23:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Genre reassigned: Southern Gothic
After much thought I have reassigned Mockingbird's genre to Southern Gothic. The original assignment to Historical novel was false, and the modifiers "Social, racial and judicial Issues" neither recognized literary genres nor completely accurate.

Genre-like classifications that I would have liked to used but rejected because they are not currently found in the literary genre hierarchy: coming-of-age story, family drama (but not a saga), courtroom drama (but definitely not a thriller; also, I have reservations about putting legal or political labels on the book because a lot of reviewers over-emphasize this aspect due to domination of the film by the Robinson trial).

While the setting and the Boo Radley character fit the genre, and Mockingbird is claimed as an example on Southern Gothic, I still don't feel Southern Gothic is a perfect fit. It's just the closest thing I could find among acknowledged genres.

--Meyer 11:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a perfect fit because until it was published it was unlike anything ever written. It still defies categorization. Moni3 21:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Moni3


 * It occurs to me that part of the problem may be that we wikipedists are more obsessed with categorization that many authors are. While some set out to write a mystery novel or a science fiction novel, etc., many others, perhaps like Harper Lee, just sit down to write a story without regard to literary genre. Part of me thinks Novel is the best "genre" for Mockingbird. --Meyer 01:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Aunt Alexandra Outraged??
A newer edit claims that Aunt Alexandra was outraged at her Missionary Circle's racist attitudes. Not only did I not ever notice this, but I noted the opposite. As a hostess, she refuses to dishonor her guests, so she allows them all their idiosyncracies, including the gossip about the "Mrunas" and the pastor's wife. She does grieve for her brother's sadness in private, but I never noted any outrage.Moni3 03:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Moni3 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moni3 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree. I just finished reading the book (again) today and do not recall Aunt Alexandra ever expressing outrage towards overt racism in her Missionary Circle. There is a moment where I believe Miss Stephanie talks about "them" and how "a certain someone" is getting a "rise" out of "them," but then Miss Maudie makes a comment to her which shuts her up and which Aunt Alexandra gives Miss Maudie a "thank you" look. That is as close as I can find to an example of what the edit could be talking about, or maybe I'm just reading an "old" edit.

She expresses no outrage, in fact she even tells Scout to act polite and to go along with it, laughing when necessary, but never talking. she doesn't want to offend any of her guests, so she lets them talk about what they want as they please. She did, if i'm not mistaken, get outraged at the fact that Scout didn't laugh when she was supposed to or she said something out of turn (one of the two, my memory fades around the subject)...either way, there was a split second when Alexandra gave scout some hard looks for whatever reason, but never at the guests. 24.15.53.225 13:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up the article
This page is under serious need of cleaning up. I just edited out a lot of extra information as well as some stubs that someone had placed into the article. On the one hand, although I appreciate someone's clear efforts to help the information presented on this page, the article is only managing to look sloppy in the process. There is still more work to be done just to make this page look half presentable. b_cubed 18:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. It should be between one and four paragraphs long, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear and accessible style so that the reader is encouraged to read the rest of the article."
 * I appreciate the sentiment, but dumping together three sections defined in the template WP:NOVEL/ArticleTemplate (headline, non-spoiler plot introduction, awards and nominations) makes the article less readable, not more. --Meyer 23:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I will have to disagree with you on several points. First, the template which you cite is not valid (as far as it is a broken link). Secondly, even if it is a valid way of writing a literary article, if you look at all the literary articles which are considered Featured Articles, or Good Articles for that matter, none of them follow this template as you have described. Surely, if this template was that important the FA and GA comittees would have taken it into consideration when awarding these articles their proper statuses. Lastly, if readability is what you are concerned about, having one liners interspersed here and there does nothing to help. Every wikipedia must have a proper introduction. A one-liner about the it being a southern gothic novel does not suffice. b_cubed 06:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not checking the link. The template is WikiProject_Novels/ArticleTemplate. While it is true that the template does not appear to be used in current featured or good articles about novels, this is probably due to the template being relatively new (Jan. 2006). Whether or not you think a one-sentence lede is sufficient, it satisfies the guidlines in WP:Lead_section, and it is my opinion that the one-line lede and separate plot introduction section improves the article's clarity. Adopting project-developed (WP:NOVELS in this case) templates whereever possible improves the consistency, readability, and usability of articles in a given field. --Meyer 07:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First, not to be rude, but have you actually read the article on what a lead section consists of? here's a brief citation that encapsulates the most important idea:
 * Can you see now why one sentence is insufficient? Furthermore, the awards are usually mentioned in the intro if there are significant ones such as a pulitzer prize in order to "encourage [the reader] to read the rest of the article." By the way, speaking as a member of the novels Wikiproject I don't believe that what it considers to be a proper article layout should be used as a "trump card". b_cubed 08:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While the template's one-sentence lede fails to explain why the subject novel is notable, it does provide a minimal overview and context. --Meyer 08:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The WikiProject_Novels/ArticleTemplate is not meant to superceed the need for a good Lead Paragraph. I have augmented the existing paragraph with more information from the rest of the article, making it more a of "summary" of the whole, which is more the intention of the "Lead". :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  08:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Understanding the intent behind the templates lede, I think Kevin's version is a good summary of the article. The lede should summarize the article but not the plot, which belongs in the plot introduction section. --Meyer 09:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this book banned?
Somewhere I've heard it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.125.68.136 (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Google lists several reports of Mockingbird being 'challenged' or 'removed from reading lists'. I'll add a report to the article. --Meyer 03:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've completed a first cut on a report on Mockingbird bannings and put it under a reinstated "Literary significance & criticism" section since that seemed the best fit among sections existing or in the article template (ultimately, I think there should be more literary criticism in this section than ban information). There are many mentions that Mockingbird is frequently banned to be found, but details on specific cases are harder to find. I originally intented to list notable banning cases, ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom seems to be the best source, and I suspect it is the original source for much of the specific case information currently circulating on the Internet. The Muskogee High School case has better non-ALA support than other cases, so I have retained it. Since the ALA case list seems fairly comprehensive, I don't think listing any more specific cases here would be valuable. --Meyer 10:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The American Library Association lists To Kill A Mockingbird as #41 on the list of the 100 Most Challenged Books in schools and public libraries. Read the entire list here.Moni3 17:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Moni3

It would be helpful to non-US readers if the article replaced the work "challenged" with a description. Perhaps "banned by local school authorities"? I don't know how to phrase it correctly, since I'm not from the USA. 150.101.246.227
 * I understand "challenged" to mean any action taken to remove a book from shelves. It's not necessarily banned but the actions initiated that eventually lead to a ban. I believe the list includes challenges and actual bans on books.Moni3 15:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Moni3

There are many mistakes in the article, for one, it says "myella's" instead of mayella's - you might want to fix that up.

How Does No Original Research Apply To Novels?
The entire Themes section was deleted recently with the reason described as "No Original Research".

With such a subjective nature as novel interpretation, how does No Original Research apply? Can there be a Themes section to any novel or interpretation of symbolism in novels if editors are to adhere to this?

Moni3 14:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)Moni3


 * WP:NOR excludes original interpretations by Wikipedists. Therefore, for the 'Major themes' section we should stick to material explicit in the novel itself or references to the opinions of citable authorities. While it doesn't do TKaM justice, I think our current themes section is comprised mostly of the former. It's a tough standard, but WP isn't supposed to be a repository for AP English essays. --Meyer 17:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a good reason for this, too. It can't come down to my opinion vs. your opinion. OTOH, documented criticism and analysis is fair game--cite and use. The amount of commentary on TKaM is legion.--Buckboard 09:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If it doesn't do it any justice, why don't you ignore it and do a Heck Tate rather than building up the browny points? ;) 81.129.196.8 10:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me User:Meyer, but shouldn't we be called Wikipedos? 67.171.5.200 00:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Last lines of book
This isn't important, just wondering if anyone else has any viewpoints on this matter. At the end of the book, Atticus says, in response to Scout's words on how nice Boo Radley was even though she was previously prejudiced against him, "Most people are, Scout, when you finally see them."

I just find it odd and peculiar that in a book that is against prejudice (apart from extreme cases like Bob Ewell), the last line should be this. I think Lee should have written, "Most people are, Scout, when you finally get to know them." This would demonstrate that understanding your fellow human beings and revealing the goodness of human nature within is better than judging them on other factors: skin colour, social status, wealth, ancestry etc. and believing malicious gossip, as spread by people like Miss Stephanie Crawford.

Maybe it's just me, but this seemed to contradict stuff previously in the book, and it gets me really worked up. It could be just colloquial language, or another innocuous explanation, but I'd like any other viewpoints possible - I love the book and I am extremely interested in it. Any thoughts? Shrub of power 22:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are reading too much into the word choice of the final line. The line means the same as the book as a whole (which you pointed out), that one should only judge another person after seeing who they truly are as a person and not judging based on appearance (as the jury did in believing a white man's story over a black's) or imagined attributes (as the children judged Boo). -- Meyer 01:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying - I think that's the most likely explanation for it. Great book though! Shrub of power 17:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the plot part of the page?
Did it get removed because of the ALA ban? Kenny Sullivan 22:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It and everything following got removed because of a technical glitch on one of my edits yesterday. I've reverted to the last complete version and will now try to incorporate edits made since the glitch. Please hold off editing the page until I'm done (will update here and remove the inuse template from the article). Very sorry for the mess. --Meyer 00:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm done now. I think I've reincorporated every meaningful and accurate (Bufsabres2007, I couldn't verify your edit of the release date to July 13, 1960 so have left it at July 11 (which agrees with the source )) edit made since my disaster at 15:06 March 27. Anyone who's edited the article since then, please read over the current version and add back in anything worthwhile that I've missed. Sorry again for the mess. I promise to never again edit more than a section at a time with the limited-edit-buffer browser on my PDA. --Meyer 01:08, 28 March 2007 (U

Did anyone see a long article at the end of the plot summary saturday?

Character list
Should the "Characters" section include all characters, only notable ones, just the main characters, or what? I think it could be separated into "major" and "minor", although that is subjective to viewpoint. As it links to the main article List of characters in To Kill a Mockingbird, is it necessary to have all characters? Interested to get some feedback on this. Shrub of power 21:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I was the one that made the list of characters article. Way back on January 7th I had put into the main article a few characters I thought should be considered "major". I'm not sure I'd still agree with the selection I made back then. Furthermore, I ended up just copying and pasting information from the "list article". In retrospect I think that a few 3-5 terse sentences on the main characters we include would be sufficient. From what I can remember from reading the book, these are the characters I would probably list as major characters: Scout, Jem, Atticus, Dill, Bob Ewell, Mayella Ewell, Tom Robinson, Boo Radley. For the rest I think it would be sufficient to just make mention that additional characters can be found at the List of characters in To Kill a Mockingbird. b_cubed 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the setout of the character list. Some of the others actually go like;

Character name
 * description of character

and so on and so forth, not bullet points.

Lady Nimue of the Lake 23:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
Hi guys, just to say I placed the page up for peer review (see top infobox and follow the link). As of now, we've already received one helpful response, and it'd be worth adding the page to your watchlist if you want to see new responses and help to implement the changes. I haven't worked on this for very long at all, but I feel the article has the potential to be very good. Keep up the good work. Shrub of power 22:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hypocrisy
The section mentions that Scout learns about the persecution of Jews during World War II. This is misleading, as the book takes place in the 1930's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.246.201.51 (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Hitler persecuted the Jews before World War II, and this was in a news article they were discussing.

No mention of Capote allegedly having written part/all of Mockingbird?
I haven't been following the development of this article, and I didn't have the patience to peruse the thousands of edits/'edit comments' the article has received in the last few months, so forgive me if this has already been discussed...

I realize that this is a likely a controversial subject here, and I accept that most scholars agree that the allegation that Capote ghostwrote part or all of Lee's novel is untrue, but why isn't this allegation (or 'rumor' or whatever you consider it) even MENTIONED in the article? Even if one considers the charge to be no more than 'trivia', surely such a pervasive rumor deserves at least a sentence or two. Personally, I would even go so far as to say that the article actually comes across as non-NPOV due to the conspicuous absence of any mention of the subject. What is the justification for not including it? -Grammaticus Repairo 00:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "and I accept that most scholars agree that the allegation that Capote ghostwrote part or all of Lee's novel is untrue, " that about covers it.--Xiahou 00:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just because I happen to know a little about the subject doesn't mean every other wiki reader knows it too. Incidentally, the Capote article does indeed have two sentences on the matter--why doesn't this article?  The subject involves both authors equally, the way I see it... -Grammaticus Repairo 00:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * thats just it. "most scholars agree that the allegation that Capote ghostwrote part or all of Lee's novel is untrue" so what sources are you going to quote on this that have more credibility? --Xiahou 00:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand the source of my puzzlement. I'm quite sure there are numerous reliable sources that support both the 'for' and 'against' allegations that Capote wrote part/all of Mockingbird.  I am certain of this because such information is already mentioned in the wiki entries for both Capote (here) and Lee (here).  What I do not understand is why this information is not included in this article.  Given the quantity and frequency of updates done to the article, I find it hard to believe that nobody so far has thought about adding info about this subject already, so I am can only assume that, for some reason, the regular editors of this article have purposefully chosen not to include this information.  I would like to know the justification for not including the allegations in the Mockingbird article, particularly as it is already included in both the main entry on Harper Lee as well as in the entry on Capote.  -Grammaticus Repairo 00:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection
Looking through this article and its history, it seems to me that it gets vandalized quite a bit more than is normal, and in the revert/undo shuffle, I noticed that some information has been incorrectly added or subtracted. Does anyone else think it is a good idea to request semi-protection of this page? -YK Timestalk 02:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Boo
Boo Radley does not live next door to them, he lives three houses to the south... Istillcandream 03:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing Info
The article does not mention how Tom Robinson died, yet it says his "widow" was menaced by Bob Ewell, can someone please mention that he dies while trying to excape the prison because he had given up hope? Or something to that effect? Istillcandream 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The date of alleged rape is in the chapters in the courtroom. It is either Atticus or Mr. Gilmore that asks the person on trial what happened on the date. It is a quick instance and one that hardly sticks to memory. It is also one of the very few instances where the reader is direcly told the the year, never mind the exact date. Sorry for the vagueness regarding location in text, but its in there... Rvakil 02:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Bob Ewell's death?
Doesn't the book say that the knife fell in Mr. Ewell's ribs, not stomach? Just a minor thing... JoeyETS 04:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It says in plot summary that Bob Ewell was the town drunk. He was not the town drunk, just an excessive drinker. The town drunk was a man named Dolphus Raymond (revealed in chapters 16 and 17).

-Anonymous reader suggested change on Feburary 4th, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.129.202 (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

operation mockingbird
anyone speculate that this book/movie has to do with 'operation mockingbird'? if so - what parallels/whatnot can you find? -interested & lazy bluepill

Improve article quality for feature
That this article hasn't been featured is a crime, but understandable. It is still not in a state to be featured. It is a good article, but I think some actions should be taken by the people who watch and edit it in order to get it there. I watch this article because I love the book. I propose a very small wikiproject here: WP:TKAM, the goals of which is to watch, maintain, and feature this article. We as a group would have to agree on how to get this article featured. This will be difficult, since as we love it so much, we all want to see our small bits of edits included in it. Tough to do, but my suggestions:
 * Move most of the characters to the List of characters in To Kill a Mockingbird page. The characters who should stay on this page should be Scout, Jem, Dill, Atticus, Calpurnia, Tom Robinson, Mayella, and Boo Radley.
 * The section on Literary Significance and Criticism should be expanded considerably. This book is made a tremendous impact on American literature - as well as literature around the world. Every example of its impact should have a good reference.
 * Delete the awards section. The Pulitzer Prize is mentioned in the introduction and in the Literary Significance section.
 * Put the Plot Summary on a diet, make the language consistent throughout. Our article has the voices of a thousand editors instead of a single unifying language.
 * The article is still vandalized fairly regularly, but not at the frequency it was in the past. This might change when school starts again and students all over the world are required to read it, but keep it clear of vandalism and small student insertions. I hope if students and non-students alike love this book, they will join our efforts to keep it communally excellent.

Besides keeping it relatively vandalism-free and adding info in the Literary Significance section, I won't begin to make these changes until a consensus is made from the other folks I know watch the article on its improvement. I hope to read your own suggestions about how to make it better.Moni3 14:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * I waited a week or so for any feedback. Are there objections to my making these changes? Moni3 11:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Userbox
So, I'm a geek. And I created a userbox if you're interested.

If you'd like to put it on your userpage, click on edit this page, copy the code between the { and } and paste it on your userpage.
 * You should put some kind of a pic in the ID section (a screenshot of the movie if thats possible).  Connör ( talk ) 23:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No fair-use pictures in user-boxes... --antilivedT 09:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation discussion
FYI, this discussion on how to cite a section from a single source is located here, on the citation talkpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moni3 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Small Thing - The article introduces Scout as a six year old as whilst the book describes her as 8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.39.87 (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

GA comment
With a quick glance, the two images need more detailed fair use rationales. Look to other passed novel GA/FAs for examples. Address these before the reviewing editor quick-fails the article. --Nehrams2020 01:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I loaded neither of those. The book cover is a book cover. What more does it need? And if the 2nd is unlicensed, what more does it need? Please point in the correct direction. Thank you. --Moni3 01:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3


 * I agree with Nehrams. Please see Use rationale examples. Johnfos 01:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I edited both photo summaries to include the fair use rationales provided in the link provided by Johnfos. If there is something more that needs to be done, please advise. Thank you. --Moni3 02:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

(<-) At first glance, I think the article could use some copy edits. It's disjointed in places and the prose uneven. Majoreditor 02:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm restructuring some of the sections and was just curious as to which parts it's disjointed. I can pay them some attention if I know specifically where to edit. --Moni3 13:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3


 * For starters, I'd suggest demoting the section on the meaning of the novel's name. It probably doesn't deserve its own section, much less so early on in the article.  I'd also suggest removing from the lead the statistic on what percent of American students read the novel, placing it instead later in the article.
 * All in all, I think that this article can be rated GA-class with just a bit more work. Majoreditor 16:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I demoted the explanation of the novel's title, but I think there is merit in mentioning in the lead how much the novel is used and studied in schools. It emphasizes its current importance, even for a Pulitzer Prize winning book, and at once explains why the article has been so vandalized (that's my connection). I can rewrite the sentence to make it prettier, but I think the mention of how prevalent it is in the classroom should be included in the lead. --Moni3 17:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

(<-)Your recent edits have improved the article. Majoreditor 00:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

TKaM's success vs. other novels addressing racial injustice
I have to disagree with the editor who removed the comparison of TKaM with Seed in the Wind. The comparison was presented to show that there is more to the book's success than its addressing of racial injustice at the right time. Kscottbailey, do you mind if you expand on your reasons for removing this item? --Moni3 23:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * There's simply no reason FOR inclusion, which is the standard. The novel was not a success, was not notable, and does not belong in an article about a completely different novel. I think nearly everyone who knows the book understands that it found success not simply for its subject matter, but for its literary merits as well. We don't need to include a reference to a non-notable book to support that. TKaM is a classic of American letters. Including a novel that found no such notability in the pantheon of American literature is what needs to be supported. I do not need to argue for EXCLUSION, you need to argue for INCLUSION. As such, I am removing the reference until you make a convincing case for inclusion. K. Scott Bailey 02:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure you know, the purpose of an encyclopedic article is to inform the uninformed. Those who know the novel, as you point out, know its merits extend far beyond its release at the right time in the course of race relations in the US. However, for those who are unfamiliar with the novel - for whom the article is written - this is not as apparent, or more accurately, apparent at all. The many reviews of TKaM just after it was released consistently point out that its major and overriding theme and subject - and reason for success - is race relations, as if no other book to this point in American history had ever addressed the topic before. Seed in the Wind is obscure to be sure, but it was mentioned in Charles Shields' biography of Lee for being released the same year as TKaM and was not nearly as successful, Shields considered, because it was overwhelmingly negative toward whites, painting them as one-dimensional villains. TKaM did not do this and clearly had a much more significant impact on race relations and on American literature.
 * I understand the nature of this site, its diversity and accessibility. I know you edited this information because you could. However, it benefits Wikipedia as a site and as a process by discussing what is to be excluded and included in an article. I've worked fairly diligently to get this article in a condition to be considered a Good Article over the past couple months. I've been rather surprised that I did this somewhat alone despite my invitation to others to provide their input (see above). I've asked for peer reviews and GA reviews and have gotten some good suggestions by other editors. If you know of a better way to illustrate this point, and it is worth illustrating, please suggest an alternative presentation. I would appreciate your help. --Moni3 02:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * My point is that in the modern-age (where TKaM has passed into classic literature status) one does not need to illustrate that it has literary merit beyond its racial component. It's self-evident, given its well-known (by everyone, not just fans) status as a classic. Thus, the reference to a non-notable novel is superfluous on the face of it. As for your work on the article, it has been well-done, to be sure. I am working to carve out a niche for myself as a vandal fighter, and a writer of new articles. Each contributor has their own "spot" if you will. Yours appears to be improving this article. This is a noble pursuit, and you're doing a fine job. However, this reference to a novel of no repute is not necessary to illustrate anything about a novel of such a high class as TKaM. K. Scott Bailey 03:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, well. I disagree, but I'm not going to challenge it for the sake of jeopardizing the stability of the article for GA status. I think it's a point worth mentioning, but not a major one. I appreciate your comments. I notice you also watch civil rights articles, but not the Birmingham campaign. That is also one of a handful of projects I am undertaking in my tiny, tiny corner of this site. Good luck to you. --Moni3 03:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Length of the lead in a good article
Kscottbailey, you mentioned that the lead was "over-long", but according to GA criteria for leads, an article of this size should be at least 2-3 paragraphs long and should summarize what the rest of the article details. Right now the lead summarizes the background section only. I believe the lead should be a powerful introduction to why the subject is notable - especially this one that is rated top importance in WP:Novels - and should draw the reader into reading the rest of the article. --Moni3 01:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * Personally, I prefer pith. Per WP:LEAD, I have moved one paragraph (on theme) into the introduction. K. Scott Bailey 01:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. That's what we get when we yearn for external validation through GA reviews... --Moni3 04:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * I can see the point in WP:LEAD, but I much prefer a pithy lead. As for GA, I may do some more work on this one, cleaning up the phrasings and such, if I can find the time. I hope it gets there. K. Scott Bailey 04:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Race Riot?
I've often heard that the lynching mob scene in TKaM, as well as the whole "rape" scenario, and the whole novel itself, was at least partially inspired by the Tulsa Race Riot. I'm, to say the least, skeptical of this; a similar legend exists concerning the Scottsborro Trials, but, as stated on this page and in Charles Shields's biography of Harper Lee, she did not have that specifically in mind. Is there, however, proof of the Tulsa Race Riot providing direct inspiration? If there is, I haven't found any. — Cinemaniac 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never even heard that before. K. Scott Bailey 19:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have also not heard of the Tulsa Race Riot being a direct inspiration for the trial of Tom Robinson. Or the Rosewood massacre. Or Emmett Till. Unfortunately, the Protection of Southern Womanhood was such an issue in the early to mid 20th century that any dozens or hundreds of examples of black men being accused of compromising the sanctity of white women could have merged to serve as an amalgamation of one fat example of injustice. --Moni3 22:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * From Wikipedia's article on To Kill a Mockingbird... "When Lee was 10 years old, a white woman near Monroeville accused a black man of raping her. The story and the trial were covered by her father's newspaper. The black man was convicted, sent to prison, and eventually was committed to a mental institution where he died in 1937." ...It doesn't sound like she needed much more inspiration. --Dystopos 23:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As my previous posting shows, I was skeptical of this so-called "inspiration" anyway.  The whole idea seemed more like original research, but I must admit, there are some parallels.
 * A) A black man accused of raping a white woman, when he clearly didn't.
 * B) The black man is captured and sent to prison.
 * C) An angry mob thronging around the jail ready to lynch him.
 * But then again, these sort of parallels have been drawn also from the Scottsboro Boys Trial; and, as already noted, Lee was thinking of something less sensational than either. Also,  as Dystopos pointed out (something I was already aware of), Lee witnessed two similar situations during her childhood, so she really didn't need any more "inspiration".  — Cinemaniac 13:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Opinions on the partial reworking
I have done some major revisions, finishing up through the "Themes" section, though I think that section can still be improved. I'd like to solicit some opinions on the work I've done thus far. Any major problems or concerns? Any suggestions? K. Scott Bailey 03:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I foresee the statement under the Themes heading in the first paragraph: "Public opinion, and critical consensus, now hold that the novel's treatment of the difficult issues facing the South in the 1930s is a classic of modern literature." is going to need a citation. Were I reviewing it for GA status, I'd require it, especially noting public opinion and/or critical consensus.
 * A comment from a GA reviewer suggested putting less detail in the plot summary. I took some out, streamlined the prose, and you've added some back in. I guess we'll see if it's ok. (Stability of the article is also a requirement of GA nominees.)
 * Manual of Style on Wikipedia says in most cases "The" shouldn't be in a heading or subheading. I'd change "The bird themes" to just "Bird themes" or "Destruction of Innocence". --Moni3 13:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * Thanks for the response. I don't know for sure how much plot I added back in, but I'll look at it, and see if there's a way to--as you put it--streamline it a bit more. I was thinking that a cite of the ALA's top 100 list might work for the "public opinion and critical consensus" statement. What do you think? Also, I think that a statement like that isn't particularly controversial, as it's basically an accepted fact, but I agree that a citation would be helpful. As for "the", I was simply trying to make the "themes" section easier to navigate, and I'm not attached to the headings at all. I'll switch it now. Thanks again for all your work on this article, and for your comments above. K. Scott Bailey 13:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

GA review
Hello, I am the GA reviewer of this article. If you have any question, don't hesistate to ask them. You can either leave them here or on my talkpage. Regards, Daimanta 15:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Pakulalee.gif has this line: It is a historically significant photo of a famous individual. (Add sources to backup this claim, like news articles mentioning this image (and not simply using it))

Well, since there are no sources to backup this claim I would like to see one. Regards, Daimanta 15:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the plot is completely unsourced, this ought to change. One source at the end is enough. Regards, Daimanta 15:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the use of references in a plot synopsis, I am unaware that references are needed for plot synopses. In fact, I believe WP:Novels discourages references in plot synopses. I just checked two featured article novels, Uncle Tom's Cabin and The Lord of the Rings, and neither have citations in the plot synopses. If this is a rule for GA status - specific to plot summaries, can you post a link to it, please?
 * Can you be specific as to what you need sources to claim? That Harper Lee and Alan J. Pakula are notable individuals? Or that the image itself is a notable image? I appreciate your response. --Moni3 16:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * Regarding the plot synopsis, I could not find a rule that states if plot synopses are exempted from references but if that is the case I will happily believe you. Daimanta 17:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All parts of the article require references, but you are confusing references (i.e., sources, listed as references) with citations. It is pointless and unhelpful to provide a citation for a plot summary of a book, because the source is obviously the book itself, which is certainly listed in the references. Geometry guy 21:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the picture, there needs to be a source that Harper Lee(or Alan J. Pakula) is a notable individual, so that the fair use-rule is justified. Regards, Daimanta 17:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Will a citation to the press release saying she's being awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for writing To Kill a Mockingbird suffice? --Moni3 17:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * Absolutely, Daimanta 20:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your advice is conflicting with an earlier reviewer who suggested all that is needed for the photo is a fair use rationale, which I did. Can you explain this? --Moni3 20:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * Because there is an explicit instruction to add sources that indicate those people are famous. You can remove that if you want but it won't solve the problem. I won't hold it against you if you don't do it. Regardsm Daimanta 23:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am consistently confused by the policies of non-free images here, mainly because the rules are so inconsistent from one editor to another. For instance, the image here: Image:Martin_Luther_King_Jr_with_medallion_NYWTS.jpg does not contain any link that states MLK was a notable person. It is my understanding that there is no overriding authority that makes decisions about what is appropriate in an image page and what is not. I will add the link to the image because this is a good article, and if that's what it takes to get it passed, I'll do it. But I can't find the rule that states a photo of a notable person in the article it's illustrating must again note the person as notable. That sentence is as confusing as the request. --Moni3 15:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3

"Lee loved to read and was a scrappy tomboy, quick to fight, while Capote's creativity had already begun to blossom." Could somebody change this sentence. It doesn't read very well. The part about Capote is very vague, while the pert about Lee is clear. Regards, Daimanta 10:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That portion has been fixed.--Moni3 15:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3

"The second part deals with the shocking ugliness" Sounds POV to me, that must be reworded. Regards, Daimanta 01:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I paraphrased this from one of the books about the themes of TKaM. If it needs to be in quotes, I'll find the actual phrasing of it. It might take me a couple days to get the book from the library, but I will do it. --Moni3 01:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * OK, thanks for the hard work. The GA commitee won't like that the reviewing time is over the recommended time but this article will become GA this way. Regards, Daimanta 12:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a committee? Like the Stonecutters? This issue has been addressed, by the way. --Moni3 23:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * Well, they sent me an angry message that one of my GA reviews took too long. Nothing of the Stonemason kind though ;). Regards, Daimanta 01:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If the sources are provided for the picture in the article, the article passes GA. Regards, Daimanta 12:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I provided a reference several days ago, the one that mentions her Presidential Medal of Freedom. It's below the Fair Use Rationale. --Moni3 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * Whoops, I didn't see it since the "no sources" line wasn't deleted yet. If there are no objections I will promote this article within 5 hours. Regards, Daimanta 13:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the article hassed. I would like to thank the people who have helped me and I would like to thank the authors for making this article a good one. Regard, Daimanta 19:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, hot damn. Thank you, Kscottbailey! (What do we have to do now to get this featured?) --Moni3 19:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * I am no expert on featured articles but if you want to promote it to that status I suggest that you look up other featured articles about books and compare them to this article. If you do that and elimenate the weak points I am sure this article can become GA. Regards, Daimanta 20:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Harper Lee notable? And other stuff as well...
Aren't some fair use questions common sense? If the photograph is of someone who is inherently notable--as Lee is, based upon the status of her novel as a classic--then additionally notability requirements for photos of her would seem to be redundant and a bit silly.

Additionally, I have a very large problem moving the "lawyer hero" section out of "Themes." Is that not an over-riding theme of the novel--and especially of Part 2? I have a few other, far more minor issues, but I'll bite my tongue on them, as it appears my new friend Moni is highly invested in seeing this one through to GA. :) K. Scott Bailey 16:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Re the Lawyer-hero info as literary significance vs. a theme, the way I wrote that, and indeed the way I read it in On Harper Lee was Atticus Finch's impact on the legal profession over the decades. The significance of his character's qualities is more associated with how he has been interpreted by readers who have been influenced by him. In contrast, an overall theme in a novel is a unifying concept throughout a novel. Atticus Finch's impact on the legal profession isn't a concept in the novel, but how people have used him as a model. I don't know if I made that clear... --Moni3 16:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * I think I understand your reasoning, but the "lawyer hero" concept seems more theme-ish to me, as it runs throughout the novel, even in moments between Atticus and the children. For the stability of the article, I won't revert it, but I just wanted to make sure my sentiments were known as to the relevance and significance of that portion, with regards to where it belongs in the article. You're doing some fine work on this one, Moni. Keep it up, and I hope my large-scale revisions didn't hinder the GA status-thing TOO much. Regards, K. Scott Bailey 17:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that Atticus Finch's integrity and high standards are indeed a theme throughout the novel, but then we would have to find someone else who printed that and offer citations to back it up. What I read about Atticus Finch addressed his impact on readers throughout the years, though. I'm going to try to go back to the library this evening to take care of the "shocking ugliness" quote. I'll see what I can do to find any examples of Atticus' integrity as a theme. --Moni3 17:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * I was certain I saw this as a theme in one of the articles I've seen regarding the book. I don't have it right at my fingertips, and I'm currently monitoring a study hall, so I can't get at it. K. Scott Bailey 18:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I just did a quick search of information on Atticus Finch and got over 3,000 responses...
 * A story in the Palm Beach Post developed a rating system for fathers called the Atticus Finch rating system, and rated other fictional fathers (Silas Marner, Bull Meecham from Pat Conroy's The Great Santini, Michael Henchard from Thomas Hardy's The Mayor of Castorbridge) {Sauer, Rachel. DADS BY THE BOOK; WHAT WOULD ATTICUS DO? Palm Beach Post (Florida), June 16, 2007 Pg. 1D.)
 * An Ohio English teacher created an Atticus Finch award for the students. "They were asked to name fellow students who embodied the same kind of qualities as Finch, those that could make the world a better place. She asked them to find empathy, humility, integrity, courage, tolerance and nonviolence in the faces of their peers." (Schmidt, Willaim. DIXIE SENIOR EARNS FINCH AWARD; Teacher creates honor based on Harper Lee novel. Dayton Daily News (Ohio), November 21, 2002.)
 * Senator John Edwards named his son John Atticus Edwards (but are also fans of the Roman orator Atticus). (Snow, A.C. A gift, no matter what the name. News and Observer (Raleigh, NC), June 4, 2000)
 * John Neurohr from the Patriot News (Harrisburg, PA) stated, "The principled father and attorney, Atticus Finch, has become a symbol of all things just and righteous." (Neurohr, Jr. John. 'Mockingbird' gave voice to the marginalized. Patriot News (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania), July 24, 2007  Pg. A09)
 * The Houston Chronicle: "Practicing lawyers are some of the most ardent fans of To Kill a Mockingbird. Jonathan Harvey of Columbia, S.C., is among those who credit the book and movie with helping them decide on a career in law. 'It's Atticus Finch,' explained Harvey, 47, who read the book in high school, later saw the movie and now specializes in criminal defense. "He's just such a principled character." (Hodges, Sam. Still going strong ; 'To Kill a Mockingbird' sells 1 million copies a year. The Houston Chronicle, October 15, 2002.)
 * So there's no dearth of information about Atticus, but in the context of themes, character descriptions, and literary significance, it's going to be all in the writing and presentation. Because the majority of examples here are how people interpret the character decades after the book was published, I still think it appropriate to place it in literary significance, but it's all the presentation, as I said.--Moni3 18:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * I think it might all boil down to simple punctuation in the subhead. There's a big difference between "lawyer/hero" and the current "lawyer-hero." One focuses on the lawyer as hero, and the other focuses on Atticus both as a lawyer AND a hero. Personally, I prefer it in the themes section, per the fact that Lee had actually named the whole BOOK Atticus at one point. This points to the fact that Atticus (and his sterling character) functions not only as a main character in the novel, but as a theme of the novel as well. As I said before, though, in the interest of article stability (per the GA review), I'll leave it as is, and we can hash this out over Wikicoffee sometime once we've got this thing to FA. Keep up the great work! K. Scott Bailey 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Significance and meaning of the novel's title" has no sources, can a source be found about this? Regards, Daimanta 16:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's only source is the novel itself, which would seem self-evident from the content of the section. K. Scott Bailey 16:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What sort of source would be necessary? The title is in the quote by Atticus. "'Tis a sin to kill a mockingbird," and the subsequent explanation by Miss Maudie Atkinson. There are sources that point this out, but as Kscottbailey said, they just repeat what's already in the book. --Moni3 17:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * Ok, then consider that matter solved. Regards, Daimanta 17:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Very Cool!
Nice to see your hard work rewarded, Moni! My contributions were relatively minor in comparison, but as a lover of TKaM, it's just great to see the article be improved enough to pass to GA! Isn't there some shiny little icon that goes on the actual article page? Or is that just for FA articles? As for working it up to FA, I have a long weekend ahead (Monday off), so I can get the ball rolling there perhaps. Congrats to all who worked on this, even if it was just some copyedits here and there! K. Scott Bailey 08:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a good thing. But the writing of it was much more fun than the review of it. I'd like to ask Awadewit for a review and points to improve. I've worked with her (her, I think) before, and the suggestions were very helpful, and (s)he seems quite knowledgeable about Wikipedia guidelines and policies. That way there will be specific points to improve instead of a constant stream of tweaking in places that may be fine the way they are. --Moni3 12:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * Scratch that - she's not reviewing right now. I'll find someone else I've worked with. --Moni3 12:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * I appreciate your doing the "leg-work" on this. It's not my cup of tea, so having someone who is more familiar with the processes that go into it is very helpful. And I agree about the writing of it being FAR more fun than the reviewing of it. I think we might have had an inexperienced GA reviewer, but it all turned out well in the end anyway, so it's no big deal, I guess. K. Scott Bailey 13:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding "some shiny little icon," I believe that is only for featured articles (a star). So now it's time to see what's involved in getting this article that far. :) Lawikitejana 16:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC) ... who notes incidentally for KSB's benefit that she is a Texan who used to live in NC, as well as a fellow teacher &mdash; just fun seeing these little wiki-connections
 * Maybe you'll move to CT and then to KS, thus completely retracing my winding route... cheers! K. Scott Bailey 00:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions
Just a couple notes to perhaps consider before taking this through the FA status. I'd like to point out, though, that I'm not a top notch copy-editor, so I can't absolutely harp on that issue, but I'll stick to what I know: sourcing and formatting. Also, pictures! I like pictures.
 * The first paragraph in the Background section is without sources. I'd also re-word the first sentence to something like "While working in New York City as a reservation clerk for British Overseas Air Corporation in 1957, Harper Lee approached a literary agent..."
 * I've actually gone to the cite-sources talk page about this. Seriously - Lee hates interviews. The only source there is about her early life that I've found is Shields' biography, which I would have --Moni3 22:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)to cite over and over in the background section as well as the "after publication" section. (I say I can't find anything now...but I have consistently surprised myself in finding info I thought was impossible...will do some hard core searching for biographical information for her.) --Moni3 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Three paragraphs in the Background section begin with "In 19--, etc yadda yadda..." Play around with the sentence structure somewhat for variation.  Also, are there any pictures of Lee from the various time periods mentioned that would be appropriate to add?  What about the setting/her hometown?
 * In reference to the photos, it has been suggested that the photo of Lee and Pakula be deleted due to the fact that it doesn't really illustrate the article... Photos...honest to God, they drive me nuts here. I'll see what I can do to get permission to use photos, but technically, it can (and probably will) be argued that photos of Lee don't necessarily illustrate To Kill a Mockingbird. --Moni3 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's implied in the Background section that Capote was the inspiration for Dill, but because this is such a noteworthy fact, perhaps it can be added explicitly to the Characters section; that would also give an opportunity for an added image if need be.
 * Will work on this. --Moni3 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In the Literary significance section, these two lines are redundant and could use re-wording: "By 1982, over 15 million copies of the book had been sold. By 1992, 18 million copies of the book in paperback alone had been sold." I'd also comb the article for shorter sentences that could be combined, such as "Throughout the novel Atticus is seen teaching the children the true definition of courage. He points out the courage to be found in their neighbors" in Courage defined.
 * Will work on this. --Moni3 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I made some further changes, removing the redundant-sounding "had been sold." If you find the current wording awkward, or just totally hate it, feel free to revert. I'm not married to my wording in that sentence. K. Scott Bailey 21:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you typo'd, Bailey: "climber"? Also, it's somewhat clumsy as one sentence, so it could be split into two or fiddled with.  Whichever.  María ( críticame ) 21:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks for letting me know. K. Scott Bailey 17:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The controversy over this book is so large, I'd consider creating an entirely new section dedicated solely to this factor. The Literary significance and criticism section, for example, could be split into two with more information added to both; that way, it doesn't go Praise, Praise, Criticism, Praise, as it's collected now in that one section.
 * The book banning issues are the only controversy, albeit a major one, surrounding the book that I could find. Although I suppose it could be in its own section. --Moni3 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, there was the note about people claiming that Truman Capote had either ghost-written, or heavily edited the book. It was not well-sourced though, so I removed it. Perhaps we could source it better, and add it into such a stand-alone section. Also, there were multiple controversies regarding the book-banning, in that its depiction of southern racism was found offensive (i.e. the liberal use of the word "nigger") as well as the descriptions of rape. Perhaps I can sandbox a stand-alone section, have you look it over, and then we can decide on including it? K. Scott Bailey 21:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That Atticus "stands as the first model of a lawyer-hero" is quite a claim, and could use a citation.
 * Ok. Will cite. --Moni3 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Film, TV or theatrical adaptations is kind of skimpy, seeing as how it just includes information about the film adaptation and the play. I would change the header name (Adaptations or Film and theatre adaptations, maybe?) and include a little more information  about both.  That Gregory Peck became a lifelong friend of Lee's would be notable.  Also, what notable awards did the film win?  How successful was it in regards to the novel?  Is there any information on how the film increased sales, etc?  Is there any information about how well received the play was?  Sources would help.
 * Will work on this. --Moni3 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps include the DVD cover, or a still from the film with correct rationale, in the above mentioned section.
 * Back to the above photo issues, from above. I had stills from the movie in the article at one time and they were deleted. Photo policies drive me nuts. --Moni3 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That "Lee continues to refuse interviews about her life and the book" is a good point, but it seems out of place at the very end of the last section. Could it be integrated elsewhere in the section?  Also, the preceding two paragraphs lack citations; Capote and Lee drifting apart because of the Pulitzer is definitely in need of a source.
 * I rather liked the kick at the end of the article about Lee refusing interviews. And again, with the citations about the Shields biography. Ay. I'll see what I can do to find more. --Moni3 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of the citations are missing access and publication dates, whereas some are included. You don't have to use a template, but it would be good to have the sources uniform and, as the FA criteria 2c states, "consistently formatted."
 * Will work on this. --Moni3 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope this helps! I'll watch this page in case of comments/questions, etc, but I'll leave the editing to others so I don't step on any toes. :) María ( críticame ) 21:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Maria! I appreciate it. --Moni3 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm glad to help. As for the photo issues, I could see how it would be such a headache, but I would think that if permission were given, a rationale were listed, and if it directly correlated to the article, then it would be fair game.  For example, if the main argument against the photo in the Legacy section were that it does not relate to the novel, then I would look for information regarding Lee's participation with the filming, if there was any.  Even if she just visited the set and met the actors and crew, I would mention this and then move the photo to a more fitting place (Adaptations).  Photos, if available, of Lee's hometown would be very helpful, for example, because it shows where the novel's inspiration comes from; I could understand those being impossible to find, but something similar to that would be great and an asset to the article.  Also, I understand about Lee's unwillingness to give interviews, but surely there must be other, similar sources so you're not basing the entire article on just one book?  There's nothing wrong with that one book, but variety is the spice of life.  María ( críticame ) 22:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been run in circles trying to find and get permission to use photos in the Birmingham campaign article. Photo permissions sometimes take weeks to get. But I'll see what I can do. I've been working on a couple other articles today, and I'm about beat. I'll get some research done in the next couple days and report back what I've found. --Moni3 22:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely understand. If you need an extra pair of eyes, or even just help in formatting those pesky refs (I'm really very anal about that sort of thing), let me know. María ( críticame ) 02:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The following has been done:
 * The first paragraph has a citation.
 * Capote as the inspiration for Dill is in sentence form in the Characters section and cited twice.
 * The book challenge section has been expanded, with citations.
 * The film section has been expanded with citations.
 * All citations are uniform. --Moni3 21:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am working on getting photos, but I do not have high hopes for them.
 * I can source at least two references that claim Capote denied writing the novel, but the fact that the rumor still exists is reason enough, in my opinion, to include it in the article. However, I'm not sure it needs its own section because Capote never claimed to have written it. Giving it its own section may make it more important than it needs to be. --Moni3 21:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking perhaps we could cordone off the banning of the book controversy as well as the Capote deal into one section dealing with controversies. Within that section, the book banning could perhaps have two grafs, while the Capote issue would be relegated to one, shorter and less-detailed graf. Thoughts? K. Scott Bailey 15:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes more sense. Let me dig up some sources that 1. cite that the rumors were being spread that Capote wrote the book (rumors also circulated that Lee wrote large parts of In Cold Blood), and 2. sources that cite Capote refuted the rumors. Will work on this today. --Moni3 15:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can put together in my sandbox after school today, and let you take a look. I won't cite it at all, though, as you seem to have a good feel for inline citations, how to format them, and all of that. I know I've said it before, but you're doing great work here, Moni! K. Scott Bailey 17:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I restructured some of that section and wrote a paragraph about Capote and referenced it. Change what you want, just not the good parts... --Moni3 17:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you noticed, but I reworked the section a bit, and inserted my changes. Hopefully I didn't change any of the "good parts"... :) K. Scott Bailey 14:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting note If you ever wonder if your edits are being read by anyone else: check out this link. Notice the text? Think I can use it as a reference in the article?? --Moni3 19:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone should write and tell them that we've edited it up to a GA now, and that they should update their link accordingly. K. Scott Bailey 23:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly I'm full of crap about the lack of sources. I always seem to choose subjects with few apparent sources, then find a buttload of them somewhere. Any other suggestions about what needs a citation? Any other things need to be done before the hallowed FAC nomination? I think it's a good idea to let it sit a week or two unmolested so we can ruminate on any other edits. That may also give me an opportunity to find other images. I found some excellent pics at Getty Images of Lee in 1961 sitting on a porch with her father, but dollars to donuts they're going to want a fee for their use. --Moni3 01:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A Curious Fact About TKaM
I was wondering what this sentence even means:


 * To Kill a Mockingbird was listed as #64 of the 100 Best Gay and Lesbian Novels by the Publishing Triangle,[30] as selected by a panel of gay and lesbian writers.

Is Harper Lee gay, and I didn't know it, or is this simply an award given to really good novels by these fine folks? This isn't an argument for exclusion or anything, I've just been curious as to the meaning of this award, and was wondering if it means anything with regards to Lee's sexuality, or if it's just this group's way of rewarding books that the gay community finds generally outstanding? K. Scott Bailey 21:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't quite know. But I searched for awards and this came up. --Moni3 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Could it be because of Scout's tomboyishness, perhaps? I always thought her kind of butch. :)  María ( críticame ) 21:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, being a former tomboy myself and the logical progression of one in adulthood, Scout always struck me as what I termed (when I taught) FLA: Future Lesbains of America. Reading the Shields biography convinced me. She was such an outsider in college. She was incredibly alienated at Huntingdon - she smoked a pipe in the dorms when all the other women were aspiring to be models of Southern Womanhood, she swore like a sailor, she was the object of rididcule in her sorority at the University of Alabama. She made at least one lesbian reference in Rammer Jammer - to the Well of Loneliness in the 1940s. And in the 1940s, one had to know where to find this book. I can only imagine how lonely she was. --Moni3 21:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're convinced she is a closeted lesbian? Other than the Rammer Jammer thing, and her tomboyishness that carried over into later life (with the swearing and such), has she ever hinted about it? If so, this would be something good to include in the Lee biography, if it's not there already. K. Scott Bailey 14:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have special powers. I get to post them on the discussion page, but special powers fall under No Original Research, unfortunately. Lee has never discussed her sexuality at all. The rules of Wikipedia Biography of Living Persons won't allow special powers. It has to be in print. --Moni3 14:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there should be a "special powers" exceptive clause, under the "original research" policy ... ;) K. Scott Bailey 14:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

An explanation of why this is here: "Among the titles that provoked the most discussion was Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird. Judge Sarah Schulman defended the choice by describing the book as a prime example of the proto-lesbian novel focusing on southern tomboys. She noted that the protagonists of the novel are outsiders--"disloyal to civilization"--who do not fit typical gender roles: the novel's father, Atticus Finch, for instance, is, she said, a "feminized man" without a wife or other heterosexual love interest. It was revealed that one of the reasons for the highly individualized nature of the list was that each judge got to select one book that had to be on the list; one of the liveliest moments came when each of the judges present named their choice and the reasoning behind it." (News. Marks, Jim. Lambda Book Report. Washington: Jul/Aug 1999. Vol. 7/8, Iss. 12/1; pg. 13)
 * Hmmm...not that I particularly agree with that statement. Doesn't say a lot about the judges' view of masculinity that integrity and morality are feminized qualities. Still, there's that, in case anyone was interested. (I like my special powers explanation better.) --Moni3 23:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I liked your "special powers" explanation MUCH better. That explanation almost makes me think we should take it out, as it disagrees completely and fundamentally with the way I have always read the book. A bit strident for my tastes... K. Scott Bailey 01:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think the quote should go in the article at all. I just posted it here since it was brought up back here on the discussion page. I found, actually, a lot of crap that has no place in the article even though it was about the book, and I'm using my own judgment to make these decisions. An entire essay on the use of "right" and "left" as symbols in the book. Dude, wtf? No wonder Lee doesn't talk to people about the book. People are crazy. --Moni3 01:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know. There's so much navel-gazing that goes on around literature ... anyways, I wasn't talking about the quote, I was talking about the survey related to the quote. If the people who put together the survey were that strident and ... umm ... "crazy", to steal your word, I was just musing that it made me wonder whether we should leave that out of the article. Doesn't make a difference to me, though, and none of our reviewers have brought it up as an issue. K. Scott Bailey 03:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking about this, actually. I think it's notable to include the list...and I'm not sure if that's more of a personal feeling about my perceptions on the book, to be honest. Everyone, it seems, gets something from the book that resonates within them. Clarence Thomas identified strongly with Tom Robinson, which he wrote about in a recent memoir (bet he neglected to say who Anita Hill identified with), the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which is known for its very conservative approach to things, used the quote Lee write in 1966 about how the book is about Christianity - oh, and they printed that last month with another quote from this article, so I think they got it from our endeavors, btw. I agree with the tomboy part of the explanation, and Scout's atypical girl behavior is brought up over and over, but the feminization of Atticus is not from this planet. I'm leaning toward keeping the mention of the list in the article. --Moni3 16:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Even from my first reading of the article, it felt a bit "dropped in" for some reason, as I'd never considered TKaM (or Lee) in that light. As you have done the heavy-lifting thus far on the progress this article has made, though, I defer to your judgement on what merits inclusion. -- K. Scott Bailey (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Maycomb
We should link the two pages.. The Maycomb page is simply too small and it would do better as a section in the article. 67.161.73.43 (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The relevant information in the Maycomb article is already in the TKaM article. --Moni3 (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Boo Radley killed Mr Ewell?
The article says: "Maycomb's sheriff arrives and discovers that Bob Ewell has been killed. The sheriff argues with Atticus about the prudence of giving Boo the credit for it. They eventually settle on the story that Ewell simply fell on his own knife during the struggle with Jem and Scout."

Is that accurate? Atticus says to Heck Tate 'Mr Finch do you think Jem killed Bob Ewell? Do you think that?' And then Tate denies it. Should it be changed or am I interpreting it wrongly? Tarquin (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Scattered thoughts
The peer review appears to have already been archives, so I'll leave my observations here. This article was great fun to review, as it's very well done -- better than my middle school English teacher taught it. Ah, the nostalgia... I've added this to my books to re-read column. I sure was sad to see the disparaging comments from Flannery O'Connor. Much as I like O'Connor (read her short story A Good Man Is Hard to Find, if you haven't) she never wrote anything as good as TKaM and arrogance always saddens me. Anyways...


 * It's not my place to speculate or intrude, but when have I ever held to my place? ;) I read O'Connor's comment as maybe not disparaging, but as a technical classification among writers?  We should ask our expert, Awadewit, but I believe children's stories are marked by certain conventions of plot, characterization and perspective that distinguish them from adult novels, but which might not always be obvious to the non-expert?  So I'd taken her comment not as arrogant, but in the sense of "They might not realize they're buying a Fauvist painting instead of an Expressionist painting."  Anyway, FWIW, Willow (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In the lead:
 * The Pulitzer Icon overlaps with the bird in my browser. I feel it'd be better to just lose the icon.  It's too small to really tell what it is.
 * DONE


 * In general it's best practice not to begin sentences with "however", but it's not an iron rule. In the lead: "However, despite its themes..." means the same thing if you drop the however.
 * DONE


 * "More recently, has been..." no noun in this sentence.
 * DONE


 * What does it mean "along with the bible"? Does this mean that the Bible and TKaM were number 1 and number 2?  Okay, I see this is addressed in the reception section.  I would say "behind only the bible" or "second to the bible".
 * Well, there are two references to the Bible. This quote has to do with books of influence. Another reference that's a footnote now has librarians asking people what book everyone should read before they die, where TKaM comes first, the Bible, then LOTR. So TKaM is first and second depending on the reference.


 * "Successfully adapted for film" could mean several things: that the film was simply completed, that it was a critical success, that it did well at the box office, that it turned a profit. Might be good to clarify.
 * DONE


 * "Has refused any publicity for the novel" -- this would literally mean that she wouldn't let the publisher promote the book, wouldn't it? Does this mean that she doesn't promote it herself?  Doesn't grant interviews?
 * DONE


 * Though first edition has no ISBN in 1960, later editions would. I'd suggest just removing the ISBN field from the infobox.
 * DONE

In Background and composition:
 * Timeline threw me for a loop with writing "without having to work for a year" followed by "two and a half years writing". This timeline implies she went back to work somewhere in 1958?
 * J.P. Lippincott is the agency?
 * Lippincott is the publisher. The agent, Annie Laurie Williams appears to have worked freelance, but closely with some publishing houses.
 * The article also says HarperCollins is the publisher. --JayHenry (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * DONE


 * "...as frightening as the quick, merciful death I'd expected." is followed by "quick and merciful death." The same quote, but once with a comma, once with conjunction?
 * "quick and merciful" and "quick, merciful" are both in Lee's quote.
 * Ah, okay, nevermind that :) --JayHenry (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Reader's Digest and Condensed Books" or "Reader's Digest Condensed Books".
 * For the sake of simplicity I combined them, but Reader's Digest often prints book excerpts in the magazine, and then compiles them into book format. So both would be accurate.

In Plot summary:


 * "This danger is averted when the arrival of Scout, Jem, and Dill shames the mob into dispersing by forcing them to view the situation from Atticus' and Tom's point of view."? Their mere arrival shames the mob and forces it to view the situation from Atticus's point of view?
 * DONE


 * We have both Atticus' and Atticus's throughout the article. I think the latter is correct.
 * I checked the MOS on this, and it says both are accurate, but keep it consistent. I prefer Atticus', but of course, other editors have their preferences. I'll go through it to make sure they're the same. This one will be difficult to control.
 * Yeah, I'm not fussed either way as long as its consistent. --JayHenry (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Are Scout and Jem actually called "nigger-lovers" at some point? This is written that the verbatim epithet was literally applied to them, though my recollection is that the other children taunted Jem and Scout by insulting Atticus in their presence.
 * DONE

In Autobiographical elements:
 * I don't know what Capote means when he called them "apart people." That Lee felt they had a close friendship, but he did not?
 * DONE


 * The section on inspirations is a bit confusing to me. The Scottsboro Boys case begins with "scholars have guessed".  Does this mean the consensus of scholars is the Scottsboro case?
 * The problem is that Johnson wrote it first, and it has been reprinted multiple times. There's no consensus; there's Johnson's guess and some other folks repeating it.


 * This section moves from Scottsboro to Till back to Scottsboro. Maybe group together instead?  (This can also help shorten a lengthy graf).
 * DONE

In Style:
 * It's good practice, on first reference to a new person to give some indication who she is.  "Lee scholar (or literary critic, or whatever the case) Jacqueline Tavernier-Courbin" helps the reader avoid fishing to see if it was explained earlier.  Later in the article it's obvious we're talking about critics/scholars, but here I think it would help.
 * I don't think there is such a person to define him or herself as a "Lee scholar", including Charles Shields, who wrote her only biography. Instead I changed it to "writer Jacqueline..."
 * A good point. A Lee scholar would quickly run out of things to discuss. --JayHenry (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Atticus has taught her already since Scout already..." can we rewrite to lose one of the alreadys?
 * DONE


 * "suggests an alternate meaning for the title". In the context of our article it's not an alternate meaning as there's not yet been an initial meaning supplied.
 * DONE


 * If it's Shadrach it ought to be Meshach (as opposed to Meshack) as both names end with the same letter (khaf), although if this follows her spelling in TKaM I guess it's fine.
 * DONE


 * Might be good to mention that Calpurnia is the black housekeeper. She's not been introduced yet.
 * DONE


 * The ham costume saves her life?
 * When Sheriff Tate brings back the costume after the ordeal, he points to a shiny line on the chicken wire where Ewell tried to stab Scout.
 * Ah okay, I didn't remember this detail. --JayHenry (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

In Genres:
 * "Admirable realism"?
 * DONE


 * Is "discontent" at "witnessing a shocking event" the best way to characterize a bildungsroman? "Shocking" seems too strong to me.  If Awadewit is okay with it, I won't object though.  She's probably read a lot about what is and isn't a bildungsroman.
 * Got that from a description of bildungsroman at the behest of Awadewit.
 * Ah, okay, no worries then. Seems that they are sometimes even banal events that prompt the discontent, but I'm no lit scholar? --JayHenry (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't characterize 9-year-old Scout as "on the verge of womanhood", although if the critics did, I guess that's okay.
 * They do.


 * In Themes


 * The explanation around Claudia Durst Johnson is excellent. Exactly what I mean when I mentioned Tavernier-Courbin a bit above.  In the references I notice the Durst is omitted though.
 * If anyone, Johnson is a TKaM scholar. Otherwise, what exists are articles written by random individuals.
 * Completely random? Like, Man on the Street interviews on the local news?  "What do you think of TKaM, John Plumber?" :)  Even someone who studies southern literature is relevant context. --JayHenry (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, not so much, but Johnson is the only person whose name belongs on more than one work. Literature is not really my forte, but I don't recognize the names of anyone else, and some articles used as references don't solely address TKaM, but the devices used by Southern writers, or women, or white writers. Maybe the book just scares the bejeezus out of people, or maybe they think it's juvenile. Who can say? --Moni3 (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "The second part..." means the second motif?
 * Southern life and Racial inequality were at one point 2 sections, but someone suggested I combine them. The motif refers to children describing what they see. The parts refer to Boo Radley and Tom Robinson.
 * Ah okay, I hadn't followed that. --JayHenry (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole bit about being banned in Hanover, Virginia possibly belongs in the reception section under criticism rather than as a theme?
 * DONE


 * "Despite its influence...for white readers, however" - shouldn't have both despite and however in this sentence.
 * DONE


 * "One writer confirms this analogy by comparing Lee's novel with Austen's class analysis to determine Lee's inspiration for elements in To Kill a Mockingbird." this sentence is confusing to me.
 * DONE


 * Who said the "It is the job of real men..." quote?
 * DONE

In Reception:
 * Again the Reader's Digest and Condensed Books thing. Do we need this twice?
 * DONE


 * We should probably add the year that the 30 million copies and 70 percent estimate was made.
 * I have to get hold of the hardcopy Shields book, because my paperback doesn't have this information in it. Or I just went insane and lost my memory.
 * We could use the pub date of the Shields book saying the estimate was published in a 2006 book. --JayHenry (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I put it in there and cited it, now I want to know where in the world it went. I'll verify it by checking the hardback edition. --Moni3 (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "the Alabama Bar Association erected a monument dedicated to Atticus in Monroeville marking his existence as the" Marking his existence as a milestone?  What exactly is meant by this?
 * Yes, quite. The book I got that from doesn't explain it too well either. Perhaps Alabama is short on judicial milestones. (I'm not surprised.)
 * If that's the dedication, I guess that's the dedication. That's amusing :) --JayHenry (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Canard" doesn't seem quite right to me. A canard is a deliberate fabrication, like the "Barack Obama is a Muslim" attack e-mails.  Capote's authorship seems to be a sincere, if clearly incorrect, interpretation of his opening statement.
 * Apparently Capote's biological father, with whom he didn't get along, spread this story, as stated in the paragraph. Capote didn't hurt himself refuting it in public (which irritated Lee), so it's a bit of a canard.
 * I plead guilty to introducing the duck. ;) Canard is a little strong, I admit, but being an unusual word, it's softer than saying "biggest lie ever told". ;) It can also mean "long-standing false report" and "misapprehension that persists despite clear, contradictory evidence", both of which seems appropriate here. Willow (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * An amazing Public Domain image of Capote you could use: Image:TrumanCapote1959.jpg.
 * Let me consider that.
 * Just bringing to your attention. I had surfed over to Truman Capote and had been delighted to see such a wonderful Free Use image.  I just realized that the film screen shots are free use because of the "forgot to publish with copyright quirk" too, so it's not as if the image is short of free images. --JayHenry (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have this page watchlisted now, so if you need any clarification can do so here. If I got anything dead wrong don't hesitate to simply disregard. Some of these points are really just thinking out loud, but I tend to believe any little bit of thought helps. --JayHenry (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, JayHenry. I know it's a huge long article. I appreciate the time you took to read and comment. --Moni3 (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My pleasure to read, and I hope my thoughts were more helpful than annoying. It's always exciting when someone does a major Wikipedia article like this: over 100,000 people read this article every month.  That's more than a million a year!  The effort is time well spent.  Good work so far! --JayHenry (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Holy Jesus! That's too much for me to comprehend! I'd never seen that site before. That freaks me right the hell out. --Moni3 (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Done for now, methinks
I went through the article again tonight and I don't see anything that I could improve; it reads wonderfully! :) I'm going to study the first FAC again, though, just to start things percolating upstairs. The longer I brood on the article, the more helpful I'll be, methinks. :)  Thanks again for this gift, Moni; as always, the crafting reflects the person. :) Willow (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, darlin'! I truly appreciate the assistance. Study all you want. I'm going to hold off on any FACs until I get back from New York City in the first week of March. Then the punishment begins. --Moni3 (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit
This article has improved dramatically since I last read it. The editors deserve plaudits for their successful efforts! I have spent quite a bit of time reading over the most recent draft and copy editing it, as I know that the editors are headed for FAC. Here are my suggestions - they are minor and can easily be addressed. I look forward to seeing this article at FAC in the next few weeks.

Expansion, deletion, and questions

 * Overall, I thought the article had too many details which at times overshadowed the main points subsections were trying to make. Since this is not an essay, but an encyclopedia entry, I don't think we have to follow Cicero's rule about having three examples - we can stick with one. :) I removed some extraneous examples in a few places as I was reading. I tried to leave in the clearest and strongest example. More work could still probably be done along these lines.


 * The citations from TKaM are excellent, but such citations might look like original research. It might be best to also cite the critic who uses those examples in the same footnotes.


 * I myself do not think that infoboxes add helpful information to novel articles, but this is a decision you should make for yourself. Do you think that readers are helped by this box? Since infoboxes are optional, they should be added only after careful thought.
 * I'll take this into consideration. --Moni3 (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Historians point to Till's murder, the acquittal of his killers, and their media coverage as catalysts for the United States Civil Rights Movement. - While true, I wonder if this is really relevant to this section.
 * Till's murder and subsequent media coverage of it was quite prevalent in the 1950s when Lee was writing the novel. Till is notable if only, sadly, for his death (I hope my life can mean as much some day...) Here is one of the issues with the article: this can be addressed in the Themes: Race section - and should be connected to the quote that speculates Lee was writing the book during the most conflict-laden period in the South since Reconstruction. --Moni3 (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the sentence could be better integrated into the article, then? Awadewit | talk  03:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * DONE


 * I would remove this quote, as it is rather fluffy: To Kill a Mockingbird is one of those rare books that exposes some of the worst aspects of human nature such as cruelty, bigotry, hypocrisy, and racism in a way that not only allows the reader to realize the depth of these human failings and the pain and destruction they cause but also provides some insights into how people can be capable of the worst - and the best. - It is a long quote that doesn't really explain anything.
 * DONE


 * The presence of children facing a cruel world leads critics to categorize the novel as a bildungsroman. - I wonder about this - bildungsromane are "coming of age" novels. TKaM is usually listed as a "coming of age" novel because Scout and Jem lose their innocence.
 * DONE


 * The latter typically features a character discontented by witnessing a shocking event, who develops through the novel to make sense of the event. - Where did this definition of bildungsroman come from? I am more familiar with eighteenth- and nineteenth-century bildungsromane and they are not necessarily structured like this.
 * DONE


 * Reviewers were generally charmed by Scout and Jem's observations of their quirky neighbors. One writer was so impressed by Lee's detailed explanations of the people of Maycomb that he called the book a Southern romance. - This doesn't really make sense as "Southern romanticism" is not usually known for its "realism".
 * DONE


 * I can't resist quoting Flannery O'Connor on this point: "Anything that comes out of the South is going to be called grotesque by the northern reader — unless it is grotesque, in which case it is going to be called realistic." ;) Willow (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This, to me, is an example of how people can get different themes from reading a book multiple times. To some the book was fluffy and sweet. To others it was horrible and depressing. --Moni3 (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A student who played Calpurnia in a school performance summed up her reaction this way: "It is from the white perspective, from a racist kind of view. You don't see much about the African American characters; you don't get to know them on a personal level.... But it definitely has a [universal] message behind it. I know it's basically about racism but that's not all that you can get out of it." - Why has the word "universal" been added here? That is a rather large change.
 * Verbatim quote (with change) from the LA Times. --Moni3 (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Awadewit | talk  03:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

--Moni3 (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is odd that the explicit theme of racial injustice is not discussed much in the "Southern life and raical injustice" section - are we relying on the rest of the article to get that across? There is a paragraph emphasizing the historical connections to the Civil Rights Movement, a paragraph on symbolic racial injustice, on prejudice in the book, and on the reactions of African-American readers, but what about the actual theme of racial injustice? It's an odd gap.
 * I added a paragraph in this section to describe racial injustice.


 * Jean Blackall lists the priorities shared by the two authors: "affirmation of order in society, obedience, courtesy, and respect for the individual without regard for status" - Do you have anyone else who makes the Austen/Lee argument, because this one is a bit weak. For example, Austen certainly supports much of the status quo when it comes to class - there is only so far that social mobility will go in her novels.


 * That's thought-provoking; maybe there's no room here, but could you explain more? My impression was that, from the perspective of JA's heroines, the worth of an individual always comes from within, not from any accident of birth or money.  Thus, although Lizzie, Marianne, Fanny and Jane Fairfax are poor, they marry into wealth, whereas Elinor, Anne and others marry into a simpler life.  And Emma does not think it inappropriate that Harriet Smith marry well, right?  Willow (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Austen's novels tend to be more complex than that, I think. Elizabeth first comes to realize Darcy's worth after seeing his vast estate and Emma comes to realize that it is inappropriate for Harriet Smith to marry Mr. Knightley (she had been trying to match the two). She realizes Harriet should marry a farmer and she, Emma (the heiress), should marry Mr. Knightley. If you want to read about about how Austen's novels convey a conservative sense of the status quo in many ways, check out Marilyn Butler's Jane Austen and the War of Ideas and Alastair Duckworth's The Improvement of the Estate. Awadewit | talk  15:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * At the risk of indulging my penchant for OR, I believe that the primary texts do not support your arguments re: Lizzie and Emma. As I recall the primary text, Lizzie's opinion of Mr. Darcy does not change due to knowing his wealth or the opulence of his estate, but from the excellent report of his housekeeper, Mrs. Reynolds, and from seeing how his manners had changed, from being self-important and disdainful, to being cordial, civil and gracious towards people such as her aunt and uncle whom he had seemingly despised earlier.  And I don't believe that Emma ever tried to match Mr. Knightley with Harriet; perhaps you meant Rev. Elton or Frank Churchill?  All in good fun, :) Willow (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I hate to burst your bubble, but these arguments are entirely supportable (they aren't mine, by the way). You can read the Pemberley scene in just this way - it is seeing Darcy's large estate, portrait, etc. that allows Elizabeth to reconsider her opinion of him. Emma does briefly try to facilitate the match between Mr. Knightley and Harriet - it is while contemplating such a match that she realizes she herself loves Mr. Knightley. Both of these readings are standard fare and appear repeatedly in all of that Austen criticism I have been reading. I should mention that to arrive at these readings you have to assume Austen is more conservative than perhaps you are willing to do. However, I see nothing out of the ordinary in them. Like all readings, they rely on a particular perspective in the interpreter. There is no absolutely no agreement among scholars whether Austen's novels are politically progressive or conservative - it is easy to provide arguments for both sides. I think this is one reason why scholars love to debate Austen's works - it is truly never-ending. :) By the way, if you want to read a book that directly challenges Butler's conservative portrait of Austen, try Claudia Johnson's Jane Austen: Women, Politics, and the Novel. Awadewit | talk  17:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh please don't worry about popping the bubbles of my pride and vanity, it's very welcome; I like a good laugh at myself. ;) I pray you'll forgive, too, the impish impudence of a hearty-humoured horticulturalist harrowing the hallows of English literature. ;)   Let's save our discussion for another day and another Talk page, like a fine porto; but until then I'll harbour a hope of persuading you otherwise, since Austen's omniscient narrator describes the evolution of Lizzie's and Emma's thinking, as well as its timing and causes. :)  For now, let's leave Austen and return to our regularly scheduled novel, TKaM, Willow (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * PS. Thank you for the reading recommendations! I'll try to find them at the library, or order them.  I already have a good opinion of Claudia Johnson from your other articles. :) Willow (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, I have no firm opinions on Austen yet. I raised the issue because the article seemed to be taking too firm a position than seemed warranted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awadewit (talk • contribs) 20:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was hoping y'all would come to some sort of consensus. I can't speak with any authority on Jane Austen at all. However, class differences were a noted theme by more than one writer. Jean Blackall did write what is quoted. Is it our responsibility to determine how valid her statement was in an article about TKaM? There is but one article comparing Austen's works with TKaM. I can rewrite the sentence a bit to give more room to "respect for the individual without regard for status" in terms of Lee and less of Austen. --Moni3 (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is only one article on this topic, I'm not sure how much weight we should give it. Is the article referred to by other articles? Not all articles are of equal importance. If other scholars don't think enough of this one to mention it, we don't have to play it up either. I think we do have an obligation to assess the quality of the sources we use, by the way. We do it by choosing peer-reviewed over non-peer-reviewed, but then somehow we have to choose between all of the peer-reviewed. Ask yourself if you were surrounded by thousands of books and articles how you would decide what to include and then use those same principles even though you are not buried under a heap of scholarship. Awadewit | talk  03:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There may be only one article on the topic, but more than one comparison of Lee and Austen. I added another scholar's input on that.


 * Lee's use of the middle-class narrative voice is a literary device that allows an intimacy with the reader, regardless of class or cultural background, and fosters a sense of nostalgia. - This would seem to be contradicted by the paragraph on how African-American readers are affected by the novel.
 * Yes, it would. I can't account for the different perceptions of readers and critics. Do you have a suggestion for this? --Moni3 (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do critics themselves note this? It is jarring to have such a contradiction in the article without at least trying to explain it. Awadewit | talk  03:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is paraphrased from the article from the citation. Unfortunately, what I think I'm missing here - perhaps what you're looking for - is an article that describes exactly how white and black readers are affected by the novel.


 * The second paragraph in "Class differences" seems to me to be more about the child's perspective than class differences - it explains why Jem and Scout's perspective allows the reader to enter those relationships. It doesn't say much about the "middle-class narrative voice". I would either move this material to another section or delete it. Either way, the claim about the middle-class narrator needs to be explained in greater detail.
 * I'm not sure I agree with you there. The Finch family is middle class, and their town status allows the children to interact with poorer and wealthier people.


 * She guides the reader in such judgments, alternating between unabashed adoration and biting irony. - One example would be good here.
 * DONE


 * In 1961, it was awarded the Pulitzer Prize and the Brotherhood Award of the National Conference of Christians and Jews. - It seems odd to group these two awards together. Is there any way to make a bigger deal about the Pulitzer?
 * What kind of bigger deal were you looking for?


 * However, in 1997, the Alabama Bar Association erected a monument to Atticus in Monroeville, marking his existence as the "first commemorative milestone in the state's judicial history". - Is there a better quote for the monument? This one is confusing. (By the way, how odd to erect a monument to a fictional character.)
 * Indeed. You're not the first to think that odd.


 * I would try to cut down the "Atticus Finch and the legal profession" section to one paragraph. Since there is an "Atticus Finch" article, most of the details can be left for that article. More summary style is needed here, I think.
 * This is my Great Wandering Section. Scartol said he wanted to see examples of how darn impressive Atticus Finch has been, so after cutting the section completely out for the Atticus Finch article, I put it back in. --Moni3 (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We are looking for the Middle Way. :) Awadewit | talk  03:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that I miss the small paragraph about the praise Atticus receives. I think it has its place in the article, despite Atticus having his own.

Prose

 * Despite its themes, To Kill a Mockingbird has been the target of various campaigns to have it removed from public classrooms, often for its use of racial epithets, and writers have noticed the different reactions black and white readers have to the book. - This sentence needs to be split into two and the second half explained more clearly - hint at the different racial reactions.
 * DONE


 * Scholars have guessed that the inspiration for Tom Robinson's plight was the infamous case of the Scottsboro Boys,[11] in which nine black men were convicted of raping two white women on very poor evidence. However, Lee stated in 2005 that she had in mind something less sensational, although the case served the same purpose in displaying Southern attitudes about prejudice. - I am not sure what "the same" is referring to here.
 * DONE


 * I would add a sentence or two at the beginning of the paragraph on Tom Robinson, outlining what the possible theories are so that the reader is prepared for the long paragraph. Otherwise it becomes a little confusing to keep adding on theories.
 * DONE - a bit.


 * Lee combines the child's voice as narrator with the grown woman reflecting on her childhood. - This is slightly confusing.
 * DONE


 * At times the blending is sublime enough to cause reviewers to question Scout's preternatural vocabulary and depth of understanding. - If you are not intending to reference the sublime, I would change that word.
 * DONE


 * her teacher says she must undo what Atticus has taught her already since Scout knows how to read and write - This is confusing.
 * DONE


 * Satire and irony are used to such an extent that Tavernier-Courbin suggests one interpretation for the book's title: Lee is doing the mocking–of education, the justice system, and her own society. - This needs to be explained a bit better.
 * DONE


 * This can be seen in Lee's representation of the Southern caste system to explain almost every character's behavior in the novel. - I'm not sure what the "this" is referring back to.
 * DONE


 * For example, Aunt Alexandra explains Maycomb's inhabitants' faults and advantages through genealogy (families that have gambling streaks and drinking streaks, for example),[6] while Lee herself describes the Finch family history and the history of Maycomb. - I think this should say "the narrator" instead of "Lee herself".
 * DONE


 * This theme is further reflected in Mayella Ewell's apparent powerlessness to admit to what she did, and Atticus' definition of "fine folks" being people with good sense who do the best they can with what they have. - I think the referent has been lost for the "this" - I would explain it again. What theme exactly?
 * DONE


 * Who are Harding LeMay and Edwin Bruell? We need identification tags for them. I added a lot of "scholar" tags. These should be specified as much as possible - literary scholar, historian, etc.
 * DONE


 * Scout as a child narrator allows a detached description of a story about racial conflict when it does not affect her directly. One writer asserts that the use of Scout's narration "functions as the not-me which allows the rest of us - black and white, male and female - to find our relative position in society". - This is confusing.
 * I tried to reword the sentence going into the quote.


 * Despite its generally positive impact on race relations for white readers, the novel has had a more ambiguous reception by black readers. - I have altered this sentence quite a bit and moved it to the beginning of the reader-response paragraph in "Southern life and racial injustice". Do you think that it accurately portrays the research you did or do you think the negative African-American reaction should be described even more strongly?
 * What is in the article accurately reflects commentary by white and black writers about the book. After my first FAC, I thought it interesting enough to include the fact that so few papers have been written about the novel. It seems no one seriously wishes to explore or criticize the novel at any length.


 * Scholars note that Lee's approach to class and race was unique - This is a big claim - was unique at the time? is still unique?
 * Altered this a bit.


 * The novel explores courage in several ways. - This is a rather weak beginning to a section. Can we come up with something stronger and more exciting?
 * DONE


 * A 1991 survey by the Book of the Month Club and the Library of Congress Center for the Book found that To Kill a Mockingbird was rated behind only the Bible in books that are "most often cited as making a difference",[4] and has appeared on numerous other lists that describe its impact. - The second half of this sentence needs to be more specific - what impact?
 * The novel appears on many lists that describe its impact. They're now footnoted at the request of numerous editors. Should I de-footnote them or summarize them?


 * The character of Atticus Finch has impacted the legal profession throughout the U.S. - We need a more specific topic sentence for this section - how has Finch affected the legal profession?
 * DONE


 * those letters expressing the most outrage complained about the racial aspects of Mayella Ewell's attraction to Tom Robinson, even over the depictions of rape - This is confusing.
 * DONE --Moni3 (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

MOS and other minutiae

 * I would either list all of your sources in the "Bibliography" and use the "Author, page" format in the "Footnotes" or just have footnotes. Including some entries in the bibliography and not others is rather confusing.
 * Can you give me an example of inconsistent formatting? I've asked Maralia to reformat the citations, which was done. --Moni3 (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The footnotes are not all formatted the same way - pick a style and stick with it.
 * Per my above response. --Moni3 (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There needs to be consistency in the use of Atticus' vs. Atticus's (and other instances of the possessive after a noun ending in "s").


 * I think I might have eliminated the lone surviving instance of "s's"; is it OK now? By far, the majority version was "Atticus'" (no double s), so I went with that, which was also my favourite. :) Willow (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have delinked most, if not all, of the links inside quotations per WP:MOSQUOTE. Such links are a form of interpretation and best included only when absolutely necessary.


 * User:Brighterorange has a wonderful dashbot - it is like waving a magic wand - all of your dash problems will go away. :) Right now there is some inconsistency in the article's use of the em-dash and the en-dash.
 * DONE


 * Image:Mockingbird Cover Art.jpg - I'm not really sure there is a good justification for the inclusion of this book cover yet. How many non-free book covers can one article have? The article doesn't discuss this book cover, so I think the justification is weak at this time. We should probably try to find something else to use.
 * I'm not sure if I'm going to include info to justify the image's inclusion, or take it out, but before FAC it will resolved. --Moni3 (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The image, sadly, has been removed.


 * Image:In Search of Atticus Finch book.jpg - I noticed that the purpose for this non-free image is listed as "illustration". That is not good enough for a non-free image - you have to add a more detailed explanation, something relating the image to the subject of the subsection, for example.


 * I think that we should definitely keep this image; to me, it's a picture that tells a thousand words. Is the idea that we should improve the fair-use justification? Willow (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just tried a new fair-use justification; what do you all think? I just noticed that Atticus needs a better tailor — the seams on that vest! :P  But I suppose the artist had to do that, for more interesting shading. :) Willow (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree we should keep this image and I think the new justification is much better. Awadewit | talk  15:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you think about adding some quote boxes? These might help brighten up the article and can help vary the layout when images are hard to come by.
 * Added one. May add another. --Moni3 (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that this source is reliable.
 * Who is the authority on this source? It goes to prove Capote's quote on the dust jacket of the first edition. The site documents good condition first edition books. --Moni3 (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The article was very good and I greatly enjoyed reading it. Please take my long list of comments not as a criticism but as a mark of my belief that this article can eventually stand with the best of wikipedia'a literature articles. Awadewit | talk  02:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, A! :) I can't believe that you spent eight hours poring over the article — or, rather, I can, when you've given us such a meticulous list! :)  Thank you for helping us see what we couldn't; several of your suggestions struck a chord with me right away, where I said, "Oh yes, that had been nagging at me, too." even though I couldn't articulate it before.   We'll do our best to, umm, assuage your reservations.  Willow (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Give me a couple days to address these issues. I have some library work to do to go back to my sources.--Moni3 (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe I have improved the article by adding in a few details. I think it is ready for another FAC, although I may not...but I'll do it anyway.--Moni3 (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article
this article has been turned down for featured article status before... is there a list of what people can do to improve it? perhaps one should be created? Jackchen123 (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A few editors are working on this, Jackchen. The list you read above this section is a good place to start on how to improve it. I'll be working on this over the next week or so. Feel free to pitch in. --Moni3 (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ... remind me to scroll down next time... thanksJackchen123 (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Points
I would like to add a small section for First Edition Points. Can I do this while the block is in place? or must I get someone else to do it? EraserGirl (talk) 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You can add anything as long as you are registered. However, the article is at over 65k, cut from more than 71k, and I may have to cut more text to prepare the article for Featured Article Cadidate. What sort of information about the first edition did you want to add? --Moni3 (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * About 3 lines of text that would identify a first edition from a reprint. First edition point information is spread out all over the internet and some not even as yet findable on the internet.  I think Wikipedia would be the ideal central location for this reference information. I just randomly started with Mockingbird.  I think the appropriate place would be as part of the or an Infobox, since this is not dynamic nor (usually) disputable information.

==Points== Number of 1st printings: 5,000 approx.; verso: "FIRST EDITION" ; DJ: $3.95 on the lower corner, no printing statement, Harper Lee's photograph on back, Truman Capote quote in green ink on the front flap, Jonathan Daniels blurb on the rear flap; Boards: brown with green cloth spine. EraserGirl (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC) ''(oops) I forgot, we may have to make room for a citation, since WP mandates such. I can pull a reference book for that info.''
 * I'll be honest with you: I'm not sure if the information you're considering adding is encyclopedic. You can, of course, add any information that is reliable and verifiable, but I will soon be suggesting this article as a Featured Article Candidate, where other editors will scrutinize the content and tell me if that information must go. I've had to remove information about the characters and the book's impact, so I'm not confident a paragraph about first edition points will withstand the FAC process. I've worked on this article for almost a year, already nominating it for FAC unsuccessfully. I'll be quick to remove anything that stands in its way. --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with your goal to raise this piece to FAC and appreciate your labors (truly), however I will firmly disagree with the dismissal of Points as not worthy of an inclusion in an encyclopedia. Points don't change, they are not subjective information. One of the WP goals is to make valuable information centrally available, accurate point referencing is very important. The internet is filled with many people selling books as firsts which are anything but. If we leave the information here on the discussion page, it will be available for future inclusion perhaps even after FAC. Thank you for considering it. EraserGirl (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Patrick Cather has posted a detailed guide to identifying first editions of this work on his eBay seller's page. I wonder if an external link would be more appropriate in an encyclopedia than making this description ourselves. (Re: WP:NOT). --Dystopos (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Alternately, adding some description of the book's printing and production seems relevant to this article, and I wouldn't mind seeing it laid out as a history, perhaps just ahead of the "Adaptations" section. --Dystopos (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No external link would be appropriate unless it was sponsored by a non-profit org such as the LOC or a trade group such as the ABAA. And even then there is almost no motivation for such a site to collect and provide the information for free. Sending people to a commercial internet site for general information flies in the face of everything Wikipedia stands for. How do YOU know a commercial seller's information is true and accurate? Not that there would be motive in posting false data, but there is no guaranteed and no recourse if it were incorrect. I live and work on a trade mailing list with hundreds of sellers, collectors and professionals and we must field at least one or two inquiries a day asking for the correct points on this title or that one.   Having such data available on WP would assure that it was communally corrected and readily available. EraserGirl (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the link would be so bad. The page is informative rather than commercial in nature and is more detailed than is reasonable for inclusion here. As for truth and accuracy, I'm not sure than Wikipedia holds a trump card there. --Dystopos (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion of my proposal on WikiProject Books, if anyone thinks another article would be more appropriate, please let me know. Thank you. EraserGirl (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * EraserGirl, the way this is written now is jarring. If this information has a place in this article (and I'm still not convinced that it does), I don't believe it is the first paragraph of the Reception section. I don't know why the price and the designer of the first issue is important enough to be included in the article when other information had to be removed. Please reconsider this in the scope of the entire article, particularly as I will be nominating it for a Featured Article in the near future.--Moni3 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's out of place to put information about the book's publication history in an article which is about the book. I don't object to moving the information or seeing someone write about it more fluidly than I have, or provide more detail about later editions. If I were editing the article for length by myself, I'd start by stripping out about 75% of the excessive analysis in the "themes" section. Is there a WikiCliff'sNotes? --Dystopos (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dystopos, I disagree with you quite strongly on what you characterize as "excessive analysis". It's read by just about every secondary school student in the English-speaking world. Why has it been such a powerful novel for 40 years? This is what the article seeks to answer. And I don't mean to be indelicate, but its power does not derive from how much the book cost in 1960 or who designed the original cover. --Moni3 (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are certainly more important questions, but harder to settle in a form germane to an encyclopedia since there are as many interpretations as there are readers. The facts, as trifling as they may be, are at least settled and verifiable. --Dystopos (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless that I remain unconvinced, I won't be moving this information until it comes up in the FAC process. I'm fairly sure it will unless it can be integrated into the article more effectively, and connected to the impact of the book overall. --Moni3 (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)




 * I agree with Moni that the Points information is not well-integrated at present, but I also sympathize with the wish to include the information. If the idea is to include such information for many novels, then I suggest that we make a new standardized template box, which could be colorful and brighten up a section like an image, slim and aligned with the right-hand margin.  That way, the information would be there, and anyone interested could find it that much more easily, but it wouldn't interrupt the exposition.  I'll be happy to make such a template box; the only problem is that I know, ummm, basically nothing about points.  If you could explain what types of information you'd like to convey, I'd be happy to make the template in whatever colors you choose. :) Willow (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's better to create a whole infobox for something that can be conveyed in a couple of sentences. I just think it's good to have some information on the production of a book as well as on its context and thematic content. Perhaps looking at some of the featured movie articles for clues about how to add production details in an encyclopedia format would be useful. --Dystopos (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)