Talk:Wicked (Maguire novel)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk · contribs) 14:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll review this article. My immediate thought on looking at this is that there are serious problems with criterion 3a, "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". For an article on a novel, I would expect at least some discussion of reception – what did reviews say when it was published? how did it sell? was it nominated for any awards? what have critics said since?

Secondly, I suspect that there is rather more to be said on the novel's themes. The article mentions themes relating to evil, propogranda, identity, and purpose, but doesn't really discuss any of them in depth. Aside from those, I wonder if there is anything to say about (with the caveat that I am more familiar with the musical than the book): prejudice, whether the ends justify the means/violent terroristic revolutionary activity is ever appropriate, and totalitarianism.

I'm also surprised that there's very little discussion of Wicked as an adaptation – has there for instance been any commentary on how Wicked fits into the genre of the revisionist reinterpretation of classical literature, or the foregrounding of the monstrous female as a more sympathetic character?

This is so glaring that it's arguably eligible for quickfailing, but instead I will put the article on hold for a week, and in the meantime comment on the other GA criteria. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Other editors have brought up the lack of a review section, and adding one will be my first priority.
 * In writing the themes section, I limited it to what Maguire himself has discussed. I've been hesitant to offer more in the interest of avoiding original research. Honestly, IDK how much scholarly comment there's been on the book itself. Should I look for more? (You may be interested to know that yes, the violence angle is a part of the narrative. At one point, Elphaba commits what we would recognize as terrorist acts. And you aren't the only one who's more familiar w/ the musical. It has somewhat overshadowed the book.)
 * And what do you mean by "monstrous female?" I've never heard that term of art before, though I've arguably known a few... Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Original research just means that we should stick to what the sources have said; we don't have to stick to writing about the themes that Maguire has discussed himself if other reliable sources talk about other themes. (My original comment is original research – I hadn't done any reading to see if the themes I suggested were in fact themes that reviewers have been interested in, and if reviewers have talked about different themes, by all means discuss them!)
 * Re. monstrous female, there's a trope in fiction that women who are villains are shown as villains through their violation of acceptable femininity. In the case of Wizard of Oz, there's a fairly obvious dichotomy between the Wicked Witch of the West and the Good Witch, with the Good Witch being conventionally attractive, a nurturing and even maternal figure to Dorothy, and the Wicked Witch as ugly and intent on doing harm to a vulnerable girl.  In fairytales, think of Cinderella's stepmother (bad because she's a bad maternal figure) and stepsisters (bad because they are ugly, in modern adaptations often explicitly because they are fat); if you are familiar with Greek mythology, you can think of Medea, who betrays her father and brother, and later murders her own children.  I don't know if anyone has written about this in relation to Wicked, but it it's not the only recent(ish) novel that seeks to reimagine this kind of female villain – Madeleine Miller's Circe is an obvious example. It seems like the kind of thing that someone might have written about (especially because in Wicked, at least the musical version, Elphaba is positioned as effectively a surrogate mother figure for Nessa). Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought that might be where you were going. I don't think that trope comes into play in the novel. I've never seen it discussed in secondary sources. If anything, Shiz is the first place Elphie feels accepted until her own radical politics lead her in another direction. I recall one scene where Morrible discusses her plan to install Elphie as ruler of the Glikkus (Gillikin Country in Baum), with Nessa being her counterpart in Munchkinland. Any discussion of Elphie's green-ness as being a reflection of her inner evil is done ex post facto and I don't recall much of that.
 * You'll be happy to know I have found enough to separate Background and Themes into two separate sections. Although I could possibly create a section on Totalitarianism as a theme, I've stuck to Maguire's own themes, especially since I found a quote from him which makes a great "thesis statement" for the book. Let me know what you think about what I've done so far. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is definitely looking much better - I'll try to do a more thorough review this evening (UTC) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this one. The article is much improved from a couple of weeks ago.  Citations are all to reliable enough sources (though I spotted that "He noticed that while the problem of evil had been explored from many different perspectives, there had never been an attempt to synthesize the varying views together" is a much stronger claim than the source cited makes!) Otherwise no WP:V concerns.  After the recent expansions, I'm now happy with the broadness of coverage. No concern with copyvio, and Earwig isn't bringing up anything apart from the properly-marked quotations. The one illustration is appropriate and has a Fair Use Rationale.
 * I still have a couple of lingering concerns. First is the lead: per MOS:LEAD, the lead section is supposed to be a "concise overview of the article's topic", not introducing content which isn't discussed in the body of the article. On the one hand, the novel's adult themes and target audience are mentioned in the lead but not the body; on the other, the themes discussed in the body aren't mentioned at all in the lead.  Second is the list of major characters, and the selection thereof.  For a reader who isn't already familiar with the major characters of Wicked, it is not at all clear why Yackle (not mentioned elsewhere in the article!) should be listed, while e.g. Madam Morrible (one of the few characters who is mentioned not only in the plot section, but also in the analysis of the book's themes) isn't. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I disagree. The article says, "The many theories about it arise from different schools of study: a philosophical approach, a psychological approach, a theological approach, a sociological approach. These are all interesting and valid, but they seldom can be considered together." What additional claim am I making there?
 * I've added Morrible, Dillamond, and Elphie's parents to the character list, while removing Mother Yackle. She isn't really a major character and in fact was completely cut from the musical.
 * I just recently discovered that an intro is supposed to stand on its own! I've rewritten the intro as such, replacing the verbiage about adult themes and profanity with more pertinent material. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The article says, "The many theories about it arise from different schools of study: a philosophical approach, a psychological approach, a theological approach, a sociological approach. These are all interesting and valid, but they seldom can be considered together." What additional claim am I making there?
 * Two: firstly, "there had never been an attempt" is a significantly stronger claim than "seldom can be considered together"; secondly, we're turning a self-serving claim by the author that his book is unique into a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice; even if Maguire were claiming that it had never happened before, I would be dubious of our uncritically repeating the claim. Authors promoting their books are always going to play up the uniqueness of their own perspective, rather than saying that it's something which has been done before! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reworded it to be less definitive, but I don't want to cut that statement entirely. Regardless of the merits of the claim, contemplating those differing views on evil was part of his process. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'm happy with that. Going to pass this now. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)