Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nancy Drew/archive1


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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 14:55, 5 May 2009.

Nancy Drew

 * Nominator(s): Ricardiana (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, after passing GA and receiving a very helpful peer review, I believe that it fulfills the featured article criteria. Even if I'm wrong about that, I have done a lot of work on the article and I am eager to keep improving it. Ricardiana (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note. User Fasach Nua has just placed a tag on this article for possibly excessive image use. I would just like to note that the use of these images was discussed at some length in the peer review. I believe that this tag is unnecessary, but I don't wish to remove it peremptorily, so I would welcome input. Ricardiana (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed the tag as I believe it is unnecessary. Each non-free image has a very detailed fair use rationale that meets WP:NFCC. Awadewit (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: This article underwent a very thorough peer review, and in this process developed from being a generally good article to an excellent one. Many issues were discussed and resolved, and I have no hesitation in saying it now meets all the FA criteria. There is evidently one dablink that needs fixing, by the way.
 * I have tried to fix this link - I believe it is fixed, but for some reason it keeps showing up on the list of disambiguated links. The only occurrence of "hybrid" that is linked is in the lead; I changed this to "hybrid electric vehicle|hybrid" and then just to "hybrid electric vehicle," but for some reason it keeps showing up. Maybe somebody can see what I'm doing wrong? Ricardiana (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The troublesome link was in the Cultural impact section, not the lead. I've fixed it now. Brianboulton (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agh, how did I miss that? - that was stupid of me. Never mind - thank you very much, Brianboulton. Ricardiana (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On images, this was a major area of discussion at PR. My belief is that the images now in the article under FU rationales all significantly increase readers' understanding of the subject. During her long fictitious lifetime Nancy had many makeovers, which are well-described in the text, but the effect is much enhanced through having visual evidence of how these chages were presented. Although fve non-free images is a lot in one article, I think that they are all justifiied in this case. Brianboulton (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The images only represent one individual's interpretation of the the makeovers, and as to whether one anons interpretation in significant (#8) is questionable. They can be easily described as text (#1) as you have admitted, minimal use seems to have gone out the window, this is not plausible as a FAC and would recommend recommend a more appropriate forum would be GAR Fasach Nua (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not the case - please read the article and the fair use rationales. They cite Nancy Drew scholarship. If you are going to dispute the images, please explain which one and why in detail. Thanks. (GAR is completely inappropriate when your only complaint is the images, by the way.) Awadewit (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fasach Nua, you are incorrect. The article does not rely on "one individual's interpretation" and the sources are not from "anons" as you suggest. I cite both Jennifer Stowe and Karen Plunkett-Powell. As Awadewit points out, please explain which images you find objectionable and why. Ricardiana (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few other commentaries on the web or book reviews/articles that have commented on the covers, such as MSNBC and Library of Maryland University, so I do believe illustrating the notable portrayals can be warranted. However, as far as I can tell, there are only three notable artists for this series: Tandy, Gillies, and Nappi.  Each artist's style should be represented only once to avoid undue weightage or excessive use of copyrighted images.  It would be best to identify the artist in the FUR, even though Simon and Schuster owns the copyrights now.  To qualify for fair use, the FURs should focus on the styles identified with the artists, and more on the atmosphere associated with the drawing and aspects of the age of the protagonist if it qualifies.  As such:
 * File:Origndths.jpg is fine in this aspect
 * File:Secondndths.jpg too is okay
 * File:Ndtsmitpbkcvr.jpg falls short of the mark. "Passive" and "blank, lost in thought" might be easily conceived.  Is there other critical aspect of Nappi's art that can be expressed with this or other covers?  Would "bobby-soxer ... a contemporary sixteen-year-old. This Nancy was perky, clean-cut, and extremely animated" be a better concept to illustrate with a cover?
 * Of other covers (I presume these are by unknown artists?)
 * File:Ndharh.jpg: the covers should be talked of in the main text. This image does not seem to be talked about.  The caption is a separate entity and, in my opinion, not of great weightage (significance) to claim for fair use.  This cover might not be a good choice for the purpose stated.  While skimpiness is displayed, Drew's sight is not particularly directed at the "hunk"...  She is looking at the reader (if she is eying the guy, her eyeballs would be at the edge of her eyes).  Side note on the caption: why should the young man investigate a clue rather than ogle a nubile young girl?
 * File:Ndtcotvv.jpg is a bit of the same; the FUR's text description (breathless, frenetic energy, hunted) is quite descriptive on its own. The cover does not seem to convey the same impact.  Here she just looks startled by someone who shouted behind her or tapped her shoulder...
 * Other points
 * Should the identifying image not be Tandy's cover, the first publication? Why not use the latest icon for the series, if any (as far as I understand it, Tandy created a silhouette detective, and Gillies updated it with a coloured bust shot)?
 * Why are File:ND1tsotoc.JPG and File:Ndtcotvv.jpg enlarged in size? Undoubtably, the blown up images are of low resolution, but I do not see why one should be exposed to jaggies and mosaics...
 * File:ND1tsotoc.JPG and File:Secondndths.jpg are both Gillies' work. Only one is needed.
 * In short, my opinion is to keep Tandy's and Gillies' covers that are in the text for commentaries, look for another better cover to illustrate Nappi's portrayal, eliminate or re-evaluate the FUR for the anonymous covers, take away Gillies's The Secret of the Old Clock cover and replace it with an icon identified with the series. Jappalang (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Ndtsmitpbkcvr.jpg illustrates a concept, passivity, whose easy conception is I think a matter of opinion. Illustrating a different Nappi cover could work, except that Stowe's overarching thesis as laid out in the beginning of the section is that Nancy is portrayed as increasingly less active. Showing an earlier Nappi cover of a perky Nancy would not, I believe, adequately illustrate Stowe's point.
 * Further, this cover is one of those that Stowe herself uses, which was my original reason for choosing it. See Stowe (1999), 35. Ricardiana (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Ndharh.jpg is talked about in the main text, under the section "Evolution of character," sub-section "1980–2003." Yes, the artist is unknown. Regarding the caption: the grammatical subject here is Nancy Drew, not the young man and the point of the caption is that Nancy is here shown in relation to a man rather than, as before, in relation to a clue. I will change the wording to avoid implying anything about the position of her eyes.
 * File:Ndtcotvv.jpg The more relevant text here, as given in the FUR, is not the part about "frenetic energy" but "Nancy does not have any control over the events that are happening in these covers. She is shown to be a victim, being hunted and attacked by unseen foes.' Nancy is also sometimes pursued by a visibly threatening foe, as on the cover of The Case of the Vanishing Veil.""
 * As explained in the FUR, the identifying image is used because this particular cover is the single most disseminated pictorial depiction of the character. The MSNBC source that you linked refers to this picture specically and calls it "prototypical." It is the image used on the new "Girl Detective" series covers and it is the image of the best-selling Drew book. Other silhouettes or images are not as widely-disseminated as this one.
 * The cover of "The Secret of the Old Clock" shown in the article is by Rudy Nappi, not Bill Gillies. As such, of the five covers, only one artist's work is repeated: Rudy Nappi. As the ND illustrator with the longest tenure, Nappi was in the unusual position of sometimes updating his own covers from one decade to another; any representation of ND's visual portrayal that only gave one Nappi cover would therefore have a bit of a gap in it. The two covers chosen are: 1, the cover of the most widely-disseminated version of the single best-selling ND volume whose image is more widely-disseminated than any other image, symbol, or icon, and 2, a later cover in Nappi's later style to fairly represent the argument of the source being cited. Ricardiana (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not every portrayal of Drew is required to be illustrated, even if notable. If the identifying image is by Nappi, then I do not really see a need for another Nappi image, especially one that is showing "passiveness" (doing nothing), which does not require imagery.  Notable copyrighted images might still fail free use because they are used to portray something that is adequately described by words alone.  Jappalang (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not illustrating every portrayal of Drew - as one glaring example, I have left out any illustration of the current incarnation of ND in the "Girl Detective" series, although I do, of course, mention it in the article. The Nappi image used in the section on ND's visual portrayal is, I believe, necessary in that it is typical of a trend of moving away from active/confident portrayals to passive, fearful ones, and I might note that Awadewit and Brianboulton seem to agree. Ricardiana (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Would this Master's dissertation qualify as a reliable source for analysis on Drew's portrayals? If not, surely the sources it used are reliable enough to boost the critical analysis in this article, right?  Jappalang (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The thesis is by Jennifer Stowe and is cited repeatedly in the article as the most sustained and substantive discussion of Nancy Drew's visual portrayal. As it is already cited numerous times, and nothing more substantive is available, I'm not sure that I can "boost" things more without engaging in original research. Ricardiana (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I failed to spot the author. Since Fasach Nua's opposition is based on the singular source of image critical analysis, perhaps as I suggested, you can find the books Stowe researched from and find further commentary that she chose to leave out in her thesis?  Jappalang (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already looked into this. Stowe's sources are very general ones and none of them mention Drew. Also, Fasach Nua is wrong that I am relying on only one source; the section on ND's physical depiction relies primarily on two sources, the afore-mentioned Stowe and Karen Plunkett-Powell's Nancy Drew Scrapbook. Ricardiana (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you considered Cheryl Homme's Storybook culture? Although I am uncertain how much academic or scholarship weightage Collectors Press has.  Jappalang (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with the work. I will take another look, but in my recollection this is mostly a coffee-table book filled with glossy photos and little to no commentary. Ricardiana (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I recalled, this is a coffee-table book of little substance. The few half-pages devoted to Drew discuss how Tandy portrays Nancy as a fashionable young adult and how Gillies and Nappi portray her as a teenager. This information, such as it is, is already in the article. Ricardiana (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to reiterate that I think the FURs represent Nancy Drew scholarship (something very few FURs do, by the way) as well as the way that most introductory lectures on ND explain the physical evolution of the character. I have given a fair number of these lectures in my time and I actually use most of these book covers (particular covers have become iconic). I think that we are introducing new standards in this FAC. Since when do we require multiple scholarly sources in a FUR? Awadewit (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, I am not talking about FURs. Fasach Nua said, "The images only represent one individual's interpretation of the the makeovers, and as to whether one anons interpretation in significant (#8) is questionable.", which I take to mean that he find the opinion of a single person (of perhaps unknown reputation) to be of little weight to support several copyrighted images.  In other words, if we find other reviews/analysis of the cover art from several other reliable sources and integrate them into the article, each art style of Drew is expounded on in greater detail (increasing comprehensiveness and probably the chance that there is some metaphysical quality a reviewer might be attributing to the image that would require imagery for clarity), thus increasing the significance of an image to support the commentary.  Jappalang (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the article. The article cites more than one source re: ND's physical depiction and no sources are "anonymous." This is 100% factually incorrect. Further, there are no other sources to cite. You have dredged up as a suggestion for "further sources" the very source that I in fact cite, multiple times, in the article; when that was pointed out you dredged up a coffee-table book wholly lacking the analysis you feel this article lacks. You do not appear to have read the article closely, as evidenced by such statements as "File:Ndharh.jpg: the covers should be talked of in the main text. This image does not seem to be talked about" when in fact it is talked about, and you are applying standards which are subjective and in the application of which you are in the minority. Until I hear better rationales than those you have offered, and a demonstrated familiarity with the actual text of the article and the citations therein, I will not be removing this image. If you would like to express your opinion in the form of a formal "oppose" vote, please do so. If the article fails FA on this ground, so be it. I stand by my use of sources, and my rationales for the images. Ricardiana (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fasach's views are not mine. Yes, I know you have already stated that you used mostly comments from two sources&mdash;"the section on ND's physical depiction relies primarily on two sources", but I am pointing out his opinion to offer ways for you to overcome his oppose.  The only ideas of mine on the article I have given so far are what I thought of the non-free images, which if you do read them, talked nothing about the "insignificance of a singular reviewer".  I feel addressing what I think are the issues with the copyrighted images might help resolve Fasach Nua's issues as well (since doing so either removes images or increases their FURs in some way or the other).  Jappalang (talk) 06:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see; well, my apologies for misconstruing your comments. I guess I got a little hot under the collar there; I apologize. However, I'm not sure if Fasach's opinion can be addressed, as it is so briefly expressed that I don't have much to go on. Yes, adding sources would indeed be helpful, but regrettably there really are no others. I have searched library databases country-wide, done inter-library loans, searched article databases such as MLA, ProjectMuse, JStor, LexisNexis, and Gerritson; I have searched using a number of different keywords through Google Books and regular Google; I'm just coming up dry here. You seem to be okay with all the images except for the cover to "The Strange Message in the Parchment" - I added more from Stowe on this cover specifically. I can't think of anything else to do except to perhaps leave a message at Fasach's talk page and reiterate the request for him or her to elaborate on their objections. Again, I apologize for getting snippy; I see now what you're trying to do and I appreciate your help. Mea culpa.... Ricardiana (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support This is an excellent article. It is comprehensive and well-researched (being familiar with Nancy Drew scholarship, I know that it represents the major scholarly points of view on the topic). It is also well-written and well-illustrated. To properly show the changes in how Nancy Drew has been illustrated over time, it is necessary to have the five non-free images in the article. I believe that the non-free rationales explain in detail why each image is necessary. I hope to see more such articles from Ricardiana! Awadewit (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support The article is remarkably comprehensive. The rationale for fair use seems clear to me: each image represents a distinct phase in the evolution of Nancy Drew's appearance, and the characteristics of that evolution are cited to reliable sources. To leave any one of the pictures out would impede the reader's understanding of the different phases. I just have one other comment: check to make sure that the use of quotation marks complies with MOS; for instance, "Nancy Drew and Daughter." should be "Nancy Drew and Daughter". I would also replace the curly marks “”‘’ with straight ones ""'' . Lesgles (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Lesgles, for spotting the quotation marks - I thought I had caught all of those but obviously I was wrong. I'll get to work on that ASAP, thanks. Ricardiana (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've fixed them all now. Ricardiana (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I caught a few stragglers; looks good now. Lesgles (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Like Awadewit, I agree that this is an incredible article, and that Ricardiana seems to have quite a future in this field. Please keep it up, we could use more 20th century literature articles.  Ceran  thor 19:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"like this"
 * Comment - (a) I agree with Ceranthor above; go to The Sword of Shannara next? ;) (b) I thought that block quotations had to be led into with a colon or the end of a sentence, as continuing a sentence


 * was not very cohesive. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  20:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that a comment or a formal "oppose" vote? Also, what do you suggest needs to be done to make the article more "cohesive"? Ricardiana (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind -- my bad/stupid. Yes, that's a rule often taught; I don't know, however, that it's required by any style manual. I'll look over the blockquotations and see if any can be better segued into. Ricardiana (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I just took a look at all the block quotations and as far as I can see most of them are led into with a colon. Those that aren't are led into as part of a sentence, which is how my graduate school profs have told me to do it and also, according to them, what literary journals expect. Ricardiana (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using cite news, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
 * The Lapin ref is lacking a publisher. What makes this a reliable source?
 * What makes http://www.literarture.net/catalogue/view/1 a reliable source?
 * What makes http://www.bookloversden.com/series/girls/Drew/Drew.html a reliable source? Also lacks a publisher
 * Likewise http://www.nancydrewworld.com/, what makes this reliable? And needs a publisher
 * Likewise http://www.series-books.com/ (Needs publsher also)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the news sources.
 * The Lapin piece was originally published in Books at Iowa and is, along with a number of other pieces by Lapin, indexed in the MLA Directory of Periodicals. I have edited the entry to reflect the origin of the essay.
 * The Literarture source is the only source for this info. It's not terribly important and can be removed from the article if others agree.
 * The last three sources you mention are web sites written, respectively, by Sharon Reid Harris, Lea Shangraw Fox, and Jennifer White. They do not have publishers, beyond perhaps the web host. Shangraw Fox's web site is the premier source of info on international publications of Nancy Drew books; more "reliable" sources, such as the essay on the French translations of ND recently published in Nancy Drew and Her Sister Sleuths (2008) has little info compared to what Shangraw Fox has. Also, I'll have to get the book and check, but I think that that essay even cites Shangraw Fox. As for Reid Harris and White, their sites are used primarily because there's a severe dearth of info on the ND Files, and Reid Harris and White are nearly the only sources that talk about them; the previous-to-me version of this article acted as if the only ND books were the first 56 hardcovers (see talk page, for example), and I was trying to change that. While not the most scholarly sources, they provide needed info, and I'm not willing to ditch them just to get a little bronze star on my userpage. Ricardiana (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with the last three sources is that they need to satisfy WP:SPS, our guidelines on Self-published sources. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, I'll do my best to dig up some info to help establish the reliability of these sources, or replace them. Re: Shangraw Fox, she is mentioned and cited on Jennifer Fisher's Nancy Drew Sleuths website (Fisher has a book deal in the works); she has spoken at Nancy Drew conventions; and she is cited in an article published in the Los Angeles Times available at http://articles.latimes.com/2002/may/31/news/lv-nancydrew31. I'll look into the others momentarily. Ricardiana (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to get shot for this, but strongly suggest you contact Awadewit for some help with those sites, she's much more clued into literature and author type stuff than I am. (My interest in authors ends (unless it's science fiction) sometime before Thomas Aquinas) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. I'll impose on her good will one more time and post a message on her talk page. In the meantime, my info on Reid Harris is that she presented at the 2005 Nancy Drew Conference, along with such published ND scholars as Melanie Rehak, Geoffrey Lapin, James Keeline, and Leslie McFarlane (Hardy Boys author) biographer Marilyn Greenwald. The conference program is available at Jenn Fisher's website here: http://www.nancydrewsleuth.com/nancydrew75conference.html Ricardiana (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: White, I've removed those citations and was able to replace one with an article published in The Lion and the Unicorn. Ricardiana (talk) 01:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reid Harris - I'm unpersuaded by the Nancy Drew conference, since that is not academic. Perhaps she presented at ChLA as well? Awadewit (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to my knowledge. Fine; in that case I will remove the references to her site and work with what I can say without needing a source, as there's really not much out there on the Files. Ricardiana (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * White: Replaced by Lion and the Unicorn - preeminent children's lit journal Awadewit (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fox: website cited by the LA Times - meets WP:SPS (barely); if it is true that the recently published essay mentioned above cites this website and Fox, I would feel much better about including this reference Awadewit (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The essay I mentioned, on the French Nancy Drews, does indeed cite Shangraw Fox. I just came from upstairs and I forget the page number - 62 or 72. But it's there. Ricardiana (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, bottom line: a)replaced White with journal article; b) replaced Reid Harris with newspaper article; c) Shangraw Fox is cited in both books and newspaper articles. Ricardiana (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments. A few questions and remarks occur to me:


 * The character's visual portrayal has also evolved over time, from a fearless, active young woman to a fearful or passive one. This wasn't clear to me in the lead, because I thought "visual portrayal" referred to the descriptions of the character in the books. As I read the article, I realised that it referred to illustrations of the character by artists. Unless it's just me, it could need clarifying.
 * I see what you mean, but right now I can't think of another way to phrase it. I'll keep thinking about it - in the meantime, do you have any suggestions?
 * I dunno ... Illustrations of the character have also evolved over time, from a fearless, active young woman to a fearful or passive one. ? qp10qp (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, thank you for all the edits you made to make the article more concise. I was surprised at how much verbiage there was ... you really made the article much better. I especially like the "more mot-justeish" edit - are you a Wodehouse fan, by any chance? Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, once you've read six or seven you've read the lot (I've read about fifteen), but yes. Actually, it strikes me that this character of the resourceful, natty young woman, independent of her parents, is familiar from Wodehouse, too. qp10qp (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, early Nancy has the uber-confidence of a Bobbie Wickham, without the heartlessness. Ricardiana (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The very character I was thinking of! qp10qp (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * On the illustrations, the article goes into great detail, perhaps rather out of proportion to the mentions of Nancy's physical appearance and dress as it evolved over the years in the actual writing. Are the covers a precise response to the descriptions in the books?
 * Hmm. Well, Tandy read all the books, so yes there. I don't know about Gillies; Nappi's wife read the books and told the plot to her husband. I believe I mentioned both those things in the article. Later on, though, I don't think there's much relation between the covers and the books in terms of portraying plot. In any case, no source talks about the later covers in those terms. If you're saying that the character's visual portrayal is not necessarily relevant, I would argue that it is and that the covers, tied to the texts or not, influence reader's perceptions. I have some websites that talk about this, but they're not technically reliable sources - just blogs and stuff. But readers are influenced by these covers. Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's very relevant. I just felt the textual information about her appearance was limited in proportion. qp10qp (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the textual discussion of her appearance is very formulaic and brief. It generally goes something like this, usually on page 1, chapter 1: Nancy Drew, an attractive, titian-haired girl of eighteen, jammed her hands in the pockets of her scarlet jacket -- before noticing a clue. No other physical description for the rest of the book. Ricardiana (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Smart policy. Very Maltese Falcon. qp10qp (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It would have helped me in my flicking back and forth from text to images if the captions gave a date for the covers.
 * Agreed; I'm working on this right now but it is proving surprisingly difficult to date the covers in some cases, and when I can find info it's, again, from "unreliable" sources like blogs. Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I have dates for all the covers except for The Secret of the Old clock. It's either 1965 or 1966, I can't determine which. I'll keep looking. Ricardiana (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Mystery of the Covers is solved! Could use circa, if the Clock won't yield its secret. qp10qp (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but I think I've confirmed the date for the last cover. I emailed one of my sources, Jennifer Fisher, who's often cited in newspaper articles as an authority on ND, and she confirms the date as 1966. Ricardiana (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I find the method of quoting at times a little offputting: an example would be the two quotes starting from "in the words of one commentator ...". The way this was put together made it seem as if both quotations were from the same commentator, but checking the notes, they were from two different ones. I don't say that every commentator needs naming in the text, but there is a certain vagueness about who says what throughout. For me, a Wikipedia text has a voice of its own—for want of a better term, an encyclopedic voice. If one quotes without distancing the voice of the quote from the voice of the text, the quotation may seem to borrow the article's voice and vice-versa, leading to fogging or ventriloquising of viewpoint. The bit from "Many find Nancy to be simply a good role model for girls ..." is particularly confusing, I think. Three quotes follow so closely on each others heels that the article's voice is lost and one doesn't know who's saying what without checking the footnotes.
 * I think this is a bad habit made possible by usually writing in MLA format where citation info is right there in the main text. You're right, it's not the best. I'll go over the article soon and work on this. Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone over the article using control + F for such words as "many" and "some" and phrases like "in the words of." I could only find one instance of "in the words of" which I changed to give the name of the critic. Other instances such as you mention of references to unnamed critics are to a number of critics. See more below. Ricardiana (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * On a connected note, there are several places in the article where we have words to the effect that "many commentators say/ agree/ argue that", followed by a quotation from only one of them. I think that unless the source specifically reports that many commentators say something, we need to give multiple sources. I think three, though not strictly "many", is usually convincing enough. So the form might be something like "many commentators believe"/quotation from source A/(in footnote) see also source B and source C. On the whole, though, I don't usually find the "many" form satisfactory or often necessary.
 * I thought I'd caught all those. Clearly not! Will work on this too. Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As above, I searched the article for a number of phrases. I found several instances such as you're talking about and I corrected the footnotes to reflect the names of people making this or that claim. Ricardiana (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not being familiar with book publishing, I was unclear at certain points of the distinction between volumes and titles. Do I deduce that each book has a volume number as well as a title? Are the volumes in groups within the series? I think in places that the word "book" would be a clear word to use, where nothing more complicated is involved. By the way, I wondered if the rewrites had new volume numbers or not. I also don't know what a "book packager" is (excuse my ignorance). It sounds like it involves more than just packaging the finished books.
 * Well, re: book packagers, I tried to explain the process briefly in the "Creation of character" section. Essentially a book packager is a firm that produces books in assembly-line fashion - one person writes an outline, somebody else fleshes that out into a book, someone else edits it; sometimes the writer makes substantive changes and the book's edited again, by the same editor or a previous one; and then the finished "product" is handed to a publisher and produced. I think that a detailed exposition of this, though, is better left to the entry on book packaging.
 * OK. It's probably just not known much about here in blighty. qp10qp (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to your other point, yes, the books have volume numbers as well as titles. The volumes are not really in groups (except in the new Girl Detective series, which has some [crappy] storylines that span three volumes). The re-writes did not have new numbers. The link to "List of Nancy Drew books" gives details for the various series. In any case, just to be clear, you are suggesting that I use "book" instead of "volume"? Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if it could be mentioned early on that the books have both titles and volume numbers, then all would be clear. I was getting muddled up between volume (part of a set) and volume (form of a book), especially as "titles" was also used. qp10qp (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, number 1, I think that this is info that could be found if people bother to click on the links in the article, for instance to "Nancy Drew Mystery Stories" or "Girl Detective"; that is what they are there for. Further, the word "volume" is primarily synonymous with a book, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, which lists the meaning you are thinking of, "A separately bound portion or division of a work", not as a second or third meaning, but as the fourth. My computer finds 23 instances of the word "volume" in the article. Do you really think that this is important enough to change 23 times in order to avoid confusion with the quaternary definition of a word? Ricardiana (talk) 04:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a phrase early on would do it, but no matter. It's probably just me—a lot of the books I own are in sets of volumes, and I think of the books from those as volumes but never use the word volume for the others. Given that the Drew books are written in series and volumes, I was probably groping for extra significance where none exists. qp10qp (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Was the name Carolyn Keene used right from the start? The wording on that seems to me not quite clear.


 * Yes; could you give an example of a sentence you think is unclear? I think that "Subsequent titles have been written by a number of different ghostwriters, all under the pseudonym Carolyn Keene" (emphasis added) makes it clear. Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Stratemeyer accordingly began writing plot outlines and hired Mildred Wirt, later Mildred Wirt Benson, to ghostwrite the first volumes in the series.[25] Subsequent titles have been written by a number of different ghostwriters, all under the pseudonym Carolyn Keene. Here I wasn't clear whether these titles were subsequent to those written by Wirt. qp10qp (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The cooking quote about Beulah does not seem to be racist, unless by "the old-fashioned way" is meant, according to the cuisine of her race. I wonder if a stronger example can be found to support that point. If the examples are all this mild, then it might simply be enough to change "racist stereotypes" to "racial stereotypes".


 * Well, this is a matter of opinion. First, I used this quotation b/c Mason uses it and I didn't want to be guilty of original research. Second, I think it's pretty racist - it's all part of the plantation legend that blacks are really so much happier in their proper place. Third, yes, there are plenty of other, more obvious examples I could use; I was hesitant, however, to shove in the most egregious example I could find when another one, cited by the critic in question, seemed to me to make the point. But off the top of my head, there's the evil mammy character in the original Hidden Staircase with her "sho'nuff" style dialogue, and the part in the original Nancy's Mysterious Letter (I think) where Nancy is startled by Ned and says something like, "Goodness, you startled me! I half expected to see a colored man leering at me." Fourth -- part of Mason's point, and the other critic, whose name I don't recall at the moment, is that the revisions just eliminate mention of race, rather than portraying a non-racist diverse world, and this example worked well for that too, I thought. Thoughts? Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you are quite right to use this example if it's the one you have a secondary source for. Being British, I'm probably just not attuned to the nuances here. I had to read the quote twice to grasp that the clue must be in the dishes she was cooking, some of which I've not heard of. qp10qp (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, here in the States this is cringe-inducing. It's not the food, and the having a black servant who is "old-fashioned". Here that really means one thing: nostalgia for a racist past. Ricardiana (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It works the other way round, too. The expression "people of colour", as used in America, would be horrific on our side of the pond. Thank goodness Austin Powers has done so much to smooth away mutual incomprehension. qp10qp (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * On this question, the revised version is dated to 1975, whereas the publishers wanted the books revised for racial stereopes in 1959. Was the progress that slow?


 * Oh, yeah. They had to keep writing new titles, while re-writing the old ones, and the Hardy Boys books had to be revised and re-written as well, while also coming out with new titles. The Stratemeyer Syndicate was also a pretty small operation after E. Stratemeyer's death, so not that many people were doing all this work. So, yes. Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The point about Hannah Guen in this context, that Nancy consulted her on attire, seems to date from 1953, whereas the section (as named) starts with the call for changes in 1959.


 * Yeah, I know. Some IP address is really gung-ho about adding details about Nancy's attire. I kept that stuff in b/c I didn't wish to seem like I think I own the article. I can take this out. Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * full-figure. Does this mean "full-length"?


 * Yes. I realize that "full-figure" has bosomy implications, but to me "full-length" implies Nancy sprawled on the ground, Jean Harlow-style. Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Really? For me a head-to-toes portrait is a full-length one. For one moment I thought they'd made Nancy full-figured to get round the slim heroine stereotype (I think you're by now getting the feeling you're dealing with someone rather slow on the uptake, or who is drinking. Not the second, anyway). qp10qp (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Upon further thought, I think the problem can be solved by implication: "a silhouette of Nancy bending slightly and looking at the ground". Changed to that - hope that's clearer. Ricardiana (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * ' 'Nancy Drew books have been published in European, Scandinavian, Latin American, and Asian countries, with the exception of China.'' This rather implies that the books were published in all Asian countries except China. Do we know this?


 * Yeah, that's awkward, and no, I don't. Will change. Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Eliminated. Ricardiana (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Series order. I wondered if the series, volumes, etc. are in a specific order, or if the stories are random. Clearly, when she had a boyfriend there must have been a sequence. Does this follow all through? Do the books refer to each other (Wodehouse fans, for example, have used clues in his books to create a spurious chronology, despite the fact that the stories seem to all take place in some kind of never-never year sometime around 1920.) Is continuity a factor?


 * Ah, you are a Wodehouse fan. --Continuity depends on the series; the Nancy Drew Mystery Stories have one thing going on, the Nancy Drew Files another, and so on. Do you have a suggestion on where to incorporate this info? also, i don't have a source for this -- is that the kind of info you don't need a source for? Ricardiana (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not a reference fascist myself. Anyway, I think the books count as sources for themselves, so long as they are described non-interpretively. Maybe could go briefly in that first bit of the "Books" section. qp10qp (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Added something to "Books" section. Ricardiana (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to have an idea of a typical Nancy Drew plot, beyond the fact that she solves mysteries. I am left unclear how much action there is, who she reports to, etc. (does she hand the criminals in to the police, her father, or whatever?), etc.


 * Hmm -- I'll see what I can add about this. The problem of course is deciding what's "typical" - for that I need sources; Prager and Billman talk about this a little, but only for the Nancy Drew Mystery Stories. The Nancy Drew Files are a different thing ... for the moment, to satisfy your curiousity, The Hidden Staircase is an ND book that's often cited in one connection or another. The plot is this: Nancy is sitting at home alone when she receives a visit from crazy Nathan Gombet. He shoves his way in the house, demands some papers of her father's, and threatens her. Nancy forces him out of the house. Shortly afterwards she learns that two local sisters living in an old mansion are being troubled by mysterious events - shadows in their house, weird noises, disappearing objects, etc. They've heard of Nancy's prowess and ask her help. Nancy gains her father's permission to stay with them and investigate (in the original version, Mr. Drew gives Nancy a gun to take with her). Nancy soon concludes that there must be a secret entrance to the house, but she can't find it. Meanwhile, her father has disappeared. This and that happens, and Nancy realizes that Nathan Gombet is involved somehow in "haunting" the sisters' house. She breaks into his house for proof, and stumbles upon a secret passage. Though it's dark and slimy, and the stairs are full of holes, and her flashlight goes out, she presses forward and comes out in the attic of the sisters' house. She then gets the police who go to arrest Nathan Gombet, in whose house they find Mr. Drew, who had been kidnapped by Gombet. Nancy rescues her father, tells the authorities to arrest Gombet, and returns the sisters' missing stuff to them. (In the revised edition Nancy is much less bossy at the end.) A typical ND Files story involves Nancy doing Law & Order style detective work, looking stuff up on computers, digging through trash, diligently questioning suspects, etc. Ricardiana (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, the first one's much the better type, definitely. Nathan Gombet, what a great name. qp10qp (talk) 00:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. Impressed with your responses. May I say what a pleasure this article was to read. Many thanks to you for bringing Wikipedia such a thorough and fascinating piece of work. I've never a read a Nancy Drew book, but I was a Biggles fan as a boy and still admire the early ones, so I fully understand the fascination with this sort of character and series. qp10qp (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you - I'm happy that you enjoyed the article. Ricardiana (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.