Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Great Gatsby/archive2

The Great Gatsby

 * Nominator(s): — Flask (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

This article is about The Great Gatsby, the literary masterwork by writer F. Scott Fitzgerald. Nearly a hundred years after its initial publication and commercial failure, the work continues to be one of the most widely read novels of our time. It remains relevant in the United States today due to its themes of class permanence, wealth inequality, and status concerns over immigration. Since its U.S. copyright expired this year, a slew of upcoming media adaptations are reportedly planned; thus, perpetuating the novel's cultural salience in the coming years. Following a haphazard FAC nomination in 2008, this article has been greatly expanded by a number of editors including myself. In the past year alone, many of its sections have been written from scratch while other sections have been extensively revamped and meticulously sourced.

This article has undergone an extensive GAR, a rewrite by the Guild of Copy Editors, and a four-month-long Peer Review. This article would not have reached its current stage without the collaborative efforts of many editors: and  developed the article during its formative years and their work enabled the article to achieve GA status in 2013;  wrote the lead and adaptations section as well as spurred the article's GAR, and  did a superlative job in copy-editing the prose. Additionally, Peer Review feedback by, , , , and was especially helpful. ImaginesTigers, in particular, has been instrumental in shepherding this article from GAR to its FAC nomination. I look forward to reading your criticisms and undertaking your suggested alterations. Please note this is my first FAC nomination so I might make novice mistakes during this process. — Flask (talk) 19:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Image review
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * File:F Scott Fitzgerald circa 1920.jpg File:Zelda Fitzgerald circa 1919 Retouched.jpg File:Edith Cummings Chicago 1920.jpg File:EdwardMoran-UnveilingTheStatueofLiberty1886Large.jpg File:Arnold Rothstein Chicago 1919.jpg when was the first publication?
 * File:Plaza Hotel New York City 1908.jpg NYPL actually says this item is copyrighted and it manages the rights It would only be PD if you can show publication before 1926.
 * File:Francis Cugat Gatsby Cover Drafts 1925.jpg Fails NFCC as there is no critical commentary on the drafting process, nor, I would guess, would that be DUE in this article.
 * File:Edmund Wilson.jpg Not PD as "The item you've requested has been digitized but is only available for access at NYPL. Please come visit us to see the item!"
 * The Great Gatsby trailer (1926).webm I would hold off on using this until next year because the argument on copyright notice only applies if you can be 100% certain that you are seeing the entire film including any copyright notices that may have been applied.
 * Other image licensing looks OK
 * Hi, buidhe. Thank you for your preliminary image review. In the case of several of those images, I will be adding the missing publication dates by tomorrow evening. (The Rothstein one was uploaded by me from a 1919 newspaper article in The Chicago Daily News.) I will also research the others to better determine their copyright status. — Flask (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * » File:EdwardMoran-UnveilingTheStatueofLiberty1886Large.jpg is in the public domain. The author, Edward Moran (1829-1901), died 120 years ago, and the painting was exhibited 135 years ago. Furthermore, the painting is held by the Museum of the City of New York. Today, I contacted Lauren Robinson, the Manager of Collections Licensing and Digital Assets at Museum of the City of New York. Within one hour, Robinson replied via e-mail officially confirming the painting is in the public domain: "'Thank you for your interest in the Museum of the City of New York. It is our understanding that the 1886 painting by Edward Moran (1829-1901), Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World (The Unveiling of the Statue of Liberty), is in the public domain according to copyright law in the United States. The Museum uses Cornell University Library Copyright Information Center's resource, Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, to make these determinations. Best wishes...'" Accordingly, I updated the image's license on Wikimedia Commons. I can attach a screenshot of the correspondence if you wish. — Flask (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * » File:Arnold Rothstein Chicago 1919.jpg is in the public domain. This photo of Arnold Rothstein was published prior to 1922 in a variety of newspapers amid the Black Sox Scandal. Specifically, the photo was published on the front page of the The Buffalo Enquirer on Wednesday, July 27, 1921. Vol. 77 — No. 296 (Source: Newspapers.com). Accordingly, I updated the image's license on Wikimedia Commons. — Flask (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * »  File:Plaza Hotel New York City 1908.jpg  has been replaced with File:Plaza Hotel New York City Circa 1910.jpg. The latter photo is in the public domain according to the Library of Congress. As explicitly stated on the Library of Congress website: "No known restrictions on publication." — Flask (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * » File:Edmund Wilson.jpg is in the collection of the U.S. Library of Congress, and the Library of Congress states it was distributed in 1946 by Doubleday & Company to newspapers and other publications as a publicity photograph. Photos that are freely distributed for publicity purposes fall under fair use. If this first rationale is insufficient, the photo was released without a copyright notice prior to 1977 as an inspection by the Library of Congress in 1996 found "no information on creator or on reproduction rights found with the image." Based on this information, this would be a rationale for public domain status. Consequently, I believe the licensing of the photo on Wikimedia Commons should be updated. I have contacted a Library of Congress specialist for final confirmation. Once I receive this confirmation, I will update the image's license on Wikimedia Commons. Please do not delete the image yet. — Flask (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * » UPDATE: File:F Scott Fitzgerald circa 1920.jpg is in the public domain. The original photo was published in The Beautiful and Damned in March 1922 and the U.S. copyright has since expired. See The Beautiful and Damned via Internet Archive or The Beautiful and Damned jacket via Whitmore Rare Books. Accordingly, I updated the image's license on Wikimedia Commons. — Flask (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * » UPDATE: File:Zelda Fitzgerald circa 1919 Retouched.jpg  — I've removed this photo from the article since I have not received a response from the F. Scott Fitzgerald society, and I cannot seem to find a publication date. — Flask (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * » UPDATE: File:The Great Gatsby trailer (1926).webm  — I've removed the clip from the article. Today, I contacted the Library of Congress which has a copy of the trailer in their AFI/Jack Tillmany Collection. Although the librarian stated they believe the trailer to be in the public domain, I would have to contact the U.S. Copyright Office and pay $100 to have this information verified. Rather than pay $100, I will just wait six months and re-add the trailer in January 2022 when the copyright for all films of that year has expired. — Flask (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * » UPDATE: File:Edith Cummings Chicago 1920.jpg — I've removed this photo from the article and replaced the image with File: Edith Cummings Vogue Photograph December 1923 Retouched.jpg.

, File:Francis Cugat Gatsby Cover Drafts 1925.jpg — I will investigate these files tomorrow. There are thousands of photos of Cummings published in newspapers prior to 1925 so I might replace the image with one of those instead. — Flask (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these enquiries! When LOC makes a file not visible as in the Edmund Wilson case, I assume it's considered under copyright or the copyright status is unknown. If they update to make it fully viewable, I'll accept it as freely licensed. Incidentally, if you're uploading files to commons it's best to use the most specific license tag. For example, if it was published before 1926 it's better to use PD-1923 than PD-US. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:18, 22 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have now evaluated the remaining photos in the article, verified their publication dates, and updated their corresponding licenses on Commons. After consulting with ImaginesTigers, I expanded the critical commentary of the cover art's evolution and restored the Fair Use image (File:Francis Cugat Gatsby Cover Drafts 1925.jpg). The image specifically illustrates the accompanying critical commentary which discusses the cover drafts. As the cover art is deemed to be among the most celebrated pieces of art in American literature, its visual evolution is of immediate relevance and importance to the article. Nearly every single biography of Fitzgerald discusses those same cover drafts, their provenance, and their evolution. Also, this is the sole Fair Use image to appear in this article. — Flask (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Images now look good, although now you risk giving undue weight to the cover art in the article with a lengthy discussion. One possible solution would be splitting to The Great Gatsby cover art and putting the fair use image(s) there. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the article is better for having more information about the cover art. It’s described in as much detail as every other aspect of the novel, and contributes to its overall comprehensiveness. In essence, I disagree that it even approaches undue weight. Flask specifically notes the cover art's significance in every biography of Fitzgerald. I support it remaining in the article as is, though Flask should feel free to expand with an additional article if they think that prudent. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to give some more context, a quick search online will confirm the cover's significance. See for instance this recent Vox article about how nervous some artists have been about attempting their own cover (given its recent plunging into public domain). The cover's story is pretty engaging, but really not worth an entire article. It’s of appropriate depth and size, I think. Additionally, the cover art impressed Fitzgerald so much that he included its imagery in the novel. The eyes of Dr. T. J. Eckleberg have become one of the novel's most well-known themes (which the subheading doesn't mention). That the green light was added later is significant, too. This article is going to be read by a lot of younger people and students, and its inclusion is well-founded when considered in that light. I don't understand how it could be considered undue weight; it’s a piece of famous cover art, not a fringe theory or pseudoscience (what undue weight is written to safeguard against). Even just the quality and variety of the sourcing indicates that. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 04:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. For practically any other novel, I would agree the inclusion of the cover drafts would be undue. However—as Charles Scribner III (1992) and many Fitzgerald scholars have noted—The Great Gatsby is one of the rare instances in literary history in which a novel's commissioned cover art both preceded a work and directly affected its composition. There is considerable scholarly evidence that many sections of the book—such as the billboard with the eyes of T. J. Eckleburg, the visit to Coney Island, the passages describing Daisy's face floating above the city, the ending scene about the green light at Daisy's dock, etc.—were all incorporated into the novel by Fitzgerald in reaction to viewing Cugat's cover drafts. Hence, the novel is one of the very few great works of literature which was directly influenced by its commissioned cover drafts rather than vice versa. For these reasons, I do not believe the inclusion of the cover drafts to be undue. In fact, I believe it is of vital importance to understanding the novel's development and, again, illustrates a historical anomaly in terms of literature. — Flask (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

ImaginesTigers
I've read this article so many times that I'm not sure what remains. I've given probably a couple of thousand words of feedback at this stage, so you'll have to excuse my brevity with the knowledge that my due diligence has been done! Support. Great work (to all of you, but especially Flask). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment
Approaching the three week mark and only one general support. This nomination needs to attract more attention if it is to convince that a consensus to promote may be forming. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Can any Wikipedia editor review a FAC nomination? If so, I could post a neutral message on the article's Talk Page requesting that other editors review the nomination. — Flask (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * They certainly can. They don't even need to be registered! Although coordinators will weigh comments by what we perceive they bring to the discussion. Feel free to also post a neutrally worded request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels and on the talk pages of any editors who frequently work in this area or whom you have reason to believe may be interested in reviewing. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, Gog. I realise that my review looks a little blunt, but please do consider my support the result of a very long collaborative process. If you have a look at the article's GA nomination, you can see that I reviewed the references very extensively back then (Flask asked for a thorough review given that FAC was the end-goal), then contributed during the PR too, so it isn't just a fly-by support! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Horsesizedduck
Support from me. Haven't looked at it as attentively as I'd like, so can't provide suggestions yet. Regardless, the quality and care throughout the article is undeniable. Horsesizedduck (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to have a look! That said, Flask is a first-time FAC nominator, so if you're interested in seeing this promoted, a more thorough review would be invaluable to him and the article. The coordinators are unlikely to weigh a support very highly if it isn't explicit about the nature of the support. Any more comments, when you have the time? — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 17:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! Just trying to get more familiar with the article before putting forward suggestions. Horsesizedduck (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Small Question: what's the deal with the "monster of bitchery" in the gender relations section? I don't remember seeing that expression in the reference, though it is indeed conveyed... Horsesizedduck (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * From the ref: "Despite the tendency of critics to view her as a "monster of bitchery," Daisy has her own complex story, her own desires and needs" (p. 253). — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

To be more precise about my support: I would confidently say the article fulfills criteria 1a and 1b; the rest may be outside my ability to assess at this moment (though I would be surprised to find any major obstacle). Horsesizedduck (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

HF
Will review, although I've never read the book. Hog Farm Talk 20:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks! It will be interesting to hear your opinion especially in regards to whether the article suffices for those who haven't read the book. — Flask (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Note a: "Nilsson posits that this period is among the most fascinating eras in U.S. history due to the cultural rebellion by American youth: "Youth in revolt didn't start at Woodstock, it began with Gertrude Stein's Lost Generation"" can probably be trimmed, as not quite on topic.
 * Done: Trimmed quote. — Flask (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "While living on Long Island, the Fitzgeralds' enigmatic neighbor" - is it really best to describe him as a neighbor in unqualified fashion, since scholars are unable to prove the assertion?
 * Addressed: Rewrote informational note regarding Gerlach to explain why a lack of surviving documentation does not preclude his status as a neighbor. — Flask (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "Fitzgerald initially preferred titles referencing Trimalchio" - not sure that Trimalchio should be italicized, as names generally aren't italicized
 * Done: De-italicized Trimalchio. — Flask (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "The most laudatory review was by Edwin Clark of The New York Times, who felt the novel was a mystical and glamorous tale of the Jazz Age" - this is sourced directly to Clark's review. Is there a secondary source to support "the most laudatory review"?
 * Addressed: Removed the phrase "most laudatory review" since The London Times review was more laudatory than The New York Times review. — Flask (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "Inspired by Dan Cody's predatory mining practices," - unclear if Dan Cody is a character in the novel or a real person
 * Done. Rewrote phrase to be: "Inspired by the predatory mining practices of his fictional mentor Dan Cody" — Flask (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "and in 2013, Slate released a short symbolic adaptation called The Great Gatsby: The Video Game." - this is sourced only to the website that produced the adaption. Recommend using a secondary source to confirm that this is actually significant
 * Done. Added a secondary reliable source via Polygon which states it was later turned into a Steam game. — Flask (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Sources look reliable
 * Image licensing looks fine, although I'm not an expert on that.

That's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 02:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you again for your feedback. I have attempted to address each of your points. Please let me know if you have further suggestions! — Flask (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support on WP:FACR #1a, 1b, source reliability, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, consistent citation style, and 4. Did not check others, and this review comes with the disclaimer that I can't really judge the plot summary as I haven't read the book. (had to read The Scarlet Letter in school instead; would have preferred Flannery O'Connor for American literature) Hog Farm Talk 03:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review and for your support! I, too, am not a fan of The Scarlet Letter. I found Hawthorne's The House of the Seven Gables to be far superior as a work of fiction. Forcing young students to slog through The Scarlet Letter has likely harmed Hawthorne's literary reputation over the decades more than anything else. And, yes, Flannery O'Connor would have been a better choice as a school assignment than Hawthorne. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hobomok
Strong Support from me. While I contributed to the article, my minute additions amount to nothing in comparison to the work Flask has done here. As a whole, the page offers a lucid overview for general enthusiasts, high school students, and beginning scholars. In that way, in my mind, it does exactly what an encyclopedia article should do.

The article covers all general information related to the novel, which is helpful for anyone with a beginning interest in Gatsby or Fitzgerald, and it also goes deeper where necessary. For example, the Critical Analysis section does a superb job providing a review of the major areas of scholarly critique r/t Gatsby over the years, and it provides representative texts for those areas of study. I applaud such a thorough, clear literature review on just one topic, let alone the 4-5 topic areas Flask has put together here. The same could be said for any other section, such as "Writing and Production" or "Historical and Biographical Context," but I won't go long on this--y'all get the idea.

As someone who has taught and studied Gatsby, albeit not intensely, I would be happy to point students to this page so that they might dive into areas that one could not cover in a class session, or as a way to find other avenues of interest for further investigation through reading sections to pique interest and then engaging in some footnote chasing. I can also see this being of use to secondary teachers who might not be so familiar with the critical analyses of the book or its historical context, who could also use the page as a way to further background knowledge while creating lesson plans. In all, this is darn good work and I'm happy to have seen it take shape. Bravo, Flask! --Hobomok (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind comments! — Flask (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

LEvalyn
(Update: after the completion of the edits discussed below, I happily support this article for FA status!) ~ L 🌸  (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I can tell a great deal of work went into this article and it will be a very useful FA for students -- this book gets assigned so much! I have taught this novel a few times, but learned valuable details about its context from this article. The major themes section is, especially, a feat of very informative, concise, and well-sourced writing about literary interpretation. I made a few very minor edits as I read, just little sentence tweaks if there was anything I needed to pause and re-read. Overall the prose is very polished and often quite vivid (though not excessively so for an encyclopedia). I have the following quite small comments as well:
 * Plot summary: the statement that "Gatsby, Daisy, Tom, and he were all Westerners unsuited to Eastern life" doesn't make sense to me. Is this about West Egg vs East Egg? That distinction hasn't been defined by the article.
 * Fixed. Altered word choice in several sentences and added explanatory note. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Characters
 * Same confusion, Nick "despairs of... Eastern life and returns to the West" -- is this about the East coast vs the Midwest?
 * Fixed. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, why does Meyer Wolfsheim rate a listing in the cast of characters? It says he only appears twice, which is not really a claim to significance. I think either add a sentence explaining his relevance, or remove from the list and let the "Antisemitism" section mention the link between the man and the character.
 * Fixed. Removed Meyer Wolfsheim from Major Characters and move relevant information to Antisemitism section. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Writing and production: Given the discussion of the cover art's influence, it would be helpful for the "timeline"-y part of this section to mention when (at what stage in composition) Fitzgerald actually saw the art.
 * Fixed. Added specific date to Cover Art section. Also, thank you for adding the more specific phrase to the Writing and Production section. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Major themes: Race and displacement: The last paragraph of this section seems much less informative than the preceding. It says: "Because of such themes, The Great Gatsby arguably captures the perennial American experience as it is a story about change and those who resist it, whether the change comes in the form of a new wave of immigrants, the nouveau riche, or successful minorities. As Americans living in the 1920s to the present are defined by their fluctuating economic and social circumstances, contemporary readers can relate to Gatsby, which has contributed to the novel's enduring popularity." In general, I think this section is not as strong as the two previous -- "Class permanence" does a great job of stating not just that the book is about class but what it says about class, and "Gender relations" does a great job of mapping how and why the book's depiction of gender has been reassessed over time. So rather than just a vague statement that Gatsby is still relatable, I want to know-- is the book considered to have anti-racist tendencies since it aligns racism with its antagonist? If those were Fitzgerald's intentions, how much do they still 'hold up' a hundred years later?
 * Addressed. Rewrote final paragraph of Race and displacement to answer the question of whether scholars believe Fitzgerald's depiction of the racial and ethnic social conflict still has relevance using the Vogel and Gillespie sources. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Major themes: Technology and environment: Again you've got me with "the East" -- "In this context, Nick's repudiation of the East represents a futile attempt to withdraw into nature." Here it must be the East coast, right? If so I think the article needs some kind of orientation to this East/West lens of understanding the US. The distinction seems to align with what I'd call "East Coast" and "Midwest" (or maybe "Western frontier"?) but today "East" and "West" on their own evoke Western culture/Eastern World.
 * Fixed. Altered word choice in several sentences and added explanatory note. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Major themes: queer readings? I also wonder if there ought to be a section discussing queer interpretations of the novel, since it's a key way I often encounter the novel myself. I'm not sure that the article is actively incomplete without such a section-- it may be that I encounter queer readings of Gatsby so often because I don't study American lit but do study queer lit-- but since I encounter it as a fairly uncontroversial interpretation, it might be a valuable addition. I'd be happy to help write such a section.
 * Adaptations: other media: The jump from radio to games is a little jarring, though I'm not sure how to revise this. The mentions are appropriately short and shouldn't be split into two paragraphs. Perhaps I was surprised because the first sentence makes it sound like the whole paragraph will be a list of many radio adaptations, so I thought the sentence beginning "In 2010..." would be a 2010 radio production. This also may be fine since it's clear if one re-reads it.
 * Fixed. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Of all of these, I think only the Eastern/Western thing actually needs to be addressed before the article would actually feel "complete". The other notes would, I think, improve the article, but may also be a matter of personal preference. I will strongly support promotion once the article's references to "East" and "West" are clarified. Thank you for all of your incredible efforts here! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing the article! I'll be implementing changes tonight based on your feedback. I agree the East vs West part is currently unclear, and I'll likely change West to Midwest for the sake of clarity. — Flask (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll toss in to both of you that I really like the idea of a section on queer theory for the novel (I've written one for Dracula), but that I'm not convinced the article needs new content. It'll be up to to determine what amount of the criticism discusses the novel in the way. If it’s a sizeable percentage, then for due weight to be met then it should be included. If it’s minority criticism, I think it’s probably fine to steer clear of it, though. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in-- I think you're right that there's a real danger in burdening the article with too much detail. I think it's a strength of the article, for example, that it doesn't have long sections trying to unpack the key images like the eyes, the green light, etc. I did a little looking, and I think the key scholarship goes like so:
 * Fraser, Keath. "Another Reading of The Great Gatsby." ESC: English Studies in Canada 5.3 (1979): 330-343.
 * Wasiolek, Edward. “The Sexual Drama of Nick and Gatsby.” International Fiction Review, vol. 19, no. 1, 1992, pp. 14–22.
 * Kerr, Frances. "Feeling" Half Feminine": Modernism and the Politics of Emotion in The Great Gatsby." American Literature 68.2 (1996): 405-431.
 * Froehlich, Maggie Gordon. "Jordan Baker, gender dissent, and homosexual passing in The Great Gatsby." The Space Between 6.1 (2010): 81-103.
 * Froehlich, Maggie Gordon. "Gatsby's mentors: queer relations between love and money in The Great Gatsby." The Journal of Men’s Studies 19.3 (2011): 209-226.
 * You will notice two of those are by the same scholar. But the one by Kerr makes me think there is something here: it says "It was in the 1970s that readers first began to address seriously the themes of gender and sexuality in The Great Gatsby; a few critics have pointed out the novel's bizarre homoerotic leitmotif. While many readers now acknowledge some sort of conjunction of gender, sexuality, and homoeroticism in The Great Gatsby, we have yet to explore these issues in a context larger than Fitzgerald's own psychology or the textual world of The Great Gatsby." (406) Kerr cites Wasiolek and Fraser for the "few critics" pointing out the "homoerotic leitmotif".
 * Most of the RS coverage, I think, will be from the late 90s. There are a lot of more recent hits for non-RS student work, though-- including honors theses and dissertations. So I find myself largely tempted by a section on queer readings because of the student connection, as discussed in Zaino, Karen. "Surfacing Queer Stories in the High School Canon." English Journal 110.1 (2020): 39-45. Zaino specifically discusses teaching Gatsby and how queer readings come up in class. (Zaino cites Wasiolek in support of reading Nick as queer.) Anecdotally, every time I taught this novel, at least one student Nick could be gay.
 * My current hunch is that queer readings are a minority criticism in published scholarship, but not a discredited criticism, and a common one among student readers. Whether that means it belongs in the encyclopedia, I am not sure. It might be nice to give students some starting places for the scholarship that does exist so they know they're not imagining this line of thinking, but encyclopedias are not just for students. Maybe it could be folded in to the "gender relations" section with a few sentences, and footnotes to these sources? ~ L 🌸  (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed response and for your research into potential sources. I think a queer reading section could be quite informative for the average reader, but it would need to be more than a few sentences in order to do proper justice to the interpretation. There is a wealth of information in authoritative biographies of Fitzgerald that could be used for the queer reading section. For example, Fitzgerald dressed as a woman while in college and attempted to seduce men at parties. While writing The Great Gatsby, his wife Zelda accused him of being a closeted homosexual. Soon after Gatsby was published, she accused him of having sexual feelings for Ernest Hemingway. Fitzgerald also had an intimate relationship with his Catholic priest Father Sigourney Fay that several biographers interpret as likely homosexual, and it is revealing that Daisy's last name is a homage to him. There is also the fact that Fitzgerald was interested in women such as Ginevra and Zelda solely in response to other men's interest in them. All of these biographical facts lend credence to a queer reading of Gatsby, especially in regards to Nick's feelings for the title character. My only concern, however, is whether another interpretation section would make the Critical Analysis too long. I shall reflect upon this while implementing your other suggested changes tomorrow. — Flask (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi again. I have thought carefully on the question of adding the queer reading section, and I am still torn. On one hand, I believe it should be added as its own section. On the other hand, the article's size is currently at 122kb. Under Wikipedia's Article size guidelines, we are already far over the suggested length limit and have definitely entered the "Almost certainly should be divided" range. If we decided to add further interpretations, we would have to split the article. This might be something to do further down the road as there are a number of sections that could be split-off and expanded: 1.) Historical influences on The Great Gatsby; 2.) Critical approaches to The Great Gatsby; 3.) Media adaptations of The Great Gatsby, etc. — Flask (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * On second thought, Hamlet is 151kb and was nonetheless promoted as a Featured Article. So, unless other reviewers have objections, I could add the section this weekend. Is there any time limit on this FAC review? — Flask (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's fine if that's the decision you make, but I would be careful what you're comparing it to. Hamlet was promoted in 2007. That's a long time ago, and the standards for FA have risen significantly since then. Additionally, it hasn't been reviewed yet over at WP:URFA/2020. (I might do that in a day or two.) Like I said, I don't really think it’s a big deal, but Hamlet might need to come down in size. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 03:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked more closely, and the article size rule is about readable prose size, which is typically much smaller than the size of the page itself. Using the Prosesize gadget, it looks like the article is only 43.7kB in readable prose size, which is fine. (The gadget itself says 40kB, but doesn't count the character list; since that part is 583 words / 3714 characters, it adds another 3.7kB.) So, I think there is room in the article for a few more kB of prose. (Hamlet, meanwhile, is at least 68 kB readable prose size.) Looking at readable prose size has persuaded me that a queer themes section, albeit a brief one, ought to be added. If you would like any help with writing it, please let me know! I also appreciate all the other changes you've made so far -- I checked over them and they all look good! The explanatory note and wording changes really clarified the East/West distinctions and everything else is well-addressed too. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I should have a rough version of the section within the next two days or so after I do further research. I'll likely ask you to copy-edit or to supplement whatever you feel is pertinent or lacking in the section. — Flask (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added two paragraphs on Sexuality and Identity to the Critical Analysis section. If you wish to critique, edit, or supplement those paragraphs, it would be greatly appreciated. I included the biographical details since I believe skeptical or homophobic readers will be less likely to challenge or to vandalize the section if they are first confronted by bibliographical facts about the author which partly underpin certain interpretations. — Flask (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The new section was great! I was nervous about the idea of including biographical context, but I think you handle it well here. You found some great sources. Based on how often I saw Wasiolek cited I am tempted to add him to your footnote if scholars discussing the Nick & Gatsby relationship but the sources you found look great too. I made two minor tweaks to the wording and I think the section is good. Thank you for your research and careful writing in adding this! I am happy now to support this article for FA status. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 06:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support! I now added Wasiolek citation and cited the appropriate page numbers. — Flask (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Support from DMT Biscuit
Lead:


 * I feel like the novel's post-WW2 resurgence could be given more context; a mention of council should suffice, but it is mostly per discretion.
 * Added. Included more context in lead about post-WW2 resurgence and explicitly mentioned Council on Books in Wartime. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

H&BC:


 * Although I understand they're not extensively used, I think citations [2] through [6] can be collected in a template, particularly becuase all but one come from the same source. I'm sceptical of the need for the quotes, moreso when considering fair use.
 * Fixed. Deleted most quotations but kept two which recurrently come up: The flapper definition is important as it establishes that—contrary to popular assumption—flappers were not part of the Lost Generation or Wartime Generation. And the sex one is important since it refutes claims by certain Gatsby commentators (such as Otto Friedrich's 1960 essay) that "petting" by flappers didn't involve premarital sex. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The note immediately after "accustomed" is rather jarring. Just place it up a bit. The sentence could be rewritten to fit better: "...provide for the lifestyle his fiancée had become accustomed to.[27][28][b]
 * Fixed. Moved all notations to follow punctuation. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

W&P
 * Same as above: notes [e], [h], [i], [j] [k]. Same proposed solution(s).
 * Fixed. Moved all notations to follow punctuation. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Critical Reception


 * Perhaps worth mentioning in the Mencken caption that his criticism was an example of that Fitzgerald resented.
 * Done. Updated caption. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * praising the elegance of the writing → praised the writing as elegant, former could be seen as editorializing.
 * Done. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "eviscerated" → lambasted, less sensational.
 * Done. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "lamented" → despaired, as lamented was used rather recently.
 * Done. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "belated" - this does seem like an example of editorializing.
 * Done. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Critical analysis
 * For being a short ref, I don't see as to why [173] is repeated in the same sentence.
 * Fixed. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been said that Zelda Fitzgerald embodies the flapper aesthetic; would she not be a more fitting representation, particularly as the present example is a romanticised depiction?
 * Updated: I altered the image caption to state it is an idealized depiction. I feel the Ellen Pyle illustration is fitting since Fitzgerald's novel is intended to be a romantic idyll and not realistic. Also, it is one of the few illustrations of a flapper drawn by a woman, and I think gender representation is important especially since its for the "Gender relations" section. In regards to including an image of Zelda, this article originally had such an image, but it was removed as it was not verifiably in the pubic domain. The few photos of Zelda verifiably in the public domain on Wikipedia were uploaded by me (i.e., her yearbook photo and the car touring photo). Neither is high quality nor captures the early 1920s flapper aesthetic. There is the Gordon Bryant sketch, but his sketch doesn't capture the flapper aesthetic. Regardless, I think the Pyle illustration is preferable. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Satisfied with this rationale. DMT Biscuit (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)


 * "tragedy" - same case as "belated".
 * Done. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the nose of Wolfshiem – interesting statement – I feel like the context of Jewish nose should be mentioned, even if just in passing.
 * Done. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The caption doesn't really make it clear if the photo is of Wolfshiem or Rothstein.
 * Fixed. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Spotchecks
 * Seem good.


 * Whilst trying to verify The Australian ref, the link failed to work. Could either be dead or wrongly implemented; either way, check it out. May be worth doing general archiving.
 * Fixed. — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion Very good, nearing FA certainly. I've dogged on it a relative amount but the writing is, to borrow an archaic Wikipedia term, worthy of being dubbed: "Outstanding prose". DMT biscuit (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing the article! I'll be implementing your feedback later tonight and/or tomorrow. — Flask (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now implemented your suggestions. Let me know if you have further feedback! — Flask (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm satisfied with the article's current status; support.
 * Thank you! — Flask (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod

 * Generally seems very thorough & well-sourced. I think the cover art is exceptionally important here, & the extra emphasis is correct. Also not worried about length at present.
 * Nothing on foreign editions and translations, which I would expect in a FA on a book, or novel anyway.
 * Perhaps more later. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing the article. I'll insert some information on foreign editions and translations in the "Revival and reassessment" section tomorrow in my next edits. — Flask (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence about the many foreign editions and the number of language translations to "Revival and reassessment". Please let me know if you have any further suggestions! — Flask (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, given the shaky start to the publishing history it would be nice to know when the first UK (English ROW) edition, & those in some major languages, appeared. But not a crucial point & I should be taken as a Support. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! — Flask (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Source reivew from Guerillero.
Spotchecks were done by DMT Biscuit, above.

Why are these sources High Quality RSes?
 * Carter 2010
 * Fixed. Replaced Gamezebo source with MSNBC source (Benedetti 2010). — Flask (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Douglas 1950 (Might be a WP:ELNEVER issue)
 * Fixed. Replaced web source with 1986 print source (Pitts 1986, p. 127). — Flask (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Rossi 2020
 * Fixed. Replaced Internet Archive source with New York Times source (Williams 2021). — Flask (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

-- Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This might be a better source for the radio adaptation. I'd peg Gale as higher-quality than Sparknotes, though lower-quality than something like an Oxford handbook. I tried to a do a ProQuest search for newspaper coverage but didn't find any. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the source suggestion! I almost used the Gale source until I found the 1986 book by Pitts. On a side note, the Gale source (published 2019) seemingly derives its information from this Wikipedia article, including the erratum regarding the program's length. — Flask (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Great find with the 1986 book!! And, haha, "might contain unchecked wikipedia material" is probably about right for a "better than Sparknotes" source... very glad you avoided that circular reference. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for undertaking a review! Let me know if you have any other feedback or suggestions, and I shall endeavor to implement them. — Flask (talk) 04:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! — Flask (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)