Wikipedia:Peer review/The Well of Loneliness/archive1

The Well of Loneliness
I've expanded this article about a famous banned lesbian novel from a near-stub. It's now heavily referenced to scholarly sources and covers responses to the book from 1928 to the present, as well as its themes and content. What can I do to help it pass FAC?  &mdash;Cel ithemis  04:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * An interesting article that is nicely written and well referenced, in my opinion. A link to the Sexual inversion dab would be helpful. Unless I am mistaken, there appear to be a few issues with the use of punctuation in combination with quotations. (See WP:MoS.) What are the three-digit numbers in parentheses? Are those page number in an edition of the book? It is unclear. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJHall (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for your comments. I've added the wikilink you suggested, and I think I've found all of the "illogical" punctuation.


 * The parenthetical citations are indeed to The Well of Loneliness, as explained in the first footnote. This seems to be a fairly common system when writing about literature -- several of the sources I cite use it.  I like it because it reduces footnote clutter and makes it obvious whether a primary or a secondary source is being cited for a particular claim about the book.  What I've done is to change the first reference to The Well so that the first time you see a page number in parentheses, there is a footnote right there that explains it. Does that work?  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  12:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That should probably work, although I'd be tempted to put a "p." in front of the page numbers so that it is clear. Might I also suggest nominating this as a good article candidate (albeit LONG)? To me it looks ready. (But if not you'll likely get more feedback.) Thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I gave the (p. 373) format a try but on preview found it too obtrusive. I think I will probably just give up the parenthetical page numbers as a failed experiment, but I want to think about it a bit more first.
 * Also, I've submitted it as a good article candicate, as you suggested. Thanks again!  &mdash;Cel  ithemis  14:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)