Wikipedia:Peer review/To Kill a Mockingbird/archive1

To Kill a Mockingbird
I worked on this article for months, bringing it to GA status. I nominated it for FAC in November, but de-nominated it after a few days. It has changed quite a bit since its GA pass. I feel now with the additions I made to it for the initial FAC that it's cumbersome at 78k, though as thorough as possible. Your input is appreciated. --Moni3 (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The book is unique: it has been read by the majority of the English-speaking world and rates very highly on books of impact and importance, but lacks a large body of study outside of the legal and education fields. What has been written in these fields is primarily a study on its impact of the legal profession and guides on how to teach it.
 * On images: Harper Lee despises having her photo taken. She had some shots taken of her when the book was released, but there are no public domain photos of her. At one point, I had screen stills from the film, but they were taken out by another editor. What is the recommendation for including only book covers?

Other than that, a very well article that is extensively referenced, very comprehensive and very well written. Kudos --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 00:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * '''Comments from Hadseys -- the article is very good however, a few things I've noticed is that
 * 1) the table of contents does seem to be rather large, is there a way too condense it perhaps?
 * I'm up for suggestions that don't compromise the content. --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) the article too is also very large, and may not conform to wikipedia's size guidelines, for information on how to write a featured article about a book check out Lord of the Rings and our policies on our article size
 * Yes, I recognize this. I'm asking for assistance in what to cut out, if anything. I have read all the featured article novels, and used them as guides in writing this article. But there is a point where TKaM becomes its own article, apart from the others. Because of the far-reaching impact this book has had, that it is Harper Lee's only novel and she is somewhat enigmatic about it, and because the film and play are so closely related to the book, the lore involving the novel is extensive. Unlike the Lord of the Rings trilogy, unfortunately, the subject doesn't lend itself into neater divisions as a trilogy does. --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) the images tend to be concentrated towards the latter parts of the article, perhaps more images of life in America at the time may help to provide more context for readers
 * I'll consider these ideas for images. Thank you for your comments. --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I did some work on this article about a year ago. Much good work has been done since then. Here's my two-cents. Not for nothing, but I think that under 'Reception' both the impact on legal profession and race relation sections are places which should be trimmed. I think it would make more sense to place the impact on legal profession in the Atticus Finch article, as 99% of it revolves around him. Also, include a link to Atticus under 'See also.' Furthermore, I would remove the impact on race relation section altogether. Although I hate to do this for 2 reasons. 1) It removes your hard work 2) Implies that I'm racially insensitive--I think that this is a tenuous connection anyhow. It states as much in the article:
 * "The novel's release is so closely associated with the Civil Rights movement, many analyses of the book and biographies of Harper Lee include important moments in the movement, despite the fact that she had no direct involvement in any of them."

That's all for now. Good Luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.114.119 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, trimming parts to an article one has worked hard on to scour sources is difficult and I do it with some reservation. I will link to Atticus Finch - you are right to point that out. However, since the majority of written material on the novel is about Atticus in the legal profession, I thought it appropriate to give that material weight in the article. I have to think about that.


 * The second point is also difficult for me to consider. The novel's first impact was on race relations. Even though it is seen as a bit outdated for many in the field of race relations, in the context of its history, it was quite influential. I have to admit I don't understand your point about the tenuous connection. Are you saying it's not strong enough to be included in the article?


 * I appreciate your comments and feedback. --Moni3 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding Atticus, I think there is a certain point where one article becomes too long and needs to separate. I think this is normal and a good thing. Take for instance a honey bee hive, they get too big and one queen bee leaves the other with a bunch of other bees. When I read the legal profession section, all I see it being about is Atticus. This makes a fortunate breaking point as you can pretty much cut/paste it into the Atticus article. I wouldn't be surprised if someone at a later date makes Atticus a FA--he's certainly notable enough. Now in regards to the race relation and tenuous connection, first you place emphasis on the children in the movie. This almost seems as though it could go in the article on the film. I suppose my main argument with the tenuous nature of the material is that I have a problem with emphasizing an impact that isn't necessarily the main focus of the book. As far as I can tell Lee didn't write it as a civil rights movement book, per se. As noted above in the article, the gay community has found resonance in TKAM. However, just because a group finds resonance doesn't necessarily mean one must include a considerable section on it. Granted, this may be a weak argument on my part.


 * One other section that I think you should take a second look at is the Style section. I'm typically not too big of a fan of the Style/Themes sections of articles on books, simply because I think they tend to read into aspects of the book way too far and are more interpretative. However, I think the Theme section is well done in this article and should be left. I think the style could be trimmed back. I'm not sure that sections devoted to irony, parody, satire, and legal allusions are needed. I think that if you cut these back it would be a good place to trim the article. Additionally, it would solve a little bit of the problem with that insanely large table of contents. One thing I would like to mention however is that I think it is good to keep that legal allusion with the opening quote. I think that is significant, albeit interpretative. Best Wishes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.114.119 (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I just cut a large portion of the article, adding to Atticus Finch, and shifting some material around. That was physically painful. --Moni3 (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)