Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Ann Bannon

Ann Bannon
After including, quite literally, all information compiled in a single place about this author (in print or on the Internet), getting her personal approval in its content, and scouring every reference I could find, I think it's time for a peer review. It's currently rated at a B class (by me, you know...) and would like to know if it could be rated higher. --Moni3 21:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3


 * Nice job on digging up the sources! Footnote 36 has some more that might help you out. I'll give the article a proper review in a few days. Awadewit | talk  04:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I used that source, as well as all but three of the sources listed. I'm not going to stop looking, but those are print sources from 1983 that don't seem to be national publications - I haven't been able to get hold of them yet. I'll continue to work on it, though!--Moni3 11:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Comments from Awadewit
This article is a good start and I have confidence that with a bit more work it can reach GA and eventually FA. Awadewit | talk  11:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This article does a nice job discussing Bannon's writings, but I feel that it is thin on biography. As it is supposed to be primarily a biography article, this needs to be rectified.
 * More information in this article needs to be cited - I added some fact tags to potentially controversial claims.
 * I would suggest moving many of the plot details on the Beebo Brinker Chronicles to those books' pages and summarizing more here. Discuss the writing of the books in relation to Bannon's life - discuss her as a writer rather than the books themselves.
 * Laura ends up marrying her best friend Jack, who is also gay, and Bannon illustrated the mind-boggling details of the relationships of people who were gay in the 1950s - Watch out for phrases like "mind-boggling" - that appears to be POV.
 * There are quite a few long quotations in this article - can you paraphrase a few more of them?
 * The article needs a copy editor - someone who hasn't spent hours poring over the prose - to fix some of the awkward sentences and pick up the dropped words.
 * I appreciate your feedback, thank you. Regarding a more rounded biography, I have thought for a while Bannon's article would not get past a B class since she let a very private life apart from the books for many years, so where I might want to add information about her early experiences, there are not references describing those. If you know of a way to overcome this I'm open to suggestions, but I accepted a while ago its limitations.
 * If there is scant info, there is scant info. Other biographies have still made it to FA, such as William Monahan. I think that you have adopted the best policy to overcome this limitation - discuss the works. Awadewit | talk  18:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I will check out his article and see what I can do with Bannon's. I did add some more personal info from her early life, especially regarding the inspiration for the stories, reaction to the re-release and her "obsessive fantasizing." Thanks for the direction. --Moni3 19:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * I'll cite the areas that need to be cited. There is one tag that asks for a citation about "the handful of books were published with lesbianism as a subject before the 1950s" in "Longevity". Should I note this at the bottom (I have no notes section as of now) listing the books that were published with lesbian characters until 1950? There would be eight of them (to which availability would be quite limited). How do I quantify that statement?
 * You don't need to cite the works, you need to cite a work that makes the claim that there were only a handful - a secondary work in other words. It sounds like that shouldn't be a problem for you, though. You seem to have read about this material.Awadewit | talk  18:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. --Moni3 19:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * Because the content of the books is quite groundbreaking in light of their 1. uniqueness to popular literature, 2. availability to a very wide audience, 3. atypical characters, 4. impact on the concept of a lesbian identity, and 5. positive portrayal of homosexuality during this extraordinarily repressive time, I think the very brief synopses do belong in the article to give the later impact statements a context for readers. The individual books' articles have much more detailed summaries.
 * I think that the points you have just outlined are far more important to emphasize to the casual reader than the details of the plots (and it sounds as if your sources make that claim as well). I would structure the section around those five points and use the plot details to explain them. Awadewit | talk  18:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * All right. I can do that. In doing so, I might be able to take care of the next point. --Moni3 19:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3
 * I will work on rephrasing some of the phrasing and quotations (although I challenge anyone to read the descriptions of Jack and Laura's marriage and not find them mind-boggling).
 * That adjective is just rather extreme. Awadewit | talk  18:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the article might benefit from a copyedit from someone who hasn't read it as often as I have. Thanks again. --Moni3 14:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3

Response to Awadewit
I've restructured the section under The Beebo Brinker Chronicles so as not to depend on the plotlines so much - yet still keeping the information that was essential to the understanding of the aforementioned 5 points, incorporated more personal information, and rearranged some of the quotes to make it make a bit more sense. I've added more references, and will continue to do so as I can. I appreciate your suggestions. I would very much like to see this as a GA, but have no aspirations as yet beyond that. First things first. --Moni3 03:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 14:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)