Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 1

Notifications not done
thank you for the notification, but I am not one of the editors that needs to be notified, and you have not yet notified the WikiProjects listed on talk, and you have not linked any of your notifications here on the FAR, and you have not yet explained which sections require better summary, nor have you given examples of instability. The instructions at WP:FAR explain the steps you should follow; if you don’t understand them, pls ask. Not doing the notifications will add unnecessary time to the FAR, as a certain amount of time is needed in each phase, after notifications are done. You can look at Featured article review/Chaco Culture National Historical Park/archive1 for what notifications look like; they include all WikiProjects linked on talk, and significant editors as determined by the tools. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation, I wasn't aware of the requirement for notifying each associated WP. It looks like an editor has kindly taken care of that for me, or I otherwise would have as soon as I was able. I'll go ahead and provide more detail to my nomination as well. –– FormalDude  Emojione 1F427.svg talk 08:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Biographies - to cite or not to cite
This may be better suited for the FAR page, but one potential weak point I've noticed on the sourcing for this BLP is the general lack of references to biographies of Rowling. I'm not sure if this is because the existing biographies are poor or because we just haven't referenced them. The ones I can see on the Internet Archive are:


 * 1) J.K. Rowling : a biography by Sean Smith (Michael O'Mara Books)
 * 2) J.K. Rowling : a biography by Connie Ann Kirk (Greenwood Press, an imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group; cited in the article but quite short and seems aimed at children)
 * 3) J.K. Rowling : the wizard behind Harry Potter by Marc Shapiro (St. Martin's Griffin, an imprint of St. Martin's Press)
 * 4) J.K. Rowling : the mystery of fiction by Lindsey Fraser (Argyll Publishing; idk if it's a legit publisher or not)

Most of these are quite short and not all are from publishers I'd completely trust. But a featured article BLP should presumably be citing quality biographies if they exist and not one-off news stories for biographical information. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * See my comment on the FAR about the relative need to beef up straight bio info (that is, this is her bio, and we have sub-articles on the rest). (PS, Aleatory, you can also raise general questions like this by starting your own section at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1, so that everything related to the FAR will be in one place.) Or, all of the FAR can be kept on this page; hard to know which is best, but splitting is not optimal. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would think its rather early for quality biographies, especially as she presumably hasn't done a deal for an "authorized" one, and her life is once again hitting the headlines. She's only 56 after all. Johnbod (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, none of them look that great—and some are explicitly flagged as "unauthorised", although that doesn't necessarily indicate low quality, just low approval by JKR/her agent. I wanted to look into this because I was mildly horrified to see her birth date—one of the most basic biographical details and easiest to get exactly right—sourced in this version to a deadlink bio from her American publisher and ""Rowling, J.K.". World Book. 2006", which presumably refers to World Book Encyclopedia, but is remarkably unclear. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree with above.  Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  14:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * if you get to a place in the next few days where you can access a computer, could you look at the four bios above and give a thumbs up or down as to whether we should invest any time looking at them vis-a-vis the high quality requirement? Sorry to trouble you when you’re on the road, but there isn’t much out there yet on her. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, the Shapiro book is definitely oriented towards teenagers at best... probably more likely a pre-teen audience. It's from a reputable publisher, but because of its intended audience, I'd not rank it very high. Likewise for the Kirk book - it's got the same intended audience but it is from a reputable publisher. The Smith book is likely the best of the sources, even though it's publisher is a bit more niche. The publisher seems to specialize in bios of popular culture figures, so at least it's in their specialty. The Fraser book is also aimed at children, and it's from a publisher who I've never heard of and doesn't appear to be by a well known biographer. I'd avoid the Fraser. Sorry I can't be more help! Ealdgyth (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The into to Smith says he spent ten years at The Daily Mirror. That suggests material from here should be used cautiously because a) WP:DAILYMIRROR and b) ongoing feud with Rowling. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oof. The book itself doesn't seem affiliated with the Mirror, though? If we're looking for alternatives, I have found this one, by Connie Ann Kirk, to be pretty good on a second look despite being apparently aimed at kids. (Also, anecdotally, the reading level isn't low enough that it's like a chapter book or anything.) There's also Harry, a history, published by Pocket Books, an imprint of Simon & Schuster. It isn't a biography per se but has lots of biographical info. By Melissa Anelli, who ran (runs?) The Leaky Cauldron. I wouldn't say that's in itself a red flag because it's published by a reputable publisher. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So far (Chapter 1, making notes in Sandbox, feel free to incorporate to article) I am finding no indication of Daily Mirror negative influence. I think what I am finding is not unduly influenced and appears useful. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

, I remember you mentioning the following dodgy ref somewhere:

If it is from an old version of her site, it should be OK as a ref per WP:ABOUTSELF. We also cite

which is still live and should presumably say the same thing. Did we settle on what to do about these? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It wasn't that it was dodgy; it was that the archived version that was being used didn't go back far enough to cite the text, and she has ditched that old text in newer website versions. So I had set up bio-old and bio-new, to cite the old version vs. the newer version.  I think I saw you found other sources anyway?  Sorry, I have been up to my eyeballs trying to cite the Bibliography table, and fearing I may need to spring to buy that Bibliography you found, because most of our Wikipedia articles are not actually cited and I am having a hard time finishing the table ...  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been able to use various biographies online instead of/in addition to the various versions of her official bio, so maybe this isn't really a problem. I can get a copy of at my uni library which is ostensibly re-opening soon. That covers works through 2013 and was published 2015. There's a second edition published 2017 (seems rather soon afterwards) which I can't get for free. Seems like many of the pubs you're trying to ref are post-2013 so the first edition of the biblio may not be much help. I'm still curious to look at it tho ... AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, after a full day of trying to track down publication dates, and a now-spasming back, I may just spring the $35 to buy that Bibliography online, because that beats being in pain from sitting at computer all day. Normally, I can work from iPad, but I can't edit that table from an iPad, so have had to sit at computer all day, and have made very little progress.  I wish I had realized how poor that content was before I converted it to a table.  I am hesitating purchasing the online book only because I have never used Google Play.   The state of all of the Potter articles is shocking.  Not only is WP:ELNEVER accio-quote.com rife throughout even the FAs and GAs, but a good bit of the text is uncited. I had expected to find the citations I needed in the sub-articles. When trying to find publication dates, you can find lots of "it will be published on x date" or book reviews from x date, but nothing that actually verifies the publication date.  And I think I've read the words "it was announced that" about a million times today. The entire Potter suite needs a lot of work.  Also, I can't find anything on her book Very Good Lives: The Fringe Benefits of Failure and Importance of Imagination, which I think very surprising. It seems like it belongs in our table, as her only non-fiction book, but it looks like it may only end up cited to Errington. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I just realized we are using Fraser, Kirk and Shapiro, so will replace those with Smith as I start re-working, per notes at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox6. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ah ... we are using a different Fraser ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Tbh I see nothing wrong with Kirk. It's published by Greenwood Publishing Group and written by Connie Ann Kirk, apparently a known quantity. A short biography, written in high school+ level prose, by a reputable reference publisher for use as a reference—seems high quality to me. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, got it ... basically all of what we have so far is consistent across all sources, except for little bits here and there, like Arantes claiming a different reason for the name Jessica ... and whether the family attended church ... mostly I am finding nothing controversial, but that we can tell just a wee bit more of her story (another clause here and there) as it relates to the effect on her life, choices and writing. Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * PS, worthwhile to park Shapiro in a Further reading section, explaining that it is apt for younger audiences? I think that is a justifiable use of Further reading ... and explains why something in Further reading not used as a source. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe? Article is so long as is that adding Further reading, which of course will invite all and sundry to add their favourites as well, might be more trouble than it's worth. I was thinking of doing a See also with Outline of Harry Potter, which is one of the few "outline" lists I've seen that's actually useful given how many articles we've got, but the same problem presents itself there. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:07, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to trim "Politics" section
Considering we have sub-articles, below is my proposal to trim the Politics section by 100 words. It covers all the same territory, reduces some WP:PROSELINE, adds WP:NONENG quotes on El Pais, and combines like topics rather than following a chrono order. Unless anyone objects, I will install it later tonight. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of Politics draft

 * Thanks much for this. Agree with the trimming with one exception. The "pro-Union" addition is confusing in context because the source looks like it's about the union of the United Kingdom, not the European Union, and the new text seems to replace discussion of the Scottish independence referendum. So it conflates two controversial (dis)unions: the United Kingdom and the European Union. I might delete the last paragraph about Israel because the sources are primary or primary-proximate and it doesn't seem to have made any lasting splash. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!)
 * Two minor points. 1) Don't love the one-sentence opening paragraph; suggest combining it with the next. 2) As above, "pro-Union" is confusing; the unfamiliar reader would expect this to mean pro trade-union, or pro-European union, and it means neither. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops. Will rejig. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , redone here; please have another look? AP, I hesitate to entirely remove Israel without hearing from others, lest that set off a sensitive issue or an edit war, but if others agree, we might re-consider ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Scotland/UK thing is cleared up—thanks. Two small points on a second look. know it's a translation from Spanish and "democrat" is uncapitalized in El País, but wanting a lower-case democrat in the White House (especially these days) is different from wanting a Democrat in the White House. Also, is there a non-contentious link we can add for "cultural boycott of Israel"? The definite article implies that there is a specific one, but it's not clear if BDS movement or another of the boycotts of Israel is meant there. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * On El Pais, because of the way Spanish handles lower and uppercase, we can't be certain what was intended (although the context strongly suggests Democrat). I'll recast that quote to avoid that part altogether, for the absence of doubt.  On the "cultural boycott of Israel", I cannot access The Guardian article, but based on other sources I read that are all saying the same thing, it may be better to also rephrase that part to avoid the need for a link, and phrase it instead as supporting cultural engagement with Israel. Will rejig so you can have a new look. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with edits. Would suggest using, instead of/in addition to TwitLonger as a cite for the second sentence, the following. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , can you get through The Guardian paywall? I'd much rather use it than the Twitlong that is there, but I can't read The Guardian, so can't be certain it verifies the text. I'd rather not use a Jewish newspaper lest that raise concerns of bias.  How about if you switch to The Guardian after I add the text, because then we don't have to do a dance about who can verify that part. Else, you could put direct quotes here ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Halfway through this work, I hit my limit on free access to The Guardian ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The relevant passages are:
 * JK Rowling has spoken out further about her decision not to join a cultural boycott of Israel, saying that while she has “deplored” most of the actions of Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, she does not believe a decision by artists to refrain from cultural relations with the country will force him from power. ... Rowling was one of more than 150 signatories to a letter published in the Guardian last week, along with names including Melvyn Bragg, Hilary Mantel and Simon Schama. The letter was written in response to a February missive signed by around 700 artists calling for a cultural boycott of Israel. The letter signed by Rowling cites its signatories’ belief that “cultural boycotts singling out Israel are divisive and discriminatory, and will not further peace”, and that “cultural engagement builds bridges, nurtures freedom and positive movement for change”.... Rowling said yesterday that “a number of readers” had asked for more information about why she signed the letter. She wrote on TwitLonger: “I have deplored most of Mr Netanyahu’s actions in office. However, I do not believe that a cultural boycott will force Mr Netanyahu from power, nor have I ever heard of a cultural boycott ending a bloody and prolonged conflict. “If any effects are felt from the proposed boycott, it will be by ordinary Israelis, many of whom did not vote for Mr Netanyahu. Those Israelis will be right to ask why cultural boycotts are not also being proposed against – to take random examples – North Korea and Zimbabwe, whose leaders are not generally considered paragons by the international community.” If you clear your cookies the article counter resets to 0, and I say this as a subscriber. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good to know :) I see that Victoriaearle is editing now, and because edit conflicts give her an awful time with her health, I'll stop now and wait 'til she stops editing to pop this bit in.  Tomorrow I'll do similar with the Press section. Then we might wait until everything else settles and everything is hanging together better with the literary bits before we tackle the Transgender section, and lastly, the Lead.  By the way, thanks for this after I found that odd statement already in the article.  I parked the MEDRS source there, hoping to go back and find the origin of that misinformation (which was not in the FA version), but now you've let me off the hook of going back to do that work :)  I doubt that statement ever had any basis, but it seems to be a myth that took hold, with Wikipedia's help. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Will insert this now as I see Victoria is taking a break. Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good to know :) I see that Victoriaearle is editing now, and because edit conflicts give her an awful time with her health, I'll stop now and wait 'til she stops editing to pop this bit in.  Tomorrow I'll do similar with the Press section. Then we might wait until everything else settles and everything is hanging together better with the literary bits before we tackle the Transgender section, and lastly, the Lead.  By the way, thanks for this after I found that odd statement already in the article.  I parked the MEDRS source there, hoping to go back and find the origin of that misinformation (which was not in the FA version), but now you've let me off the hook of going back to do that work :)  I doubt that statement ever had any basis, but it seems to be a myth that took hold, with Wikipedia's help. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Will insert this now as I see Victoria is taking a break. Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The politics section was in really strong need of cleanup/improvement. Great work! Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  23:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! We are making faster progress than I thought we would, but we'll see how that chop fares.  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm terribly impressed as well, that's why I changed my opinion from "delist" to "lets wait and see". Once we're done with the whole content improvement part of the FAR I'll join in and help with the grammar aspect as I tend to be much more helpful in that area. It's certainly very cool to see experienced FA editors go about their business in real-time. Today I was describing why I love the behind-the-scenes curation aspect of Wikipedia to a friend: it's like the Wizard of Oz but the actual magic is behind the scenes! Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  23:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the fun of FAR :) Go lodge some !votes at WP:FASA ! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for the closure of this FAR as I am unfamiliar with the other articles listed, . Great award I hope to receive some day :D Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  23:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we get rid of "(husband of her close friend Sarah)"? I don't believe it adds to the readers comprehension of the section, and is already stated in the article. BilledMammal (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be fine with me; I was trying not to rock the boat with too many changes at once. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  10:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Accio
Starting a list here: Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) She calls herself Jo.
 * Done, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) In 1990, she was on a four-hour delayed train trip from Manchester to London when the idea "came fully formed" into her mind for a story of a young boy attending a school of wizardry.
 * Done. Verifies the "came fully formed" quote in that passage. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Mitford became Rowling's heroine, and she read all her books.
 * Done. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) led Rowling to move to Porto, Portugal, to teach English as a foreign language.
 * Done. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * our ships crossed; did I undo what you did in the edit before me? Pls check this one, as I think you changed the named ref.  Stopping for the night, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, all good (I think) - you just gave it a more descriptive name but it looks like the URL is the good one and not Accio! copyright infringement lawsuit. Maybe the edit conflict was our friend. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) When she reached her Clapham Junction flat, she began to write immediately.
 * Done. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) and she channelled her own feelings of loss by writing about Harry's grief in greater detail in the first book.
 * Removed entirely. A mess of a clause for multiple reasons and the ref was not used anywhere else such that it needed preserving for that reason. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The couple separated on 17 November 1993.
 * Done, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) wherever she could get Jessica to fall asleep.
 * Done, mostly by removal. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Five months later, the book won its first award, a Nestlé Smarties Book Prize. In February 1998, the novel won the British Book Award for Children's Book of the Year and, later, the Children's Book Award. In early 1998, an auction was held in the United States for the rights to publish the novel, and was won by Scholastic Inc., for US$105,000. Rowling said that she "nearly died" when she heard the news.
 * Done. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Rowling said that she had had a crisis while writing the novel and had to rewrite one chapter many times to fix a problem with the plot.
 * Done. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) In October 1998, Warner Bros. purchased the film rights to the first two novels for a seven-figure sum.
 * 2) Warner Bros. took considerable notice of Rowling's desires when drafting her contract. One of her principal stipulations was that the films should be shot in Britain with an all-British cast,
 * Done. Note that there are two different profile/interviews called "Harry and me": this by Fraser in The Scotsman from 2002 and Treneman's from 2000 in The Times. Treneman's is a proper profile, not just an interview. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Steve Kloves wrote the screenplays for all but the fifth film. Rowling assisted him in the writing process, ensuring that his scripts did not contradict future books in the series.
 * Done. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) She told Alan Rickman (Severus Snape) and Robbie Coltrane (Hagrid) certain secrets about their characters before they were revealed in the books.
 * Removed that and a whole bunch of nearby stuff. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) In an interview with Stephen Fry in 2005, Rowling had claimed that she would much prefer to write any subsequent books under a pseudonym, but had previously conceded to Jeremy Paxman in 2003 that if she did, the press would probably "find out in seconds".
 * Removed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Rowling has said it is unlikely she will write any more books in the Harry Potter series.
 * Switched to a more recent, more definitive story. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Rowling relationship with the press is difficult. She admits to being "thin-skinned" and disliking the inconsistent nature of journalism.
 * Reworked, though I'm not that pleased with my new version either. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Rowling has expressed  dislike of the British tabloid Daily Mail, which has conducted several interviews with her estranged ex-husband. As one journalist noted, "Harry's Uncle Vernon is a grotesque philistine of violent tendencies and remarkably little brain. It is not difficult to guess which newspaper Rowling gives him to read [in Goblet of Fire]."
 * Coming up blank on this one. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Found it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Took care of "Around October 1998, Warner Bros. purchased the film rights to the first two novels for a 'seven-figure sum'." No more hits for "accio" when I control-F the wikitext, so I think this is resolved. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

in case you are about, I was wondering if you have any means of accessing archives or old print versions from The Scotsman? A lot of text here is sourced to copyright violating reprints from them (they may be happy that we are protecting their copyright :), and if someone could verify the old content by going to The Scotsman, that would solve a number of issues here. Best regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  11:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know that I could access anything more easily than anyone else but I am willing to try. Could you give me the specifics? Ben   Mac  Dui  12:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ben; that is most kind of you. But since I pinged you, AleatoryPonderings was able to replace the sources, so we may be OK now.  Thank you so much for the offer, and I hope you are well. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm good thanks but very busy IRL. Stay safe. Ben   Mac  Dui  18:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Converting Awards and honours to prose
Here's what it might look like: thoughts? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  05:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See

removed query inclusion

Discussion: convert awards list to prose
Bram Stoker Award for Best Work for Young Readers is discontinued; should we still carry it on this page? How important is the Science Fiction Hall of Fame? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  05:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I made some cosmetic changes and MOS tweaks (MOS:JOBTITLE doesn't just apply to jobs, right?) but otherwise I generally like it. Maybe the honorary degrees could get their own paragraph? And the BAFTA and SF Hall of Fame could go in the last graf, which looks like "miscellaneous awards"? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 12:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, thx, have another look? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good; made some other tweaks. I have no idea how important the Bram Stoker Award is but I note the only source in that article is primary. Similar story for the SF HOF. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t know about case on these titles and the proper wording; might you look at the blurb above ? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * depending on what you all think here, I will also post to article talk for broader feedback before installing. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  05:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Saving diff in case we do end up creating a separate “List of” article. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No issues with what you include and don't. I do think it's reading a bit like a list in sentence form and would suggest we either lean back into list format or add some "color" Concord Prince of Asturias Award. I do think the current groupings largely work well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * BK, I am not following your comment to add some color ?? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Giving some information from the award citation or otherwise providing context beyond that she won it (and for which work). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I’mADork; I thought you were referring color in tables :) :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't know Bram Stoker had been discontinued; I'd suggest keeping Locust. Maybe we can lose Barbara Walters? would know about the sci-fi awards & maybe the others too. Victoria (tk) 20:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Within the sf field Locus is moderately prestigious, though it's not the top echelon -- that would be the Hugo and Nebula. In a prose section which includes a mention of an OBE, a Legion of Honour, and a National Book Award I think it could be cut.  I'm not very familiar with horror so I can't say how important the Bram Stoker is.  I would cut the Barbara Walters, I think.  The Hugo award should definitely stay.  The SFHOF is if I recall correctly a fairly recent venture (last 20 years or so) and I don't know how much weight is placed on it within the field.  If I had to guess I'd say not much, so cut it. , I think you're more in touch than I am; can you weigh in?  Overall I think if we find ourselves cutting more than marginal items, it might be time to reconsider the separate list article option. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's really helpful. Yes, I agree with your reasoning. Victoria (tk) 21:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a proposal 2 above that adds some color and is arranged thematically. Let me know what you think. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

To all, here is my concern. There was a split discussion on talk which yielded consensus against creating a "List of ... " article. Several editors during the FAR expressed a preference for a "List of ... ", which I am unwilling to create without consensus. But if we want to prune this list, we really should be making the text even more generalized, and hatnoting to a list of article. Without a list of article, how can we partially prune this list and expect it to stay that way? I don't know what to do next; I already re-pinged the article talk page to try to get more feedback. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Sandy, I wasn't clear. I think what you've created is lovely and much better than a bullet pointed list. My earlier comment simply had to do with not being sure which are more important than others. Generally I think Locus Award is considered notable; it's certainly one I've heard of and I'd read a book based on it. Anyway, to the larger question as to keep in the article or separate out, my opinion is to keep. These are the hardest sections to control, much easier to control when prosified, and if it's moved it'll be recreated before we know it. I think it would more difficult to maintain as a separate page than as a prosified section in the main article. Victoria (tk) 21:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I will note that much of the consensus said they would reconsider if the section was expanded, so I think having a follow-up RfC on the question would be merited by your expansion via prose. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 21:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We can't have an RfC section by section. Generally listy lists are discouraged in featured articles, so converting to prose is a normal part of the process. Victoria (tk) 21:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Victoria; this section is not worthy of an RFC, which we may find we need if the going gets rough when we tackle more controversial material. And I am intrigued by Olivaw-Daneel’s version (which highlights how pedestrian my prose is :)  I would really like to get back to focusing on building the biographical parts of her early life.  Could someone else take over finishing up this piece?  Maybe sandbox it where all can work on it ?  If someone wants to create a separate list page, then they should go back maybe and work in the diff of lesser notable things that were deleted earlier (that is, on the list page, but not here, where we should be using something like Olivaw’s version). But we can’t have a listy featured article, and Olivaw-Daneel’s version is more elegant than mine.  I got the ball rolling; now someone else go with it?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * PS, if you decide to work back in Locus, it needs a source. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But Olivaw, please click on the Premio Principe de Asturiuas article to read description of the Concord award … it is beyond literature, which is why I had included the wording to indicate why they tied her books to what that award is actually given for, which is not literature. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for piecemeal iPad typing; if the Concord wording is fixed, I am quite happy with Olivaw’s version, but the devil is in the detail, as we have varying opinions above of what to include and what to cut. And I agree with Victoria at 21:20 on the prose list here.  If someone wants to separately maintain a list, not our issue here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you're I-pad typing, here's the diff to my reply (the first to Mike Christie, the second re prosifying). Also to reiterate that I'm in agreement w/ what Mike wrote here. Victoria (tk) 22:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thx, Victoria … iPad typing and a bit frazzled at the moment :) My inclination was to leave Barbara Walters as it showed some gravitas on this side of the pond.  But all of the rest of you are far more familiar with the territory here than I am, so please all … take this ball and run with it and ignore me … except on the Principe de Asturias, as I speak Spanish … that has to be fixed … the Concord is not strictly a literature award, they turned it into that for her. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I have added the Asturias citation back. My version is based on Ursula K. Le Guin; I agree with comments above that fewer awards, with more "color" about each, is the right direction (and that article may be a good example). But perhaps this is good enough to go into the article for now? It can be pruned there. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to see your version go in as is, but on the other hand, I advise caution and a bit of patience, just because of the colorful history of the article. But if others think it is good to go, then go for it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would wait. I think it can be trimmed down just a teeny bit and any trimming that can be done is a Good Thing. I do like structure. Victoria (tk) 00:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I trimmed a bit, so here's yet another version to consider: diff. Done for now! Victoria (tk) 00:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added the trimmed version above (+ a few tweaks) and updated the comparison. Couple of highlighted awards (both Andersen and Hall of Fame are recent ventures), but I'm ok with this version. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My Spanish-language bias may be showing, but I think the Premio Principe de Asturias por Concord much more important than the Science Fiction Hall of Fame. Also because it’s more than a literature award; it’s a humanitarian award. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

OOPSIE, I just realized this. We have two significant mentions in the lead that are nowhere in the body of the article, and belong in this section:

Time named her a runner-up for its 2007 Person of the Year, noting the social, moral, and political inspiration she has given her fans. In October 2010, she was named the "Most Influential Woman in Britain" by leading magazine editors.

I think both of those are more significant than either Science Fiction Hall of Fame or the Concord. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, I misread and thought the opposite so took out the Premio Principe de Asturias por Concord. Sorry about that. Victoria (tk) 14:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Added both; I swapped out Hall of Fame and Andersen. No yellow highlights left. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I just started reading Pugh (already cited in the article) last night, which covers a lot of ground that I will type up when not iPad typing … we are missing some that may be important. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Additional sources
For 1(b) purposes and just because there's so many it would helpful to keep track of ones we haven't used. Feel free to add. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * On comprehensive, must we include everything written about Harry Potter and literary analysis in her bio, when all the works have sub-articles? I am concerned that we should be leaving space for the bio parts of her bio. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  03:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not everything, of course, but it's hard to tell just what the important bits of commentary on HP are without seeing which ones are referenced in other scholarship. Not suggesting that all (or even any) of these books have to be included. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sandy's right. I'm about to start crunching down the literary criticism section and we need to work on the bio. It's important to keep in mind that 1 (b) doesn't mean that a sentence or a phrase from everything ever written is used but rather that the main points are addressed. At this point anything added to literary criticism will be made up for by excessive and constant tightening in that section. Adding: really literary criticism and reception (which now contains quite a bit of critical analysis) should ideally be written once the bio is finished. Victoria (tk) 03:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I need at least another full day to digest and summarize what we might need to add to the bio; will write up a summary when done reading Pugh and Smith. For now, I want to rejig Awards and Honours, as it is standing out like a sore thumb. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine by me if additional litcrit is too much. I guess I'll do legal disputes (I am getting a law degree after all, might as well learn about the copyright stuff). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That needs work ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  05:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That needs work ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  05:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

To Do List
I'll summarize my list (and others) so far (not exhaustive, just a start) and take this opportunity to let others know that, because of your eyesight, edit conflicts are very hard on you and ask that you are given space while you are editing. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that's all I've specifically mentioned so far; others please add on. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49, Vandamonde93, and others are concerned about literary analysis; I see you've reworked AleatoryPonderings' bold addition, and between you VM and Johnbod, am confident this issue can be addressed. Vanamonde93's suggestions here and here.
 * We now have 1,900 words of Critical analysis, Reception and Legacy in a 7,700 word article. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So I've only reworked the "Themes" section and just now a bit of tweaking to "Characters". Huge thanks to for the material to work with! Without that basis there wouldn't be anything there at all. I think we're about right in the word count range, because there's stuff to trim, (i.e the first para under the "Harry Potter" section header that's uncited and has a couple of inline comments) and the material about the mysteries can almost certainly be tightened. That said, I'd like to add a bit more to the "Characters" section which is almost entirely cited to a single book - or trim it way back. Either way, there's quite a bit in the literature re the heroes "Companions" which should get a sentence or two. These are always the most difficult sections to write and whatever anyone thinks will work is fine with me. So far I've gotten through a fraction of the literature I've retrieved, but you all think it's getting too long/involved/ whatever, am more than open to stopping now. Victoria (tk) 17:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't too thrilled with what I came up with on "Characters" either. It was more of: here's a general category of stuff that the sources talk about, and not "I am deliberately going to look for material on characters and fill the section with it". So I support some kind of change there, whether it's mostly adding or removing. I'll see if I can find some good stuff on characters specifically. One source that's underused rn is, which I believe AC Santacruz flagged for us. I'll see if there's any good chapters in there for "Characters" (which, again, we don't have to retain). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If we want to expand #Characters, I found:
 * Hermione Granger Saves the World (publisher's page, review; this would be one for the library I think, although there's a Gbooks preview)
 * (not really literary analysis, more using HP as a jumping-off point for philosophical speculation)
 * The great Snape debate (as it turns out this was published by Borders Group, probably as a tie-in for some HP book release, so I feel no pain in removing the mention of the book I added in my initial stab at #Critical analysis) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:39, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is lots of fat and bloat in the text. There is tightening needed everywhere, of the type you have already noticed. Prose tightening and copyediting needs are not unmanageable, and we have plenty on board already who can take that on (you, Z1720, Vanamonde93, Johnbod and others I am less familiar with).
 * Also, Vanamonde93 on trimming needs.
 * Most of the fat and bloat has now been reduced (with the exception of the Transgender section, best left 'til last), although when we are all finished up here, a final copyedit would be useful. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , critical analysis now at 1095 words. That should suffice. Victoria (tk) 03:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A lot of the bloat seems to have resulted from WP:PROSELINE; there are entire sections where every paragraph starts with a date, that look like they were added as the news unfolded, and never trimmed or smoothed into a narrative. PROSELINE eliminated. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are many short choppy paragraphs or sections. No longer, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is WP:CITATION OVERKILL, where one high quality citation would suffice.
 * Addressed except for Transgender section. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * generally resolved now, Transgender section separate. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are two mentions of her friendship with Sarah Brown.
 * I am working in sandbox on trimming the Politics section, where I will rework the second mention of Sarah Brown; I'll post a proposal of the trimmed text here when done. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1. I started there because it is not one of the worst-written sections, so provides a good place to establish a method for dealing with messier sections. Please comment there. I will insert later tonight unless someone objects (and minor tweaks can be made after/if it is inserted). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Addressed in this edit to trim Politics section. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * High quality sources; see WP:METRO. Done, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For discussion: beefing up a bit of her personal bio, while reducing some of the political and views, as those have sub-articles. Just tightening the prose in those sections will make them more manageable, though.
 * Beefing up the personal bio has proven elusive because a) much of what was there was breaching WP:ELNEVER with accio-quote links, and b) it seems there is not yet a high quality bio. Not sure what else can be added at this point. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am (too slowly) still getting through the Smith bio, but it will be possible to beef up her early life. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Bio bits now have beef (and will need trimming on final pass). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Could someone get this source to Victoriaearle? No longer needed, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Bio bits now have beef (and will need trimming on final pass). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Could someone get this source to Victoriaearle? No longer needed, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We should remove and/or replace citations to AccioQuote, which appears to exist solely to host copyvios of interviews with Rowling and other work about her. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yikes. List started at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1. I can plug away on those. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * All done, almost all by AleatoryPonderings, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I cannot get her archived About page to load, but it should be compared/updated to https://www.jkrowling.com/about/ (with a check for comprehensive). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorted here; somewhere along the way, the archived version linked was not the archived version used, and some of the older text could not be verified to the archived version, so I split them. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Heilman's book really needs to be broken out into multiple citations; it's an edited volume, with separate authors for individual chapters. It's a lot of book-keeping that I don't presently have time for. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If the way I did the Kosaka 2017 citations at Dementia with Lewy bodies is acceptable, and if I can gain access to the TOC of Heilman, I can do that work. Let me know, because the way I did DLB is the extent of my sfn technical ability. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I introduced the cites this way, so it's only fair that I change it if we need to. I wouldn't mind doing it by author, but I don't see the problem of citing to the editor instead. Citing to the editor helps us keep cites to the same book together, the editor's name is the one that bibliographic databases index the book under, and if we cite every chapter we will massively increase the size of #Works cited without any increase in readers' ease of verification. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * AP, see the way I kept Kosaka (editor) together in the above example at DLB; that is my suggestion as well, and I don't mind doing that work, since you're working on the writing. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to cede the floor to you on this particular bit, if you don't mind :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to do any grunt work I can :) Will followup on your talk, as I can't view a full TOC anywhere.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've tended to always cite the full chapter, but I think the example from DLB is a fine compromise. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this takes care of Heilman. SG's trick made it super easy. I think I cited some other edited volumes in an early draft of #Critical analysis (or whatever the section title du jour is—seems to have been changing?) which I can tweak with the loc param in the next bit. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My fixes to it were rolled back by what I hope was a misclick (that has me stalled in the Philanthropy section, which is a bigger mess than I had realized). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * All done now, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the ones from Berndt & Steveker and James & Mendlesohn – I think that's everything. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like citations to twitter to be replaced. If those tweets in particular are what caused controversy, then they ought to be citable to secondary sources; if those tweets in particular did not receive attention from other sources, then us including them is original research. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If we can leave that 'til the rest of the article is up to standards, it may be more understandable why that entire section needs work. (I had not realized earlier on the extent of the Accio.com problem; glad to see AP making progress on that, but it was an unanticipated setback.) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * AleatoryPonderings has a draft up on talk. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a primary source tag to the information about her charity; if secondary sources don't care about its budget, neither should we. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Confused: the budget is not sourced to self, their mission is, which seems to conform to WP:ABOUTSELF. Let me know how you think we might mention that is the charity that seems to be the umbrella for all the rest ... I can work on that part. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The tag was misplaced; it's the budget I'm concerned about. It's not an SPS, but it is primary; doesn't establish why we care. Absent secondary sources, I would omit it; the philanthropy section is bloated as it is. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it; will see if I can find something to earmark how much they do, else delete it. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope I have now finished cleaning up what was at Philanthropy; have at it. :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC) PS, it came in to the FAR at 1,077 words and is now at 417.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In the same vein, does anyone know why this statement is tagged? WP:ABOUTSELF, who better to make this statement than herself? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * She later said that she based the character of Hermione Granger on herself when she was eleven.[30][non-primary source needed]
 * Pretty sure that was me. Removed the tag and trimmed the sentence a tad. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Short choppy sections. Thoughts on merging some of the sections at the top of "Life and career", since rather than expanding those sections, we seem to be shrinking them because of the accio problem and no good bio yet. Instead of what is there now, my suggestion is:
 * 2.1	Birth and family, 2.2 Childhood and 2.2.1 Education ---> Early life and education
 * 2.3	Inspiration and mother's death and 2.4	Marriage, divorce, and single parenthood ---> Inspiration and single parenthood Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed entirely, I'd meant to work on that a bit but I'm being pulled away by RL. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I will do that, but it will also involved using a multiple image to avoid MOS:SANDWICH; the content is too short to support two images, but I don't see where they can be moved. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Done, but got an edit conflict, so will leave any more moving around now to others. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To me, the first two sentences of "Contemporary fiction" in the current version use editorial voice rather heavily. I think we need to be particularly carefuly because of how many people are working on this; even if the use of wikivoice there is justifiable in isolation, where other sections use more in-text attribution, it gives this a lot more weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, couldn't quite define what's wrong in that section, but am not pleased with it. Will rewrite. Victoria (tk) 13:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde, I've fixed this but happy to hack at it some more if needed. Victoria (tk) 03:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did notice, thank you! It looks fine to me right now. I do think we may have to do some restructuring and copyediting for flow in that section; I think the material is good, but it's been cobbled together rapidly (as you frequently point out), and as a result the narrative is a little confused, IMHO. But we should likely wait a bit on that, until we're sure we have all the material we'd like. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree. It's best to let it percolate for a bit and then come back to it. Victoria (tk) 03:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We will need, once prose re-writing is complete, to check chapter citations again. I'm possibly the worst offender with respect to not formatting these correctly, but I've little time for this to begin with, so I'm going to hold off of tinkering for now. Anyone else is welcome to do so, obviously. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * sorry for the repeat ping, but I’m hoping to wrap up this section so we can send it to archives.  AP, you have a JSTOR list above; are those resolved/addressed?  Vanamonde, you have two unstruck comments (items to be resolved later); is it OK with you if I move them to the list at the bottom of this page (the 14 Jan section), and archive the remainder of the To Do List section? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I never ended up using them but that's because I've used other stuff instead. If I need them again I'll find them, but no one has responded to that bit so I assume they were not useful to others. Archive away. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Archives
This talk page is over 200KB, mostly because of the large tables in older discussions (not to be alarmed, the Menstrual cycle FAR resulted in three Archive pages). I have set up Archive 1, and propose to archive the following old sections (please speak up if you disagree):
 * : when FAR was launched, notifications were not done.
 * : questions about which basic bios to cite (used Smith, Kirk)
 * : first trim of Politics section
 * : list of copyright violations the article was hosting, all corrected.
 * : a listy Awards section was converted to prose, sub-article created
 * : some literary sources proposed but not used

Sandy Georgia (Talk)  06:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree. It's getting hard to navigate. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * are we still using or shall I add it to list to archive?  It has no commentary since Jan 11, and only the three of us used it … Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I started it and I don't intend to use it any more, so yes, add that to the pile. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * who also contributed to those sections and to let them know we are moving towards archiving resolved or unused sections. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok by me - maybe update this section with quick links & terse summaries of what was covered. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Will do, once others weigh in. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine with me; I also agree with . Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Could we also merge our various to dos to either a single section or Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/To do list? I find a central list useful but have been using one of the old "Update" sections to create one, which isn't ideal. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Having (I think) finally finished chunking in the bio bits, will work on this next. Stay tuned :) I am a bit hesitant to merge people's posts without their permission, so maybe if we just start doing that, it will take hold. (Else people will give me permission to merge their posts to a To Do List ). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with archiving, FWIW. I agree the to-do lists and updates need to be kept separate. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Notes from bio reading
I need a sub-section to start putting things as I continue reading bio sketches. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Rita Skeeter
AP, Rita Skeeter and her relationship with press is on Pugh, page 9. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also in at p 48: "Throughout her career, J. K. Rowling has had a particularly contentious relationship with the press, and has taken steps to control her own message and narrative dissemination where possible. Her frustration with the press even inspired a character in the Harry Potter universe, Rita Skeeter, whom J. K. Rowling acknowledged was shaped by the feeling of being continually hounded and misquoted by the press ..." AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Birthplace
In case anyone wonders why this is taking me so long, I keep hitting messy situations. Would someone else like to work on this one little piece ? If not, I will eventually get to it. A historical controversy over where she was born is glossed in the article, and should be clarified in footnotes, making use of better sources than we are now. The presence of an inline footnote on the matter indicates that we haven't provided the necessary clarity. The discrepancy between Yate General Hospital on her website, and Chipping Sodbury in sources needs explanation in a footnote. We say:
 * Joanne Rowling was born on 31 July 1965[21] in Yate, Gloucestershire,[22][23]
 * based on JK Rowling's own website which says Yate General Hospital (it does not say the town of Yate).
 * Sources say Chipping Sodbury
 * Scotsman JK Rowling story has her born at Cottage Hospital, Chipping Sodbury
 * Pugh page 2 has her born at Chipping Sodbury General Hospital
 * Smith p. 4 Chipping Sodbury "Yate's elegant neighbor", and has her born at Cottage Hospital, 240 Station Road, Yate, p. 5, with birth certificate reproduced on p. 6 The birth certificate says District Sodbury.
 * The whole mess can be sorted via a footnote using this source, which explains the hospital history:
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=LEnHs53G0j0C&pg=PA110#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * I suggest we might switch was born at a hospital in Chipping Sodbury, bordering on the town of Yate, avoiding naming the actual hospital, and then spell out the whole mess in a footnote. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This has been bothering me too. I will assemble something. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is the gazillion little things like this that have me taking so long on this. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * How is this version? I decided to put it in text as opposed to a long, confusing footnote. I think you have Smith open so feel free to add the details from there in my userspace. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not make so much of it, since in the past, she was accused of conflating her birthplace to more chic neighborhood, when in fact, it's just a naming issue. I'd much rather build a footnote, based on the google book, explaining the issue/confusion. If we put all that in to text, we are turning it in a bigger deal than it should be.  She was born at Cottage Hospital.  Footnote: her website says x, but other sources say y. Z book explains the difference as a, b and c.  Do we need three footnotes on her birthdate?  One is enough-- not controversial, we can use higher quality than Kirk.  We have both Pugh and Smith and her own website. Also, I think we know where she was born, it's just how to explain it, so would rather not say it is unclear where she was born. When I have Smith open, does that mean others can't borrow it? If so, should I sign out more often? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't exactly trust this so maybe there is something better that says Yate General Hospital = Cottage Hospital = Chipping Sodbury (General) Hospital. Non-PD internet archive books can only be borrowed by one person for one-hour stints, so others can't access it while you're using it for that hour. Don't waste time by signing in and out all the time—we can wait an hour :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not know this ... had never used google play before for books. OK, if you don't trust that book, we can dig more, or gloss that part in the footnotes ... or someting. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * PS Smith gives the address at 240 Station Road, Yate ... so I trusted the other google book ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, another reason to avoid a whole paragraph on where she was born is that it can be an early indication to raeders that, oh my gosh, this article is going to be a chore to read! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * PS I wasted a lot of time on similar issue with her father as engineer. He started as production line worker, but did eventually rise. As we trace her clearly middle class background (not rags to riches) with non-college educated parents who wanted her to study something practical so she could get a job rather than become a writer ... all of the little stuff adds up, and I want to be able to tell it correctly. Hence, not typing til I finish reading. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And I have spent similar time getting to know her mother, who was a book-loving, vivacious, brilliant woman who was very close to her daughters, and instilled the love of literature, which explains a lot about how Jo became so undone with her mother's illness and death, and had to get away to Portugal, and ended up in bad marriage (desperately seeking love). We can use two or three more sentences on things like this, to provide what a bio is supposed to be ... but the devil is in not over doing it ... a clause here and there. We haven't given her childhood its due yet ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Names

 * why are we taking out that she also uses the name Joanne Murray ?  Isn’t that important biographical info?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You can revert but since it's her married name I thought that was common enough that it didn't need to be said. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree on married name bit, since many of us have no such thing ... my one and only name is the same name I was born with :) Except that, when I lived in two different Latin American countries, they forced me to lodge a doble apellido on my national identity documents, so spelling out other names used can matter. I have added this to my notes in sandbox to try to work back in more briefly perhaps. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I undid it. Off for most of today, won't be doing anything else with the body text for a while. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Degree, date, and "major"
Another mess for sorting. We say 1986 graduation from Exeter, and Smith says 1987 (which fits with other dates I find). In trying to find an accurate date, I encountered this fine mess. Smith does not say "BA" and it appears that Rowling does not say "French and classics". Need to get to the bottom of this. Every sentence in this article takes hours. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Rowling does not give a year, but says "French and classics syllabus"; what are "majors" and "degree" called at Exeter? https://www.jkrowling.com/about/ Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Here, she says Modern languages, but then classics (no year).
 * But then here, she says French (no year).
 * are you able to tap us into an editor who might help sort this fine mess? Preferably from Exeter? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:11, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ack, that is indeed a mess. is one of the WP:HED editors who knows about the UK education system. &#123;{u&#124;  Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There's one in the next room, not an editor, but a person. I'll ask. Probably a French degree but read classics. Depends too on her A levels, if she took them. If she had modern languages then it makes sense to continue those studies at university. I'll take a look at Smith too. Victoria (tk) 20:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A-levels are on Smith, p. 81. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the degree is Bachelor of Arts, and because she was in Paris for a year would have had to come back to finish the fourth year at Exeter. Pugh says French and Classics (cited to Kirk). Pugh says she studied in Paris for her third year (that would be French). Kirk says on page 118 says she "took French with the Classics, Greek and Roman studies", that her parents thought a French degree would give her skills as a bilingual secretary, page 44, that she graduated in 1987 after a year studying French in Paris, on page 118. Not sure this helps. It does take a long time to sort all of these out. Victoria (tk) 20:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding: Smith tells us on page 95 that because of poor grades/attendence, etc. "it was decided that it would suit her better if she dropped Greek and Roman studies for her final two years." So, she received a degree in French, but she did take some Classics (Greek and Roman studies) courses early on. Victoria (tk) 20:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, so yes to it being a B.A. But other than that, I am still uncomfortable with the whole mess.  On everything I check, almost all of the sources are the same, so it matters not if we use Kirk, Pugh, Smith or Joe Bloe. Yes, the third year in Paris is why I thought Smith was right that she graduated in 1987, and Kirk says 87, so why are we finding 86 all over the place?  And now with over a week of my head into biographical pages, I trust Pugh less and less (the chapter I have does not tell me who he is citing, I don't have footnotes); everyone seems to be regurgitating the same sources. Unless we do better, we may need to gloss this. She enrolled at Exeter to study French and classics and graduated with a B.A. in French, and leave off the year??  Proposed wording anyone? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In England a BA is a three-year degree. But, if you go abroad, then it's a four year degree. She took entrance exams in '82 (autumn), enrolled autumn '83, initially took classes in both departments (French and Classics), had to drop Classics in year two, went to Paris in year three, returned and graduated in year four - 1987. That makes sense to me. I will send you notes from Pugh - it's a separate pdf. Re regurgitating; yes, that's an issue. She's very private, there are limited interviews, and she's still young. We might want to mention that biographical material is difficult to find. I think I read that somewhere so might be able to find a source. Also I left a message in your sandbox talk re helping w/ the heavy lifting. I've just ordered an actual book from ILL; going old fashioned. Victoria (tk) 21:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to lose track of my messages everywhere (left a bit of new material for Olivaw-Daneel at the Lists of awards page), and am going out tonight with friends (COVID be damned). May not get caught up 'til tomorrow.  Many references to her privacy in Smith. Not sure what to do about date discrepancies.  Would you like to write her degree sentence while I am out tonight, and we won't get edit conflicts? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Responding to 's ping. My reading would be that for the subjects she studied 'degree' means BA. As mentioned, this is normally a three-year degree but becomes four with a year abroad (which is common for modern languages). The date confusion could then come from writers assuming she did a standard three-year degree, giving a 1986 graduation, without verifying if she took a year abroad. The 1987 graduation dates are likely to be from people who have done their research better – but this is not entirely satisfactory from a Wikipedia point of view. Robminchin (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Hermione Granger Saves the World : Essays on the Feminist Heroine of Hogwarts" says that she "holds a degree in French and Classics from the University of Exeter", but that source is unlikely to be an authority on this matter. BilledMammal (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking for it. We sorted it out. She graduated in 1987 with a degree in French. Victoria (tk) 03:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Reading Kirk, clearly 1987, we have it right now. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Friend Sarah Brown
When others have a moment, could you read pp. 238–39 of Smith? It sounds like Rowling's first friendship was with Gordon Brown, which led to the friendship with Sarah Brown, but we imply the opposite. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to find a place for this quote from Smith, p. 238--seems to sum up her passion for her causes, after being a single-mother, seeing her mother suffer with MS, affinity for the vulnerable, et al:
 * Labour Party, Gordon Brown ... when she gave first speech as ambassador for National Council for One Parent Families ... "We should judge how civilized a society is not by what it prefers to call normal but by how it treats its most vulnerable members." Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Platform 9 3/4
The image caption as I edited it at Early life and education is now misleading, and I don't know how to fix it or what source to use. Smith mentions Platform 9 3/4, but I don't believe that is what it was called when Rowling's parents embarked from there, rather based on the fictional aspects and the site of a tourist shop. Is someone able to fix that image caption to explain the why behind the Platform 9 3/4 in the image? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Victoriaearle, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Clapham or Clapham Junction
We currently say (about the flat Rowling lived in after university with university friends): cited to Nell p. 67 There is Clapham and Clapham Junction, which Wikipedia says is not part of Clapham. I will go with Junction per this not so reliable source (and many others that repeat her tweet), unless someone tells me otherwise. Leaving a record of the discrepancy here at any rate. User:Johnbod ? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * When she reached her Clapham Junction flat, she began to write.
 * Nell p. 49 says Clapham in southwest London
 * Nell p. 67 says Clapham Junction
 * Smith p. 104 says Clapham in south-west London
 * Smith never uses Clapham Junction
 * Wikipedia says Clapham is in south London, and Clapham Junction "forms the commercial centre of Battersea".
 * Yes, go Up the Junction. St John's Road runs right up to the station. But I'd better summon the oracle.  Johnbod (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Smith done, Kirk pending
I just dropped in a chunk of bio; I expect you all will have a jolly time with my prose :) I want to lay the groundwork for how significant her mother's life and death was to her writing, and to sort the "rags to riches" myth, but I know the 700 words I added will require ruthless editing. I hope to do same to the next section tomorrow.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Put in the next bit at J. K. Rowling. Will need work, but besides working on my yucky prose, it may be better to wait until Victoriaearle gets her copy of Kirk before deciding what to trim, etc, and figure out new section headings. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I have now chunked in everything I intend to from the Smith bio. Victoriaearle is getting her hands on a copy of Kirk.  I'm aware considerable trimming and copyediting will be needed, but maybe best done after Victoria works through Kirk. But at least my writing should be checked for gross prose issues and British spelling. We can chop, chop, chop later as we see what Victoria comes up with. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

With Victoria absent, I am reading Kirk online. Easy reading. Nothing different from Smith, but many places where I can remove quoting and attribution, as all stories (Smith, Kirk, The New Yorker, and the two articles from The Scotsman) are telling the same story. Kirk was a year after Smith, so has some things I can better use (eg definitely a 1987 graduation from Exeter). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)