Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1

Comment: I have been pinged in a couple of different places, with the possible implication that I have granted extra time to this FAR. (here and here by Ipigott). To avoid confusion, @WP:FAR coordinators: can one of you clarify possible timelines for this article, and specify if time has been granted? This looks like it might be a complicated FAR, so this might also need a dedicated FAR coord to be the only point-person for decision making, similar to how Cas Liber stepped up in British Empire and laid out timelines for closing that FARC. Z1720 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry Z1720 if I misunderstood you but on the basis of your previous comments I was fully prepared to see what I could do to sort things out in connection with the missing section on literary analysis. If this is no longer possible, please let me know as I have other important matters to attend to.--Ipigott (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ipigott: I am not an FAR co-ordinator, so I cannot grant extra time and don't want there to be the impression that I can. Hopefully the FAR co-ords can describe a possible timeline for this FAR. Z1720 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been mentioned that there is drafting underway to address the concern raised wrt literary criticism; certainly we can give some time to see how that proceeds. I also want to be clear that the simple existence of an RfC, even a contentious one, will not result in delisting on its own, and that FAR is not intended to be a dispute resolution venue. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The claim that nobody has raised actionable concerns grounded in the featured article criteria is nonsensical. The points raised by myself,
  A. C. Santacruz, which several other editors (including Buidhe and Hog Farm) have agreed with, have nothing to do with instability, and everything to do with comprehensiveness and representation of sources (criteria 1b and 1c). There is no independent literary analysis of Rowling's writing in this article. There are hundreds of sources available; their existence is not in dispute; neither is the fact that they are not covered in this article. If Ipigott wants time to work on these sources, that's fine with me, but the claim that there's no actionable feedback is meaningless, and if we were going to hold this up over procedural reasons of notification, we should have done it a long while ago. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  If I had more time I'd have been doing the work to add the literary analysis as I have access to the sources and subject expertise to do that work and agree that this is a highly visible page so having it be of the highest quality is a benefit to the encyclopedia. However, I don't have the time. If someone else does I would love for them to do it. But in absence of that content I agree with Vanamonde that it cannot be said to meet the standards expected of an FA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) My concern here is primarily that the article lacks any sort of literary criticism, which is problematic given the extremely influential nature of Rowling as a writer. I do disagree with the idea that this fails the stability criteria; a single content dispute that is being worked out doesn't warrant delisting. Hog Farm _Talk 17:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To all three; yes, there appears on the surface to be an absence of literary criticism, but a) we have no examination of what exists in sub-articles; b) we have no indication if high-quality reliable sources are excluded, and what those are; and c) we have had no discussion about how much of what would be included where in a

  moving some content to here and some content out of here from the various sub-articles. Even if we fail, we at least leave a roadmap for future repair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  "we have no examination of what exists in sub-articles" That is asking the reviewers here to prove a negative. Has anyone examined more specific articles and determined that there is enough material to cover all her themes? I have examined a few, and what's there isn't encouraging. It's heavily based on interviews with Rowling (which have their place, but aren't a substitute for independent analysis); and on media sources. Scholarly sources are few and far between. "we have no indication if high-quality reliable sources are excluded" yes we do; there's no substantive use of any high-quality literary criticism. I could easily provide a couple dozen sources; I'm not doing so because I'm not concerned about the exclusion of specific sources, but the exclusion of the entire body of literary/scholarly source material. "we have had no discussion about how much of what would be included where in a properly summarized main bio"; because, at the moment, we have no substance to discuss at all. We aren't at the stage where such a discussion is meaningful. Very few of us are giving any weight to any RfCs; I haven't bothered to read the one referred to above, as it has no bearing on my argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Examples might better illustrate my concern-- if not for the immediate outcome, but in terms of leaving a direction for future work at least, so that FAR is doing what it's supposed to do, and we're not leaving a precedent of a delisting based on faulty reasoning.

  We have seen examples at FAR of a google scholar search being provided to justify "not comprehensive", but when examining each source returned by google, it was found that nothing was actually left out.

  We have seen examples of "X is not included", but if there are no sources covering X, that cannot be a

  WP:SS might address a lot of what ails this article. Even if the star is lost, it's nice to see an article leave FAR in better shape than when it appeared, or at least with editors having some knowledge of what needs fixing.

  Barack Obama (which was suffering from the same unproductive POV-back-and-forth rants on talk, but little focus on sources) offers an example. It is insufficient to make the general statement that "X point of view is not included" in the absence of specifics and sample sources. At that FAR, I pointed out a recent and specific scholarly source from Princeton historian Julian E. Zelizer that included critical analysis of Obama's presidency but was scarcely represented in the article, along with Leadership and Legacy: The Presidency of Barack Obama, Lansford, 2021, that was not used at all. More than a month later, with not a single edit towards addressing those actionable issues, the article was defeatured. At least editors coming along in the future can read a FAR to see what they can do to restore the article.

  FAR is failing to do its job if this article is delisted on 1e absent an actual analysis of deficiencies with specific examples. Providing those might also encourage someone to start addressing the real issues, and focusing on sources almost always ends the battleground. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Respectfully, I don't think you're hearing me. Examples are helpful when there is a dispute over whether sources are fairly represented. With this article, there is no dispute; literary criticism is absent, period. Even those who wish to preserve FA status, whose efforts I will do my best to support, recognize the obvious deficiency, and are working to amend it. If the people doing this work are able to see the validity and usefulness of my concerns above, I don't see why you are critiquing the reviewers here. If I have any more time for this article, I would rather spend it on the userspace draft that is being developed, and so I'm going to step away from this argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added a large section on her literary output per the comments above and Special:PermaLink/1063766433#J._K._Rowling_delisting_as_FA. Hopefully this goes some way towards addressing Vanamonde93's, and others', concerns regarding the lack of such a section in this review. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please ping me! 12:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  This link had a really interesting quote that doesn't merit being included but goes along the lines of what I was suggesting above: In becoming so, it seems to me, her intentions and responsibilities as author diminish and fade into irrelevance. She ceases to be the author of the phenomenon and simply becomes part of the phenomenon as author. Note this phenomenon of separating Rowling from HP is not necessarily based only on the trans controversy, but also on the merits of her being able to tweet that Dumbledore is gay and how that affects the canon, see this journal article.

  Please ping me! 12:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @

  A. C. Santacruz For Legacy, you might be interested in this article on the book that paragraph is based on. It could be expanded in either direction (why the 80s were in decline, or what happened to the HP imitators - see the Synopsis), but perhaps that may better fit in a history of fantasy article than here. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Thanks for the link,

  Please ping me! 13:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• AleatoryPonderings Thanks for that; that's a substantive piece of work. I will try to review it in detail in a day or two. Three suggestions at the outset. 1) At the top-level article, we would generally want to treat her writing as a whole, rather than separated by series, because series-specific stuff is what you'd expect to see in articles about them. Obviously, with Rowling, >90% of the criticism is about HP; but I still think we could work on integrating commentary about anything else into the same section. 2) The Characters subsection, at the moment, reads like material about heroism as a theme combined with a throwaway piece about Snape. I'd suggest omitting the latter and reworking the former into the themes. 3) Similarly, ordinary vs extraordinary is also something I'd see as part of themes. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, thank you, per VM93. It is encouraging that this addition was made so quickly, reinforcing my view that (at least some of) the needed work is doable, and the FAR should remain open for work to progress. It is unconscionable that we have a highly viewed BLP in such embarrassing shape, so that even if we don't end up saving the rusty star, we can at least help restore some balance. It might be worthwhile to begin laying out other work needed, and to determine whether a team of FA-experienced writers would take this on (Johnbod, I saw you somewhere in some discussion of this article, have you any interest?), but it is probably best to first allow some time for Vanamonde93's feedback to be worked on, and to see how that goes. If that piece is successful, and more editors are interested, we might move on to identifying other issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, no - I've done some little edits on talk and I think the article, but won't be doing major editing. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment, based on having read or skimmed a couple dozen sources to this point; the themes commented upon most often are death and heroism; religion is discussed both as a theme and in terms of critical reception; and politics and gender, at least, are also discussed in the latter category. When writing this material I would typically break it into "themes" and "reception" (always), and "style and structure", "influences", and "legacy" (depending on what the source material focuses on). This article does not need to follow my preferences, of course, but a couple of these broad categories feel mixed together at the moment, not to mention the duplicated "influences" section. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking quickly through the article now (for the first time) it seems in fair shape to me. I don't personally feel we need an enormous amount of lit crit analysis here. Let me know when it comes to a vote. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Johnbod and Vanamonde93, there's a bit that could be done before approaching a !vote, but history shows that when an experienced FA writer takes the lead, a

  WP:MILLION in this case). Without an experienced lit FA writer on board, and taking the lead, not sure ... It seems that Barkeep49 is too busy, and I'm not sure what message VM93 is sending :) VM, would you take a lead role in a rewrite? Wtfiv is still busy at Joan of Arc, and there's Victoriaearle, who I hesitate to ask at this point, as this would be a big undertaking, and she has health issues. Who else is hiding in the woodwork? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I'm not trying to send mixed messages, but I don't want to commit to something I don't have the time for. I will chip in with writing when I can: I cannot promise to take a lead role, unfortunately. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That much is encouraging at least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  PS, a little infelicity that might be corrected sooner rather than later is why we mention her friendship with Sarah Brown twice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• after AleatoryPonderings addition of literary analysis, the percentage of the article devoted to career, analysis, critique and reception here is about on par with those articles;
• the space given to Rowling's non-writing activity (views, politics, charity, etc) is about double the average percentage of Joyce/Jolie, and
• the space given to Rowling's early, personal life health and death is about half of Joyce/Jolie (well, she hasn't died or had the health issues that Jolie had).

Look who’s on the job :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point you are making? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Time will tell, but the star may be salvageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a talk page is to improve an article, not to comment gratuitously and ambiguously on other editors. I suggest you strike your comment. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I've had it on my watch for years. I didn't thinking the timing for the FAR was great and meant to get over here to comment earlier but forgot to watch the FAR, and now it's very long. I don't mind picking at the "themes" section but can't get access to all the pdfs I'd like. This one looks promising if anyone here has access to T&F and could send it on to me that would be helpful. Themes and style don't need a huge section here, really only summaries, whereas the individual book articles should have longer lit crit. sections. Will report back in a few days after taking a look at what else I can access. I've never thought the article itself is really bad; I've seen much worse. Victoria (tk) 00:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the Coords agree the FAR can stay open for work to proceed, a lot of the length (above) was about making the case not to delist, and can be moved to talk to make way for the real work here, if others agree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria might you get the source mentioned above and email to Victoriaearle? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't have access to that one - suggest

WP:RX if no one else here does. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

No prob. I submitted a renewal at the TWL portal, and for Project Muse - which will probably be more helpful. Looks like things are moving. Victoria (tk) 03:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Victoriaearle: I believe I have access to that, but not in directly shareable form. I can give you a few individual pages, and can work on adding stuff from it myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer Vanamonde93. Last night I was only dipping in and hadn't noticed yet that it's being used quite heavily, so I don't think there's any need to add more from that source. It looks like I can get what I need from Jstor. 21:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE, for anyone not familiar with FAR, work here is not typically done in days, rather weeks, and sometimes takes more than a month. The LEAD is usually best addressed last. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: May I add minor points to your todo list? I'd rather not start a separate one for things that I haven't the time to fix, but are relatively easily fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 Please do! I tend to raise larger issues in a separate talk page section, and link that from both here and article talk (in case the broader audience at article talk isn’t following major developments here), but the ToDo list is intended as a summary that we’ll all add to/strike from. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To Do List

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 1 § To Do List

 – SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update 8 Jan

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 2 § Update 8 Jan

 – SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update 14 January

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 4 § Update 14 January

 – SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update 1 February 2022

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 4 § Update 1 February 2022

 – SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update 15 February All items above have been addressed, work on the Transgender section is still deferred, editing has slowed, and we are working on a draft of the lead (with the exception of the Transgender portions). There has been no article instability since the brief edit war of 5 January. Aza24, Buidhe and Z1720 have looked at the article so far; this might be a good time for Barkeep49 and Johnbod to have a more thorough look, recognizing that we haven't yet worked on the TG people section, and lead work is in progress. Hog Farm might you look in now as well ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see. A bit busy for the next few days, so don't wait too long for me. As a heads up, I have no familiarity with Rowling and never read the books as a kid because my family considered them objectional. Hog Farm _Talk 19:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm, no hurry, and no prior knowledge makes for a good reviewer! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to Hog my time is limited at the moment but I'm adding a note to do a read through and anticipate getting to it later this week. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry; I am pinging people for feedback in bits and pieces, so we aren't overwhelmed by too many comments at once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will be starting some comments on the talk page. Hog Farm _Talk 01:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing new to add; article remains stable, content improvement has slowed (basically finished except for TG people section), all commentary raised here has been addressed, and I'm aware of no MOS, prose, comprehensive or any other deficiencies, outside of the TG people section. Work on an interim lead has begun, with the idea to progress to the Transgender people section after some interim improvement to the lead is settled on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The new lead was installed on 2 March with no kerfuffle; the article remains stable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update 17 March

• IP blanking of text at the Awards sub-article
• Misrepresentation of a source; content rewritten and moved to
  Politics of J. K. Rowling. [2][3]
• Content added twice that misrepresents a source on information already in the article; addressed without kerfuffle.
• Disruptive editwarring to the lead by a now-blocked editor with a history of similar; that is, normal editing processes worked here.

The article is stable, the interim lead has held, and we should be ready to move on to cleaning up the issues remaining in the section on Transgender people. The issues to be addressed in that secion include:

• WP:CITATION OVERKILL
• inadequate use of
  summary style
  , trimming needed
  • All sections in the article except this one have been trimmed considerably to reflect summary style, while overall article size was maintained even as the missing literary analysis, about a fifth of the article now, was added
• failure to use the highest quality most recent sources, eg, Pugh, 2020 which gives a good overview
• unnecessary reliance on primary sources like tweets which are covered by secondary sources
• excess detail on who agreed or disagreed with Rowling's statements regarding transgender issues; detail covered at the sub-article.

These adjustments should not be difficult, but when I asked on talk who was ready to begin, I got little response, so will ping people this week if there is no further feedback re addressing the remaining section. If other editors see other issues that need to be addressed, I hope they will list them and we can get moving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current state of that subsection isn't ideal, but unlike with the literary analysis section, I do not think it is fatal to FA status; relative to the excess verbosity that has crept into other FAs, this is almost trivial, and while source improvements would be useful, what the best sources say isn't terribly different from what the article says at the moment. I would welcome further improvement, but have no time to make any myself, and in the absence of any rewrites would !vote to keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are in violent agreement :) I believe that the work needed in this section should be minor compared to the literary work already done, but would like to hear from others before we get going! I also agree that the article is now essentially at FA standard, although the issues in the Transgender people do open the article to charges of

WP:UNDUE, as the length is not proportional. And the citation overkill just looks sloppy, particularly when we can use Pugh 2020 to say most of what is there now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Basically agreed as well: the only issue I see as really serious on skimming the section is the obvious overcitation issues. I'd also like to get rid of detailed lists of who supports her and who doesn't: other than the actors of the main characters in the movies, I think most of these people aren't important to name. I'd also like to get rid of the lengthy quotes from Rowling: besides the general WP policy against lengthy quotes, Rowling's detractors usually don't accuse her of saying outright hateful things in plain text but of using dog-whistles. So, if we include the quotes, we would also need to include an explanation of why the quotes are objectionable, and that's way too much. Just say she's said things people objected to and don't dwell on the details. Loki (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continued on talk page, where the work will happen. (This page is more of a summary of where we stand on the FAR.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this article. I don't have much to add that I haven't said a while back about that section, but feel free to ping me when more specifics are proposed. I do suggest coming up with a better name for the section itself; what her comments were on had more to do with policy or how to conceptualize gender itself rather than on "people" per se, and that framing could be argued to be biased in favor of the critics who rhetorically tend to equate comments on those matters with being against a group of people. Perhaps "transgender topics" (like the article Feminist views on transgender topics), "transgender identity" or "gender identity". Crossroads ^-talk- 23:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads I have been concerned about that distinction as well. Perhaps that should be our first order of business, if we can convene enough editors for a discussion. I wanted to allow some time for everything done so far to settle, to make sure it was stable. I'll wait a few more days to see who engages, and then start a section on FAR talk to address first the section name. Do you have anything else to add to my list of issues above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to keep it "transgender people" (or perhaps "transgender rights") for two reasons. Number one is that's pretty clearly the most common name for this, and number two is that I disagree that Rowling is talking about topics as airy as "how to conceptualize gender itself". None of her comments are academic, they're all situated quite firmly in a political context, and that political context is the acceptance of transgender people in the UK. She supported Maya Forstater who insulted and misgendered specific trans people. She opposes trans women in women's bathrooms and is for more gatekeeping against legal changing of gender. It's not just "sex is real" that she's arguing for; "sex is real" is rhetoric for a policy agenda that she outlines in the essay and which has much more concrete consequences than some academic argument about what exactly gender is. Loki (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My general sense is that if we trim the quotes and get rid of the "these people liked what she said and these people didn't" litany, it will be of acceptable quality. I am still unable to take the lead on this due to IRL commitments and general wiki-fatigue, but I will weigh in on specific proposals if pinged. Perhaps the easiest approach would simply be to trim specific sentences and cites that do not add anything useful, rather than trying to rewrite the prose wholesale? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this approach. As everyone else seems busy, I will work up a suggestion/start along these lines--perhaps by today, but first order of business is to sort the current dilemma wrt collaborative editing. [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with this approach too. However, there's one set of reactions I think we ought to leave in, and that's the reactions of people involved with the movies (e.g. Daniel Radcliff, Emma Watson, etc). I think that those reactions are an important part of Rowling's notability by themselves. It's not really notable that Julie Bindel supports her or that GLAAD doesn't, but I do think it's notable that a long list of people involved with her work don't support her. Loki (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LokiTheLiar, would you mind recording this with the discussions on the talk page instead of here? We use this page to summarize back where we stand on the work, and if long discussions take hold here, they can stall the overall FAR page. This is a point around which consensus will need to develop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable to me. I'm in the "I basically agree with this approach too" camp, but I'm pretty sure that Loki's idea will be controversial, because it will result in a bunch of negative coverage without balance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed summary, SG.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Workshopping the transgender section is underway on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has remained largely collegial and productive, advancing steadily to the third draft of the transgender section. Progress has been slower than anticipated as it turns out the RFC conducted on the lead in December revolved around some text that was not even sourced in the article, so there has been more re-writing than anticipated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JKR FARC break The article has been rewritten, with a new lead installed on 2 March and a rewrite of the material in the Transgender section installed on 7 April. Through four months at FAR, the article has remained

A. C. Santacruz, AleatoryPonderings, Aza24, Barkeep49, Bastun, BilledMammal, Bodney, Buidhe, Crossroads, Ealdgyth, Endwise, Extraordinary Writ, Firefangledfeathers, FormalDude, Guerillero, Hog Farm, Hurricane Noah, Innisfree987, Ipigott, Johnbod, LokiTheLiar, Newimpartial, Olivaw-Daneel, RandomCanadian, Sdkb, Sideswipe9th, Silver seren, SMcCandlish, Vanamonde93, Xxanthippe, Zmbro, and Z1720: Not pinging Victoriaearle per express request (she is following as able) and Ben MacDui, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Mike Christie, Peacemaker67, Rominchin who were only pinged here originally regarding specific questions in their specialty area (access to news archives, how to position military acronyms or college degree, how to interpret past RFC).

A post-FAR RFC is planned (if needed) to examine one section heading. No one has opined that the heading selection is fatal to FA status, FAR is not dispute resolution, and resolution can be handled through normal editing processes. That said, should participants have the time, it would be most appreciated if they could review Talk:J. K. Rowling/Section heading proposal with an eye towards helping winnow the list of possibilities and opine whether the planned RFC formatting is sound. Please enter your separate suggestions about winnowing and fine tuning the planned RFC at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Discussion of section heading proposals.

Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• I anticipate entering a Keep declaration once others have reviewed, with the stipulation that it is anticipated that NEWsy sourcing will be replaced as scholarly sources become available. Should rewriting require new RFCs, it is hoped that the formatting will be vetted to avoid premature launch that can lead to faulty conclusions. This FAR has demonstrated that "slow and steady wins the race", and collaborative editing works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep now that Hog Farm, Aza24, Z1720 and 4meter4 have been through. For the @WP:FAR coordinators: noting that Aza24, Buidhe, Hog Farm and Z1720 did lengthier reviews in February, before the lead rewrite, now stored at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 4. There are two unstruck delists from January based on instability; the article has not been unstable in the four months it has been at FAR; all changes have been in response to the FAR process or new developments (war in Ukraine) or disruptive editors subsequently blocked or topic banned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I intend to take a look at this soon - I informally reviewed earlier in the FAR and thought it was looking in good shape sans a few areas that have been worked on since. Hog Farm _Talk 15:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have contributed heavily to the rewrite so am not sure whether I should cast a formal !vote, but—with the exception of a few infelicitous sentences scattered throughout that I've been copyediting sporadically—I have no further concerns about the quality of this article. Reviewers should be aware that the article has indeed been totally rewritten since it was nominated: every section has changed substantially, vastly for the better in my opinion. Reviewers should keep this in mind. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, you can !vote, as long as your participation is declared (which I should have done as well; noting that the stats tool overstates my contributions relative to AleatoryPonderings, Olivaw-Daneel and Vanamonde93 because I was the one to install many consensus versions and sources after FAR discussion. That is, a good deal of the text attributed to me was written collaboratively on talk, and only installed by me). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Given SG's note and Z's comments below re INVOLVED editors !voting, I will also register a keep (bearing in mind that this is the only FA-related project I've been involved in in ages and ages). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—if this isn't at FA standard, then the standard we have set is too high. Fully sourced, good prose, formatted well and comprehensive. I will note that the dates in the bibliography don't conform to the established DMY dating throughout the rest of the article, but this isn't enough to prevent a keep from me (and I don't know that this is even an issue anyways). Aza24 (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  MOS says somewhere it's OK to use ISO dates in tables, and they are helpful, as they are sortable. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Kudos to SandyGeorgia who has spearheaded a successful FAR in my opinion. Issues related to stability have been satisfactorily addressed, and ultimately the revisions to the content on Rowling's views on gender have greatly improved the reliability and neutrality of the article. Sourcing is excellent, formatting and compliance with
  WP:MOS are well done, and coverage of Rowling is as thorough as it should be for an FA article. Happy to see the expansion of critical commentary of her work. Nice work by all who assisted with improving the article.4meter4 (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Thank you, 4meter4, but the real kudos go to AleatoryPonderings, Olivaw-Daneel and Vanamonde93. Could you please remember to strike your previous delist above, to help out the FAR Coords on the bookkeeping end? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done.4meter4 (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Excellent save. One of the greatest achievements of FAR. Hog Farm _Talk 00:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm involved in this article and not usually involved in FAR, but the complaints of the OP have been addressed, a great deal of work has been put into the article, and to me it looks excellent now. I therefore say to keep it. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm doing a readthrough now, and it seems to be in excellent condition. A couple of quibbles before I make a decision:

• Can a date (even if it is a month and year) be given for the UK publication of Christmas Pig?

• Same date, done [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note f needs a citation at the end of the note.

• Done, [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Influences section, Lewis and Goudge are first mentioned by their last name, then wikilinked in the subsequent paragraph. Any particular reason for this?

• Fixed those, and Nesbit, too, [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've read up to "Style and themes" and will continue this later. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulative adjustments: [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I finished reading through the article, made some minor changes, and can declare that I think this is a Keep. Z1720 (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure if I ought to enter a declaration, given how involved I was; but I do think the article meets our standards now, and it distinctly did not do so beforehand. The most serious concern was the absence of literary critique, which has been addressed; and the proliferation of trivia has also been addressed. Indeed I think more work was put into this FAR than into many successful FACs. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vanamonde93: Just my opinion, but I think a declaration indicates to the FAR co-ords that the major contributors in fixing the article feel that the FAR is ready to be closed (and the editors don't plan on making further major changes). Z1720 (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep, then, in that spirit. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Caveat that I've contributed to the rewrite, but adding a !vote per Z1720. I believe the article meets the criteria and think this is a keep. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.