Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/J. K. Rowling

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Start blurb

@

WP:TFAR. Blurb instructions are on that page, but basically: "Between 925 and 1025 characters for the blurb, including 18 characters for the "(Full article...)" that will be automatically inserted the end". [1] The 2008 blurb is at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 11, 2008. @Z1720: and @WP:TFA coordinators , we'll work on this here for a bit before transclusion; the FAR is still open, but has 8 keeps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I would like to run it on June 26, but I need a closed FAR to do it. I can always insert a placeholder article for June 26 if time is needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it will be closed on time, but making sure the blurb is uncontroversial may take a bit of wordsmithing. I suggest we not transclude the nomination until the blurb is well discussed and developed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm scheduling early in May, but as I said, I can schedule a placeholder to allow for more discussion. I'm aware this won't be everybody's favorite nomination.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've placed the nomination code below, so that editors can start editing the blurb below. Z1720 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reboot

J. K. Rowling

One Parent Families. Harry Potter is now a global brand worth an estimated $15 billion (£7 billion), and the last four Harry Potter books have consecutively set records as the fastest-selling books in history. The series, totalling 4,195 pages, has been translated, in whole or in part, into 65 languages. (Full article...
)

Do we mention the controversies around her? It is to some extent a damned if we do, damned if we don't.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that the blurb above is from the 2008 TFA so it will need to be updated. I think a line about her social and political views, including her support for Labor, the referendums, and her statement about women, should be included. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed that off as I don't think it a helpful starting place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia has the wording in the lede about her controversies been reworked since the transgender section was rewritten? At present it reads These have been criticised as transphobic by LGBT rights organisations and some feminists, but have received support from other feminists and individuals. This looks like what was there originally but as I recall it was either pending a RfC or pending a RfC-independent rewrite. Either way the TFA text re controversies should mirror the article text, as/if revised. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AP, sorry, stepped out for a quick errand, and see I already need to restart this. Give me a moment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, it will be a matter of how far we can get within the blurb character limits. At minimum, we need to allude to it, but doing more than that will probably only be possible if we leave something important out, which could get us in to due weight issues. Will just have to wait and see what AP, OD and VM suggest as starting places. One thing learned during the FAR is They Work Fast :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting anew. Z1720, I suggest letting AP, O-D, VM and myself directly edit here, as we are aware of the difficult spots. We don't need to replicate the full nomination, which I've already started.

AP: We do not have a planned RFC on the lead; only on the section heading should that be needed. The current lead does reflect what is in the article. If a new RFC on the lead is needed, it should be (??) late Fall at the soonest, and only if new scholarly sources are available (at least that's my suggestion).

I will put my suggestions below for how I see the blurb developing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First draft

Guide: Between 925 and 1025 characters for the blurb, including 18 characters for the "(Full article...)" that will be automatically inserted at the end.

First draft

IN PROGRESS.

films and video games. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, Rowling's first novel, was published in 1997 while she lived in relative poverty as a single parent; by 2004, Forbes named her a billionaire. The Casual Vacancy was her first novel for adults and she writes Cormoran Strike, an ongoing crime fiction series, as Robert Galbraith. (Full article...
)

Suggestions

Getting a blurb down to 1,000 characters is always a challenge. The 2008 blurb, as easily seen, was far less than ideal, over focusing on wealth. There will not be enough space to fully elaborate controversies, but I believe they can be alluded to. I see something like the following, depending on how far we can get within 1,000 characters:

  1. Something like the above.
  2. A sentence on personal life, which covers birth, middle-class upbringing, affected by mother's death; conceived and wrote novels in relative poverty as a single parent, becoming wealthy (however you want to summarize that).
  3. A sentence on reception, themes, style ...
  4. A sentence that wraps together philanthropy, views and controversy via ... she has used her fandom, internet presence, wealth and recognition to further political and philanthropic causes important to her, sometimes generating controversy.

That is, no way we can give a full sentence in a brief blurb to one controversy, but we can allude to it. AP, OD and VM, I suggest you directly edit the blurb I added above, or if you prefer to work differently, put up your suggested 1,000-ish characters. Too many cooks will spoil the broth here, so I'd like to let you three work first. If there is space (which I doubt), the "sometimes generating controvery" idea could add a "for example" clause on recent controversy, but there is unlikely to be enough space to elaborate within due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we mention, specifically, that her views regarding transgendered people have caused controversy? That seems to be what she's getting the most press for in 2022?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there's room given due weight, I could see something like ... blah blah blah as above, then "to further philanthropic and political causes, such as controversial opinions she expressed on transgender people and related civil rights". But all three of them write better than I do, so I'd rather see what they come up with; the FAR showed the way to get there is via slow and steady, small steps rather than giant leaps all at once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS, some of the concerns that came up during the FAR were: not enough early bio, legacy, styles, themes, reception; too much philanthropy and wealth; too much NOTNEWs RECENTism re controversy. For example, the 2008 blurb and previous lead were way too heavy on wealth and philanthropy. Here, expand on controversy to the extent character limits allow but without neglecting long-term basics of a record-breaking author. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, if this thing goes sour on the day, it won't be the FAR participants with the pitchforks and torches. Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know :). Do you want to put up a sample of what you propose, and then AP, O-D and VM can work on it? What we found during the FAR is that a very slow and deliberative pace was what got us through. Whatever you think best, as you'll be the one on the hot seat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe end the sentence you propose with "Important to her. Her views have attracted controversy, including those regarding transgender people." As a first draft anyway, it may need a touch more emphasis.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just kept at FAR; would like to give AP, O-D and VM a day to work on this ... woo hoo! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I have a proposal in my sandbox here. I’ve changed up the order a bit so wasn’t sure if I should edit your draft directly. It’s 1008 characters. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we move OD's here to work on it together as a draft 2.0 of the blurb proposal. Aside from cosmetic tweaks, I'd only add a clause or so about The Casual Vacancy and Cormoran Strike. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Just noting that we're bumping against the character limit, so any additions will need some cuts elsewhere. Feel free to edit! Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second draft

J. K. Rowling is the pen name of the British writer and philanthropist Joanne Rowling, the author of Harry Potter (1997–2007), a children's fantasy series. Her initial inspiration for the series came in 1990. In the following years, her mother died from multiple sclerosis, which deeply affected Rowling and her writing, and her first child was born. She was relatively poor until the first Harry Potter novel was published in 1997; Forbes named her the world's highest-paid author in 2008. Harry Potter combines elements of coming-of-age stories, school stories and fairy tales. It led to a resurgence in children's fantasy and spawned a global media franchise, but has drawn a mixed critical reception due to its perceived conventionalism. Rowling has won many accolades including an Order of the British Empire. She has advanced philanthropic endeavours and political causes, including views on transgender people that have drawn controversy. (Full article...)

I've played with it a bit and trimmed a few characters. At this point, I'm going to withdraw from the discussion. I suggest a TFA/R nomination ASAP as I plant to schedule in early May. Let's see what reaction is from TFA/R regulars and I'd also suggest an article talk page notice, at minimum.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to tweak it a bit today ... but if we can all focus on it today, we should be ready to transclude a nomination by the end of today or first thing tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third draft

J. K. Rowling is the pen name of Joanne Rowling, a British writer and philanthropist. Her works include Harry Potter, a children's fantasy series, and Cormoran Strike, a crime fiction series. Her mother's death from multiple sclerosis in 1990, shortly after Rowling was inspired to write Harry Potter, deeply affected her. Death and the divide between good and evil are central themes of Harry Potter, which combines elements of coming-of-age stories, school stories and fairy tales. The first Harry Potter novel was published in 1997 while Rowling lived in relative poverty as a single parent; by 2008, she was the world's highest-paid author. The series has sold over 500 million copies and spawned a global media franchise, but has drawn a mixed critical reception due to its perceived conventionalism. Rowling is a member of the Order of the British Empire, among many accolades. She has advanced charitable and political causes, including views on transgender people that have drawn controversy. (Full article...)

At 1,021 characters (max 1,025). @AleatoryPonderings, Olivaw-Daneel, and Vanamonde93: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we are ready to switch to editing the main blurb page now, rather than draft form? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as AP is on board, I will transclude to TFAR and notify article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AleatoryPonderings good changes, but over count (at 1,059); let me know when done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(I fear you will have to lose the Strike). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am at 1020 now - is it ok? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, count good ... link for TG, and I will transfer to main TFA page here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Linked - have a final look? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good to go; putting it up at
WP:TFAR next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
PS, yes "involved" can and should support the nom, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, need a TG link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for being somewhat disengaged from this process: not sure if this is the version I ought to comment on, but it seems the most recent. I much prefer the weighting in this over the original, and I think it is solid on the substance. Two minor points I would suggest revising; the opening sentence focuses on Rowling's pen name rather than her as a person, and feels odd to me; and we're eliding somewhat the fact that HP is far and away the largest contribution to her notability. If we could find ways to adjust that, I would be a little happier. "Joanne Rowling is a British author...best known for writing Harry Potter (published under the pseudonym "J. K. Rowling") ..." would be one way to word it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please avoid the "best known for" construct :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why, though, SG? I know it's overused, but where it's accurate, omitting such a construct altogether obscures some information, surely? I admit "best known" is somewhat awkward, but HP made JKR's career, and we're not quite conveying that at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If we use the "best known for", we open ourselves to the same criticism that phrase always receives: it's worn, it's cliche, and it's uncited in the article. I agree we still need to do better, but we should be able to do it without using a phrase that will open us to criticism on an already controversial article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb adjustments

These unilateral changes bring the blurb to 858 characters. Please discuss proposed changes rather than making unilateral changes. The lead is a summary of the article, and the TFA blurb is a mini-summary of the lead. Do others agree that Harry Potter should be minimized in the lead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible additions to bring the blurb back to size include:
  • More on seven-year period.
  • More on ... The series revived fantasy as a genre in the children's market, spawned a host of imitators, and inspired an active fandom.
  • More on philanthropy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware there was a whole talk page dedicated to this blurb or that this was the common practice. The blurb by weight, as I read it, was (or is) more about the Harry Potter series than it was about the author. I don't think the connection between her mother and the book's themes is apparent (and if it should be, it should be explicit). It would suffice to put less weight on the series' themes and more on her authorial influences, path to publishing, philanthropy, or her upbringing's influence on her work (again, if explicit, as it appears only inferred within the article). I also think the "perceived conventionalism" part can go. A blurb about a biography should be more about the author's life than the reception of her most famous series, or at least the intersection between that work and her life. There is an existing article on both the series and franchise for those who want those details.
And—a lesser point—I do not think a general reader would be confused by saying "Rowling published the novel in 1997" when both the publishing agency and author are both involved in its publication. It is unlikely to be interpreted as self-publication and the phrasing is clearer than passive voice.
czar 15:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC) (edit conflict) Edited 15:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the article is controversial, consensus-building is key, while unilateral edits can lead to edit warring and instability. During the FAR, the feeling was the opposite of your preference; that is, that Harry Potter publication was more emphasized in her bio. We have found that working slowly, with proposed drafts, helps avoid conflict. I'll leave the next proposed draft to AP and O-D. Fortunately, we have plenty of time left to get it right, and your concerns are appeciated. Slow and steady wins the race. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my blurb edits were controversial but feel free to revert if so. czar 15:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting and edit warring is precisely not the way we have restored this article to FA status. AP and O-D will come up with a new draft, which we will discuss. I ask that you keep in mind where we'd end up if everyone with an opinion edited or reverted; collaboration has worked on the article, and can work equally well on the blurb. The TFA Coords will ultimately decide on the blurb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One way to avoid the "she wrote", "she published" dilemma, while working in more personal life, is to go back to the seven-year period in which she wrote the first novel, that saw her mother's death, marriage, birth of first child, divorce, life in relative poverty ... etc. That may leave space to work in some of philanthropy being centered on vulnerable women and children and MS, as relates to mother's life and death. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will probably not have time to write a new version today. For the moment, I just want to reiterate SG's point that the blurb should follow the lede, which was totally revamped recently in a heavily attended and detailed discussion. Let's not reinvent the wheel here - we have all the materials in the lede (which reflects consensus about appropriate weighting for Harry Potter versus other aspects of JKR's work and bio) and we just need to select the right ones. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The comments about bio vs themes seem more about the weighting in the article itself, which has passed FAR, and not about whether the blurb accurately reflects the article, which is the scope of a TFA discussion as noted above. So I don't see a need for this adjustment. For an example of an author TFA with similar weighting, see Enid Blyton (June 24, 2014). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may be worth giving a try to accommodate Czar's concerns; if one editor has them, others may ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an introduction to the person, the seven year period is the most interesting. That period ends w/ the publication of HP & all that followed. It is a bio and here it's ok to focus on the person, imo. Victoria (tk) 21:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like the sweeping 7-year period sentence, some of which was in draft 2, but it got modified presumably due to passive voice. I'd be fine with it coming back. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we agree to bring back the seven-year, at the expense of less Harry, I can work on a draft for that when I am home later ... but to my mind, the reason for doing that is to tie death, love, loss, good, evil etc to the Harry themes ... which are also themes that carry forward to her philanthropy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would work. It makes sense to tie it all together. Victoria (tk) 22:57, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Give me an hour or so ... starting now ... hard to see how I can do that and not lose Strike, but will try ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Losing Strike is ok I think; might address one of VM's comments above. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth draft below, but I had to lose Strike ... have at it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth draft

films and video games, but has drawn a mixed critical reception due to its perceived conventionalism. She has advanced charitable causes centered around MS, women and children, and political causes including views on transgender rights that have drawn controversy. Rowling is a member of the Order of the British Empire, among many accolades. (Full article...
)

1,023 characters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think "in 1990" needs to come after "delayed train". Also a quick save of one character by changing "June 26, 1997" to "26 June 1997". (Idk if I should be editing this directly.) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 12:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed 26 June; we don't have room for "in 1990", which can be deduced from the "next seven years" and the publication date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
Czar: does this version address your concerns? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, this does a great job of centering Rowling rather than the series. Thank you! czar 20:20, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt:, I'm prepping for travel for the remainder of the month; would you be able to glance at what's on the page now and give an opinion (just in case more work is still needed)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rejigged again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the addition of Strike, there's some ambiguity with the "novels" and "series" later on. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added a third mention of Potter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, it seems fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AC oppose

Adam Cuerden apologies again for limitations per iPad editing from hotspot in car .... starting section here to sort your oppose per Wehwalt's feedback; it will probably take me a few edits to respond with piecemeal edits ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First issue of the unintended consequences of her charitable and political having been rolled in to one sentence I hope is now addressed by splitting the sentences? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead that passed FAR (also the subject of a lengthy controversial and very well attended RFC) we state that her

opinions on

LGBT rights organisations and some feminists
, but have received support from other feminists and individuals.

In the paragraphs referenced by Wehwalt, the article briefly summarizes her views (more available in her own words), including that she affirms that trans people are vulnerable and deserve protection but she takes issue with someone losing their job for expressing gender critical views and is concerned that women's rights are being eroded. The issue here is how to best summarize this while respecting due weight within the character limitations of a TFA blurb. So, to address your concern, we could do as the lead does by stating that her views on transgender rights have been deemed transphobic by critics, but have received support from others. This is an accurate summary supported by the lead and the article content, but takes considerably more characters than the simpler "have drawn controversy" (hard to calculate characters from the car, someone else may do it). Do you have a suggestion that stays within the character limits while reflecting due weight and article content? I could put up some proposals, but hard to do from car while also calculating characters; perhaps others can do that. If we were to expand that from the simpler "have drawn controversy", we would need to delete something else, so we would have to consider due weight. Proposals needed ... adding the full description as in the lead would probably require deleting two complete sentences from the blurb, which impacts due weight ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it's an awkward question, since the article seems trapped in 2020 as regards her statements. For example, [2] doesn't appear. It's hard to do a fair summary when she's said a whole lot of things since then [3], [4], etc. Like, I get that this article shouldn't turn into a lengthy piece about her awful views and that alone, but, at the same time, she's spending a lot of time and effort promoting these views, and they are getting more extreme over time. I get that a lot of work went into this article, and wanting it to mainpage is very reasonable, but it's also the case that she's a controversial figure who seems determined to become more controversial. Perhaps just using her preferred term "
FPs 16:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Because of FA concerns about source quality, this article is always going to lag both Rowling's actual statements and the discussion of them in more click-forward sources. I suppose the question becomes how to reflect actual article content appropriately in a shorter mention. Newimpartial (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is fine to say, until the internet blows up because we didn't try to get this right. We need to make an effort here, in advance.
FPs 16:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't want to bore you with details, but I have been trying to make an effort on this matter for some time (as have other editors). As an example, my final comment on the current article content (a zoom-out from the drafting process) was this. Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, that's the line I'm trying to have us walk, as the coordinator responsible for scheduling June. Either we find language that has wide support, and reflects the article, or it may not be worth the risk of running this article. I'm putting an oar in now and then, but it's the community that's got to come up with language that reflects the article and won't cause the internet to blow up at us. Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re the newer news sources you indicate, a) none of that has been covered in high quality sources (while other issues have), and b) they don't add much substance to what is already covered, and c)
WP:SS, there is a sub-article where other and newer issues can be explored in depth. As Newimpartial indicates, if we want to say more than "have drawn controversy" when we are constrained by the character limits of a blurb, we need a proposed way to do that ... plenty of us have struggled at length on this, which doesn't mean we aren't open to other options, just haven't found a better way yet ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
For example, if we add your two words gender critical, we end up with a redundant sentence ... her gender critical views on transgender rights ... so do we delete transgender rights to resolve that, and is that a better solution (I'm not sure)? We need a full proposal that accounts for 1025 character limit for ideas on how to address your concern ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have just said something like "Since 2020, her
FPs 16:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The "since 2020" doesn't add much and isn't what is in the article (which is 2019), so perhaps isn't the best use of our limited characters. The current sentence is 56 characters, and we could wrangle another five or so if we had to, so we need to stay at around 60 to 65 characters on this sentence. Also, per Wehwalt, we need to do this using content that is in the article now. What would you think of: Her views on
transphobic. That is 68 characters, but I'm unsure if we can all agree that it is a balanced presentation of what is in the lead, as it cuts off the second half. We need more feedback and other ideas for how to reflect what the article now states within the character limit ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Seems fine to me, if no-one objects.
FPs 17:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I might add a "by some" or similar to that. Judging by the section in the article, there are mixed views re Rowling.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I toyed with adding "by some", but that will be criticized as weasly. An option than would be to expand the whole thing more in line with what is in the lead. But then we need to find what can be cut to accommodate the extra characters. If we just say "criticised by some", we'll get hammered for being weasly, and for leaving out the mixed views. These are the problems that led to "have drawn controversy"; we can't just exchange one problem for another; we're not there yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I am next on a real computer, I can find words to trim here and there from the rest of the content if consensus forms here to use something more like the complete sentence in the lead now. But then we'll be removing some content others have asked for per due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My own view is that her "opinions on transgender people and related civil rights ... have been criticised by some as transphobic" would be fine (and not WEASEL) if the sentence ended there, given the space constraints of the blurb. What would definitely be FALSEBALANCE is something like "criticized as transphobic by some, while others have supported her". Let's not do that.
Post-edit conflict note: Sandy, you can take that as pretty much a !vote against your new proposal, which I edit conflicted with. "Have drawn criticism as transphobic by some as well as some support" would be even worse, but I don't think removing those two words alone puts things into alignment. The controversy arises from Rowling's statements and the critical response to them; the fact that some interlocutors support Rowling is not comparable in WEIGHT to that basic fact (though it is enough to justify noting that the criticism is not universal, which justifies the use of "some" in my suggestion above). Newimpartial (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this would work:

Her views on

transphobic as well as some support

it is 92 characters, which would require a deep cut elsewhere in the blurb. If that sentence satisfies others, I can work tonight on whether I can find the places to cut without invalidating concerns expressed in previous supports. (Not sure, but I suspect I can, but not worth working on until others let me know if the proposed sentence satisfies concerns while not being weasly while not removing balance.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Perhaps "Her views on transgender rights have divided feminists, with some deeming them transphobic"? The "dividing feminists" is more or less straight from the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except there is more controversy than just division among feminists ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Add “and others” after “feminists” then—Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another option would be

Her views on transgender rights have prompted controversy among feminists and others, with Rowling's critics deeming her remarks transphobic.

That doesn't conflict with the article lede or text in any way I can see, and it gets a number of the nuances right IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it is a whopping 141 characters; I don't see how that can be done without really upsetting due weight. I can try ... but it may invalidate other supports, as such a large expansion will require cutting content others insisted needed to be included. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals to address AC oppose

Compared to current (56 characters): Her views on transgender rights have drawn controversy.

So far, then, we have:

1. Her views on

transphobic
.

which is 102 characters, and could be hard to accomplish that much cutting elsewhere without altering content added per previous opposes/supports.

If consensus forms before I hit tonight's hotel, I am pretty sure I can squeeze out 20 characters without upsetting previous opposes. Less sure about cutting 50 characters to get to the second option. Still worried that "by some" will be attacked as weasly though ... hope to hear from others before I stop driving for the night. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or a shortened version of Newimpartial's proposal

3. Her views on transgender rights have prompted controversy, with critics deeming her remarks transphobic.

At 104 characters, requiring a cut of 50 characters from the current blurb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My hypothesis that the necessary characters could be found in the passage immediately preceding the "controversies" sentence has been confirmed. This may not be the best way to meet the character limit, but it would be one way. In working on that example, I relied increasingly on the perfect tense, which is one change I would strongly recommend (with the elimination of "global" being another). Newimpartial (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to keep the global franchise, and lose "as a single parent". Can also reduce "her first child" to "a child". We could lose Cormoran Strike, etc if we absolutely must, but that is getting tricky as her work is beyond Harry. We may find less opposition to making cuts in the early life bio sections written by me, rather than the legacy and literary criticism sections written by others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is to lose the 26 June 1997 date ... it's there to indicate 25th anniversary. That could help us keep Strike and others. I have to play with it on a real computer ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My main point is to make clear that it is possible to find the 50 characters. I am not wedded to any of my shortening details (except the perfect tense), though I do find the current charity sentence unduly wordy, and I think it is an improvement to tie philanthropy to wealth/income rather than letting it float on its own. 21:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Problem, she didn't just "contribute to charities"; she founded a major charity and started a foundation as well as contributing to other charities, so your wording is slightly off from the original version ... hard for me to see on iPad from car, need to work on whole thing at once ... small brain, I guess :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Putting back advanced in lieu of contributed to would seem to solve that problem - and save a few characters as well. Newimpartial (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done with today's driving but much too tired to unpack real computer ... I am confident we can we can cut 50 characters to handle any of the three proposals above, I prefer the third of the three above, but will be better equipped to put up the entire new version tomorrow night, when I have a less-long driving day, and after we've heard from others as to their preferences. A bit worried that so few have weighed in, and don't want to take time to put up a new version if no one accepts it ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with Number 3, and am sorry that everything is made a bit more difficult. Been a long time since my last TFA.
FPs 08:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Glad to hear you are happy with three, will work on the overall new version with Newimpartial's suggestions later today, was just too tired last night. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth draft to accommodate discussion above

transphobic. She is a member of the Order of the British Empire, among many accolades. (Full article...
)

Discussion of fifth draft

@AleatoryPonderings, Olivaw-Daneel, Vanamonde93, and Wehwalt: Now exactly at upper limit of 1,025 characters. I have hopefully addressed

Czar, Dtobias, Hog Farm, Gog the Mild, Victoriaearle, Serial Number 54129, and Ixtal:. Note to Adam Cuerden, no need to apologize-- we all recognize we have to get this right, and have taken time and multiple drafts to do so. My apologies for iPad editing difficulties. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

PS, unsure why NI wants "conventional" in quotes; could AP, O-D and VM opine? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that was just a softening gesture; I am quite comfortable without it. Newimpartial (talk) 17:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it ... looking at the overall, I'm also unsure why we moved from "drawn controversy" to "prompted controversy" ... the controversy pre-dates Rowling, so "drawn" seemed appropriate ... and is less characters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I personally have issues with drawn controversy, which seems polysemic in a bad way (it could imply "courted", for example). To me, "prompted" is the mot juste - most of Rowling's interventions have seem largely unprompted, but they prompt others. If that seems too active a verb, though, "led to" is a (short) default. Newimpartial (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the chronology was that Maya Forstater was fired first, which was the prompt(er), but not too fussed ... perhaps led to is better ... and shorter, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "led to" is fine. Re "conventional", probably best to remove the quotes from "conventional". But I'm wondering if we can just remove the phrase "for perceived "conventional" writing" from the blurb? All that said, Sandy since you appear to be travelling please don't worry about about actioning anything I say. I'm following and am happy with the suggestions put forward. Victoria (tk) 21:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Typing short answers on iPad from car while hubby drives is fine and helps with boredom on eight-hour days as I wait for others to weigh in. Not a problem! Once we arrive, I'll be more tied up as the rather useless but happy mother of the groom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a happy occassion! Congrats! Victoria (tk) 21:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, big congratulations Sandy! Hope y'all have a great time at the ceremony. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations!
FPs 00:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Order of the British Empire

It's a minor point, but that last sentence feels kind of tacked on. Is there a better place to put it? It really doesn't flow.

FPs 01:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Her accolades are related to literature and philanthropy, so maybe it would be better placed right after her philanthropic causes ... that is, move it up one line? We could make it flow better by changing the sentence to "Her accolades for literature and philanthropy include Order of the British Empire." (Ties to the philanthropy mentioned in earlier sentence), but that takes extra characters, so we would have to lose the "perceived conventional" writing to just "her writing". Always about character limits ... to make that flow better, something has to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just about character limits. It's about whether we end the blurb on a positive or negative note. I would be reluctant to do the latter.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to fear the blurb reads like it was written by committee (because it was :) I put a sixth draft below that hopefully makes the sentence feel less tacked on. Wehwalt have you ideas for improvement? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not getting involved in the specific drafting. I'm just weighing in on what I deem big-picture issues.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the whole thing is hanging together is big picture ... I hope! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth draft

transphobic. The Order of the British Empire is one of many accolades for her literature and philanthropy. (Full article...
)

Discussion of sixth draft

At 1024 characters; to make the final sentence flow better, I removed "perceived conventional" per Victoriaearle's suggestion above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC) DrKay is it ok to say (as above) OBE is one of her accolades, or does it have to be "membership in OBE"? We don't have enough characters for that if we make these adjustments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some slight text adjustments such as restoring the date of publication while staying within the character max.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I need to ask three things:
None of this is intended as an oppose, It just feels awkward.
FPs 13:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Not British, I am uncomfortable writing about the OBE, as I don't know how to phrase it correctly. Nor do I know if it is OK to just introduce her as Joanne Rowling OBE in a TFA blurb. I wouldn't mind losing it (the OBE) entirely, particularly if that leaves room to add back in other things we've had to delete along the way (as a single parent or perceived conventional writing, for example). As to the narrative, the idea was to tie her life story to the themes in her writing as well as her charitable and political causes, as they are all related, particularly via those seven years of struggle after her mother died. The problem becomes then how/where to insert the sentence about her comments on transgender rights in ways that satisfy everyone, since unintended connections are perceived. I don't know how to advance without knowing if the OBE is being handled correctly. Wehwalt, have we added OBE in the way Adam suggests to leads in the past? And wouldn't adding only that then lead to a question of why we didn't add all her post nominals? Does anyone care if we just lose the OBE entirely? "She has received many accolades for her literature and philanthropy." Who can we ask about the OBE besides DrKay? Adam, I feel like we are over worrying about "rebuttal to the transphobia claims"; it is always a challenge to make things fit into a TFA blurb. We'll be criticised here no matter what we do ... perhaps we are worrying too much about the inevitable? I believe the work and effort that has gone into it will be defensible, as we can only do our best to accommodate concerns, which is what we are doing. I don't think we can leave out entirely the accolades of a writer of this scope, though. The same statement ("We're managing
Politics of J. K. Rowling, which we are also linking to; her accolades/philanthropy are a considerable part of any JKR bio (getting entire chapters in published biographies). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I get how awkward this is, which is why I'm raising it as an improvement potential, not as an oppose. I just can't think of any other case where I've seen an O.B.E. emphasised that heavily when talking about someone. I'd personally say that just saying she got many awards is better, but I open it to others. Also, if I'm not being helpful, I am completely willing to shut up.
FPs 14:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
As I stated above, I'd be reluctant to end the blurb on a negative note, which would occur if we merged the final sentence to elsewhere. I'd want that sentence to make it explicit that there are multiple views on what she has said. This is a BLP, after all.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since we have more time (per SandyGeorgia, below), I did want to react to I'd be reluctant to end the blurb on a negative note - I know people think this way, but I don't think this is really BLP-compatible thinking. Putting this FA blurb out in 2022, readers who have not been living under a rock will be aware that Rowling is now a controversial figure. While that isn't the main encyclopaedic fact about her, the danger of perceived hagiography seems much more relevant then the risk of exaggerating the negative reception to her views, which dominates the RS coverage of her for the last 2 years or so. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We need to (in this case, and always) keep an eye on scholarly sources; we've already gone beyond that in terms of the amount of Hollywood-dominated recentism we have allowed in to the article, so I feel we've done our best here. That does not mean internet people won't complain anyway ... but scholarly sources are less focused on which Hollywood star or which organization says what, and more focused on the issues of academic freedom, freedom of speech, and hate speech and death threats aimed at Rowling. I believe we've been as balanced as we can be within the character limitations of a blurb, but wonder what Wehwalt thinks, as he wasn't part of the article writing. What dominates coverage in the last two years is not what is reflected in scholarly sources, yet we've added that to the article anyway ... that doesn't mean we have to overly reflect RECENTISM in the blurb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record (and not that this is actionable for the blurb!), but I disagree with your assessment that scholarly sources are ... more focused on the issues of academic freedom, freedom of speech, and hate speech and death threats aimed at Rowling. I believe you have based this assessment disproportionately on lower-quality "scholarship" from fringe-y figures (notably Suissa & Sullivan, 2021) while neglecting more mainstream scholarship (e.g. Popowich, 2020; Hurbury & Yao, 2020; Witkowski, 2021). Which is not to say that these issues have been "settled" by scholarship - work is most certainly ongoing, and will always lag after events - but I do not believe the balance of sources supports your characterization here. Newimpartial (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Time will tell; meanwhile, we've allowed a lot of material in to the article in the interest of doing the best we can with recent events not yet well covered in scholarly sources. I think our one-sentence summary is as fair as we can be all things considered; how to make it work with the rest of the content, which is accorded due weight of high-quality and scholarly sources, is part of what makes this blurb tricky to write with good flow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point to some extent, Wehwalt, but the trouble is jumping from controversial remarks from 2019 on with an OBE received in 2000 is a bit of a leap. Mind you, thinking about it, the structure of the whole draft is pretty weak. It keeps jumping topics, then coming back to the first topic with more information in a jump back. For example, the sentence "Love and loss are reflected in the Potter novels; death and the divide between good and evil are central themes." comes out of nowhere and then we're into sales figures for a sentence, back to analysis with a comment about mixed reviews, then back to sales figures. I get this is what happens when you try to summarise a four paragraph lead in a few sentences, but the only thing keeping it from feeling completely disorganised is the topics being rapidly switched between have some connection. As a separate point, that "Love and loss" sentence feels extremely flowery, especially in the middle of otherwise very dry prose.
FPs 18:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
A recent change in order may have led to some of this ... now that DrKay has weighed in on OBE, I will give it another shot (before I get very busy with wedding activity shortly). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, you are not being unhelpful; anything raised now is hopefully avoided later. I just want to make sure everyone understands that there will be complainers no matter how hard we try, because we are constrained by characters in writing blurbs. I would be happy to lose the OBE entirely, which would allow us to bring back other wording. Before doing that, we need to hear from others. And if we lose the OBE clause, do we bring back "perceived conventionalism" in her writing, or do we bring back "as a single parent" in the life issues that affected her writing and philanthropic causes? Need more feedback ... and we have time still to work on this, no big hurry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't write 'membership in OBE' because a member of the order is an MBE, which is a lower honor. 'OBE is one of her accolades' is fine, but I agree with others here that it can be cut. DrKay (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DrKay ... will wait to hear from others. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a UK native, it is more natural to see an OBE referenced as a
OBE the British author of the children's fantasy series Harry Potter, the crime fiction series Cormoran Strike and other works. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Draft 6a

transphobic. She has received many accolades for literature and philanthropy. (Full article...
)

Discussion of draft 6a

1024 characters. I ditched the full OBE, used Sideswipe9th's suggestion, lost the "global" on media franchise, and explained some of the connections by adding single parent and the wealth connection, and re-ordered a bit to keep related bits together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, both Kirk and Smith (biographers) make the explicit connection that she felt she had to use her wealth and recognition to advance causes that mattered to her ... hence "with her wealth", to try to get the whole thing more tied together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, is it really worth the space to explain that JK Rowling is the pen name? If we just began it "J. K. Rowling is the British author of ..." you'd gain some space.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have had the same thought, but I vacillate ... would like to hear from others because we could sure use the space. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, I vacillate because J. K. Rowling is not the author of Strike ... Robert Gilbraith is ... if she had only one pen name, that would work, but with two, unsure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think she's most known for the J. K. pen name, there's a rather surprising amount of people who think her middle name is Kathleen, and could/would be confused by use of Joanne Rowling on its own.
You could maybe fudge it, something like Joanne Rowling OBE (Pen names: J. K. Rowling, Robert Gilbraith) is a British author of the children's fantasy series Harry Potter, the crime fiction series Cormoran Strike and other works. though that looks clunky to me.
Are there any other prominent writers, who have FA class articles, multiple pen names, and have been featured on the main page so we can see how it was handled in similar cases? Alternatively actors or musicians and stage names might be another useful touchpoint. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can think of ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a lot better. I want to add a few "nonetheless"es and such in there, but it's much improved.
FPs 19:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the feedback, Adam; that is a relief, as I have been having the same concern. We may be trying to do too much; I went back and tried to make the bits relate better to each other. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a comma before OBE, but do note I learned punctuation from Victorian literature.

FPs 19:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

So that would put us right a 1,025 ... I was unsure on comma ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain the comma is used on post nominals. Just going to the first one on the category list alphabetically, Robert Aagaard, we don't do that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading
MOS:POSTNOM right, we can leave it out ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Then let's leave it out. I think the comma after it is necessary, as it serves as a... I always think of them as
FPs 08:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
"Joanne Rowling OBE (pennames: J. K. Rowling, Robert Galbraith)" is ten characters longer, which we can get around by losing the words "had a child", since we mention she was a single parent a few words later. single parents by definition have children, after all.
FPs 08:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
If you took out the pen name business and forgot about Cormoran Strike, you'd have room for other things. In addition to Adam's single parent matter, mentioning just the divorce would of itself imply the earlier marriage.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So begin as "
OBE is the British author of the children's fantasy series Harry Potter, and other works. In the seven years before the 26 June 1997 publication of her first Potter novel, her mother died from multiple sclerosis (MS), and, following a divorce, she lived on state assistance as a single parent."--Wehwalt (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
No comma after "Harry Potter" I'd say. Two item lists don't take commas. Including pennames we can do or not, but I like Wehwalt's second sentence. It feels focused.
FPs 10:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
You've saved a lot of space, but ...
  1. Leaving out Strike, which is another major series, is questionable. Either AP or O-D was concerned about that, and it could even lead to criticism of the blurb as inaccurate. It would help to hear from @AleatoryPonderings, Olivaw-Daneel, Vanamonde93, and Victoriaearle:; leaving Strike out would leave us room to work back in the "perceived conventional" writing criticism (which ties directly to representations of sex and gender ... see the article).
  2. JKR described her mother's death, which had a profound effect on her writing, and everything that happened that year as putting her into a state of "fight or flight". That's what we are trying to convey with the seven-year period where she went to Portugal and had a "short but catastrophic" abusive marriage, which led to her living on state assistance, while leads to the themes of love, loss, separation, death and good and evil in the Potter novels, which leads to her charitable interests in vulnerable women and children as well as health causes around her mother's death. Those are the ideas we are trying to tie together ... it's the old "rags to riches" meme (criticised because not really "rags", rather middle class hits hard times), death love and loss impact her writing, seven years of very hard times impact her choices wrt philanthropy. I can't say the shortened version conveys all that, but then, neither did the longer version, so I like the shortened second sentence.
If we do the second sentence, but not the first, we haven't gained enough space to add back literary criticism; we end up at 1,016: whether or not to lose the pen names, which loses Strike then is tied to how we can use that space, and whether others feel it's OK to leave out major works under another pen name.
1016 characters ... adopting second sentence above but not first, pending feedback:
transphobic. She has received many accolades for literature and philanthropy. (Full article...) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd maybe swap "is the pen name of" to "is a pen name of", as Rowling has multiple pen names using "the" reads as a definitive; i.e. that she only has one. However we know that she has multiple, though some are lesser known. In context, this would read J. K. Rowling is a pen name of Joanne Rowling OBE, the British author of the children's fantasy series Harry Potter, the crime fiction series Cormoran Strike and other works. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it (eventually). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strike, while obviously less significant than Potter, is a lengthy, ongoing series of bestsellers. She's a writer and it's what she's been writing for nearly ten years. I'd say it deserves a mention. Why not

OBE is the British author of Harry Potter and Cormoran Strike, among other works. I haven't been following this discussion but I also don't see why we need to add the little OBE after her name. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

prob is that J. K. Rowling is not the author of Strike; JKR is the pen name of Joanne Rowling, who writes Strike as Robert Gilbraith ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also fine with losing the OBE entirely if that gives us room to work back in "perceived conventional" writing. I feel it unfortunate we are losing that bit, as it ties to her conventional take on sex and gender, directly mentioned in article text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Belated reply to a ping from days ago - I was watching and impressed with the results. As to the specific question, imo Strike should stay in. I've seen the series referred to the Strike series in reviews (without the Cormoran), so we could do something like that if needed. Fixing the penname to reflect from "the" to "a" is good. Victoria (tk) 19:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft 6b

transphobic. She has received many accolades for literature and philanthropy. (Full article...
)

Discussion of draft 6b

1,022 characters ... got conventional writing back in by removing OBE and shortening crime fiction to crime. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple small edits, and I make 1,012 after them, with no changes to content. I think it flows better this way? We can add OBE back if you want.
FPs 17:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
This needs to be re-worked: "Despite receiving mixed reviews for perceived conventional writing, Rowling became the world's highest-paid author by 2008, selling over 500 million copies and spawning a media franchise including films and video games." The Potter series is what sold over 500 million and spawned ... will work on fixing that and see if anything can still be added back after fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Repaired to distinguish that it was the series of Potter novels that sold over 500 million, etc, which puts us back at 1024, without room for OBE. That's fine, as several have objected to OBE ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we're desperate to get more in, the "In the seven years" bit could probably be shortened to "Before", though I don't think we should unless there's benefits elsewhere
FPs 19:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Timing Several people have made comments/queries re timing, and may be unfamiliar with how TFA scheduling works, so here is a 'splainer that Wehwalt may need to adjust.

Wehwalt is one of several

WP:TFA schedulers; he is responsible for the month of June. When he starts scheduling, that will happen at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2022, and the blurb moves to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 26, 2022. He has stated he plans to start in early May; once TFAs are scheduled, other editors start combing through the blurbs to make sure they are fit for the mainpage, so time has to be allowed for that. But between early May when Wehwalt starts to fill in the June schedule, and 26 June when the TFA actually runs, there is still a good deal of time, and changes can occur as the process evolves. Our goal at this stage is to have the blurb As Good As We Can Get It before others start combing through it, but we will still have time even after Wehwalt schedules. And the TFA can change at any point in the process, although that can sometimes get knickers in a twist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Pretty much. A tentative draft, for comment, will appear at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 2022 sometime Sunday. That will allow for several days of possible comment before scheduling takes place. Even then, things can shift. And do.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you all know that I will be Quite Tied Up all day Sunday :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy the wedding! And don't let Wikipedia rule your life. It doesn't end well.
FPs 04:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Mazel tov! And the draft schedule is here for anyone who cares.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, all, and thanks for putting up with my hurried editing ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

additional comments

in case anyone is still interested, i have posted additional comments on the blurb here. dying (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/requests/J._K._Rowling&oldid=1215064763"