Talk:Jane Severance/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 13:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Will review this one. Expect comments over the next few days. —Kusma (talk) 13:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Section by section review

• Lead: not very long but seems to summarise what we know. Is all of which include lesbian characters truly correct? There seems to be slight disagreement about the sex lives of the Lots of Mommies. But Severance herself says her works all include lesbian characters (you could mention this in the debate about the Mommies book).

• It's a good question. I've included that Severance views the work as having lesbian characters in the body, but it is also true that some disagree about LoM's inclusion. That said, the scholars who've engaged most heavily with Severance and her work (Crisp, Miller) seem to hold that LoM depicts lesbians/lesbian home life. I could maybe add a note to indicate the disagreement?

  Not sure that needs to be discussed in the lead (if you want to, you could reformulate and again tell us that she says the chaarcters are lesbians. But I won't insist on that).

• Early life: The sentence about the father could perhaps be split and simplified.

• Done.

• Some more of the content on p. 90 of the interview could be used here, for example grandparents and an aunt who loved me as well. I grew up in a family where reading was valued above all.

• Done.

• Last paragraph is very short, perhaps combine paragraphs?

• Great idea, done.

• Career: is there anything at all to be said about reception for Ghost Pains?

• Poked around; it's mentioned four times in Feminist Bookstore News but only really in blurbs, not in reviews. I've un(red)linked the title for now since I don't think I'm able to make the case that it's a notable work per our standards.

  Too bad.

• Personal life: I would consider dropping the seamstress (or combining it with other self-descriptions, like the "fix anything"/"plants out of dumpsters" on p. 89) and not having a separate section for so little information.

• Incorporated seamstress above, otherwise trimmed.

• Legacy: I am not sure this is fair to Newman. Severance clearly states it was "an honest mistake" and Crisp explains "hustler" in a footnote. Newman also openly admits that Severance was right. The way it is presented in the article makes it sound more accusing from Severance and more defensive from Newman than what I see in their own words.

• Astute. I've rewritten to match the Crisp interview more fully.

  That's much better.

• Bibliography: Consider adding |ref=none to avoid generating Harv warnings for the people with User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors enabled.

• Done.

  I think we misunderstood each other; I have applied the fix myself.

General comments and GA criteria

Nice little article about a pioneer. Sad there is no image (you could try to ask her to donate one? [1])

Thanks! I'm in email contact with her but haven't had any luck so far.

• References nicely formatted.

• 😊

• I am a bit concerned how much of the information comes from an interview with Severance and is essentially self-reported. Do other scholars at least cite this interview for personal information about Severance?

• Yeah, the chief two sources of bibliographic details are the 2009 (pub. 2010) Crisp interview and the 2018 (pub. 2022) Miller interview. The Miller pub. is still new so hasn't been cited yet but Miller, who also heavily engages with Severance's work, cites the Crisp interview several times.

  If Miller (I don't have access to her book) also believes in the bio, that's good enough for me.

• Can't see any OR or copyvio issues.
• Article is reasonably broad given how little we know; focussing on her works is probably the way to go
• No stability concerns
• One neutrality question in the prose review above (Newman).

• Addressed (I hope).

That's it I think. Nice work on her and her books. —Kusma (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful review, Kusma. Please let me know if there's any other work I can do on this. —⁠Collin^{t c} 20:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we're done here, good responses and edits, A Good Article. —Kusma (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.