Talk:Mira Bellwether/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Caeciliusinhorto (talk · contribs) 11:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will take this on. Comments soon Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. First impression is that this is an excellent article. Some minor observations:

"(Bellwether grew frustrated in subsequent years as, despite issue #0's popularity, submissions for issue #1 failed to materialize.)" I do not think that this needs to be in parentheses
Any reason that Autostraddle is not wikilinked? The other notable publications mentioned all are
Can an image of Bellwether be added? If there are no freely licensed ones available then a fair-use one would be permitted, as I understand it
The lead is lacking anything on Bellwether's death and legacy; a sentence just saying that she died in 2022 and briefly summarising her legacy beyond just FTW (which is, I realise, a big part of her legacy!) would be nice
Doing some spotchecking, I don't see that the Kellaway 2015 source supports the claim that it is with, really. The LGBTQ Nation article which it is bundled with does, so it's not a WP:V issue, but I don't see why the Kellaway source is there.
I'm not seeing any copyvio concerns (and the things which Earwig is flagging are all properly-attributed quotations)

Really this is mostly picking minor nits. I will give you some time to respond to this, but the article is pretty much GA standard as things stand Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking a look at this!

Hmm so the parentheses are there because it breaks the temporal flow of the section. We're going from 2010 to late '10s/early '20s, back to describing the work published in '10, on to '13, on to '21, before two paragraphs looking at the work more longitudinally (impact of muffing, influence of disability). So if I were to take that line out of parentheses, I feel like the only way to avoid confusion would be to move it later, maybe to the end of the paragraph quoting Fielding. Or I guess another option would be to drop the parens but then have The zine (sometimes abbreviated... be the start of a new graf. But overall I still tend toward keeping the parens
added 22:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC): Oh I guess this would also be an option on removing the parens:
Finding submitted materials insufficient, she chose to make the zine a solo effort and number it "#0" to leave room for a "#1" featuring others' contributions; she would later grow frustrated as, despite issue #0's popularity, submissions for issue #1 failed to materialize. The zine (sometimes abbreviated FTW) explores a variety ...

This is how I would have written it personally, but it's a matter of personal style and I don't insist on it Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm guessing this is a holdover from text I copied from Fucking Trans Women (WP:NOATT, sole author), where there was probably a link on a preceding reference. Fixed!
I wouldn't call myself quite a WP:VEGAN, but I personally refrain from uploading non-free images except of works being discussed. If someone else wants to upload a fair-use image of the subject, I agree that that would be within policy. (Maybe I'll reach out at some point to her widower and ask if there's anything that could be CC-licensed, but he appears to have limited availability at the moment.)
I've added a bit to the lede. Not sure I love quite how I'm handling the Thom quote, but a paraphrase could come off as puffery, I worry. Would love to hear your thoughts.
added 01:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC): I've reworked the lede a bit more, and am happy with this version if you are.
Both sources tell roughly the same story, but LGTBQ Nation goes into slightly more detail about the arrest, and Killarney goes into slightly more detail about Bellwether. The added detail in Killarney doesn't really matter in terms of what's asserted in the article, but for a reader looking to know more, it may be of more use, especially since citing LGBTQ Nation and The Advocate is roughly equivalent, in non-LGTBQ terms, to citing Business Insider and The New York Times respectively.

Thanks again for the review! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All looking good now. Any remaining quibbles I have are purely on personal taste grounds and I'm happy that this clearly meets the requirements of WP:GACR. Congratulations on your new GA! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]