Talk:Tipping the Velvet/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

I will be reviewing this article. After a first skim, it looks like a very strong contender, and is already better than most book GAs imo. I'm starting a thorough read through now. If i only find minor copy-edit changes needed, i'll do them myself and simpy pass it. Otherwise, i'll add detailed comments here.Yob Mod 13:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit questions/comments:

"Tipping the Velvet is a historical picaresque novel...": Should these adjectives not be separated by a comma? I see them as two independant modifications of "novel", so i would do so.
"follows her to London, and navigates her way through life in the city finding various ways to support herself". Too many hers - it should be rewritten to make clear that the "her" navigating through life, is the "her" doing the following, not the "her" being followed. Which is which can be worked out, but readers shouln't have to work in the lead, imo. Keeping plot in the lead to a minimum is good, but expanding to two sentences (and/or using the main characters names?) would help understanding for readers who cick away after the lead.
"The novel has strong lesbian themes; the title is an obscure Victorian pornographic slang reference for cunnilingus": "Strong" could be read as "well-done" here, rather than "pervasive", can it we reworded? Also, linking the title's meanig with a semi-colon implies that this is evidence for the lesbian theme. Cunnilingus is not inherently lesbian, so the sentences should not be linked in this way (unless the source does so?).
Paragraph starting "Waters' greatest literary strengths..." Could this paragraph be reworded to focus on the strengths of the novel, rather than strengths Water's displays by writing it?
Check for overlinking. Picaresque novel might benefit from two links, especially with one being in the lead and it being an uncommon term, but i don't think Charles Dickens needs 3. My AWB is being a bitch, otherwise i would do it myself.
A lot of the "genre" section discusses Water's style choices (eg, "a complicated plot") - would it be better to combine the style and genre sections, using subsections? If a reader comes to learn about the syle only, they would miss the info in the genre section - subsections make this less likely.
"...heterosexual existence that creates closets." I would put closets in quote marks here, as the gay meaning is rarely used in this way (as a plural noun), so it sounds strange to me.

"Sarah Waters was born in Wales in 1966." Seems off-topic. Her first lesbian experiences can be seen to inform the novel, but not her date of birth. Should be removed?
"Lesbian literary scholar Bonnie Zimmerman writes...". Is she writing about this novel? If just commenting on lesbian fiction in general, i think this is too much detail for this article. The rest of the paragraph gives enough of a summary of the novel use of lesbianism in the book.

That's all i got. GA criteria for NPOV, images, sources: all pass. Some copyedit changes needed, although i'm not holding out for them to be done before passing. The slightly off-topic details need working on before passing.Yob Mod 13:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are three links on Dickens: one in the lead, one in the prose, and one in an image caption. Which makes me think...I always link what is in a caption, but I cannot recall if that's policy, or just what I've seen and always done. So I went to check on Wikipedia:Captions and it says to be as clear as possible. I can remove the link from the caption if it pleases you.

I'm not fussed about which one goes. I generally find it helpful for terms to be linked again if they are separate sections, and I also link in captions, but i seem to be in the minority. If you think all three are of use here, that is fine, but the article should be checked for other instances of repeated linking (Dicken's was just the one i noticed, as i had already thought aboutwhether it was necessary to mention him in the lead).

Let me think some on the removal of the semi-colon in the lead between lesbian themes and the Victorian porn slang for cunnilingus. I see what you're saying, but the alternative does not look good or make sense to me.

I would remove the cunnlingus part from where it is, and have the lesbian themes sentence link into the rest of the paragraph which discusses Water's inspiration. The explanation of the title could then by put elsewhere (at the end of the first para?). Also the lesbian themes sentence could be rewritten and expanded to "The major themes of the book are lesbian eroticism and self-discovery" (source: Contemporary British novelists By Nick Rennison, p145 (on Googlebooks). He also links the title to lesbianism, so might give you an idea.)

The Bonnie Zimmerman quote was not written by Zimmerman about Tipping the Velvet, but used by Paulina Palmer to explain how Tippping is unique in its sexual explicitness as written by a woman, honestly about lesbians. Source-wise, it is being used, albeit secondarily, by a scholar to make a point about the depiction of lesbians up to this novel. I really do think it belongs in this article.

OK. You don't think this fact is covered by the sentences before the quote? Could it then be expanded in some way to show that this is being quoted from a source that uses it to discuss TtV?

I appreciate your review. Let me know your thoughts. I would like to take this to FAC, so anything you think is missing please suggest. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and think of anything missing, but my usual suggestions seem completely covered. Many GANs for books don't even have a "Themes" or "Style" or "Genre" section! From my reading of FACs, i would expect most comments to be directed at removing any flair from the prose. There are some complicated, multi-clause sentences here, but i prefer such things to no-style style.Yob Mod 15:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, shifted some. Re: the Zimmerman quote again, yes it's covered, or merely brushed upon. The quote, however, is a pimpslap to drive the point right home. Thanks for the Rennison book. I don't even consider GoogleBooks, which is somewhat arrogant of me... Let me know if you see any other impediments to GA or have suggestions to improve it. Thanks again. --Moni3 (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rennison has some nice quotables about the book being a subversion of standard tropes too. One more suggestion before FA: Could you search out some more negative reviews? Not to aim for some kind of "balance", but because neagtive reviews sometimes cover aspects that positive reviews do not. There is a lot of coverage of the strengths of the work, but little about its weaknesses, which can be just as interesting.Yob Mod 16:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I read every review I have access to in MLA database, LGBT in Full Text, Lexis Nexis, JSTOR, and individual newspapers I have access to. As Waters' first novel, it was not widely reviewed as much as The Little Stranger was, which by the look of the number of hits, earned nearly three or four times as many reviews as Tipping the Velvet. I don't know what to say. I absolutely agree with you that it appears POV, but srs...reviewers loved it. Maybe it's the bawdy lesbo aspect. What I found I put in the article. --Moni3 (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. I wasn't worried about NPOV, just that with reviews only discussing what they liked, it is difficult to make judgements about whether to read a book. As far as i can tell, reviewers like the plot, characterisation, setting, prose etc - A review that pointed out the prose as being a weakness would stop me reading a book, whereas criticism of plot is not important to me: Every part of a book being highlighted as a strength is about as useful to me as a reasder as no review (as i don't believe in perfect works of art). But if that's what the sources provide, then there is nothing to be done.Yob Mod 17:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]