Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Peer review/Ann Bannon

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ann Bannon[edit]

After including, quite literally, all information compiled in a single place about this author (in print or on the Internet), getting her personal approval in its content, and scouring every reference I could find, I think it's time for a peer review. It's currently rated at a B class (by me, you know...) and would like to know if it could be rated higher. --Moni3 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]

Belovedfreak[edit]

First of all, well done. You've obviously put in a lot of work, and I really enjoyed reading it. Here are some things I noticed:

  • I personally would make the 1st sentence something like "Ann Bannon (pseudonym of Ann Weldy b. 15 September 1932 in Joliet, Illinois) is an American writer who wrote a series of six lesbian pulp fiction books from 1957 to 1962 known as The Beebo Brinker Chronicles." I'm not sure if there are guidelines for this, but it seems prety standard to say explicitly what the subject of the article is.
  • Done. --Moni3 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]
  • Only the name of the article should be bolded (in this case, the words "Ann Bannon" and "Ann Webber" in the first sentence, not the titles of her books etc.) - see the Manual of style.
  • I took the bold of the book titles, but left The Beebo Brinker Chronicles in bold since it's a redirect to this page. --Moni3 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]
  • In the lead section, only statements that are really controversial should be cited. Ideally, the lead should summarise the rest of the article, so anything in the lead should be expanded upon and cited in the main article body. See WP:LEAD#Citations_in_the_lead_section.
  • Well, in reading the ongoing discussion of citations in the lead paragraph on the Good Articles talk page, it sounds like that's still up in the air. Plus, what I have cited are direct quotes that put a subjective spin on the impact of the topic. So, I think for now I'm going to leave those in. --Moni3 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]
  • Following on from that, the lead should summarise the article & be able to stand alone as a concise version of it. This looks pretty good to me, having just read through it once. Being more familiar with the article, I suggest you just make sure it does summarise all the main points in the article.
  • I can see a few statements that could do with citations:
    • The influence of The Well of Loneliness on Bannon.
  • Oh, gosh. That was in a personal email to me. How do I include that? --Moni3 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]
    • The fact that editors of Gold Medal Books were "astounded" - looking at the source cited, I can't see that mentioned.
  • Ok, you're right. My source for their surprise was in another article, and now I have to find it. They all run together after a while. --Moni3 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]
    • The stage version
  • In the "Criticism and recognition" section, there shouldn't be external links. Just use ordinary text with inline citations to the external sites.
Done. --Moni3 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]
  • You've used the word "claimed" quite a lot. Have a look at Words to avoid. It's got some good advice, and suggests not using words like "claim" as they sound POV.
  • I've read that info on "claimed" and thought I was using it accurately, but changed them all just for the sake of not wanting to argue that anymore. --Moni3 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]
  • Following on from that, some of the words in the article might seem a little POV, for example "The characters and the books were quite popular when they were first released, and have proved a remarkable longevity". "remarkable" seems POV, and "quite popular" seems POV and subjective - what's "quite popular" as opposed to "popular", and who's to say? Check out Words to avoid, Avoid Peacock terms and Avoid Weasel Words.
  • Me! I'm to say! Just kidding...Ok, I reworded the 1st paragraph in the lead a bit, but because the books were pulp fiction, and quite literally, weren't designed to last more than a year by their physical construction, that they lasted 50, to me at least, indicates longevity that is remarkable. In the restructure of that sentence, does it make that clearer? --Moni3 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]
  • In the "background" section it says "ending in the suicides of one of the women". I would have changed this but not 100% sure if you meant the suicide of one of the women or the suicides of both.
  • I'm at the point where I've read this so many times that my mistakes don't pop out at me anymore. I've asked for a copyedit, but don't know when that will take place. Thanks for catching that. --Moni3 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]
  • I would try to cut down the amount of external links. If the content of the external sites is relevant to the article, try to incorporate it, otherwise get rid of the link. Or maybe have separate "Further reading" and "External links" sections. Reviews, for example, could be incorporated into the article. Guide to layout might help.
  • I took out the external edits that I actually cited and used in the article. --Moni3 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]

OK, that's all I can see for now, hope some of it helps. I'm no expert on copyediting, so maybe someone else can run a copyeditor's eye over it.

Please let me say how grateful I am. I appreciate your assistance very much. Someone challenged me to make some changes to it and I think I went a little nuts, not knowing now if it's too long or cumbersome. Thank you for taking the time to review it. --Moni3 22:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]

--BelovedFreak 20:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmoyer's review[edit]

First, let me say that this is a very well written article. It reads quite nicely and has a genuine cohesiveness to it that is missing from much of Wikipedia. Kudos!

Thank you. --Moni3 04:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]

Now for the areas of improvement:

There are a great many quotes from Ms. Bannon herself. While they add a great deal to the readers understanding of the subject, they may also be seen as supporting the assertions in the article, which could be a violation of WP:Verifiability. Additionally, fourteen of the references are either interviews with the subject, or writings by the subject herself, once again calling WP:V into question. My genuine fear is that, when reviewed by a wider audience, a number of statements may be removed.

This may be the case. I realized this issue not long after I created the article. If it remains a B class article, then so it remains. I think it's a very good article of a living person, so I'm ok with it staying here. --Moni3 04:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]

One fact that stuck out to me as not being well supported is the final sentence of the opening paragraph:

"Her books are often taught in women's studies and LGBT studies courses." This is later supported with a reference from an interview with the article's subject. She cannot serve as a reference for this item. A citation from a some university actually using one of her books would qualify the statement "Her books have been...", but several citations are needed to support a claim of "often".

I've come across many syllabi in my searches that feature Bannon's books as required reading in college courses. I can link some of those. Or I can contact a local instructor who uses her books and get a direct quote there. Although, I'm not sure how to cite that. I'll have to ask the citation specialists. --Moni3 04:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]

I've run short of time and may add more later. Hope this helps! Have a Wiki day!

I appreciate the time you took to read and review it. Thanks so much. --Moni3 04:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Moni3[reply]

Mmoyer 03:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Peer_review/Ann_Bannon&oldid=162393971"