Jump to content

Talk:Fierce Femmes and Notorious Liars

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 22:41, 21 June 2021 (Transcluding GA review). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Bilorv (talk). Self-nominated at 21:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Good article with good hooks. I might have to read this book. I think this is good to go – I prefer ALT1 or ALT2 for interestingness. ezlevtlk
ctrbs 20:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. It's a beautiful book, and I'd 100% recommend it: though quite a lot of it is sad, I felt the full spectrum of emotions while reading. — Bilorv (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Fierce Femmes and Notorious Liars/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DanCherek (talk · contribs) 22:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating this article — it looks like a really interesting book. I will be reviewing this against the GA criteria and will post some comments here within the next few days. DanCherek (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

  • I don't think the ISBN needs to be cited (self-evident?)
  • What age does the protagonist actually leave home? I'm asking because the plot says she's known Ghost Friend "since eleventh grade", which would be like 16–17 years old, so I'm curious about the statement leaves home at a young age. Is she in her 20s?
    • She decides to leave on the day that the mermaids die in her "senior year", which I think is 17–18 (and this is Canada, remember). But when she actually leaves is another matter. It feels like 17–18 but I can't concretely say. So I guess Ghost Friend is still kinda new. But this points me to a factual mistake I made in the synopsis—I did too much condensing, as she only decides to leave on the day the mermaids die, and could leave either the following day or months or years afterwards (very unclear). — Bilorv (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "Metonymy" → "Metonymy Press"
  • Ghost Friend and the killer bees—represent the "beautiful" and painful sides of trauma — I would drop a "respectively" somewhere in there, maybe before "represent"
  • I know "fairytale" can be spelled multiple ways but suggest "fairy-tale" for consistency with the quote in the next sentence, unless this is some BrEng thing I don't know about
    • I mean, the article should really be written in Canadian English but I have to admit to having no idea about what Brit/CanEng differences are, so it's currently British English I guess. Anyway, "fairy-tale" is fine. — Bilorv (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

  • Is Ghost Friend real? Are they (it?) "human"? I'm guessing the phrase "ungendered being" was chosen deliberately but it did leave me a little confused, but I understand if the book makes it ambiguous as well. Also at the end when Ghost Friend comforts her and she leaves Ghost Friend behind — this sounds like it was written to avoid pronouns, though Thom does use "them" when describing Ghost Friend in [2]. Thoughts?
    • "Ungendered being" is based on bits like: "I don't know what their real name is, or what gender they identify with, because they don't talk." Ghost Friend isn't human, but they're kind of "real" within the surrealist context. The protagonist experiences Ghost Friend touching her body, sensually and sexually, "Like a warm breeze, if breezes had fingers". Maybe this passage about the first experience makes it clearer:
      And anyone driving by the cemetery and looking in would have seen a crazy Asian boy muttering to himself and having a spontaneous orgasm while thrashing about on top of a memorial bench. But really, I was a girl being miraculously touched by a ghost.
    With a literary analysis cap on, Ghost Friend represents something within the protagonist, not anything physically "real" but something "emotionally real". I did choose that phrasing to avoid pronouns, but I've added a "they" because that is consistent with the book and Thom. — Bilorv (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the protagonist attacks a man who assaults her in public with kung fu — it's unclear who attacked whom first, and who is doing the kung fu
  • Was Rapunzelle addicted until she started to shapeshift, or abused until she started to shapeshift?
    • Neither (if I understand the question right). This is one night where she does Lost and either takes a lot or it's just the final straw: "Then one night Rapunzelle went down to the club where she used to work to score some Lost, and, after shooting up in a bathroom stall, she saw something in the mirror that terrified her: her father's face ... she began to change from one shape to another, faster and faster ... The Lost in Rapunzelle's system kicked into high gear at Kimaya's touch, flooding her mind ... her body took on wilder and wilder forms: a kicking centaur, a giant worm, a hissing serpent with maggots for eyes, a swarm of stinging ants. Still, Kimaya held on ... until—Rapunzelle was herself at last". I've added a clause: One night, while on Lost, she started to shapeshift. I'm not sure I fully understand all the meaning of the metaphor myself. — Bilorv (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the protagonist kills him — is there a more specific word than "kills" that can be used here (e.g., does she shoot him)? Just curious. I think it would help visualize the subversion of roles discussed in the Background section.
    • Yeah, the cop has cornered Lucretia in an alley where the protagonist is hiding. He throws his baton on the ground so he can shoot Lucretia dead and the protagonist comes out of hiding to grab the baton, hit him hard in the back of the head and he dies. She probably doesn't (but possibly could) have intent to kill. Now: As one police officer is about to shoot Lucretia, the protagonist grabs his baton and hits him in the head, killing him. — Bilorv (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in this section looks good (and these excerpts are making me want to read the book now). DanCherek (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

  • "category of the 29th Lambda" → "category at the 29th Lambda"
  • For Merbruja, I've found sources that use she/her [3][4][5] as well as sources that use they/them [6][7][8]. In the absence of specified pronouns on Merbruja's social media, perhaps combining the first two sentences could result in avoiding them altogether without making the text sound clunky: ... mysticism, legend and compassion" and wrote that it is "satirical...
  • I didn't know who Spencer Quong was; it would be helpful to include The Paris Review in the sentence that introduces his review.
  • He praised that the poetry — remove "that"
  • with its trans women target audience — written in wiki voice, this makes it seem like it's an established fact that the target audience is trans women, but it comes from Wren's interpretation of a line from the book, and conflicts a little with Thom's quote from the Background section about the target audience, which is a little broader. Maybe rephrase a bit?
  • and also praised that it was unexpected throughout. — this wording sounded a little awkward to me. How about something like "as well as its unpredictability"?
  • This review from a notable writer (Gwen Benaway) in a notable publication (Pleniutde) could be worth incorporating

Looks good to me! DanCherek (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Additional comments/observations

  • No copyright violations detected; all quotes are properly cited
  • Article is stable
  • Image is relevant and tagged with an appropriate fair use rationale

This is close! Putting this nomination on hold so that edits can be made. Many of these are merely suggestions; free to reply to any particular point if you feel that it isn't an improvement. DanCherek (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for the review! All very helpful comments and few/no pushbacks. Let me know if there's follow-ups on any of these points. — Bilorv (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pass, congratulations on a very well-written article! DanCherek (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA progress

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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fierce_Femmes_and_Notorious_Liars&oldid=1029769356"