Talk:Margaret Atwood/Archive 1

3847:

start I'd actually encourage you to look at the sources feedback and address those first. The second bullet point, about eliminating the repetition of sources, is, absent a compelling explanation, something I am going to insist upon for criteria 2a and completion of that will make the remaining work I have to do to evaluate sources much easier. I know this might seem like a long list - don't fret. This is a normal length list for an article of this size in my experience observing GAs and having done some myself. This very much has the bones of a GA and through this process anticipate a successful review. Please feel free to keep asking questions as you have them. Best,

2748:. The way I read this suggests that the Lead should be a preview of the article to come. Much of the first paragraph after sentence 3 is just a listing of her many accomplishments, which aren't strictly necessary to establish notability. I would suggest limiting this, perhaps moving up the final paragraph which actually does preview major swaths of the article, and giving thought to whether anything else belongs in the Lead to help give an accessible overview. 462: 2721: 2698: 2680: 2649: 2625: 2598: 2584: 2555: 2537: 2523: 2509: 2474: 2440: 33: 2315: 1120:"While she is best known for her work as a novelist, her poetry is noteworthy." Did anyone read that before they wrote it? It sounds very clumsy. Something along the lines of: "Although Atwood is best known for her work as a novelist, she has also been critically successful as a poet." The phrase "her poetry is noteworthy" sounds ridiculous. 3846:

Standard next steps are to fix items listed, push back on items where I might have missed the mark, and ask questions about what you don't understand. Generally indicated beneath each item that you've addressed it, disagree with it, or have questions is the way to go. If you're looking for a place to

615:

If, according to this article, "Atwood is among the most-honored authors of fiction in recent history," why does it contain absolutely *no* critical commentary on her work? Go to any Knowledge article on any second-rate hack novelist. You'll get at least a paragraph on his themes, landmark works etc.

511:

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on

1870:

Being a huge fan of both Cameron and Atwood, upon hearing that Atwood published a collection of poetry titled "Love songs of a Terminator" in the early 80s, I became quite excited. I spent rather a lot of time exhausting all my rare book channels looking for this piece, hoping it was some sort of

416:

The lead paragraph seems very strange to me. Atwood has won many prestigious awards. Is being talked about (among many others) as a potential winner of the Nobel -- but then not getting it or even being formally nominated either year -- really the best shorthand for her notability? Who is she, Erica

155:

has made this article difficult to read? It reads like someone's undergraduate essay and is so chock full of enthusiastic adjectives (diligent,undoubtedly,innovative, extraordinary etc) that I just don't know where to start to make it a bit more POV. Also it is written in a very academic style which

76:

I noticed that there was a recent edit, muddying up the page, by simply button-mashing and just basically spamming the existing text without really adding a single thing, besides a new layer of annoyance. I used the undo feature, and I'll keep an eye on it, as best I can - not sure how to flag it so

3622:

So let's say you have the book "Smith, Joan (2011). Atwood Best Author Ever. Prestigous Place, Canada: Reputable Press.". Over the course of the article you cite this source three times but a different page each time. As you have it each source would be listed once in the reference list. If you use

3360:

This is pretty standard for literary criticism. Typically you attribute the theory to the person who coined it in cases like this; otherwise, it could look as if someone was trying to give Howells credit for the term. So, in her work, Howells is discussing how Huthinson's theory applies to Atwood's

3314:*Taking on GF that source says that, " Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature, is considered outdated in Canada but remains the standard introduction to Canadian literature in Canadian Studies programs internationally." Even so a single source for such a broad statement is a bit worrying. 4035:

Think things are very close. I want to explore the adaptations a bit more. I think the sources as listed are adequate to pass GA but would encourage you to think about doing it anyway as reader friendly (at least for those readers who care about such things). Think there remain just a couple other

3735:

I have begun my review of the article. My process is to do a read through of the article, and then to go back through and do a detailed read through, commenting on prose, balance, and sources. I then go back through and check-off the other elements of GA (including some other elements of sources).

3408:

I think this section is more appropriately named ecocriticism. I've moved some things around to see if this makes more sense. In general, I tried to leave other contributors' information in the article and add citations or context. I'm open to discussion on removing the lines from the works. I do,

221:

I've removed a sentence referring to the fact that Atwood has not been awarded a Nobel Prize ("She hasn't won a nobel prize yet."). It has since been returned, albeit in a slightly different form ("She hasn't won a nobel prize .). Unless some sort of context is provided - a cited recognition that

3186:

I agree and I see your point. But it also includes things such as the Long Pen, Future Library Project, etc. that she wasn't doing earlier in her career. At this point her career started going in additional directions, which is why I originally started to break out the sections. I'm open to other

1169:

Seven years later I'd say this section is far worse. "In 2008, The Economist called her a "scintillating wordsmith" and an "expert literary critic", but commented that her logic does not match her prose in Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth, a book which commences with the conception of

3141:*More context (1 sentence plot summaries) around some of the novels would be positive. I think right balance is struck with Alias Grace which has short summary (as compared to Robber Bride which we just learn takes place in Toronto and which through inference we learn has an evil woman character. 2755:

So I have edited back in some information in the LEAD. For an article of this length I would generally expect 3, maybe 4 paragraphs, in the lead. My issue above was the long listing of accomplishments rather than just suggesting it was too long. Would again ask if there is information that feels

4084:. This passed GA in 2012 when standards were lower but even still think it offers a nice point of comparison. Based on that I would suggest adding another sentence (or so) to Surfacing, Payback, Wandering Wanda and Handmaid's (given number and importance of adaptations it can be longer). Best, 3675:

I encouraged Jlbrandt to send this article to GAN. I believe they will be around to discuss your review and make any necessary changes, if applicable, but I have this page on my watchlist, too, and can help out as needed. In other words: confirmed. :) Thanks for volunteering to take it on. —

102:

can be seen as anything other than a opinion. Isn't anyone sick of this kind of baiting? Writing fiction and using the United States as an engine of disaster is not new... for only one example read Mark Twain criticism of the United States and it's intervention in the Philippines .

3171:

This section is longer than others. Granted it covers nearly two decades vs 1 decade for others but also worry we're slanting towards the more recent because most of those things occurred since Knowledge started and thus has received more editor attention. Thoughts? Best,

3950:

It's generally helpful if underneath my comment you either note that you made a change, ask a question, or explain why you don't think my suggestion is right. This helps keep things organized. Again feel free to ask any questions as you move through this process. Best,

3567:

Most Knowledge subjects are notable for whatever they did not their personal life. So I say important in terms of needing coverage in order to adequately cover their subject (GA criterion 3a). Still suggest merging it with section up top would be best but defer to you.

2968:

I ended up removing this entirely. In general, I tried to keep comments on her writing brief, as these all have their own detailed pages. Ultimately I found that this quote wasn't needed as it doesn't really add anything to the page and other novels do not have similar

1568:

Is this supposed to mean something? It sounds like the sort of vacuous vagueness common in a certain type of social science: heavy on words and light on intelligibility and meaning. As Spock (Star Trek) might have put it, "It's English, Jim, but not as we know it".

1883:

I would be happy to be wrong, and would be quite willing to pay a substantial amount for a copy of the work, or for that matter, a reasonable simulacrum thereof, but as it stands, we should probably remove "Love songs of a Terminator" from the list of her works.

125:

I wanted to query the assertion that Margaret Ätwood writes in a 'stream of consciousness' style. This seems to me to rather overstate the case and not be what I would understand by the term (nor Knowledge's definition for that matter). Anyone else agree/disagree?

3160:

Why are the different forms broken out in the 2000s vs other decades? I think this section has right level of depth for each book (see above comment) but am curious about this organizational choice. At minimum would move LongPen to the end of this

1871:

dystopian take on Blake. After rather a lot of searching, and much disappointment, I am beginning to suspect that Atwood never wrote a poetry collection called "Love Songs of a Terminator" the year before Cameron's masterpiece was released.

3345:

The way I'm reading the reading the sourcing, he author saying Atwood is writing Historiographic metafiction is Howells. Hutchinson coined the phrase, but is that pertinent here or is it relevant that Howells suggests it's true of Atwood? Best,

3000:*Suggest "Regarding her stints with teaching, she has noted, "Success for me meant no longer having to teach at university.” change to "Atwood was happy to stop teaching noting, "Success for me meant no longer having to teach at university.” 1170:

debt and its kinship with justice." Is that really the most significant evaluation of her writing, worthy of literally half of the "critical reception" section of the page? That The Economist did not agree with her conception of debt?

316:

Why does every other Internet source that mentions Atwood's personal life comment that she is NOT married to novelist Graeme Gibson (and doesn't intend to) and this article says she married him some time ago. Needs a correction/cite?

3825:; this is very thorough and detailed. I've started working on the edits on a sandbox page, and will continue over the next day or two. I will let you know if I have any questions. This is my first GA; what is standard for next steps? 3801:

I have completed my detailed read. I still have a couple other GA areas to check, like images and some aspects of sourcing, but the lion's share of the work is done and would welcome any responses or questions you might have. Best,

1636: 2922:*Source for "explore identity and social constructions of gender as they relate to topics such as nationhood and sexual politics"? (Note: I also did a slightly change of sentence for clarity. Please make sure it's still accurate) 3488:

I think this section has more information in it than just a list. It also leaves the possibility for additions as adaptations continue. I am open, though, to continued discussion if others feel it should be reduced to a list.

3327:

I originally wanted to remove this statement in my first edits of the article because there was not a source for this. Another editor added the source and wording. I'm actually okay with removing it; it seems redundant to

681:

This list is at least 3 times too long - only the most useful, relevant, and important should stay - but which? Many would be useful as citation instead imo. (add comment under each for pro/anti keeping as ext links):

3317:*Can "Atwood’s Survival bears the influence of Northrop Frye’s theory of garrison mentality; Atwood instrumentalizes Frye’s concept to a critical tool." be reworded to be easily understood by a wider swath of readers? 1448:

Atwood is outspoken in terms of both 'science fiction' and 'speculative fiction' and links to those two articles have some value here, at least in section 4, Atwood and science fiction, as well as the infobox Genres.

222:

she has been considered, for example - I don't see this statement as meaningful. As it is, one might make the same statement for every other living Canadian witer. I look forward to hearing the thoughts of others.

1523:, an international philanthropic programme that pairs masters in their disciplines with emerging talents for a year of one-to-one creative exchange. Out of a very gifted field of candidates, Atwood chose 3480:

This section is a bit of a mess right now reading like a list more than anything. If it's just going to be a list (and I'm not sure it needs to be more than a list) it should be a list, like the Awards

2961:*It feels like there's more blistering criticism of Handmaid's tale than that NYT quote per HuffPo article. Also should probably be balanced with a positive quote as demonstration of the mixed reviews. 1085:

A photo would be great in this article. I went to her official website looking for contact info so I could ask her, but could not find it. Any suggestions? Would someone like to write her publisher?--

3627:(sorry for wrong link above) you could combine that with refname so that the specific page number is cited but the source is only listed once in the reference list. Does that make any more sense? 1637:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Ade9DPXEVw0J:www.eng.fju.edu.tw/worldlit/canada/handmaid.html+%22Margaret+Atwood%22+%22Free+trade%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=ca

944:

This section opens with the following statement: " Margaret Atwood is a part of a long line of strong females in her family." This statement is both ridiculously POV, and hilariously idiotic.

37: 1472:. I don't know whether the distinction is deliberate or fitting here. There are some workers who strip links from supposedly familiar genre names, sometimes 'science fiction' in particular ( 508:

is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Knowledge policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

1770: 1880:

I have found other references to the collection around the internet, but they all seem to post-date the aforlinked edit, and none of them seem to contain more detail than the edit.

659:

I would agree that this article would benefit by the addition of such a section. If no one else is up for it, I'll have a go, but first I'll have to unearth some of my old research. --

996:

If there's a policy regarding commercial links, I'd be grateful if you could direct me to it. Better to use a source for everything, but I won't add it if there's policy against it.

173:

Near the bottom of the page, there is a list of Atwood's works, their publication dates and awards received. It says that she won the Governor General's Award in 2000 for her novel

2843:*Does it make more sense to include Pratt award in Early Life or here? Arguably both sentences could actually go in 1960s section comfortably. No right answer just asking question. 1925: 1224:, if you are going to bark out orders to everyone, even those who were innocent, it would be nice to have a person behind the orders...and maybe some context would be nice. Please 3014:*Source for "Although vastly different in context and form, both novels use female characters to question good and evil and morality through their portrayal of female villains."? 2875:

that " As a social satire of North American consumerism, many critics have often cited the novel as an early example of the feminist concerns" accurately summarizes, rather than

1295:

no longer supports the fields influences and influenced. Its template documentation now instructs (twice): "No longer supported. Please move cited/citable instances into prose."

845:- being a trustee of a non-notable prize is not important imo. This site doesn't add enough to a readers knowledge of Atwood (can be a single sentence mention within article). 3761:

This is my first time going through this process, so I'll wait until you are finished before working on your suggestions. Everything so far is very helpful. Thank you.

2195: 3107:

I feel this is covered in themes. I'll keep looking for sales figures or something that might help here. I feel the awards list at the bottom of the page covers this.

2418: 2085: 2320: 596:

The sentences, "Hybrid cars still use gas. A subway doesn't." should probably not be at the end of the section about MA's energy-efficient practices. I am removing.

369:

Source would be easy - she's listed as living with him on book jackets going back decades. I believe the law is that you are considered common law after 12 months.

2462: 2353: 2227: 2223: 2209: 2117: 2113: 2099: 2007: 2003: 1989: 1812: 1808: 1794: 1682: 1678: 1664: 195:

just a note that it's the Governor General's Literary Award, not Literacy Award! I think it's pretty clear both Ondaatje and Atwood are clearly beyond literate!

3100:

Beyond awards what can we say about the arc of her career? Some more critical summary and detail regarding sales would be positive throughout the career section.

1520: 557:

Though very familiar with the bible, she is not religious and discusses being raised a "strict agnostic" at 7:10 mark here <copyright violation redacted: -->

4059:

I believe I've responded to everything but what we want to do about the adaptations. Maybe a list would just be easier. Let me know if I missed anything else.

3590:

Single sources are listed multiple times in the reference list. How intentional was that? It would be better to use {{refname}} & {{rn}} to group together.

159:

I don't want to start off with bad faith by doing massive edits, but I really think this article needs some major work to improve readability and neutral POV.

3021:

The two sentences that immediately follow this sentence are provide the source material for how the two novels are different in form but have female villains

2343: 1267:

Given that she spent her adolescent years in Leaside, it is presumably Leaside United Church that she amusingly describes in one of her novels. Which novel?

3989:

Nearly there. I've struck through points I consider closed. Couple places for you to response and a couple where I just want to give it more thought. Best,

3110:

The only recent figures I can find regarding sales have to do with The Handmaid's Tale. I still feel the whole section on themes/criticism covers this.

2672: 489:, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with 3564:

I feel strongly that Atwood is notable for being an author, not for her personal life. I feel the section is appropriate as is and where it is placed.

1771:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140902020835/http://www.design-engineering.com/motion-control/robotic-arm-extend-authors-signatures-over-cyberspace-10411

53: 1945: 3461:

Removed the Toronto bit. Left Gaza because of its connection with PEN and did a copyedit of Sudbury but left it as evidence of her environmentalism.

2466: 2458: 447:

I had heard that she was an article writer for Playboy in the 1960/70s (at the same time as Alex Haley and Ian Fleming). Can anyone confirm that?

3335:

Since it's Howells not Hutchinson applying Historiographic metafiction tag to Atwood is Hutchinson's coinage of the term pertinent in this article?

3557:*This section feels bare but also very important. Can more information/sourcing be found? If not can it be merged with Early Life & Education? 2976:*Having one critic's review of Cat's Eye being autobiographical doesn't demonstrate larger point that critics and reviewers do this more generally 1760: 486: 1926:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150210121329/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=45d3df1d-8744-4b72-bd52-4ef6ca1d8ab3&k=19276

1595:

Maybe the "Personal life" section can be put in with the section titled "Early life and education", it seems to fall under a similar umbrella.

2515: 2450: 1774: 1473: 513: 505: 501: 478: 2946:

Atwood's webpage (source 30) should probably not be used. Can alternative citation for her winning of St. Lawrence Award for Fiction be found?

3168:

Moved LongPen. I am open to other forms of organization. Without the breakdown it seemed like the section was too long and hard to navigate.

945: 710: 2904:*Items do not need to be linked everytime they appear. In general only the first instance needs linking, but there are some exceptions. See 2325: 1190:

As in IP remarks from a year ago (above) I agree that the article still needs a critical commentary of her work. It is still more or less a

402:

is both mentioned as one of her novels and as short fiction. I haven't access to The Tent so I don't know if it is both. Anybody who knows?

3394:*I'm torn about need for Speculative Fiction section as compared to what is (or could be) present in Career. Since I'm torn just noting it. 1935: 1576: 543: 2936:*Taking on GF that source says Surfacing and Survival "helped establish Atwood as an important and emerging voice in Canadian literature" 1929: 4158:

calls Jim Polk "an American writer she had met at Harvard". The journalist does not appear to have attended Harvard, and his entries in

1493: 1171: 632: 517: 376: 202: 4152:, which appears to have been present for a couple months. I have found no reliable evidence that these two Polks are the same person. 3007:

kept original wording; quotation does not support assertion that Atwood was "happy" to stop teaching. Original wording is more neutral.

4196: 2690: 2408: 2196:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090116185034/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081006.WAtwood07_PTR/BNStory/politics

1955: 1640: 2205:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

2095:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

2086:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170702113145/http://franzkafka-soc.cz/uploads/docs/2017/05/Cena%20Franze%20Kafky%202017%20TZ%20ENG.pdf

1985:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1790:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1660:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1975: 2686: 2501: 2454: 3597:

I used the citation generator for my citations, so they just appeared in the reference list. I'm not sure how to proceed here.

3024:

Think this is borderline OR. I want to give it more attention/thought as to which side of the line I think it ultimately falls.

2089: 3451:*I'm not sure any of the Sudbury, Gaza, or University of Toronto pieces of information is necessary in terms of GA criterion 3. 2611: 2414: 2392: 2348: 3495:

I'm open to that idea, but I am having a hard time envisioning what the cells would be. Is there an example you can point to?

2285:

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I am attempting to make some edits to the layout of the page, as well as adding additional content.

2199: 963:

The article mentions, 'God's Gardeners (due to be published 2009).' Is there a source for this? If not, it should be deleted.

849: 3612: 3538: 3376: 3300: 3202: 3125: 2529: 1650: 824: 420:

I say replace this reference with a sentence about her Booker, and create a complete "Awards and nominations" section below.

36:

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available

3653:

or another interested editor confirm they're willing to go through the GA review process before I begin this review? Best,

1965: 1553: 768: 2270: 2160: 2050: 1855: 1725: 787: 910:

Acceptance speech for The Blue Metropolis International Literary Grand Prix 2007, online at CBC Words at Large (audio)

3320:*Should not generalize Pivato's critique based on current sourcing (but can and should leave it in attributed to him) 3285:

Changed name and re-organized this section. Hopefully this address or clarifies other suggestions for this section.

748: 697: 1453: 3492:

How about a table that could allow some of the other information without trying to be Prose when it's really not?

1946:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130405013402/http://events.latimes.com/bookprizes/previous-winners/winners-by-award/

2446: 1891: 1373: 2226:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2116:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2006:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1811:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1780: 1681:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

1021:.. I added second to article, look more official. Although i'm sure both probably got their info from Amazon :-) 2371: 1876:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Margaret_Atwood&type=revision&diff=124844394&oldid=124844216

1761:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090717005002/http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth03C18N390512635243

1580: 1135:

Agreed. This needs rewording I think. It does make it sound as though her poetry was little more than a hobby.

1090: 1068: 1051: 949: 701: 275: 3278:*Strongly suggest the first subtopic be renamed. Could be "Canadian Identity" or "Theory of Canadian Identity" 547: 1456:(which I just added it to the Portal box, and where Portal:Science fiction is a top-level division). We link 1175: 628: 4200: 4149: 2491: 2261: 2187: 2151: 2077: 2041: 1917: 1846: 1775:

http://www.design-engineering.com/motion-control/robotic-arm-extend-authors-signatures-over-cyberspace-10411

1752: 1716: 1628: 1381: 1289: 887: 380: 206: 134: 2781:*Also, while not prohibited the number of references currently in the lead are not strictly necessary, see 4216: 2983:

added an additional citation; source discusses critics' desire to read autobiographical elements in novel

2833:. (If I were writing this I would probably not include the Bob fact at all but that's personal preference) 2590: 2576: 2367: 2183: 2073: 1949: 1913: 1887: 1469: 1465: 1160: 650: 581: 562: 82: 3587:

It is best practice to note when a web source requires a subscription (but not strictly required for GA).

601: 186: 141:

use the technique, or elements of it, occasionally, doesn't she? Or is this just me being undereducated?

99:

This reflects her status of being "in the vanguard of Canadian anti-Americanism of the 1960s and 1970s."

4175: 3151:

Going too in depth doesn't make sense. In looking at some FA authors I think you've struck good balance.

2245:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2233: 2135:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2123: 2025:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2013: 1936:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110629115029/http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/11.08/08-atwood.html

1830:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1818: 1700:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1688: 979: 772: 624: 349: 4153: 2186:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2076:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1916:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1764: 1751:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1627:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 558: 210: 189: 3571:

Okay; that makes sense. I moved up top and changed the section header to "Personal life and education"

3421:*Political involvement could use some sort of introduction/summary before diving into Handmaid's Tale. 1930:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=45d3df1d-8744-4b72-bd52-4ef6ca1d8ab3&k=19276

234: 4192: 3600: 3526: 3364: 3288: 3190: 3113: 2547: 2543: 1572: 1225: 1140: 620: 539: 497: 469: 372: 198: 41: 17: 4080:

Yeah I think it's just adaptations at this point. Best comparison I could find among existing GA is

597: 473:

is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under

152:

I hate to be rude, but does anyone else think that the 00:47, 8 February 2006 edit by 209.239.5.156

4114: 4089: 4041: 3994: 3956: 3888: 3852: 3807: 3780: 3741: 3721: 3678: 3658: 3351: 3177: 3032: 2876: 2796: 2386: 1602: 1457: 1303: 1248:

Substantiation and elaboration is surely required. So-considered by whom? Outdated in what regard?

1086: 1064: 1047: 987: 523: 297: 271: 45: 1956:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131225215742/http://www.themanbookerprize.com/people/margaret-atwood

1641:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160128154355/http://www.eng.fju.edu.tw/worldlit/canada/handmaid.html

1528: 972: 909: 892: 725: 320: 133:

Perhaps it should read something like, 'Atwood frequently uses elements of the literary technique

4064: 4015: 3980: 3933: 3902: 3874: 3830: 3766: 3707: 3608: 3534: 3372: 3296: 3198: 3121: 2290: 1377: 1335: 1298:

Here are the current parameter values (cut and paste except bullet points and reflist template):

1233: 1199: 1101: 914: 660: 573: 474: 448: 115: 104: 61: 2799:

but that particular page doesn't actually establish most of what precedes that in that sentence.

2230:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2120:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2010:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1939: 1815:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1685:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

818: 3775:

Some editors find it useful to do work as I go along but it's also totally fine to wait. Best,

3234:*Payback section needs sourcing. Also am confused about what exactly Economist was criticising. 2246: 2136: 2026: 1976:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160614173534/http://trentu.ca/convocation/honorarydegree_past.php

1831: 1701: 809: 715: 645:

and add a section of critical commentary. It certainly would be a welcome and needed addition.

329:

Yes, it needs a correction, I believe. I can find no reference to her being married to Gibson.

4212: 4159: 3050: 3027:

Still think this might be OR but tie goes to the editor since I consider it borderline. Best,

2830: 1532: 1416: 1272: 1253: 1156: 1001: 968: 646: 577: 345: 223: 142: 78: 4189:

She was not raised in an Orthodox Jewish family. The source used states Naomi Alderman was.

3187:

organization, I just don't know how else to do it that makes it easier to read or navigate.

3060:

the fact that it won the Booker Prize and Hammet Prize support the novel's critical acclaim.

2090:

http://www.franzkafka-soc.cz/uploads/docs/2017/05/Cena%20Franze%20Kafky%202017%20TZ%20ENG.pdf

796: 4171: 3220:*Hag seed sentences don't technically need a source but if one is easy to add wouldn't hurt. 2662: 1125: 1105: 1026: 686: 664: 238:, I'm forced to conclude that they're just vandalizing things today and have so-warned them. 108: 3397:*Is there some theory or critical basis for the animals section? This seems to be close to 2253: 2200:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081006.WAtwood07_PTR/BNStory/politics

2143: 2033: 1838: 1708: 782: 742: 2179: 2069: 1959: 1909: 1744: 1651:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110903075301/http://www.poets.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/16789

1644: 1620: 1461: 1315: 1136: 813: 719: 4109:

The next steps are it's passed! Thanks for all your hard work and congratulations. Best,

3736:

This detailed read through can take a couple of days depending on my availability. Best,

860: 731: 1979: 1018: 982:. I think there is no need to put a commercial link in the article, so I put it here. -- 4126: 4110: 4101: 4085: 4054: 4037: 4005: 3990: 3970: 3952: 3923: 3884: 3864: 3848: 3820: 3803: 3776: 3756: 3737: 3717: 3697: 3670: 3654: 3347: 3173: 3028: 2382: 2212:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2102:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1992:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1797:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1667:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1598: 1524: 1488: 1361: 1323: 1307: 1214: 1155:

Why is "critical reception just about one her books -- and not even one of her novels?

1015: 983: 403: 358: 293: 258: 4220: 4204: 4179: 4118: 4093: 4068: 4045: 4019: 3984: 3960: 3937: 3906: 3892: 3878: 3856: 3834: 3811: 3784: 3770: 3745: 3725: 3711: 3685: 3662: 3616: 3542: 3380: 3355: 3304: 3206: 3181: 3129: 3036: 2396: 2294: 2275: 2252:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2165: 2142:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2055: 2032:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1966:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160405222803/http://www.svp.org.mk/archives/6123?lang=en

1895: 1860: 1837:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1730: 1707:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

1606: 1584: 1554:

http://www.rolexmentorprotege.com/pairing/2012-2013/margaret_atwood_and_naomi_alderman

1536: 1509: 1431: 1276: 1257: 1237: 1203: 1179: 1163: 1144: 1129: 1109: 1094: 1072: 1055: 1030: 1005: 991: 953: 668: 654: 605: 585: 566: 551: 526: 461: 451: 436: 426: 406: 384: 361: 352: 337: 323: 301: 279: 261: 246: 226: 163: 112: 86: 65: 4165: 4075: 4060: 4011: 3976: 3945: 3929: 3898: 3870: 3841: 3826: 3796: 3762: 3703: 3648: 3604: 3530: 3368: 3292: 3194: 3117: 3063:

You're right. Was thinking more of book criticism but the awards more than show this.

2872: 2813:

Unclear as to what is being asked here. Are you asking if this is a reliable source?

2770:

Still think more might be preferable but think it satisfies criterion as written now.

2286: 1505: 1427: 1369: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1244:"Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature, is considered outdated in Canada" 1229: 1221: 1195: 57: 3398: 2905: 2803: 2782: 1319: 1268: 1249: 997: 964: 800: 753: 642: 490: 330: 3458:

I'll defer to you/others on this; I don't really have strong feelings either way.

3342:

Not sure what is being asked here. The sentence in the article seems clear to me.

1654: 759: 832:

Atwood invents a device that allows her to sign books from anywhere in the world.

829: 3883:

Sounds good. I'm placing the review on hold while you make these changes. Best,

3869:. I'll start with the sources. This may take a few days, but I am working on it. 3624: 2219: 2109: 1999: 1804: 1674: 1365: 1355: 1351: 1331: 1327: 1311: 1191: 1121: 1022: 791: 433: 423: 334: 243: 160: 32: 923: 866: 2218:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2108:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1998:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1969: 1803:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1673:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 127: 3428:

Re-arranged this section, removed unsubstantiated claims or provided sources.

1781:

https://web.archive.org/web/20141018225244/http://www.syngrafii.com/about-us/

177:. This is incorrect. She was a finalist. The winner was Michael Ondaatje for 4081: 3928:

I am beginning to move the edits per your GA suggestion to the Atwood page.

3516:*Would suggest that this section be incorporated into career as appropriate. 2745: 763: 706: 3049:*Source for Blind Assassin having critical acclaim (without source this is 2374:. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. 805: 2767:

Sorry for the confusion over the lead edits. I think as it is looks good.

1398: 1501: 1423: 572:

The same interview is available from the original source (not a copyvio)

1484: 254: 4170:

fail to mention Atwood, the latter naming a different wife altogether.

1950:

http://events.latimes.com/bookprizes/previous-winners/winners-by-award/

1784: 3975:. The page is now edited with comments here under your suggestions. 1765:

http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth03C18N390512635243

980:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gods-Gardeners-Margaret-Atwood/dp/0747585164

835: 1100:

Glad to see the photo issue resolved with such pleasing results! --

77:

that an anonymous spammer cannot do the same thing again, however.

1519:

In 2012, Margaret Atwood was invited to serve as a mentor for the

1480: 737: 3401:

and thus could use some greater grounding (or else be removed).

854: 3470:*Last paragraph should be merged with current first paragraph. 2756:

relevant that deserves some scope of coverage in this section.

4211:

Correct. Must've been added by someone not paying attention.

3148:

I avoided this since most of her works have their own pages.

1940:

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/11.08/08-atwood.html

1460:

from both infobox Genres and section 4 prose; we do not link

1043:

I see this entry: Wheel-show (1978-1981) for Times Magazine

460: 689:

at LIVE from the New York Public Library, December 1, 2006.

485:

Knowledge article constitutes fair use. In addition to the

3716:

Great. Will begin read through in earnest tomorrow. Best,

2190: