1768:"Frankly" is the sticking point since it appears to comment on the material in the book, I concur. I would also say that "deals" seems to be a comment as well, or at least a summary. I'll be honest, I don't care too much about the specific reference. IMHO, simply putting the book as a reference is fine by me, I just think it should be referenced. If you are claiming it is cited by its existence, then I think that falls under original research, not "verifiability". It's like me saying the Vietnam memorial has 66,000 names (I don't know the actual number, but that seems high and this is an example only). Sure, the memorial has that many names, but it needs to be verifiable.
960:"Trajectories" in that paper does refer to narrative trajectories, but also psychological trajectories (such as Bruce Bechdel's desire for aesthetic order and his contrasting, chaotic sexual desires) and even physical trajectories (the limited geographical sphere in which Bruce Bechdel was born, lived, worked and died, contrasting with the geographical liberation symbolized in the book by visits to New York and Paris). I'm afraid that further elucidation of these papers may require the contribution of someone who's active in academia and
1029:"Fun Home was positively reviewed in many publications, including The Times of London (which described it as "a profound and important book"), Salon.com ("a beautiful, assured piece of work") and the New York Times, which printed three separate stories about the book." I would cut-off this sentence after "in many publications" and work the rest into prose using quotations and no brackets (in fact I went and tried out an edit;you could revert it) Great piece of info about how the NYTimes covered it thrice.
922:"At this conference, papers were presented examining Fun Home from several perspectives: as containing "trajectories" filled with paradoxical tension; as a text interacting with images as a paratext; and as a search for meaning using drag as a metaphor." If you could make this sentence more accessible that would be great. I didn't know what you meant by drag, so maybe drag clothing, because I figured it was some kind of visual thing. Also, what kind of trajectories? Narrative trajectories?
538:: I've restructured the lead slightly per Bill and Pascal's suggestions. I found one source which can be used for the "numerous sources"/"best of 2006" sentence: the author's website! (I kept Pascal's "popular and critical acclaim" phrasing, but I think that the "best of 2006" is a fairly important aspect and merits inclusion in the lead; I also mentioned what I think are the most noteworthy awards. I hope that it's not redundant, or repetitive, or saying the same thing twice. :^) )
1624:
distance, in turn, is connected with his closeted homosexual tendencies. Bruce
Bechdel had homosexual relationships in college, the military, and with his high school students; some of those students were also family friends and babysitters. At the age of 44, two weeks after his wife requested a divorce, he stepped into the path of an oncoming Sunbeam Bread truck and was killed. Although the evidence is equivocal, Alison Bechdel concludes that her father committed suicide.
791:"This emotional distance, in turn, is connected with his homosexual relationships in college, the military, and with his high school students, some of whom were family friends and babysitters" This sentence should be more descriptive. How is it connected? And did he have relations with family friends and babysitters or are you just describing his high school students?
1872:. I actually chose the YouTube source over the Houghton Mifflin one because I thought it would be more accessible — the HM page has the file in RealOne Player and Windows Media formats, neither of which I find as easy to use as the Flash videos on YouTube. However, that may have been an error; if so, I can change the reference.
2045:
Interesting comment. You have a point about the relative size of the sections but I'm sort of reluctant to cut through the
Reception section. Ideally, this balance should come not by cutting it but by expanding the other sections (for instance your suggestion above about truth) but this is proving to
1527:
I am personally not a big fan of citations in the lede. By definition, they are not NEEDED, but also are not specifically excluded. Since each sentence in the lede needs to be expanded upon in the article, the citations aren't needed and it seems to me that the citations clutter the lede. Again, this
183:
I've adjusted the description of Bruce
Bechdel's death, giving an important detail and dropping the divorce mention, which really isn't as key as the question of whether his death was accidental or volitional. I've also added a mention of two visual artists whose work is referenced explicitly in the
1976:
In the "Plot and thematic summary" section, I would start with a simple description of the book and then offer the detailed analysis. For readers unfamiliar with the book, it might be a bit jarring to jump right into something like "non-linear and recursive". The reader needs to be familiar with the
1947:
This is a very good article - it is well-written and engages the reader (I am now going to check out the book from the library). However, I do think that the article could benefit from a slight reorganization and some concentrated efforts to connect everything together. Here are my suggestions (take
720:
Break this lead sentence up "The book's artwork consists of black line art with a gray-green ink wash; Bechdel used extensive photo reference, posing herself as different characters." and explain in plain english what photo reference is. I found this very interesting and it really is one of the most
581:
I've made some minor tweaks in the format but I really can't argue with the overall quality of the article. There may still be room for growth in the article which of course is perfectly fine. But as it is now, I think it can reasonably be described as comprehensive and the prose and referencing are
423:
article is interesting and brings up the sole objection I currently have with promoting to FA status: comprehensiveness. The article's current content is as polished as one might hope but it does seem to be lacking in terms of critical commentary. In particular, there's been quite a bit of scholarly
1631:
The story also deals with Alison
Bechdel's own struggle with her sexual identity, culminating in the realization that she is a lesbian and her coming out to her parents. The memoir frankly examines her sexual development, including transcripts from her childhood diary, anecdotes about masturbation,
939:
the meaning of the word "drag" is extended to any sort of performative gender play which is in tension with normative gender roles or societal expectations; so, in this context, it's not just the young Alison
Bechdel putting on her father's dress clothes, it's also her father's pursuit of gardening
154:
Yep, the speculation is from the book; in fact, the matter of whether and why Bruce
Bechdel killed himself is one of the central questions of the memoir, and the author more or less comes to the conclusion that the possibility of divorce was a trigger, while still recognizing that she'll never know
2016:
I generally think "Allusions" sections are a poor idea. Most allusions are part of a larger theme or a smaller motif and are usually better presented when that theme is presented. It makes the article more coherent. I wonder if placing this material under a "Themes" section that is subdivided into
1038:
Your split works; I tweaked it only slightly, in part because of the NYT articles only two were actually reviews; the third was a feature piece in the "Home" section, in which a reporter accompanied
Bechdel back to the house she grew up in (it is, or was, on the market, and most of Bruce Bechdel's
846:
I'm also not sure about the Plot and thematic summary, as well as including the
Allusions section. There was some discussion about having spoiler warnings in Plot Summary (don't know how that discussion ended) but there were some voices that reasoned the Plot Summary section was a clear sign of a
135:
was also Main Page at <24K so it's not an unheard-of length. The sentence "His death at age 44 may have been a suicide, possibly motivated by his wife requesting a divorce" seems dangerously speculative but, since it's in the plot summary, I assume the speculation comes from the novel and not
2038:
I wonder about cutting some of the material from the "Reception" section. There is almost as much on reception as on the book itself, which seems a bit off kilter. I might mention the academic conference in passing, but I would not, for example, describe the papers. Those are pretty ephemeral. I
290:
Additionally, the lead has to go. Some of the stuff in the lead is only reported in the lede. The lede should summarize the article and not introduce anything that isn't in the body of the article. Move stuff in the lede to the body. The lede should talk about the removal from the public library
543:
Because of the non-linear structure of the book and the narrator's highly self-aware voice, it's hard to disentangle "theme" from "plot", so instead of writing a separate section on themes, I've tried to expand the thematic discussion in what was the "plot" section and is now "Plot and thematic
895:
I suppose not. I had put it in parentheses because the previous sentence was part of the description of
Bechdel's step-by-step process, which is referred to in the following sentence; by putting the sentence about the wash color choice in parentheses, I was hoping that the referent for "this
366:
I actually puzzled over that. It was a quick restructuring. I've seen sections such as "Publication and reception history". If the section leans more towards reception then it could go there. Hard to say. The fact that the novel was serialized in french is an important part of the publication
1623:
On one level, the memoir traces Bruce
Bechdel's obsession with restoring the family's Victorian home. His concentrated pursuit of this long-term aesthetic quest is connected to his emotional distance from his family, which he expressed in coldness and occasional bouts of rage. This emotional
467:(Edit conflict) Not sure I have time to help out but I'll see what I can do. If some of these journals are available by subscription online, I may have access to them. The other advantage of tracking down such references is that it avoids the potential problems of OR mentioned earlier.
990:"These papers and others on Bechdel and her work were later published in the peer-reviewed journal GRAAT." Is it possible to link to mention of GRAAT in the French Knowledge? This is off the top of my head but would be interesting if possible. Kind of like linking into Wiktionary.
280:
article for a guideline to follow. These are both Time magazine favorites so it would be interesting to compare and contrast the two articles. Don't worry about achieving the same article length as the Watchmen article, that would be silly, but some of the sections could offer a
721:
insightful parts of the article. For me I had no idea that comic strip artists ever did this and I wouldn't quite get what you mean from this brief phrase in the lead. The section in the article that goes into detail is perfect though. It also ties into why it took 7 years.
445:(I bought the relevant issue). I'll have to see if I can get into the Yale library, where I assume they'll have subscriptions to the relevant journals. If I'm going to the Yale library, are there any print journals I should look for, which might not be available online? —
424:
commentary on Fun Home and this is not showing enough. The references (which are excellent by the way) sort of reflect this: there are many references to the book itself, to reviews and to news stories but relatively few to sources analyzing the book, its impact and so on.
1720:, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" As it currently stands, it is an unsourced claim. "Clutter", such as citations as you so deem it, is irrelevant. If I think punctuation is irrelevant, I can't claim that is how Knowledge should be run because it runs contrary to
130:
well-written and comprehensive with good citations. I suppose some people's concern would be the length (25K compared to the most recent Main Page articles which are 58K, 51K, 29K, 88K, 54K, 73K) but I don't know what else would be appropriate to cram in to the article.
1987:
it does make some sense, especially because of the construction. But it's true that the first paragraph might be intimidating. Perhaps we can swap the first and second paragraphs so that the reader unfamiliar with the book is not scared away. I'll let Josiah handle that
2009:
I think that perhaps you could spend more time describing the genre of the memoir and its relationship to fiction. To what extent is Bechdel attempting to tell the "truth" and to what extent is she telling a "story"? (You can only do this if some reliable sources do,
804:
suffice to explicate the connection between Bruce Bechdel's familial dysfunction and his sexual orientation, or do you think that needs to be made more explicit? (I'm slightly hesitant to do so because the nature of the connection is largely implicit in the book.)
418:
Fantastic work (on a fantastic book). As an experiment, I've reordered the sections to get a more logical flow to the whole thing (and I agree that the France bit should go in the Reception section). I have also added a fact tag in the lead. The comparison to the
1661:
Note on the above. I think it's an overkill to cite the second and third of the above. In any case, if we want to do that, it's pretty simple to just cite specific pages of the book (although I just leant it to a friend, so it's on you Josiah) or pretty much
480:
By the way, what's the current thinking on citations in the lead? I know that at one point there was some debate about whether facts which are cited later in the article also need a footnote in the lead. I ask because the "best of 2006" info is covered at
1210:
is non-linear and keeps returning to the same events, showing them again from a new thematic perspective. Because of that, I'm really not sure how to describe the plot as distinct from the themes. As for the "Allusions" section, it's worth noting that
312:
Thanks for replying! I'll try to see what themes I can derive from the reviews — you're right that it was fear of OR that prevented me from writing such a section. I'll work on it (and the lead) tomorrow, and also see if I can get any ideas from
1640:
Other than that, wow. This appears to be well-referenced and well-structured for the most part. I have to admit, I am NOT a fan of the subject material of the book, but that is not a criteria of the FAC process or Knowledge, so, best of luck.
940:
and home decorating. At least, that's my understanding, but I'm far from a scholar of the subject. That sentence was an attempt to summarize three highly complex academic papers, so some compression of meaning is probably inevitable. —
493:
in their "Best of 2006" lists. (And that's not all that did so, as you can see from the back cover of the paperback edition.) How many citations would be enough to support "was named one of the best books of 2006 by numerous sources"?
1464:
Fixed. The problem originated from citations being moved up in the article, or from the citations which were mid-sentence being placed in the order in which they occurred (for example, each of the various publications which included
658:
How does it look now? I tried a 3-part structure, with one paragraph describing the book itself, one describing the critical response from the literary and comics worlds, and one for the contrasting responses in France and Missouri.
1501:
The Artwork section seems to be unnecessarily broken into a lead section and another. Combine the two into a single section. I recommend cutting the first sentence from the second paragraph and making it the first in the first
262:
right now. Just started reading it, and I'll follow this FAC along with my reading. I haven't seen an Allusions sections before, which is interesting. Don't let OR paralyze you from writing a good article. I hope I can finish
1787:
While you two were having this conversation, I was looking up the relevant pages in the book. I've cited reviews which discuss the themes, and indexed the relevant bits of the book for the things which were merely summary.
1867:
Yep— the YouTube link is a video posted by the author of the book, demonstrating her artistic process; I'd have thought that was a reliable source, but if it isn't the same video is available on the publisher's website
380:
With Pascal's reordering, I found a simple solution: rename the section "Publication history and reception" and move the former "reception" section under its aegis, renamed as "reviews and awards". I hope that works.
1997:
You must have studied literature at some point - I see the word "lens". :) This word might not be the best kind of diction for an encyclopedia, as its meaning in literary studies has not become very common.
1855:
Update on the YouTube link. The video was submitted by Alison Bechdel herself so I would think there's no copyright issue and therefore nothing wrong with linking to YouTube in this particular instance.
1514:
I think the Publication and reception section's subsections do not need their own separate headings. By definition, each paragraph should cover a slightly different topic. Making them all subsections is
1356:
Oh, fine. I won't make you guess (I thought about being a little testy, but I'll be nice today). Reference 16 and I thought there was something else, but I guess I was wrong or it was fixed already.
1363:
I've taken care of that minor omission. (Some of the citation templates automatically wikilink dates and others don't — I occasionally slip up and don't link a date that I should, or vice-versa.) —
642:
which is my personal favorite). Definitely this should go on the main page but before that happens here are a few of my comments. I may be off-base here and there so to be read with a grain of salt:
1846:
I can check the YouTube link but boldface is common to indicate periodical volume numbers. Can you fix the dashes though? I have no clue what you're talking about but it would seem trivial to fix.
338:
One question about the restructuring: why did you place the section on reception in France under "publication history" rather than "reception"? I suppose that the fact that it was serialized in
886:
Does this sentence really need to be in brackets?: "(Bechdel chose the greenish wash color for its flexibility, and because it had "a bleak, elegaic quality" which suited the subject matter.)"
2052:
The beginning of the "Reviews" section is a bit listy (so-and-so said this, another person said this, yet another said this...). Might you find a way to make that paragraph cohere a bit more?
544:
summary". Let me know if you think it works. I still plan to go into New Haven at some point in the next few days to see what the Yale library can provide in the way of academic sources. —
1952:
The first and third paragraphs of the lead feel a little choppy. The sentences move from one topic to another without a real connection. Could you perhaps try to tie them together more?
342:
and subsequently published by Éditions Denoël is part of the publication history, but the rest of that paragraph is really about reception and academic criticism. Should I split the
229:
of the way Bechdel uses each reference: I tried to be as neutral as I could without being repetitive or boring. Still, if it skids too close to OR, the article can be reverted to a
2017:
smaller subsections (such as "Sexuality", "Suicide of father", etc.) might work out better. Right now the "Allusions" section is sort of a list. (I have tried to do this myself in
1994:
Saying that the book draws allusions from the "visual arts" is a bit broad - at least give an example, even if you are not going to launch into a full-scale analysis at that point.
638:. I think it's great that you have elevated this article to FA quality. Graphic novels these days are doing some pretty cool stuff and more people should read this one (as well as
1206:
I've made a few minor adjustments to the section on plot and themes, but I'm not quite sure what you're looking for with regard to that section. As you know, the narrative of
860:
seems to be against the inclusion of spoiler warnings. That page specifically says "it is redundant to warn of significant plot details in the section titled "Plot summary". —
2013:
Linking abstract concepts inside quotations is not generally a good idea, as such things can easily mean different things to different people. Let the quote speak for itself.
155:
for certain. I'll see if I can adjust the wording later today, to make it clear that the speculation is from the source. Thanks for the support, and thanks for replying! —
1977:
book before embarking on a thematic analysis. In fact, I would separate this off into an "Overview" section, since memoirs don't really have plots in the traditional sense.
1182:
Most of these were very easy to address. The few that I haven't taken care of yet will require a bit more thought, but I'll have something within the next 24 hours. —
1469:
in their "Best of 2006" lists being cited in the order they were mentioned in the sentence, instead of the order their reference first occurred in the article.) —
441:
are the type of thing you're looking for? The only scholarly sources I'd been able to access at home were the three papers from the French conference, and
2080:
40:
1395:
There should be no spaces between superscript references and each other and punctuation (big problem throughout...see my sample I changed on the page).
649:
I would break the lead into 3 parts. Some parts of the body are not discussed in the lead but I can see that some effort has been made to rectify this.
569:- I've seen this evolve from B-class to what I now consider FA-class in a remarkable manner. It's a testament to Josiah's hard work. Well done.
1557:
I did ask about this earlier. Where is the discussion about citations in the lead, by the way? (Just so I know which way the wind is blowing.) —
67:
1666:
review (that'll work for the first). Sure, OR and all that, but really this seems superfluous and just clutters the article with references.
30:
17:
2056:
A very interesting article. Let me know if you have any further questions. I'm sorry that it took me so long to get around to reviewing it.
2032:
What I think would make the article easier to read is to stop insisting that references should be used only at the end of sentences. :-)
595:
If you're now supporting, could you please strike your previous objection? Thanks, as only the voter can strike their own previous vote.
1964:
I find the infobox unsightly. I don't think it adds anything to the article since you mention all of the material in it in the article.
1914:
1798:
1700:
1567:
1479:
1420:
1373:
1233:
1192:
1165:
Overall I think the article is pretty excellent. I'm leaning towards supporting after my comments are addressed one way or another.-
1147:
1100:
1049:
1013:
974:
950:
906:
870:
847:
spoiler warning. Maybe have a really short Plot Summary of a paragraph and break off themes and allusions into an article by itself.
815:
775:
740:
704:
669:
554:
504:
455:
391:
356:
243:
194:
165:
112:
87:
2026:
Have you thought about combining references, so there aren't three and four in a row? It would make the article easier to read.
438:
2019:
1747:
cited to specific pages. This is the standard in other FAs and in fact in any scholarly work on a book. The first sentence
1901:). I used the "volume" field to distinguish the online version from the print version. Is there a better way to do that?
1508:
Done as far as the sectioning goes. But the "seven years" sentence makes more sense when describing the laborious process.
321:
has a section on allusions too! Here I was worrying that it was OR, and there's already a comics FA with such a section!)
1743:
Actually, the second paragraph you cite is the plot. It's not a claim, it's what's in the book and typically these are
1755:
and that needs to be cited. In the third, the only thing that can be considered original research is the adjective
1675:(edit conflict) Also note that the above italicized comments interleaved in BQZip's list of complaints are mine.
520:
Fair enough. Perhaps that sentence can be cut down anyways. (I've tried something, let me know how you like it!)
217:
used in the book. I was slightly concerned that my summaries of how the allusions are used would lean towards
102:: Erm... hello? Anyone there? When I said "be gentle", I didn't mean "be silent"! I can take it, really... —
582:
impeccable. Kudos to Josiah Rowe: this is fine work indeed and I sure hope you have plans for other articles.
2039:
would also condense the story of the one library who tried to censor it - it is just one library, after all.
1717:
1330:, so make sure all dates in the article and your references are appropriately linked, but only if necessary.
1087:
2066:
1937:
1919:
1860:
1850:
1839:
1803:
1782:
1763:
1738:
1705:
1679:
1670:
1655:
1594:
1572:
1552:
1484:
1425:
1378:
1264:
1238:
1197:
1169:
1152:
1105:
1054:
1018:
979:
955:
911:
875:
833:
820:
780:
745:
709:
674:
608:
599:
586:
573:
559:
524:
509:
471:
460:
428:
396:
371:
361:
295:
285:
271:
248:
199:
170:
145:
117:
92:
1835:
627:
258:
I restructured the article. Very interesting so far. It could use a Themes section. Anyways, I'm reading
1910:
1794:
1696:
1563:
1475:
1416:
1369:
1229:
1188:
1143:
1096:
1045:
1009:
970:
946:
902:
866:
811:
771:
736:
700:
665:
570:
550:
500:
451:
387:
352:
239:
190:
161:
108:
83:
77:
that I should "bite the bullet and go for FAC", so here I am. It's my first time, so be gentle! :^) —
1904:
As for the dashes, I found only three mdashes which were spaced, and I've fixed them. Is that all? —
1261:
1166:
830:
368:
292:
291:(most definitely) and summarize all the important stuff to know. Number of pages is not important.-
282:
268:
141:
1770:
1726:
1643:
1582:
1540:
1342:
1275:
685:
Mention this in the lead: "Bechdel wrote and illustrated Fun Home over the course of seven years."
2061:
1934:
1857:
1847:
1760:
1676:
1667:
605:
596:
583:
521:
485:; I can move those notes up to the lead when I rework it (per Bill's suggestion), but that's got
468:
425:
71:
1287:
The beatings will continue until morale improves... (just kidding, but it's a funny quote from
66:. The article is comprehensive, well-referenced and (I believe) meets all the FA criteria. A
1879:
1828:
857:
1905:
1789:
1691:
1558:
1470:
1411:
1364:
1224:
1183:
1138:
1091:
1040:
1004:
965:
941:
897:
861:
806:
766:
731:
695:
660:
545:
495:
446:
382:
347:
234:
185:
156:
103:
78:
932:
1929:
on the talk page of Fun Home. (and again, at the risk of creating confusion I'll comment
1000:
437:
I'll see what I can do in the next few days. I assume that sources like the ones listed
1869:
184:
book — I should have remembered to mention them before submitting the article for FAC. —
1824:
1578:
631:
367:
history, but the fact that it was peer-reviewed in a french journal is also reception.-
137:
756:
I would rename "Publication history and reception" to just "Publication and reception"
2057:
1926:
1721:
1327:
1296:
936:
226:
218:
136:
from Josiah. If so, it's fine, but a clarifier may be a good idea. Nice article! —
1970:
The infobox should stay. I understand the concerns, but this is the common practice
1827:
breaches throughout (no spaced emdashes), and why is there bolding in footnotes?
2003:
I'm not so sure. I haven't studied literature and this feels like the right word.
1616:
His two occupations are reflected in Fun Home's focus on death and literature.
1223:
one; I'm open to any suggestions on how to present that information better). —
801:
225:
on which each reference occurs. I hope that I've avoided making an original
1134:
132:
1894:
856:
I'll think about the plot section some more, but the prevailing thought at
622:
I've been looking through the FAs and I found this one which is similar to
1220:
1216:
1212:
623:
482:
420:
343:
318:
314:
277:
214:
126:: Your first time at FAC, my first time even voting at FAC, but it seems
57:
1256:
Excellent. It meets all the criteria for FA and is a great companion to
931:"Drag" in this context is drag clothing, which is why the word links to
896:
detailed artistic process" would be clearer. But it's not essential. —
1898:
2079:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
1311:
Mid-sentence references should be moved to the end of the sentence.
75:
talk%3AJosiah Rowe&diff=149832810&oldid=149490645 suggested
1521:
Reworked down to a single subsection. Indeed, it improves the flow
800:
I've reworded and expanded this slightly; does the mention of
1295:
Images need to be sized as default, not sized by pixels IAW
999:
That would be cool, but it seems that the French Knowledge
634:. One the surface this 1928 novel has some similarities to
221:, so to limit that I've included citations to the pages in
1889:
has both print and online editions, but both use the name
1086:
I don't really know either; I've asked for opinions at
230:
74:
1219:(although that one may be structured better than the
2073:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
1875:The bolding comes from the "volume" field of the
1716:If it is that easy, then it should be cited. IAW
1983:True, "plot" may seem akward but in the case of
1823:. Why is youtube listed as a source, there are
2083:. No further edits should be made to this page.
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
694:Now mentioned (although not in those words). —
1690:And the comments indented to here are mine. —
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
1925:I'm copy and pasting below comments made by
1299:. Good use on the fair use rationale though.
1958:I did try, not sure about the result though
1336:Are there any which do not conform to that?
1133:Ah, well spotted. Since our article is at
964:with the terminology of cultural studies. —
489:citations of different publications naming
2081:Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates
2046:be a bit difficult without falling for OR.
1632:and tales of her first sexual experiences.
1538:Fine by me. Exclamation marks not needed.
1534:Then out of laziness, I did not change it!
1528:is merely a preference, not a requirement.
41:Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates
1442:References should be in numerical order:
344:Popular and academic attention in France
213:: I've added a section on the numerous
18:Knowledge:Featured article candidates
7:
317:. (Actually, I just checked it and
730:Done (in conjunction with above). —
1317:Done (hopefully I did not miss any
24:
231:Home&oldid=150611361 version
2020:Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman
1607:Needs to be cited in some way:
1039:decorative touches survive). —
70:led to only minor amendments;
1:
1001:doesn't have a page for GRAAT
935:. However, I think that in
2067:03:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
1938:05:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1920:04:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1870:release/bechdel/#video here
1861:02:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1851:02:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1840:01:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
1804:07:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
1783:05:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
1764:04:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
1739:04:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
1724:, a requirement for an FA.
1706:07:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
1680:04:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
1671:04:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
1656:03:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
1595:02:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
1573:07:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
1553:05:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
1485:07:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
1426:07:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
1379:07:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
1265:09:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
1239:05:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
1198:04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
1170:03:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
1153:04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
1106:04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
1055:04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
1019:04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
980:04:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
956:04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
912:04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
876:04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
834:09:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
821:05:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
781:04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
746:04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
710:04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
675:04:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
609:02:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
600:12:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
587:14:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
574:08:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
560:06:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
525:17:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
510:17:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
483:Fun Home#Reviews and awards
472:17:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
461:17:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
429:05:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
397:17:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
372:05:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
362:05:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
296:05:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
286:05:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
272:04:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
249:08:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
200:17:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
171:15:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
146:12:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
118:05:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
31:featured article nomination
2100:
1326:dates need to be done IAW
276:Also, I would look at the
93:05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
1410:Taken care of, I think. —
52:04:55, 3 September 2007.
2076:Please do not modify it.
1124:magazine? You have both.
1077:but I don't really know.
267:before this FAC closes.-
233:before this expansion. —
36:Please do not modify it.
1885:template. The journal
1751:make a claim about the
1718:Knowledge:Verifiability
1088:Talk:The New York Times
628:The Well of Loneliness
1948:'em or leave 'em):
1065:Does one write the
1137:, I'll use that. —
1075:The New York Times
1071:The New York Times
443:The Comics Journal
2064:
1918:
1802:
1704:
1571:
1483:
1424:
1377:
1237:
1217:allusions section
1196:
1151:
1104:
1053:
1017:
978:
954:
910:
874:
858:Knowledge:Spoiler
819:
779:
744:
708:
673:
558:
508:
459:
395:
360:
247:
219:original research
198:
169:
120:
116:
91:
2091:
2078:
2062:
1908:
1884:
1878:
1832:
1792:
1781:
1779:
1737:
1735:
1694:
1654:
1652:
1593:
1591:
1561:
1551:
1549:
1473:
1414:
1367:
1353:
1351:
1286:
1284:
1227:
1186:
1141:
1094:
1043:
1007:
968:
944:
900:
864:
809:
769:
734:
698:
663:
571:The Rambling Man
548:
498:
449:
385:
350:
237:
188:
159:
106:
98:
81:
48:The article was
38:
2099:
2098:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2074:
1882:
1876:
1830:
1771:
1769:
1727:
1725:
1644:
1642:
1583:
1581:
1541:
1539:
1448:Blah blah blah.
1444:Blah blah blah.
1343:
1341:
1276:
1274:
1073:? I tend to do
933:drag (clothing)
64:Self-nomination
61:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2097:
2095:
2086:
2085:
2054:
2053:
2049:
2048:
2041:
2040:
2035:
2034:
2028:
2027:
2024:
2014:
2011:
2006:
2005:
1999:
1998:
1995:
1991:
1990:
1979:
1978:
1973:
1972:
1966:
1965:
1961:
1960:
1954:
1953:
1945:
1944:
1923:
1922:
1902:
1873:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1843:
1842:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1627:
1619:
1609:
1608:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1530:
1529:
1524:
1523:
1517:
1516:
1511:
1510:
1504:
1503:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1451:
1450:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1397:
1396:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1332:
1331:
1320:
1319:
1313:
1312:
1308:
1307:
1301:
1300:
1268:
1267:
1262:BillDeanCarter
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1201:
1200:
1173:
1172:
1167:BillDeanCarter
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1126:
1125:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1079:
1078:
1067:New York Times
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1031:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
992:
991:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
958:
924:
923:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
888:
887:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
849:
848:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
831:BillDeanCarter
824:
823:
793:
792:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
758:
757:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
723:
722:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
687:
686:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
651:
650:
644:
643:
632:Radclyffe Hall
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
590:
589:
576:
563:
562:
540:
539:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
515:
514:
513:
512:
475:
474:
464:
463:
432:
431:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
375:
374:
369:BillDeanCarter
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
293:BillDeanCarter
283:BillDeanCarter
269:BillDeanCarter
252:
251:
207:
206:
205:
204:
203:
202:
176:
175:
174:
173:
149:
148:
121:
60:
55:
54:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2096:
2084:
2082:
2077:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2065:
2059:
2051:
2050:
2047:
2043:
2042:
2037:
2036:
2033:
2030:
2029:
2025:
2022:
2021:
2015:
2012:
2008:
2007:
2004:
2001:
2000:
1996:
1993:
1992:
1989:
1984:
1981:
1980:
1975:
1974:
1971:
1968:
1967:
1963:
1962:
1959:
1956:
1955:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1936:
1935:Pascal.Tesson
1932:
1928:
1921:
1916:
1912:
1907:
1903:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1888:
1881:
1874:
1871:
1866:
1862:
1859:
1858:Pascal.Tesson
1854:
1853:
1852:
1849:
1848:Pascal.Tesson
1845:
1844:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1826:
1822:
1819:
1818:
1805:
1800:
1796:
1791:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1780:
1778:
1776:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1762:
1761:Pascal.Tesson
1758:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1736:
1734:
1732:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1707:
1702:
1698:
1693:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1678:
1677:Pascal.Tesson
1674:
1673:
1672:
1669:
1668:Pascal.Tesson
1665:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1653:
1651:
1649:
1633:
1628:
1625:
1620:
1617:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1606:
1605:
1596:
1592:
1590:
1588:
1580:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1569:
1565:
1560:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1550:
1548:
1546:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1532:
1531:
1526:
1525:
1522:
1519:
1518:
1513:
1512:
1509:
1506:
1505:
1500:
1499:
1486:
1481:
1477:
1472:
1468:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1440:
1427:
1422:
1418:
1413:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1394:
1393:
1380:
1375:
1371:
1366:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1355:
1354:
1352:
1350:
1348:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1334:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1322:
1321:
1318:
1315:
1314:
1310:
1309:
1306:
1303:
1302:
1298:
1297:WP:MOS#Images
1294:
1293:
1292:
1290:
1285:
1283:
1281:
1272:
1266:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1252:
1251:
1240:
1235:
1231:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1209:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1199:
1194:
1190:
1185:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1171:
1168:
1164:
1163:
1154:
1149:
1145:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1114:
1107:
1102:
1098:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1063:
1056:
1051:
1047:
1042:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1028:
1027:
1020:
1015:
1011:
1006:
1002:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
989:
988:
981:
976:
972:
967:
963:
959:
957:
952:
948:
943:
938:
937:queer studies
934:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
921:
920:
913:
908:
904:
899:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
885:
884:
877:
872:
868:
863:
859:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
845:
844:
835:
832:
829:That's fine.-
828:
827:
826:
825:
822:
817:
813:
808:
803:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
790:
789:
782:
777:
773:
768:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
755:
754:
747:
742:
738:
733:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
719:
718:
711:
706:
702:
697:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
684:
683:
676:
671:
667:
662:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
648:
647:
646:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
618:
617:
610:
607:
606:Pascal.Tesson
603:
602:
601:
598:
597:LuciferMorgan
594:
593:
592:
591:
588:
585:
584:Pascal.Tesson
580:
577:
575:
572:
568:
565:
564:
561:
556:
552:
547:
542:
541:
537:
534:
533:
526:
523:
522:Pascal.Tesson
519:
518:
517:
516:
511:
506:
502:
497:
492:
488:
484:
479:
478:
477:
476:
473:
470:
469:Pascal.Tesson
466:
465:
462:
457:
453:
448:
444:
440:
436:
435:
434:
433:
430:
427:
426:Pascal.Tesson
422:
417:
416:
415:Weakly object
412:
411:
398:
393:
389:
384:
379:
378:
377:
376:
373:
370:
365:
364:
363:
358:
354:
349:
346:section up? —
345:
341:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
320:
316:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
297:
294:
289:
288:
287:
284:
279:
275:
274:
273:
270:
266:
261:
257:
254:
253:
250:
245:
241:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
209:
208:
201:
196:
192:
187:
182:
181:
180:
179:
178:
177:
172:
167:
163:
158:
153:
152:
151:
150:
147:
143:
139:
134:
129:
125:
122:
119:
114:
110:
105:
101:
97:
96:
95:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
73:
72:LuciferMorgan
69:
65:
59:
56:
53:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
2075:
2072:
2055:
2044:
2031:
2018:
2002:
1986:
1982:
1969:
1957:
1946:
1930:
1924:
1890:
1886:
1821:Fixes needed
1820:
1774:
1772:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1730:
1728:
1663:
1647:
1645:
1639:
1630:
1622:
1615:
1586:
1584:
1544:
1542:
1533:
1520:
1507:
1466:
1447:
1443:
1346:
1344:
1335:
1323:
1316:
1304:
1289:Animal House
1288:
1279:
1277:
1270:
1269:
1257:
1253:
1215:also has an
1207:
1121:
1117:
1074:
1070:
1066:
961:
639:
635:
619:
578:
566:
535:
490:
486:
442:
414:
413:
339:
264:
259:
255:
222:
210:
127:
123:
99:
63:
62:
49:
47:
35:
28:
2010:obviously.)
1943:Suggestions
1906:Josiah Rowe
1790:Josiah Rowe
1692:Josiah Rowe
1559:Josiah Rowe
1471:Josiah Rowe
1412:Josiah Rowe
1365:Josiah Rowe
1225:Josiah Rowe
1184:Josiah Rowe
1139:Josiah Rowe
1092:Josiah Rowe
1041:Josiah Rowe
1005:Josiah Rowe
966:Josiah Rowe
942:Josiah Rowe
898:Josiah Rowe
862:Josiah Rowe
807:Josiah Rowe
767:Josiah Rowe
732:Josiah Rowe
696:Josiah Rowe
661:Josiah Rowe
546:Josiah Rowe
496:Josiah Rowe
447:Josiah Rowe
383:Josiah Rowe
348:Josiah Rowe
281:guideline.-
235:Josiah Rowe
186:Josiah Rowe
157:Josiah Rowe
104:Josiah Rowe
79:Josiah Rowe
68:peer review
1931:in italics
1502:paragraph.
1446:should be
802:the closet
340:Libération
1988:though...
1515:overkill.
1135:Salon.com
1118:Salon.com
227:synthesis
215:allusions
138:Wknight94
133:Mauna Loa
2058:Awadewit
1985:Fun Home
1927:Awadewit
1915:contribs
1880:Citation
1799:contribs
1701:contribs
1568:contribs
1480:contribs
1467:Fun Home
1421:contribs
1374:contribs
1258:Fun Home
1234:contribs
1221:Fun Home
1213:Watchmen
1208:Fun Home
1193:contribs
1148:contribs
1101:contribs
1050:contribs
1014:contribs
975:contribs
951:contribs
907:contribs
871:contribs
816:contribs
776:contribs
741:contribs
705:contribs
670:contribs
640:Blankets
636:Fun Home
624:Fun Home
620:Comments
555:contribs
505:contribs
491:Fun Home
456:contribs
421:Watchmen
392:contribs
357:contribs
319:Watchmen
315:Watchmen
278:Watchmen
265:Fun Home
260:Fun Home
244:contribs
223:Fun Home
195:contribs
166:contribs
113:contribs
88:contribs
58:Fun Home
50:promoted
1831:Georgia
1825:WP:DASH
1775:BQZip01
1757:frankly
1731:BQZip01
1648:BQZip01
1587:BQZip01
1579:WP:LEDE
1545:BQZip01
1347:BQZip01
1328:WP:DATE
1280:BQZip01
1254:Support
962:au fait
765:Done. —
579:Support
567:Support
256:Comment
211:Comment
124:Support
100:Comment
1722:WP:MoS
1271:Oppose
1116:Is it
604:Done.
536:Update
1893:(see
1891:GRAAT
1887:GRAAT
1829:Sandy
1753:focus
1122:Salon
487:eight
16:<
2063:talk
1911:talk
1899:here
1897:and
1895:here
1836:Talk
1795:talk
1749:does
1697:talk
1577:See
1564:talk
1476:talk
1417:talk
1370:talk
1340:Yes
1305:Done
1230:talk
1189:talk
1144:talk
1097:talk
1046:talk
1010:talk
971:talk
947:talk
903:talk
867:talk
812:talk
772:talk
737:talk
701:talk
666:talk
551:talk
501:talk
452:talk
439:here
388:talk
353:talk
240:talk
191:talk
162:talk
142:talk
128:very
109:talk
84:talk
1745:not
1664:any
1324:All
1273:by
1120:or
1090:. —
1069:or
1003:. —
630:by
2060:|
2023:.)
1933:.
1913:•
1883:}}
1877:{{
1838:)
1797:•
1773:—
1759:.
1729:—
1699:•
1646:—
1585:—
1566:•
1543:—
1478:•
1419:•
1372:•
1345:—
1291:)
1278:—
1260:.-
1232:•
1191:•
1146:•
1099:•
1048:•
1012:•
973:•
949:•
905:•
869:•
814:•
774:•
739:•
703:•
668:•
626::
553:•
503:•
454:•
390:•
355:•
242:•
193:•
164:•
144:)
111:•
86:•
33:.
1917:)
1909:(
1834:(
1801:)
1793:(
1788:—
1777:—
1733:—
1703:)
1695:(
1650:—
1634:"
1629:"
1626:"
1621:"
1618:"
1614:"
1589:—
1570:)
1562:(
1547:—
1482:)
1474:(
1423:)
1415:(
1376:)
1368:(
1349:—
1282:—
1236:)
1228:(
1195:)
1187:(
1150:)
1142:(
1103:)
1095:(
1052:)
1044:(
1016:)
1008:(
977:)
969:(
953:)
945:(
909:)
901:(
873:)
865:(
818:)
810:(
805:—
778:)
770:(
743:)
735:(
707:)
699:(
672:)
664:(
659:—
557:)
549:(
507:)
499:(
494:—
458:)
450:(
394:)
386:(
381:—
359:)
351:(
246:)
238:(
197:)
189:(
168:)
160:(
140:(
115:)
107:(
90:)
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.