Talk:Fun Home

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Fun Home is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 10, 2007.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 2, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
August 9, 2007 Peer review Reviewed
September 3, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Comics (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Comics portal.
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

All hands, brace for impact![edit]

OK, folks, get ready for the ride: Fun Home will be Today's Featured Article on the front page tomorrow. We'll probably get lots of vandalism, and some useful edits too hidden in their midst. Per Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection, the article probably won't be protected unless the vandalism is really hideous (and even then, it'll probably be only temporary semi-protection). I won't be around all the time the article's on TFA, so I hope that others will step into the breach. (I know that lots of admins habitually watch the TFA article, so it shouldn't be a problem.) Anyway, I thought I'd give folks a heads-up. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 05:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice Article. Well Done.[edit]

Well written + Well cited + Appropriately Relevant + Short = Great Article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.161.13 (talk) 07:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Great Article! Thank You! Somebody worked hard on this.66.72.39.252 19:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit by MisfitToys[edit]

Thanks to MisfitToys (talk · contribs) for performing the copyedit: there were lots of little things in there I either hadn't noticed or didn't know how to do (for example, I've never been quite sure what the best way to put a posessive 's on an italicized word or phrase was, and was using <nowiki> tags to prevent "Fun Home's focus" from looking like "Fun Homes focus".

But I have questions about two small matters: first of all, the change from "Alison Bechdel" to "Alison" in the plot section. I agree that "Alison Bechdel" was clumsy, but the surname had been inserted because another editor thought that it sounded informal to refer to "Alison" and "Bruce" without surnames. I don't feel strongly about it, but wanted to point out that there was a reason behind the clumsy surname usage.

Second, linking "Utilitarian" to Utilitarianism — I had considered that, but Utilitarianism is really about the ethical philosophy rather than utilitarian style, which is what the quote refers to — more Shaker furniture than John Stuart Mill. Awadewit had suggested that it's generally not a good idea to link terms in quotations anyway — should we perhaps unlink all those words?

These are nitpicky questions, but I suppose copyediting is about picking nits. Anyway, thanks for giving the article a once-over. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 02:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

First, you're welcome; I haven't consistently copyedited the TFAs for a while (as I had been doing for a long time), but now and then an article cathces my interest. I have no problem with the point on utilitarianism, but if it isn't linked then a hidden comment should perhaps be inserted explaining why the link would be ill-advised. However, I don't think we should avoid linking something just because it's within a quote; if a topic is mentioned that deserves a link, then it's much less awkward than inserting "see: topic" at the quote's end, particularly if several topics are involved.
As for the issue of first names, it seems to me that if a section repeatedly mentions two members of a family who share a surname, it's awkwardly repetitive to keep including the last names; other such situations would include discussions of twin brothers, for example - I think at a certain point, readers don't need the full name repeated constantly. (It would be really odd to write: "James Smith said to John Smith" when the first names suffice.) That said, I think that start of each new paragraph probably merits inclusion of the last name when it occurs again. There are ways of working around repeating the name, such as using "her father" rather than "Bruce," but there are limits to how much can be done along those lines. MisfitToys 23:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fun Home musical[edit]

Source. Enjoy! Axem Titanium (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

South Carolina college funding cut section[edit]

I am slightly concerned that the section about the attempt by the South Carolina legislature to punish the College of Charleston for selecting Fun Home for incoming first-year students to read may be getting a bit out of hand and/or off-topic. I've tried to keep the section focused on the book and the various responses to it, but I'm not sure that I've succeeded. One news source which I considered including but decided against was this article about an effort to shame the supporters of the funding cuts on social media here, which I thought was interesting but not quite relevant to an article on the book. However, I'd be happy to hear from other editors about this question (is the section too detailed? not detailed enough? too recentist? etc.) —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 05:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm leaving this here for possible use as a source later. Not sure whether it merits inclusion or not. If anybody else even has this page on their watchlist, I'd appreciate an outside opinion. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it's worth including, as long as it's not given undue weight. Since its not about the book itself per se, I imagine it doesn't merit more than a sentence or two, unless it's an issue that ends up getting larger. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, was that "a sentence or two" in reference to the entire South Carolina legislature kerfuffle, or to the Publishers Weekly link I gave above on April 5? Do you (or others) think that the section needs trimming? Does this merit inclusion? (I'm leaning towards "no" on that one, since despite the apparent involvement of Bechdel it's more about the musical than the book; I put a mention of it in the musical's article.) Any and all opinions are welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 06:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I meant a sentence or two for the whole kerfuffle—editorial discretion should be applied as not to give it undue weight. How important is the incident to the book itself? Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hard to say. The articles on Ulysses (novel), The Catcher in the Rye, Tropic of Cancer (novel) and so forth all have sections on the legal issues and controversies surrounding those books. This seems similar to me, but of course it's hard to tell since it's so recent. I'll see if I can trim it down a bit (though it may be a few days before I get around to it). Thanks for the feedback, though. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 07:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)