Talk:Fun Home

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
	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 within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Comics      (Rated FA-Class)   (Rated High importance) comics Portal This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. More information: WikiProject LGBT studies     (Rated FA-Class) LGBT Portal This article is within the scope of 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, visit the project page. FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.

Archives

August 2006–August 2007

[edit] All hands, brace for impact!

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 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice Article. Well Done.

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)

[edit] Copyedit by MisfitToys

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 (talk • contribs) 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)