Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nimona/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 May 2022 [1].

Nimona

Nominator(s): HenryCrun15 (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the webcomic and graphic novel, Nimona. Written by ND Stevenson, it is a fantasy / science fiction story. The article passed GA status recently, and since then, a full plot summary has been added. The work is important as an example of webcomics receiving publishing deals, a key work by Stevenson, and an example of queer literature. It is also a timely article, as it was recently announced that a film adaptation of the work will be released in 2023.

This is my second nomination of this article. I withdrew the earlier one on the advice of my mentor in this matter, PresN, while a few matters were resolved. This article is the first I've ever nominated for Feature Article status, so this will be a learning exercise for me. HenryCrun15 (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720

Non-expert prose review.

"and was also adapted into an audiobook." -> "and adapted into an audiobook." to avoid excess words.
"After Disney bought Fox, it cancelled the film, but the film was revived and is set to be released on Netflix in 2023." Too many instances of the word "film" in one sentence. Perhaps, "After Disney bought Fox, it cancelled the film, only to be later revived. It is set to be released on Netflix in 2023."
The plot section is quite long. I would expect this section to be four paragraphs, maximum, and probably even shorter. This should definitely be trimmed further.
Since the article uses plural pronouns to refer to Stevenson, I suggest that a note is added in the first instance, as I thought the instances of "they" was referring to multiple, unmentioned people.
"According to Stevenson, they combined this character with a Joan of Arc-inspired character that they were drawing at the time to create Nimona." -> "According to Stevenson, they combined the shapeshifter with a Joan of Arc-inspired character that they were drawing at the time to create Nimona." To remove multiple uses of "character"
"They were inspired to create Nimona's look based on their own experiences with cosplay:" -> "Nimona's look was inspired by their own experiences with cosplay:"
"Nimona has been well received." I don't think this is needed, as the subsequent awards will tell the reader that it was well-received, and the reviews in the next paragraph will describe critical reception.
I think the critical reception section needs expansion. Why did ioa and Paste give the designations they did? Were there any common themes of praise or criticism from the reception? The section also relies too heavily on quotes when describing what critics thought of the comic: by talking about common themes, the article might be able to summarise the information instead of using so many quotations.
"Professor Mihaela Precup considered the "queer references" Why is queer references in quotes? I don't think this is necessary and might fall into MOS:SCAREQUOTES (even if you are quoting the source)
"Queerness, identity, and challenging power" I feel this section also relies too heavily on quotes instead of summarising. Consider MOS:QUOTE which asks that they not be overused.
"Art style" I think this section can be moved into "Reception" as they are talking about their opinion on the art, not what style of art it presents.
"it was later delayed again to January 2022.[33][34][35][36][37][38] " Are six references necessary here? Consider moving some to earlier in the sentence (if they are to verify earlier information) removing some, or WP:CITEBUNDLE.
"Staff also stated that they received pushback from Disney leadership, centered around the film's LGBT themes.[40][41][42][43][44]" Same as above. The Twitter source should be considered for removal if other sources say the same thing, as Twitter is a primary source and considered less reliable.
Cite 9 lives links to Goodreads for the translations of the books. I am not a literary-FA expert, but I am unsure if those are acceptable in an FA. Please check with another editor who specialises in book articles.

Those are my comments. Please consult WP:RECEPTION for help with the reception parts of the article. I would suggest withdrawing this to give some time on working on the reception and analysis sections, so that you are not pressured to quickly make changes. If you withdraw and open a PR, please let me know and I will take a look. If you decide to keep this open, please ping me when you have made the changes. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much @Z1720: for this review! My responses are below:

General rewording, particularly avoiding repetition of the same word: done as requested.
Plot summary length: I have cut the plot summary down to 577 words, which now sits comfortably within the WP:NOVELPLOT recommendations of 400 to 700 words. It has also been reduced to four paragraphs as suggested.
"us[ing] plural pronouns to refer to Stevenson": While "they" and them" are most often used to refer to multiple entities, these words are also used to refer to singular entities. As noted in this summary of Wikipedia's gender identity guidelines, "they/them pronouns are always acceptable in article space for subjects who have stated that they prefer them".
- To clarify, I am not suggesting that "they/them" be replaced. Rather, I am suggesting that a note be added at the first instance, clarifying that these are the pronouns that Stevenson uses to avoid reader confusion. I wish they/them was more common and understood by readers, but society is not at a place where they/them pronouns are easily understood when referring to a single person, especially with English-language learners. The note will clarify they/them's usage in the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removing "Nimona has been well received." - done.
Reception and analysis: As recommended I've substantially rewritten this portion, summarising views on the work into common themes and reducing the number of direct quotes. I am concerned that it is much shorter now - do you think it adequately covers the analysis given by the sources?
- I'm surprised that the "Reception" section has been removed. From what I've seen of literature articles, such as The Heart of Thomas and A Beautiful Crime, there is a "Themes" section (which for this article, would include "Queerness, identity, and challenging power") and a "Recepetion" section (which for this article would include "Art style" and "Awards"). The Reception section would include the awards that Nimona received, the opinions of the reviewers on how good/bad the graphic novel is, and why reviewers said it was good/bad. The "Themes' section will include an analysis of what the content talks about. There might be some overlap between these sections, so I suggest looking at Heart of Thomas and Beautiful Crime to determine how these articles structured these sections. Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overciting: I've cut down the number of citations on any given sentence, including removing the citation to a tweet.
- I will not oppose based on Overciting, but I do recommend that another look is taken for this. WP:OVERCITE is a good essay to read on this topic. My concern with overcitations and lots of footnotes together is that it makes it more difficult for the reader to determine which reference is verifying which sentence. For example, "One paper on the work concluded that it is "the blurring of boundaries", especially when it comes to institutions, bodies, and motivations, allows for these institutions to be undermined.[11][12][13][14][15][16]" This sentence quotes one paper, but uses six references to support it. As a reader, I would have to click through six references to find out which one has the quote that is cited in this sentence. This can be achieved by placing references after the sentence that they are verifying, instead of at the end of the paragraph. Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citing Goodreads - I've run those past my FA mentor and they are fine with this.

HenryCrun15 (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for this review. My responses are below:

Explanatory note about "they/them": I understand your point that a reader could misunderstand "they" and "them" as referring to multiple people. Certainly there are cases where a work of art is released under a pen name that looks like a single person's name but is actually a group. As with any situation where a word has multiple meanings, the text should minimise the risk of confusion, balancing this against making the text cumbersome or overly complicated. I think we disagree on where the balance lies; I think I feel the risk is lower and the concern about being cumbersome is higher.

Nevertheless, the risk of confusion can be reduced. To that end, I have edited the text (both in the header and in the first mention of Stevenson in the body) to make it clearer that ND Stevenson is one person prior to the use of "they" or similar. The main change is to replace "artist and writer" with "cartoonist", so that "artist and writer" can't be read as referring to two separate people. I've also expanded the caption on their photo (and the photo itself helps to establish that the creator is one person).

As mentioned before, I think my use of the singular they (with no explanatory footnote) is in line with the Manual of Style, though I admit the MOS does not give explicit guidelines around singular they, so if you feel I've misinterpreted the MOS, please let me know. Do you feel these edits satisfy your expectations of reducing confusion?

I'm satisfied with this solution, but encourage others to share their opinions on this if they feel inclined to do so. Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reception section: I've restored the Reception section, including adding back in some references removed in an earlier edit. As requested, I've tried to summarise the themes of the reviews rather than quoting each one.
- This is a drastic improvement. I think the next step is to edit the section to avoid the "X said Y" format, as it is overused in this section (this is a common concern, and I have had problems with this in my own articles.) Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overlinking: It's my intention that the citations at the end of the Analysis paragraphs provide sources for the paragraphs, rather than just a sentence. Since I've summarised the academic analysis, I felt it didn't make much sense to put inline citations after every sentence, as this would involve too much repetition. If that's not proper citing, let me know and I'll adjust the inline citations appropriately.
- Are all of the sources verifying all the information in the paragraph? If they are, they can be placed at the bottom of the paragraph. If they are not, then I suggest placing them after the sentence(s) the reference is verifying. Another, optional solution is to do a WP:CITEBUNDLE, though this is not necessary for my support. Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HenryCrun15 (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded underneath your points above. The only thing holding me back from supporting is the "X said Y" formatting of the review section. Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I've checked the citations at the end of the Analysis paragraph; not all actually related to the subject of the paragraph and I removed two citations. I've greatly reduced the "X said Y" style in the reception, though I've kept one quote for a point only one reviewer made. I think we're getting there! HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed. I can support. Z1720 (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - I'm sorry, but at three weeks in with only a single general review, this nomination will have to be archived in a couple days if there is not substantial movement towards a consensus to promote. Hog Farm _Talk 15:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have been out of town since Z1720's latest review, in which they say only minor changes are needed. If I can have a couple more days to respond to these comments, that would be excellent. HenryCrun15 (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Olivaw-Daneel

I'm surprised by how short the reception section is. A quick Google search brought up reviews by The New York Times, The Independent and NPR, all of which are more in-depth than the currently cited sources (which are mostly short, 1-para reviews).
There are a couple of masters' theses cited in Analysis; these aren't usually RS. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."
I agree with Z1720's comments on end-of-para overciting; placing refs closer to what they're sourcing would be better.
The National Book Award nomination seems significant enough to mention in the lead (as the Washington Post article indicates). Only 5 graphic novels have ever been shortlisted.
Can an image of the artwork be added under WP:NFCC? (See A Death in the Family, a recent comics FA, for example.) One possible image is the monster scene at the end of this CBR review, which praises the inking and brush strokes in those panels. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Five weeks in and the review seems to have stalled, so I'll be archiving shortly. I see both reviewers have expressed concern over the many citations at the end of the Analysis paragraphs, I would also recommend making the referencing more granular. Per FAC guidelines, pls refrain from nominating again until two weeks have passed. During that period, as well as tweaking the article per the latest review, it might be worth reaching out to WikiProject Comics and also Mike Christie for input; they could also be pinged for comment at the onset of a new FAC nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.