Talk:Apex Hides the Hurt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Apex Hides the Hurt has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on March 25, 2008.
March 27, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Apex Hides the Hurt article.
Article policies

[edit] GA review

This sounds like a very interesting contemporary novel, so I'm glad that it's been given so much attention. The article is well written, competently sourced, stable, neutral and sufficiently illustrated with one free and one fair use image (with rationale listed). Great work!

Although length isn't part of the GA criteria (and I quite like shorter, more succinct articles), I fear that it isn't broad enough in its coverage just yet. All novels are different so I don't like to point to the Novels WikiProject article template and tell people to go from there, but it would help give you some idea of what could potentially be added. Some suggestions:

  • Because Colson Whitehead already has an article, there is no need for an "About the author" section. This is a novel, after all, and not an autobiography or memoir.
    • I disagree, After This passed GA the other week, and that is shorter than this and has an about an author section, which is full referenced; as does The Psychology of The Simpsons. It is becoming increasingly common for novel and book articles to have these sections. Hence, I think it should stay, but input from you would be appreciated. Qst (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree that it is properly referenced, but because the information is already located on another article that is devoted entirely to the author, I firmly believe that this information is unnecessary. There are no "About the director" sections in film articles or "About the screenwriter" for TV shows for this very reason; it's irrelevant to the work. Now, if the novel were in some way autobiographical then I could see the biography blurb being important; but in this case it seems only to be acting as filler. More time and space should be spent on the novel, not its author. And, to be fair, you wrote After This and the Simpson's book is nonfiction, so that's not exactly pointing to a precedence. :) María (habla conmigo) 14:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
        • We'll leave this open to get a 3rd opinion. Qst (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I think it is best to relate the novel (first) to the author's experience (second). That is to say, keep the novel as the subject or focus. For example, rather than write "Colson Whitehead (born 1969) is an American author.", how about "The author, Colson Whitehead, wrote AHH as a xx year old living in NY." or some such. That was my strategy for my book-related articles, like Pattern Recognition (novel)#Background and David Suzuki: The Autobiography#Background. maclean 23:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no explanation of what the significance or meaning of the title is other than the fact that the character sells apex bandages; what does it symbolize?
          • I honestly don't see any difference if an article has an about the author section and its fiction or non-fiction. It is becoming increasingly common, and is fully referenced with other, more related information about the book and Whitehead's writing career. Qst (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll take a look around, and see what I can find out. Qst (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Y Done. Qst (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Are there enough references to discuss the novel's themes and/or style? Its use of satire and comedy, for example, would be interesting to explore and would help make the article more literary. Also, instead of delving into Whitehead's personal details, you could always explain his individual writing style, which is something that some of the critics hit upon.
    • This was something I tried to explore for the article, but I couldn't find anything in the reviews, online or using Newsbank which would be appropriate to build up a theme section. Qst (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The dominant theme appears to be the impacts of names/labels and what they hide or as Whitehead put it: "how renaming a place can be a powerful act of erasure" (THE TALENTED MR, WHITEHEAD. By: Danoff, Douglass, Essence, Mar2006, Vol. 36, Issue 11) maclean 23:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The "Reception" section relies a lot on very interesting quotes that go into what I was trying to explain above; these could be paraphrased and reworked for other, more literary purposes. Also, the quote and the mention of it being a Notable Book for 2006 in the lead are not in the body; remember to adhere to WP:LEAD.
    • Y Done. Except for the possibility of merging some of the reception in to themes, as I honestly don't think there is enough to constitute such a section. Qst (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Speaking of its notability, is it known how well it sold? Did it win any other awards or accolades?
    • Nope, I would've mentioned so if it did. :-) Qst (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I couldn't find it on any best seller lists either. And of course sales and publication figures are not publicly available. maclean 23:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Most novel articles spend time equally on the plot summary and the novel's characters. Because I haven't read the book I don't know if the characters take a backseat to the satire and thematic elements, but if further explanation is necessary, an exploration of the characters may be worthwhile.
    • Unfortunately, there is little information on the characters other than what is already in the articles. The novel is strange in the sense that the character/narrator remains nameless. So I'm unable to address this issue. Qst (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • How about publication history? Inspiration? Background? Any of these could be additional sections if sources are available.
    • Nope, there is nothing of this sort available. I've looked around (and did when writing it in my userspace) and nothing about the potential themes and background is available, unfortunately. Qst (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to put this on hold for a week or so to let some of the suggestions above marinade. I hope to see the article expand and grow, because with a little more attention paid to literary and notability particulars, this is definitely GA material. I look forward to learning more about this novel! :) If you have any questions just contact me on my talk page. María (habla conmigo) 13:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave a note on your talk page regarding this article. Qst (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I still don't see a need or a precedence for including biographical information about authors in articles about their works, but I'll let that rest for now as it does not interfere with the GA criteria. This is a short article but it seems it's as comprehensive as it will get for the time being; perhaps in twenty years it'll be a different story. :) Thanks for your hard work and congrats, this definitely passes. María (habla conmigo) 18:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you; your review has been very helpful. :) Qst (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that biographical information is outside the scope of the novel's article. But it can be justified if it provides context for the novel's writing and is presented as such. That his last book was published 3 years prior, relevant. Listing a magazine he wrote for early in his career, probably not relevant. maclean 23:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a very good compromise, maclean. This justification of biographical info may be able to work in applicable and/or available publication history and background, as well. Context = teh good. María (habla conmigo) 12:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)