SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) Earlier id |
Crossroads (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
:Providing specific examples of allegedly non-neutral content makes this a better NPOV complaint than 90% of the ones I come across, so thank you. That said, the missing piece is an analysis of the article text ''compared to the sources''. For example, you object to "Rowling was actively engaged on the internet before author webpages were common", but this is explicit in the cited reliable source. I join with SandyGeorgia in thinking the tag should be removed. To put it in [[WP:WTRMT]] terms, I think we're at #3: {{tqd|"it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed"}}. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 22:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC) |
:Providing specific examples of allegedly non-neutral content makes this a better NPOV complaint than 90% of the ones I come across, so thank you. That said, the missing piece is an analysis of the article text ''compared to the sources''. For example, you object to "Rowling was actively engaged on the internet before author webpages were common", but this is explicit in the cited reliable source. I join with SandyGeorgia in thinking the tag should be removed. To put it in [[WP:WTRMT]] terms, I think we're at #3: {{tqd|"it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed"}}. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 22:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
::{{u| Real4jyy}} just removed the tag. Pinging them here in case they'd like to say something. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 21:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC) |
::{{u| Real4jyy}} just removed the tag. Pinging them here in case they'd like to say something. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 21:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
:Agreed with the above responses. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 15:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Backwards copy == |
== Backwards copy == |
Revision as of 15:08, 17 April 2023
J. K. Rowling 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 11, 2008, and on June 26, 2022. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:Vital article
|
Other talk page banners | |
Podcast
I think it would be worth adding something about her participation in the podcast, The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling by Megan Phelps-Roper. 184.147.14.9 (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
- What did she say that we haven't already covered? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Eassy about contribution towards Young Adults 124.240.214.91 (talk) 06:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Neutrality
I think this page should be reviewed for neutrality. I sense many of her political defenders have recently contributed to this page in ways that don't seem to support a neutral tone.
Examples include: "Rowling was actively engaged on the internet before author webpages were common. She has at times used Twitter unreservedly to reach her Harry Potter fans and followers. She often tweets about her political opinions using wit and sarcasm, sometimes generating controversy."
"Aware of the good fortune that led to her wealth and fame, Rowling wanted to use her public image to help others despite her concerns about publicity and the press; she became, in the words of Smith, "emboldened ... to stand up and be counted on issues that were important to her". Rowling's charitable donations before 2012 were estimated by Forbes at $160 million. She was the second most generous UK donor in 2015 (following the singer Elton John), giving about $14 million."
"Some performers and feminists have supported her. Figures from the arts world criticised "hate speech directed against her"." (I feel the lack of specifics here also detract from the neutrality of the article) Tordenofitami (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Here is the four-month-long (January to April 2022) Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1, which was to my knowledge the FAR with the highest participation ever (at least two dozen editors); it included editors of all stripes, colors and persuasions, and expertise and experience on Wikipedia, who worked collegially to come to consensus on text based on the highest quality sources. The FAR contains five pages of talk archives, and involved considerable work towards quality sourcing, prose, and obviously, neutrality.
- Re your statement that you
sense many of her political defenders have recently contributed to this page in ways that don't seem to support a neutral tone
, this is the diff showing all changes since the FAR passed. To save you some time, anyone who has regularly followed this article during and since its FAR (which is dozens of editors) can tell you that your "sense" is incorrect. - You have provided no source or policy-based reason for tagging the article; that is, you have tagged it based on your sense. And you offered examples of text that is well supported by the sources cited.
- The Neutrality tag is unwarranted and should be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Providing specific examples of allegedly non-neutral content makes this a better NPOV complaint than 90% of the ones I come across, so thank you. That said, the missing piece is an analysis of the article text compared to the sources. For example, you object to "Rowling was actively engaged on the internet before author webpages were common", but this is explicit in the cited reliable source. I join with SandyGeorgia in thinking the tag should be removed. To put it in WP:WTRMT terms, I think we're at #3:
"it reasonably appears that the template did not belong when placed"
. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)- Real4jyy just removed the tag. Pinging them here in case they'd like to say something. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed with the above responses. Crossroads -talk- 15:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Backwards copy
(AKA, plagiarizing Wikipedia): [1]
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)