Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/When Megan Went Away/archive1

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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 January 2023 [1].

When Megan Went Away

Nominator(s): —⁠Collin^{t c} 18:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you were around in the United States in the late '80s or early '90s, you may recall a fracas about early children's picturebooks like Heather Has Two Mommies (1989) or Daddy's Roommate (1990) that drew heat from conservative interests for depicting gay parents. Causing significantly less of a fracas, however, was the first picturebook to ever depict an LGBT+ character, 1979's When Megan Went Away by Jane Severance. Flying under the radar because of meager promotion from its independent publisher, mediocre reception for its story and art, and less than happy subject matter (the protagonist's mother separating from her lover), Megan nonetheless offers a window into lesbian life in Severance's community in the late '70s and stands as an important first step for the medium of queer kids' books which continue to receive challenge and derision from conservative interests as the number and diversity of these stories expand. This article was a major project of mine four years ago and benefitted from some additional edits and restructuring from CadeCaggiano during a 2021 WikiEdu course project. I look forward to ensuring this page is to FA standards and welcome any comments. Thanks, and happy new year! —⁠Collin^{t c} 18:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC

I don’t often oppose articles, but I am close with this one. There’s nothing terribly wrong with the article as a whole, but the prose is lumpy in places, and I’m not sure FAC would be the best place to fix it.

Having said that, maybe I’m being harsh (I’m in pain with a seized back and suffering from a lack of sleep), but there are a few pointers for you to consider:

Lead

The fact it’s a children’s book should be mentioned in para 1, probably in the first sentence.
Link independent press
“Concerns the child (or preteen) Shannon” - clarify on the first reference
“young lesbian working in a feminist bookstore in Denver in her early twenties”: “young” isn’t needed (and is a relative term anyway) when you tell us she was in her early 20s
“she perceived” isn’t needed

Background

“Severance's grandmother, Dorothy, imparted her love for reading to her children”: so how did it work its way to her grandchildren? Do you mean to include them too, or should her mother also be referenced? (Can you impart love? You can impart knowledge, but “sharing love” feels more natural)
“family to pursue writing”: can one “pursue writing”? “pursue writing as a career”, maybe?
“what she later characterized”: don’t need “later”
There’s something not right with the sentence “Severance's life, in her words, "was all about being a lesbian" and she identified a need for picture book content about children with lesbian mothers like those around her”, but I can’t put my finger on it at the moment.
“Further, she noted” -> “She also noted” (Further makes it look like a recently found additional fact jammed onto the end).

These are the main points I’ve noted from two sections, although there are more I could probably pick up. As it stands it not FA-worthy, but whether it’s close enough for final polishing during the FAC is another matter. - SchroCat (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat, thanks for taking the time to look at this and offer these useful comments. I've gone through and incorporated your notes for the first three sections (including trimming some of the bits about the grandmother) and have further reworded and reworked the other sections, especially Plot and Reception which I agree felt clunkier than desired. If you like, I can ping you again further on down the review if you'd like to take another look once others have had the chance to offer thoughts. Sleep well and feel better soon! Kindly —⁠Collin^{t c} 06:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the clear up so far - it's in much better shape that when it first came to FAC. A few other thoughts for you:

Lead

"as of the 2010s": we're now in the 2020s – is there anything that updates to a more current position?

Anecdotally, there's been no real change; the book hasn't been republished or reissued. However, no recent scholarship has addressed this so "as of the 2010s" is the most recent citable info I have to offer.

Background

"[...]": You don't need the square brackets (per WP:ELLIPSES), but I don't push the point too much
"Severance's community": "The community", maybe? Using her name makes it sound like she's a community leader, rather than being part of it. Again, I don't push this point, and if you retain for clarity, that's fine.

Publication history

Link to gender stereotypes?
"change the names "Shannon" and "Megan", lest readers get the impression that 'only women with Irish heritage were lesbians'": I struggle with this, and realise it's just the ignorance of the publisher – but it still grates a bit. The issue I have is that the 1. "Megan" is a Welsh name, not Irish; and 2. "Shannon" is a child about whom we have no idea of their sexuality. I'm not sure there is much we can do about, but it still grates!

I've added a note about the name "Megan"; agreed that there's not much to be done about the other point.

Anything to add about the wonderfully monikered "Tea Schook"?

Really good question. I'd also wondered this but hadn't previously identified much beyond that she unsuccessfully ran for a city council seat in Denver a few years back. However, if these archival papers are hers, then we can understand that she also unsuccessfully ran for Colorado governor in 1990 and also was a student at Loretto Heights College at the time of illustrating this book. I feel like at least the latter point might be worth mentioning if you feel comfortable that this is the same Tea Schook (how many Tea Schooks in Denver in the 1970s can there be?)

While it’s highly unlikely that there are two of them, it’s probably best not to make the connection without some confirmation (It’s always a vague possibility it’s a pseudonym or some other reason, but I tend to be more safety first on points such as these. - SchroCat (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to err on caution's side here. Thanks SchroCat. The catalog notes for this archive mention that among the collection are drawings; if I'm ever in Denver I'll try and go explore this resource to see if I can definitively link it (e.g., if perhaps the drawings are from Megan). —⁠Collin^{t c} 16:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

"no LGBT characters": remove the link from here and move it up to "Lesléa Newman, a fellow LGBTQ children's author" instead.

I hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SchroCat, thanks again for these comments; I've addressed them all or left comments if not. Let me know what you think about the Schook source; if you agree that that's probably the same Schook then I can add a bit of info on her. —⁠Collin^{t c} 15:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looks good now. SchroCat (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor

Wonderful to see this article at FAC. I have a few comments on prose, sources, and the image.
"In Denver, she became involved with what she characterized as "a very small subset of the lesbian community [...], the very young lesbian feminists" who ran a production company, a newspaper, a feminist bookstore (Woman to Woman), and organized protests and marches." - as is this sentence doesn't work grammatically. I would suggest switching the order at the end to "the very young lesbian feminists who organized protests and marches and ran production companies, newspapers, or feminist bookstores" since I assume the sentence is meant to imply they were doing one of these things, not necessarily all at once. Hopefully that thought makes sense, please don't hesitate to ask me to clarify if not!
"the lack of older lesbian role models, dearth of education, plus poverty, mental illness, and substance abuse " - similar issue here; very clunky as is. Was it widespread poverty, mental illness, and substance abuse? If so, I'd suggest something like "the lack of lesbian role models, compounded by a dearth of education and widespread poverty, mental illness, and substance abuse". Also, is it a lack of formal education, or education in parenting techniques?
"None of the lesbian mothers Severance knew had had planned children with their female partners," - double had, only need one.
"children in her community instead being a result of their mothers' past relationships with men.[4]" - seems a bit impersonal. What about "partners, most of their children instead from their mothers' past relationships with men"
"lesbian mothers, like those in her community.[5] " - no need for last bit after the comma, it's implied
"Retrospectively, she described feeling that the publication process was completely foreign to her." - No need to clarify retrospectively
"During the editing process, the publisher rewrote a section of the book, which Severance objected to." - which part?

I wish we knew but it's not stated in the source!

"the book did not receive a wide distribution" - any idea where it was published specifically?

Not specifically. Books of this type were likely sold through some combination of mail order via community newsletters/bulletins and in-person via feminist bookstores but I don't have sources to support either concretely.

"However, several smaller magazines did review the work." - somewhat clunky phrasing. "When Megan Went Away received no coverage from major book review magazines upon its publication,[8] but it did garner reviews from several smaller magazines" perhaps with a different verb than garner would be better.
"Carrie Dearborn wrote in Gay Community News that the book had had an emotional impact " - don't need both "had"s here

I'm too much a sucker for the double hads, thanks for pointing this out.

"In response to such criticism, Severance stated in an interview published in 2010" - lots of extra words. "a 2010 interview" should do the trick.
"Citing its success and notoriety, Severance has expressed the desire that Newman identify Heather as "the first successful book about lesbian mothers".[6]" - careful with pronouns, because it sort of sounds like you're describing Severance as "it" here. maybe better to move "citing [...] notoriety" to the end of the sentence.
For the sources, link University Press of Mississippi, American Library Association

Done plus Longman, Libraries Unlimited.

Image and alt text look fine.

I think I'll need to read through again, but there are definitely some issues with prose clunkiness and redundancy. Will leave more comments after these are addressed. ceranthor 17:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceranthor, thanks for lending your time to this. I've incorporated all the above comments except those that I'm unable to source; these I've commented on in your list. If you have any other tweaks or changes, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thank you! Kindly —⁠Collin^{t c} 00:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd briefly mention the pseudonym in the lead
" The book, published by the independent press Lollipop Power, concerns a child named Shannon" - why concerns and not depicts?
"with the separation of her mother and Megan, her mother's former partner." - what about rephrasing this to "her mother and her mother's partner Megan"? I think former partner is implied given separation
"It is regarded as the first picture book to include LGBT characters" - cut regarded as
"not widely distributed upon publication and proved divisive, with some praising the story for being an anti-sexist example of lesbian life and others finding its depiction of same-sex separation poorly timed," - provided divisive among critics, with some
"who organized protests and marches and ran a production company, a newspaper, and the feminist bookstore Woman to Woman.[3]" - this is still clunky and I think it's because I don't understand the meaning. Are you trying to say that they were the type of lesbian feminists doing these things?

Broke this into two sentences; let me know if it scans better.

"When Megan Went Away focuses on Shannon" - again, I think depicts would be better here
"mother's partner, Megan, has recently separated from Shannon's unnamed mother." - so wordy. What about "whose mother has recently separated from her partner Megan"
"Shannon continues to reminisce about what life was like before the separation" - cut continues to and change to reminisces
"Lollipop Power did not do enough publicity for the book, limiting its reach.[13]" - limiting its reach is rather vague... does the source clarify into the LGBT community or any other specific group it failed to reach, perhaps the mainstream population?
"Severance stated in a 2009 interview that when writing the story, she was intent on depicting lesbians as similar to nonlesbians rather than focusing on the differences.[5]" - clunky. Could say the same with fewer words easily
" distinction instead given to Lesléa Newman's Heather Has Two Mommies, not published until a decade later in 1989.[28]" - similarly could cut down some verbiage here
"to have attracted any challenges or attempts to ban it like Heather and other later picture books featuring LGBT characters have faced.[32] " - clunky
"The children's literature researcher Thomas Crisp noted in the Children's Literature Association Quarterly that Severance's career and books" - how does her career do this? I would just say her books
"Crisp also reported that copies of When Megan Went Away were difficult to find at the time of writing." - just replace "at the time of writing" with the year

Might need to do one final pass after these are addressed. ceranthor 14:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Ceranthor, I've incorporated all but two of these. To your first point, do you mean that "R. Minta Day" should be mentioned in the lead? To your point about "limiting its reach", this isn't super clear in the source. Here's the relevant text: "I think that unfortunately Lollipop Power did not do a lot of publicity about those two books [Megan and Severance's later book Lots of Mommies], and I don't think they had a wide reach, even though When Megan Went Away initially appeared in Ms. Magazine as a story." —Newman qtd. in Peel 2015. Note that Newman's assertion that the work was published in Ms. "initially" is not true. I'm happy to adjust this slightly; maybe "limiting its potential readership" or similar? Thanks! —⁠Collin^{t c} 15:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to the first point. Maybe mentioned as "first published under the pseudonym R. Minta Day". And then I think "limiting its potential readership" is better. ceranthor 16:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done; added a sentence at the end of the first lede para about the republication in Ms. —⁠Collin^{t c} 16:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think maybe the second and third sentences in the lead could be switched. Thoughts? ceranthor 18:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hate it! I've switched them, and also moved the bit about the Ms. republication to the second para where I think it fits better. —⁠Collin^{t c} 18:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm happy with the progress made for the prose. Nice work! ceranthor 19:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: pass

Formatting: all good; sfn used throughout, all citations are consistent. Formatting of the source list is also consistent
Reliability: all sources are reliable.
Spot checks show material is adequately supported by relevant citations.
No examples of close phrasing were found and copyvio checks show no issues
Searches for unused sources have identified nothing of additional value. There were some sources located, but reference to the book was only in passing, or repeated information that was already in the article in equally reliable sources.
There is a copy of the book at https://archive.org/details/combinepdf_202009/mode/2up: this link should be added to the sources. There are also a couple of the other sources that are available either on Google Books or the Internet Archive: these should probably be added for consistency with the existing links in the sources.

Hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchroCat! Good call on the Archive.org links, I hadn't thoroughly searched the books available there but all available links have been added. —⁠Collin^{t c} 14:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problems - that’s a pass. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: pass

Non-free rationale for use of cover looks satisfactory. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian

Recusing coord duties to review...

A nice succinct article that seems comprehensive (I say this having never heard of the subject) and is neutral in tone.
Although I performed my habitual copyedit, the article reads well, due in part no doubt to some heavy lifting undertaken in concert with the earlier reviewers.
In summary, no reason not to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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