Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/J. K. Rowling

J. K. Rowling

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 26, 2022 by Wehwalt (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J. K. Rowling in 2010

J. K. Rowling is a pen name of Joanne Rowling, the British author of the children's fantasy series Harry Potter, the Cormoran Strike crime series and other works. In the seven years before the 26 June 1997 publication of her first Potter novel, her mother died from multiple sclerosis (MS) and, following a divorce, she lived on state assistance as a single parent. Separation and loss are reflected in the Potter novels, with death and the divide between good and evil as central themes. Despite receiving mixed reviews for perceived conventional writing, Rowling became the world's highest-paid author by 2008. The series has sold over 500 million copies and spawned a media franchise including films and video games. Rowling has used her wealth to advance charitable causes centered around MS, women and children, as well as political causes. Her views on transgender rights have led to controversy, with critics deeming them transphobic. She has received many accolades for literature and philanthropy. (Full article...)

Most recent similar article(s): Robert Roberts (author), 7 March 2022
Main editors: AleatoryPonderings, Olivaw-Daneel, Vanamonde93, SandyGeorgia
Promoted: 2007; Featured article review 15 April 2022: rerun Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 11, 2008
Reasons for nomination: 25th anniversary of the publication of the first Harry Potter novel, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone on 26 June 1997
Support as nominator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The blurb went quite far in depth into Harry Potter when it should be about her own biography or how its publication relates to her life. I've removed a sentence. The part about her mother feels out of place too. Perhaps worth adding a sentence or two on her influences or path to publication or her upbringing and its affect on her work? czar 14:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes; noting that Bloomsbury, not Rowling, published, and that the parts you removed explained how Potter related to her life and mother's death. Please discuss proposed changes on the talk page here, which will be more effective than unilateral changes to a proposed blurb. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rejigged to address Czar's concerns; see talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hog Farm _Talk 21:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good anniversary, the article is shiny and new, fully rewritten, too soon for deterioration, still plenty of eyes on it, and mechanisms in place to deal with any issues that crop up. Seems a good time to run it. Victoria (tk) 23:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose absolutely not Great Mercian (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Odd, that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per FARWORKS. SN54129 18:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: "Rowling has advanced charitable causes centered around MS, women and children, and political causes including views on transgender rights that have drawn controversy." first off is structured in a way to make it look like her political causes come under the same category as her charitable ones, and second, that's a downplaying of her exceptionally negative views about transgender people to the extent that it feels like a whitewash. The article lead doesn't phrase it that way, because it'd be delisted from FA if it did. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 09:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Continued on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Cuerden the rewrite appears stable; does it satisfy per your oppose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go with yes. I do wish we had put this up before 2019, when it'd have been thoroughly uncontroversial, but as it is, we've probably done the best we can. Of course, we should probably keep an eye on her in the leadup to this; if she does something awful just beforehand, we're probably going to want to pull and delay it, but I think that's true of any article related to a living person. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 15:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Adam; I imagine Wehwalt will have a backup plan, should things go south. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry for all the hoops. Just want this to go well, you know? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 19:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~: The current wording seems like her political views are of charitable character, and I cannot support in good faith wording that associates her views with charity. I would support if reworded.— Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ixtal, I have separated the sentences to avoid the unintended implication. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, thanks Sandy. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Is there any reason not to phrase it "Her views against transgender rights"? I don't think anyone, including herself, is saying she's pro-transgender rights, and it sums up the controversy a lot better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 13:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Adam; apologies for iPad typos and brevity from car/hotspot editing. That could be subtly incorrect and POV as her interpretation of laws vis-a-vis gender rights and women's rights is the basis of the controversy. Thanks for asking, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment Whatever language is settled upon here should be beyond doubt an accurate summary of what is stated in the article's transgender people subsection, which is the only place in the article I find her views on the subject expressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's honestly a very weak part of the article, insofar as it ends in 2020. She's said and done a lot of things since then. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.7% of all FPs} 15:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Continued on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]