Talk:Margaret Atwood/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lady Boribarbus, ZorndesPoebels.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New layer of annoyance[edit]

I noticed that there was a recent edit, muddying up the page, by simply button-mashing and just basically spamming the existing text without really adding a single thing, besides a new layer of annoyance. I used the undo feature, and I'll keep an eye on it, as best I can - not sure how to flag it so that an anonymous spammer cannot do the same thing again, however. J. (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another annoyance[edit]

How is it possible that this remark:

This reflects her status of being "in the vanguard of Canadian anti-Americanism of the 1960s and 1970s."

can be seen as anything other than a opinion. Isn't anyone sick of this kind of baiting? Writing fiction and using the United States as an engine of disaster is not new... for only one example read Mark Twain criticism of the United States and it's intervention in the Philippines . Bob em (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC) Bob em[reply]

Stream of consciousness' style?[edit]

I wanted to query the assertion that Margaret Ätwood writes in a 'stream of consciousness' style. This seems to me to rather overstate the case and not be what I would understand by the term (nor Wikipedia's definition for that matter). Anyone else agree/disagree? Mazzy 01:04, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it should read something like, 'Atwood frequently uses elements of the literary technique stream-of-consciousness', or something. Atwood does use the technique, or elements of it, occasionally, doesn't she? Or is this just me being undereducated? Lovely_Chris

Radical Revert?[edit]

I hate to be rude, but does anyone else think that the 00:47, 8 February 2006 edit by 209.239.5.156 [1] has made this article difficult to read? It reads like someone's undergraduate essay and is so chock full of enthusiastic adjectives (diligent,undoubtedly,innovative, extraordinary etc) that I just don't know where to start to make it a bit more POV. Also it is written in a very academic style which may be hard to read by general audiences.

I don't want to start off with bad faith by doing massive edits, but I really think this article needs some major work to improve readability and neutral POV. Ashmoo 02:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Governor General's Literacy Award[edit]

Near the bottom of the page, there is a list of Atwood's works, their publication dates and awards received. It says that she won the Governor General's Award in 2000 for her novel The Blind Assassin. This is incorrect. She was a finalist. The winner was Michael Ondaatje for Anil's Ghost. This should be corrected.

Done. 156.34.186.152 10:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just a note that it's the Governor General's Literary Award, not Literacy Award! I think it's pretty clear both Ondaatje and Atwood are clearly beyond literate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.70.15 (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Nobel Prize[edit]

I've removed a sentence referring to the fact that Atwood has not been awarded a Nobel Prize ("She hasn't won a nobel prize [sic] yet."). It has since been returned, albeit in a slightly different form ("She hasn't won a nobel prize [sic].). Unless some sort of context is provided - a cited recognition that she has been considered, for example - I don't see this statement as meaningful. As it is, one might make the same statement for every other living Canadian witer. I look forward to hearing the thoughts of others. Victoriagirl 17:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the edit that this sĄame editor made to The Handmaid's Tale, I'm forced to conclude that they're just vandalizing things today and have so-warned them.
Atlant 18:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She was nominated last year: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9665122/ (final sentence)--Teiladnam 07:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The MSNBC article does not say that.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Of course, it's not "last year" anymore.--Teiladnam (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage?[edit]

Why does every other Internet source that mentions Atwood's personal life comment that she is NOT married to novelist Graeme Gibson (and doesn't intend to) and this article says she married him some time ago. Needs a correction/cite? 

Notusip 07:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it needs a correction, I believe. I can find no reference to her being married to Gibson. Change at will. Sunray 14:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is accurate to refer to Gibson as Atwood's common-law spouse. - Maggie --70.48.207.173 01:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is your source? Thank you! Lova Falk 07:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source would be easy - she's listed as living with him on book jackets going back decades. I believe the law is that you are considered common law after 12 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.70.15 (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Tent[edit]

On Margaret Atwoods homepage http://www.owtoad.com/ The Tent is both mentioned as one of her novels and as short fiction. I haven't access to The Tent so I don't know if it is both. Anybody who knows? Lova Falk 18:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Her biggest achievement: not winning the Nobel?[edit]

The lead paragraph seems very strange to me. Atwood has won many prestigious awards. Is being talked about (among many others) as a potential winner of the Nobel -- but then not getting it or even being formally nominated either year -- really the best shorthand for her notability? Who is she, Erica Kane?

I say replace this reference with a sentence about her Booker, and create a complete "Awards and nominations" section below.

Dybryd 05:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and did this. Dybryd 18:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy[edit]

I had heard that she was an article writer for Playboy in the 1960/70s (at the same time as Alex Haley and Ian Fleming). Can anyone confirm that? Indisciplined 22:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Atwood.jpg[edit]

Image:Atwood.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion?[edit]

Papist? Something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.211.195.11 (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though very familiar with the bible, she is not religious and discusses being raised a "strict agnostic" at 7:10 mark here <copyright violation redacted>Codenamemary (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same interview is available from the original source (not a copyvio) here. --Danger (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Issues[edit]

The sentences, "Hybrid cars still use gas. A subway doesn't." should probably not be at the end of the section about MA's energy-efficient practices. I am removing. Dblanchar (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks from IP[edit]

If, according to this article, "Atwood is among the most-honored authors of fiction in recent history," why does it contain absolutely *no* critical commentary on her work? Go to any Wikipedia article on any second-rate hack novelist. You'll get at least a paragraph on his themes, landmark works etc. Not so with Atwood. This Wiki piece is a travesty. EB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.219.44 (talk • contribs) 15:43, June 8, 2008

If you feel that the article is deficient, be bold and add a section of critical commentary. It certainly would be a welcome and needed addition. Gimme danger (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that this article would benefit by the addition of such a section. If no one else is up for it, I'll have a go, but first I'll have to unearth some of my old research. --Doclit (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linkfarm[edit]

This list is at least 3 times too long - only the most useful, relevant, and important should stay - but which? Many would be useful as citation instead imo. (add comment under each for pro/anti keeping as ext links):

remove - being a trustee of a non-notable prize is not important imo. This site doesn't add enough to a readers knowledge of Atwood (can be a single sentence mention within article).

remove - can go to specific book articles.

remove - can go to specific book articles.

remove - can go to specific book articles.

Margaret Atwood and Feminism[edit]

This section opens with the following statement: " Margaret Atwood is a part of a long line of strong females in her family." This statement is both ridiculously POV, and hilariously idiotic. 174.114.157.100 (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

God's Gardeners[edit]

The article mentions, 'God's Gardeners (due to be published 2009).' Is there a source for this? If not, it should be deleted. Skoojal (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is. For instance: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gods-Gardeners-Margaret-Atwood/dp/0747585164. I think there is no need to put a commercial link in the article, so I put it here. --Lova Falk (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a policy regarding commercial links, I'd be grateful if you could direct me to it. Better to use a source for everything, but I won't add it if there's policy against it. Skoojal (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-comercial site that mentions it. [2]. And another http://www.mscd.edu/~atwoodso/index_files/Page295.htm.. I added second to article, look more official. Although i'm sure both probably got their info from Amazon :-)Yobmod (talk) 09:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works section[edit]

I see this entry: Wheel-show (1978-1981) for Times Magazine

I don't know where it fits. Can someone help?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google got me nowhere so I zapped it.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

A photo would be great in this article. I went to her official website looking for contact info so I could ask her, but could not find it. Any suggestions? Would someone like to write her publisher?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see the photo issue resolved with such pleasing results! --Doclit (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

poetry[edit]

"While she is best known for her work as a novelist, her poetry is noteworthy." Did anyone read that before they wrote it? It sounds very clumsy. Something along the lines of: "Although Atwood is best known for her work as a novelist, she has also been critically successful as a poet." The phrase "her poetry is noteworthy" sounds ridiculous. Alan16 (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This needs rewording I think. It does make it sound as though her poetry was little more than a hobby. ClaireReal (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Critical reception"[edit]

Why is "critical reception just about one her books -- and not even one of her novels? zafiroblue05 | Talk 15:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seven years later I'd say this section is far worse. "In 2008, The Economist called her a "scintillating wordsmith" and an "expert literary critic", but commented that her logic does not match her prose in Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth,[30] a book which commences with the conception of debt and its kinship with justice." Is that really the most significant evaluation of her writing, worthy of literally half of the "critical reception" section of the page? That The Economist did not agree with her conception of debt? 73.114.147.77 (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still in need of a critical commentary[edit]

As in IP remarks from a year ago (above) I agree that the article still needs a critical commentary of her work. It is still more or less a hagiography at the moment. Spanglej (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No soap boxing[edit]

See no soapboxing - we're not here to make political points.

User:Spanglej, if you are going to bark out orders to everyone, even those who were innocent, it would be nice to have a person behind the orders...and maybe some context would be nice. Please sign your comments. We all do. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature, is considered outdated in Canada"[edit]

Substantiation and elaboration is surely required. So-considered by whom? Outdated in what regard? Masalai (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basic query[edit]

Given that she spent her adolescent years in Leaside, it is presumably Leaside United Church that she amusingly describes in one of her novels. Which novel? Masalai (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Influences/influenced[edit]

{{Infobox writer}} no longer supports the fields influences and influenced. Its template documentation now instructs (twice): "No longer supported. Please move cited/citable instances into prose."

Here are the current parameter values (cut and paste except bullet points and reflist template):

  1. ^ Henderson, Jack (2007-03-02). "About Jack". Official website. Retrieved 2013-01-29.

See Talk: Ray Bradbury#Influences/influenced for some more explanation with cross-references.

--P64 (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction[edit]

second of two new sections in one session -P64

Atwood is outspoken in terms of both 'science fiction' and 'speculative fiction' and links to those two articles have some value here, at least in section 4, Atwood and science fiction, as well as the infobox Genres.

At the moment we link Portal:Speculative fiction (which I just added it to the Portal box, and where Portal:Science fiction is a top-level division). We link speculative fiction from both infobox Genres and section 4 prose; we do not link science fiction from either location, only science fiction fandom and social science fiction. I don't know whether the distinction is deliberate or fitting here. There are some workers who strip links from supposedly familiar genre names, sometimes 'science fiction' in particular (recent talk).

One of our Ext links, ISFDB links two other sf sources that may be worth consulting, Atwood at kirjasto.sci.fi and her entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction.

--P64 (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

edit request[edit]

In 2012, Margaret Atwood was invited to serve as a mentor for the Rolex Mentor and Protégé Arts Initiative, an international philanthropic programme that pairs masters in their disciplines with emerging talents for a year of one-to-one creative exchange. Out of a very gifted field of candidates, Atwood chose Naomi Alderman as her protégée.[1] RMP2014 (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.rolexmentorprotege.com/pairing/2012-2013/margaret_atwood_and_naomi_alderman

"the theorizing of Canadian identity"[edit]

Is this supposed to mean something? It sounds like the sort of vacuous vagueness common in a certain type of social science: heavy on words and light on intelligibility and meaning. As Spock (Star Trek) might have put it, "It's English, Jim, but not as we know it". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.102.208 (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Person life[edit]

Maybe the "Personal life" section can be put in with the section titled "Early life and education", it seems to fall under a similar umbrella.

Mcengl470 (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Margaret Atwood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Margaret Atwood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Love Songs of a Terminator[edit]

Being a huge fan of both Cameron and Atwood, upon hearing that Atwood published a collection of poetry titled "Love songs of a Terminator" in the early 80s, I became quite excited. I spent rather a lot of time exhausting all my rare book channels looking for this piece, hoping it was some sort of dystopian take on Blake. After rather a lot of searching, and much disappointment, I am beginning to suspect that Atwood never wrote a poetry collection called "Love Songs of a Terminator" the year before Cameron's masterpiece was released.

so the edit in question is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Atwood&type=revision&diff=124844394&oldid=124844216

I have found other references to the collection around the internet, but they all seem to post-date the aforlinked edit, and none of them seem to contain more detail than the edit.

I would be happy to be wrong, and would be quite willing to pay a substantial amount for a copy of the work, or for that matter, a reasonable simulacrum thereof, but as it stands, we should probably remove "Love songs of a Terminator" from the list of her works.

Luke.S.Crawford (talk) 05:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Margaret Atwood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Margaret Atwood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Margaret Atwood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Edits (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I am attempting to make some edits to the layout of the page, as well as adding additional content. Jlbrandt (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Margaret Atwood/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs) 19:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Review[edit]

Lead[edit]

*I would encourage a review of MOS:INTRO. The way I read this suggests that the Lead should be a preview of the article to come. Much of the first paragraph after sentence 3 is just a listing of her many accomplishments, which aren't strictly necessary to establish notability. I would suggest limiting this, perhaps moving up the final paragraph which actually does preview major swaths of the article, and giving thought to whether anything else belongs in the Lead to help give an accessible overview.

    • So I have edited back in some information in the LEAD. For an article of this length I would generally expect 3, maybe 4 paragraphs, in the lead. My issue above was the long listing of accomplishments rather than just suggesting it was too long. Would again ask if there is information that feels relevant that deserves some scope of coverage in this section.
Sorry for the confusion over the lead edits. I think as it is looks good.
Still think more might be preferable but think it satisfies criterion as written now.

*Also, while not prohibited the number of references currently in the lead are not strictly necessary, see MOS:LEADCITE.

Early Life and Education[edit]

*Source 17 appears that it should be linking to this but that particular page doesn't actually establish most of what precedes that in that sentence. *What makes luminarium (source 18) WP:RS?

Unclear as to what is being asked here. Are you asking if this is a reliable source?
Nevermind. I see what you mean. Removed this source.

*Luminaries feels like WP:PEACOCK. (If I were writing this I would probably not include the Bob fact at all but that's personal preference)

Career[edit]

*Does it make more sense to include Pratt award in Early Life or here? Arguably both sentences could actually go in 1960s section comfortably. No right answer just asking question.

moved award here

*What is citation for teaching posts in 1960s?

citation added

*Taking on WP:AGF that " As a social satire of North American consumerism, many critics have often cited the novel as an early example of the feminist concerns" accurately summarizes, rather than synthesizes, source.

  • What is source for York teaching post?
citation added

*Items do not need to be linked everytime they appear. In general only the first instance needs linking, but there are some exceptions. See MOS:OVERLINK. I have fixed some of these but many more remain.

removed any multiple links in a a given section

*Source for "explore identity and social constructions of gender as they relate to topics such as nationhood and sexual politics"? (Note: I also did a slightly change of sentence for clarity. Please make sure it's still accurate)

citation added

*Taking on GF that source says Surfacing and Survival "helped establish Atwood as an important and emerging voice in Canadian literature"

  • Atwood's webpage (source 30) should probably not be used. Can alternative citation for her winning of St. Lawrence Award for Fiction be found?
alternative source found and citation added

*It feels like there's more blistering criticism of Handmaid's tale than that NYT quote per HuffPo article. Also should probably be balanced with a positive quote as demonstration of the mixed reviews.

I ended up removing this entirely. In general, I tried to keep comments on her writing brief, as these all have their own detailed pages. Ultimately I found that this quote wasn't needed as it doesn't really add anything to the page and other novels do not have similar discussion.

*Having one critic's review of Cat's Eye being autobiographical doesn't demonstrate larger point that critics and reviewers do this more generally

added an additional citation; source discusses critics' desire to read autobiographical elements in novel
Can you point me to this?
citation #31

*Suggest "Regarding her stints with teaching, she has noted, "Success for me meant no longer having to teach at university.” change to "Atwood was happy to stop teaching noting, "Success for me meant no longer having to teach at university.”

kept original wording; quotation does not support assertion that Atwood was "happy" to stop teaching. Original wording is more neutral.

*Source for "Although vastly different in context and form, both novels use female characters to question good and evil and morality through their portrayal of female villains."?

The two sentences that immediately follow this sentence are provide the source material for how the two novels are different in form but have female villains
Think this is borderline OR. I want to give it more attention/thought as to which side of the line I think it ultimately falls.
Still think this might be OR but tie goes to the editor since I consider it borderline. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Source for Blind Assassin having critical acclaim (without source this is WP:PUFFERY)

the fact that it won the Booker Prize and Hammet Prize support the novel's critical acclaim.
You're right. Was thinking more of book criticism but the awards more than show this.

*Source for themes in MaddAddam?

citation added

*Source for theatrical adaptation of Penelopiad?

citation added
  • Beyond awards what can we say about the arc of her career? Some more critical summary and detail regarding sales would be positive throughout the career section.
I feel this is covered in themes. I'll keep looking for sales figures or something that might help here. I feel the awards list at the bottom of the page covers this.
The only recent figures I can find regarding sales have to do with The Handmaid's Tale. I still feel the whole section on themes/criticism covers this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlbrandt (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*More context (1 sentence plot summaries) around some of the novels would be positive. I think right balance is struck with Alias Grace which has short summary (as compared to Robber Bride which we just learn takes place in Toronto and which through inference we learn has an evil woman character.

I avoided this since most of her works have their own pages.
Going too in depth doesn't make sense. In looking at some FA authors I think you've struck good balance.
  • Why are the different forms broken out in the 2000s vs other decades? I think this section has right level of depth for each book (see above comment) but am curious about this organizational choice. At minimum would move LongPen to the end of this section.
Moved LongPen. I am open to other forms of organization. Without the breakdown it seemed like the section was too long and hard to navigate.
This section is longer than others. Granted it covers nearly two decades vs 1 decade for others but also worry we're slanting towards the more recent because most of those things occurred since Wikipedia started and thus has received more editor attention. Thoughts? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I see your point. But it also includes things such as the Long Pen, Future Library Project, etc. that she wasn't doing earlier in her career. At this point her career started going in additional directions, which is why I originally started to break out the sections. I'm open to other organization, I just don't know how else to do it that makes it easier to read or navigate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlbrandt (talk • contribs) 19:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Hag seed sentences don't technically need a source but if one is easy to add wouldn't hurt.

citation added

*Payback section needs sourcing. Also am confused about what exactly Economist was criticising.

Removed part about the Economist.

*I did some editing of Chamber Opera section.

  • Angel Catbird could use 1 sentence summary.
summary added

Recurring themes and cultural contexts[edit]

*Strongly suggest the first subtopic be renamed. Could be "Canadian Identity" or "Theory of Canadian Identity"

Changed name and re-organized this section. Hopefully this address or clarifies other suggestions for this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlbrandt (talk • contribs) 15:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Taking on GF that source says that, " Survival: A Thematic Guide to Canadian Literature, is considered outdated in Canada but remains the standard introduction to Canadian literature in Canadian Studies programs internationally." Even so a single source for such a broad statement is a bit worrying. *Can "Atwood’s Survival bears the influence of Northrop Frye’s theory of garrison mentality; Atwood instrumentalizes Frye’s concept to a critical tool." be reworded to be easily understood by a wider swath of readers? *Should not generalize Pivato's critique based on current sourcing (but can and should leave it in attributed to him)

I originally wanted to remove this statement in my first edits of the article because there was not a source for this. Another editor added the source and wording. I'm actually okay with removing it; it seems redundant to me.
  • Since it's Howells not Hutchinson applying Historiographic metafiction tag to Atwood is Hutchinson's coinage of the term pertinent in this article?
Not sure what is being asked here. The sentence in the article seems clear to me.
The way I'm reading the reading the sourcing, he author saying Atwood is writing Historiographic metafiction is Howells. Hutchinson coined the phrase, but is that pertinent here or is it relevant that Howells suggests it's true of Atwood? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty standard for literary criticism. Typically you attribute the theory to the person who coined it in cases like this; otherwise, it could look as if someone was trying to give Howells credit for the term. So, in her work, Howells is discussing how Huthinson's theory applies to Atwood's works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlbrandt (talk • contribs) 19:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*I'm torn about need for Speculative Fiction section as compared to what is (or could be) present in Career. Since I'm torn just noting it. *Is there some theory or critical basis for the animals section? This seems to be close to WP:OR and thus could use some greater grounding (or else be removed).

I think this section is more appropriately named ecocriticism. I've moved some things around to see if this makes more sense. In general, I tried to leave other contributors' information in the article and add citations or context. I'm open to discussion on removing the lines from the works. I do, though, think the section should be here.
Revisions work well. Thanks.

*Political involvement could use some sort of introduction/summary before diving into Handmaid's Tale.

Re-arranged this section, removed unsubstantiated claims or provided sources.

*Source for strong support of May?

  • Sourcing for PEN connections?

*I'm not sure any of the Sudbury, Gaza, or University of Toronto pieces of information is necessary in terms of GA criterion 3.

I'll defer to you/others on this; I don't really have strong feelings either way.
Removed the Toronto bit. Left Gaza because of its connection with PEN and did a copyedit of Sudbury but left it as evidence of her environmentalism.

*Last paragraph should be merged with current first paragraph.

Adaptations[edit]

  • This section is a bit of a mess right now reading like a list more than anything. If it's just going to be a list (and I'm not sure it needs to be more than a list) it should be a list, like the Awards are.
I think this section has more information in it than just a list. It also leaves the possibility for additions as adaptations continue. I am open, though, to continued discussion if others feel it should be reduced to a list.
How about a table that could allow some of the other information without trying to be Prose when it's really not?
I'm open to that idea, but I am having a hard time envisioning what the cells would be. Is there an example you can point to?
Let me see what I can find/do.

Future Library project[edit]

*Would suggest that this section be incorporated into career as appropriate.

moved to 2000s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlbrandt (talk • contribs) 15:28, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life[edit]

*This section feels bare but also very important. Can more information/sourcing be found? If not can it be merged with Early Life & Education?

I feel strongly that Atwood is notable for being an author, not for her personal life. I feel the section is appropriate as is and where it is placed.
Most Wikipedia subjects are notable for whatever they did not their personal life. So I say important in terms of needing coverage in order to adequately cover their subject (GA criterion 3a). Still suggest merging it with section up top would be best but defer to you.
Okay; that makes sense. I moved up top and changed the section header to "Personal life and education"

Sources[edit]

  • It is best practice to note when a web source requires a subscription (but not strictly required for GA).
  • Single sources are listed multiple times in the reference list. How intentional was that? It would be better to use {{refname}} & {{rn}} to group together.
I used the citation generator for my citations, so they just appeared in the reference list. I'm not sure how to proceed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlbrandt (talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So let's say you have the book "Smith, Joan (2011). Atwood Best Author Ever. Prestigous Place, Canada: Reputable Press.". Over the course of the article you cite this source three times but a different page each time. As you have it each source would be listed once in the reference list. If you use the Template:RP (sorry for wrong link above) you could combine that with refname so that the specific page number is cited but the source is only listed once in the reference list. Does that make any more sense?
Ah, I see; yes, this does make sense. Thank you.

Discussion[edit]

Can @Jlbrandt: or another interested editor confirm they're willing to go through the GA review process before I begin this review? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Barkeep49: I encouraged Jlbrandt to send this article to GAN. I believe they will be around to discuss your review and make any necessary changes, if applicable, but I have this page on my watchlist, too, and can help out as needed. In other words: confirmed. :) Thanks for volunteering to take it on. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:40, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Barkeep49: I am interested in going through the GA review process. Jlbrandt (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Will begin read through in earnest tomorrow. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun my review of the article. My process is to do a read through of the article, and then to go back through and do a detailed read through, commenting on prose, balance, and sources. I then go back through and check-off the other elements of GA (including some other elements of sources). This detailed read through can take a couple of days depending on my availability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Barkeep49: This is my first time going through this process, so I'll wait until you are finished before working on your suggestions. Everything so far is very helpful. Thank you. Jlbrandt (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors find it useful to do work as I go along but it's also totally fine to wait. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlbrandt: I have completed my detailed read. I still have a couple other GA areas to check, like images and some aspects of sourcing, but the lion's share of the work is done and would welcome any responses or questions you might have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Barkeep49:; this is very thorough and detailed. I've started working on the edits on a sandbox page, and will continue over the next day or two. I will let you know if I have any questions. This is my first GA; what is standard for next steps?Jlbrandt (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jlbrandt: Standard next steps are to fix items listed, push back on items where I might have missed the mark, and ask questions about what you don't understand. Generally indicated beneath each item that you've addressed it, disagree with it, or have questions is the way to go. If you're looking for a place to start I'd actually encourage you to look at the sources feedback and address those first. The second bullet point, about eliminating the repetition of sources, is, absent a compelling explanation, something I am going to insist upon for criteria 2a and completion of that will make the remaining work I have to do to evaluate sources much easier. I know this might seem like a long list - don't fret. This is a normal length list for an article of this size in my experience observing GAs and having done some myself. This very much has the bones of a GA and through this process anticipate a successful review. Please feel free to keep asking questions as you have them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Barkeep49:. I'll start with the sources. This may take a few days, but I am working on it.Jlbrandt (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'm placing the review on hold while you make these changes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Jlbrandt (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


@Barkeep49: I am beginning to move the edits per your GA suggestion to the Atwood page. Jlbrandt (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlbrandt: It's generally helpful if underneath my comment you either note that you made a change, ask a question, or explain why you don't think my suggestion is right. This helps keep things organized. Again feel free to ask any questions as you move through this process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Barkeep49:. The page is now edited with comments here under your suggestions. Jlbrandt (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly there. I've struck through points I consider closed. Couple places for you to response and a couple where I just want to give it more thought. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
Thanks @Barkeep49:. I will respond to comments by end of day. Jlbrandt (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Think things are very close. I want to explore the adaptations a bit more. I think the sources as listed are adequate to pass GA but would encourage you to think about doing it anyway as reader friendly (at least for those readers who care about such things). Think there remain just a couple other points for you to respond/act about at this point. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Barkeep49: I believe I've responded to everything but what we want to do about the adaptations. Maybe a list would just be easier. Let me know if I missed anything else. Jlbrandt (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jlbrandt: Yeah I think it's just adaptations at this point. Best comparison I could find among existing GA is Anne_Rice#Adaptations. This passed GA in 2012 when standards were lower but even still think it offers a nice point of comparison. Based on that I would suggest adding another sentence (or so) to Surfacing, Payback, Wandering Wanda and Handmaid's (given number and importance of adaptations it can be longer). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great. How does it look now @Barkeep49:? What are the next steps?
The next steps are it's passed! Thanks for all your hard work and congratulations. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is so exciting! Thank you @Barkeep49: for all your help with this process!

First husband[edit]

Note: I removed the misleading wikilink of "Jim Polk" to James Polk (journalist), which appears to have been present for a couple months. I have found no reliable evidence that these two Polks are the same person. The Guardian calls Jim Polk "an American writer she had met at Harvard". The journalist does not appear to have attended Harvard, and his entries in Encyclopedia of Twentieth Century Journalists and Who's Who in America fail to mention Atwood, the latter naming a different wife altogether. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox Jew[edit]

She was not raised in an Orthodox Jewish family. The source used states Naomi Alderman was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.171.38.30 (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Must've been added by someone not paying attention. Grandpallama (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Margaret_Atwood/Archive_1&oldid=1098432356"