Talk:Paul Takes the Form of a Mortal Girl

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 21:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Paul Takes the Form of a Mortal Girl took 15 years to write? Source: [ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/books/trans-lit-transgender-novels.html]
  • ALT1: ... that the author of Paul Takes the Form of a Mortal Girl refused to make the main character learn a lesson, believing that it would make the novel unrealistic? Source: [ https://ew.com/books/author-interviews/andrea-lawlor-whiting-award-paul-takes-the-form-of-a-mortal-girl/]
  • ALT2: ... that Paul Takes the Form of a Mortal Girl? Source: not a typo. too cheeky?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/WKNO (TV)

Created by Ezlev (talk). Self-nominated at 02:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Paul Takes the Form of a Mortal Girl; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Article is new enough and long enough for our dyk criteria. Earwig shows 39% but it alerts to titles and an attributed quote. I like ALT0 as interesting and cited in the article. The article is neutral and all facts are cited and referenced. The QPQ is completed. I see in the NYT source Like “Confessions of the Fox,” “Paul Takes the Form of a Mortal Girl,” which took Lawlor 15 years to write, bends genre as well as gender. Bruxton (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paul Takes the Form of a Mortal Girl/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sawyer-mcdonell (talk · contribs) 18:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to get through this today! Super interesting topic. sawyer * he/they * talk 18:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Done The lead could be a bit longer, to reflect the length of the article's body.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I standardized the date formats in the citations
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Done I think the plot summary aspect could be longer, to make the article feel more proportional. Some of the less important reviews could be trimmed or cut as well.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I googled around looking for any major negative reviews in case there was a balance issue, and couldn't find any. I guess it's just a really good book!
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Done I'm not sure the photo of Carmen Maria Machado is necessary; the content of the review could be moved to the body or perhaps a quote box.
	7. Overall assessment.

• Thanks for the review, Sawyer-mcdonell! I'm glad we get to work together. I've removed the photo of Carmen Maria Machado. I also trimmed the reviews a bit, and started working to expand the lede. I can definitely do more of both of those, and expand the plot summary although I'll note that I try to adhere to Wikipedia:Source your plot summaries. An outside perspective could be useful – is there anything specific that you think is missing from the plot summary, or just looking for more length/breadth? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 20:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think mainly just length & breadth; as someone who hasn't read the book, I think it'd be nice to have some more specifics about what Paul gets up to, which would then give some more context to the reviews (note; I'm on the same page about sourcing plot summaries haha). Thanks for your response! sawyer * he/they * talk 20:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sawyer-mcdonell, I've made some additions. Excited to hear your thoughts! — ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  The additions look great! The plot summary really rounds out the article, & I think the lead + review sections look really nice now. Awesome work!! (I also now want to read this book lol) sawyer * he/they * talk 22:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.