Talk:Fun Home

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
???	This article has no rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and provide comments here.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class.

Contents 1 Page created 2 The author's blog is not a reliable source. 3 factual verification 4 If you say the book must be seen to verify then it makes this article sound like an advertisement 5 Sources 6 "very nice, and accurate to boot." 7 Time and Entertainment Weekly

[edit] Page created

I just created this page. Please help expand it. There is a ton of related info on the author's blog. Here is a link [[1]] to a list of reviews of the book. This could be used to properly reference the article. --345Kai 23:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The author's blog is not a reliable source.

Check out Wikipedia policies WP:V, WP:NN, WP:OR and others. Mattisse 00:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It does have links to reviews that people may or may not find reliable. What's wrong with that on the talk page??--345Kai 06:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems like, in this case, Ms. Bachdel's blog would be an acceptable source of information; particularly information pertaining to the research/process of creating her book. I think she is an acceptable authority on how her own book came into fruition--I think verification problems may arise if Ms. Bechdel, for instance, wrote a review about Fun Home on her blog and we quoted it here. Perhaps I just had a different interpretation of the guidelines. I could be wrong.--Erin1983 03:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Mattisse's comment was put up when the page had been put on AfD for not establishing notability. You're right that Bechdel's blog is an acceptable background source on Bechdel — but it wasn't sufficient to establish the notability of Fun Home for someone who hadn't heard of it. The New York Times citations took care of that concern, though. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] factual verification

If someone could point to what statements need factual verification, that would be great. The article doens't contain any claims that can't be easily verified by anyone taking a glance at the book.--345Kai 06:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you say the book must be seen to verify then it makes this article sound like an advertisement

You need links to verifiable sources, so anyone reading your article can check for themselves without getting the book. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a book review service. Check out Wikipedia's policies on verifying information given to you above. Also, check out WP:OR. Mattisse 12:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, verifiable sources, but for what? What factual statements in the article need to be referenced, according to your opinion? Please list some. Just for comparison, the first article on a graphic novel you find on the list of featured articles The Adventures of Tintin, explains who and what the story is about without references. How am I going to verify the truthfulness of a statement such as "The hero of the series is a young reporter and traveller named Tintin" without looking up the books? --345Kai 03:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think that what Mattisse wanted was verifiable sources for the notability of the book, not the plot and thematic summary. I asked him on his talk page whether the review links I provided were sufficient, and he replied at my talk page saying they were good. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I hope that the links I added today help with the notability and verifiability concerns. Just in case they don't, Fun Home has also been reviewed or discussed on NPR's Weekend Edition, Salon.com, Entertainment Weekly and even People magazine (although I don't have a link for that one). If anyone feels like adding these to the article (with the appropriate formatting), please do so. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "very nice, and accurate to boot."

Of possible interest to readers of this page: Alison Bechdel noted the creation of this page on her blog. Aside from a quibble with the UK spelling "focussing", she liked it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

or at least an early version of it...--24.82.175.172 20:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time and Entertainment Weekly

If anyone has (or wants to pick up) a copy of the Time and Entertainment Weekly magazines that have put Fun Home in their "best of 2006" lists, it would be great to add them to the "Best of 2006" section. (The lists don't seem to be on either magazine's website.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind — Time is online now, and I suppose that EW will be soon. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)