# Talk:Big Girls Don't Cry (book)

Why is Elizabeth Edwards listed in the intro as one of the four key women covered in the book but not in the body, which says there are only three key women? Tezero (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I had originally planned to write about Edwards, who is discussed in the book but without as much material as the other subjects, but didn't find much coverage of her in sources about the book. After leaving her out of the content section, I obviously forgot to remove her name from the lead. I just managed to find a bit of commentary about the book's coverage of her, however, so I've added a brief note about her in the content section and will leave the lead as is. 97198 (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Big Girls Don't Cry (book)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 12:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

A short, concise article; I don't see much wrong here.  A couple of minor comments:

Any particular reason to choose the second edition cover instead of the first?  It's not wrong to choose the second, so this isn't really a GA review question, but I think a first edition has special status and it might be nice to use that instead.
I first used the second edition cover simply because I couldn't find a decent image online of the first one. Looking again, I managed to find one, so I've replaced the image.
A few sentences about Traister herself seems appropriate, and I think you already have the sources for it -- currently you just describe her as a political columnist for Salon, but a little more context is good for the reader.  How long has she been a political columnist?  Has she worked as a columnist for any other organizations?  Is she known for anything else?  Is this her first book; if not, what else has she written?  Just two or three sentences would be good.
I've added a little bit here. The only thing I could find about her previous work is a few magazines she's been published in, but I didn't think that was really significant.
From looking through a couple of the sources, I think you could expand on the content of the book a little more.  For example, the Huffington Post article discusses Traister's coverage of the Clintons' and Obamas' relationships.  I wonder if the bullet point format is a little constraining -- I know in my own writing it can lead me to summarize more than I should.  Here I think you could start with the list of four women, and then have four paragraphs in which you could recount the topics covered for each women.
I would guess there are some general topics that could also be described that you don't really cover directly -- specifically, the only summary I see in the contents section of Traister's views on feminism is the last sentence, and I'm guessing (I haven't read the book) that she at least would regard those views as a key part of the book.  Could that sentence be expanded to give readers of this article a better sense of Traister's arguments?
What's the book's internal structure, in terms of chapters, parts, or sequencing?  Is it strictly chronological, or does Traister devote a chapter to each of the main players?  The book itself is a sufficient source for this.
-- Sources and referencing both look good; the writing is up to GA standard (I made one tweak; please revert if you disagree); the article is neutral and stable.  I'll place the article on hold.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Hi Mike, thanks for the review and all of your helpful comments and suggestions. Sorry that it's taken me a few days to respond to you (it's a busy time of year!), and unfortunately I'm going away tomorrow and won't be back until 3 January. I don't think I'll be able to tackle the issues above until after then, so please feel free to fail/close the review (since holds are strictly supposed to last for 7 days) and I'll be happy to renominate it once I've made the changes. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thank you again for your suggestions! 97198 (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
There's no hurry; I'm happy to leave it on hold till you get back.  The 7 day limit is pretty flexible if the reviewer wants it to be.   Enjoy the holidays. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Mike, I've started to implement your suggestions. I'll leave specific responses to each point above as I address them and will give you a ping when I've got to all of them. 97198 (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
@97198: just checking in -- are you still working on this?  No problem if you are; just let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sorry! I haven't been online an awful lot recently and it totally slipped my mind. I'll attack the rest of the review now. 97198 (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Okay, I've rewritten much of the content section now with your suggestions in mind. I've added more detail in the areas you noted were missing, although I'm unsure now whether the section is slightly too long...? 97198 (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The changes look good to me.  I spot checked for close paraphrasing and found nothing, so I'm promoting this to GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for all your help in improving the article! 97198 (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)