Thank you for expanding and updating this article. Be cautious about anything that sounds like hype. I got a lot of pushback when I first wrote the article and even some of their appearances were deleted. IAC, good job.--Toploftical (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message, Toploftical. I tried searching the internet for negative reviews to balance the Critical Reception section and to avoid the appearance of hype, but the Kassel review was the only one I could find which was (arguably) negative. Most criticisms seem to focus on the band's hipster fan-base but that didn't seem relevant to the band itself. -- Flask (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flask, thank you for taking the time to write me and compliment my work in establishing and composing the page on Luke the Dog. Like you, no doubt, I find it gratifying bringing obscure or forgotten subjects to life through Wikipedia. It's even more gratifying, though, to get kind feedback from a colleague. —Strudjum

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Barnstars seem to have become old fashioned but I still like them and I think you deserve one. Thanks for creating new plot summary for The Great Gatsby article to eliminate the discovered copyright issue. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring The Great Gatsby (estimated annual readership: 1,800,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on this, Flask, and much thanks to ImaginesTigers as well for doing the review! It's great to see an important page like this getting the care it deserves, rather than spending all our effort on super obscure topics that almost no one reads about. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flask, thank you for your tireless work on The Great Gatsby. I disappeared shortly after GA Nomination as I had some unforeseen personal events to attend to. I apologize for cutting and running on you. At any rate, I can now offer time and energy toward tuning the page up to FA status if you are up to it at some point. I understand if you need a breather after so much work, though. If you'd like me to handle FA work and nomination, I can also do that, as I owe you a few. Let me know what you think and we/I can get started on it whenever. Thank you again for doing such important work! --Hobomok (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hobomok. Thank you for your kind message. No worries about missing the GA Review; it went much quicker than I had anticipated. Regarding the FA work and nomination, I currently am recuperating from coronavirus-induced fatigue, but I would be interested in assisting you circa late January. ImaginesTigers stated that one of the primary tasks for FA status would be converting the Adaptations section from a bulleted list into prose as well as smoothing the lead section to be a better summary of the overall article (akin to Hamlet's lead section). -- Flask (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the understanding. I will get started on both of those sections this week and then do a more in-depth sweep of ImaginesTigers comments so I can begin revising anything else that might be necessary on the road to FA status--thanks again for all of your work! --Hobomok (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Flask and Hobomok. I highly recommend that—once both of you are satisfied with the article—you take it through peer review. It'll be much better if issues get ironed out before the FA review proper. Demonstrating that the article has already been thoroughly vetted is half the battle! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ImaginesTigers. Thank you for your guidance. Per your advice, we shall definitely seek a peer review before undertaking the FA review. -- Flask (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article The Great Gatsby has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the coming FA.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobomok:

Thank you, Twofingered Typist. You did an amazing job! The article is greatly improved. -- Flask (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome! It took me back to my university days! Twofingered Typist (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flask, thank you for bringing Gatsby to FAC and for pinging to alert me.

I have to admit I am not nearly enough up to speed on principles and best practices there. (The Cather nomination was withdrawn since it required too much repair - much more than I expected, so clearly I am not in a place to offer guidance with the level of competence needed.) So any support I would declare may be incongruent with our shared mission: Making the encyclopedia as best as it can be, which you have done, according to certain editorial decisions, which I simply do not have enough understanding of. But know that in my heart of hearts, the article has been transformed into a phenomenal one with your work, and perhaps one of the best we have to offer. Previously, I directed people looking to understand the mission of Wikipedia as not only providing information, but doing so well and showcasing incredible prose and narrative, toward the Phineas Gage article. That one will always stick with me—maybe I love em-dashes too much—but it is time to add another entry to what will, I hope, become a list of fantastic articles.

If you can indulge me, I wonder about two things.

First is the decision to cite Fitzgerald himself in the first paragraph of the section regarding historical context, since even though I certainly have no issue with it, I would not do it myself. Is the idea to get at not only the historical scene for the book, but to get his understanding of the period? That would make a lot of sense, and it works well; but if that's not what you're going for, what did you have in mind?

And second, this is trivial, but what made you decide to use dashes when repeating authors in the bibliography? I know it's fairly standard in print media, but it requires a certain level of intention and effort when replicating it on Wikipedia.

Thanks, and best of luck (with my support all but official on the FAC page), Urve (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Urve,

Thank you for your kind remarks regarding The Great Gatsby article. I had not heard of Phineas Gage until you posted that link. I can see why it is considered an exemplar for Wikipedia articles as it is a fascinating and exceedingly well-written article. Regarding your two questions:

I chose to use Fitzgerald's viewpoint on the Jazz Age for precisely the reason you mentioned: His perception of the era wholly informs the novel and its setting. However, the undeniable trade-off is that it is quite subjective and lacking in nuance. Although Fitzgerald's essays on the 1920s are useful primary material, his perception suffers from over-generalizations as well as his notorious disinterest in the experience of the common person. The fact that Gatsby is set during 1922, in the aftermath of the Depression of 1920–21, indicates that any perceived economic largesse at that time would be highly localized. This is partly why I eschewed using the misleading, anachronistic phrase "Roaring Twenties."

I think Willa Cather's grimmer view of the 1920s is closer to historical reality than Fitzgerald's, especially given that many Americans of the period still lived in rural or semi-rural areas as opposed to bustling metropolises like New York City. I also take issue with many of Fitzgerald's lesser historical claims about the period; in particular, his assertion that the 1920s was an apolitical time is at odds with the era's massive labor strikes and union-related upheavals.

In a perfect world, that section of the Gatsby article would be double in length to allow for greater historical nuance, multi-faceted perspectives, and placed below the Plot Summary. However, ImaginesTigers and Hobomok would understandably and correctly disagree since the article's target audience is high school students. If we inundate high school students with too much historical nuance, many will stop reading the article very quickly. I might end up putting many details about the era in the Jazz Age article.

Regarding the use of dashes in the Bibliography, I try to emulate print articles as much as possible when writing Wikipedia articles. I prefer the Bibliography to resemble an index that is properly indented as well as dashed to prevent the eye from seeing the same name over and over if there are many entries by the same author. Thank you again for your kind comments. — Flask (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this a bit late. I just want to offer a quick clarification; quantity of information isn't really connected to the demographics of who we're writing for. For example, I think you could also aim at undergraduates, or really educated readers in general. It’s a more general question about accessibility. Giving readers places to start their reading is the ultimate goal of articles. The FA criteria requires that they be comprehensive, but you can never truly include everything that was ever written. We aim to summarise key points, point readers to where they can learn more, and omit nothing major. Having a demographic in mind ("Who am I writing for?") just helps guide that, and makes the writing process a bit easier (in my opinion). By providing too much information on historical context, other things will necessarily be neglected. You absolutely could create, and detail exhaustively, Historical influences on The Great Gatsby or something like that. But for the main article it has to be a bit more segmented, more diverse, if that makes sense. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 23:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ImaginesTigers: Thanks for your message, and I agree. On a side note, I think at a later date I will likely create a Media adaptations of The Great Gatsby article especially since there are over a dozen forthcoming media adaptations from a stage play to Broadway musical to A&E mini-series, etc. — Flask (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	Scott Fitzgerald as a baby award
	You've been doing great work on F. Scott Fitzgerald and I wanted to thank you. That was my first attempt at a biography and I must admit I did a bit of a hackjob. Glad to see you're fixing my mess. Cheers. :) ~ HAL333 00:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: Thank you for your kind comments! You did an amazing job: I've merely fleshed out your article with further details and added sources. On a side note, I think the Zelda Fitzgerald article could really use both of our editing skills in the near future. We probably would need to request its reassessment as a FA first. — Flask (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Apologies in advance for this random message. Thank you for the work you have put into the article for The Great Gatsby. It is honestly one of the most influential books in my life and was (and still continues to be) one of the main reasons why I want to be a writer. That is so cliché I know. Apologies for not helping with your FAC. I am not a particularly good reviewer (although I still try my best). Besides, your nomination has already received a good deal of attention from far more experienced editors than myself. I always enjoy seeing literature articles in the FAC space as it brings back happy memories from the classes I took for degree in English literature. Anyway, apologies for my rambling. I just wanted to thank you for your work on here! Aoba47 (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for your message! Your comments brightened my day. One of the most pleasant rewards of writing The Great Gatsby article has been encountering so many Wikipedians who likewise treasure Fitzgerald's novel. I think the final paragraphs of the novel are among the most beautiful and inspiring in all of English literature. Whenever I tire of working on the article, I re-read those paragraphs and feel rejuvenated. I do hope you participate in the FAC review at some point as I would love to hear your feedback, no matter how minor! — Flask (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your response. I completely agree with you about the final paragraphs of the novel. It is simply beautiful and makes me want re-read the book again to get inspired all over again. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Flask! The article you nominated, The Great Gatsby, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thank you! I am very impressed that you are able to juggle concurrently so many featured article reviews on a daily basis. You must have an amazing work ethnic. — Flask (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring The Great Gatsby (estimated annual readership: 1,700,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on a huge promotion, Flask. Diligent and terrific work—you're a tremendous asset to the site. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 19:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article F. Scott Fitzgerald has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Best of luck with the FA if you decide to move forward.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist: Thank you so much! Your copyedits are always superb, and you greatly improved the flow of the article. Thanks again. — Flask (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Flask: You're very welcome. The article was in excellent shape before I started. What a tragic waste of talent losing him so early in life! Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 2 November 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to comment on the draft blurb at TFA. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thank you so much! I shall review the draft blurb and watchlist the errors page as suggested. — Flask (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for the article about "the literary masterwork by writer F. Scott Fitzgerald. Nearly a hundred years after its initial publication and commercial failure, the work continues to be one of the most widely read novels of our time. It remains relevant in the United States today due to its themes of class permanence, wealth inequality, and status concerns over immigration. Since its U.S. copyright expired this year, a slew of upcoming media adaptations are reportedly planned; thus, perpetuating the novel's cultural salience in the coming years. Following a haphazard FAC nomination in 2008, this article has been greatly expanded by a number of editors including myself. In the past year alone, many of its sections have been written from scratch while other sections have been extensively revamped and meticulously sourced."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you for your message! I am thrilled by The Great Gatsby article appearing on Wikipedia's front page. As a follow-up, I'm currently working on preparing the F. Scott Fitzgerald article for its FAC nomination in the next few days. Hopefully, it will gain enough interest from other editors to pass the nomination process. — Flask (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Just getting that article up to Good Article status was hard and you got it onto the main page! Congrats. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Quinn: Thank you, Jason! Your efforts getting the article up to GA status provided a great foundation on which to build! I doubt it would have made it to FA without your earlier work. — Flask (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A bit belated, but thank you for fixing up and expanding the article I started on Cleon Throckmorton. To be honest, I mostly started writing the article because he had an unusual name that was pretty easy to Google, but he turned out to be a really interesting person. And now his article actually looks scholarly! Thanks! Brianyoumans (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianyoumans: Thank you for creating the article! I only discovered Cleon Throckmorton via his connection to The Krazy Kat speakeasy. He seems to have lived a colorful life and was immensely talented. I believe Joseph C. Parapone wrote a 548 page biographical dissertation about Throckmorton which might be useful in further expanding the article. — Flask (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Baffle gab1978: Thank you so much! — Flask (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; it's an interesting and well-researched article, and my only question is why isn't this already ranked as a Good Article? Good luck with your planned nomination. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Baffle gab1978:Thank you again! You did a great job with your copy edit! — Flask (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this one, Flask. I tend to agree with the criticisms, and I’m sure an FA review would be useful. I just hope someone finds the time to go through the new source material. Valetude (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm new to Wikipedia and I have been working on my first article, Alabama literature. In it, I discuss some representations of Zelda Fitzgerald in contemporary literature, and I saw that you had edited her page recently and that you clearly love The Great Gatsby a lot (so do I! My copy is extremely worn). I was wondering if you would take a look at my article and give me any advice that you have? Thank you! CatVallejo (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CatVallejo: Thank you for your message. After reading your excellent Alabama literature article, my sole suggestion would be that you may wish to mention Zelda Fitzgerald's autobiographical novel Save Me the Waltz. The first half of the novel is set in Alabama, and the protagonist is named Alabama Beggs. Zelda's novel assays many of the same events in her life as Therese Anne Fowler's fictional work Z: A Novel of Zelda Fitzgerald. Upon its release in 1932, literary critics dismissed Zelda's novel, but later critics and scholars have become more receptive to the work over time. If you need a good source for citations about Save Me the Waltz, I would suggest Nancy Milford's 1970 biography Zelda. Although the biography is dated and several claims have been disproved (such as Scott rewriting Zelda's novel before its publication), Milford's work nonetheless remains the authoritative biography about Zelda and her life. — Flask (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much @Flask! This is incredibly helpful. I'm so aware that I have only scratched the surface on this topic, so thank you for pointing me in the direction of this, I almost can't believe that I overlooked Zelda's own works. I will get to work adding this! Again, thank you! CatVallejo (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon to you, from London, England.

I am an occasional editor who originally subscribed to Wikipedia about twenty years ago, and every now and then I try to dig out the truth in our world of fairy stories, though it's an uphill struggle with the player piano, which is my life's work, and I sometimes wonder whether it would be better just to let ignorance take its course. I have been checking up on the VIPs who were supposed to have been at Paul Whiteman's Aeolian Hall concert, and I would guess that most of them weren't there at all. Probably Paul Whiteman knowingly lied about them, at a time when it would not have been easy to disprove him, in order to talk up the concert, and to guarantee himself a series of fat paychecks over the following decades.

Rachmaninoff was the first one who set me thinking, because he was demonstrably in Kansas City on the same day. Since then I have found that Sousa was in Pensacola FL, Kreisler was in Birmingham AL, Heifetz was at the University of Champagne-Urbana IL, Stokowski was in Washington DC, Mary Garden was in Cleveland OH, and John McCormack was on his way between Waco TX and Los Angeles CA. And Stravinsky (who probably wasn't even in the list of patrons), was at home in Biarritz, France, and he didn't even travel to the USA until January 1925. As you can imagine, I'm downloading corroborative concert advertisements and reviews for all of these innocenti, and I'm working on the others who were named by Whiteman or his press agency.

The question is, what do I do with this knowledge, and if I do decide to re-edit the Wikipedia page, how do I go about it without my edits being repeatedly taken down? People need their demi-gods in our increasingly dark world, and I don't particularly want to depress Gershwin fans. But, on the other hand, both the Wikipedia article and the community of Gershwin musicologists have got it very wrong, and in many cases over several decades, and my mother always taught me to speak the truth.

There is no point in my writing to established Gershwin scholars, because they will have their own reputations to protect. But you left a sensible comment after I first flagged Rachmaninoff, so you seem like someone who might have some experienced advice to give. I'd be really grateful for your comments.

Best wishes,

Rex Lawson Pianola (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pianola:

Thank you for your message. It does seem likely that future editors of the Rhapsody in Blue article will continue in good faith to re-add the erroneous information about the attendance of Rachmaninoff, Sousa, Stokowski, etc.

I suggest inserting a new paragraph in the "Premiere" section and using the existing sentence "Many influential figures of the era were present, including" as the opening sentence for this new addition. After listing the individuals who verifiably attended, you can pivot to say that — contrary to popular myth — Rachmaninoff, Sousa, and Stokowski were not present. So long as there is a published document (i.e., a diary, a newspaper article, a statement in a reputable biography, etc.) confirming the presence of these persons somewhere else which can be used as a citation for each case, it will be difficult for less knowledgeable editors to remove the information.

Based on my brief research into the concert, Carl Van Vechten, Marguerite d'Alvarez, and Victor Herbert were present but most of the other famous names were not in attendance. And, yes, it's amazing how quickly myth becomes accepted as fact. Having dealt with numerous myths on the Zelda Fitzgerald article, it does feel like an uphill battle to challenge popular misconceptions and sometimes one begins to agree with the quote from The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance that "when the legend becomes fact, print the legend." — Flask (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Flask. Your suggestions will very likely guide me, though I shall probably take another week or two to get all the evidence together. I write the website at www.pianola.org, and I have pages abour Rachmaninoff and Stravinsky, so I might just write one about Gershwin as well, where what I say goes! I'm in the process of writing a very long article on Public Concerts with Player Pianos (of which there were thousands) for our Pianola Journal, and there aren't enough hours in the day. I'll keep you posted with regard to George. Best wishes from across the Pond. Pianola (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Flask, Yesterday I discovered your article on my father Andrew Turnbull. And was enormously grateful. I felt it should be done, but didn't feel I should be the one to do it. I took the liberty of making a few small changes/cuts where facts had been misunderstood (e.g. the Trinity College where AWT was briefly a visiting professor is in Hartford, CT). If need be, I can send you a scan of the article on AWT from The Cyclopedia of American Biography. Thank you so much again. With all good wishes, Joanne Turnbull (Zorog is my husband) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorog (talk • contribs) 11:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zorog: Hello, Joanne! Thank you for your comments, and thank you for your corrections to the Andrew Turnbull article. In the course of researching and writing the F. Scott Fitzgerald article for Wikipedia, I discovered that Fitzgerald's closest friends consistently praised your father's biography as among the most accurate, exhaustive, and well researched. Edmund Wilson described your father's biography as a vast improvement on Arthur Mizener's earlier scholarship since it provided a more nuanced depiction of the author's life. For this reason, I felt your father deserved a Wikipedia article acknowledging his esteemed position in the pantheon of notable Fitzgerald scholars.

No need to send me the scan of the article: I have access to it and other entries via the Internet Archive. I shall add more citations to the article in the coming months. Thank you again for your comments and corrections! — Flask (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flask, I am a Fitzgerald fan who has recently finished reading his five novels. While looking at the articles for these novels (namely This Side of Paradise, The Beautiful and Damned, and Tender is the Night), I noticed that they are quality articles of a decent length, containing many reliable citations. I would be interested to know whether you, as a key Fitzgerald-related editor, would consider them eligible for promotion to good article status? The Great Gatsby is a featured article, so perhaps his other novels could, one day, be too? Kind regards, old sport. Lotsw73 (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thank you for your message. I have worked on those particular articles off-and-on for a number of years. I think This Side of Paradise is the most ready to be submitted as a good article. Once I finish polishing the F. Scott Fitzgerald and Zelda Fitzgerald articles, I plan to give those novel articles more attention. — Flask (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flask, thank you for your response; it will be interesting to see the progress on those articles. Kind regards, Lotsw73 (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Flask, I am currently reading The Real F. Scott Fitzgerald: Thirty-Five Years Later by Sheilah Graham, published by Grosset & Dunlap in 1976. In it, Graham devotes a chapter (pp.173–185) to Scott's writing of The Last Tycoon. I wanted your advice as to whether this information might be suitable and reliable for that article. Personally, I believe the information is reliable enough, but perhaps you might have some more thorough knowledge of the source and the author's reliability (being Fitzgerald's devoted lover, and not some academic writer). All the best, Mr Sitcom (talk) 06:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Mr Sitcom: Thank you for your message, and I'm happy to see another editor working on Fitzgerald-related articles. I haven't yet read Sheilah Graham's The Real F. Scott Fitzgerald: Thirty-Five Years Later so I don't know what she claims, but Fitzgerald's friend Edmund Wilson opined that he thought Graham's first book, Beloved Infidel, was more accurate in its depiction of Fitzgerald than Arthur Mizener's first biography—which created many myths about the Fitzgeralds—so Graham's second book should be safe enough to use for many citations. Bear in mind that Graham often repeats hearsay as fact, and her claims should be checked against more reliable scholarship. For example, Graham often accepted many of Scott's wild stories about his life as true, such as the Jozan incident. Fitzgerald's ledger (available here) makes no reference whatsoever to any affair by Zelda with Jozan, any duel with Jozan, or any alleged overdose with sleeping pills by Zelda. His ledger reflects Jozan's testimony that no such events occurred, and yet Graham accepts these stories as true in Beloved Infidel. Accordingly, when citing The Real F. Scott Fitzgerald: Thirty-Five Years Later, I would be careful when Graham mentions something that Scott told her versus something Graham personally witnessed. — Flask (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your response, I will bear your advice in mind! Many thanks, Mr Sitcom (talk) 08:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]