As it stands now, it's pretty condescending, as July said. Also, I'm negotiating some edits on the C*l*br**n page with Ellipis. Care to weigh in on the disscussion?

I suck at giving feedback, but I agree that, the more people voice their opinion about this, the better, so here I finally go.
All of the below is my subjective opinion. I do not claim to speak for anyone but myself or to be in anyway "right".
Also, if any of the below comes of as snooty, arrogant, insulting or anything else, it was not my intent and I was not aware of it. It is only meant to be helpful suggestions. (Giving feedback makes me paranoid.)

This article draft is really good and I am very happy with the content. My favourite addition is the division between primary and secondary traits. It just cleared up a lot of things for me, that I had been dimly aware of, but unable to put into words.

Hopefully constructive criticism:
In terms of flow, I think it would be better if 'Related terms' and 'Controversy' got pushed back to after 'Mary Sue as a Character'. I agree with Sedri (disclaimer: at least I think I agree with her; she might have meant something very different) that the article should not start out with what-Sues-are-not (the Controversy) and related-to-but-not-quite-Sue (Related terms).
Also, most pages on wikipedia that has one or both of these two categories has them after the main definition, so having them at the top, looks slightly odd to me.

I also agree with Sedri (see disclaimer) that the tone is on the defensive side. I think rearranging the content might do a lot to clear that up.

The only specific example of defensive wording I have is the opening. "This article discusses the term Mary Sue as used by the PPC. Other people may use other definitions, but we've worked hard on ours, so we think we'll keep it. We'll endeavor to explain what it is and why here."
I know that most of it is from the old page, but it still rubs me the wrong way.
"discussing the term" should IMO be saved for the talk-page and the board (like now); the wiki-article should be strictly for the current agreed-upon definition.

I would like the opening to be simpler and more assertive, along the lines of: "This is the definition of the term Mary Sue, as it is understodd and used by the majority of the PPC", leaving out the bit about how other people might have different definitions, and also the bit about endeavoring to explaing, since I actually think the article does a really good job at explaining it.

So, like I said, I really think this is a good article-draft and those two suggestions are the only things I would like to see changed. Thumbs up!

...a note about how Sue traits don't necessarily make a character automatically a Sue.

I was talking about this in the chat and mentioned Sherlock Holmes as an example: He's superintelligent and extremely perceptive, but also a flawed human being. If the exact same character with the exact same traits were written badly, he would be a Stu--the "brooding, emotionally cold loner who nevertheless solves cases with almost psychic precision and wins the respect of all of London", and Watson would have been turned into a zombie whose entire purpose was to praise Holmes, rather than a fully real character.

But Holmes isn't a Stu, because he's well-written.

The Sue/Stu traits don't really make the Sue/Stu; it's how they're handled, how the writing is done.

I feel like the definition could be a little more direct. The "fictional character" part is necessary right up front, but I think we should move where Mary Sue is found to the end of the first paragraph.

Second, I think it's important to note the role that wish-fulfillment plays in creating the Mary Sue. I mean, that's the main reason that any Mary Sue exists.

Third, I also think we need to say that Mary Sue lacks significant character flaws while usually sporting out-of-proportion abilities.

I would write it this way:

A Mary Sue is a fictional character that achieves its goals in the story with minimal effort, out of proportion to what the audience would expect given the setting(s), culture(s), and other inhabitants of that universe. In order to accomplish this, a Mary Sue will have character traits heavily skewed in favor of outstanding abilities vs. significant flaws. The primary reason for Mary Sue's existence is wish-fulfillment for the Mary Sue author. This character type is mostly associated with fanfiction, though it can be found in original fiction as well.

Overall? Very good. You've summed up all the major points neatly and efficiently, leaving little or no room for error. Aster has several good points, though, and I'll add that you might want to make some references to Sues in non-fantasy worlds.

What strikes me most is how very legal it all sounds. Very defensive. The tone is markedly different from the rest of the wiki - which is understandable, but also makes it more obvious that you/we are trying to be very careful here. And it is obvious. The first thousand words are more about what a Sue is not than what a Sue is, and the original point of having this article is to define the term "Mary Sue", not defend said definition.

I think you need to do a bit of rearranging; maybe try making a more thorough general definition first and then doing the "but not THAT" bits - so, the "Mary Sue as a Character" section should, I think, start it off. After a brief introduction, yes.

The "Why Hate Mary Sue" section is also extremely defensive. I understand why, certainly, but can't it be toned down? Can you start with the positives (i.e. the third paragraph) rather than the negatives and defensiveness?


Also, a few very technical things:

* I don't know if we have a standard style about such things, but as the following words are being singled out as words, I think they should be in quotation marks:
also referred to as Sues for short
eschewed the term Mary Sue

* Technical tweak with this line: "Other people admired it, and so, being generous, they invited the others" - your referential function for "they" is ambiguous, and the first impression is that it IS the "other people" who did the inviting. Maybe "and so, because this someone is so generous, they invited these others" ?


Is that helpful?

the only thing I find left unmentioned is that Sues not only often warp the canon universe, but display a vital lack of understanding for the real world as well. It doesn't take any warping of Arda for a Mary Sue to make use of badly-misunderstood 'Stockholm Syndrome,' nor does it take any canon disruption for a character to claim she can backflip off a giant ogre simply because she knows 'karate.' Or to somehow gallop across Middle Earth in the space of two hours on an otherwise normal horse.

Another thing to add is that for whatever reason, many Sues tend to become (probably unintentionally) creepy and inhuman. So many of them become utterly obsessive or disturbing in their romance, or trivializing of violence to the point of being creepy walking bloodbaths that don't realize they're career mass murderers, or even unnervingly neglectful to the world outside themselves... such as being willing to doom everybody else just so they can get a day in the limelight.

Neither of these are primary Sue traits but they certainly are things I see a lot of PPCers criticize Sues for displaying. Your call on if they're important to add or not, though. Your writing is more than suitable as it is. Really, it's a vast improvement.

I was thinking, once this is out of the sandbox, taking a crack at beginning to re-do the 'FAQ: For Other People' that was in dispute myself.

Other than that, seems good. I'm a bit baffled by the switch in definition from the old page, though.

Hope you don't mind a newbie's opinion on this...
I think that this is a very good improvement over the old Mary-Sue page. The term is well explained and the "controversy" sub-section is a welcome addition. The "primary" and "secondary traits" sub-sections give good examples to what constitutes a Sue. I also feel that it's important that we specify that we're not mocking the authors: we're not trying to offend anybody here.