Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Time Traveler's Wife/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:40, 11 July 2009 [1].

---

The Time Traveler's Wife

Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/The Time Traveler's Wife/archive1

A book about time travel! What isn't fun about that? For those of you who would rather see the movie, it is coming out in August. :) Awadewit (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I've never reviewed a book FAC, but I do have one question: What was the book's effect on the publishing house? From the page devoted to it and the description in this article, it appears to be a small publisher. I'd imagine that a big hit like this would have a large effect, but I didn't see anything in the article about it. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I would imagine that as well, but I didn't find any details on that. I see from your userpage that you work for a newspaper. Do you have any further ideas on where to look for sources about MacAdam/Cage? I actually had a hard time finding sources for that article. Perhaps if we put our heads together, we could find some more material that would answer that question. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I don't know much about the book publishing industry. I'm sure there has to be some sort of trade publication out there, but I haven't the slightest idea about which might mention MacAdam/Cage. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Publishers Weekly is the only one I am aware of, which I why I relied on it so heavily on the article. Awadewit (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• There's this New York Times article, which might have a little something (it suggests that, in the long run, the success of the book didn't have a big effect on the publisher).—DCGeist (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't actually see that statement in the article - what sentences are you referring to specifically? Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't make that statement. The conclusion is suggested by the statement that MacAdam/Cage "has lately been struggling financially and, in the end, Mr. Regal said [in apparent reference to the auction bids], 'It was just too big a gulf.'”—DCGeist (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure we can draw that conclusion, though. The firm could have done well as a result of the book and subsequently been hit by hard times. Awadewit (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Quite true. In that regard, the source might be useful in combination with any others that might emerge...or it might not have much to offer beside support for the existing New Zealand–based citation on the new novel's auction.—DCGeist (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Leaning to supportSupport, with a slight reservation about the captions point discussed below. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In general, excellent work. The plot summary is particularly engaging and will make people want to buy the book (Abebooks, £1.00 or £1.65) I have a few queries, mostly small quibble but one or two on which I'd like to get your reactions before switching.

• "classified as both science fiction and romance" – classified formally, or just by readers?

• By reviewers. I don't think it is necessary to include this detail in the lead, though. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Save a word: "scheduled to be released" → "scheduled for release"

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• This sentence reads awkwardly: "She wrote the last scene, in which Clare is waiting for Henry as an old woman, first, because it is the focal point of the novel." This is a case where the passive voice might actually improve the prose. Also the old woman description should be aligned with Clare not Henry. I suggest: "The last scene, in which Clare as an old woman is waiting for Henry, was written first, because it is the focal point of the novel." This would also avoid having three succesive sentences starting with "She..."

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Image caption: "Audrey Niffenegger dyed her hair Clare-red to say "goodbye" to the novel after she had finished writing it." This information is not reflected anywhere in the text of the article. Without such a mention in the text, I wonder about the relevance of the image to this section.

• The idea was not to repeat information from the article. Also, at the end of the first paragraph there is a sentence that says: Despite the analogies to her own life in the book, Niffenegger has forcefully stated that Clare is not a self-portrait: "She's radically different. I am much more wilful and headstrong. ... I don't think I could go through a lifetime waiting for someone to appear, no matter how fascinating he was. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Next image caption: "Clare has been compared to Penelope waiting for her Odysseus". Again, there is no reference in the text to this comparison, nor any indication who made it, nor any obvous relation to the "genre" section in which it is located.

• Again, the idea was that the caption information was new. This is one of the many literary allusions in the text and the one mentioned most frequently in the reviews. I thought this was excellent place to put it, because it is just an isolated factoid. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I'm not so sure. If in a book I'm reading I see an illustration with an intriguing caption, I look in the text to find out a bit more. If I find nothing in the text that expands on or even refers to the information in the caption, then I feel a bit aggrieved. My view is that images and their attendant captions should illustrate and inform the text, rather than functioning independently. If the Penelope comparison is mentioned frequently in the reviews, why not say this in the article? Then there is a direct connection to the image and the text. Brianboulton (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are differing views on this. See DCGeist below, for example. Awadewit (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Noted, but still not entirely convinced. However, it is not a critical issue for me. Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Don't know why, I find this phrasing a little twee: "...whose wife is friends with Niffenegger,..." I think "whose wife is a friend of Niffenegger's" sound slightly more encyclopedic

• Done. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Michelle Griffin of The Age, for example,..." The "for example" is a bit intrusive, and not really necessary.

• Removed. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Given the success of the book, I was somewhat unprepared for the critical emphasis in the last paragraph of the Reception section, where terms like "pedestrian", "contrived", "overall clumsiness", "ham-fisted", "long-winded" and "eruption of cliche" crowd in on each other and tend to squeeze out the positive comments. The impression is given of a rather poorly written book that succeeded because of its interesting premise. Is this intentional? Or might it be desirable to aim for a slightly different mix of comment from reviewers?

• The problem is that the negative reviewers are more specific in their criticisms. Positive reviewers tend to say something like "I was up all night reading the book" or "You should run out and buy this book" - comments that do not really explain what about the book was so good. However, even the good reviews tended to have something negative to say about Niffenegger's style. Even so, I have added another sentence praising the character delineation from a source someone was kind enough to send me yesterday. Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It is good that you are bringing modern novel articles to Wikipdia. May you long continue to do so. Brianboulton (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I wish I knew why The Times websites are returning false positives for being link dead with the link checker tool..) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your hard work, Ealdgyth! Awadewit (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Looks in good shape overall. Needs one more thorough ce pass, which I can do over the next few days. On the question raised above concerning caption text—it is perfectly good style to present certain information exclusively in caption text and avoid repeating it in the running text. Caption text is in no way less significant than other text; it is simply framed differently. I think Awadewit has made very good (and certainly defensible) structural choices in this regard.—DCGeist (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent copyediting you have already done! Awadewit (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Query: Ordinary style would be to lowercase the term chrono-displacement. Is it capitalized consistently throughout the book?—DCGeist (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes - it is capitalized in the novel. Awadewit (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I think {{Infobox Book}} would be a great addition to this article. Contributions/98.166.139.216 (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes are optional. Personally, I don't see a need, as they just repeat information from the lead. Awadewit (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

But normally a useful way of consistently gathering key information and presenting it in a "tidy" fashion. "Personally" is a key word in what you say. Infoboxes are used extensively throughout wikipedia. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Except there is no "standard" information about a novel. There is no requirement for an infobox at FAC and many FAs don't have them. Awadewit (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Query: The Plot summary is very well written—indeed, I found nothing that unquestionably demands a copyedit. But I want to make sure I'm understanding something correctly. Per the summary...

• Fact: "When 20-year-old Clare meets 28-year-old Henry at the Newberry Library in 1991 at the opening of the novel, he has never seen her before, although she has known him most of her life."
• Fact: "Henry begins time traveling at the age of five."
• Fact: "Henry frequently travels to Clare's childhood and adolescence in South Haven, Michigan, beginning in 1977 when she is six years old."

Now, if all of these facts are presented correctly, we must reach this

• Conclusion: Henry does not travel to Clare's childhood and adolescence during his first 23 years of time traveling. He only starts traveling to her youth after they meet in "natural" time, that is, after he is 28 years old.

Is that correct? If it is, there's no problem, though the kernel of the conclusion (Henry begins traveling to Clare's youth once they meet in "natural" time) might be stated explictly. (Just to be clear, the more one thinks about the conclusion, the more logical and emotional sense it makes, but the conclusion is by no means immediately obvious. Stating it explicitly might be a big <<cough>> time saver for readers...like me.)—DCGeist (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. What do you think is the most elegant way to introduce this in the plot summary? Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've taken a stab at it. See what you think.—DCGeist (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think that works well. Awadewit (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I have a concern about the representation of the book's critical reception that bears on a few different passages in the article:

• I think the lede suggests that the general critical reception was largely positive, when it seems to me that (aside from the response to the handling of time travel itself) it was rather mixed. I think the current phrasing (which I did ce, but did so to retain its existing meaning)—"Many reviewers were impressed with Niffenegger's unique perspective on time travel and praised her characterization of the couple, applauding their emotional depth; her writing style was criticized by some who found it melodramatic"—might be adjusted a bit for accuracy: ""Many reviewers were impressed with Niffenegger's unique perspective on time travel. Some praised her characterization of the couple, applauding their emotional depth; others criticized her writing style as melodramatic and the plot as emotionally trite."
  • The characterization of "emotionally trite" was specifically inspired by a reading of Natasha Walter's review in the Guardian, which is referenced in the Themes section, but might also stand to be quoted in the Reception section. The phrase (or something similar) also seems to capture the opinion of some of the other reviewers who are currently quoted.
    • This is fine with me. Awadewit (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• In the Reception section, Heidi Darroch's review in the National Post is cited, anonymously, in support of this claim: "Reviewers praised Niffenegger's characterization of Henry and Clare, particularly their emotional depth." But then she is quoted by name in this passage: "While Griffin praised the plot and concept as 'clever', she complained that Niffenegger's writing is usually 'pedestrian' and the story at times contrived. Heidi Darroch of the National Post agreed, contending that the story has an excess of overwrought emotional moments 'which never quite add up to a fully developed plot.'" Should she really be cited in support of the first claim? It strikes me that she should not and that the claim should be tempered (e.g., "Some reviewers...").
  • She is cited as an example. We can add more cites (but this is really unnecessary, IMO). We can say "some reviewers", but this seems to emphasize a small number and a lot of reviewers emphasized this point - that was a unifying point among the reviews. I would prefer something such as "many" or "most".Awadewit (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    • What concerns me here is the apparent contradiction. How can Darroch be cited as an example of reviewers who praised the "emotional depth" of Henry and Clare when she is characterized as "contending that the story has an excess of overwrought emotional moments"? I suppose its not impossible for one person to hold such apparently contradictory opinions, but it seems highly implausible.—DCGeist (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I can send you the source over email. I think it does support both of these statements. (I've sent you an email through your userpage. If you respond, I can send you the attachment.) Awadewit (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
        • OK. Having read it, while I might have chosen a different set of words, I agree that your position and phrasing are completely defensible. However, the review does point up another issue—apparently the comparison between Clare and Penelope wasn't originally made by a critic (as the caption in the article's image currently suggests), but is introduced in the novel itself. Through the good services of Amazon Look Inside! I found the reference. Page 284: "Every day I work, but nothing ever materializes. I feel like Penelope, weaving and unweaving." Either the caption should be recast, or the original source of the comparison should be introduced in the running text.—DCGeist (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
          • • How about adding a footnote with the novel's reference, although I think this whole endeavor is bordering on OR. This is not the only moment in the novel which is a reference to Penelope. It is just an explicit one that can be found with a keyword search. We don't know which moment in the novel the reviewers were thinking of. Awadewit (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
              • The point is not necessarily to cite that specific reference, but to properly address the fact that the comparison with Penelope did not originate with critics, but is part of the novel's content itself. A footnote does not adequately address the matter. The text of the article currently suggests that the Penelope comparison originated with critics, which is incorrect. We need to have something along the lines of this: "Clare compares herself to Penelope, waiting for her Odysseus, a kinship reiterated by several reviewers."—DCGeist (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
                • Ah. Since the text was in the passive and had no agent, I didn't think it really suggested that the critics originated the comparison - I thought the reference did. That's why I suggested the additional reference, but we could also change the caption. How about "Clare compares herself to Penelope, waiting for Odysseus, a literary allusion highlighted by several reviewers." Awadewit (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
                  • That's great. I made the change...highlighting another issue. With the brevity of the Genre section and the now slightly longer caption, it strikes me that the Penelope image on the left almost invariably squeezes the following Themes header out of left alignment, whatever the user's browser window configuration and image preferences. (This had struck me even before the editing of the caption.) I've restaggered the images to address this. (I do, in general, prefer the right-left-right arrangement you had, but the slight loss in attractiveness of the left-right-left is better than displacing the section header.) See what you think.—DCGeist (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
                    • There is no really great image placement scheme for this article. This if fine. Awadewit (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• In another passage that, again, I lightly ce'd, but retained the original meaning, I again find the original meaning a bit dubious. It is claimed that the Library Journal's description of the novel—"skillfully written with a blend of distinct characters and heartfelt emotions"—is "[r]epresentative of the bulk of reviews". (The original phrasing, before my ce, was "Like the bulk of reviews".) Are we so sure that it is? I would simply eliminate the claim.—DCGeist (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• After having read so many of the reviews, I can say that it is. Such phrases help the reader out and connect together an otherwise disparate paragraph. It is difficult to write these paragraphs, since there are no "meta-reviews". :) Awadewit (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful reading. I've interspersed my responses. Awadewit (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Not comfortable with citing only one reviewer to support a claim such as this: "Several reviewers compared Henry to Billy Pilgrim of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five (1969)." "Several" is an indefinite number greater than two—I'd say two references at a minimum are necessary to support the claim. Three, of course, would remove all doubt. The lack of sourcing is more tolerable but still not ideal for a general claim such as this: "Several reviewers noted that time travel represents relationships in which couples cannot quite communicate with each other." Only one apparent example—Natasha Walter—is provided. No one else need be quoted, but the sentence should be followed with a citation referencing one or more additional reviewers. (This issue applies to the Penelope discussion, as well.)—DCGeist (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This is tending towards overcitation, I think. Note that none of these claims is even remotely controversial, yet they still have citations (above and beyond what is required by WP:V). I don't think we need to start adding multiple citations (this isn't intelligent design!). Awadewit (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree, especially about the very specific claim that "several reviewers compared Henry to Billy Pilgrim of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five (1969)." There is evidence that just one reviewer made this very specific comparison, while the language of the article claims three or more. The claim is thus subject to serious challenge. Either the language needs to be changed or the citation expanded.—DCGeist (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

How do others feel about this? I have rarely seen this kind of citation requirement asked for, except at extremely controversial articles, where each and every claim is disputed. Considering, again, that such comparisons are obvious to readers of both books (the reviewers did not have to be particularly astute), I'm not sure we need three citations just to demonstrate the "several" point. Awadewit (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with DCGeist that we could err on the side of caution here. But it depends on what specifically the source says (since it's behind a paywall I can't tell). Does the source specifically say that others have made this comparison, or is it just one example of a person making the comparison?

Even if it's the latter, we could circumvent this discussion by changing the sentence to say "Henry has been compared to Billy Pilgrim of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five (1969)". It might also be a bit weasely, but then there's no concern about verifiability/factuality/truthiness. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm even close to a hardliner in terms of disputing "each and every claim". However, I do believe that if we claim that "several" people have made a specific observation, we are obligated to evidence (at least) that more than one person has made that observation. (The presumed obviousness or lack thereof of the observation is completely irrelevant.) Why? Because, if we can only evidence that one (WP:V worthy!) person has made the observation, there is no problem whatsoever in saying just that. And if we can indeed evidence that more than person has made the observation, it is both absolutely practical and quite desirable to do so. If additional sources for the comparison cannot—or will not—be adduced, rʨanaɢ has offered an elegant solution, which I endorse. I am ready to support the article's promotion if it is applied, or—of course—if additional sourcing is provided to support the claim of "several."—DCGeist (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence to Rjanag's suggested rewording. Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support (caveat: I was one of the editors who did the PR for this article last month). Well-researched and well-written article, very informative. The only thing that still bugs me is that we never found out which publisher outbid MacAdam/Cage, but it seems that none of the sources say that so our hands are tied, and it's a pretty minor thing anyway. (caveat II: my girlfriend loves this book, and I haven't read it yet, so I paid extra-close attention when reading the article.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks! I heard a rumor that the film is changing the ending. More than likely it will be happy. Hollywood. Awadewit (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Lean Support after a cursory read through, I did not notice any problems. I intended to read it when I have some more time and see if anything needs to be fixed. In essence, there was nothing major that drew my attention and anything that would be a problem would most likely be insignificant or minor. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I've asked DCGeist to revisit. Awadewit (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Every concern I raised has been addressed. This is a fine article, giving a well-rounded, balanced look at an enormously popular novel.—DCGeist (talk) 04:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.