Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lad, A Dog/archive2

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 Karanacs 21:36, 6 July 2010 [1].

---

Lad, A Dog

Lad, A Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Lad, A Dog/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Lad, A Dog/archive2

Nominator(s): -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I am once again nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all of the featured article criteria. Currently a good article, it has undergone a peer review and been copy-edited by two editors who work in the CE areas[2][3]. It is neutral, stable, well-written, comprehensive, and well-researched, covering all major aspects of the work, which satisfies the first criteria. It follows WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines, and uses a consistent and valid citation style, satisfying criteria two. The previous FA primarily failed due to contentions over the images, which have since been corrected. The non-free cover has been replaced with the original 1919 cover (which is in the public domain), and a second image that could not be fully confirmed to be public domain was replaced with one that could. As noted in that FA, it is technically impossible for the article to be at its proper name, Lad: A Dog, due to that being an interwiki link - this has been addressed as best it can through the use of a hatnote and a soft redirect at the Lad wiki. Any other issues raised during that FA were addressed during the review period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—(still) no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 19:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I thought this was close at its last FAC, and I think it's just about there now. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. What a thoroughly enjoyable read. This is my first review at FAC so I was really looking for things wrong with it, but couldn't find anything. Good job. One thing I didn't like was the way infobox jutted down a bit into the next section. I tried editing it but wasn't sure if it was any better. Tomlock01 (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support :) For the infobox, its fairly common with most articles, and the hatnotes should always go above the infobox (the edit you tried, right?) A break could be added, but it would then have too much white space. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I assumed that would be the case. Tomlock01 (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see the lead image; can an image person be consulted about adjusting the brightness? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:33, 27 June 210 (UTC)

Is it showing you the original or the second one I uploaded, which I brightened some? I didn't want to brighten it too much as I wanted to preserve as much of the original contrast (or lack thereof) as possible. I just uploaded another version that has been lightened more. Is that better? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The title is still almost indiscernible, even with the latest version. I don't think the integrity of the image would be much damaged if it was lightened sufficiently for the title to be minimally readable. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay...tried another version. How is that? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Generally sources look OK subject to a few small fixes

• Publisher locations: consistency required in book sources; pub. locations missing from 3 (Morris), 32 (Dixon) and 36 (Penguin guide)
• Ref 4 lacks publisher and retrieval date
  • Remove apostrophe from Sports illustrated
• Ref 8: "pp." should be used for page ranges, otherwise it's "p." See also 11
• Ref 30: This book appears to be the same as that in Ref 22 (same ISBN though formatted differently)

Brianboulton (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Woops...I must have gotten distracted while adding the SI source that I left out all that. Fixed along with the rest. :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Just the tiny fix noted above, otherwise all sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The plot summaries have no sources; shouldn't they? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • They are sourced to the novel. Long standing consensus is that straight plot summaries of novels, films, TV episodes, etc, do not require an explicit inline source to the primary work (which is the source). Only interpretative statements or analysis of the plot requires a source beyond the actual work. See WP:PASI, Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, and a lengthy discussion that has links to more lengthy discussions :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I know that many have argued that this is consensus, and it certainly is common practice, but it still seems to conflict with WP:NOR and potentially WP:UNDUE. Are there no secondary sources that summarize the stories? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Are there secondary sources that summarise any stories like this? Don't recall ever seeing one. You can't insist on what doesn't exist. Even if they did exist, what would you want the nominator to do? Copy them? Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, of course, there are all sorts of secondary sources that summarize works of fiction (reviews, critiques, etc.), and they can be used just like any other secondary source. I don't know if there are any for this specific work, though. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
          • I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Reviews and critiques don't generally summarise a story, they review or critique it, and often through different eyes, as reflected in the critical reception. The source for the plot is the stories themselves. End of. Malleus Fatuorum 20:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
            • Huh? Many, likely most reviews and critiques summarize main plot points. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
            • Look, here's the very first item on the New York Times Book review section for today, Janet Maslin's review of "So Cold the River". The majority of the review is a summary of the plot. The same is true of other reviews - for example, Richard Eder's review of "The Spot", a collection of short stories. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
              • I'm afraid that I'm left with the overwhelming feeling that you're just not getting it, so in deference to the nominator I'll butt out now. Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
                • Well, you wrote that reviews don't generally summarize a story, and I showed that, in fact, they do. Reviews are, in fact, often ideal secondary sources for plot summaries; two or three book reviews should provide all the plot points necessary for summarizing any book. This applies for fiction (as in the cases here) and non-fiction, where one can find reviews in books, magazines, even scholarly journals. I'm not really getting the aversion here to having the same sourcing standards used in all other articles/sections in articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
                  • Sorry, but no, reviews are not "ideal" sources for the plot summary, unless of course one is wanting to avoid spoilers, which is really another whole argument which has been consistently shot down every time someone tried it. This article IS being held to the same sourcing standards as all other articles. If needed we can trot out dozens upon dozens of FAs and FLs where the plot is not given an inline citation to the work itself, nor to any secondary source. You are, again, arguing against what the Wikipedia community has decided is correct. There is absolutely no policy anywhere against the use of a primary source in summarizing itself. None at all. I don't get this sudden demand that this article be held to some higher standard that is against what the Wikipedia community has agreed is correct. This is what applies to all fiction, not some demand to use some book reviews to add a two line summary that doesn't tell you anything about the plot, does not give the necessary plot points at all, and that only provides a teaser, like any review does, to try to entice the person to buy it. Again, this entire discussion and argument does not belong in the FAC and I really do not appreciate having what has been a good FAC getting derailed by this sideways attack at the existing community consensus, a consensus repeatedly upheld every single year in discussions that involved dozens, if not hundreds, of editors. Again, if you don't like it, go start yet another RfC, but to demand that this article modified in a way that does NOT improve it at all to uphold a personal view that a plot should come from random secondary source instead of the work itself is irrelevant to the FAC. The featured article criteria is that the article meets Wikipedia standards, and it does. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
                    • I'm not trying to hold the article to "some higher standard". Rather, I'm suggesting it would be a good idea to hold it to the same standard as all other articles (except, apparently, FAs on literature) - you know, WP:V, for example. Also, I'm not "de-railing" this FAC, I haven't even opposed it. Rather, I've given you good advice on how to improve the article - you don't have to take it, of course. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    • No, it does not conflict with WP:NOR as it is not original research. It is reading something and summarizing - what we do with sources every single day. Nor does it have anything to do with WP:UNDUE and don't see how any kind of tie can be made to this. If you disagree with the consensus, this FAC really is not the place to argue it. The summaries meet Wikipedia's guidelines regarding the use of a primary source and the use of the work as a source for its own plot is the community consensus. As with any source, if you question whether what the article is correct you can check the source, i.e. read the novel. So if you think "When Knave, a younger collie, is boarded at the Place, Lady begins ignoring Lad in favor of the newcomer." is wrong, you go open Lad: A Dog (available on Google Books either) and read "His Mate" to see if it is an accurate summary of the first few pages of the story. Again, it is no different from what we do with any other source. We don't copy/paste the whole New York Times article, we summarize it in one or two sentences, sometimes less. That is not OR. Again, if you want to argue against the consensus of the community, please do so elsewhere rather than here (though this argument has already come up at least twice this year and the Wikipedia has overwhelmingly agreed every single time that it is NOT OR to summarize a plot. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not arguing with any consensus, I'm making suggestions about ways to improve this article. In other FAs I've seen that summarize books, they at least provide page numbers to the primary sources - though, of course, under all circumstances secondary sources are still preferred. Here we don't get even that. By the way, New York Times articles are typically secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Not in the plot section they don't, except when making direct quotations, as in The Green Child. Malleus Fatuorum
          • Sure they do; see Night (book). Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
            • That article was featured in 2006. It wouldn't even get close to passing FAC today. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
              • I strongly disagree, but in any event, do you think it would fail FAC today because it cites the story summary to the relevant pages in the book? That's the issue under discussion here. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
          • If you are going to demand specific sources for the plot, then yes, you are arguing against the standing consensus. Most FAs do not, and no secondary sources are not "preferred" nor even a good choice when summarizing a work. Most reviews do NOT properly summarize a plot as they are reviews, and therefore avoid spoilers, and that is another whole argument that again has no place here. This article does NOT need citations on the plot, nor will they be added. It is already properly implictly cited to the novel itself which is the topic of the work and the best authority on what its content is. You do NOT need a secondary source to say that the novel is about a dog, and here is what happened in the novel. Nor does it need specific inline citations for it as it is a summary of the whole work. And if The Green Child were up for FAC, I suspect it would be repeatedly noted that the cites are unnecessary and they would be removed as part of any FAC clean up as excessive and adding unnecessary load to the page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
            • The Green Child passed at FAC fairly recently; the only reason for the citations is because the plot summary contains a few quotations, each of which is sourced. That's not the case with this article. Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
            • Well, it seems clear to me that citing all elements of this article to secondary sources, or at least primary, could only improve it, and I haven't heard any coherent arguments as to why it would not. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
              • That's because you're not listening. Now, which of the FA criteria are you arguing that this article does not meet? Your personal preferences have no place here. Malleus Fatuorum 01:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
                • You don't appear to be listening to me, actually. I haven't argued that it doesn't meet FA criteria, I've made suggestions which would undoubtedly improve the article, and bring it in line with all "non-literature" FAs. These pages aren't a simple vote, they're a discussion on how to improve FA candidates. Now, are you stating that citing the plot description to secondary or primary sources would not improve it? If so, that would indeed be an astonishing claim. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
                  • Let me be brutally frank; I'm suggesting that you have no idea what you're talking about. This is not a discussion of how you'd have the written the article, or believe that it ought to have been written. It's an assessment of whether or not the article meets the FA criteria. I'd say more, but this is not the place. Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
                    • That's not being "brutally frank", that's just being rude and inaccurate. FACs are the place where editors suggest ways of improving FA candidates. That's why you see them filled with all sorts of suggestions about ways to, well, improve the articles. It isn't a mere "assessment of whether or not the article meets the FA criteria", it's a collaborative process that ideally helps article editors so they can comply with all policies and meet FA requirements. Those policies, to give one example, include WP:V, which insists that all material challenged or likely to be challenged requires an inline citation. Now, you can claim that there's a special convention that exempts plot summaries from this rule; but, oddly enough, WP:V makes no mention of that. In any event, it certainly can't hurt the plot summary in this article (and in fact, will improve it) to indicate to where the claims in it are sourced; that way, if a reader wants to check on its accuracy, they aren't forced to read the entire work, but actually have a starting point. And you're right, "this is not the place". Please take your animosity elsewhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Nitpick - is the name of the collie heath foundation The Collie Health Foundation or the Collie Health Foundation? ATM I see both in the article. --Malkinann (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Just Collie Health Foundation. Fixed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - In so far as I can tell the article meets the FA criteria (and it was a thoroughly enjoyable read too). Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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