Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lad, A Dog/archive2: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:05, 1 July 2010

Lad, A Dog

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

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[1][2]. 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]~~
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)[reply]
Just the tiny fix noted above, otherwise all sources issues resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The plot summaries have no sources; shouldn't they? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Huh? Many, likely most reviews and critiques summarize main plot points. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 ******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. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 20:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 *******Huh? Many, likely most reviews and critiques summarize main plot points. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 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 [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/books/01book.html?_r=1&ref=books "So Cold the River"]. The majority of the review is a summary of the plot. The same is true of all the other reviews. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 21:02, 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 [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/books/01book.html?_r=1&ref=books "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 [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/30/books/30book.html?ref=books "The Spot"], a collection of short stories. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 21:02, 1 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. -- [[User:AnmaFinotera|<span style='font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; color:#5342FF'>AnmaFinotera</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:AnmaFinotera|talk]]&nbsp;'''·''' [[Special:Contributions/AnmaFinotera|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. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 20:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)