Talk:Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pilgrim at Tinker Creek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Drmies (talk · contribs) 15:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary remarks: I had a quick look at the article and made a few minor edits. I think this will be fine, but I may do this in a couple of sessions, so bear with me. Sometimes Real Life really gets in the way of things.

No worries. I wasn't expecting a review so quickly, so thanks! Take your time. :) María (yllosubmarine) 16:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Notes

I'm using this to make some remarks--not random ones, perhaps, but less organized than they should be. You'll note that some of this indicates what you might think of as a pet peeve: coverage in journal articles. There's only one in the bibliography right now, and for a librarian they're easy picking.

Coverage

I think the coverage could be a bit broader. I'm browsing through the MLA and JSTOR, and there is ample indication that the genre-section could do with a paragraph on Pilgrim as ecopoetics (I just made that a redirect to a terribly underdeveloped article--Maria, get on it!). For instance:

• Mazel, David: "Annie Dillard and the Book of Job: Notes toward a Postnatural Ecocriticism" In (pp. 185-95) Ingram, Annie Merrill (ed. and introd.); Marshall, Ian (ed. and introd.); Philippon, Daniel J. (ed. and introd.); Sweeting, Adam W. (ed. and introd.), Coming into Contact: Explorations in Ecocritical Theory and Practice. Athens, GA: U of Georgia P, 2007. ix, 278 pp.. (2007)
  • Can't access this right now, and I am listing this not just because I'm fascinated by the role of Job in American literary culture.
• Killingsworth, M. Jimmie: "The Case of Cotton Mather's Dog: Reflection and Resonance in American Ecopoetics" College English, (73:5), 2011 May, 498-517. (2011)
  • Contains a (brief) note on Pilgrim and Walden, and could be of use to sketch the context of American ecopoetry in which Dillard produced Pilgrim
• Dockins, Mike: "Stalking the Bumblebee: An Exploration of 'Cruelty' in Pilgrim at Tinker Creek" Massachusetts Review: A Quarterly of Literature, the Arts and Public Affairs, (44:4), 2003-2004 Winter, 636-48. (2003)
  • I skimmed this and it might well add an easy paragraph to the themes-section, on cruelty (or some such term)--or with the following essay it might form a paragraph on estrangement from nature (some OR here: our repulsion to what we call nature's cruelty and our efforts to pretend we are no longer cruel is an estrangement, methinks):
• Kraus, Carolyn Wells: "On Hurting People's Feelings: Journalism, Guilt, and Autobiography" Biography: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, (26:2), 2003 Spring, 283-97 (English summary.). (2003)
• Legler, Gretchen: "'I Am a Transparent Eyeball': The Politics of Vision in American Nature Writing" In (pp. 243-50) Tallmadge, John (ed. and introd.); Harrington, Henry (ed. and introd.), Reading under the Sign of Nature: New Essays in Ecocriticism. Salt Lake City, UT: U of Utah P, 2000. xv, 368 pp.. (2000)
  • Here's another one for the eco-thing, and dropping Emerson in such an article is always a good thing.
• Mendelson, Donna: "Tinker Creek and the Waters of Walden: Thoreauvian Currents in Annie Dillard's Pilgrim" The Concord Saunterer, (3), 1995 Fall, 50-62. (1995)
• Papa, James A., Jr.: "Water-Signs: Place and Metaphor in Dillard and Thoreau" In (pp. 70-79) Schneider, Richard J. (ed. and introd.); Buell, Lawrence (foreword), Thoreau's Sense of Place: Essays in American Environmental Writing. Iowa City, IA: U of Iowa P, 2000. x, 310 pp.. (Iowa City, IA: American Land and Life Series). (2000)
  • For beefing up the Thoreau comment in the second paragraph of the Style and genre section.
• Radaker, Kevin: "Caribou, Electrons, and the Angel: Stalking the Sacred in Annie Dillard's Pilgrim at Tinker Creek". Christianity and Literature, (46:2), 1997 Winter, 123-43. (1997)
  • Can you get this easily? Looks very interesting, considering the note on theodicy.

OK, that's enough for now. I'm not providing a list of things that should be incorporated; I'm doing this first to see what the coverage is among the critics and how the article measures up, and second to make a few suggestions for broadening. I think the coverage is probably enough for GA, but I'm not done with my library search. Considering your list of FAs, you might as well look ahead with this one! Now back to life. Drmies (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, and spot-on source suggestions. I do have access to both JSTOR and MLA, so I was planning on doing more research over the next week or so -- I even have several of these (Mazel and Mendelson) printed out and ready to use! I didn't expect a review so quickly, but I'm really glad for the extra push in the right direction. I think the article is "broad" in its coverage, but not entirely complete; I typically use the space between GA and PR to complete research by hunting through online databases, but now's as good a time as any. I'll see what I can add over the next couple days, and then get back to you. How does that sound? P.S.: I took an ecopoetry class in grad school. That article is just... *shudder* María (yllosubmarine) 17:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds great. I'm glad you're taking this exactly in the spirit in which I intended it: I am not trying to draw up a laundry list of must-dos. Something else came to me just now (I have my best ideas in the shower...): in the Reception section I'd like to see a note on just how important this book is for later 'eco-writers'. Some verified namedropping would already help. I'm thinking for instance of that all-important book by Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, and more recently Sandra Steingraber's Living Downstream--if I had to take a guess, I'd say that Dillard's book is of similar importance for ecopoets and ecofiction writers. Again, just a couple of lines will do--and in the upcoming FA that would be a paragraph or two, if indeed my guess is correct.

Good luck with the work, let me know if I can help, and thanks for your contributions, even if the Foundation thinks this trivial, haha. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

OMG, this article only gets 40 hits a day! Why am I even bothering?! Seriously though, it's one of my favorites, so I'm just glad I finally got around to improving its Wiki coverage; and I'm very glad you're reviewing, since we seem to be on the same page. I definitely agree that some namedropping would be beneficial, so I'll be on the lookout for anything of that kind. I also know there are some less than positive reviews out there, since not everyone is a fan. I've got another article that is heading to PR-then-FAC before this one, so no rush on this. I'll report back soon! María (yllosubmarine) 21:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here is my progress over the last few days: six additional journal article sources, and plumped up Style/Genre and Themes sections. I haven't had much luck in finding soundbites for the Legacy section, but there are still some rocks to be turned over. What do you think? María (yllosubmarine) 18:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I think you have done an excellent job. A few remarks:
  • The lead says "the book's story takes place over the period of one year." Now, I understand it's a narrative book, but that's not exactly the same as story--perhaps "narrative" is the better word here. Or I'm picking lint.
    • "narrative" sounds good, changed. María (yllosubmarine) 16:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • In the lead, "although several of its chapters have been anthologized in magazines and other publications". The phrase is repeated later. Here's my question: if they "had been anthologized" before the book's publication, the "although" is warranted. But I guess that they weren't, so the implication that later, separate publication lessens the idea of a single sustained narrative isn't really relevant. If the sentence is recast, "Dillard considers it..." preceding "although several of its chapters...", that implication is already less strong and the statement more factual than suggestive.
    • Reworded. María (yllosubmarine) 16:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • In "Summary", the second paragraph seems a bit out of place--why a long quote from the first section without a reason for citing it, and without citing anything else? A return to those statements from a reading of the last section might give a nice circular motif, which suggests progression and can support the idea of narrative.
    • I initially attended the quote to be a blockquote, but changed my mind at some point; it's back to being a blockquote so it introduces the summary (which still may be expanded). María (yllosubmarine) 16:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The bibliography lists the 1999 edition, and mention is made of the "Harper Perennial Modern Classics edition". If that is the 1999 edition, add the year to the phrase.
    • Done. María (yllosubmarine) 16:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "it has been anthologized in over thirty collections"--"it" is unclear, since you had mentioned individual chapters having been anthologized. Rephrase.
    • Done. María (yllosubmarine) 16:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • That she was 29 when she received the Pulitzer does not strike me as very relevant. What would be nice is a quote from the jury report or something like that, something that imparts some estimation of value and judgment.
    • To be fair, 29 is rather young to win a Pulitzer -- but I see what you mean. I've added a soundbite from The Pulitzer Prize Archive, which gives the jury's nomination statement. Very good suggestion, thanks María (yllosubmarine) 16:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your good work--addressing these issues will ensure speedy promotion, as far as I'm concerned. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

All done! María (yllosubmarine) 16:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think we're finished here. Congrats! Drmies (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Maddocks' review

Summarizing Melvin Maddocks' comments as noting "a misleading undertone" is a bit facile. To me, his comments are describing a subtle, but conscious effort by Dillard to influence the reader. Dillard may be downplaying her intentions, but I don't think Maddocks is seriously trying to say that the book is "misleading". Kaldari (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps not "misleading", but something along those lines? Maddocks' point seems to be that he finds the book's message to be at odds with Dillard's life and persona. Here's a couple more clips from the review: "At first she seems to fit into a pattern as predictable as a wildlife calendar, this Annie Dillard, the sensitive young woman with folded hands on the dust jacket, who looks out of her cottage window on nature and, sure enough, starting right on schedule with January, records the seasons as they come and go at Tinker Creek in Virginia .... The author compares her life with that of an anchorite hermit. In fact, she is anything but a hairshirt recluse. She smokes cigarettes. She drives a car. Like nature, she is sometimes guilty of repetition and a certain atrocious lushness". María (yllosubmarine) 12:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I got caught up in the discussion below and forgot about this. I re-read Maddocks and now see what you mean. I've reworded per your suggestion, thanks! María (yllosubmarine) 13:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Why can't I edit?

Wanted to sort bibliography: Marshall after Maddocks, and Parrish after Papa. 69.111.140.26 (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for mentioning. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

Earlier today, I added an infobox to this article. It was removed with the edit summary:

rm infobox as completely unnecessary; all pertinent information can be located in the lead section

not only is that factually incorrect, but the purpose of infoboxes is to gather and repeat such information, to present it to our readers in a standardised (literally, templated) format, and then to emit it as metadata. That is not unnecessary, let alone completely unnecessary. The infobox should be restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

First: thank you for not introducing the infobox on the day of Main page appearance. Then: I agree with the author. This box contains nothing which is not available in one glance in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How was my statement "factually incorrect"? Last time I checked, infoboxes were not mandatory for book articles, nor are they located in the FA criteria. Metadata and standardization sounds like worthy endeavors, but were they so important, infoboxes would be made mandatory across the board -- they're not. I agree they're great for technical articles, where lists of jargon and such are quite helpful to the reader, but what does your infobox contain that the lead doesn't? The ISBN? That's located in the "References" section, albeit for the edition that was actually used for citations. María (yllosubmarine) 14:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for answering your own question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"All pertinent information can be located in the lead section." María (yllosubmarine) 14:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm amused that a librarian doesn't think an ISBN is pertinent to an article about the book it identifies. Nonetheless, I've restored the infobox, with additional pertinent information, also not found in the lede. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that you have again reverted me. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that your objection is not, in fact that the information - pertinent or otherwise - in the infobox "can be located in the lead section". So what is it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

And I am amused that you are attempting to make a non-mandatory change to a Featured Article -- which is still linked from the mainpage -- without gaining consensus. I have no wish to edit war with you, but your persistence on your pet subject is tiresome (as are edit conflicts). Please gain consensus on this issue before re-adding your box. Thanks. María (yllosubmarine) 14:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Very few changes on Wikipedia are mandatory, and the last time I looked, WP:DNRNC had no exclusion for FAs (indeed, a recent RfC on giving FAs some sort of special exception to our usual methods of working and polices on editing failed to gain any significant support). You appear not to have answered my question about the real reason for your objection. And it's not my infobox, just as this is not your article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) I'll grant you your latter point, I shouldn't have made our disagreement personal. Sorry about that. You also had a good point that the publisher should be noted in the lead, and that's been added. So what remains is the ISBN and the OCLC number, two sets of digits that may indeed be important to a minority of readers. But why should these be placed in a box -- which lengthens with each addition? Could these not be added to the lead or any other pertinent section? In order to rationalize the addition of a bulky template, should we also add the dewey decimal number? LOC? Number of pages? Cover artist? These are all details that are not pertinent to the average reader, but if they must be present somewhere, why not add an external link to WorldCat or GoodReads? Speaking more broadly, I have several reasons for why I do not believe an infobox is necessary on articles dealing with works of literature, and a big one is its inherent ability to denigrate into cruft. It collects both broad facts and specialized info that only takes away from what a Featured Article represents -- including a well-crafted lead. The infobox you first proposed is more conspicuous than others I've seen, but its blank fields invite other users to step in and add more and more specialized, trivial details that draw the eye and bog the article down. What it all comes down to, however, is that infoboxes are not mandatory. It's true that they're also not prohibited, but who is going from article to article and removing them without consensus? If someone is, I'd be the first to denounce it. María (yllosubmarine) 15:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding my penny worth...all this pettiness simply comes down to squirming out of WP:IDL. Forget about the fact that you are right, any article on a book does need a infobox for quick reference: author, publisher, ISBN etc. But that is all to quite obvious to those who are affected by WP:OWN. The twaddle about having to read the article's intro to get the points that could be easily read in the infobox is more stupid than my words can muster. Derrrr what is Wikipedia, an exercise in English comprehension? No the problem my friend, is "they" didn't think of it. And once an article is certified as being "superb" or whatever they call it here, you can forget about change or WP:BOLD. "I tell you the truth, it is hard for any vested-interest editor to permit alterations to an article once it has been voted superb than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle!" Seen it all to often. It begs the question what harm does an infobox do? None, because all it is doing is containing the pertinent details from the article. All this BS from the IDL brigade only serves to show how blind and obstinate most of the editors are on this site. Meanwhile why they fight over not including information Jimbo is worth $25million!!109.150.239.53 (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Most if not all of your comments seem to be objections to {{Infobox book}}, or to infoboxes in general, rather than to the specific instance of the infobox I added to this article. As such, you should take them to the infobox's talk page, or a wider policy page, or nominate the infobox for deletion. Though its 27K transclusions suggest that you don't have anything like consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not taking anything beyond this talk page because, simply, I'm not concerned with 27,000 other articles. Only this one, or any other one that I contributed to and chose not to include an infobox. Until infoboxes are mandatory, this article simply does not need one. María (yllosubmarine) 19:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

IP's right; this is pure wp:ownership by the editor who took this to FA. Infoboxes on books are quite normal and standard and should not be simply removed based on the preference of one. Restored. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I strongly object to the addition of an infobox in this article, but seeing as how an anonymous, drive-by IP's opinion seems to weigh more than mine own, I doubt anything more I have to say will amount to much. I will however say that ownership is not the same as stewardship, and consensus has not been reached here. Case in point, cribbing directly from Br'er Rabbit: infoboxes on books are not mandatory and should not be simply added based on the preference of one. María (yllosubmarine) 19:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

"Stewardship" is not a veto, and "no consensus" is a result rather than a state of being. Arguments against a wider consensus should explain why an exception is appropriate: such things are not unknown, but they exist, and editors wishing to argue against the broader consensus would do well to examine them so as to present better arguments against future infobox deployment. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Parroting is unimpressive. And “stewardship” is not the same thing as “retarding” article development. Half the time that OAS is trucked out it is bald faced ownership at play. “Only this one, or any other one that [you] contributed to and chose not to include an infobox” makes it pretty clear the you are the one with the personal preference regarding “your” articles. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose infobox. I'm quite frankly too tired at the moment to put forward a strong argument as Thumperward seems to require, and too stupid right now to figure out what OAS stands for, but here are my thoughts, fwiw they're worth. The infobox adds very little in my view (though I like the one with the larger pic at least). I tells us the author is Annie Dillard (linked) which is linked in the first sentence; it tells us that the book was published in the USA (linked), which is a case of overlinking in my view; it tells who published the book (not currently in the first para of the lead so potentially interesting new info but not linked); it gives an ISBN which when I click it brings me out of the page to the book sources page which is one of our more confusing pages; it gives the OCLC (linked) which when clicked takes me to Worldcat where I find out that the book lives in about eight university libraries in a 200 mile radius from where I live, and also if I click another tiny link on that page that 82 editions of the book are available (potentially interesting but knowing myself as a browser I'd be gone from Wikipedia with that link and never link back to the article). In my view, the infobox adds very little information. Annie Dillard is not a mainstream author, not a prolific author, not an author about whom much has been written, not an author who is easy to cubbyhole. This is a diary of sorts, as was David Thoreau's Walden; it falls into American nature writing, sort of. Anything I know about Annie Dillard, and this from her own writing, is that she's a "sort of" type person. There isn't a reason to wrap this in a box for a "sort of" type book and author. Furthermore, I do object to these arguments coming up when the pages reach the main page. For some reason I thought an agreement had been made to wait until after they're no longer linked to the main page? Truthkeeper (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:OAS, not Organization of American States. It's about metadata, a précis, a convenience to readers who scan, who want just key facts. All been said, many times. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, brain's tired and don't know that particular piece of alphabet soup. Yeah it's all been said many times but I still have the world cat page open and find it interesting. FWIW. Not much to précis with Dillard to be honest. Over and out. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, I agree with you that this is a strange little book, not easily categorized. The obvious comeback to that, however, is that the book infobox encompasses all books no matter the genre; it's a one size fits all template made to easily display information that is -- as I've already stated -- largely already present in a well-written lead. Redundant. Unhelpful. Again, the only information not present in the lead is the ISBN and OCLC. Were these numbers to be added to the lead section, how would the argument for an infobox on this article change? Perhaps it would simply boil down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT. María (yllosubmarine) 23:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Or WP:I just don't like it which goes either way. Some people don't like it without the box; some don't like the box. Personally I find them to be ugly and unnecessarily intrusive on pages like this. And the box now suffers from a serious case of overlinking. I don't really know what to say; as BR said above - it's all been said before. I do think that the "infobox wars" - shoving an infobox on a page during or right after TFA (and an FA that was nominated for TFA by someone else, yet you need to deal with this) and in general, runs the risk of causing editor attrition that needs to be considered. I don't think we're yet at the stage in the project where universal uniformity is required or necessary - in my view there's just still too much work to be done in the trenches and alienating people who work in the trenches, on either side of a disagreement, is unwise in my view. I'm very tempted to remove the box, but will let it stand in some sort of spirit of compromise. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've already removed it twice, so I'm done. It's time for the main contributor to roll over and show her belly. In a compromise there is usually ground given by both sides in order to reach an agreement; not so much here. More is being added to the infobox in order to increase its footprint, and I'm driven back with cries of OWN. When content creators cannot make their opinion known without being called "blind" and "obstinate", or accused of "'retarding' article development", what point is there? Thanks for your support, but consensus means nothing here. María (yllosubmarine) 00:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Except for the images, the information in an infobox is supposed to duplicate info in the article. That's /helpful/. This is all about appropriate structure (metadata), service to readers who simply want an easy to find fact, and about site wide norms. People have added *millions* of infoboxes; that's consensus. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Each article is different, Br'er. You've already said I'm parroting, but here I go: I'm not against infoboxes on certain types of articles, or even against infoboxes in general. When it comes to works of literature, however, I don't believe they're essential or even helpful for the most part. You speak of site-wide norms, but just because everyone wore acid wash jeans in the 80s doesn't mean it was a good idea. Because something is the "norm" does not make it the right choice in every regard. There are quite a few FAs listed in WikiProject Books that do not have infoboxes -- almost half. Perhaps that means the norm is different for this class of articles? María (yllosubmarine) 00:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

BR, we know that we disagree on this issue and that there's not a lot of room for swaying each other to the other's viewpoint. What quite frankly distresses me is Maria's comment above. She's showing her belly – and you know what that means. There's no reason to upset editors over these issues, but the reality is that people do become upset. We're all human. Each of us. And different things upset different people. You asked where the troops were – in reality this isn't a highly watched page but I reviewed it so it's been on my watch for a while. I didn't charge in because I'm all anti-infobox all the time. As I explained on my page, I'm anti-infobox in some cases. This is one of those cases. And somehow we have to balance how to keep the masses happy with their metadata with keeping productive contributors content. Just saying. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

And you know that I view all the “Belly” stuff as so much DIVA; it's an appeal to emotion and a fit of pique over not being given special treatment. I see this as a quite stark divide over ownership and personal preference versus what's best for articles and readers. Media of all sort use sidebars. They're ubiquitous. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh FFS, we're women! Women are emotional! Agree with sidebars; don't agree with the design of the sidebars on these pages. Basically they suck. Sorry, but that's my feeling. Anyway, Maria's gone – hopefully drinking the Margarita I left for her – (and jeez, you like that infobox! instant headache, before the alcohol). Truthkeeper (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, we canz swear? The appeal to emotion is a fucking cheat. It's bullshite. María's “gone”, what a bully I must be. “Basically they suck.” is about as purely subjective opinion as you can get.

The look of the infobox? It's got a thin grey border (that matches others elements of the page) and a slightly lighter background. That's pretty subdued (which is appropriate; all the pastels and meretriciousness fools push is not).

Seen my idea of what the main page should look like? (mocking TFA w/the box and huge star;). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I meant the Margarita infobox. And yeah I can swear; will match you any day on that. No, I'm sorry, wasn't suggesting that you drove Maria away Mr. Bully <joke> – that comment was poorly written. But I do understand that she's stressed. I've been stalking your edits and like the main page redesign – a lot. The colors we have are hideous. Nice to see the cleaner look. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Break

I also oppose the inclusion of the infobox, as it is a cruft magnet and not especially useful for literature articles, IMO. We have other featured literature articles without infoboxes (A Vindication of the Rights of Woman for example), and they seem to be doing fine without them. Not everything in the universe needs to be boxed and categorized to death. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database. Kaldari (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It's both, and you should know that, given your job. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point, Kaldari. I had planned to walk away and let the infobox pushers have their way, but given that four separate editors have objected to this infobox in the last 24 hours, I believe that it should truly be removed. It is obvious that there is no consensus for its inclusion on this article at this time. Perhaps that will change later on, but it's obvious that the infobox does little good here. María (yllosubmarine) 12:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise can be found. I have just reduced the size of the image in an attempt to reduce the size and dominance of the infobox. It certainly looks better on my monitor now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The image was originally (pre-infobox) 200px; I think I tried 150px and it was just too small. It's difficult to read the print (title and author) in its current state, IMHO. Also, if more redundant fields continue to be added, making it appear smaller won't really matter. Perhaps a fairer compromise would be to reduce the image (175px?) as well as remove empty/extremely redundant fields (cover artist, pages, awards) so as to discourage the infobox from growing. María (yllosubmarine) 13:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The number of pages does seem a trivial detail to include in the infobox. Regarding the awards, this is currently under discussion, see Template talk:Infobox book#Awards. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"it's obvious that the infobox does little good here" no it isn't; it does do good, by summarising key points and emitting metadata, as explained above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I set 250px, as that is commonly used in infoboxes. However, this is a portrait image and so I've no problem with smaller. 180px 200px would be the norm for that, methinks, and I'm going to tweak to that. Crediting the cover artist (if known) is appropriate, as are awards; even the number of pages is a reasonable factoid that some may want to know. Yet some would make this findable only via going off site to Worldcat or Google (via an ISBN lost at the bottom of the page;). That's not a reader-centred approach, it's about editor ego. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the image resizing, but again not with the infobox. The cover artist could surely be included in the image description, or even the caption. The award is already prominently displayed in the lead. Page numbers? Really? Gah. Br'er, you opinion about my ego has already been stated. No need to repeat yourself -- I'm doing enough of that for both of us. María (yllosubmarine) 20:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise. I would much rather remove the box completely, but if it must stay (despite it not being mandatory, etc., etc.) it looks far better with a smaller footprint and less redundancy. IMHO. María (yllosubmarine) 20:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The redundancy argument remains a red herring, given that the purpose of infoboxes is to repeat key information. The Pulitzer Prize is clearly a key piece of information. Linking text is a convenience for our readers, and does not affect the footprint of the infobox. A larger image not only displays the book's cover to our readers more prominently, but actually reduces the length of the infobox, by reducing line-wrapping. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Support de-junked infoboxes. While I agree with María about the potential to go bad quickly, infoboxes provide me utility as a reader. I frequently use limited mobile devices, and the infoboxes are handy--I can scan the page quickly through the infobox without opening the window. I also use them extensively on my desktop to decide if I want to read an article--I do on-line research, and I want to be able to gather the metadata quickly by eye before I invest in reading a paragraph. If the problem is the junky nature of infoboxes in general, though, it seems that should be taken up with the design of the infobox rather than an individual fight about this one. Nice article. Eau (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Truthkeeper [sic] has just removed the infobox, citing a bogus reason for doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Andy Mabbett, I've never had any interaction with you until very recently. Twice in the past week or so you've called my logic bogus and now you're making fun of my user name. Please stop. It was reverted within minutes; look at the history and figure out who has been doing the reverting here. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

TK, I hadn't thought of simply adding the proposed infobox info to the image caption. It'll probably be reverted, but see what you think. Not too bad, although granted I didn't add the OCLC nor publisher. No overlinking, either. María (yllosubmarine) 00:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that should be reverted; no metadata, much else omitted, per your personal animus towards infoboxes. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous; per BR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The use of "[sic]" has nothing to do with fun-making. I didn't say your logic was bogus; I said that the reason you gave was. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You put the [sic] after her username, not her argument, which seemed to imply that you thought it ("Truthkeeper") faulty in some way. It wasn't very funny. María (yllosubmarine) 12:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't joking. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

One argument has been in favor of this infobox because of metadata, but where is this data being emitted? How does it help the average user? EauOo made some good points above about how infoboxes help him/her personally, but I'm not sure "metadata" is used correctly in his argument. Rather, what readers see is data, not data about data. Help:Infobox says nothing on the matter; the main reason for an infobox is to "quickly summarize important points in an easy-to-read format." My proposal is that the current image caption (which currently contains author, year, ISBN, and the Pulitzer) already summarizes important points. It's redundant to what is already in the lead (other than the ISBN), but it's easily picked out and condensed for readability. If that's what our main goal is, I believe the current image caption does so. So what about the metadata? María (yllosubmarine) 13:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Typo, multitasking. The infobox is metadata when the article is machine read, and this is another utility aspect of infoboxes. In my opinion, making the caption the infobox created a junkie caption, and it does not provide database utility. I won't continue to discuss this, as you appear dead set against the infobox, but I do find them useful for deciding if I want to read an article, I won't turn to an image caption that includes the isbn, when it is not an article about isbn's. Infoboxes provide database utility. They serve a few purposes, and it seems unnecessary to reduce the utility of any single article for its desired appearance for an editor or group of editors. Eau (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

So, all the time you've been opposing the use of the infobox in this article, you haven't understood its function, even though described to you; haven't until now bothered to ask about it, and apparently haven't read its documentation? So on what exactly, other than personal aesthetic preference, have you been basing your objections? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I see you've changed the Help:Infobox page, so now my previous comment is incorrect. Most of this lengthy section has been centered (I thought) on whether or not infoboxes are helpful to readers. DBpedia and WP:UF have yet to be mentioned here, and they're new to me, I admit. Microformatting for external websites is an interesting notion, but I can't help but think that were it such an important initiative, infoboxes and other templates would be mandatory by now. "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." So here we are. Also, I don't think it's fair to dismiss objections based on aesthetics; how an article looks matters a great deal. María (yllosubmarine) 15:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've clarified the description of metadata on the help page, but it was already there, in the reference to microformats. That's irrelevant to my points, though. Metadata was mentioned by me, in the very first post of this section, and has also been mentioned by others. Microformats are not merely "for external websites", but about how we share our content. That's an important part of what we do, no? There is widespread consensus to emit microformat and other metadata; your "it would be mandatory by now" canard does not negate that. So, your objections are purely aesthetic. How an article looks to you is not how it looks to others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose infobox. Where there is no local convention, though a project etc (as here), to include or exclude them, the views of the main editors should be given extra weight. In most humanities articles, the information is so poor (because added by infobox fans who aren't aware of the pitfalls) that any wider grand project based on using the metadata is doomed to be useless in these areas. If you want to add metadata better to add it in a horizontal hidden bar at the bottom. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The views of "main editors" (whatever that might mean) are not given extra weight by policy. The same applies to projects. As to "most humanities articles", I look forward to your RfC on prohibiting infoboxes added to them "by infobox fans who aren't aware of the pitfalls". Until then, please feel free to point out which information in the infobox I added to this article was "so poor", in your opinion, that I should not have done so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
• That's pure ownership, and a disservice to readers by the vision impaired. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Br'er, I thought "fix the vision impaired" was another argument for why infoboxes are important, which is why I added the ALT text -- which aids readers with vision impairment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but now "vision impaired" seems more disparaging and less helpful. The dangers of vague edit summaries. María (yllosubmarine) 22:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I suspect he's referring to me. I told him I have bad vision. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    • That was not referring to accessibility, it was a comment on low aspirations for the project (which are unhelpful;). “One despairs, one really does.” Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Oh he meant me! I wish he'd invent a template to render his comments into normal English. I have very high aspirations for the project, but they centre on growing the Christmas tree rather than adding more and fancier sets of fairy lights. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
        • No, I wasn't thinking of you, although you've demonstrated lack of vision often enough. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Protection

The wrong version of the article has been successfully protected.

I've just fully protected this page for one days because of the edit warring over the infobox. Please stop edit warring, consider dispute resolution steps instead. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no good argument against including an infobox

The infobox provides structured information that is easy to consume at a glance. The argument that it is redundant with the lede (as argued above) is irrelevant. That's the entire purpose of the infobox... To take the important *unstructured* information about the book (as would normally be found in the lede) and present it in a *structured* manner so it's easier to find what you're looking for. The structured data in the infobox is also extracted by Google (etc.) so that it can be used to present information about the book directly on the search page.

An infobox is not required, but it's quite obviously the *standard practice* for books in 2023... Infobox book is used on more than 51,000 pages. Pages where it is not used are generally low-quality articles where no one has bothered to go through the effort of creating it... Not "Featured Articles".

Possibly the infobox was less common practice when the talk page above was written more than a decade ago (which never actually came to a conclusion on whether an infobox should be included or not, although people seem to be interpreting it as if there had been some official decision that it shouldn't be), but there's no reason other than stubbornness/ownership to exclude the infobox for this one particular book. Bueller 007 (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Chatbots like Sidney would almost certainly disagree that structured data has to be presented as structured data and can't be converted to prose. Please designe a better infobox and reinitiate the discussion in a more collaborative manner. The wounds from this page run very very deep. My advice would to walk away and leave it. Victoria (tk) 04:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't possible to extract the information from unstructured data. I'm talking about what is actually done, not what is possible. Google uses the information in the infoboxes and augments its search results with that information when you put it there. I am not interested in "wounds" from a decade ago that I had nothing to do with; I'm interested in improving the usefulness of an encyclopedia. And I am frustrated when people revert those efforts without explanation. If "wounds" are preventing some people from thinking clearly on this issue, perhaps they are the ones who should consider walking away from the issue if it means they cannot think objectively about the matter. Is there a counterargument to including an infobox that is related to the objective quality of the encyclopedia as opposed to subjective experiences of the editors? Bueller 007 (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

That's nice. As for arguments, the first one for an FA is WP:FAOWN. Substantive changes are brought to the talk page to achieve consensus. Edit warring is not the way to do that, so let's open a discussion and discuss. As for mentioning previous discussions, in this case that discussion is relevant because the person who wrote this left as a result of it and it spawned an arb case. In the meantime stewartship falls to others, such as myself, who have watched the page since it was written. At this time I'm opposed to adding an infobox - especially not with the tiny text column V22 gives us for a lead. Victoria (tk) 04:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox discussion

13in laptop, 1440 x 900 display, 100%

It has been proposed that an infobox be added to this article. The addition of an infobox, added here and again here should be done as the result of consensus.

At the right is a screenshot of how the article with infobox renders for me on a 13in laptop in Vector 22, which is now default for all logged out users. Given that readers have no choice but to see the default skin and given that a 13 inch laptop isn't terribly uncommon, my suggestion is to rethink the layout.

I've recommenced the discussion with a more neutrally worded section header. Furthermore, given that often these discussions generate unnecessary heat, it's best that comments are kept here on this page and don't spill out throughout the project where they can be read and factions can form. Thanks! Victoria (tk) 15:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)