Talk:True at First Light

Assessment

Good article, don't see much about what actually happens in the book though, an expansion of the plot would be nice. I am going to nominate it for a Ga review. Sadads (talk)

It's not finished yet. I have a stack of research regarding the article on my desk. Are you nominating yourself for the GA? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Other people can nominate, but I will remove for right now, if that is what you want.Sadads (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Refs

I would suggest putting the term "Letters" in the footnotes in Italics that way it is not confused with a collection of letters. Sadads (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I tried to italicize but couldn't in the template and because I'm using two sources from Baker I need to differentiate. Actually the source is a collection of letters edited by Baker. But that's a good observation. Will try to fix. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen that tool used before, interesting. It is not completely neccessary to use that template to direct those type of citations (though I could see how it is useful.)Sadads (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Content section

The content section is rather shoddy, you may want to tell the story of the plot in sequential order, not bounce around the various themes and emphasises of Ernest's perspective. The great thing about plot summaries is that they can be just that: a summary of the plot. Sadads (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'm embarrassed to admit I haven't actually read the book - except for some excerpts! From what I've read, the book is peculiar due the editing done to it. At any rate, until I can get a copy of the book and read it, the plot section will remain unfinished, unless somebody else comes along to rewrite it. I'd only intended to plug in some information on this article, but I got interested in the background and the scholarship.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I will get on it. I have a break coming up in a week or two. I bet JMU's library has it. Sadads (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, the novel has been avoiding my hands for the past couple weeks, real life overrunning my literary pursuits. Currently, I don't forsee much reading time in the near future, but it seems you have expanded that section significantly. It looks pretty good, though may need a little more tweaking. Hope the other Hemingway work is going well! Sadads (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I finished the book yesterday and started to expand the section before being interrupted in real life. Will work on it, as I get the time, during the rest of the week. The book is interesting because seemingly minor details are not minor (very Hemingwayesque) so it's hard to decide what to include and what not. I thought it was a good book, though the end seemed a bit forced, probably the result of the editing process. There are some details I didn't find in the literature search, so I need to be certain I haven't left out any important critical opinions and then will be done I hope. My problem with reading Hemingway is that I start to leave out commas and write long sentences like this and combine them with coordinating conjunctions but that isn't very conducive to wiki writing so I have to wait for my brain to reset and forget Hemingway to get a better result here. :) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Background section

I would suggest moving the background and development sections up to first section, that way the reader can get an understanding of the development of the book before they are thrown into plot and theme. Sadads (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had it that way initially and I prefer it that way, but reorganized according to WP:NOVSTY which has themes before background. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with your assessment and restored the original organization. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Awadewit

I have finally gotten around to reviewing this article - I'm sorry it took me so long!

• Infoboxes are not required - do you think this one is necessary? The only important information it adds is the publisher and that should really be in the lead anyway.

• Without the infobox the background section - with the image of the Hemingways - fits at the top, so I think it's best not to have the infobox.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• The international press reported him dead, but he turned up in Entebbe to answer questions from reporters - The phrase "turned up" seems a bit colloquial to me.

• Reading too much Hemingway - reworded.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Had the Kamba joined the rebellion, Ernest and Mary Hemingway "would have then stood a good chance of being hacked to death in their beds as they slept by the very servants they so trusted and thought they understood." - This quotation needs a footnote with a page number.

• added Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• The blend of travel memoir and fiction - A statement like this should probably be cited, particularly since the genre of this work is a bit nebulous.

• cited Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Have you considered putting the "Background" section before the "Contents" section? That would have helped me understand more about the relationship between the "fiction" and the "memoir" as I was reading the "Contents" section.

• Yes, better. The infobox was in the way before.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• True at First Light began as a travel journal of Hemingway's 1953 safari; grew to a fictional memoir and then grew to a novel of sorts. - Awkward phrasing - I don't think the word "grew" is quite correct.

• Rephrased Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• WP:MOSQUOTE - Note that the MOS calls for end punctuation to be placed outside the quotation marks (if the quoted phrase is not a sentence).

• Only one doesn't end in a full stop. Do I need leading ellipsis?Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• I will read this again. Am stuck on MLA with punctuation inside quotation marks. Thanks for noting. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Moved end punctuation outside quotation marks unless the quotation ends with a full stop. Is that correct? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yep - it is hard to get used to. This is now second nature to me and my dissertation drafts are full of little corrections, since my professors prefer MLA! Argh! Awadewit (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Furthermore, in the editing process he tightened the "two action lines" to do with hunting big game and he wanted to be true to his father's statement that "where I go, you go," to focus on 1950s Africa and "what the real relation between people is on that continent. - Awkward sentence

• Rephrased Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Burwell sees a Hemingway who is willingly and happily enjoying a "state of radical innocence which he clearly considers as a Blakean condition." - I'm not sure that this quote will help the average reader, who hasn't read Blake. :)

• Moved and rephrased Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• The "Genre and themes" section sometimes seems divided by critic rather than by topic - I would suggest restructuring them a bit so that each paragraph has a clearly defined topic, as in the colonialism and imperialism paragraph.

• Gave it a try. Hopefully it's better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• Have you considered combining the "Composition" and "Publication history" sections? It seems like the composition and publication are integrally related for this book and that all of the editors are authors in a real way.

• Done and better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• The "Reception" section seems a little thin - surely there were lots of reviews of the book that you can draw on? Those reviews might also have more on the themes, etc.

• Very few. Will look again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• I found some more in LexisNexis. You might try that and other news databases - also Google's news searcher.Awadewit (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Forgot about one (added), and added two more. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope this is helpful! Awadewit (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Love the extra set of eyes! Thanks so much. I've marked the issues that are fixed. Some will take a little more time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Note Infoboxes are required for Novels articles. Sadads (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they are not - infoboxes are not required anywhere on Wikipedia. That is a common misperception. Awadewit (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Infobox is very very important in many ways:

1. it allows ISBN searching(Nowhere else), OLCL searching(again nowhere else) and publishing information from the top of the article. (as well as including page numbers at the top!)
2. gives the reader an even briefer overview of the article then the lead
3. organizes key facts for the reader, so that they don't have to dig in the article

No it's not required, but everyone, but Awadewit it appears, recommends them. And lastly if I were a GA reviewer, I would fail it because it is not included even though Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines (the relevant style guide) recommends one. Sadads (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who thinks they are irrelevant on novel articles - you can see the many FAs that don't have them. As a GA reviewer, you would be remiss in failing an article for an optional detail. As for your above points,

• The page numbers are not important, as this did not indicate how long the book actually is (different font sizes, margins, etc.)

• The overview of the book is so brief as to be meaningless - it simplifies the book to the point of absurdity, particularly in the areas of authorship when it comes to this book.

• Many "key facts" are left out of the infobox - themes, for example, are key information about an article, but cannot be put into an infobox because they are disputed. If someone wants a brief overview of the book, they can read the lead - that is what it is for.

In my opinion, having an infobox simply for ISBN numbers is not a good enough reason. The usability initiative has demonstrated that new users are put off by large amounts of code at the top of articles (they see the infobox code and give up editing - the videos are fascinating to watch), so we are essentially saying here "The ISBN is more important than attracting new users". I can't get behind that argument myself. Other infoboxes, such as the ones on chemical element articles, are really helpful; they provide lots of information that is not in the article and they summarize figures that are scattered throughout the article, but the novel infobox does not do that. It is therefore, in my opinion, unnecessary. Awadewit (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen the new software that they previewed last week? Check out http://thedjwrites.blogspot.com/2010/03/template-editor.html. That removes the usability concern. And, as another point ISBN and OCLC are key to finding information for research, if we want to be useful as a research encyclopedia, such information along with first publication info is really important and should be really easy to find. Sadads (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue of ISBN is problematic for this book. The research indicates the book was to be published as a trade paperback in 1999, the Library of Congress entry has a first edition 1999 hardback, but the edition I have is a 1999 trade paperback, so I need to research this more and figure out whether they decided to release a hardback after the paperback. Once I have the information I'll add the relevant ISBNs to the publication section. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I still think that sort of information should be readily available at the beginning of an article for easy accessibility while browsing, and the user-ability initiative is taking care of the excessive amount of code it involves. Sadads (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reinstated the infobox to show how it impedes the image in the Background section. If the infobox is not required I'd prefer not to have it. The article is visually cleaner without the infobox, and Awadewit is correct in her assertion that the infobox doesn't add much value in this case. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually think the infobox is misleading - the reader is never made aware of the large amount of time between the writing of the book and the publishing of the book or of the fact that it is edited. These are crucial issues. Thus, I feel that the infobox simplifies the facts about the book of misrepresentation. This is a problem and another reason why I would suggest removing it, particularly since it is optional. Awadewit (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

See change I made, I think that solves the visual thing. This conversation intrigued me so I brought it up at WP:Novels. Feel free to comment, Sadads (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I really dislike the infobox. I'll leave it for now, but the thing about Hemingway is that his style is so clean and chiseled, why not present an article that in some fashion reflects the simplicity of the writer? Anyway, I'll have a look at the thread on Wikiproject novels. I don't watch that page, so wouldn't have known about the conversation. Thanks for posting the information. Need to log off and give this some thought. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 19:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am reviewing this article. I did some copy editing, which you are free to change, and stuck in the date of Hemingway's death which I feel needs to be there for context.

Lead

• I messed with the lead, and I think it still needs more work to sound cohesive. It might be good to mention here how controversial Patrick's actions were at the time. I guess some of the outrage has diminished as critics learned to appreciate the work.

• added

• In the popular press the same sentiments continue (as was shown recently when a new edition of A Moveable Feast was published. The Hemingway scholars see the work in the context of the Hemingway canon. I'll work on the wording.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• You need to have the date of Hemingway death in the lead. It is essential to the context.

• added

Background

• It needs to be made clearer that the "trip" was a safari and not the journey to Africa. The two seem to be blending in the first para.

• The plan was to travel to Africa to visit his son. The safari came about because of the Look magazine sponsorship. I'll work on the wording.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• reworded

• "When the hunting was done Hemingway chartered a sightseeing flight" - wasn't that the end of the safari?

• Unfortunately I've returned the books to the library, but according to the sources (and the work itself) they were still at the safari camp when the they took the sightseeing flight. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Before you move to Contents in the next section, there should be some description of the writing process and what Hemingway experienced in trying to complete this work. I see that you have it under Composition but I think it needs to come before you describe the book. Also, I don't think Hemingway's experience writing it should be combined with Patrick's editing/rewriting some forty years later.

• I'll play around with the organization and see how it looks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• reorganized

(edit conflict)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   There are places where the wording is awkward and punctuation could be improved

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The organization is fundamentally flawed, making it difficult for someone who does not already know the story to follow it.

   B. Focused:

   The overall picture would be clearer if details were provided chronologically.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

Lead

• It is essential to have the date of Hemingway's death in the article, as that stopped his writing. One of your sources calls it his "sudden death" and that was certainly the case. Also, his death eventually allowed Patrick to be involved, something Hemmingway would have never allows.
• If the work is considered part of the "canon", that happened some time after the original publication and I would guess by a "newer school" of critics rather than being endorsed by all Hemingway scholars.

• The book was only published once - in 1999. Everything I quoted was published in 1999, and was written by current Hemingway scholars. The biographers (i.e. Baker, Meyers, Mellow, Reynolds) never saw the published version of the book and some never saw the manuscript. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I remember when it was published and the brouhaha that surrounded it. Many scholars were quite displeased, in large part because it was not "pure" Hemingway but had been monkeyed with by Patrick. (It can be seen as sacrilegious to "rewrite" the manuscript of a famous author some forty years after his death and publish it.) Since then I have not paid attention to what is considered the "canon" but I would guess those who endorse that view are newer critics who were not wedded to the older beliefs. Xtzou (Talk) 20:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• To some extent, yes and no. I had considered adding a controversy section about the "rewriting" of another person's work, but ended up folding the controversy into the reception section. Perhaps that doesn't work? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well, take an iconic author, rewrite an unreleased work and publish it under his name. Is that bona fide? The issue was that Hemingway did not feel it was fit for publication, even though he released "Old Man and the Sea" which used to be seen as an inferior work. Xtzou (Talk) 21:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• And is still considered inferior though he considered it good. At any rate, based on your comments, when I have time, I think I'll separate the controversy into another section. In the meantime I've fixed most of the rest. Is it still a pass? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've reworked and added a controversy section. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(will continue)

• I think it is much better. Give me a little time to read the whole thing. I am almost sure it will be a pass. My concerns have been resolved and I think you have done a good job of giving the overall picture. One tiny quibble, you say at the being of a para that the work grew to 800 pages, but the subsequent statements in the para are about a work less than that. It would be better if the para was chronological. Xtzou (Talk) 20:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps you can advise how to reconile: the critics say 800 pages (and the reason I added two references) but Hemingway himself wrote in the letters 650. Often critics take Hemingway's letters with a grain of salt, but I didn't really know what to do there. I could delete one for chronological order. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I put it in parentheses, but if there is a doubt about its accuracy, you could just remove the 800 page mention, as there are subsequent comments on page length. That is strange that critics would have a different number than the author. What would be his motivation to under report the length. Strange. Anyway, I am going to page the article. Excellent work. Xtzou (Talk) 21:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 21:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Links to word definitions not needed?

A quick scan of the first page shows, "suicide", "fiction" and "memoir" linking to essentially word definitions (along with a few place names). Is this style correct?

I've just looked it up and these seem to fall into the WP:OVERLINK category.

--Superfly Jon (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

If you read on, you'll find one of the issues of this book is whether it's fiction or not, so in this case, it's probably okay to define both as it has great relevance to the work. As for Kenya and East-Africa, I don't really mind, but seems useful for people/students who have no knowledge of those places. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ernest Hemingway Kenya safari 1954.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)