Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fyodor Dostoyevsky/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 not promoted by Ian Rose 16:01, 26 January 2013 [1].

Fyodor Dostoyevsky

edit

Fyodor Dostoyevsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 12:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never intended to get Fyodor Dostoyevsky beyond C-class. But after seeing the horrible, stub-like page, which for me was almost embarrassing given his legacy, I began to expand the article a little, but I could not stop improving it and simply developed a version I had in mind all the time. There are tons of books about him, as Geir Kjetsaa once wrote: "The literature on Dostoyevsky is in the process of becoming impossible to survey. Every year several hundred important dissertations appear, most of them about his novels." I was not experienced in writing an article about an important, but yet complex person, and my biased and trivial wordings were a major problem.

I think this article is very comprehensive, well-written, and meets other criterions. Without the help of the following users, who recently helped improving the article, the article's state would be much worser: User:Richard asr, User:INeverCry, User:Wadewitz, User:Figureskatingfan, User:Cocolacoste, User:MathewTownsend, User:Khazar2, User:Truthkeeper88 and User:Spanglej. If possible, the article should appear on his date of death or another date in February. Regards. Tomcat (7) 12:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural oppose article is not a GA and has been nominated for GA 4 times over the last 5 months. The last review closed December 26th. FAC is not a place to overrule GA. Recommend withdrawal. --Rschen7754 08:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused. An article does not need to be a GA as far as I know. One user recommended to stop nominating the article at GAN, and instead aiming towards FA-status. I opened a peer review and made some significant changes afterwards. On what grounds are you opposing? Have you read the article? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its probably worth mentioning also that a majority of the editors listed here as having "helped", found their advice falling on deaf ears and gave up participating in fustration. The nom statement is disingenous, to say the least. Ceoil (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There were contentions on the talk page regarding labelling him as a "Tatar" and faults in copyedits that I had to mention (and unfortunately used controversial phrases). In recent times, however, i received useful and collaborative comments by User:Cocolacoste and User:Truthkeeper88. Never mind, I don't think that should be discussed here. --Tomcat (7) 16:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Id remove both TK and Cocolacoste's names from the nom statement though, espically. And it wasnt a single issue as you know. I agree that it shouldnt be mentioned here, but your the one recasting history and mentioning names here. Then we can hat this, or take it to the talk. Ceoil (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't copyedited and my name shouldn't be in the nom statement. I have done two peer reviews: one quite recently [2], the other last summer [3]. Many of these issues are still outstanding - most notably prose, structure and length. I think Rschen is correct in this instance but if a list of actionable items is necessary, that can be supplied. The only issue is that it eats up reviewer time when we lack reviewers. Will have a look at the most recent batch of changes and then weigh in here with more. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for stepping in, and feel free to remove your name. --Tomcat (7) 21:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, if certain users feel their name should not be displayed, they are free to remove it. I am not sure what you mean with "And it wasnt a single issue as you know", of course there were many issues, for example the Socialistic note in the Politics section. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 21:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Id say you know well enough what I mean, in your constant recasting. Try and find a fool elsewhere. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tomcat, Had I not clicked, out of pure curiosity, on the nomination on the article's talk page, I'd never have known about this. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but I think it's common practice to pop by other editors' talk pages and tell them they'll appear as co-nominators. I began to copy-edit the article, but didn't finish. Please, remove my name from the list – I can't edit your post. Thanks, --CocoLacoste talk 07:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I won't do anything, because I find it annoying. I am not sure why everyone sticks to some summary for a nomination. Aren't we supposed to review the article? If you like, I can simply remove the summary at all. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I find annoying is your continual attempts to subvert the GAC process and now the FAC process by nominating it again and again in the hopes of finding a reviewer that will pass this article. It pleases me that your attempts have failed up to this point, which is a credit to the community. I may complain a lot about this community, but this provides me with hope. I'd appreciate my name being struck as well, since my good faith efforts to help improve this article, with both a GA review and a copy edit, after being asked, were met with scorn, reverts of many of my contributions, and resistance to my suggestions. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Oppose from Truthkeeper

These are in addition to recent general comments posted to the second peer review regarding article structure, scope, size and various other things.

  • "Dostoyevsky's parents subsequently had five more children." > probably should name them, even if only added in a note
  • This sentence has always confused me and I see there's still an unresolved hidden comment there: "His nanny, Alina Frolovna, and a family friend, the serf and farmer Marei from Darovoye, were influential figures in his childhood; Marei helped him deal with his hallucinations,<!--reading Gothic literature causes hallucinations?--> possibly caused by his reading of Gothic literature, a genre that enthralled him." Need to explain how Gothic literature caused hallucinations. What kinds of hallucination?
  • I agree that Gothic literature perhaps did not cause the hallucinations. Perhaps Russian folk tales were more influencing (given how the wolf is illustrated there)--Tomcat (7) 10:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section now reads like this: "Dostoyevsky was raised in the family home on the grounds of the Mariinsky Hospital. The family usually spent the summers in their estate in Darovoye when he was a child. At the age of three, Fyodor was introduced to heroic sagas, fairy tales and legends and—influenced by his nannies—developed a deeply ingrained religious piety. His nanny, Alina Frolovna, and a family friend, the serf and farmer Marei from Darovoye, were influential figures in his childhood; Marei helped him deal with his hallucinations. After discovering the hospital garden, which was separated by a large fence from the house private garden, Dostoyevsky would often talk with the patients, even though his parents forbade it." > The problem, in my view, is that it skips around and loses context. First it mentions that he was raised on the grounds of the hospital, then that the family summered on a country estate. Then at age 3 he was introduced to various types of literature and that his nannies ingrained religious piety. Next we hear about a specific nanny and a family friend - the family friend helped with "deal with his hallucintations". What I come away with, as a reader, is that 1., Marei is a nanny (though described as a farmer) because it's in the sentence with the nannies; 2., I don't know where they are, in the hospital grounds or the country estate (I assumed the hospital grounds); 3., why the hallucinations to which you gave an answer about a wolf that thoroughly confused me - but coming back to this in a moment; 4., a sentence about the hospital gardens, which seems to put them in the hospital. The issue of hallucinations, in my mind, needs some explaining. I looked it up, and quickly found four sources saying that a single childhood incident that occurred at age nine (not age three, as the para opens) on the country estate when he may or may not have suffered an auditory hallucination (and the linked hallucintation gives no indication it was auditory) and may or may not have heard a wolf while in the woods and that Marei (a male) was present during this incident. Furthermore, Dostoyevski didn't remember the incident until one Easter Sunday while imprisoned, he later wrote a story about this childhood incident which may or may not have happened, and it may or may not have been a symptom of epilepsy. Sources here: [4],[5], [6],[7]. I'd have to really dig into the article to decide where this information should go - it's well sourced so probably worth keeping, but needs better explanation. Should it remain in the early childhood section, be moved to the section about being in the prison camp, or moved out to a subarticle about the short story? This is problem with Dostoyevski, he's confusing. But as written the section is also confusing and the point I'm trying to make in this long wall of text is that this is only a single sentence in a long article that's presented without sufficient context - and that's problematic. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another section that's always confused me: "After discovering the hospital garden, which was separated by a large fence from the house private garden, Dostoyevsky would often talk with the patients, even though his parents forbade it. He once encountered a nine-year-old girl who had been raped, an event that traumatised him. Since Dostoyevsky's parents valued education, his mother taught him to read and write, using the Bible, when he was four." In what way did the child's rape traumatize him? Did he witness it? That's followed directly by a sentence about his mother teaching him to read at age four > how do the two ideas connect, if at all?
Okay, I don't know what you mean by the result. If the two ideas don't connect, then they should be separated at least with a para break. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Dostoyevsky had a less robust physical constitution and was measured at only 2 arshins and 6 vershoks, approximately 1.60 m or 5'2", shortly before his imprisonment, he had a powerful personality." Probably better to use easy-to-understand units of measurement here since this is the English WP. Who said he had a powerful personality? In my view, that's a statement that needs attribution to the source.
  • Disagree re the units of measurement because this is the English Wikipedia and information should be accessible and easy-to-understand to the readers without requiring them to click out. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still an number of hidden comments in the text. Have these been resolved?

Stopping now as these are only examples from the "Childhood" section. I will say, this is in much much better shape than when I last read it, but it still needs work. I'd be happier to see Tomcat find someone to go through and give a very detailed PR (I've done one and don't want to do another), and then also to take into consideration my comments in regards to organization, scope and length. I can't see that these are issues that can be addressed during a FAC nomination. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epilepsy > some issues in my mind re the epilepsy. The biography section gives a number of examples of when he suffered seizures, which I think is probably sufficient. Then there's an entire section called "Epilepsy" which I think could be deleted because, again only in my view, the article shouldn't try to give a posthumous forensic diagnosis. We can't really know what kind of seizures he suffered. All we really need to do is to mention that he had seizures and when they interfered with his life, as is done in the text. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, these are only a few examples of areas that I believe still need work. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal: GA is not required for FA, but there are problems here related to multiple criteria:

  • Images: Russia and Estonia do not have freedom of panorama; life+70 is not sufficient as a sole tag, as we need to verify US copyright status and US does not have the life+70 rule; several of the given image sources are dead links; etc
  • WP:MOS compliance: inconsistent dialect use (for example, both "criticize" and "criticise"); overlinking (ex. Pushkin twice in as many paragraphs); long quotes in prose that should be blockquoted; etc
  • Citation formatting: missing publishers; inconsistent use of locations; inconsistent page formatting; etc
  • Verifiability: I haven't attempted spotchecks here, but they would be complicated by the extremely large page ranges for some of the footnotes - in a few instances, over a hundred pages in a single footnote
  • The long Frank biographies and the ranges were added to ensure better stability. I usually used Kjetsaa's biography, and only in a few cases Frank's. What do you think?--Tomcat (7) 10:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment "(Russian: Фёдор Миха́йлович Достое́вский; IPA: [ˈfʲodər mʲɪˈxajləvʲɪtɕ dəstɐˈjefskʲɪj] ( listen); 11 November 1821 – 9 February 1881[note]), sometimes transliterated Dostoevsky,"—apart from the dates, can you move this whole thing down to the first note? That'll make the the first sentence much simpler and more elegant.—indopug (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Russian version, the IPA pronounciation and the audio file are important for his name's pronounciation. I would say putting them aside would be a bit shameful.--Tomcat (7) 13:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the following reasons:

  • No alt text for any of the images.
  • I'm concerned that the article could not achieve GA status in four attempts - if it cannot meet GA standards, I don't see how it can meet FA standards.
  • The article is extremely long, some sections should be split off to their own daughter pages, with a {{main}} link to the daughter page and a summary left in this article.
  • From a reader's perspective, "length" should be considered in terms of word count rather than kb. This article's count is 10700; Kafka's is 7462, Burges is 9655. So this article is longer, but not to the extent that this is an issue per se; there are plenty of longer articles, and Dostoyevsky is a very significant figure. However, in my experience most long WP articles can lose a few hundred words by careful prose trimming, without affecting the substantive content. Brianboulton (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may revert to the version where the Themes and Style section is only one paragraph long [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fyodor_Dostoyevsky&oldid=526043991]. This may solve many problems that were previously pointed out. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per comment above, footnotes need tighter page ranges for verification.
  • Frank's biography is loaded with quotations and commentaries about his works. The main difference between Kjetsaa book and Frank book is that gibberish. Kjetsaa adequately summarizes his biography, and almost nothing was forgotten on the first one, which is why I primarly used Kjetsaa, and put the Frank at the end for additional verification. My suggestion would be to remove every unnecessary Frank footnote and create, for example, a Further Reading section.--Tomcat (7) 13:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are notes 3-5? It skips from n.2 to n.6.
  • Notes 1 & 6 need a citation. Where is the information from?
  • Legacy section:
  • Citation needed for Mann claim, para. 1.
  • First half of second para. has a number of unsourced statements.
  • Citation needed for last sentence of para. 3.
  • Para. 4 unsourced except for the final sentence.
  • Para. 5 unsourced except for the final sentence.
  • Note, if para. 4-5 are paragraph cites, then you need to change the other paragraphs to match. You should either cite entire paragraphs throughout, or individual statements throughout. I would recommend the later, since anything that is unsupported in a paragraph cite would need to be removed.
  • I've started from the bottom of the article, and will return to continue checking, but I'm not at all sure that this article is ready for FA status. There is a lot of good work that has been put into the article, and I'm sure it can get there at some point, I'm just not sure that it is now. GregJackP Boomer! 05:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cocolacoste

Some general comments regarding prose:

  • "On 27 September 1837 Dostoyevsky's mother died of tuberculosis. He contracted a serious throat disease soon after, giving him a brittle voice throughout his life". This wording suggests there's somewhat of a connection between his mother's death and his having a brittle voice. Anyway, it should be "soon afterwards" per WP:MOS and "a disease that".
In my opinion, this info can be left out – a question already raised at one of the GA reviews, can tell which one off the top of my head.
Removed sentence--Tomcat (7) 13:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the way to St Petersburg, Dostoyevsky witnessed a violent incident in a post house, referring to this incident in his serial A Writer's Diary. Wrong use of a participial clause. "He later referred to this event in A writer's life", or similar.¨
  • "Mikhail was refused admission on account of his poor health, which was the reason why Mikhail was sent to the Academy in Reval, Estonia". Simplify→ Mikhail was refused admission on account of his poor health and was sent to the Academy in Reval, Estonia.
  • "His relationship with Belinsky, however, became increasingly strained as Belinsky's atheism and dislike of religion clashed with Dostoyevsky's Orthodox beliefs, parting company with him and his associates". The logical subject of this sentence is Dostoyevsky, therefore, "parting company etc." is wrong. I suggest an independent clause. I'd cross out however as well: seems to be an overuse.
  • In Tobolsk the members received food and clothes by from the Decembrist women, and additionally a New Testament booklet several copies of the N T with a ten-ruble banknote inside each (each needs a plural in this case).
  • "The smell of a privy was distributed throughout the building, and the bathroom was a small room occupying more than 200 people". a) It's not clear if privy and bathroom refer to the same room. b) I'd write "smells wafted out from" rather than "were distributed". c) A room can't occupy people → more than 200 ppl had to share the same bathroom, or similar.
  • Would "defecation pail" be a better desciption (Kjetsaa p 98)? Kjetsaa wrote it in double quotes (perhaps a quotation) Yes, they shared the same room :).--Tomcat (7) 13:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before moving to Semipalatinsk in mid-March, where he was forced to serve in the Siberian Army Corps of the Seventh Line Battalion, Dostoyevsky had overnighted with a family and met geographer Pyotr Semyonov and ethnographer Shokan Walikhanuli. Unless the family is important, this seems superfluous. Use of tenses: it should be simple past.
  • "He hired Snitkina in October 1866, she registered his dictation in shorthand". This is a comma splice.
  • "The steppe-like region with the many mosques conveyed him an unknown picture of the life outside of European Russia". Outside of is US English, when the article is in Br. E. Why is this important? Put this way, it seems just a comment in passing.
  • "After Lyuba had injured her wrist a few weeks before, Anna returned to St Petersburg with her while Dostoyevsky waited with their son in Staraya Russa for their return". Needs rewriting. Plus, it can be left out. How about "The family spent x months in Staraya Russa", because what follows is "Shortly afterwards..."
  • Demons alternates with The Demons throughout the article. Stick to one version (Demons, by the way, is better).
  • Same goes for among/amongst.
  • Language re: epilepsy. Several times it is said that D. suffered from epilepsy. Don't know if WP:MOS covers this topic, but have, experience or be diagnosed with are better (cf Collins Dictionary).
Although these comments are merely about the prose, I'd like to say that what worries me most is the overabundance of trivial details and the choppy way some information is presented. --CocoLacoste talk 06:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, very much appreciated! I will once again check and shortly eredicate trivialities and choppiness. Regards. --Tomcat (7) 13:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed more trivia.--Tomcat (7) 22:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like that most of the aforementioned issues were resolved. The only major issues are the usage of non-PD files in the United States and choppiness. I would like to hear clearer observations, especially regarding the files, and not just drive-by comments. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this nomination should be archived, or at least de-transcluded, as it was nominated against the rules of FAC, in order to be fair to all nominators. --Rschen7754 08:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All issues were resolved. You are the one who ruins everything. Suggest you stop complaining all the time and make fair comments and voting. Since you are making such accusations, I feel everything what you post here is pointy and wikihounding. I never heard of you, and it seems like you are not interested in literature at all. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been open for eight days; there's no sense in closing it now as some sort of punitive punishment. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that with the other opposes the procedural issue is moot, but my concern is that with a shortage of reviewers, other nominators such as myself are forced to wait while this nomination gets 3-4 reviews and other nominations only get 0 or 1. --Rschen7754 01:05, 26 January 2013
I see your wonderings are met with with the words wikihounding and pointy, to cherrypick, amongst others. Your right, and this is exactly why we have the rules. Ceoil (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes

  • I'm archiving this nomination based on reviewer comments, as well as my own concerns with the prose. This has the making of an FA, but not yet. In the lead, for example, I see editiorialising and peacock terms, e.g. "Adding to his woes" and "indefatigable energy"; "most memorable works" should probably be toned down to "best-known works" or some such as well. Taking another section, Exile in Siberia, we have "But even so" (redundant, either "But" or "Even so" does the job), "surprised about his kindness" ("surprised by" is standard English), "He unsuccessfully appealed for the release from the chains" (don't need the first "the"). Some of these are relatively minor but sprinkled throughout the article they indicate that a copyedit is needed, and for something of this size it should pake place away from the FAC process.
  • Housekeeping: This could and should have been removed as soon it was transcluded as it occurred well under two weeks after another FAC by the nominator had been archived. I didn't spot that until after comments started to come in, so I let it stand or fall on its merits. However, Tomcat, in future do not renominate any article less than two weeks after your previous nom has been archived without first getting leave from a delegate -- the rules are the same for everybody, you are no exception.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Fyodor_Dostoyevsky/archive1&oldid=1141923503"