Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Country Wife/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | The Country Wife
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 13:38, 1 June 2007.

The Country Wife

edit

Review commentary

edit
Messages left: none.
I've moved this article down to FARC earlier than is usually done, but there has surely been enough of the FAR discussion below, please see talkpage. I hope I won't be reverted, and urge the people defending the article's FA status to stop doing that. How important is the FA thing, seriously? (Speaking as the author, though not indeed the owner, of this article.) Let's not cling to FA status, but rather put a stop to these unseemly spectacles. Bishonen | talk 13:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This article is largely uncited. --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps Flex missed that in addition to the Notes section, which contains 16 footnotes, there is the following References section:
References
  • Beerbohm, Max (1920). And Even Now. London: William Heinemann.
  • Canfield, Douglas (1997). Tricksters and Estates: On the Ideology of Restoration Comedy. Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky.
  • Dixon, Peter (1996). William Wycherley: The Country Wife and Other Plays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Dobrée, Bonamy (1924). Restoration Comedy 1660–1720. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Holland, Norman N. (1959). The First Modern Comedies: The Significance of Etherege, Wycherley and Congreve. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • Howe, Elizabeth (1992). The First English Actresses: Women and Drama 1660–1700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hunt, Leigh (ed.) (1840). The Dramatic Works of Wycherley, Congreve, Vanbrugh and Farquhar.
  • Kosofsky Sedgwick, Eve (1985). "The Country Wife: Anatomies of male homosocial desire". In Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire, pp. 49—66. New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Macaulay, Thomas Babington (1841). Review of Leigh Hunt, ed. The Dramatic Works of Wycherley, Congreve, Vanbrugh, and Farquhar, in Critical and Historical Essays, Vol. 2. Retrieved 6 February 2005.
  • Ogden, James (ed., 2003.) William Wycherley: The Country Wife. London: A&C Black.
  • Pepys, Samuel (ed. Henry Benjamin Wheatley, 1880). The Diary of Samuel Pepys. Retrieved 14 March 2005.
  • Wilson, John Harold (1969). Six Restoration Plays. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Zimbardo, Rose A. (1965). Wycherley's Drama: A Link in the Development in English Satire. Yale.

This is a considerable amount of sourcing. I fail to see an issue. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd say it has a considerable bibliography, but limited direct references via footnotes, which I'd expect in an FA. For instance, I'd expect a source for the sentence from the intro: "[T]he play reflects an aristocratic and anti-Puritan ideology, and was controversial for its sexual explicitness even in its own time." Likewise throughout. --Flex (talk/contribs) 23:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing how much support this had in its FAC in March 2005, given that something "so obvious" was missed. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Standards have changed. Deal with it. Jay32183 00:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's pretty rude, Jay - please try to understand that people are pissed off with the very nature of this 'review', and it inflames the situation needlessly to be so short.... Purples 01:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really couldn't care less. Jay32183 03:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the bit about direct quotes that aren't cited; I don't see any. When I wrote the article, I provided author and page number in footnotes for quotes from secondary sources, complemented by full bibliographic info in the references—a common academic system. Direct quotes from the play itself had, and have, inline cites of the form "(V.iv.169)". From a quick look, this system doesn't seem to have deteriorated any. It's the preferred academic way of refering to passages of dramatic dialogue, especially for older plays that exist in many different edtions with dfferent paginations. It helps the reader finds a passage, no matter what edition they're using. "V.iv,169" stands for Act 5, Scene 4, line 169, and, by convention, it indicates the point where the quote starts. An obvious advantage of this system is that the "point" indicated —the Act, Scene, line which define the quote exactly--is equally easy to find and check in all editions, ancient, modern, or on the web: those don't all even have any page references, but they have acts and scenes, and most of them also line numbering. If such exact citing counts as "uncited," I suggest we save ourselves the argy-bargy and the fraying tempers and de-feature it in short order. I for one won't make a fuss.
The example sentence quoted by flex that he would expect a source for, "[T]he play reflects an aristocratic and anti-Puritan ideology, and was controversial for its sexual explicitness even in its own time," consists of very obvious facts, to people who have studed the field. All sources for Restoration comedy, all scholars of it, would endorse that sentence. It's not, as the Feature Article Criteria put it, "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". Bishonen | talk 01:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The last sentence of the article is a direct quote that is not cited at all. Jay32183 03:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean ...writes Canfield, "leaving him instead potent and still on the make, the audience laughs at its own expense: the women of quality nervously because they have been misogynistically slandered; the men of quality nervously because at some level they recognize that class solidarity is just a pleasing fiction"? Yes, it's mystery where that quote came from, isn't it? Yomanganitalk 15:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair, it could say (Cranfield, p.xxx). But I take your point. I dare say some page numbers could be obtained without traducing the whole article here (insufficient density of dinky footnotes → complete fact check). -- ALoan (Talk) 16:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I read WP:CITE#When to cite sources, when opinions are expressed, they should be cited. Now perhaps I have misunderstood this guideline, but it appears to me that this has not been followed in this article (my example sentence may not be the best instance of this, but "controversial" does imply there were various opinions on the matter). Also, I don't think the standard for whether something should be cited is whether or not all scholars of Restoration comedy agree that some opinion is accurate. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This review is at best silly, and at worst an embarrassment - hopefully so much so that it might help clarify some important issues. Flex - you nominated an article with a very short reason, that in itself isn't ever going to be an appropriate one. I hope you might see that it's kind of frustrating / disheartening. You see, inline citations are great when appropriate, but should never be seen as an inherently good thing. Or to put it another way, to bring this article here, your assertion should be "this article doesn't have inline citations, and it would benefit from them / more of them" - that at least begins a conversation. If this is your assertion (and hey, that's cool!), please say so, and explain why you think they'd help, and we'll get into it.....

It's pretty clear from even the most cursory glance at the article that it's one we should be hugely proud of - so.. er.. keep featured or give it the badge or what a silly review, of course it's great - i guess my 'non' vote is pretty clear! - cheerio - Purples 01:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my nomination was too short. I honestly didn't realize it would be so controversial. In short, yes, I am suggesting additional inline citations should be added where appropriate, and that apart from those, I was under the impression that it didn't meet the criteria for a FA. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you could be more specific, which FA criteria do you think it fails to meet? Yomanganitalk 17:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean criterion 1(c). --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1(c) says: "...claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the related body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." I don't suppose you consider it not to meet any of the first part, do you? In which case we are down to the old bugbear of "complemented by inline citations for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". The quotations have inline citations (some don't have footnotes, but they are attributed in the text), though perhaps, as ALoan says above, they could have a page number, which means we come down to "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". If you can point out any instances where that is the case, it would be helpful. To take your example, "controversial" refers to the play rather than the analysis, saying the play was uncontroversial would be liable to be challenged, saying it was controversial is not likely to be, so doesn't require its own inline citation. Yomanganitalk 23:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "only" in there. Any opinion, analysis, or measurement requires a citation even if no one is likely to challenge it because of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jay32183 (talk • contribs).
Sure. I'll get back to you soon. --Flex (talk/contribs) 23:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and I'd recommend some very stern administrative warnings for violations of civility by "Jay32183." This is one of the best articles on the whole of Wikipedia. I don't see a single citation need, much less a preponderance, which is what would be needed for a review (rather than...gasp!...contacting the primary author and asking for a citation for a troublesome passage.... heavens! I can't be suggesting communicating with people instead of listing things for deletion or review can I? what a horrible thought!). This review is so far out of bounds, both in its nomination and its conduct as to be a very, very serious indictment of those involved. Utgard Loki 15:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recommended a fact check and people got offended. If you get offended by a suggestion for a fact check then you are not deserving of my respect as an edittor or a person. Calling me uncivil so you don't have to do any work on the article is completely asinine. This article is no where near Wikipedia's best. Jay32183 19:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh? Let's see: Things have changed? From when? You were here? You know how they've changed? "I could care less" seems to be the best summary of your attitude, in fact. The best thing you've said, though, is that this is far from the best, because that begs the question, What is the best that this article falls so far short of? As for "doing work," I suggest that you start writing some better articles, because I don't see any work to do on The Country Wife. It's already one of the best articles on the site. If you don't agree, then give us all a vision of the golden ideal that we should be aiming for. Oh, and please invest in a good dictionary, or use Wiktionary in a pinch, on "asinine." Either it doesn't mean what you think it does or you're so far off base as to be incomprehensible. Utgard Loki 13:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay32183: I am sure that your have the best of intentions, but I find your tone rather unhelpful.

You say there are direct quotes without citation. As far as I can see, it would generally be more accurate (and perhaps even politer) to say that the quotes are not cited to your satisfacation. I may have missed some, but they all seem to expressly or by implication attribute the quotes to one of the works listed in the references section.

You then say that all of the facts in the article need checking, because something "so obvious" as citing direct quotes was missed. Again, I repeat: many respected wikipedians contributed to the FAC a couple of years ago. Did they all miss something that is "so obvious"? In any event, what gives you reason to think that the whole article needs checking? Given that Bishonen wrote the article and is still here (indeed, has contributed above) can't you see that it is rather offensive for you to breeze in and demand that all of the facts be checked, as if she may be trying to mislead us all or could have made it up? Are you going to "check" the facts for us, perhaps?

You tell me that standards have changed, and I need to "deal" with that. Well, I was here in 2005, and I am here now. I am well aware that many people now see a high density of footnotes as some kind of proxy for good citation. I am also aware (as perhaps you are too) that there is a aubstantial body of opinion that citation of the sort that you seem to require can be overdone, and "high density" citation can be as bad or worse than "low density" citation. Have you seen (to pick a recent example) Horace François Bastien Sébastiani de La Porta?

This is indeed a fine article, and someone (viz. Bishonen) spent considerable time and care writing it. Rather than denigrating the whole article, it may have been more productive, and less likely to cause umbrage, if you have pointed out exactly which quotes you think need more explicit citation. But then you say that could not care less that some people think you are rude. It makes me slightly sad that you don't seem to care how rude other people think you are. O tempora... I would have suggested that you could try being a bit more sensitive about other people's feelings, but perhaps you don't care about that either. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • ALoan, I haven't cared what you thought for a very long time. You have never once demonstrated that you understand the point of inline citations and I consider you a very bad edittor for that. Maintianing civility in this situation is a bad idea because the stupid people will gang up and make sure nothing gets accomplished. I'd rather hurt your feelings and get something done than be nice and accomplish nothing. And if I'm going to accomplish nothing either way then there's no point in being nice. Jay32183 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jay, I don't think the options are limited to acting civilly and getting nothing done and acting uncivilly and accomplishing much. Let's aim for civility and getting something done along the way. Life is full of compromises; this is one of them. --Flex (talk/contribs) 22:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
right, ALoan is a bad 'edittor'. 100 of Jay3 clones would still fall short of ALoan. and would be unbelievably annoying too boot. you have no idea what you are talking about, go home kid. 83.243.58.152 05:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ALoan. /bishonen hands ALoan her shitsuit. Here, use this. Jay, is your aim to make FAR/FARC so unpleasant that no ordinary editors with ordinary regard for the social niceties feel able to use it? Because that's getting to be the effect you have. Please stop spitting before you find yourself blocked. Bishonen | talk 22:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
If I can't suggest that people perform a fact check then Wikipedia is a complete waste of my time. But it is really you who are making me waste my time by not properly citing sources. I would have been nice if you were new users, or didn't immdiately question me. But since you are experienced users my official position is "Cite your sources or go fuck yourself." Call me uncivil all you want, but what needs to change is the quality of sourcing on Wikipedia. Jay32183 23:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue what needs to change is the quality of the sourcing on Wikipedia and your attitude toward fellow editors. I completely agree that you should be able to request a fact check without offending people, and I frankly I think you may be reading too much into their responses on that account. Please remember that WP:CIVIL is official policy, not a semi-optional guideline. --Flex (talk/contribs) 23:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, Jay32183 - "couldn't care less" ... "not deserving of my respect as an edittor [sic] or a person" ... "asinine" ... "stupid people" ... "go fuck yourself" - is this how you accomplish things? You catch more flies with honey, you know.

I repeat: which statements do you think need additional citation? Are you going to undertake this "complete fact check" for us? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flex (and Jay's attitude is befuddling - perhaps The Country Wife touched a nerve? - just play nice if you can!) - thanks for your willingness to respond about this. I noticed that you expanded on your initial nomination slightly, saying you think inline citations should be added where appropriate - could you further say where you think they'd be appropriate? Sorry if you feel caught up in a storm, but what you seem to be saying is not just 'this article doesn't have inline citations' (true!) - but also that it should have - where? - thanks! - Purples 23:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get more specific shortly. Thanks for your patience! --Flex (talk/contribs) 23:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


FARC commentary

edit
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/The_Country_Wife/archive1&oldid=1138477923"