Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Wizard of Earthsea/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 promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2017 [1].

A Wizard of Earthsea edit

Nominator(s): Vanamonde (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most influential works of fantasy, compared frequently to the works of Tolkien and CS Lewis. I've dug quite deep with the sources, and I'd be surprised to see anything significant missing. All comments are welcome. As of this nomination, I am a participant in the Wikicup. Vanamonde (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Wehwalt edit

  • Why is Map of Earthsea.jpg in the pubic domain? How does redrawing it make it less of a derivative work?
  • @Wehwalt: That's a good point; I guess I had assumed the Davis map was PD in the first place, but I'm actually unable to find much evidence for that; the best is this, which just baldly states the map is PD. And honestly if it was adapted from Le Guin's map I'm not even sure it could be PD...my apologies, images are not my strong suit. If that Guardian link is insufficient, I'm thinking it's best to remove the image. Vanamonde (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, if I'm forced to remove the map, I'm wondering if we can legitimately use Le Guin's original map from her website under NFCC; at least there the sourcing is clear, but I'm not certain if it would qualify. Likewise, for this image, for the adaptations section. Vanamonde (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is based on a map in the book, I think it's not PD. Does the reader really need the map to understand the article? This would make three fair use images, and I think there should be strong justification for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I've removed the map. I guess that probably also means that the poster (which would also be fair use) should be avoided. Thanks for the review. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 10:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I did with The Phantom Tollbooth was use quote boxes to supplement the (limited) images, quotes that I thought were particularly profound or funny.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good idea. I've already placed a couple of the best in the themes; I'll see if there's good ones for elsewhere. Vanamonde (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie edit

  • @Mike Christie: Thanks: that's an excellent point, and one I was aware of (especially after recently rewriting Tombs of Atuan) but which I hadn't conveyed. I've added some material. I've a couple of questions, though: I've added it under "style and structure" as of now because that was where it seemed to fit best (it was really a discussion, even among the critics, about points of view, after all, than criticism/praise, I think). If you disagree, though, please let me know. Also, I'm wondering if, and how, I should work this into the lead. I think a brief mention is warranted, but I'm trying to figure out how to do it smoothly. Vanamonde (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your edits look good. I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned in the lead; it's more relevant to Tehanu than to this book. If you want to add it, I'd say slip in a clause after the listing of books 2-6 at the end of the lead, saying something like "though in the long gap between books 3 and 4 Le Guin's interest in feminism increased, and the later books, in particular Tehanu, are less traditional fantasy works as a result".
  • On sources, have you been able to track down any of the reviews listed near the bottom of this page? Some will be impossible to find, but the Moorcock and Pringle should be easy and several others should be available via WP:RX. I recall Nicholls & Clute describing the Earthsea trilogy as Le Guin's "most perfect work" in the Encyclopedia of SF; that might be a quote worth using. I also have somewhere in a box a book length study of Le Guin by Barbara Bucknall; I'll see if I can find it and see if it says anything useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I've had poor luck with most of the magazine sources, because unless you have a collection of the print copies I don't think there's an easy way to get hold of them; and I don't. I've added stuff from the encyclopedias and Pringle's book, though. Also, given the glut of sources, I'd much rather stick to scholarly material where available, than magazine reviews...does it look better now? Reception has been beefed up a little bit. Vanamonde (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do have a couple of them, but I don't think I can lay my hands on them quickly. I take your point about preferring scholarly material, though I think for contemporary reviews it's worth looking at how the book was received within the field. I'll let you know if I can ferret out the Ted White and the Lester del Rey, which are the two I should have somewhere. Your additions look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More review comments; I'm copyediting as I go, so please revert if I screw anything up. Not sure if I'll finish this evening.

  • "Widely" is used twice in the second sentence.
  • Removed the first.
  • There seems to be a contradiction between "Le Guin had no previous experience specifically with the genre of young adult literature" and the suggestion a couple of sentences later that "her choice of fantasy as a medium, and of the theme of coming of age, was a product of her writing for adolescents". I see that latter is sourced to Le Guin herself, but can we explain that apparent conflict between the statements? It's baffling as written.
  • That's just poor phrasing on my part. White is talking about her previous work, while Le Guin/Cummins is referring to Wizard itself: in writing it she was "writing for adolescents", so she made those choices. I've rephrased.
  • "Le Guin's belief in Taoism": does the source actually say "belief"? My very limited understanding of Taoism is that it's primarily a philosophy, at least as engaged with in the West, and I would be surprised if Le Guin believed in those aspects of it which are actually religious.
  • True. I've reworded it to "Influence of Taoist thought" which is fair to say, given the soruces.
  • You mention the second and third books at the end of the "Background" section; of course the first three books are regarded as a fairly tightly bound trilogy, but I think it would seem odd to an uninitiated reader that we don't mention the later three books at this point, since we're listing her follow ups to Wizard.
  • I've moved that entire sentence into the publication section, where the other books are mentioned in more detail.
    That's a definite improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has remained in print for more than three decades" seems odd, since it's now almost five decades; looking at the source I see a Buffalo library page that says nothing about prior printings. Am I looking at the wrong thing?
  • Possibly? The link I have is [2], which the original link automatically redirects to, and which has this precise statement in the "Summary" section. That said, it's an odd fragment, so if you want me to remove it I will do so: it won't hurt much. The book's been printed so often, in so many places, and in so many languages, that really nobody knows whether it's been "in print" or how many editions have been issued.
    That's weird. For the "Summary" section I see this: "Summary: A boy grows to manhood while attempting to subdue the evil he unleashed on the world as an apprentice to the Master Wizard." Not sure what's going on there. I think I would just cut it, if I were you; it's now an out-of-date comment so it raises questions rather than answering them, and as you say it's not really clear how one would show it's true. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strange. Anyhow, removed.
  • The article on Le Guin in the 1995 Encyclopedia of SF is by Peter Nicholls, and I'd suggest giving him as the author in the reference and including it in the sources in that format. Up to you if you name him, rather than just saying Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, when citing him in the article text -- I probably would myself, but though he's a prominent critic in the field it's not a name many readers will know so it's up to you.
  • Well I did this so we wouldn't have to include two citations to the same book in the sources section. It's also messy because the "Cite encyclopedia" template would then make Clute and Nicholls editors, which they are not. I've used the specific entries in the inline citations. Nonetheless, if you think it important, I will make the switch.
    I'm not going to withhold support because of this, but since the goal of a citation is to allow a reader to verify the information, I think it's worth doing. I cite this sort of thing with {{cite book}}, like so:
    Clute, John (1997). "Howard, Robert Ervin". In Clute, John; Grant, John. The Encyclopedia of Fantasy. New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. 481–483. ISBN 0-312-15897-1.
    That's from Weird Tales if you decide you want to steal the layout. I think the page numbers are helpful, but the key thing is the article title ("chapter" in cite book), since that's what leads the reader to the right place. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the chapters were in the inline citation, but I take your point. I've separated them. I'm afraid I can't add page numbers, as the electronic edition I have will not give me numbers corresponding to the actual page numbers; if you have those that would be great, but it's not critical, as you said.
    Somehow I missed those chapters; I think perhaps I'm just unfamiliar with the format you were using (I don't use sfn myself). I think it's a good idea to cite the chapter by author anyway, so no harm done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1995 Encyclopedia of Science Fiction said that the Earthsea books had been considered the finest science fiction books for children in the post-World War II period." I don't see this in the source -- can you point me at where this is said?
  • In the children's fantasy section, which I have now added to the inline citation: 'Many critics regard the Earthsea books as the finest sf work for children of the postwar period."
    Struck, but that's a good example of what I was saying above -- there was no realistic way for me to check that as the citation stood. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ted Shippey": can you confirm this is correct? I know of a Tom Shippey who I believe has written about Le Guin, but I don't know a Ted Shippey.
  • I dunno where I came up with Ted...source says "T.A.", gone with that.
  • "Ged later offers Tenar the same gift" of his name; he does the same with Arren in the third book, though if the source doesn't point this out I suppose we should not.
  • They don't really, and I think it's because of circumstance. He has to give Arren his name; in his own words, because in the places they are going, true names have to be used. In the case of Tenar, though, it's explicitly a gift; which is the point the source makes.
    Fair enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- That's it for a first pass; I'll do another read through once these are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Done for now. Thanks, as always. Vanamonde (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Responded above. I'll do another read through some time this weekend and I expect to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'll try to find time to read this again in case I can find anything to copyedit, but I think this is FA quality as it stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber edit

Reading through now...

In the Publication section, the dates of the two sequels differ from the lead.
Yeah that's a typo, 1971 and 72 is correct. Fixed.
Multiple critics have noted that the Earthsea novels... - "Multiple" redundant here?
True. Also changed to "commentators" because i'm using "critical attention" later in the sentence.
Have any graphic novelizations been published?
Not that I am aware of. There's some rumors on the internet about efforts to produce such, but nothing concrete. There's the folio society edition mentioned in the publication section; I've clarified that that was an illustrated edition.

That's about all I have to complain about....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thanks for the review, as always. I've addressed your comments. Vanamonde (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - all good. A fine read of a much underrated book. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Adityavagarwal edit

  • There are a few duplicate links here and there.
  • That's a fair point, but with one exception (now fixed) they are linked at the first instance that a term is used in the body, in addition to a link in the lead, which is necessary and not excessive, IMO.

All great otherwise. It has a stellar prose! Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adityavagarwal: I've responded. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome article! I support a shiny star to it. Adityavagarwal (talk) 11:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth edit

  • Current refs 102, 103 are given as authored by "BBC" but ... there isn't a BBC author listed in the Sources. Don't assume that all readers will be able to access the fancy linking feature. This also applies to the short notes for "childcraft", "sfif" "Nebula", "TPL", "Worldcat", "Rotten Tomatoes", etc. This isn't helped by the fact that the source citations for many of these bury the year/date later in the citation .. which makes it more difficult to link them up with the short citations.
  • Well I'm not sure I agree with you here; if the linking function doesn't work, then all the citations are a problem; but okay. I've switched to using regular references for the author-less references.
  • If the linking function doesn't work - it's easy to find the correct full citation if all the full citations are given with author names - what you've done works fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sources give locations, some don't. Pick one style and stick with it. (example - the Esmonde citation doesn't give a location, but the Cummins one gives one complete to "Columbia, South Carolina, USA" (I'd also argue that linking locations in the source citations is overlinking - its not really going to help anyone there - a better link would be to publishers, but even that's a bit overlinkish)
  • Location links removed. I've added locations for all books/encyclopedias; not for journal articles, for which I do not believe they are ever provided.
  • "Boston Globe-Horn Book Awards" has no publisher information.
  • Added.
  • Page ranges for sources from anthologies/collections?
  • Added.
  • ISBN/OCLC for some sources are missing - you mostly give them so you should be consistent and give them for all book sources
  • Added for the encyclopedia of fantasy; Le Guin's 1968 edition of A Wizard of Earthsea does not, as far as I'm able to tell, have an isbn: I've added an OCLC.
  • No publisher information for "LeGuin "A First Response..."
  • From Le Guin's website: website name added.
  • Why the full date for "Le Guin A Wizard of Earthsea, the Harcourt edition?
  • No reason, removed.
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations - the first result is a mirror of Wikipedia.
Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: Thanks for the review. I have addressed your comments. Vanamonde (talk) 13:12, 5 August 2017 (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/A_Wizard_of_Earthsea/archive1&oldid=794940741"