Wikipedia:Featured article review/A Tale of a Tub/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 17:12, 17 January 2008.

A Tale of a Tub

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Books, WP:COMEDY, Talk:Jonathan Swift, User:Geogre, User:Ling.Nut, User:Filiocht, User:Hobbesy3, User:Danny, User:Susurrus, User:Taxman, User:Kevinalewis. Cirt (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue:

  • 1. - It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
  1. Prose is not "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." -- Several sentences in the article are phrased and read such that one is led to believe something is the opinion of the author of the article, as opposed to of some secondary source. This also leads to blatant violations of Wikipedia's No Original Research policy, which will be laid out in a bit more detail, below.
  2. "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant 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 where appropriate. -- Fails this point noticeably. Only one inline citation is used, and it is virtually impossible to tell precisely what other parts of the article are sourced to where, if anywhere. What pages of the sources listed below are used, and where, and which author are various parts of the article backed up to/attributed to? Very hard to tell without in-line citations.
Some specific examples of WP:OR/WP:V/WP:WHEN issues
  1. The "tale," or narrative, is an allegory that concerns the adventures of three brothers, Peter, Martin, and Jack, as they attempt to make their way in the world. -- Says who? Who initially calls it an "allegory"? Is this the original Wikipedia editor's assumption who wrote this sentence, or from one of the sources listed below?
  2. This part of the book is a pun on "tub," which Alexander Pope says was a common term for a pulpit, and a reference to Swift's own position as a clergyman. -- Alexander Pope is not listed in the sources section. Where does Pope say this?
  3. The third brother, middle born and middle standing, is Martin (named for Martin Luther), whom Swift uses to represent the 'via media' of the Church of England. -- How do we know Swift uses this character in this fashion? Assumption of a Wikipedia editor, or laid out specifically in a source? Which source? What page?
  4. In as much as the will represents the Bible and the coat represents the practice of Christianity, the allegory of the narrative is supposed to be an apology for the British church's refusal to alter its practice in accordance with Puritan demands and its continued resistance to alliance with the Roman church. -- "In as much", "the allegory of the narrative is supposed to be.." Says who? Where?
  5. From its opening (once past the prolegomena, which comprises the first three sections), the book is constructed like a layer cake, with Digression and Tale alternating. -- "Constructed like a layer cake" - is that a literary term, or a phrase made up by a Wikipedian? A source?
  6. However, the digressions overwhelm the narrative, both in terms of the forcefulness and imaginativeness of writing and in terms of volume. -- This type of language shows the editor is making up their own assumptions. Who says it is "forceful" and "imaginative" writing?
  7. Many critics have followed Swift's biographer Irvin Ehrenpreis in arguing that there is no single, consistent narrator in the work. -- "Many critics"  ? Which critics? Where have they made these arguments?
  8. One difficulty with this position, however, is that if there is no single character posing as the author, then it is at least clear that nearly all of the "personae" employed by Swift for the parodies are so much alike that they function as a single identity. -- "Difficulty" ? Says who? "then it is at least clear..." Clear to whom?
  9. In general, whether we view the book as comprised of dozens of impersonations or a single one, Swift writes the Tale through the pose of a Modern or New Man. -- "We" ? Who is "we"? Who is saying that "Swift writes the Tale through the pose of a Modern or New Man" ? The editor that wrote this sentence, or a specific source? Unknown at this point.
  10. Hobbes was highly controversial in the Restoration, but Swift's invocation of Hobbes might well be ironic. -- Who says this "might well be ironic" ? A source, or a Wikipedia editor?
  11. The narrative of the brothers is a faulty allegory, and Swift's narrator is either a madman or a fool. The book is not one that could occupy the Leviathan, or preserve the Ship of State, so Swift may be intensifying the dangers of Hobbes's critique rather than allaying them to provoke a more rational response. -- Who says this is a "faulty allegory" ? Who says "Swift may be intensifying the dangers of Hobbes's critique" ?
  12. In his biography of Swift, Ehrenpreis argued that each digression is an impersonation of a different contemporary author. -- Where did Ehrenpreis make this "argument" ? A quote from Ehrenpreis would be more appropriate here than an assumption/interpretation of what Ehrenpreis wrote.
  13. In any case, the digressions are each readerly tests; each tests whether or not the reader is intelligent and skeptical enough to detect nonsense. Some, such as the discussion of ears or of wisdom being like a nut, a cream sherry, a cackling hen, etc., are outlandish and require a militantly aware and thoughtful reader. Each is a trick, and together they train the reader to sniff out bunk and to reject the unacceptable. -- Says who? Is this just reading into the primary source of the piece itself, or was this conjecture derived from a secondary source? Which source, what page?
  14. During the Restoration period in England, the print revolution began to change every aspect of society. -- Really, says who? "every aspect of society" ? This is assumption.
  15. The change in British society brought about by the print revolution was roughly analogous to our own experiences with the Internet. Just as now a silly person may spend a small amount of money and publish silly opinions, so it was then. Just as now we are confronted with a staggering array of conspiracy theories, "secret" histories, signs of the apocalypse, "secrets" of politicians, "revelations" of prophets, alarms about household products, hoaxes, and outright fraud, so it was then. The problem for them, as for us, was telling true from false, credible from impossible. -- Obvious WP:OR violations here.
  16. This narrator is in love with the modern age and feels that he is quite the equal (or superior) of any author who ever lived because he, unlike them, possesses 'technology' and opinions that are just plain newer. -- Is this a paraphrasing of something Swift wrote, or assumption/OR ?
  17. Although it is somewhat extreme and simplistic to put it this way, failing to be for the Church was failing to be for the monarch; having an interest in physics and trade was to be associated with dissenting religion and the Whig Party. -- "somewhat extreme and simplistic to put it this way" - says who?
  18. When Swift attacks the lovers of all things modern, he is thereby attacking the new world of trade, of dissenting religious believers, and, to some degree, an emergent portion of the Whig Party. -- "thereby attacking..." Who makes this comparison? A Wikipedia editor that wrote the sentence, or a source? Conjecture/OR, drawing your own conclusions?
  19. as A. C. Elias persuasively argues -- Oh really, "persuasively argues" ? Who is callling Elias's argument "persuasive" ? Conjecture drawn from a source.
  20. The entire discussion in England was over by 1696, and yet it seems to have fired Swift's imagination. -- "seems to have fired Swift's imagination" - says who?
  21. The Tale of a Tub attacks all who praise modernity over classical learning. -- Again, says who?
  22. There is no normative value in Rome, no lost English glen, no hearth ember to be invoked against the hubris of modern scientism. -- This almost appears to be a plagarized quote from a source. And if not, it's WP:OR.
  23. Some critics have seen in Swift's reluctance to praise mankind in any age proof of his misanthropy, and others have detected in it an overarching hatred of pride. -- Which critics? Where is this said?
  24. If Swift hoped that the Tale of a Tub would win him a living, he was disappointed. -- Did Swift write "I was disappointed that..."  ? If not, this is WP:OR.
  25. Upon its publication, the public realized both that there was an allegory in the story of the brothers and that there were particular political references in the Digressions. -- The public realized? Says who? Is this an inference drawn from the next section about the "Keys", or is this statement backed up by a source?
  26. Attacking criticism generally, he appears delighted -- "Generally", "appears delighted.." - These appear to be assumptions on the part of whoever wrote this sentence.
  27. The notes appear to occasionally provide genuine information and just as often to mislead -- Again, "appear to", "just as often to mislead" - Who is saying this and making these assumptions about the work?
  28. It is hard to say what the Tale's satire is about, since it is about any number of things. -- Entire paragraph that follows, and this sentence, appear to be assumption/conjecture/WP:OR drawn from the text itself.
  29. An important factor in the reception of Swift's work is that the narrator of the work is an extremist in every direction. -- Who says that this is an "important factor"? Where is this said?
  30. Additionally, Swift's satire is relatively unique in that he offers no resolutions. -- Who says this? Again, entire paragraph appears to be assumption/conjecture/WP:OR.
  31. the most important political events might be -- "might be.." Says who? Who is drawing this conclusion, "might be" ?
  32. The threat posed by these dissenters was keenly felt by Establishment clerics like Jonathan Swift. -- "keenly felt" - says who? Also numerous similar problems in this entire subsection.
  33. It was Swift's habit to publish anonymously throughout his career. -- His "habit" to publish anonymously, or did he just publish anonymously? Who says? Proof of this?
  34. The Tale was immediately popular and controversial. -- Says who? What sources asserted that it was "popular", "controversial" - or is this more conjecture drawn from subsequent events that occurred in the time period?
  35. The quotes in the last two paragraphs of the article are also without page numbers/inline cites.
  • 2. - It follows the style guidelines.
  1. (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections; -- WP:LEAD section is inadequate, at only five lines, does not adequately summarize subsections Summary, Cultural setting, Authorial background, Nature of the satire, Historical background, Publication history, Authorship debate - The Lede itself also contains WP:OR/conjecture issues: "It is probably his most difficult satire, and possibly his most masterly." - "probably...possibly" ?? Says who? Who is making these assertions? The Wikipedia editor who initially wrote the lead? No one knows, impossible to verify.
  2. (c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref> or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.) -- The one in line citation could be formatted better, perhaps with WP:CIT, not sure which referencing format they were going for here.

Please respond to above points below, and do not intersperse replies between the points I made, above. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Responses to Cirt
  1. It is extremely stable. It has been extremely stable for years. It has been the top Google search for the novel for years. In all that time, no one has had complaints.
  2. Has the nominator ever read A Tale of a Tub? Most of your questions are moot, if you have. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not address the stability issue, I have no qualms with the article's stability, but just because others have not brought up anything before does not mean the article does not have problems. This is specifically the purpose of WP:FAR. Cirt (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • What does reading A Tale of a Tub have to do with the article on the subject matter? The reader should be able to read the article and understand a bit about the subject matter, without actually having to go and read the actual piece itself, and without being subject to WP:OR assertions, as outlined above. Cirt (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • KeepComment What Utgard Loki says. The article gives its references at the bottom, common knowledge doesn't need to be cited and I see very little in this article which is controversial or likely to be challenged by those who know about the subject. Examples: the book is constructed like a layer cake, with Digression and Tale alternating - you can tell this is true just by looking at the table of contents. Who initially calls it an "allegory"? Just about everybody who's ever read the book. It's obvious it's an allegory. There is no more need to cite this fact than there is for The Faerie Queene or Pilgrim's Progress. --Folantin (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No 24:If Swift hoped that the Tale of a Tub would win him a living, he was disappointed. -- Did Swift write "I was disappointed that..."  ? If not, this is WP:OR. It's just a turn of phrase, it's not research, let alone original research. You've just established that the article isn't written in the usual Wikipedia duckspeak. While I personally always aim for dull, dry and lifeless prose I think it's okay to keep around a few dinosaurs who write like this. Haukur (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact it is only necessary to show that he had the hopes; being disappointed (as a good dictionary will explain) is not only an emotional condition, but the objective fact of failing to achieve an ambition. Why do you keep saying things like this are OR? Let's face it you haven't a clue whether it is or not. Have you even looked at the article on Swift to see what this says about his ambitions in the Church? Say it needs a reference by all means, but your accusations of OR have no credibility. Johnbod (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you noticed, I struck that point out, above. If you wish to discuss a specific point from above, I'd be glad to, but with comments like: Let's face it you haven't a clue whether it is or not. - it's difficult to continue to assume good faith in this discussion. Cirt (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I'm sorry - I thought someone in this long page you disclaimed knowledge of the period, apart from saying you had not read the work. Comments like 3, 33, 34 etc etc above suggest next to no knowledge. Excuse me if I'm not impressed by your complaint; where is your AGF towards the original authors? I'm prepared to assume good faith, but from your own comments it seems assuming minimal background knowledge would be inappropriate here, which you must see vastly reduces the credibility of your accusations of OR. Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to individually discuss "Comments like 3, 33, 34 etc etc above" I'd be happy to do so. Cirt (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • I think he's trying to tell you that he feels that your admitted lack of knowledge of this time period and this piece of literature invalidates your ability to adequately assess this article. It's a valid critique that several have made now. -- Bellwether BC 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm trying to tell you that if you wish to individually discuss a complaint with one of my above examples, that's fine. But this sort of ad hominem attempt to simply negate all of my above points in one fell swoop with some overgeneralized complaint - is not productive in this FAR. Cirt (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Okay, count me out of this discussion. You refuse to even consider that your admitted (thus, not ad hominem, you admitted it) lack of knowledge of this time period/piece of literature could be a problem in properly evaluating what is or is not OR. If you won't even acknowledge that possibility, what's the point of even attempting to discuss this with you? -- Bellwether BC 03:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop. We're not making about you "personally." We're discussing the fact that you have admitted that you have little or no knowledge of this time period and this work. There are several of us that think that creates a large problem with the nomination. It's not about you, it's about your lack of knowledge about the subject of the article that you nominated for de-listing. Dicussing your lack of knowledge is not "making it personal." It's something you've admitted, and many of us think it creates a serious problem with the nomination. You don't have to agree. But please don't try to downplay it by claiming we're attacking you. -- Bellwether BC 03:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still maintain that if the article had inline citations or any kind of attribution of sourcing actually next to the sentences and the info that looks like WP:OR, it would be much easier for a non-expert in the subject matter to actually tell what is and is not actually OR. And I feel like your attempts to shift discussion to me, and constant refusals to bring up or discuss any of the points I raised about about WP:OR violations in the article - is simply a way to deflect debate and avoid discussing the article's content itself, specifically. For as long as we are discussing me and my supposed knowledge or lack of expertise or lack of a Ph.D. in "A Tale of A Tub"ness, then we are not discussing the article and its content, are we? Cirt (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Did you miss the part where I told you I did an experiment on this? I had two non-experts (middle school students, to be exact) read the article. They understood it clearly, and were not confused by the lack of inline citations. I've explained several times that I don't even grant your premise that the lack of citations is a problem at all, nor that any of the points you've made constitute original research. Thus, I won't be going point by point refuting them. I deny the premise you base them on. As such, whenever we're allowed to vote, mine will be a resounding keep. Regards, -- Bellwether BC 04:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your logical fallacy of the appeal to authority doesn't gain any more weight even by repetition. Marksell's view that this nom isn't invalid carries no more weight than any other editor participating in the discussion. It's simply one editor's opinion, and you should probably stop citing it as some kind of "evidence" against those who think your admitted lack of knowledge of the time period and the piece causes problems with the basic premise of your nomination. Cite Marksell again if you wish, but I'm done. You can have the last word if you must. Regards, -- Bellwether BC 04:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep'Comment. "Prose is not "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard."" is complete rubbish. There is no reason at all for this page to be here. An exemplary page. Congratulations to the author. Giano (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inappropriate to vote "Keep" or "Remove" at this time. Too early, per WP:FAR: In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Cirt (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
This is not a place to vote but build consensus, and I can say what I like, and I'm saying keep. I don't agree with you on any level. Giano (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just pointing out that you are commenting in contradiction with WP:FAR rules, set out at the top of the WP:FAR page. As for "I don't agree with you on any level." - well, you haven't even begun to address several of my points from above about the numerous violations of WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
No, and I shan't be addressing any of your points either. I don't agree with them. This is a perfectly good FA and I see no reason for it not to remain one. Giano (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that you will not be addressing any of the WP:OR violations that I have mentioned from above. Just so we know that you are expressing your "keep" sentiment (early) here, without actual specifically clarifying as to why, and why you feel the article does not violate WP:OR, as mentioned above. Cirt (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

You can spend the rest of your life listing "violations" but this will still remain a brilliant page, and there is not a lot you can do about that. Giano (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of it may read like a "brilliant page", but there are many many parts that read like this should be an article written in a magazine or something by an individual person about the piece, and not something that claims to be backed up by secondary sources - most of the language used reads like the opinion of one author. Cirt (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • In his biography of Swift, Ehrenpreis argued that each digression is an impersonation of a different contemporary author. -- Where did Ehrenpreis make this "argument" ? A quote from Ehrenpreis would be more appropriate here than an assumption/interpretation of what Ehrenpreis wrote. Where did he make this argument? I don't know, maybe in his biography of Swift, like it says in the text you quoted? There's a handy References section at the bottom of the article where you've got the bibliographic information for this biography. Once you've got your hands on the book I fancy it won't take you long to learn a bit about Swift's impersonations and Ehrenpreis's view on them. What makes you think the sentence is an assumption/interpretation of what Ehrenpreis wrote? Why do you insist on a direct quote for exactly this point? Haukur (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Ehrenpreis argued that each digression is an impersonation of a different contemporary author." Because without knowing more, e.g. a quote from the book, a page number, something, this appears to be the original opinion of whichever Wikipedia editor initially wrote this sentence. Cirt (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
      • I don't follow you at all. Why does "Author A argues point B in book C" appear to be the opinion of the Wikipedia editor? How would that be any different if you had page ranges (maybe it took more than a single page to make this point, just saying) in addition to bibliographic information on the book? I don't see how it makes any difference until you actually get your hands on the book and run into trouble confirming the information. And you haven't made any indication that you're even trying to obtain the book. Haukur (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even with the source info, saying that a certain Author "argues" a specific point, is an assertion by a Wikipedia editor. Saying that a certain Author says something specifically, or using a direct quote from that Author, would be less prone to POV. Cirt (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
          • The word argue indicates that the author didn't merely say this, he put forth reasons for it. Since you don't think a Wikipedia editor can accurately report that an author is arguing a certain point then I certainly understand that you'd want direct quotations. But that's not how it works; our articles are still articles, not quotation collages or salads of atomic facts. You've got to allow our editors reading comprehension, the ability to follow an argument and the ability to write coherent prose. Haukur (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You make some good points, and perhaps you are right about this one. But it certainly would still help the article and that particular section, to have a quote and/or page number(s) from that book, to back up the previous sentence. Cirt (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
              • I wouldn't object to the addition of page numbers. Whether a quotation would help depends more on what Ehrenpreis actually says than the context in our article. Does he have some pithy words on this subject? I don't know, I haven't read the book. Neither have you, unless I'm much mistaken, so we're like two blind men arguing about the color of the sun. It's on Google Books if you want to get a glimpse. Didn't get me very far, though. Haukur (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you read the copious references the Wikipedia article cites? For that matter, have you read even one of the copious references the article cites? Because from where I'm sitting, it looks to me like you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't be asking the questions you are. While I understand that some misguided souls fetishize inline citations, it is a bit hopeless to discuss potential original research claims if you don't follow up and check the citations. Otherwise, we just move from "How do we know which of the references n the article says this?" to "How do we know that this really appears on page 323 of Essays in Eighteenth Century Literature". I'm all for disallowing original research, but I think that throwing that claim around requires a higher standard of diligence than "I didn't bother to check any of the references that are already in the article." Let's find some smoke before we call in the fire department. Nandesuka (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • An interesting argument, though you don't actually specifically respond to any of the individual points I had brought up, above. And it would certainly help if one were to wish to check some of these sources, to know which pages to check for which specific sentences. And yes, citations would help to delineate which sources were being used on which specific sentences. Otherwise, yes, let's just throw some random sources at the bottom and make up whatever we want. No, that would be silly. Citations help show which sources were used where in the article. Cirt (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
      • So, you haven't checked any of the sources, then? OK. Thanks for clarifying that.
      • I think part of the reason you're getting such pushback here is that you lead off with the claim that the 'prose is not "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard."' I could not disagree more. Even with the most cursory reading this article leaps out and smacks you upside the head with its engaging text. It takes a subject that is potentially impenetrable and dry to the modern reader, and makes it both accessible and terribly interesting. So the uphill battle you're facing is: here is an article which is clearly brilliant - at least, so leans the balance of discussion on this FAR -- and you are claiming to see invisible nits on it, and then offering to pick them off. I'm sorry, but there needs to be a higher standard of care when dealing with something this good. So far, all I see from you is ignorance ("I haven't checked the sources, but there's no page number, so it must be original research") and snarkiness. Nandesuka (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is difficult to continue in this FAR when we seem to be straying from ways of discussing improvements to the article itself... If you could perhaps bring up a specific point from above that you think I wrongly illustrated as WP:OR ? Cirt (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
          • How can I check the sources, when I don't even know which source to check for which specific sentence ??? Cirt (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
            • Good point. You can't. You (or someone) have to read the sources and as you go, annotate the article with what you've learned. That's a fair bit of work. (which is why I suggested maybe seek help, have several people each take one source and annotate inline cites in together). But it also suggests why, for a solid article like this one done in an older style, is there really a big benefit from bringing it up to modern standards? That "fair bit of work" is a significant fraction of the effort that went into writing it in the first place, I'd bet. And for what? To deny this article FA based on the sources being old style and nothing else (what everyone else is telling you here is that this article really IS brilliant prose and an example of what this wiki really really is good at... even if, yes, the cites are back level from current practice)... to deny it the retention of FA status on that basis would be a travesty, I think many of us feel... valuing motion and change over substance. I hope that helps you see the perspective. When an article is freshly minted is a better time to ask the original author(s) to use our new cite style then after it's been at rest for a while, eh? And maybe that's a meta criticism of FARC, that maybe a guideline change is needed, so a comment better placed at where guidelines are decided than here. But still I hope it helps and I hope you see where others are coming from. Happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 04:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks for the reply, and I am trying to see where others are coming from. If the sources were cited with just the last name of each sourced used for the sentences I cited above, yes, that would be one thing. But we shouldn't expect the reader to have to read every single source below, in order to see which source was used for which specific sentence. I'm not saying inline cites are the only fix, perhaps noting the last name of the source used, in parenthetical documentation at the end of the noted sentences, or perhaps attribution would be better "According to X..." or instead of "Many critics have followed Swift's biographer Irvin Ehrenpreis in arguing that there is no single, consistent narrator in the work." It could be rewritten as "In addition to Swift's biographer Irvin Ehrenpreis, critics such as X, Y, and Z have followed in arguing that there is no single, consistent narrator in the work." But when generic phrases like "many critics" are used (and this occurs in examples given above) we have no idea which critics said what, and it becomes very difficult to determine that, without cites giving at the least the last names of the people who said what, and at best, page numbers as well in specific sources. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • comment This FAR (and in particular the general approach taken to replying to comments made) seems a bit, well, process wonkish. Here we have a brilliant and thorough article about a very important topic which has been around for a long time, and therefore, no longer meets "current best practices" as far as how things are cited, since it doesn't use inlince cites. I think instead of having spent the time creating the review, the review creator's time might be better spent reading the sources provided and adding inline references, without changing the way the article is written. That would be a far better use of resources, I'd wager. I bet if Cirt had went to the talk page and said "hey everyone, who wants to give me a hand with inlining some of the cites in this article to bring it up to modern standards" some of the very folk pointing out how daft this review is in their view might well have helped out and the job would be half done already. Note that this isn't a specific response to anything, just a general observation, so Cirt may well find it out of order or whatever. ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, Lar, I don't find your comment "out of order or whatever" at all, it's most welcome in fact. But do check the talk page of the article itself, the issue of cites had been brought up before and discussed there, though it seems some stood on both sides of the aisle with regard to their usage. Cirt (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. As an educator who specifically deals with literature, I've a special interest in such articles as this. This article is thorough, well-researched, and, yes, well-written. The "questions" raised by the nominator for review are simple ones, easily answered simply by reading the book. There should be a proviso added to the FAR process that does not allow nominations for review of literature articles when the nominator has not read the piece of literature. I find it disheartening a bit that even such a wonderful article as this can fall victim to the process wonkery of Wikipedia. Personally, I use inline citations with gusto. However, these are not required for an article to be FA standard (at least according to my reading of them, anyway), nor should they be required. This article is a fine and worthy FA, and delisting it would make a strong (and negative, in my view) statement about the current state of the FAR process. -- Bellwether BC 13:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response to comment: I am confused, should we place a notice or "proviso" at the top of the article that people should not read the Wikipedia article unless they have first read A Tale of a Tub ? No, of course not. The article should be able to function on its own without having to put up such a notice. So why would you make similar assertions/qualifications about the FAR nominator? It would be more productive if you could bring up some sort of specific question about one of the WP:OR points from the article that I had mentioned, above. Cirt (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
      • And no, many of the points from above don't have to do with the actual content of the work itself, and couldn't be answered by reading the work. And even if they could, that is the very nature of Original Research, isn't it? If these types of questions could be answered in secondary sources, that would be a different matter entirely. Cirt (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
        • (ec)I did not claim, nor would I, that people should have to have read the book before they read the article. I have an issue with a reviewer nominating such an outstanding article for FAR without having read it first. The facts that you claim need citing are plain from a first reading of the book. The book is cited as a reference. Your (and my, for that matter) love of inline cites has nothing to do with whether or not this article is a worthy FA, or commits the egregious sin of original research. I'm not going to argue with you here. It's my view that this is an incredibly flawed nomination, based upon the fact that the very problems you cite in your review stem only from the fact that you have not (as a reviewer, not a reader of the article only) read the book. This is a major issue, in my view. I would encourage you to withdraw the nomination, and take some time to read the book. If you do, and reach these same conclusions, fine. Nominate it for review. Or, better yet, fix the problems you might still see. But please don't nominate such great articles for review without having at least had the courtesy to read the source material. I repeat an earlier point I made: inline citations are not necessary to be a FA, nor to prove there was no original research.
(Note after EC: making points that are blatantly obvious on the face of it does not constitute "original research." If a secondary source couldn't be found that cited the fact that Huckleberry Finn was a vagabond (which is a great word, BTW), should that word not be used in an article about that character? Would that constitute OR? Of course not. Neither do such patently obvious claims (to those who have read the work) in this article.) -- Bellwether BC 13:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you state as a caveat at the end of your comment "(to those who have read the work)". Must we write the article in such a way such that all readers must read the work first before being able to understand the Wikipedia article without relying on Violations of the Wikipedia Original Research Policy ? Cirt (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • I've stated it numerous times: the "those who have read the work" refers to people who would wish to nominate it to be reviewed for delisting. I'm not referring to general readership. To test your hypothesis about it somehow being confusing for general readership, I had two of my after-school book club students read the article. They are neither one gifted academically. Two normal intelligence, middle-school students read the article, were well-informed, and not confused at all by the lack of inline citations. This tells me that the issue is really a non-issue. And for the record, I only voted "keep" below, because I thought that Johnbod had opened the voting. I will strike through the vote and added comment if you wish. -- Bellwether BC 20:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for removing the early "vote". As for your "after-school book club students" I have no doubt that it may be possible to understand the article without inline citations - but that does not negate the fact that the majority of it still reads like WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • (Just noticed this reply) So now it's not even about the readers, which you claimed before, it's about policy-wonkery regarding WP:OR? I contend that if such young readers can understand clearly the article, and appreciate how masterfully it's written (which they did), perhaps this whole discussion is "sound and fury, signifying nothing." -- Bellwether BC 04:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Do not "vote" to keep or remove in the review section of a FAR. Joelito (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Keep, but clearly needs inline citations to meet the current FA standards). Most of the allegations of OR are completely ridiculous - a very little research would show that these are the things that every textbook on the subject says, not the wild hypothesising of a single WP editor, as the reviewer implies or asserts again and again. As someone says above, he could probably have referenced the article, or most of it, with less effort than writing the review took. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As people keep violating WP:FAR instructions, no longer watching this discussion, sorry

Again, as clearly laid out by WP:FAR: In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". -- This was noted above by Joelr31 (talk · contribs), above DIFF. As no one seem to be able to follow these instructions, or point out any specific issues with my above comments regarding Original Research violations in the article (aside from Haukurth (talk · contribs), thank you), I believe further involvement in this discussion is not constructive for me, save some active involvement from one of the delgates of the Featured Article Director. Thanks for your time, Cirt (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Cirt, I have found your tone on this page to be rude, curt, and unacceptable. In the future, please moderate your tone, and treat your fellow editors with more respect. And I'm specifically disappointed in your indication that, since no one (so far) has agreed with your WP:OR analysis, you are not going to participate in — or even read — the discussion. That's simply not how one achieves consensus here. I urge you to reconsider your behavior. Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I am not a FAR regular, & the "Note" above had no references, I took a leaf out of Cirt's book & assumed it was an individual OR view of one editor. Votes can always be ignored of course. Cirt should not be surprised people do not address his comments individually if they are not numbered, are very numerous, and ask for comments below only. This hardly makes commenting easy! Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally, keeps are being ignored right now, although useful comments are welcome. This is not an invalid nomination, so shouldn't be speedied. I see nothing particularly rude, curt, or unacceptable about Cirt's tone (relative to others). Marskell (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see anything rude in "I'm going to ignore any further comments on the discussion I started?" Seriously? Nandesuka (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one other than Haukurth (talk · contribs) responded to any of my specific points, and people kept violating the WP:FAR instructions, as noted by Joelr31 (talk · contribs) and by Marskell (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
I hope your return here means that you are ready to discuss the issues. This means, in addition to asking for input on the things that you are interested in, addressing the points that others raise as well. In any event, welcome back.
I myself did address your specific issues, although perhaps not in the way you desired. I don't understand how we can have a discussion about what consists of original research without actually having the sources referenced at hand. Would you agree that it is standard Wiki (and Featured Article) practice that one does not provide in-line citations for well known facts? That seems like a good jumping off point for discussion. Do you agree? Nandesuka (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the points you raise now are overly generalized, and not constructive to this FAR discussion - but would certainly be welcomed by the policy wonks at the talk page for WP:OR, or even probably at the talk page for WP:RS and WP:V. I have numbered the points from above that I laid out as violations of WP:OR. If anyone has responded to a specific point, feel free to let me know on my talk page. If not, I respectfully defer to the better judgment of Joelr31 (talk · contribs) and Marskell (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
OK, let's take a specific point. You say:

The "tale," or narrative, is an allegory that concerns the adventures of three brothers, Peter, Martin, and Jack, as they attempt to make their way in the world. -- Says who? Who initially calls it an "allegory"? Is this the original Wikipedia editor's assumption who wrote this sentence, or from one of the sources listed below?

My reply to this is "The text of the book explicitly says that it is an allegory. It does so on page 2 of the book." This is Featured Article Review. In order to review a featured article, we must actually pay attention to the topic, the works cited, and what they say. That one might claim that describing this work as an "allegory" is a "violation of WP:OR" is, quite frankly, astonishing, and only possible if one was not performing a review diligently. I urge you again to not turn this review into a drive-by shooting. You started this review, so I fully expect you to finish it. Nandesuka (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, and the other points about the "allegory" issue from above were also valid. I have struck out that point, from above. Cirt (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

(un-indenting for readability) My turn to have a specific question answered. Which of the points in the 35 (now 34) numbered paragraphs you list above do you consider "likely to be challenged"? That is essential to performing any sort of sensible WP:OR analysis. Thanks in advance for addressing this. Nandesuka (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no idea, I would hope that they could all be addressed in some fashion, either through use of in-line citations, parenthetical documentation, direct attribution of whichever specific source said something specifically in the mentioned sentences, or something like that. That was why I brought up all those specific points in the first place in this FAR. Cirt (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Cirt, The reason I'm asking which of those points are likely to be challenged is that I think you are working against yourself here, in a very serious way. You raise a large group of points whose gravity ranges from reasonable to ridiculous. To give two specific examples: I think wanting a reference to Pope (or someone) indicating that a "tub" is slang for pulpit is perfectly reasonable. If nothing else, as a reader that might be an interesting point to follow up. However, right next to that you are asking for a cite for the simple phrase "constructed like a layer cake" (which is followed up with an exact explanation of what is meant by that). The net result is that this looks to us, the other reviewers, like you've thrown a handful of darts in the air in the hopes that one or two might hit the board.
Something is original research, in Wikipedia terms, only if it is likely to be challenged. I will politely suggest that you revisit your list and cull it down to only those items which are likely to be challenged. That would better serve everyone involved here. To the extent that you don't know which items on your list are likely to be challenged, then I will suggest that you have been hasty and premature in declaring these 35 items to be original research with such a high level of stridency. Nandesuka (talk) 01:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stricken, above. Nandesuka (talk · contribs), I think you will quickly find that all that has to be done is for individuals to actually address some of the specific points I had brought up, as opposed to complaining and making vague overgeneralizations about the manner in which I presented the nom. Marskell (talk · contribs) has already clearly stated: This is not an invalid nomination, so shouldn't be speedied. Cirt (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I'll (as an outsider and naif when it comes to FA related process and how one changes it) repeat something I said to someone offline: The thing is, although perhaps Cirt started out badly, both sides here have a point.... the article is a wondrous thing, worthy of FA in the quality and depth and breadth, and damnit, beauty of the prose, AND yet it has a serious deficiency of referencing inline. We now want inline, for good reasons, but it's also a bit naff to ask the original authors to either fix it RIGHT NOW or have the article lose FA. Perhaps we need a new class of thing... "FA but with known mechanical/standards deficiencies that need fixing even though we love the prose and article" (well maybe something a trifle shorter? :) ) which volunteers could fix at their leisure without the stress of a FARC sword hanging over their head, and would acknowledge that yes, in what MATTERS, the article still has that brillaint prose quality that we want in FAs... and yet, needs fixing. Zenlike in a way in that it has good and bad, both at the same time, and that's OK. ++Lar: t/c 23:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I said above, most (but not all) of the listed points should have inline citations, but Cirt's own comments make it clear he has no knowledge of the subject area, & is in no position to form a worthwhile judgement as to what might be OR & what is a basic fact about the work, author, or period. His repeated accusations of OR would therefore appear to be breaches of WP:AGF and generally otiose and unhelpful to the process. The style of the articles - "we" etc - is at points unencyclopedic, but this should be capable of being changed without altering the sense (though referencing it). (delayed by server issues)Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Nandesuka's "You don't see anything rude in 'I'm going to ignore any further comments on the discussion I started?'" Under the circumstances, no. This is an enormous gang-up on the nominator, presumably driven by off-site chatter. I've seen this extact review before: numerous people trip over each other to tell the nominator how stupid they are, know nothing of the subject area, etc. It occurs with a small pool of FAs written in '04, and it's poisonous.

Beginning with a lead that fails to summarize the article, this is a legitimate article for FAR. If someone wants to create an exemption for certain older articles, then I suggest a discussion here and a note to Raul. Marskell (talk) 08:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Oh, and there is no RIGHT NOW involved. It's the most off-base comment that gets made about FARs. The most recent record for a review is four months. If someone intends to pick up the books a couple of weeks or a month from now, that's perfectly fine. Marskell (talk) 08:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying, Marskell. I don't generally participate in "off-site chatter", my opinions as to what was going on here were driven entirely by the quality (or lack thereof) of the criticism in the nomination itself, I haven't called anyone "stupid," and I have tried at every turn to address the central question: what makes an article good?. However, now that I understand FAR isn't intended to conduct a legitimate review of the article, and that my comments here are, apparently, simply viewed as "ganging up" on the nominator, I won't bother wasting your time by participating further. Best of luck with whatever it is you think you're accomplishing here. Nandesuka (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't generally participate in 'off-site chatter'". Likewise. I'd like to know the basis for Marskell's assertion. There's a perfectly obvious reason why a group of users who know about the subject might come to the same conclusion independently. "My opinions as to what was going on here were driven entirely by the quality (or lack thereof) of the criticism in the nomination itself". Likewise. I was also struck by the needlessly aggressive and inquisitorial tone of Cirt's initial review. --Folantin (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about off-site chatter. I noticed User:W.marsh telling Cirt how interesting it would be if he stuck this bean up his nose and that's what got my attention. Haukur (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article holds almost no inline citations and the lead is too short per WP:LEAD. Therefore the article doesn't meet the current standards and is suitable for FAR. Cirt was right to nominate this article. --Maitch (talk) 11:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The immediate reason for my off-site chatter comment was Lar's "...repeat something I said to someone offline." More generally, I have been puzzled how a certain group of FAs—Filiochit's, Giano's—immediately attract a half-dozen people demanding closure and criticizing the nominator, when they come to FAR.
Now, I understand that asking that "The work is an allegory" be cited shows unfamiliarity with the topic. But there are gentler ways of approaching a nominator than the disdain shown above. As for legitimacy, my opinion is indeed one of many. But we have never restricted nominators and we have never grandfathered articles; on both points I would suggest a thread on WT:FA.
FAR is certainly meant for a legitimate review. If we could slow this down, here are some legitimate points: it does not have a proper lead; it does not provide citation for direct quotes, a basic policy requirement; critics are mentioned in the body that are not, in fact, listed in the references (where did Johnson question Swift's authorship?). I don't know that we can slow it down, however, so this may require a drama avoidance closure. Marskell (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You derive a comment that all (or most) of the opposition to this nomination was driven by "off-site chatter" from Lar's off-hand remark? Well, okay then. If you must know, that remark was directly relating to me. Well after we had both commented here, I contacted Lar (a friend) privately to see if he felt I was being too hard on Cirt. I trust his judgement. He sent me an e-mail back regarding how the FAR was going at the time. That you somehow extrapolate Lar's off-hand reference to something he wrote in that e-mail to a cabal of some sort that has conspired to gang up on Cirt is amazingly bad-faith. I can't speak for others, but I came here completely independently of any other person involved in this discussion. I'm simply a person who teaches subjects (History and Language Arts) that cause me to be interested in these types of articles. As this is one of the finer ones out there, when it was nominated for de-listing, it drew my curiosity, especially when the nominator admiitted he'd never read the book, nor any of the source material, and yet was accusing the original authors of having done original research. This struck me as odd, and I've attempted to make a few points here regarding that. It seems that far too often on WP, people assume that heavy criticism of a person's ideas or actions equals criticism of that person as a person. This is simply not true. One can think that Cirt made a large error in judgement without thinking Cirt is a bad person or even a bad editor. -- Bellwether BC 13:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that I should not have conflated users based on the comments of one. I apologize.
While a gang-up may not have been intended, a gang-up it became. After, say, the third time he was told that he hasn't read the book and has no knowledge of the subject, it seemed petty to keep repeating it. Did he need to read it to nominate? No. There are no restrictions on nominations beyond not doing too many at once and not nominating recent TFAs. Do we need more restrictions? Maybe. If this same pattern is going to be repeated everytime material from Geogre is nominated here, then something must be done: either grandfathering them or restricting nominators. Part of my garrulousness is due to the fact that This Happens Everytime. If you'd told me a week ago this article was going to be nominated, I'd have told you in advance what was going to happen.
I realize you haven't been a part of previous discussions, Bellwether. I do apologize for any lack of AGF. Marskell (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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/A_Tale_of_a_Tub/archive1&oldid=636771771"