Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Fyodor Dostoyevsky bibliography/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 02:08, 24 March 2014 [1].
Fyodor Dostoyevsky bibliography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 13:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because the list is important and comprehensive, featuring almost all stories, letters and sketches of the writer. Tomcat (7) 13:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). A most excellent page, I can see a great deal of research went into this. I just have a few comments that shouldn't be too hard to address: (1) Per WP:LAYOUT, formatting of the reference sects should be Footnotes, then Notes, then References. (2) Would be nice to have inline-citations after the assertions in the Footnotes sect, to back up the factual claims made and to assist readers and editors alike with attempts at verification. (3) {{Expand list}} is used here, and the nominator says in the nom statement the page is comprehensive -- there seems to be a conflict here, and I'm not sure but if there are prior WP:FLs that have a similar issue and there's precedent for promotion that's fine, I'm just not sure what the standard is for this situation and so it'd be nice to get some clarity on that issue. (4) Some redlinks, Novel in Nine Letters, Another Man's Wife and a Husband under the Bed, A Weak Heart, Polzunkov, Charles James Hogarth, not necessary for FL or FA status, but just noting it here that it'd be nice if some editor would like to create that at minimum as a sourced stub, to help inform future readers and editors. (5) For cites to sources not in English, please use WP:CIT templates and add parameter language to denote what language it is, to help with verification. Feel free to keep me posted when above is addressed, — Cirt (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (2) The notes about the name of the work or where it is compiled is sourced by the respective footnote right left to it. The last two notes are sourced by the references under the column "Ref" in the Letters section.
- (3) It meant that adding all works and drafts is probably impossible and unneeded anyway, as only a few or no sources explain them. I removed the tag.
- ...--Tomcat (7) 10:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (5) Those footnotes are short in order to decrease the article's size, which is already high. However, if templates are a must, I will do that.--Tomcat (7) 12:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Why does the list have an incomplete tag? If you're not listing all his articles or whatever because there's too many to list them all, then you don't want the list expanded from where it is; if you are legitimately missing things that should be included, then why aren't they included?
- Removed.
- You spell it "almanach" throughout the list, despite that being an "archaic" spelling of the term- why not almanac?
- Now almanac.
- I'm very confused why the lead of a list of Dostoyevsky works manages to not once mention Crime and Punishment or The Brothers Karamazov, his most famous works.
- Added a sentence.
- Why do some of the short stories in the table have redlinks and some not?
- Because I planned to create the red ones.
- The publishers in the table, unlike the titles, are sorting by "the" and "a" instead of the first real word.
- Done.
- You say in the infobox that he wrote 221+ articles, but don't mention anything about how many he wrote in the articles section. You also dive right into the Diary articles without saying what the Diary is
- Explained.
- Almanachs, Poems, Mixed works, Pamphlets, Other sections- why are these items not in quotes/italics?
- Done, except the mixed works, as I am not sure if I should use quotes and italics together or without any of them, and other works, which are mostly drafts and plans and of unknown form of literature.
- What is rvb.ru, and why is it a reliable source?
- The Russian Virtual Library is a free resource for pupils, teachers and others. It issues Russian classics only by reliable academic publisher. Their editors are trustworthy scholars [2].
- The two Writer's Diary lines in References should be full citations, not just links.
- Done.
- Consider archiving your online references with something like webcitation.org or web.archive.org, so that changed or removed webpages don't destroy the sources of the article.
- Is there a tool for that? Thanks for your comments, will answer to the remaining points later.--Tomcat (7) 10:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Last two comments, then- you should remove the chapter/number columns from the Diaries table, since you don't have any information in those columns. Finally, the publisher for the sources should be the Russian Virtual Library, not rvb.ru, just like how you would put the publisher as The New York Times, not nytimes.com. --PresN 23:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I broke up the table, so it is now a simple embedded list. Cleaned up the references.--Tomcat (7) 12:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, Support. --PresN 19:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, thanks for the responses to my comments, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - No major issues with the list. Aureez (Talk) 03:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.