Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of works by William Monahan/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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 14 days, 1 support, 2 oppose. Fail. Scorpion0422 16:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self-nomination Hello. This is a list of works by the American screenwriter, novelist, and former journalist William Monahan. The list has recently undergone a peer review where several issues were brought up and many improvements made to the article as a result. I have chosen to include important details on Monahan's first novel Light House and his serial run "Dining Late with Claude La Badarian" directly into the article because their sections intertwine with each other as well as other sections and are too short on their own. I hope you enjoy reading this article. Best, BillDeanCarter (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This is an excellent start, but it seems to me like it has a few issues in focus.
Discussion summarized below ince more input needed for the major points.
- Thanks for your comments although I have to disagree with a lot of them. I hope in the end there is a place at Featured Lists for this article even though it will be a tough sell.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Lighthouse section is an entire standalone article. It would be best separated with a {{main}} link and a brief summary of what you think most relevant. (I have written several full articles that were shorter than this, so yes this is definitely an article)
- I am hesitant to dilute this list because at the moment I believe it is best served as a one stop shop for information on Monahan's past works.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The yearly separation of Monahan's New York Press writings seems unnecessary to me (kudos for making sure to disambiguate the headers, though).
- It is necessary so that the list can flow chronologically.
- The lengthy "reception" section for 1995 seems overdone (also "reception" is a strange term to me here, "reactions" or "impact" sounds more appropriate since feature stories are not usually reviewed to account for "reception"). Maybe it should be integrated in the appropriate section of Monahan's own article, or maybe a broader, synoptic "reaction" or "impact" section covering the entirety of the material to conclude the list?
- It's not really overdone. It's insightful annotation and the most interesting part of the List of works in my opinion. It was a year in which he wrote-- possibly had some demons to release--many very controversial articles. So if you're scrolling down the list it comes off as a speed bump, and maybe it isn't pretty, but it's what it is. I just don't see the point in slimming down the list, creating all these extra articles (that few will ever go to) just so that the article presents itself pretty. At the moment the list is complete and very useful. Why debilitate it?-BillDeanCarter (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your notes regarding the availability of the New York Press and Post are unnecessary.
- They are very necessary. That is how the reader will find the articles themselves. I don't see the need in withholding where you have to go to read the stuff. I found it out and now others can go themselves if they want.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Complete lists of his signed articles have to be included, or the list is not comprehensive.
- That will not be possible. If you expect an exhaustive list of works, including every single byline from the writer then it will not happen. I have included all bylines for relevant publications, such as the New York Press. Honestly, no one cares about his book reviews at the New York Post and his weekly column at Hamptons is just too obscure. It would have taken perhaps a week or more to find all the book reviews (4-7 in all supposedly) that he wrote at the New York Post alone because you're talking about a lot of microform. His columns at Hamptons magazine are who knows where, but not any library I was able to hunt down. So in these cases, when the material itself is largely insignificant, I have summarized these lists in a paragraph, rather than a list.BillDeanCarter (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you fully hyphenate ISBN? You can get the ranges here.
- I don't know what you mean by this but I will look into it.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While his stint as editor for Spy is probably worthy of mention, I don't think it warrant a section given that there are no specific articles listed.
- It does so that you can glean in which periods he worked for specific publications. The list is chronological.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I--frankly and honestly--don't believe this list will meet the Featured List criteria although it is complete and functional. You kind of have to take my word for it that these articles even exist in some instances, because to verify their existence you have to go check them for yourselves at the New York Public Library. If this is the case then I have no choice but to respectfully withdraw the nomination. But you won't see this list of works improve over the years in any significant way. It's done. It's complete. These are the most important articles Monahan wrote and the ones that are talked about and the ones that people should be reading if they have any interest in the screenwriter.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To sum up, before I make other easier changes to this list of works I would like to know if it is acceptable as a Featured List to begin with. The objection that some of the lists are not comprehensive (basically The New York Post book reviews and the Hamptons column from 95) cannot be rectified. Another objection--not yet made but possible--is that the comprehensive lists of the New York Press works cannot be verified without going through the NYPL archives. Everything else is just re-arranging sections & etc.-BillDeanCarter 21:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The two major issues to me would be that Lighthouse (novel) should be a separate with most content you have here, and that the appropriate sections should have actual, full (if at all appropriate, maybe e.g. the regular columns can be condensed by giving only the dates they were published?) listings. The other issues (e.g. the impact of his feature stories) can be dealt separately. What this is basically supposed to be is a bibliography, specifically an annotated one (in any case more so than list of works by Joseph Priestley. I'll hide my complete comments to make the discussion less daunting. We really need some more input.
- I could see the article for the novel and it would have to be something along the lines of Light House A Trifle or Light House A Trifle (novel) or Light House (novel). But it exasperates me. I mean, where does it end? Does every damn novel have to have an article? The neat and tidy solution was one single list of works. Additional articles seem junky to me. I truly don't believe this is a good idea, although some novels do deserve their own articles. Maybe this one would in ten or twenty years when there is some actual scholarship on the novel. (the light house article would comprise the light house section + the literature published in massachusetts section + the dining late with claude la badarian section; all boring publication/list details that would be mostly repeated from the list of works) As for full listings, I have done so when it is humanly possible for an amateur to do so. If The New York Post archives ever reach back further than 1998 then those book reviews will be available for listing and LexisNexis would probably be the one to do it. Hamptons magazine is obscure, distributed solely for a summer colony. So prose is the way to go in these instances.
- Okay I made an article Light House: A Trifle and did a major revision of the List of works by William Monahan. I still believe the Light House article needs academic criticism or something to be an FA, so I can leave that one alone and let someone else tackle it in ten years or so. and Phew! I have worked enough on this one author. You'll see I also tackled some of the other hidden issues; let me know what you think.-BillDeanCarter 01:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I could see the article for the novel and it would have to be something along the lines of Light House A Trifle or Light House A Trifle (novel) or Light House (novel). But it exasperates me. I mean, where does it end? Does every damn novel have to have an article? The neat and tidy solution was one single list of works. Additional articles seem junky to me. I truly don't believe this is a good idea, although some novels do deserve their own articles. Maybe this one would in ten or twenty years when there is some actual scholarship on the novel. (the light house article would comprise the light house section + the literature published in massachusetts section + the dining late with claude la badarian section; all boring publication/list details that would be mostly repeated from the list of works) As for full listings, I have done so when it is humanly possible for an amateur to do so. If The New York Post archives ever reach back further than 1998 then those book reviews will be available for listing and LexisNexis would probably be the one to do it. Hamptons magazine is obscure, distributed solely for a summer colony. So prose is the way to go in these instances.
- I'm still unconvinced that detailed location explanations need to be given for relatively well distributed periodicals: the bibliographical location alone constitute a citation (Priestley needed citations because those old stuff an be exceedingly hard to locate, and he was incredibly productive). Circeus 23:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These are not well distributed periodicals anymore. That's the point of this list of works. I mean really these are terribly badly distributed periodicals. Even the places where I tell you you can find these periodicals, they don't have complete collections. There is some odd mystery about issue 12 of the Old Crow Review missing from all libraries across America for who knows what reason and there are only about three libraries that have it to begin with. There may be some obscure alternative zine/literary magazine library hiding out somewhere on the East Coast that may have Perkins Press but I haven't come across it yet. The New York Press situation is not good at the NYPL though they have the most complete collection atm. And on and on... that's why I've included detailed bibliographic information.-BillDeanCarter 03:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The two major issues to me would be that Lighthouse (novel) should be a separate with most content you have here, and that the appropriate sections should have actual, full (if at all appropriate, maybe e.g. the regular columns can be condensed by giving only the dates they were published?) listings. The other issues (e.g. the impact of his feature stories) can be dealt separately. What this is basically supposed to be is a bibliography, specifically an annotated one (in any case more so than list of works by Joseph Priestley. I'll hide my complete comments to make the discussion less daunting. We really need some more input.
- To sum up, before I make other easier changes to this list of works I would like to know if it is acceptable as a Featured List to begin with. The objection that some of the lists are not comprehensive (basically The New York Post book reviews and the Hamptons column from 95) cannot be rectified. Another objection--not yet made but possible--is that the comprehensive lists of the New York Press works cannot be verified without going through the NYPL archives. Everything else is just re-arranging sections & etc.-BillDeanCarter 21:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It all comes down to how to present the material then. As I've said the material is really as comprehensive as possible, and the matter seems to be how to place it and in which articles. The critical reception section is very important information and I don't want to discard it into another article, cut off from its context. At one extreme I could start hide-buttoning every piece of prose that is glaring, so that the list is a pure list and then even just lob-off the hidden stuff if hide-buttoning doesn't work. At the other extreme I could maybe just send this to WP:FA considering there is so much prose. At this point the goal is really to take this material and press some kind of barnstar onto it so that it can reach a state of completion. If we all work together perhaps we can come to a consensus?-BillDeanCarter (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe we should commune with the soul of this article?-BillDeanCarter (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I understand, so could you clarify why the reception is important to the list of works rather than to the author? In my opinion, this list should be a child of the main article - the important information should go there. This should be a comprehensive list of works, with explanation as needed, but also with the expectation on the reader's part that if they need/want more information, it can be found at the article. Am I missing something here that makes the reception info important to the list? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do mention the controversies in the main article but at a level that is appropriate. There is a reception section of his journalism in 1995 in the List of works by William Monahan just as there is a reception section in the Light House: A Trifle article. Both receptions are briefly summarized in the main William Monahan article at the level of detail that is expected of a main article, and the case should be made that either both receptions are removed from these child articles and placed in the main article or not.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do as you wish, but in my opinion you're still trying to make this an article, not a list. They are distinct animals, and usually don't combine well. I think reception to Light House belongs in that works' article, reception to Monahan's writing goes in his article, and this is a list. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reception to his journalism in 1995 absolutely cannot go in the main article and has already been properly summarized there. I'm left with two solutions: create a new article about his journalism in 1995, or leave the list of works as is. I have tried to make each section in the List of works as comprehensive as possible and to illustrate each section's context. Instead of singling out his journalism in 1995 as an eyesore, let's include it along with the Light House section prose and the "Dining Late with Claude La Badarian" section prose. Those three situations all highlight the importance of the specific list's contents and give proper meaning to the list as a whole. It's this annotation which makes the list lean a little towards article, but that's just the nature of this particular list.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 10:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do as you wish, but in my opinion you're still trying to make this an article, not a list. They are distinct animals, and usually don't combine well. I think reception to Light House belongs in that works' article, reception to Monahan's writing goes in his article, and this is a list. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I do mention the controversies in the main article but at a level that is appropriate. There is a reception section of his journalism in 1995 in the List of works by William Monahan just as there is a reception section in the Light House: A Trifle article. Both receptions are briefly summarized in the main William Monahan article at the level of detail that is expected of a main article, and the case should be made that either both receptions are removed from these child articles and placed in the main article or not.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I understand, so could you clarify why the reception is important to the list of works rather than to the author? In my opinion, this list should be a child of the main article - the important information should go there. This should be a comprehensive list of works, with explanation as needed, but also with the expectation on the reader's part that if they need/want more information, it can be found at the article. Am I missing something here that makes the reception info important to the list? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe we should commune with the soul of this article?-BillDeanCarter (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It all comes down to how to present the material then. As I've said the material is really as comprehensive as possible, and the matter seems to be how to place it and in which articles. The critical reception section is very important information and I don't want to discard it into another article, cut off from its context. At one extreme I could start hide-buttoning every piece of prose that is glaring, so that the list is a pure list and then even just lob-off the hidden stuff if hide-buttoning doesn't work. At the other extreme I could maybe just send this to WP:FA considering there is so much prose. At this point the goal is really to take this material and press some kind of barnstar onto it so that it can reach a state of completion. If we all work together perhaps we can come to a consensus?-BillDeanCarter (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]