Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pale Fire/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 not promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.

[edit] Pale Fire

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is very well written, well-cited, concise, and it provides a lot of useful insight into a novel by one of the 20th century's best writers.Athene cunicularia (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. Here are some issues:
  • Theres a {{fact}} tag; this needs to be sourced, but there are also some other challengeable statements, particularly this paragraph: "The book is also full of references to culture, nature, and literature. Some have been greatly emphasized by critics; others may be trifles.(sources) Many feel the book is more enjoyable if the reader deciphers or pursues these references independently.(sources) "
  • "At first glance, Pale Fire is the publication of a 999-line poem in four cantos ("Pale Fire") by a famous American poet, John Shade. " Then what is it at second glance?
  • The one lonesome line in "Explanation of the title" needs to be merged into another paragraph or dealt with.
  • the lead should contain another paragraph, as per WP:LEAD to summarize the entire article.
  • Reception; what did critics say about it? You have only one reference in the lead.

--David Fuchs (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose While I am happy that the editors have taken it upon themselves to work on this article, for Pale Fire is one of the twentieth century's most important novels, I'm afraid that the article doesn't meet the featured article criteria yet:
  • The structure of the article can be improved. For example, the material in "Explanation of the title" should be integrated into the article as a whole. There is not enough material in this section for an entire section. The "Interpretations" section should have enough material in it to allow for subsections.
  • The "Interpretations" section is discussed in vague terms throughout The lack of research here limits the article.
  • Ex: Some readers concentrate on the apparent story, focusing on traditional aspects of fiction such as the relationship among the characters.[8][9] They may make a case that Kinbote is parasitic on Shade, or that Shade's poem is mediocre and Kinbote, the inventor of Zembla, is a true genius.[citation needed] In 1997, Brian Boyd published a much-discussed study[10] arguing that the ghost of John Shade influenced Kinbote's contributions. He later expanded this essay into a book, in which he also argues that Hazel's ghost induced Kinbote to say things to Shade that inspired Shade's poem. - The specifics are missing from this paragraph - the "how".
  • Ex: Still other readers de-emphasize any sort of "real story" and may doubt the existence of such a thing. In the interplay of allusions and thematic links, they find a multifaceted image of English literature,[19] criticism,[15] literary idolatry,[23] politics,[23] or some other topic. - All of these topics need to be explained in much more detail.
  • The "Interpretations" section is limited to a series of readings of the characters. What about political readings, for example? What other kinds of interpretations are there?
  • There is no "Genre" or "Style" section. The "Plot summary" makes it clear that this work is written in a very unusual style - this must be discussed in the terms that scholars have discussed it.
  • There is also no "Themes" section - this might be optional, due to how the "Interpretations" section is structured, but it is definitely something to consider.
  • There is no "Reception" section, explaining how the work was received when it was published, and no "Legacy" or "Literary influence", explaining its role in literary history.
  • The "Allusions and references" section, in its current state, does not educate the reader. Such sections are always dubious, but, if included, they always have to explain the importance of the allusions and references. Moreover, they should not be presented as lists, but as coherent paragraphs.
  • It looks from the notes like the editors have amassed some good sources, but for a featured article on a novel of the stature of Pale Fire, much more needs to be done. Quite a bit of scholarship has been written on this book and it should be fully utilized to flesh out the article.

I have confidence that, over time, this article can become a good one. The editors just need to spend time researching and expanding it. They might also take a look at some of the other novel FAs, such as Uncle Tom's Cabin or Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman. Awadewit | talk 21:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As you may have seen, I took the comment on a "reception" section to heart and was lucky enough to find a source on line. Since I'm interested in improving the article, I'll probably follow some of the other suggestions. However, as I'm not interested in the rating, I'll choose the ones that are important to me. So far, none of the other editors seems to be interested in the rating either—Athene cunicularia (why do I want to italicize that? :-) hasn't edited the article under that name, apparently a refreshing change from people nominating their own articles—so some of the suggestions above will probably have to wait for other editors to take an interest.

To respond to some specific points:

  • I totally agree about sourcing the statements without sources, whether tagged or not. It may be time to delete a few of them.
  • I also addressed "at first glance", now that you pointed out the problem.
  • I don't see a problem with the one-paragraph sentence on the "pale his uneffectual fire" line, though I could add that Boyd has made much of it.
  • At present I have no idea how to summarize the article, though I do favor leads with summaries so readers uninterested in detail can get some kind of idea. Attempts by others are welcome (of course).
  • I put in the "Explanation of the title" section as suggested at WikiProject Novels, but at the time it seemed serendipitous, as the agreed-on facts about the title are hard to work into the competing theories. I'm not sure I know a better way to handle it.
  • I don't understand the comment that the "how" is missing from the "Some readers concentrate" part. Is this, for example, how Hazel influenced Kinbote, or how Boyd makes his case, or both? In any case, it strikes me as too much detail for an encyclopedia article. Likewise I don't see a good reason to explain the theories listed in the next section, say Myers's theory, which as far as I can tell no one believes. What has limited my contributions here is only partly a lack of research; in some areas I could say more, but I believe most readers won't want such a level of detail, and those that do can follow the references.
  • Explaining "the how": How is Kinbote parasitic on Shade? How is Shade's poem mediocre? How did Shade influence Kinbote's contributions? The reader needs details. Yes, this is an encyclopedia, but it is very hard to follow this description without the details. Awadewit | talk 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If no one believes Myers's theory, why is it included here? Is it a "fringe" theory of literary criticism? Usually, we try and include the "standard" readings of novels. I like to think of it as: What would be taught in a undergraduate class? Awadewit | talk 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • As for political readings, I don't know of any. That word is from the jacket copy of a recent edition. I suppose it would be good to find one (not that I'd put much stock in it) or delete the word.
  • I suggest more research, then. There undoubtedly are some. Political readings have been a popular kind of literary criticism for the last thirty years or so. Awadewit | talk 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Genre—though I'm responsible for the dubious "Literary" in the infobox, what little I know about literary theory suggests that this novel is not in a genre, that is, one cannot come to it with expectations of what one will find or how to read it. I hope someone who knows more than I do will take this question on.
  • Again, more research will help you. The infobox is irrelevant (and deceiving, as you can tell). Books and articles written by literary scholars will explain the genre (even if it is it's own genre). Awadewit | talk 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Style—is this about the unusual narrative structure, or Kinbote's prose and Shade's poetry, or both? Is someone going to have to read Pekka Tammi?
  • It is about whatever scholars focus on - that is the key here. What do scholars focus on. In literary articles, we are restricted to what literary scholars have written about. They are our sources. What elements of the style do they think are important? Awadewit | talk 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Themes—is this like the Relation of Art and Reality, or the plums mentioned here and there, or both? If it's something like the plums, I think one example of a theme, with a mention that there are many others, would be enough.
  • Yes, that is the idea, but again, all of this must be drawn from scholarly sources. We can't just include what we want, as that would be original research. Awadewit | talk 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I thought literary influence was out of style since it's so hard to discuss objectively. (I shouldn't believe everything I read on the Internet.) A cursory search of the Web doesn't turn up anything, and I don't know of anything. Has anybody ever said his or her fiction was influenced by PF, or made a good case that someone else's was?
  • Literary influence is not out of style, as far as I know! Like I explain below, the web won't help you when it comes to literature. You (or someone) is going to have do serious library work. :) Awadewit | talk 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't imagine a full discussion of all those allusions and references. For just the one to Frost, here is a whole essay (which should probably be cited), and I could go on for some paragraphs about the significance of Frost in PF without saying anything that's in that essay. But I have no desire to layer and frost an unambiguous encyclopedia article into the monstrous semblance of a monograph (see note to lines 47–48). The list of allusions wasn't my idea, but I think it does educate the reader by showing the variety of external allusions and giving links. I must admit, though, that it may not be very helpful to include something like "lemniscate", since the reader can just look up the word.
  • Well, I wouldn't discuss all of the allusions, anyway. (Following the WikiProject Novel guidelines too slavishly is a recipe for disaster.) Lists of allusions don't educate the reader, because they usually don't know the allusions (I know this from teaching literature to college students, sadly). Again, I think any discussion of allusions should be focused around the scholarship. See Ulysses (poem) for an excellent example of this. Awadewit | talk 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope for replies to the above and for further comments. Even if I don't agree with them, someone else may (or you can apply them yourself). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The key to answering many of these questions is research. Unfortunately, most academics in the humanities don't publish on the internet. You will have go to the library or - if you have access to a university library - you can do research on the "deep web", as they say. For example, you (or someone interested in researching this article) needs to use the MLA database, which lists all of the articles and books published in literary criticism. Typing in key words like 'Pale Fire" and "Nabokov" will go a long way to getting you excellent sources. The second database I would try is JSTOR. Many excellent public libraries have these and all university research libraries do. Awadewit | talk 09:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.