Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Unfinished work/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Unfinished work

Renominated
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Unfinished work (2) violet/riga (t) 13:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This article explains the primary reasons behind creative works remaining unfinished, giving (prominent) examples for each in different media. May not be the longest article, but it doesn't really need to be as it covers the topic to a good enough degree. Any further detail and lists of works can be placed in subarticles. violet/riga (t) 20:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Support How ironic that something on unfinished work can be so complete. --Kitch 21:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Literature: No mention of Kafka? No Proust? No Stephen Hero? Nothing at all on sculpture (the Kouros on Naxos only survived because it was unfinished)? These are some of the very first things I think of when I think of an unfinished work. What is our criteria for including a mention here? The "See also" section could be incorporated into the text or removed. Jkelly 21:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Kafka is worthy of inclusion in a similar way to the mention of Orson Welles, so I'll get to that one soon. Proust and Stephen Hero don't seem to add anything different to the article that isn't covered by other examples already. There is mention of sculpture, but I hadn't noticed that there weren't any examples; the Kouros on Naxos aren't detailed in any Wikipedia article, but I will look into some sources. The criteria for inclusion are a) it adds an example to illustrate something different, b) it is a very famous example of incomplete work. I want to avoid having too many examples and turning this into a list (categories or a list article can do that). Thanks for your comments and suggestions - I'll hopefully address the two mentioned soon. violet/riga (t) 08:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Kafka has been added. I can't find many scholarly sources about the unfinished Kouros, only tourists mentioning them from their travels, but I haven't looked too in depth yet. violet/riga (t) 09:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm a little unsure about this whole approach, to be honest. Does it make sense for us, as Wikipedia editors, to be saying "This is an important example of an unfinished work / That is not an important example of an unfinished work."? Looking at the notes, I don't see a single one that is a discussion of unfinished works as a whole. Jkelly 20:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm not entirely sure of what you're saying here. The article gives examples that illustrate the point being made. The most important examples found that illustrate those points are presented. It is not an article that should give a list of all the unfinished works that exist. violet/riga (t) 22:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — I think more could be added. Classical works such as the Aeneid was never finished. There is some discussion regarding whether or not The Tale of Genji was unfinished as well. Nietzsche was also known for not finishing many of his planned philosophical works. I'll list more if I can think of them. Lemegeton 11:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • But do they add anything different to the article? I would think they should be in a category or list. violet/riga (t) 12:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Where's Hemingway? --Neutralitytalk 18:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Are you going to start keeping lists of other unfinished, yet published works? P.G. Wodehouse's Sunset at Blandings and Douglas Adams's Salmon of Doubt both come to mind. --JohnDBuell 04:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • They will be in the relevant category (Category:Unfinished books) or, if more detail is required, a list. This unfinished work article should not contain a massive list of unfinished work. violet/riga (t) 08:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh I agree with that completely. I just wondered if you had a page or sandbox or 'holding area' to add works to for later list inclusion. --JohnDBuell 11:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
        • There's a bit of something on the talk page. violet/riga (t) 16:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No mention of Architecture whatsoever. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Now that I think of it, the Laws section could also explore the legal situation of unfinished works in other countries. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
      • It's not supposed to have architecture - that comes under unfinished building. As for the laws, well I've never seen any explicit unfinished copyright laws outside of the one given. violet/riga (t) 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't see the value at this point of having a separate article for unfinished buildings. Given that at this point the article is only a stub you could fit it here, and if the section ever grows too large it could go back to its own. As for the laws, you should probably move the paragraph to the lead or a footnote. The section is too short and seems out of place after the discussion of unfinished works in different areas. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Sorry but I disagree about the buildings section. That is going to undergo a large expansion soon and doesn't really come under the criteria of "creative works" that this article is about. The laws section could be demoted into just a note, but nothing should appear in the lead that doesn't appear in the article itself, and I think it is relevant enough to have its own section. I will write a note about it being unusual. violet/riga (t) 15:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Are you telling me that architecture, long considered one of the fine arts, has no element of creativity of its own? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
              • Comment: Why not a compromise here: An "Architecture" sub-heading, followed by {{main|Unfinished building}}, a paragraph or two about unfinished buildings and structures (would you include things for which plans were laid, but barely started - if so, a heck of a lot of Speer's designs for Berlin could be included), and then let the Unfinished building article do the rest (and remove it from the See also heading). --JohnDBuell 17:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
                • I think that architecture is a creative art, but that building isn't necessarily. It would be good therefore to have an architecture subheading and that can indeed be {main}ed to unfinished building. I might have time to work on it tonight. violet/riga (t) 17:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
                  • I've played around at something slightly different and added a "Construction and engineering" section. Please take a look and see what you think of that. violet/riga (t) 22:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
                    • I've expanded the section quite significantly now - please take a look. violet/riga (t) 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • (reindenting) Support. Good compromise. I still feel a bit uneasy about the Laws section, though. Overall this is a very nice article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I feel foolish, I forgot I hadn't actually voted before :) --JohnDBuell 17:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. Interesting subject, but I don't think this article is very well-written. In my opinion, there are three areas in particular that need work:
  1. Overuse of qualifiers: In the lead alone we find (in order) "most commonly," "sometimes," "can be," "sometimes," "may refer," "many examples," "many people," "various reasons," "some," "many," "some," "may be," and "some." Obviously, it's difficult to cover such a broad and disparate subject without making blanket statements or using work-around words like these. In the rest of the article, the word "often" is used nine times. Many readers often find that the overuse of qualifiers can be annoying.
  2. Lack of focus: The article tends to jump abruptly from one unfinished work to another. The two paragraphs in the "Science and philosophy" section seem to have nothing to do with one another. Another example: "One of the earliest and most prominent examples is Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War, which breaks off in mid-sentence. D.H. Lawrence drafted and abandoned Mr Noon in 1921, the first part of which was then published posthumously in 1934 as part of the A Modern Lover collection."
  3. Redundancy: Certain themes are hammered away at throughout the article to the point of excess. Examples:
Some projects are simply too grandiose and would never be likely to be finished... The size of the project can be such that a story is never finished.
If the work involves other people, such as a cast of actors or the subject of a portrait, the work may be stopped because of their unavailability... A piece of work may not be completed if the subject becomes unavailable, such as part of the landscape changing or even the person being painted dying.
--Alex S 20:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry but I have to disagree on most of your points there...
      1. To me the lead reads fine, and "often" is not overused given the fact that the we simply can't use too many other ways of writing it.
      2. You mention only one part that is not written verbosely, and one which I intend to fix (incidentally added by someone else).
      3. Sorry but the lead is supposed to summarise the whole article, and thus some things are obviously going to be repeated.
    • violet/riga (t) 22:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't get me wrong, this is a very good article -- it's interesting, well-referenced, covers a wide range of examples, and uses images well. However, as per your request on my talk page to respond to your comment, I'm going to have to maintain my opposition to FA status. Point #1 seems to be simply a difference of taste. In #2 you recast my objection as if I wanted the writing to be more verbose. This is false -- I think it should be less verbose, with fewer repeted phrases and words (see #3 and #1). To re-explain my objection: parts of the article read like a "List of unfinished works" with the entries listed horizontally, in sentences. Transitions might help fix this problem. As for #3, I understand your point. Still, part of the beauty of English is that you can say the same thing twice without repeating a single word. Nonetheless, one of our language's most admirable qualities is its ability to communicate identical ideas in completely different fashions. You get the idea. --Alex S 23:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I still disagree with what you are saying and think it's more of a style thing, which I can't really see as a reason to object. Your call though. violet/riga (t) 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Alex S has copyedited the article, and I hope he will now be happy enough to change his vote. violet/riga (t) 14:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - for reasons given by Rune Welsh. Construction and engineering are not intrinsically architecture although they can be. To elucidate - here's Le Corbusier on the subject "You employ stone, wood and concrete, and with these materials you build houses and palaces: that is construction. Ingenuity is at work. But suddenly you touch my heart, you do me good. I am happy and I say: "This is beautiful. That is Architecture. Art enters in......" Architecture does not necessarily have to be a building either - it can be a paper project. Also I think you need to disambiguate certain Follies which are designed to look like romantic ruins (but are 'finished' in the sense that that is how the designer intended them.--Mcginnly | Natter 17:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I have no doubt that there are many architectural projects that have been started on paper but scrapped, but how many of these are notable? Have famous architects made unfinished plans that are famous? If so, then it could be worthy of mention. Sure, I know very little about that subject but I've searched around and not found any unfinished architectural plans that merit inclusion. violet/riga (t) 17:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added a passing mention of follies. violet/riga (t) 18:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Architecture has been incorporated to a much greater deal now. violet/riga (t) 20:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • There is now quite a bit about this area of unfinished work, but the main article is unfinished building and I would rather not overload this article with one artform. violet/riga (t) 14:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Meh, seeing this blink on and off the FAC list is somewhat bizarre; but that's between you and the director ;-) As for the article, object:
    1. The biggest problem is the architecture section, which focuses on banal trivia (bridges in Wisconsin and so forth) rather than notable unfinished buildings. The coverage of unfinished monumental architecture is entirely missing: no Nazi architecture, no Sagrada Familia, no Cologne Cathedral or Strasbourg Cathedral, no Palace of Soviets, and so forth. I understand that space here is somewhat limited (although the article is still quite short, for such a major topic), but even so, the examples used should be the more notable ones.
    2. The lead should be made significantly longer; at the very least, a general overview of different types of unfinished works (works never finished, works finished by others, works finished much later, works only designed/proposed but never started, etc.) is needed.
    3. Some strange omissions in the literature section (no mention of Honoré de Balzac!), but this is more minor. I'm surprised there's almost nothing about unfinished series and sequels written by other authors here, though.
    4. There seems to be some confusion about the definition of "creative works": if engineering is included (e.g. ships, software), why is there no detailed discussion of unfinished designs outside of civil engineering. Leonardo da Vinci comes to mind here.
    5. While I don't advocate a full "In fiction" section or anything of the sort, not mentioning the Tower of Babel is a critical omission, in my view.
    6. The mention of photographs in the "Unfinished work and the law" section is very jarring, given that there has been no discussion of that particular artform earlier (and it's not at all clear, to the casual reader, how a photograph can be unfinished).
    7. Finally, I'm a bit concerned about the level of referencing. The article is fairly sparsely cited; and, where citations are given, they are mostly to online sources. Given the nature of the topic, I would have expected a much heftier use of traditional scholarly works as sources. Kirill Lokshin 15:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking the time to comment. I've rebulleted your list into numeric form so that I can more easily reply - I hope that's ok.
      1. I don't agree that the given examples are "banal trivia". Yes, the bridge example isn't amazing, but it was to illustrate a construction that wasn't simply a building. The ones you list: Nazi architecture (no more relevant than others and not mentioned in that article); Sagrada Familia (will be added as an example of ongoing work) [added]; Cologne Cathedral [added] or Strasbourg Cathedral (could be mentioned because of the duration, but not strictly "unfinished" now); Palace of Soviets (could be mentioned but not massively important. I don't want to overpopulate with examples, and we could argue all day about which ones merit inclusion.
      2. The lead was shrunk by another editor, and I have restored it to its more appropriate size.
      3. Honoré de Balzac has the most unfinished works I've seen, but I'm not willing to assert that it is the most in the article. [I've added mention of this, but I've not found a reference for it anywhere, including fr:wiki] Other than that, I could use him as an example of plenty of unfinished pieces. As for unfinished series of books, there is The Canterbury Tales but if there is another good example it could be added.
      4. There could be mention of other non civil engineering works, but again I don't wish to overload the article (nor do I wish to mention Da Vinci all the time, though he is a great example).
      5. I agree that we should be wary of "in fiction" sections, and I couldn't decide whether to go with Tower of Babel or not. It probably is worthy of a mention somewhere. [I've added it to the See also section, which I think is the best compromise]
      6. Personally I don't think that it is too unclear about the photograph.
      7. I can't agree with you here. There are 39 different external references used and virtually all parts of the article are referenced. I don't think that printed works are necessary either.
    • violet/riga (t) 18:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Updated using this colour after a few changes to the article. violet/riga (t) 21:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Okay, focusing on the more salient points.
1. The reason I mentioned Nazi architecture (here thinking primarily of Speer's various Berlin designs) and the Palace of Soviets is because they are good examples of a type of unfinished work that is almost entirely glossed over in the article, but which is very common when dealing with monumental architecture: work left unfinished because of the collapse of the state or social order for which the work was to be a monument. If you don't like the modern examples, you could go with something like the Olympeion instead; but I think it's wrong to omit this facet entirely.
3. The Dune series comes to mind; but that might be too trivial here.
4. I think some examples of pure engineering might be appropriate. A non-Da Vinci example that comes to mind is Project Babylon; but that might be too obscure.
6. It's not clear to me, anyways. Are they talking about things like multiple exposure photographs? Kirill Lokshin 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
1. I've added the Palace of Soviets
3. Not too trivial - it works well as an example
4. Project Babylon certainly isn't too obscure (at least to me), and has been incorporated into the article
6. I've slightly reworded it, so I hope that helps.
violet/riga (t) 23:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks much better now; nice work! Kirill Lokshin 00:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)