Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Unfinished work/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Unfinished work

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

All comments from the previous nomination have been dealt with. violet/riga (t) 13:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Continued Support - A good article has become an even better article. Congratulations to violetriga for having dealt with concerns during the first nomination so rapidly. I'm sure some editors will be concerned with a renomination so quickly, but prior concerns HAVE been actively addressed, and compromises reached where appropriate. --JohnDBuell 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "All comments from the previous nomination have been dealt with." Comment: I find this claim somewhat disingenuous. "Dealt with" from whose point of view? Reverting edits that address real issues with style, redundancy, and verboseness does not make those issues go away. I also think that re-listing a FAC candidate on the same day that an old nomination has been commented on feels like an attempt to bypass objections rather that deal with them. How about waiting a month or so and letting the wiki process take place? Anyways, those are just my two cents -- if most editors think that this work is FA-quality, I won't put up a fuss. --Alex S 16:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The lead is supposed to summarise the article, and yes, that inherently leads to duplication. If you would like to have another go at the lead then please be my guest, but you need to make sure that it is long enough. Indeed, your version of the lead was one of the complaints from someone else in the previous FAC. As for relisting so quickly, I personally don't think it was right for the last one to be taken off, and my attempts to reinstate it were reverted. Today's comment on that FAC was to agree that the criticisms had been met, and thus all of them had been attended to. violet/riga (t) 16:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I've tried to merge our versions of the lead and hope that you won't revert it outright. Here and here are some of the Manual of Style guidelines that I think should be better exemplified by any FA. In the previous nomination, the lead used the word "some" or a variant thereof five times. There should be lot fewer weasel words before this article is considered an FA. As for the lead needing to be long enough: the length of the lead should reflect the amount of content it contains, not a boatload of functionless modifiers or empty phrases like "There are many examples of artists from a variety of fields not completing pieces of work." Length should be a function of content, not just an amount of space on a screen. --Alex S 17:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • "Refers to", the way I used, was an acceptable way of starting an article, and I think you'll find that the use of the word "some" is not weasely. When writing a summary of this sort it is not a problem using "some" and the like. It's not like we can say "476 artists have left a total of 1654 paintings unfinished" - we have to use such modifiers. Sorry, but it would appear that your approach to writing is a little different to mine, but that does not mean that mine is not acceptable for a featured article and I hope you can realise that. violet/riga (t) 18:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, I didn't mean for this discussion to become combative. On the whole you are an excellent writer and researcher, as testified by unfinished work. I hope that my edits were able to help a bit. Good luck on the nomination! --Alex S 20:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Thanks. You've made many positive changes to the text, and I appreciate your contributions and comments. violet/riga (t) 21:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Architecture section not comprehensive, I'm very concerned this area is not correctly researched if you think that Albert Speers plans for Germania aren't notable. I wonder whether a section on 'Unfinished work completed by others' might be a useful vehicle to discuss examples of the extent of incompleteness people have been left to deal with - I'm thinking of unfinshed symphonies - I think there was a fragment of Elgar's recently that was worked into a symphony. It would provide a nice resolution to the article. Oh while I remember - I'm pretty sure that constructivism was supposed to look like it was permanently being constructed so that it would express the communist notions of permanent revolution - Unfinished work as a political mirror.--Mcginnly | Natter 21:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • You seem to want me to include every example you come up with. Sorry but that's just not viable. Seperate spin-off articles (such as unfinished building) can include them, but I am strongly opposed to including too many examples. Elgar's Symphony No. 3 was recently performed at the Proms, yes, but there is already an example of a symphony being completed by someone (Bach's The Art of Fugue, which is arguably more notable). violet/riga (t) 21:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Again, it would be entirely possible to fork off a new article, such as Unfinished musical compositions include a {{main}} in this article, and go from there. Mozart's Requiem (which has been finished on multiple occasions by other composers) would make a stellar example to include in such a forked listing. --JohnDBuell 17:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I'm still ambivalent about this article's approach, and find it difficult to assess. None of the references are to scholars discussing the concept of an "unfinished work" as a whole, and very few of them appear to be specifically devoted to the unfinished nature of the works we've chosen to discuss. I think some of the commentary here and at the last nomination illustrates that; if we're just presenting our own examples of what we think particularly interesting unfinished works are, or choosing which works best illustrate the concepts we have chosen to discuss, we're without any kind of guidance as to whether we are making idiosyncratic choices or not; are we neglecting sculpture or over-emphasising computer software? This isn't just a stability concern, or a Wikipedia:No original research concern, it is also a comprehensiveness concern. If we're not looking at what other people have said about the concept of "unfinished works", aren't we missing something rather important? Jkelly 01:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll point out that a fair number of the references don't seem to be "scholars" at all—there's at least one citation that goes to a geocities page, for example—which is an issue I believe I brought up during the previous nomination. Kirill Lokshin 02:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Object; excellent article, and nearly there. However, Image:ErnestHemingway.jpg does not have a clear copyright status; no grounds are provided for the statement that it is public domain, and the tag used is generic. Finally, the last section of the article dealing with unfinished works and the law is just one paragraph long. Would it be possible to expand on it? A paragraph-long section looks rather messy. Some issues that might be discussed could be, for instance, the copyright status of a centuries-old work that is completed today. Who owns the copyright? Support. Johnleemk | Talk 07:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that suggestion. I am rather ignorant about copyright laws, and so I would like to defer the expansion of that section to somebody that knows what they are talking about. Anybody know of any experts in the field? Regarding the image, it's not an integral part of the article and it can easily be changed. violet/riga (t) 11:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks to help from Finlay McWalter the law section has been expanded - I hope it is what you were after. violet/riga (t) 12:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - the approach taken in this article is rather idiosyncratic (it seems to be a set of examples being used to illustrate the concept, rather than saying anything substantive about what people have said about unfinished works), but I rather like it. Some good examples, and some good pictures as well. The lead section could benefit from a few examples in the first few sentences, as otherwise the lead section is a bit dry and theoretical. I nearly moved on to another article, but once I started reading the examples in the main article, I was hooked and kept reading. I know you are trying to limit the examples, but the sentences on Tolkien's unfinished works should at least mention Unfinished Tales and The History of Middle-earth, as well as The Silmarillion. Adding two more wikilinks to those sentences should be doable. Carcharoth 21:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: Kitch supported this article at its last nomination but has not yet returned for this one. violet/riga (t) 17:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment leaning towards Oppose. I'm not a fan of the approach and the structure of the article. It's practically a list of unfinished works with their reasons. I prefer, if it's possible, that we make such sections describing the "History and evolution of this phenomenon", "how they are perceived by the public and crtitics", "the different reasons", "the law", and finally a set of "examples in each type of media". CG 20:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think the article could work that way. "History and evolution of this phenomenon" wouldn't be logical as it's not something that has conciously evolved, just something that has happened on many unrelated occasions. "How they are perceived by the public and critics" would be somewhat strange given that they are all perceived in many different ways, just like any work. I disagree that the article is a list. violet/riga (t) 20:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong object- 1a, 1b, 2a. For example:
    • The second sentence needs another "have", and contains an idle "of".
    • "There are many reasons for work not being completed." The old noun + gerund construction, which is stricly speaking ungrammatical, and could easily be reworded to avoid the awkwardness.
    • Works are usually stopped when their creator dies,...". Hmmm, that's profound, and since it's in the lead, it will make WP look foolish on the front page. In the same vein, although not such a clanger, is "Novels can remain unfinished because the author continually rewrites the story."
    • "In the days of classical music" - when were they?
Look, it might have been a nice idea, but it has ended up with an air of contrivance. It can't help but be superficial in its whirlwind tour of ... everything ("Johann Sebastian Bach's The Art of Fugue, which breaks off abruptly during Contrapunctus XIV, was first published in the mid 18th century." - So what?) It doesn't really draw clear, useful conclusions about its subject. Tony 08:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I strongly disagree with all your objections here. You want it to fail on three small grammatical points that you yourself could've corrected faster than writing about them here? You quote a sentence about The Art of Fugue but don't then mention that its inclusion there is then expanded by a further sentence all about how it was completed more faithfully than normal. violet/riga (t) 09:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rejoinder. If you strongly disagree with all of my objections, you'd better come up with compelling and specific reasons for both the micro and macro issues that I've raised. It's odd that you acknowledge that some of my points are indeed "grammatical points", while at the same time strongly disagreeing with them. Whether they're small or large, problems in the writing need to be fixed if this is going to be a FA. Your attitude suggests that you don't care about these blemishes.
But more broadly, you appear to misunderstand that my objection was backed up by "examples", as I stated. I'm objecting to the substandard prose throughout the article, not just the "three small grammatical points". To go through the whole text pointing out every problem would take many pages here, and more time than I have. And reviewers are under no obligation to edit articles themselves: that is your job.
Since you raise the musical aspect, I went to that section. The first part I read was: "Some compositions are finished "in the style of" the original composer, with someone that is highly familiar with their work adopting their writing style and continuing the musical tone. A mathematical approach can be used in some instances, calculating the intended appearance of the symphony." Here's another awkward noun + gerund ("with someone ... objecting"). Who is someone? Is it a person, or an object, as you indicate with "that". How do "writing style" and "tone" differ, since you made the distinction? What on earth do you mean by "A mathematical approach", and by "calculating the intended appearance of the symphony"? Appearance? Why now just "symphony"? This is most unsatisfactory, and repeated in many parts of the article.
As for your attempt to rebut my point about The Art of Fugue, the "further sentence all about how it was completed more faithfully than normal" is just a bald assertion that some mathematical formula was concocted that allows for a faithful completion of the movement, which IMV is a fanciful assertion, worse for the absence of supporting details.
The article can't possibly pass as is. It's superficial, begs important questions, lacks comprehensiveness, and is not written to professional standards. Tony 01:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The sentence that you go into depth about is an example of you being very picky and, put simply, plain wrong. That sentence (except, perhaps for "who/that") is fine to me. "Writing style" and "tone" do not have to be different and simply allow the sentence to flow better. "A mathematical approach" is clearly one that uses mathematics to figure out the remainder of the piece rather than one that doesn't. "Appearance" is fine in this context as it refers how the work appears to us (and that doesn't necessarily mean visually). "Symphony" is used to avoid the repetition of the word "composition".
As for The Art of Fugue: It is not a bold assumption. I take it you've read the reference? Given the way that text is written I think it is a fair statement. It doesn't need further details because that's what The Art of Fugue is for.
Returning to your original sentence complaints: "Works are usually stopped when their creator dies" is a valid sentence because the work can be continued by a co-creator. "Novels can remain unfinished because the author continually rewrites the story" is fine and I can't even see what your objection is there. "In the days of classical music" does not need to assert a date or year because that is mostly irrelevant. "There are many reasons for work not being completed" I have no problem with. The second sentence has had a "have" added, but the "of" should stay.
But more broadly, you appear to misunderstand that this article is backed up by "examples", as I stated. It is not superficial nor does it lack comprehensiveness. violet/riga (t) 07:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


I see, my point is "plain wrong", but ... oh, the who/that thing is right. I'm afraid that "writing style" and "tone" do very much have to be different if they're both to be retained in that sentence; otherwise the writing is fluff, and no, including both items does not make the sentence flow better. You're misrepresenting whatever notion it is that a movement from The Art of Fugue could be better completed using a mathematical approach. Can you enlighten us as to how, exactly? The readers should not have to go to the reference to clear up such a wild assertion. "It doesn't need further details because that's what The Art of Fugue is for." What are you talking about? "Works are usually stopped ..." is a ridiculous assertion, as is the "rewrites" statement.

I can't be bothered to go on. Your responses seem to take the form "You're wrong" in each case. There's about as much substance to them as there is to the article. It can't possibly be promoted to FA status, which requires "compelling, even brilliant" prose. Tony 12:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This article does not need to go into detail about specific works, just use them as a illustrative examples. The Art of Fugue is used as an example of how mathematics can be used and it explains that in as much detail as is needed in this article. violet/riga (t) 13:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I challenge you, or any reviewer here, to explain what on earth it means, and how mathematics could be used to complete the fugue in a superior way, as you're claiming. As a musician, I can't see how this could be correct, so I'd like an explanation. Tony 16:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Because a permutation matrix was used to determine the remainder of the music. Most unfinished works don't have such an obvious way to complete them. violet/riga (t) 16:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I refuse to believe that a mathematical process can determine "the remainder of the music". It appears to be way off the mark, which is why I think it's inappropriate to make a bald statement such as this in the article. I'm pretty certain that on reading the source, we'd have to back down from this simple assertion. Tony 04:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't say that the mathematical process determines "the remainder of the music". It explicitly says that the discovery of a permutation matrix allows us to "predict how the piece would appear" and thus complete the remainder of the music more faithfully than if one were not available. Sorry, but I really thought that was obvious. violet/riga (t) 12:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
You said: "Because a permutation matrix was used to determine the remainder of the music." Determine ... Tony 12:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but not in the article. And by that I clearly mean the structure of the piece, no more. violet/riga (t) 15:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, this is the kind of thing I'm objecting to in the article. And in any case, what do you mean by "structure"? The sequence of entries, in terms of voice and other attributes? If so, say so in the article. I'd still be suspicious, though. Tony 15:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
If people want the full details then they look at the related article, not the summary that merely uses it as an example of how mathematical processes can sometimes be used. violet/riga (t) 15:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
That's not the point, which is that the article is superficial in many ways. Tony 15:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The article is a summary and should not go into detail. There's a massive difference. violet/riga (t) 17:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the rule is "unnecessary detail". When the text makes a radical claim, some supporting detail is required. Otherwise, remove the claim. If, in an article on the Moon, there's a claim that you can travel there already via a wormhole, some scientific support is required. Tony 01:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
What a poor analogy. violet/riga (t) 09:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment—Just to reiterate, the lead needs about 30 edits, and even then would have problems. The title of the article is hopelessly ambiguous (Untitled works would have been better.) The rest of the article needs serious surgery. Let me know if you want yet more random examples. Tony 08:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "Untitled works"? What? That's a different concept and it breaks the MoS plural title rule. violet/riga (t) 09:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
So ... which untitled work are you referring to? If you're referring to untitled work out there, in general, it's just vague. Tony 14:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You seem to have a bet each way in the second para of the lead:
"There are many reasons for work not being completed. Works are usually stopped when their creator dies, although some, aware of their failing health, make sure that they set up the project for completion. If the work involves other people, such as a cast of actors or the subject of a portrait, it may be halted because of their unavailability. Projects that are too grandiose might never have been finished,..."
Work or works, which is it to be? The first sentence here is awkward and ungrammatical. To make the meaning clear, you need to end the second sentence with "completion by other people", and to insert "artists" after "some"; I still think that the first, bald clause is unwise, but you haven't taken any notice of that. "Make sure that they" is redundant. Actors aren't going to halt the creation of a script or play—what does it mean? "Too grandiose"? I'd say that if a work is just "grandiose", it probably should be gagged. Too grandiose for what?
The problem is that the whole text requires recasting to fix these types of problems: in a nutshell, (1) vagueness, (2) the begging of questions, and (3) poor writing, from a technical perspective. Tony 15:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
How come you're talking about untitled work again? That is an entirely different concept to unfinished work. You are also going on about the use of plurals (work/works) that really is irrelevant. Your comments about prose are entirely based on your own idea of how things should be written. Sorry, but on a project such as this you are going to continually find people that write in a different style to yourself. You call some of it "redundant" and I can only assume that you are too used to writing technical essays and not something intended for a general audience that prefers something that flows well. violet/riga (t) 20:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for the "untitled"—don't know what's making me slip into that word. The singular/plural is relevant, because they bring different sets of meanings, whether in the title or in the second para. I'm still uncomfortable with the ambiguity in the title ("work"), but you were right to raise the issue of the MoS constraints on the use of plurals in titles, of which I was unaware. To respond to your major point, I write and edit in a range of registers, not just "technical essays", as you put it, and while a minority of my edits arise from personal preferences, most are technically necessary. I've been careful here to talk about just technically necessary fixes to the prose. You need to remove the redundancies I pointed out above and to insert my suggested items, or those sentences will be vague and difficult to read. It's the "general audience" I have in mind in showing how the prose can be turned into something that "flows well". Tony 00:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I reviewed the old nom, and I'm not fully convinced that objections raised there have been addressed (in particular, concerns raised by JKelly, Alex S and Krill). I typically focus on references, and my main concern is with the sources used. The inline citations are sparse, and include sources such as personal websites, blogs, an AOL member website, and a Geocities website, with a strong reliance on websources, and a lack of scholarly sources. The article even uses another Wiki article as a source, which is not in agreement with WP:V and WP:RS (circular reasoning, using a Wiki to cite a Wiki). It is hard for me to accept that this article can overcome its elusive subject matter unless it relies on the highest quality scholarly sources. Per concerns raised by several other reviewers, comprehensiveness seems to be an issue. Sandy 02:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • 57 references is sparse? Almost every statement is referenced, especially those that would require a citation. There are 5 sources that aren't web-based, but there is no necessity for an article to have any printed references. I can't find what you are referring to with another wiki article being used as a citation. As for the comprehensiveness, I can't understand how people can say that - it is not supposed to be a complete list of unfinished work, or even to list all the most popular unfinished pieces - it is merely about what is unfinished work in various mediums and reasons for them not being completed. violet/riga (t) 13:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, I misread this reference "Urban Legends Reference Pages. 7 December 1997. "Brandon Lee". Accessed 9 August 2006," struck that objection above. Sandy 21:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. I've been uncomfortable with this ever since it was nominated, but couldn't put a finger on why. Jkelly has pretty much done it above. You've chosen an ill defined subject and seem to be getting frustrated when people don't agree with your approach. Most of the sources are simply supporting the examples of works used. There are far too few directly addressing the concept. If there don't exist many, then perhaps that should be a clue that it's not an appropriate topic. If there are more high quality sources that directly speak to the topic and various aspects of it then they should be hunted down and consulted and the article should be restructured to fully focus on the concept of unfinished works, using a few examples only where needed. There isn't a need to focus on so many classes of examples. - Taxman Talk 23:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The only sources about unfinished works are the ones about particular examples, not general ones. That doesn't mean that this is "not an appropriate topic" - far from it. violet/riga (t) 14:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Taxman has put his finger on what I wanted to say in addition to the microproblems in the prose. Tony 15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah it does. It means your compilation is original research. I don't mean to be difficult or discourage your contributions, but I think that if no sources directly addressing the topic exist then you've missed the mark about what an encyclopedia is for in this case. If those sources do exist, the article needs to be refocused around them instead of being a list of examples. There are so many core topics we do need to cover better we don't need to push the boundaries of what can be covered. That's just not what we are for. - Taxman Talk 15:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Got to disagree there. It is not original research, it is an original compilation. Just because the topic hasn't been directly covered by another source doesn't mean that we can't compile various sources together. One thing about this place is that we can be a resource where others don't exist. You think that means it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia? I disagree - it is a big thing of what we are about. violet/riga (t) 16:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
If none of your sources support your topic you have original research. QED. All the stuff in the middle that's not direct conclusions from sources on the examples is OR. Of course you can compile conclusion from various sources, but you can't come to conclusions that aren't in them. Your statement that that is a big thing we are about represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the original research and verifiability policy. As a consequence of efforts to avoid complete garbage (certainly not saying this is, just what we're trying to avoid) we are here only to synthesize already published material. And we don't need to argue here about that. That is a long held rock solid conclusion from extensive discussions around the verifiability and original research policies. - Taxman Talk 18:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
You'd be hard-pushed to find anything in that article that is OR or is not verifiable from the multitude of sources given. It's like giving a list of World Cup results using different different sources for each match - is it then OR to place these matches together? Certainly not. Then you can say that one match had the highest score - you don't need a source for such a thing. As I said above, the compilation of material is totally acceptable, and to draw obvious conclusions (ie. people sometimes die before completing work in different mediums) is fine. violet/riga (t) 07:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Object. I've looked through the article (along with the comments here). In my opinion it's harmless enough, as it stands. The style, while not significantly worse than the standard we normally see around Wikipedia, is by no means scintillating. As for the content... look, I think it's a bit of fun, but I just don't consider it suitable for featured-article status, no matter how proficient the treatment of such a topic could be made with the editorial makeover that it currently needs. – Noetica 12:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)