Talk:Gândirea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Gândirea was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: July 18, 2007

Contents

[edit] Protochronist?

The following external link was deleted by User:Dahn:

with the peremptory explanation: "(rm exyternal link to protochronist site - see its "mother" at http://www.enciclopedia-dacica.ro/)". Sorry, I don't understand the jargon -- could you please explain the reason, in layman's language? A google search for "protochronist" yielded only 46 hits, and no definition. Wikipedia has no page on protochronist. I understand the Greek ethymology of this compound word (proto=before + chronos=time), but I don't know how widely used it is, and why applying this rather esoteric label to a web page (or web site) ipso facto disqualifies it -- is this a Wikipedia policy? I mean, can one exclude info by applying such labels, with no further elaboration? I'm asking this since I was the one who added the external link here, as reference for some edits I did (dates when Gândirea was founded, and when it moved to Bucharest). I was looking for that specific info, and this was the only article that I could find that produced it for me. I just read several paragraphs that pertained to Gândirea, and they seemed quite matter-of-fact and to the point. What's the problem with that? Thanks. Turgidson 01:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I searched around, and found an article on Protochronism. (By the way, shouldn't protochronist redirect there, just in case someone not familiar with the jargon looks up the word?) At any rate, yes, a bit silly -- I remember all that Burebista/Zamolxes stuff from Ceauşescu's days -- but rather harmless, looks to me. So let me then repeat the question: why go delete valid references from such sites? This smacks of censorship to me, and that's a much worse memory from Ceauşescu's days than anything having to do with the Decebal cult. I personally do not think of Cluj as Cluj-Napoca, or Turnu Severin as Drobeta Turnu-Severin (so I guess that makes me a non-protochronist par excellence?), but then again, it doesn't really bother me, one learns to live and let live. As the French say, il faut de tout pour faire un monde. Also, the protochronist label is rather parochial, if I may say so... Turgidson 02:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well:

  • the link is in Romanian, so its necessity in the eyes of Anglo-Saxon users is marginal
  • no matter what reasons it was deleted for, the link is still available on the web for those who think that they need to see what Dacia Nemuritoare thinks about 1930s Romanian culture (just as they can easily find out what the Iron Guard thinks about Gândirea)
  • the info is only partly directly relevant to Gândirea, and, from what I can see, the text is a half truth
  • all of the info was since supplanted by more detailed and accurate references

Taking in view these, I suppose that there is little reason to lead readers to a controversial site: they are likely to find nothing there that would add to this article, not even a particular Dacianist POV on Gândirea. Otherwise, it would appear that wikipedia endorses information present on the site (even more so when it uses it as an authority for what are not the source's primary interests). Dahn 11:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

IMO, your arguments, Dahn, for deleting a legitimate and informative source are transgressing any limit of common sense and incivility, not to mention Wikipedia principles and rules. What you do, Dahn, is theorizing vandalism. You simply arrogate the right of arbitrary decide what Wikipedia readers have to read and to which sites have they to be “led to”. Your answer to Turgidson is really a monument of arrogance, arbitrary and bad faith. I am, as always, anytime ready to elaborate on my accusations. Please try to understand that Wikipedia is not a field where you can freely exert your caprices. I am keen to keep a civil and very calm tone on the Wiki, but this time you finally succeed to make me lose the distance. I find your argumentation in favour of deleting a legitimate and informative source profoundly revolting and outrageous. Revolting because you’re trying to dominate and humiliate co-editors through abusive reverts and absurd and arbitrary arguments. Outrageous because you are breaking the basics of Wikipedia spirit. Please refrain from behaving in a disruptive way. --Vintila Barbu 19:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Stop it. Dahn 19:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


No Dahn, you should stop behaving outrageously disruptive. This article is not your propriety. You have no right to decide what is interesting and relevant for the readers. Your behaviour is arbitrary, arrogant and brutal: you first revert a decent and informative external link and subsequently theorize vandalism. Now you are reverting again that external link, provoking a new edit war (the 4th within a week). You are trying to take possession of this article, discouraging other users from editing it. The fact that I am warning you against disruptive behaviour is irritating you obviously. From your perspective, I am harassing and stalking you. No, Dahn, I am not harassing and stalking you. Just try to behave decently, without insulting or humiliating other users, and without arbitrary reverts, and you will not hear about me any more. --Vintila Barbu 20:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting for your posse to show up any minute now and begin the usual litany ("Dahn is becoming a pest", "I too am concerned with Dahn's edits", "This is unacceptable" etc etc). Of course, none of them will have the slightest idea what this is about and about what wikipedia conventions apply, nor will any of them actually read the article to inform themselves on what "essential" information I removed. Nor will they note that the information I have added, which is both accurate and thorough, has expanded the text about five times the size. For this reason and many others, I have no patience for even reading what you post in each of your stalking sessions. Dahn 20:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As for readers who are not Vintila Barbu, they may find justification for the entirely reasonable step I took here: Wikipedia:External links#Avoid undue weight on particular points of view (specifically "nor give undue weight to minority views"). Aside from the dubious nature of the site, the link mentions the magazine only three times, and only once substantially [verbatim]: "Cel de-al doilea curent literar promovat in anii interbelici a fost traditionalismul. Tribuna a traditionalismului, revista "Gandirea" a aparut la Cluj, la 1 mai 1921, din initiativa unui grup de scriitori tineri, intre care Cezar Petrescu, Adrian Maniu si Lucian Blaga. Transferata la Bucuresti, in octombrie 1922, condusa din 1926 si pana in 1944 de catre Nichifor Crainic, revista a evoluat de la traditionalism spre ortodoxism. La revista vor colabora Tudor Arghezi, G.Calinescu, T.Vianu, G.Bacovia, Zaharia Stancu, I.Agarbiceanu, M.Sadoveanu s.a." This translates as: "The second literary current promoted during the interwar years was traditionalism. A tribune of traditionalism, "Gandirea" was first published in Cluj, on 1 May 1921, from the initiative of a group of young writers, among them Cezar Petrescu, Adrian Maniu and Lucian Blaga. Transferred to Bucharest,in October 1922, headed from 1926 to 1944 by Nichifor Crainic, the magazine evolved from traditionalism to Orthodoxism. Tudor Arghezi, G.Calinescu, T.Vianu, G.Bacovia, Zaharia Stancu, I.Agarbiceanu, M.Sadoveanu etc. were to collaborate on the magazine". As one will see from reading the wiki article and the references, whatever is not completely inaccurate in the Dacia Nemuritoare text (transition "from traditionalism to Orthodoxism", failure to distinguish between Vianu, Arghezi, Blaga, Calinescu, Crainic etc, failure to distinguish between their contributions to the magazine, failure to indicate who did what when, failure to even mention what other interesting doctrines the magazine adopted in later years) is utterly banal.

For the user who is Vintila Barbu, and whomever may feel the need for a blind revert: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Dahn 23:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hiatuses

The introduction speaks of two pauses: 1925 and 1933-4. The body speaks of the 1934 one. 1)Do we have any information on a 1925 hiatus? 2)Was it 1933-4 or just 1934? Biruitorul 17:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything about 1925 (in general, there is very little info on the pre-1933 variant). I also couldn't find a definite mention of when it was closed down - just that Crainic was apprehended in 1933, which may or may not be the same date as when the paper was closed down. There is an important source for such technical details: Eugen Marinescu (ed.), Din presa literară românească (1918-1944), Ed. Albatros, Bucharest, 1986. I used it on Bilete de Papagal and other articles, but, having had borrowed it from a friend, I don't have access to it right now - I'll see if there's anything I can do about it as soon as time permits me. Dahn 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Since this article is getting to be so big, and since it refers to so many people, I propose creating a new category, say, Category:Gândirea, analogous to ro:Categorie:Revista Gândirea, and having the various writers associated with this magazine listed under this category. Any thoughts? Turgidson 19:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. The only problem I see is that there is no confirmation of some authors cited actually being relevant contributors for the magazine (Călinescu, for one - I cannot tell if he really did contribute anything, whereas what he wrote against the magazine speaks for itself; Iorga had much the same ambiguous relation - he did write something for the magazine, but I'm not sure if including him in the category would be, for lack of a better word, appropriate; much of the same thing for Arghezi, Janco, Pandrea, and Stancu). Noteworthy: one of the sources (I can't remember which one) disputes the fact that Arghezi ever contributed to the magazine, but he himself made it clear at some point that he did - though what he said in relation to that speaks for itself ("I never read Gândirea, not even when I was contributing articles for it" - see the article on him). In the same scenario, I would propose that not all the categories the article is included in should be used for the would-be category (whereas the moved towards antisemitism and fascism, Vianu, Janco, Blaga, Arghezi, Pandrea etc etc did not). Dahn 21:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe one could start by including only the people clearly associated with the magazine, and then proceed case-by-case with the others. Basically, for someone like me who knows just a little about the subject (let alone someone who has no idea of the context), it would be rather hard to navigate. Besides, creating "clusters" of people based on some loosely shared ideas and some well-defined common reference point (such as a magazine) would surely fit with the Wikipedia:Build the web idea. OK, so let me go ahead then. It would be good to have a few more of these, perhaps in other areas, too. I have a few more ideas, but one step at a time. Is there a place where such issues are discussed? Turgidson 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if these are discussed anywhere in particular, but you are definitely an editor I would encourage to be bold. Dahn 22:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination

I just came across this article, and it is very good. Excellent sourcing, paragraphing, and general flow...good job! --172.164.80.216 15:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, after readmiring the solid prose and looking over the vast number of sources that this article contains, this might be good enough to be a featured article. I can't believe that no one has tagged this as a good article yet! --172.164.80.216 16:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
As the main contributor, I offer you my thanks. I'm not sure about it passing FA though: there are more details to add, and the lack of pictures is a likely problem. Dahn 16:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA hold

  • The lead needs to be reworked a little bit so that the ideas follow logically into each other, particularly for an uninformed reader.
  • I would move the long list of intellectuals elsewhere in the article. Such a list is unnecessary in a lead per WP:LEAD and all of the red-links are disconcerting.
  • The article needs a quick copy edit. There are: awkwardly worded sentences, grammar mistakes, wordy sentences, and misplaced words.
  • Try to identify with a phrase some of the many people and movements you link to for the reader who doesn't already know them - they are not going to click on all of those links.
  • In general, do not link words in quotes - it is a form of interpretation (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Quotation).
  • Perhaps some of the quotations could be removed from "Crainic's impact" - there are too many and it is hard to follow what the argument of the section is.
  • I would suggest adding a section entitled "Artistic context" or "Historical context" so you could provide some historical background to the article, letting the reader know the broad outlines of the art movements you will be referring to and the major debates within them. Right now, the article is a bit detailed and hard to follow unless you already know that information.
  • I assume that there aren't more sources in English? As this is the English wikipedia, the assumption is that the reader knows English best.

Please drop me a line on my talk page when you want me to re-review the article or if you have any questions. Awadewit | talk 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone planning on improving this article? Awadewit | talk 08:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am. But what you proposed will take time, and I'll have to rethink some sections. Dahn 15:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. I just noticed that there hadn't been any activity on the page and I was concerned. I am happy to know that there are editors who think before they revise. :) Awadewit | talk 20:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I am failing the article for now, since a week has passed. I look forward to seeing its revised version. Awadewit | talk 07:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Review

  • 1) The lead is not a standalone summary of the article. It should reference all of the major sections of the article. See WP:LEAD for hints on writing leads.
  • 2) In the "Contributors" section, can you identify some of these people, using phrases such as "author", "journalist", "activist" or something? I don't know any of them, I'm afraid, so it just looks like a long, uninformative list to me.
  • 3) One thing to think about when writing this article is: who is your reader? Having a good grasp on that will help you decide what information should be included and what should not. What articles link to this? Where might readers be coming from who read this?
  • I still think that the article assumes too much knowledge on the part of the reader. The "Beginnings" section, for example, needs to define more terms (such as "expressionism") and identify more people. I find the whole thing difficult to follow, since I am not familiar with any of this history, really. Perhaps you need a more informed reviewer. :)
  • 4) There are quite a few long sentences that become hard to follow as they go on.
  • 5) I would also suggest that you have a good copy editor look at the article - there is some awkward syntax and odd diction.
  • 6) I really do hate to say this, but there are a lot of redlinks in this article. Any stubs you could create would help wikipedia and the reader. Awadewit | talk 15:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for your input. Before I carry out all your suggestions, i need some clarifications.

  • 1) I expanded it a bit to cover more from the article.
  • 2) Will do. Though, I must say, the list is as informative as anything: listing people that contributed to the magazine is a good answer to the question "Who was connected with the magazine?". In itself, that question may never be relevant to the entire text, but it is a valuable encyclopedic detail. Even if the articles do not exist yet, and even if they may never exist (since the reader may actually be searching for info on people he already knows something about, but that he has a hard time structuring).
  • But at least briefly identifying them would give the reader a sense of the sorts of people connected to the magazine: was it artists? journalists? writers? political theorists? Awadewit | talk 17:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 3) As far as I can tell, this is fully addressed. Can you be more specific?
  • When I finish reading this article, I cannot provide an adequate summary of it because there is so much detail that I cannot follow and is not explained. I would be a reader who comes to the article knowing nothing about the subject. Surely I should be able to construct some sort of decent summary by the time I am done reading. Awadewit | talk 17:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 3) It is by no means required for the terms to be defined, especially when that definition can in itself cover an entire article (as it does here). As a parallel, one could note that a GA on a communist newspaper may not (and, in fact, need not) explain what communism is. Also note that even the magazine did not abide by a strict definition of the term "expressionism" - as indicated by the referenced fact that they considered Brancusi an expressionist.
  • It might not be required explicitly for terms to be defined, but if you want a larger readership for the article, you are going to have to define some terms. Also, referencing Brancusi doesn't help me at all - I don't know who he is or what he did. Awadewit | talk 17:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
However, as we stand, the term is explained, or, at least, whatever is relevant to this article is detailed. The main two things here, without going into a pointless definition of the term, are that it was Germanic art (already clarified by the article, and now pointed out in the lead) and that it had a focus on emotion and expression (see the first section, where this is indicated at a proper and prominent place). I would have to say that anything more is overkill.
  • I think that is a vague definition. However difficult it is to define these artistic movements (and I know how hard it can be - I write about eighteenth-century literature), one has to try for the sake of the ignorant reader, like myself. Awadewit | talk 17:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • 4) Please exemplify. I have broken down several phrases as it is.
  • EX: Following this, Vianu, whose political options contrasted with the new trend, chose to discontinue his contributions and joined the staff at Viaţa Românească;[26] although Lucian Blaga shared some views with Crainic, he too decided to distance himself from the magazine as early as 1930 (writing to Vianu that he did not consider himself a "disciple of our common friend Nichifor's Orthodoxy").
  • EX: This involved the denunciation of "foreign elements" and "minority islands", with a specific focus on the Jewish-Romanian community ("Jews make use of an indolent hospitality in order to deprive our kin of its ancient patrimony")[34] and its alleged connections with the political establishment ("In statements, in speeches and in acts of government our democrats have always declared themselves on the side of intruders and the allogeneous").
  • EX: In parallel, around 1931, the magazine's approach to philosophy was criticized by the Personalist thinker Constantin Rădulescu-Motru, who deemed it "belletristic"; the traditionalist philosopher Mircea Vulcănescu, although himself only occasionally associated with Gândirea, defended Crainic's influence in front of the pragmatic conservative Junimist tradition arguably represented by Rădulescu-Motru inside the University of Bucharest.
  • 5) Sure. Though I wish you would exemplify, I understand that it is not your duty to do so. Two things, though: the article was, afaict, already reviewed by two very competent English speakers (so the problem may be one of minor slip-ups my part and theirs); if it is the grammar used in quotes, well, it is as close to verbatim as I could come - yes, many of those phrases sound awful, and they do so in Romanian as well [I noticed that grammar was in the eye of the beholder during that period of Romanian literature :)].
  • It is not about the quotations. Awadewit | talk 17:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • EX: For much of the 1920s, the magazine was a venue for modernist criticism, and involved in theoretical debates over the influence of German- and Austrian-influenced Expressionism on early 20th century culture. - has an odd non-parallel feel about it; "on 20th-century culture" doesn't sound quite right either
  • EX: The Expressionist trend, accompanied by Gândirea's frequent and sympathetic reviews of Futurism and Dada, caused Crainic (who was only a correspondent at the time), to express his distaste. - "distaste" of what? perhaps the word "distaste" is not quite right?
  • EX: By that moment, however, the magazine was itself fusing Expressionist influences with traditionalist aesthetic goals, to the point where it had become, according to Lucian Blaga, "a bouquet of centrifugal tendencies". - "By that moment" - odd phrasing - "By that time" perhaps?
  • 6) I will fill out some of them in due time. But I really wish this were not considered in a GAC (it is not even considered in an FAC).
  • Actually redlinks are not considered in GAC, as far as I know, but they are considered in FAC. I recently had to create stubs in order to get an article to pass FAC. I believe there were three or four redlinks in the article I was editing - that was, apparently, too many. I was suggesting that you create stub/start articles because so many of the names and things you link are not identified in the article. Awadewit | talk 17:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Also as a principle, I would have to say that this article will not fail a person completely unfamiliar with the subject - the person who proposed it for GA apparently was one of them. I'm all for not being obtuse or cryptic in editing a text, but an article that points out the major traits of a phenomenon and has the valuable and unique system of internal links to guide readers even further. Additionally, some things just cannot be summarized without harming the flow: I cannot use each article on a Romanian history history to summarize Romanian history, no more than I can be expected to summarize rugby union in the article on Joe Rokocoko. Dahn 16:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia articles are not essays, therefore flow is much less important. Providing summaries is much more helpful to readers. Awadewit | talk 17:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be helpful for you, I think, to find other good reviewers to look at this article. Then we can see what really needs to be explained - I am only one data point. :) Awadewit | talk 17:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] De-indented from above

You wrote:

But at least briefly identifying them would give the reader a sense of the sorts of people connected to the magazine: was it artists? journalists? writers? political theorists?

Well, they were all writers, and they were all journalists - since they contributed to a literary magazine... Some of them were many other things (listing them all would be just as absurd as selecting one at random). I intended to follow your advice, but then noticed that it is an impossible and ultimately pointless effort. Also, please note that all those who are mentioned above and below in the text are identified (the painter Francisc Şirato, the nationalist thinker Nichifor Crainic etc)

When I finish reading this article, I cannot provide an adequate summary of it because there is so much detail that I cannot follow and is not explained. I would be a reader who comes to the article knowing nothing about the subject. Surely I should be able to construct some sort of decent summary by the time I am done reading.

I'm sorry, but I don't get your point. The lead constitutes a fair enough summary as we stand - I cannot make the paragraphs any more clear without getting repetitive. The article is both summarized and structured into chronological sections. I can summarize it (and I have), the nominator (who was apparently banned for an unrelated issue) stated that he was able to summarize it.

It might not be required explicitly for terms to be defined, but if you want a larger readership for the article, you are going to have to define some terms. Also, referencing Brancusi doesn't help me at all - I don't know who he is or what he did.

I'm trying to tell you that it is summarized, with its two main traits (the eponymous focus on expression and the Germanic character). Summarizing it further would require additional sources that do not speak of Gândirea, but of Expressionism - and that would be horrendously irregular. It would also be pointless, since expanding on that is ultimately of very little relevancy to this article, and since a more thorough definition is just one click away.

Additionally, I'm willing to bet that many to most people already know or can tell what "Expressionism", one of the major European cultural trends, is. You may know it yourself, and you may be making the case for a hypothetical reader - in which case I have to point out that the reader is expected to want to know what the article he is reading is about (just as he or she is expected to know how to read).

As for Brancusi, the main point here, and the one I was making, is that the man was not an Expressionist. This basic concept can be read in the text, and does not require additional interest in Brancusi or knowledge of his work.

EX: ...

I honestly don't see anything wrong in most of those phrases, and the other ones I just don't know about - I simply used ";" when I could've gone with "."; "distaste" of what the phrase discusses up to that point ("the Expressionist trend etc."); to me, "by that moment" looks as acceptable as "by that time", but I may be wrong; the brackets do not harm the overall phrase (I've seen such in-phrase placements done ad nauseam elsewhere). I will however ask reviewers to look into the grammar etc.

Actually redlinks are not considered in GAC, as far as I know, but they are considered in FAC. I recently had to create stubs in order to get an article to pass FAC. I believe there were three or four redlinks in the article I was editing - that was, apparently, too many. I was suggesting that you create stub/start articles because so many of the names and things you link are not identified in the article.

Whoever told you that lied. My two FAs have lots of redlinks, and I remember being told that they cannot be used in opposing an FAC. I think it was actually Raul who said that. Additionally, I believe that the article can be read and understood whether those links turn blue or not. You earlier indicated that a bluelink should be summarized in this article, so I really don't know what insisting on bluelinking would add here.

Wikipedia articles are not essays, therefore flow is much less important. Providing summaries is much more helpful to readers.

You missed my point. As I have said, the relevant articles are summarized for all that can be summarized. I also stressed that some terms should not and must not be summarized. As stated, an article on a communist newspaper need not explain what "communism" is, and an article on a rugby player does not summarize rugby. Let's be reasonable.

It would be helpful for you, I think, to find other good reviewers to look at this article. Then we can see what really needs to be explained - I am only one data point. :)

Thank you. Though I wish you would more carefully look over the article in the light of what i raised here, I will also ask others to look into it. Dahn 09:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I read the article very carefully initially. These are my thoughts on it. If you don't agree, that is that. I do think that soliciting other views would be helpful, though. Awadewit | talk 13:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
"In the light of what I raised here". Dahn 13:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no reason to. Our disagreements are somewhat fundamental, I'm afraid. Our disagreements are over how an article should be written and presented. Since I have a different view on this, rereading the article in light of your statements on how you think the article should be written is not going to change my assessment. I will still think that the article should be made more accessible because my article-writing philosophy will still be the same. Awadewit | talk 13:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I fail to see why it would not comply with your philosophy. The terms are defined without going into OR, and you have not indicated why the text is confusing. Just as one doesn't become a mathematician after reading Trigonometric function, it should not be expected that this text can expand on issues that are beyond its scope.
I have looked over Thoughts on the Education of Daughters. I hope you do not consider this mean, and I assure you it is not intended as such - I merely want to see just how much difference in philosophies there is between us.
I don't consider it mean at all. It's too bad, though, that you picked one of the most incomplete articles that I have worked on. Awadewit | talk 19:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
To begin with, where does the text clarify who Mary Wollstonecraft was, what she did for a living, what she is known for, or even what country she came from? Where does it clarify who John Locke or Joseph Johnson or Jean-Jacques Rousseau or Hannah More or Catherine Macaulay or Mary Hays were? What is feminism?
When I edit an article, I try to imagine several readerships, from the least informed to the most informed, and I try to appeal to all of them. For this article, I assumed that the reader already knew who Mary Wollstonecraft was and perhaps had a vague idea of what the Vindication of the Rights of Woman was about. If someone knows who Wollstonecraft is, you can bet that they know Locke and Rousseau, although not necessary Johnson, More, Macaulay or Hays. Those names are for the more informed reader (although I agree they should be explained further). I would also assume that any reader looking at this article would know something about feminism. This is why I asked you who you imagined your reader to be - if I knew that, I could more adequately judge the article's accessibility in light of the reader you imagine. For example, I've been working on the Introduction to general relativity page (providing a non-scientist point of view) and that editor described his reader as "someone curious about general relativity, who has a passing knowledge of black holes, etc. and basic algebraic skills". Awadewit | talk 19:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
What is a bildungsroman? What is an "English dissenter"? and, more importantly, does "were most concerned with molding children into people of good moral character and habits" define them as a group, as opposed to the essential fact that they were a new kind of anti-Anglican Protestants? What is the middle class (for which I see no link)? If I do not know what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are intended to mean in this context, I don't even have links to click on. The same for "deism" and "rationalism".
Like I said, I haven't finished this article yet. I agree with you that "bildungsroman", "Dissenter" and "deism". need to be explained a bit. I could go into a whole long diatribe on why Dissenters were more interested in moral education than other kinds of education, but it involves too much historical background for the article. Again, I would assume that readers have a vague conception of what a middle class is and "liberal" and "conservative". I have used their modern definitions rather than using the eighteenth-century language in order to avoid confusion. "Rationalism" is not a strict philosophical term here, therefore I assume that people can interpret it as a description that relies on a common word. Awadewit | talk 19:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
In what way is "they believed that the “associations” made in the mind while young were the foundation of selfhood" a more complete explanation of "associationist psychology" than "a German-influenced modernist cultural movement [with] a focus on expression and emotion" is for "Expressionism"?
I agree, also, that the associationist psychology section needs to be improved. Also, I'm not sure why you are focusing only on "Expressionism" in your own article; if that were the only accessibility issue, I would not have commented. One reason I did mention expressionism is because that concept seems central to understanding the article. If the magazine was an integral part of the expressionist movement, it would appear to me that you should be sure that readers understand expressionism, but if you think only readers that already know about expressionism are going to come to this article, I would accept that. That is why I keep asking you to describe who you are writing for. Awadewit | talk 19:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope you see my points. In fact, I would have to say that, based on your stated requirements, this article here is currently a much better example of your philosophy than the one you edited. Moreover, if it failed your own requirements for a GA (and I do agree with most of those requirements), then why did you allow it to become a GA? Dahn 18:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if I agree that this article is a "much better" example of accessibility; I've written several other pages on Wollstonecraft's works (two of which are FA) and I think that I have a pretty good handle on what needs to be explained. The reason I submitted it to GAC is because I wanted help with the article. Since I tend to edit articles without others (apparently few people are interested in editing eighteenth-century literature articles at the moment), I often submit articles to GAC and peer review that aren't totally finished because I want to know if there are deeper flaws in them before I start poring over the dashes and commas. Unfortunately, as you can see from the GA review that I received, that submitting it to GAC did not produce the desired result. If you have any more suggestions, I would be happy to hear them. Awadewit | talk 19:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to explain my position further, especially since it seems that we have switched perspectives. I must say that an article, any article, should clarify at the very least where and when the action takes place (where this applies), even before listing and (where it applies) explaining the terms involved. This also means that an article should point to others, but not rely on them (in this case, it shouldn't matter that you authored other [btw, outstanding!] articles on Wollstonecraft, but that they do not function as a series. As a side note, I still think you should link the terms middle class (as you linked bourgeois), liberal (or is it liberal?) and conservative - if not for any other reason, then, well, because they're there. This seems to be the common practice. On rationalism, you should also use the link - the broader meaning is also bound to be discussed in that article (if not now, than at some point in the future).

Granted, there is also the issue of systemic bias: Anglo-Saxon editors tend not to specify the location and various terms in their articles, because they probably assume that the English-language wiki corresponds with an Anglo-Saxon perspective, when this is not actually the case (yes, there is a header on my talk page for an aspect of that). I have to wonder if insisting on explaining certain terms, such as "Expressionism", does not sometimes correspond to the fact that these were not equally digested by continental and Atlantic cultures. I couldn't help but notice that the notion of English dissenters is not explained at all, even if it is bound to be more difficult to place in context than anything else in that article or this one. What I actually meant was not clarifying further their ideas on education (for me at least, the text is self-explanatory), but briefly explaining that they were a religious current, and that they were something opposed to the Anglican establishment (basically, who they were). For all I could've told when looking over your article, it could have meant dissenters in general. It is also, actually, the only term I brought up that I did not understand without clicking the link. This is criticism, but it is mild criticism - because, on principle, all terms should be explained if possible, and because the your article only has minor flaws.

In the light of this, it seems that my expectations from the reader may actually be lower than yours, and I do believe they coincide with the standard enforced. As I have said, my minimal expectation is for the reader to be literate, familiar with how wikipedia works (both of which requirements should be covered by the time or she gets to see this article) and, without assuming that he knows anything about the subject beforehand, I do expect that reader to want to know what this article is about. That is to say that, when providing brief summaries of what the ideas where, I do expect that reader to click the link in case he or she wants to know more. I belieev that the article and the article it points to do not really fail such a person.

I would also like to note that several articles linked from here have been developed - many have been developed by me (or by me also). This is the case of National Renaissance Front, Mircea Eliade, Tudor Arghezi, Tudor Vianu, Constantin Rădulescu-Motru, Alexandru Averescu, Romanian Communist Party. There are other decent ones: Iron Guard, Eugen Lovinescu, Vasile Voiculescu, Vintilă Horia, Emil Cioran, Ion Sân-Giorgiu, Alexandru Vaida-Voevod to name but a few. In any case, even if all of these were to be redlinks, their exact importance to this article is fully covered in the narrative (the who, what, where, how and, where sources attribute, the why).

As I have said before, the terms are explained, including the term "Expressionism". The way in which this is done answers to the particularities of the movement, and to the fact that, beyond certain traits, Expressionism was extremely vague. For one, none of the sources in this article who mention the term explain what it means in context, whereas they do indicate that Gândirea itself was vague in reference to the term, and, in at least one instance, included among expressionists people who are generally not seen as expressionists (Brancusi etc).

The movement itself was something, but it is not clear precisely what it was - beyond the traits prominently indicated here (modernism, Germanism, expression, emotion). A discussion on this would need to indicate what Expressionism was to Symbolism, to Art Nouveau, etc., and it would not be able to avoid clear contradictions such as Expressionists being divided over whether they were closer to the avant-garde than to traditionalism. I could speculate on the implications of one quote in this very article (here, since the sources do not allow me to do it in the article): when Crainic talks about Expressionism not having altered the authenticity of various authors, he seems to be giving some ground to the notion that Expressionism is more acceptable to traditionalists because it is not entirely modern art. Mutatis mutandis, I find this strikingly similar to the position taken by Goebbels and some of his Expressionist proteges, which was basically that "Expressionism=Nazi art" (in contrast to other Reich politicians, who imposed the notion that it too was degenerate art). This means that the traits common in all assessments (both of the time and expressed since that time) are listed here, and they are as few as agreement was little. In respect to what in the controversy is relevant to this article, you have an entire section in which this is discussed without making any guesses about what other things are implied. Dahn 13:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)