Talk:Fyodor Dostoyevsky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg Fyodor Dostoyevsky is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by Stfg, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 12 April 2013. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

Legacy section - draft[edit]

I think that section is too clunky. I propose a more structured version: {{Collapse|1=


During the GA review a number of factual inaccuracies were found. The nominator has checked with sources used, and has agreed that there are inconsistencies with the sources. The GA review has been put on hold to allow the nominator time to consult with sources, and improve the article. In the meantime the article has been tagged as possibly factually inaccurate to alert readers that the contents cannot be relied upon to be accurate, and that they should check sources themselves. This is only a temporary situation, as once the article has been checked through, and any remaining errors corrected, the disputed tag can be removed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC).

No, I haven't said that the sources do not support the information. All information should be accurate. The aforementioned examples are very odd. The article says he went to the Imperial Medical-Surgical Academy (an academy is a seminary, right?), and I explained the events with Marei. Before your copyedits, it stated "Mikhail was admitted to Moscow's Imperial Medical-Surgical Academy". --Tomcat (7) 13:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, the article is about Fyodor Dostoyevsky, not his father. --Tomcat (7) 13:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
No, a medical college is not a theology college. I think having English as a second language is perhaps what has caused the problems here. Slight misunderstandings of meaning have led to factual inaccuracies. I think on the whole your work on Wikipedia is very good, and you have made many very impressive improvements to articles. But perhaps the nature of the subject matter here, and the complexity of the topic, have led to some misreadings of the source texts. The "dispute" is that one editor (yourself) has interpreted sources one way, and another editor (myself) disputes the accuracy of the interpretation. It's not that I am in dispute with you, or feel that you have done anything wrong. On the contrary, I feel you have worked hard to improve this article to the best of your ability. It's just that due to the language issue, some misunderstandings have occurred. Let me know if you wish me to keep the review open. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
A seminary is not always theological [1].--Tomcat (7) 13:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I am also curious why you stick so much to that seminary. The article does not even mention that information.--Tomcat (7) 13:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing the dispute tag is not the way to resolve this matter. The article needs checking against sources. When I checked, I found a very high proportion of errors. I just glanced at the article, and it still states incorrect information about the execution. Sources show that this was a planned mock execution, and not - as stated here - that Dostoyevsky was actually sentenced to death and this was luckily reprieved at the last minute. It was always planned to be that way. Having the tag in place alerts readers to the situation so they can make an informed decision about how much to accept at face value what is said here, and also alerts editors who can assist in improving the article. The tag is designed to be helpful rather than a badge of shame - it just identifies what work needs to be done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It was not a mock execution. It was a planned execution which was stopped at the last minute.--Tomcat (7) 13:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Bald contradictions are rude and cut no ice. The GA reviewer has checked several sources and shown good grounds to require further source checks, therefore more sources need checking, period. Simply contradicting and reverting is edit warring. --Stfg (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem here is that if there is a problem of factual accuracy then a third party, preferably an expert in Dostoyevsky, would have to go through the sources and either list the problems or fix them. It is not fair to expect the nominator to fix factual accuracy problems without letting them know where such problems are found. But of course the article can't be a GA while there are doubts about accuracy. Which sources describe the event as a mock execution and which as an actual planned execution? Which reasons do we have to believe one over the other? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I've been watching this article since I was asked to review it several months ago. At the time, I had no idea how complex the subject is, which has been compounded by the Wiki-drama that's been well-documented. It's unfortunate because the subject is important and deserving of a high-quality article. To answer Maunus' question, though, it's my understanding that if there are two sources that are contradictory, first you accept the most reliable source. If both are equally reliable, then you state the contradiction in the article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Or you could just explain the conflicting reports in a note. Better than making a call. Ceoil (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I think making a call may be OK if there is sufficient reliable evidence for one or the other. But we'd have to see the sources to see whether there is. If they appear more or less equally reliable then yes, noting both is best.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Of course, that is why I am asking which arguments we have to consider one of these sources more reliable than the other.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
On the question of the mock (or otherwise) execution, SilkTork identified this source in his comment of 22:07, 18 June 2013, in the GA review, transcluded above. Since Tomcat did not reply to that comment, but nevertheless flat-out contradicted SilkTork today (just above here), I assume that Tomcat overlooked that comment and source. If this, then why not more? So I think that this does confirm the need for a third-party, preferably expert, review, as Maunus suggests. --Stfg (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I too have been watching since I did the very first peer review and then one of the FACs. I checked the sourcing then and posted this. (Note change of my user name since). Also there's this thread in the archives, [2], among others. I suspect the best way forward is to work from top to bottom and verify. Victoria (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me emphasize that I have used biographies in three languages, among of which was the original Kjetsaa biography. The reviewer still hasn't posted a single error, although he clearly stated there are a lot of them. The banner is meaningless and incorrect, and it distracts the reader from reading it. The aforementioned examples are not grammatical errors, they were probably misunderstood by different English speakers. SilkTork, you meant you have borrowed books from your library. If that is so, you may name a few more errors. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 09:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Vasily Perov - Портрет Ф.М.Достоевского - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Vasily Perov - Портрет Ф.М.Достоевского - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 14, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-08-14. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day
Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821–81; depicted in 1872) was a Russian novelist, short story writer, essayist and philosopher. After publishing his first novel, Poor Folk, at age 25, Dostoyevsky wrote (among others) eleven novels, three novellas, and seventeen short novels, including Crime and Punishment (1866), The Idiot (1869), and The Brothers Karamazov (1880).

Painting: Vasily Perov
ArchiveMore featured pictures...

Time to put the "disputed" tag back?[edit]

Before this edit by an IP, the article read "A detective novel,[188] Crime and Punishment describes Rodion Raskolnikov's life...". The source for this was (well, wasn't, more like it) Cicovacki p. 80, which says "... the title may suggest a detective novel. Nothing could be further from the truth", expanded on in a footnote: "... the view that C and P is not a detective novel follows A Cascardi ..." (emphasis mine). Given that SilkTork detected many inaccuracies in their meticulous review – none of which have been addressed – and this glaring factual error, wouldn't it be better to put the tag back again? I mean, how can we be sure, without checking everything against the sources, that there aren't more inconsistencies like this? Best, --Coco Lacoste (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

shorten lead[edit]

I think the lead section is extremely long, and should be shortened. Costatitanica (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)