Fyodor Dostoyevsky was nominated as a good article in the Language and literature category but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions on the review page 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
"Why Wikipedia's Fans Shouldn't Gloat". The Atlantic. March 16 2012. "Compare, for example, the depth of the Wikipedia entries for Fyodor Dostoevsky (5,542 words, 38 references) and South Park. (12,675 words, 215 references). It's true that the Britannica online academic edition article on Dostoevsky by Professor Gary Saul Morson of Northwestern is slightly shorter than Wikipedia's, but is different in kind. It may have fewer facts but it probes the writer more coherently and deeply. Here is the entire Wikipedia paragraph on Dostoevsky's literary legacy: 'Some, like journalist Otto Friedrich, consider Dostoyevsky to be one of Europe's major novelists, while others like Vladimir Nabokov maintain that from a point of view of enduring art and individual genius, he is a rather mediocre writer who produced wastelands of literary platitudes.'"Check date values in: |date= (help)
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
The "about this book" link claims the book was published in 1972, which is ludicrous since the works cited includes books published as late as 2005. And, for that matter, the text itself refers to a TV show in 2008. I didn't put a lot of time into this, but enough to show natural evolution. I seized on the phrase "despotic treatment", which is a striking one. That enters our article in 2006 as a major revision, here. We couldn't have copied from a book which mentions a 2008 tv show in 2006. But beyond that, we can see that some of the content that was merely modified is in the book as it was modified: " Dostoevsky below is quoted in describing the dilapidated barracks which, as he put in his own words, "should have been torn down years ago." becomes "Describing the dilapidated barracks which, as he put in his own words, "should have been torn down years ago", he wrote:" Sure enough, that's what the external source says. And speaking of that 2008 tv show, reference was added to our article here. The evidence strongly suggests that we had it first and they took it without attribution. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
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 .--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, , 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)
Before this edit by an IP, the article read "A detective novel, 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)