Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Burger's Daughter/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Burger's Daughter[edit]

Burger's Daughter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): —Bruce1eetalk 09:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an historical novel about white anti-apartheid activists in South Africa with several interesting ties between the book and Nelson Mandela. Currently a GA, it has been peer reviewed (thanks to Victoria for all the comments and useful suggestions), and I have since split a couple of sections and expanded the article a little. —Bruce1eetalk 09:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry for not catching this in the PR, but File:NadineGordimer Burger'sDaughter.jpg can't be used because it's in a 3D format and thus copyright belongs to the photographer - unless it's been released. That said, there are some 2D on Abebooks, (number 21 and number 30) but not great. A scan might work better. This is an issue I've been through and the two editors who know about it, and will clarify if I'm wrong, are J Milburn and Moonriddengirl. I intend to return for a full review too. Victoria (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was clarified by a previous general counsel that coins were 3D and thus photographs of them would be copyrightable- this sets the bar pretty low. I wouldn't want to commit to saying that an image like this is copyrightable (IANAL), but I'd be inclined to say playing it safe with a front-cover scan would probably be best. J Milburn (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've found another 2D rendering of the UK first edition cover, which I've uploaded. As I said above, the dust cover of my personal copy is too damaged to use. —Bruce1eetalk 06:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much better, thanks. I'lll post more comments below as soon as I've finished reading. Victoria (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Compare formatting of FN6 vs 58/69
    • Thanks for the source review. I tried to align footnote 6 with 58 & 69, but without success. Footnote 6 is a chapter by Carolyn Turgeon in World Literature and Its Times, edited by Joyce Moss. Footnote 58 is an entry by Carli Coetzee in The Cambridge Guide to Women's Writing in English, but the book has no editors (that I can see) and I can't format {{cite web}} to use chapters here. The same for footnote 69. —Bruce1eetalk 06:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article credits Scaruffi as an authority on math/engineering/sciences and popular music, but not literature - what makes his opinion significant and reliable in this context?
    • I've found two sources ([2], [3]) that say that Scaruffi also writes about literature. I hope that is sufficient, otherwise the text sourced to him can be removed. —Bruce1eetalk 06:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Books links don't need accessdates
  • Be consistent on whether you abbreviate university press names
  • Why do some books include both Questia and GBooks links, while others include only Questia? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two Questia sources are also available on Google Books. I thought I'd provide links to Google Books for readers who don't have Questia access. I've left the Questia link in because the Google Book link is only a preview and doesn't show all pages. —Bruce1eetalk 06:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments:

  • Apartheid or apartheid > capitalized or not? At least one instance is upper case, others not.
    • Uncapitalized the one instance of Apartheid. —Bruce1eetalk 08:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • SACP > maybe add in parenthesis what this stands for on the first occurrence so the reader doesn't have to click out if they don't want.
  • "Conrad questions her role in the Burger family and that she always did what she was told". > slightly vague. Does he question her, or challenge her think about her role in the family?
    • Tweaked that sentence – I hope that's better. —Bruce1eetalk 08:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scholar Carol P. Marsh-Lockett writes that everyone sees Rosa as Lionel Burger's daughter with duties and responsibilities, not Rosa the individual, and in fulfilling that role, she denies herself an identity of her own." > I don't know why, but had a bit of difficulty parsing this, although not as much on the second reading. Anyway, might be worth trying to recast a little. But this isn't a big deal.
    • Split and reworded the sentence – I hope that's better. —Bruce1eetalk 08:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Turgeon and literary critic Carli Coetzee explain that upon her realisation that whites are not always welcome in the anti-apartheid liberation movements,[6] Rosa repudiates her father's struggle and leaves the country." > This needs recasting I think: I couldn't remember who Turgeon is and had to look back up. Perhaps break up the sentence because it's from two sources, or to keep the flow do something like, "Rosa realises that whites are not always welcome in the anti-apartheid liberation movement, writes Turgeon,[6] and literary critic Carli Coetzee explains this is what makes her leave the country." Not crazy about that either, but it separates the two critics.
    • Clarified who Turgeon is and moved the two citations to the end of the sentence – I hope that's better. —Bruce1eetalk 08:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did make a mention in the PR about establishing the credentials of the critics, but reading through now, I'm wondering if that can be trimmed back a little - feels as though it's become slightly repetitive.
    • I also feel it's a little overdone – I've trimmed it back a bit. —Bruce1eetalk 08:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The duplicate link detector shows quite a few duplicate links; those need to be eliminated.
  • In the text, footnote 46 displays differently than the others with a colon and page number visible. Should be made consistent with other footnootes.
    • Can you explain this one please. The other JSTOR citations also have a colon and page number – I don't see FN46 (Boyers, Robert (1984)) as being any different, or am I missing something? —Bruce1eetalk 08:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I noticed this citation style in the PR and lots were rendering like that; oddly now only 46 renders that way for me. I thought you'd changed the style and forgot one. I wouldn't worry too much about it; there are so many interface changes at the moment, that anything is possible. Victoria (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I was looking in the References section, not in the body of the article where the Boyers citation was made. After the PR I moved all multi-page Google Book citation sources to the Works cited section, but I left Boyers behind because it wasn't a Google Book. But, for consistency, I've now also moved Boyers to the Works cited section. —Bruce1eetalk 05:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Nice job on a book about an important subject and I'm please to see how much it's been developed since the PR. Victoria (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and the comments and suggestions. I've dealt with all but one of the points you raised above, it's just the footnote issue I can't work out. —Bruce1eetalk 08:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support, and for your copyedits – they've helped, and I appreciate it. —Bruce1eetalk 05:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Plot summary: It would be nice if the full version of ANC was presented in the article, like is done with the first usage of the SACP.
  • Background: "In an 1980 interview". "an" → "a"?
    • You're right, it should be "a" – fixed. —Bruce1eetalk 06:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as 'a coded homage' to Bram Fischer. Fischer's...". Try not to have the name repeat from the end of one sentence to the start of another like this.
    • I've reworded that section, but please check if that's better. —Bruce1eetalk 06:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you gave the shortened version of the SACP earlier, you should probably just use that in this section and not bother giving the full name again.
  • Publication and banning: "She said that similar 'transgressions' in the future would be difficult for the censors clamp down on." Feels like it needs "to" before "clamp".
    • Added missing "to" – don't know how I missed that! —Bruce1eetalk 06:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Genre: Since Mandela was linked in a previous section, I don't think we need another link here. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. —Bruce1eetalk 06:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your comments and suggestions. —Bruce1eetalk 06:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support – With the assumption that the spotcheck will come up clean, I think the article meets the FA criteria and should be promoted. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- First FAC, Bruce? If so, a belated welcome; that means I'd also want to see a reviewer perform a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance close paraphrasing (a ritual all new nominators are expected to undergo). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it this evening.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Spotcheck
  • 1 - Fine
  • 2 - Fine
  • 3 - Fine
  • 7 -Can't find a quote on p.161 which says "a long time"
    • It's there on p.161: "Well, I was fascinated by the idea of the story for a long time." —Bruce1eetalk 05:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8 - Fine
  • 9 - Fine
  • 10 - Fine
  • 11 -Fine
  • 19 - Fine, except wording is quite close to "Gordimer has said that Burger's Daughter was inspired by the children. Could reword said to "stated".
  • 20 - Fine
  • 25 - Fine
  • 28 - Fine
  • 29 - Fine
  • 34 - Fine
  • 78 -Fine

I can't access a lot of the sources, I think another reviewer who has access to JSTOR, Questia, Highbeam and preferably those books in a library should resume. Looks very good generally so far.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the spotchecks. I've addressed the points you raised above. —Bruce1eetalk 05:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a review in The New York Review of Books described the style of writing as "elegant", "fastidious" and belonging to a "cultivated upper class".[4] A critic in The Hudson Review had mixed feelings about the book, saying that it "gives scarcely any pleasure in the reading but which one is pleased to have read nonetheless."" Inconsistency in " before and after full stop. I believe you are using British English so it should be consistent with that I think. Please check it is consistent throughout which I believe it appears to be.
    • Where punctuation marks are part of the quote, I've generally included them in the quote (as per MOS:LQ), but I've also left them out in the case of quoted sentence fragments (again per MOS:LQ). I've moved a few periods outside the quote marks. —Bruce1eetalk 15:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead and reception - well received is hyphenated.
  • Why is Johannesburg and Nice wiki linked but not London and Paris?
    • Per WP:OVERLINK, London and Paris are "major ... locations", whereas, IMO Johannesburg and Nice are not. But it doesn't matter to me whether they should or shouldn't be linked. —Bruce1eetalk 15:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although what is a major city is somewhat subjective I think, I would certainly consider Johannesburg to be a major city, being the largest city in South Africa and " one of the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the world".♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've delinked Johannesburg. —Bruce1eetalk 05:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Burger's Daughter took Gordimer four years to write" Do you have an idea what time frame this was?
    • I haven't found any specific dates, if that is what you're asking. —Bruce1eetalk 15:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While Burger's Daughter was still banned in South Africa, a copy was smuggled into Nelson Mandela's prison cell on Robben Island"- Do you know when he read it, was it in 1979 or later in the 80s? That would indicate to me if there was an urgency for him to read it which I'd find interesting.
    • Not much information is available about this. But no, I haven't found when he read the book. —Bruce1eetalk 15:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with roles thrust on her by her parents, and her own buried role". -Can you try to reword this, it seems a little awkward to me.
  • "Irene Kacandes, professor of German Studies and Comparative Literature at Dartmouth College, calls Rosa's internal monologues apostrophes, or "intrapsychic witnessing",[40] in which "a character witnesses to the self about the character's own experience"[41]." Move ref after full stop.
  • Reception has quite a lot of repetition of xx said that. Can you reword some of them to stated or noted?
  • Why is nobelprize.org. italicized in the sources? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments – I've addressed the points you raised. —Bruce1eetalk 15:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks Bruce. This is a terrific piece, and unlike many articles we have on similar topics, it is easy to digest and really learn from. A hearty congratulations on what will surely become your first FA on wikipedia, and I hope to see many more of your articles here in the future.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support, and for the compliments. I really appreciate it. —Bruce1eetalk 05:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Burger%27s_Daughter/archive1&oldid=1076191103"