Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Candide

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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:39, 16 August 2008 [1].

---

Candide

Nominator(s): Rmrfstar (talk)

I've been working on this article for a long time, and I'm quite sure that it is ready. It has gone through some very extensive GACs. In any case, I will do my best to respond to objections and criticisms as honestly and quickly as is possible. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I should note that though a recent WP:NOVELS peer review technically occurred, and is mentioned on Talk:Candide, no comments were made. I couldn't wait any longer. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Double check that all the sources listed in the bibliography are actually used in the article. I noticed that "Cates, David Allan "Comparing Candide and X Out of Wonderland" isn't used as a footnote. Same for the Adorno ref, Asbury ref, Betts ref, etc. I didnt' check them all, you can use your search function in your browser for that. Refs that aren't used as sources can go in a "Further reading" section.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A number of the sources that were listed under the heading "Bibliography" were not mentioned by the in-line references. This was intentional. I don't see why they should be separated from those that are; but I expect I'm in the minority. In any case, I've created the "Further reading" section with all of the extra citations transferred there. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:LAYOUT, if you want to double check. But I'm done here! Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Through the allegory of Candide" - why not just "Through allegory"?

Done.

• "...; most conspicuously, he rails against Leibniz and his Optimism." - reads awkwardly. How about "..., and, most conspicuously, he rails against Leibniz and his Optimism."

Then there would be way too many "and"s. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2008

Too many "and"s? Erm... I don't really have much to say to that, but that doesn't seem much of a reason not to change it to me. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the phrase with that "and" added, "... Voltaire ridicules religion and theologians, governments and armies, philosophies and philosophers, and, most conspicuously, Leibniz and his Optimism." Even with the serial comma, the reader will likely confound which words are part of the list. Also, using the word "and" changes the meaning of the sentence unacceptably: "most conspicuously..." is a logical continuation of the first clause; but it is not an addendum to it, because "Leibniz and his Optimism" falls under the categories of "philosophies and philosophers". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2008

• "Candide, Voltaire's magnum opus," - why is it phrased like that? It would seem that such a phrasing would be more fit for the first sentence of an article, introducing the subject. Something like "Candide is Voltaire's magnum opus" would be more appropriate. Two independent clauses would be too much, I expect.

Why are appositives only to be used in the first sentence? I use it here because I want to connect the ideas that Candide is Voltaire's magnum opus, and it has been often mimicked and adapted. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2008

Hm, I'm not sure why it just reads... wrong. Maybe it's just me. This is minor, anyways, so feel free to ignore it. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sometimes you use the serial comma, sometimes not.

Sometimes it is necessary to remove ambiguities, and sometimes it is not, such as in my above response. To quote the MOS, "Both styles are acceptable in Wikipedia, but in a case where including or omitting the comma clarifies the meaning of the sentence, that solution should be adopted." I don't think it says that one style should be maintained for the whole of an article (as should be done with regard to issues of British vs. American spelling). -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2008

Really? Huh, that's funny, but I can't see why the serial comma would clarify one sentence better than another or vice versa. I'd still really prefer consistency. Plus, there's also the small chance that the difference would confuse a reader. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The MOS exemplifies:

Sometimes omitting the comma can lead to an ambiguous sentence, as in this example: The author would like to thank her parents, Sinéad O'Connor and President Bush, which may be a list of either four or two people.

Including the comma can also cause ambiguity, as in: The author would like to thank her mother, Sinéad O'Connor, and President Bush, which may be a list of either two or three people. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2008

• Redundancy: "Candide underwent one major revision after its initial publication, in addition to some minor ones."

Some is not necessary here; but it does make more precise how many minor changes were made (i.e. not a lot, but a few). This precision is nice because the article doesn't mention any more about the minor changes; the reader should not think that many, many minor changes were made. Also, the word balances the sentence, IMHO. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2008

To be honest, I've never felt that some implied *any* kind of impression of size or value, but it's your call if you want to keep it in. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Having checked the dictionary, I think you're right that "some" is completely indefinite. Still, I'd like to leave it, for balance: there should be a parallel construction between "one major revision" and "some minor ones". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2008

Possibly more to come. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - the article is far superior now than it was before. Major formatting problems appear to be non-existent. The important sections appear to be comprehensive. Other things can be fixed later, as it would seem to be minor things that would not prohibit from being an FA. If things happen between this and closing that suggest other problems, I may reconsider. However, I feel comfortable enough at this time to support. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the info box seems to stick out. Perhaps remove and incorporate information in? The lead also seems to be a tad short for the massive amount of content. Under creation, there is an image that is making the header move to the right, this image should be moved down or somewhere else to remove this problem. The subheadings under creation should be merged into one area, as these are linked and shouldn't be split apart. What makes the "philosophy" not part of the themes? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This oppose had changed to comment: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

More problems - "Further reading" should be dropped or included. Leonard Bernstein's picture should be in the section for him, not at the end of the previous one to overlap with the edit function. "1787 illustration of Candide" needs to be moved, it is violating MoS by being against a heading section. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Even more - "Among the literary works written before Candide, one finds many satirical and parodic precursors, but Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels (1726) is Candide's closest literary relative." Please source that. I know of many scholars that would say otherwise. You have one source. Either tone down the claims to base it on that one source, or find more. Also, "one finds many satirica" seems inappropriately put. Try to remove the rhetorical "one". Also, paragraph beginning "A number of other textual sources for Candide have been identified. Ira Wade" should be moved to the section concerning the earthquake. Sentences like "Candide is mature and well-developed, not impromptu, a" are opinion and should be treated as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"The info box seems to stick out." is not an actionable concern, because that's the whole point. Infoboxes make key information easily accessible. Or should we reformat all of the articles on novels, biographies, elements, compounds, continents, countries, states, cities, towns, rivers, albums, singles, species, and battles simply because they have infoboxes which extend past the lead? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, its quite actionable, because infoboxes can be removed. Most of that information isn't really vital, and the trend has been to shift away from infoboxes in such situations. Also, when I say "stick out" I don't mean overlapping into other areas. I mean that it looks unpresentable. The combination of the titlepage formatting in the box causes it to formatting in a rather unappealing way. Also, it is misnamed as a "frontispiece", as the frontispiece is the picture at the beginning and not the title page.Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Actually, its quite actionable, because infoboxes can be removed." Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should. If your problem is with a misnomer, fine, that's a valid concern and a separate issue. In regards to the infobox itself, however, this is an FAC for Candide, not for Template:Cite book. Let's stick to the issues that matter, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT calls about what is, in my opinion, a helpful and presentable infobox. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• The infobox includes no information that is not present in the rest of the article (except for the photograph). Note that the inclusion of the infobox is a matter of standardization within WP:NOVELS. In including it, I'm satisfying their guidelines. FAs must meet Wikiproject standards.
• Saying the lede seems "a tad short" doesn't help: I'm not adding words to beef up its edit count... What information do you think should be added?
• I have right-justified the image in ==Creation==.
• "The subheadings under creation should be merged into one area, as these are linked and shouldn't be split apart." I'm sorry... why?
• I have renamed "Style and themes" to just "style" to make it clear that "Philosophy" is a separate subject.
• "Further reading" should be dropped or included." I just created this section (see above). Please provide a reason for dropping it or re-including it.
• I have moved Bernstein's image and the 1787 one.
• "Among the literary works written before Candide, one finds many satirical and parodic precursors, but Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels (1726) is Candide's closest literary relative." The source for that statement is number 11, at the end of the paragraph; it seems silly to repeat it.
• I have reworded the Gulliver statement, I believe in accordance with your desires.
• I have discussed this on the talk page: "Candide is mature and well-developed, not impromptu, a" is not an opinion; it is fact. The article does not say that it is "good"; it says it is well-developed, meaning that Voltaire carefully developed his story. This is a fact. There is nothing POV about the statement in question.
• You say "the paragraph beginning with 'a number of other textual'" should be moved. I think you mean sentence: the paragraph after the first sentence would not make any sense in the section you suggested. In any case, I have moved it.
• I'm pretty sure that the image in the infobox is not mislabeled, but is indeed the frontispiece of (this edition of) Candide. Who said it was the title page? -- Rmrfstar (talk)

1) "I'm sorry... why?" - because the sections are two small and separating them is unnecessary. They can form one solid section. 2) "Please provide a reason for dropping it or re-including it." I can show you where one of the directors have said the same thing previously if that helps. :) 3) "it says it is well-developed, meaning that Voltaire carefully developed his story. " Then say carefully developed. As a literary critic in the field of 18th century lit (British), I haven't seen "well-developed" used in such a way. Its a throw away term at best. 4) the lead needs a lot of work. I would remove the term "biting" to characterize wit, and I would add at least one more section to cover the style and philosophy. This can't be supported until the lead covers the whole page. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

5) I don't believe that the infobox is as standard as suggested, otherwise, there wouldn't be this category with the massive amount of infoboxes used that are "incomplete", which Candide is labeled as one. If you believe the infobox should stay, please complete it (or remove the template that suggests it is incomplete). Ottava Rima (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is another version of the picture. Wider, with less slant and a little clearer. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Incase anyone disagrees with my suggestion to remove the problematic infobox: "Many novels do not necessitate layouts such as this, or have special requirements that do not fit the template exactly. Feel free to adapt this WikiProject to specific situations and to discuss changing it." Taken directly from here at the top. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not mandatory, but neither are they discouraged. If the main contributor wishes to retain it because of standardization, that is perfectly acceptable. Funny, I recently rewrote the sentence you quoted above at WP:NOVELS. In case its implication is not clear, there is always an exception to every rule (ie: WP:IAR). Not every article needs an infobox, true, but not every article does not need one. Because this is entirely a subjective issue, AND infoboxes are in no way included in the FA criteria, I think the box vs. no box objection does not apply here. Also, the infobox is in fact complete in that it contains all compulsory details per Template:Infobox Book, so I've removed the tag from the talk page banner. María (habla conmigo) 13:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That was why the infobox was under comment. I since changed it to opposed based on the missing lead. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

1)Which sections of "Creation" do you think should be merged? I did them all.

3)I have changed "well-developed" to "carefully developed": good suggestion.

4)Other editors made some minor changes to the lede. Then I completely reworked it. It's not 3 paragraphs, but it should summarise the rest of the article much better.

5)I've completely reworked it again: it's now 3 paragraphs.

6)I greatly appreciate the effort, but I think your version of that picture of the frontispiece is more crooked! Sure the top line is straighter, but the rest is worse... -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

• Image:358518.jpg - This image has no source.

This should be an easy fix. Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I replaced it with a sourced version. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Voltaire.jpg - Is this from a website or has it been uploaded by someone? Awadewit (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've replaced this image again... this time with a version whose exact provenance is known. This image is also better, because it depicts Voltaire when he wrote Candide better -- Rmrfstar (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Oppose. I've never actually read Candide, so this article was my introduction to the topic. I think the article is in good shape, but it still needs more work to get to FA status. I've listed below some issues I saw.
  • Looking at the Historical and literary background section:
    • The first two sentences mention events that might have influenced Voltaire. Then it discusses various other works, then it goes back to talking about events in a small section (which is really too small to need to be its own section). Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.

• • • I am confused in reading this section as to whether Voltaire ever mentioned these other texts as being influential, or if later analysts decided they must have been. If so, it would help to know who said this. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The language of the paragraph should make it clear that this is analysts talking, for instance, "As evidenced by similarities...". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008

• • • Why isn't Liebnizian Optimism described? That seems to be a bit of historical background that is quite relevant to this work. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It used to be, with the following, "Optimism is founded on the theodicy of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) that says humanity must live in the best of all possible worlds because God is a benevolent deity. This concept is often put into the form, "Tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles" (All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds). This locution expresses the fundamental tenet of Leibnizian Optimism to which Candide adheres for the majority of the story." I commented out this passage at the recommendation of Cryptic_C62, see Talk:Candide#Part_1. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008

I have re-included this information, because Awadewit agrees with you. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008

• • • This needs a citation "had a strong influence on theologians of the day-and on Voltaire, who was himself disillusioned by them" Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008

• • • This likely needs a citation "The earthquake had an especially large effect on the contemporary doctrine of Optimism," Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That whole (short) paragraph is served by the citation at its end. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008

• • • I'm not really happy with the prose in the first paragraph of this section. It seems a bit convoluted. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried to smooth it out. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008

• • • I'm not sure why we are told that German personality stereotypes are an inspiration for a 1669 work - nothing in the section shows that Voltaire might have read or been influenced by that novel. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Voltaire was influenced by the stereotype, as described in the 1669 work. The mentioning of the 1669 work illustrates, especially with its title, the reality of the stereotype. I have greatly expanded the explanation, per Awadewit's agreement. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008

• • "Candide is mature and well-developed, not impromptu, as the choppy plot and the aforementioned myth suggest" - how can it be considered mature and well-developed if the plot is considered choppy? Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is intentionally choppy. I added this word to the article too. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008

• • " a section that had been thought weak by the Duke of Vallière" - why was the Duke of Valliere's opinion considered that strongly? Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Voltaire sent them the work chapter by chapter. The depth of their personal relationship is not relevant here. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008

• • The organization of the Creation section is a little odd. First we hear about the various editions of the work, then we go back in time to read about a 1759 publication, then we hear about versions of the work before the 1759 publication. I think the section would do better if it were in chronological order. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Fixed. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008

• • "The La Vallière Manuscript, the most original and authentic of all surviving copies of Candide, " - what makes this more original and authentic than a copy of the 1759 publications? Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It has Voltaire's handwriting on it: "...then edited directly". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008

• • Don't include a see also in the text that points to another piece of the article (see Synopsis) Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008

• • Need a citation immediately after a quotation "Frances K. Barasch, literary analyst, described Voltaire's matter-of-fact narrative as treating topics such as mass death "as coolly as a weather report". (even if that means that the cite will be duplicated in consecutive sentences) Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008

• • Probably need a citation for "The dry, pithy explanation "to encourage the others" thus satirises a serious historical event in characteristically Voltarian fashion." Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008

• • section heading The Garden Motif should probably be Garden motif. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is now. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008

• • The article would likely benefit from a read-through to weed out unnecessary phrasing. For example, there is a lot of use of "Indeed," or "in fact," or similar phrasing which offers no real value to the sentences. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Of the four uses of the words "indeed" or "in fact", I have removed three. I do not remove the remaining instance because without it, the passage would make no sense. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008

• • There is a lot of mention in the article that Candide upset people for its portrayal of government and religion, and I expected to see a section in this article describing what would have made them upset. A little of this info is spread throughout the article, but it would be nice to see a more focused look at this. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a couple of sentences giving some examples of criticism of religion and government: I put it in Reception and Legacy, where there is the focused discussion on its being banned. The other possibility is to write a longer section, maybe to go under "Satire", but I don't think that is necessary: I don't know what it could say: Voltaire makes fun of everything.

I think your changes are definitely an improvement. I wonder if there are specific examples of denouncements or bannings of the book, or other details that could flesh this out a bit more. Karanacs (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Aha! The reason for the recent referencing error (mentioned below) was that I just accidentally deleted just such an example... it might not be enough, however, so I'll look for more. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I found a good one. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Need a cite immediately after this quote "According to Bottiglia, "The physical size of Candide, as well as Voltaire's attitude toward his fiction, precludes the achievement of artistic dimension through plenitude, autonomous '3D' vitality, emotional resonance, or poetic exaltation. Candide, then, cannot in quantity of quality, measure up to the supreme classics."' even if it means duplicated citations in successive sentences. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008

• • This sentence needs to be fleshed out "Candide also inspired artists and musicians over the centuries." - how did it inspire artists and musicians? Were any of their works notable enough to be mentioned here? ...I see now that Bernstein's operetta is listed later. There needs to be a better connection between the sentence in the Legacy section and the section here. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I deleted that silly sentence. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008

• • The section Seconde partie (Part two) should be consistent and use either Part two or Part II. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008

• • "Candide would succeed seventeen years later with a new libretto by Hugh Wheeler." - what measure of success are we using here? Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008

Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the suggestions. I'll continue addressing them as I am able. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am done, for now, addressing your objections. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience with me. I think the article is much improved thanks to your efforts. I'm going to strike my oppose for now. I see that you are getting a copyeditor and that Awadewit still has some open issues; I'll try to check back in soon to see if they've been addressed and rethink my position. Karanacs (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Oppose (I reviewed this article for twice for GA, I think.) I realize that this article's editors are going to tire of my endless lists of fixes, but I think the article doesn't quite hang together yet. I hope we can provide you some help here at FAC, because you know I think this article is really important! Here are my suggestions for improvement:

• The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article per WP:LEAD. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Done... I think. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008

• Voltaire ridicules religion and theologians, governments and armies, philosophies and philosophers - This is from the lead. I feel like the philosophy bit was covered in the article, but not the religion or the government bits. Perhaps more could be added about how Voltaire ridicules religion and government? I don't think that the reader will understand, for example, why the book was banned or viewed as scandalous. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

See my response above. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008

I do not think that this is sufficient. It is my understanding that the book was banned partially because of its religious commentary, however, this is not explained very well to the reader. The religious criticism contained in the book is not well-explained, nor is the historical context. I think a whole section is needed on this topic. Awadewit (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have further expanded the discussion of Voltaire's irreverence in the section "Reception" by including a more detailed example of what bits of Candide obviously infuriated the church. TODO: Search for literary criticism of Voltaire's methods The more I look at this problem, the less I know where to put and how to write this section... I'm having a really hard time justifying its creation: his criticism of religion is important, but no more important than his criticism of governments, the Germans, the French, the British, armies, colonisation, or anything else. Does each of these deserve its own section? That question asked rhetorically, I have, in my recent additions, tried to better explain why Candide was banned by religious authorities. This was your original criticism and I do think it has been addressed fully. Just as his criticism of Germans is embedded in "Creation", Voltaire's criticism of religion is embedded in "Reception".

This is still insufficient. To someone who has not studied religious history, much of this section will be meaningless. Furthermore, the prose is much too compressed - all of the references have to be explained to the reader. I would remove this information and create an entire section on "Religious criticism" (or some such thing). I see some Voltaire biographies cited in the Candide "Bibliography". I assume this means you have read them? I would think it would be clear why including a section on religion would be so important, then. Voltaire was known as a critic of religion and Candide continued that prominent theme in his oeuvre. It must be thoroughly explained here. Awadewit (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not read any Voltaire biographies from start to finish. But I think I grasp that religion was a very important matter for him. I never denied this; I simply recognised that other matters are also important. I know for instance that Voltaire's relationship with France, his exile thence, etc. meant a lot to him. There are many prominent themes in his oeuvre; they can't all have their own sections. I'm saying that I can't write too much on religion, to keep it balanced. I will try to explain better though.

I have done a bit. Karanacs wants more examples. I'll search them out now.

I've found a juicy example and included it.

Hm. I still think that this part of the article is a bit weak. I don't think it is a good idea to relegate a major theme to the "Reception" section. However, I would like to hear other views on this from other reviewers. Awadewit (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• This novella tells the tale of a young man, Candide (from the Latin candidus[5]), who has been indoctrinated with Leibnizian Optimism - I would put the detail about the etymological derivation of Candide's name in the article itself. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I lengthened the summary by moving it there. ;) -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008

• Apart from events, contemporaneous stereotypes of the German personality may have been a source of inspiration for the text; they were for Simplicius Simplicissimus, the 1669 novel by Hans Jakob Christoffel von Grimmelshausen. - The connection to this seventeenth-century German novel is unclear to the reader. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I explained it better. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008

This is better, but it is still not clear why this novel from 100 years earlier is being mentioned. Did it influence Candide? Awadewit (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Done.

Um, it is still not explained why this particular work is important to the writing of Candide. Yes, their protagonists were similar, but is that all? Candide was part of a genre - its protagonist is similar to many works. There must be something more to make a book written a century earlier worth mentioning. Awadewit (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The two connexions listed are: 1) the protagonists are (quite) similar; 2) Voltaire probably read it.

If we need to beat the reader over the head with this relatively unimportant and rather speculative analysis, we could state, "Voltaire used a 'bold and buffoonish manner' also." One might say in addition that the criticism of Germans in Candide is not confined to its protagonist; but that isn't too relevant. Shall I strike (or comment out) the paragraph? Again, I'd rather say less and not confuse anyone.

Since Voltaire admitted familiarity with fifteenth-century German authors who used a 'bold and buffoonish style, it is quite possible that he knew Simplicissimus as well - I am pretty familiar with the literary critical style, and the phrase "quite possible that he knew" is not a strong claim for the influence of the Simplicius on Candide. Are there other scholars that make this claim? If just this one person makes this claim, I worry that we are not representing the mainstream view of Candide scholarship. If the view of many scholars is that it is quite difficult to ascertain just how this book may have influenced -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008

Candide, that uncertainty must be made much clearer to the reader. Awadewit (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream opinion is that they are very similar, and that's all. There's no solid evidence that Voltaire actively used Simplicissimus as a source (that I've found).

• Candide's parody of the bildungsroman is also likely based on François Fénelon's The Adventures of Telemachus. - This needs to be explained to the reader (who probably hasn't read Fenelon and might not make the "Telemachus" connection). Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Done.

• The first part of "Historical and literary background" starts out by talking about the historical events, such as the Lisbon earthquake, but these are quickly dispensed with. The earthquake then returns in the "Voltaire and the Lisbon Earthquake" section. I would divide this section into "Literary" and "Historical" and group all of the historical information together. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008

• The paragraphs on the literary influences on Candide read like a bit of a list. Perhaps some transitions between them would help? Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote this section. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008

• The earthquake had an especially large effect on the contemporary doctrine of Optimism, a philosophical system which implies that such events should not occur - The "because" part of this sentence is missing - Why did Optimism imply such an event should not occur? Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I re-included this section. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008

This helps, but I feel like perhaps there should be a whole subsection explaining Optimism or perhaps some of this information should go elsewhere, such as the fact that Candide adheres to this system. Remember, this section is supposed to be about Voltaire and what influenced his writing of the book, not the characters of the book. There needs to be same careful thought into how to explain Optimism to readers who are unfamiliar with it. Awadewit (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have moved some of the information elsewhere: specifically to the end of the introduction to the synopsis. Now the "Background" section doesn't discuss Candide (the character). I do not think a whole section should be devoted to explaining optimism; for that, we have wikilinks.

But readers cannot understand Candide without understanding Optimism - that is why we have to offer them a summary of what it is. I do not believe that relying on wikilinks is sufficient here. (This is why writing about parodies and satires is so very difficult. We first have to explain what the works are criticizing and then explain how they are performing that criticism!) Awadewit (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I am just quite sure that enough explanation exists (with this section re-added) for a totally ignorant reader to understand the satire. Really, the "optimism" in Candide is extraordinarily simple.

It is not the satire that needs more explaining, it is what Voltaire is making fun of. Yes, Candide's optimism is simple, but Leibniz's is not. It is Leibniz's optimism that needs more explanation, so that the satire is totally clear to the reader. (This is why writing articles about parodies and satires is so hard - so much background information has to be given.) Awadewit (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Readers need to be able to understand Candide. They do not need to be able to argue against it. That is, they only need to know the parts of optimism that Voltaire criticises here (and, where especially notable, what Voltaire avoids mentioning, such as with Pope). I don't understand what more needs to be said. Voltaire makes fun of the Seven Years' War... must the article include a summary history of European politics, warfare as adequate "background information"?

I think I would have included more information, but this may be a difference in style. I tend to give more historical background. Awadewit (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• After the earthquake, Voltaire rejected Leibnizian Optimism - Suddenly "Optimism" is "Leibnizian Optimism" - Please explain to the reader a bit more here. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not suddenly. The lede introduces "Leibnizian Optimism" which is shortens to "Optimism". After that, the two are used interchangeably: this is unambiguous because of the capital "o". I've added a parenthetical phrase in the introduction to make clear that sometimes simply "optimism" refers always to "Leibnizian optimism". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008

• More publications occurred in other languages: Candide was translated once into Italian and thrice into English that same year - Does this mean that all of the initial publications - in all of those five countries - were in French? Perhaps that should be made explicit? Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes: that's why the word "other" is used. I have made this more explicit by saying that all 17 versions from the first year are in French. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008

• In addition to this manuscript, there is believed to have been another, one copied by Wagnière for the Elector Charles-Théodore, who hosted Voltaire during the summer of 1758. The existence of this copy was first postulated by Norman L. Torrey in 1929 - I assume it has never been discovered? Do we need to state this explicitly? Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008

• Could we include one of Klee's illustrations? Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Alas, Klee died in 1940, so his work won't be in the PD until 2010. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008

Not too far away. :) Awadewit (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• This is the scheme used below because it is easier to reference and it has more divisions. - What does "easier to reference" mean? Also, I don't think "has more divisions" is a good reason to use one scheme over another. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

We have to use one method, and Cryptic C62 thinks I need to explain my choice. Do you disagree? I don't have a better reason than: "easier to reference" is important for someone searching through the Wikipedia article to find out what happens in a certain chunk of the book. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008

I don't understand what "easier to reference" means. I think we should use whichever scheme is more prominent in the scholarly literature. Awadewit (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I would guess that the 3-way division is more popular in scholarly literature (based on my survey of it). But I can't say that in the article because I do not expect I could source that statement.

That is good to know. I understand why Cryptic C62 thinks we need to explain why we are using the three-way split, but it would be best if we could say something like "the leading Candide scholars use this schema" rather than "it looks nice on the page". Awadewit (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That statement, "... leading Candide scholars ..." would be inappropriate. Personally, I don't think any reason need be expressed. Let us just say, "This article splits it into 3 sections." I've written this for now (better no information than confusing information).

• I still think the plot summary is much too long. I know I have asked the editors to reduce it every time I have reviewed this article. Perhaps I should just reread the book and reduce it myself. Give me two weeks and perhaps I can do that. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've said this before: you think it's too long; others think it's too short. Every time I shorten it, someone else lengthens it (or desperately wants to). I've just cut it down to 7 medium-to-long paragraphs of plot. Because others will want to re-include what I have removed, I have commented-out, not deleted. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008

I've found that there is a desperate desire to have long, detailed plot summaries on Wikipedia, but we are not CliffsNotes. You don't what the reader to get bogged down in the plot summary and never get to the rest of the article. Currently, the plot summary is about 20% of the article - I still think that is too much, but let's see what other people have to say. Awadewit (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me say that "we are not CliffNotes" is not an argument against long summaries because our job is to be the best encyclopedia not "something other than CliffNotes". I also don't worry about the length too much because I expect some readers to come to Wikipedia for a good plot summary, and the other readers to just skip it.

The best encyclopedia entries do not contain long, detailed plot summaries. Now we can debate that proposition! Awadewit (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• As the initially naïve protagonist eventually comes to a mature conclusion — however noncommittal — the novella is bildungsroman, that is, a parody of one. - This is confusing - is it a parody or not? Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained this to you: in order to be a parody, a work must be that which it parodies. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008

The problem is that the "that is" construction is unnecessarily confusing. How about just saying "the novella is a parody of the bildungsroman" or something like that? Awadewit (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion fundamentally changes the meaning of the sentence and (no exaggeration) would ruin the whole paragraph. In any case, I think I have found a less interesting way of wording what I want to say, so that the link between the bildungsroman style and the humour persists.

Actually, from what I can tell, scholars do consider Candide a parody of the bildungsroman genre, so I don't think my version is a misrepresentation. Having a section on "parody" in the "Style" section would allow you to discuss the difference between "satire" and "parody" in the novella. However, if you want to focus on the debates regarding the genre of the novella, having a subsection on "genre" where the bildungsroman, the conte philosophique, etc. is discussed is another option. Awadewit (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Your version was a true statement... it just wasn't what I wrote, which is significantly more nuanced. There is no real "debate" on which genre Candide fits in. I will add paragraph or so on the "conte philosophique" matter. Really though, I've changed it to a version I believe you'll find non-offensive.

Perhaps, there was a misunderstanding? I was suggesting something like "As the initially naive protagonist eventually comes to a mature, however noncommittal, conclusion, the novella is considered a parody of a bildungsman". I see you have removed the "parody" bit. The new formulation is clearer and I see the parody bit is earlier in the paragraph. Awadewit (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe there was.

• The John Byng example has no citation. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Done.

• Voltaire depicts the worst of the world and his pathetic hero's desperate effort to fit it into his Optimistic outlook. Much of the work is a discussion of various forms of worldly evil. Rarely does Voltaire diverge from this technique, - "this technique" does not refer back to the proper referent, I don't think Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Rephrased.

• The "Picturesque" section seems to belong under "Satire". Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Done. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008

I meant part of the "Satire" section. Awadewit (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I had done that... Do you mean get rid of the "Picaresque" subheading altogether? I have done this now.

• These gardens are likely references to the Garden of Eden, but it has also been proposed, by Bottiglia, for example, that the gardens refer to the Encyclopédie, and that Candide's conclusion to cultivate his garden symbolizes Voltaire's great support for this endeavour - The connection to the Encyclopedie needs to be explained more explicitly. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have done so sufficiently.

Much better. Awadewit (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• The Flaubert quote should probably be translated for readers who do not know French. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

My French is not great, but I attempted a translation. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008

• The "Legacy" section of "Reception and legacy" needs to be expanded. The few sentences here are insufficient for a book of this importance. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You made the same criticism in your last GAR. My response was, "I have looked, and I, (quite surprisingly), cannot find such information. I don't know where else to look." -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2008

I quite easily found material in the MLA database. I found articles comparing Candide with the works of Samuel Johnson, Samuel Beckett, Ralph Ellison, Rousseau, and Nietzsche. I can send you these citations. This is by no means an exhaustive list, as I only looked for about ten minutes. Awadewit (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Would you please send me these citations? You may e-mail them to me using the link on my talk page.

Done. Awadewit (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Got them. Thanks.

I've done the research (with your kind help) and written a bit to expand this section.

I don't see anything on Rousseau! Rousseau would be the most important figure to include, in my opinion. Awadewit (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I just remembered... Rousseau claimed (quite loudly) never to have read Candide. Obviously many people doubt this, but I don't think it should be included if he denied it.

The problem is Rousseau was a notorious liar or at least a notorious "misrepresenter". Anything Rousseau said about himself is basically up for grabs. Have you read his Confessions, for example, where he claims to be writing the unvarnished truth about his life? The number of "misrepresentations" in that autobiography are staggering. It is really important not to take someone like Rousseau too seriously. Awadewit (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you really are a literature student... I have not read his Confessions. I'll look around. If you can find something, e-mail it to me. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2008

All I can find comparing the works of Rousseau's to Candide (4–5 articles in total) is about Julie, or the New Heloise and this article demonstrates no such connexion is possible. I checked his Confessions, and Rousseau says there pretty explicitly that he never read Candide. I don't claim to make a definitive statement that there was no influence, but I am disinterested in the matter by the absence of visible evidence. If you can find something off of which to work, I'll run with it, but searching for "Rousseau AND candide" (and various other queries) in all of the obvious on-line journal databases (MLA Bibliography included) yields very little. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but I am troubled by how little the article discusses Candide's effect on eighteenth-century literature. It seems to mostly focus on the work's influence hundreds of years of later, but surely it had an influence much earlier than that. As we have at least one example of eighteenth-century literature with Brown, I'm not going to push this, but this section still seems a bit haphazard to me. Awadewit (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• A copyediting pass by an uninvolved editor would be a good idea - it would smooth out rough edges, remove redundancy, and catch things like the BE/AE inconsistency in the article. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You requested this in your last GAC: Cryptic C62 did a very thorough one quite recently.

That may be, but the article still needs more work. Here are some examples from the "Optimism" section:

• Primary among these is Leibnizian optimism (sometimes called "Panglossianism" after its fictional proponent), which Voltaire ridicules with description of seemingly endless calamity. - "descriptions"
• In this process, Voltaire demonstrates a variety of irredeemable evils in the world, leading many critics to contend that Voltaire's treatment of evil - specifically the theological problem of its existence - is the main focus of the work. - "in this process" is unnecessary"; WP:DASH; "main" is unnecessary

I fixed this.

• Also, war, thievery, and murder - evils of human design - are explored as extensively in Candide as environmental ills. - awkward syntax

I fixed this.

• Ridicule of Pangloss's theories thus ridicules Leibniz himself, and Pangloss's reasoning is silly at best. - wordy and convoluted

The entire article needs to be gone over with finetooth comb. Awadewit (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked Tony1, whom I know to have a comb with very fine teeth. (The comb has the fine teeth, not he).

Tony is skiing til August 8 (see his talk page notice), and may be swamped when he returns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that. I have asked User:Buster7 in addition.

Wikipedia editors all seem very busy these days. I've asked a real life friend.

My friend did a read through, but didn't find much. However, User:Samuel_Tan just did a very thorough job with the first half. I've asked him to copyedit the rest too, but he's very busy.

Done. See below.

• The infobox (which I personally think is not a helpful addition to the article) has some problems. The French flag is not appearing correctly on my screen and the genre "conte philosophique" is not mentioned in the article. It should either be discussed in the article or removed from the box. Considering there is a discussion in my little Oxford "introduction" to Candide over whether or not Voltaire invented this genre, I have a feeling there should be more discussion of this genre in the article. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think the French flag is appearing correctly: it's the 18th century version French flag, which doesn't look too good shrunk down. Some other editor thought using that version would be a good idea. What do you think?

Conte philosophique: I've added some basic discussion of the genre and Candide's place in it.

Oh, yes, I see what you mean by the flag. Perhaps removing it would be a better idea? Awadewit (talk) 11:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Done.

I'll delete the infobox... it's pretty redundant...

• Ira Wade, a noted expert on Voltaire and Candide, speculates that Voltaire's primary source for information on the Lisbon earthquake was the 1755 work Relation historique du Tremblement de Terre survenu à Lisbonne by Ange Goudar.[12] - This sentence does not fit into the flow of the section on the historical and literary background. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've written a transition. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008

• Another interpretive possibility is that Candide cultivating "his garden" suggests his engaging only in necessary occupations, such as feeding oneself and fighting boredom. This is analogous to Voltaire's own view on gardening: he was himself a gardener at his estates in Les Délices and Ferney, and he often wrote in his correspondence that gardening was simply, for him, an effective way to keep busy. - This does not make sense - these are not analogous readings. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you prefer "similar" to "analogous"? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008

I don't really think they are similar, either. One says gardening is "necessary occupations" only and the other says gardening is a "way to keep busy". These seem quite different to me. Awadewit (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

For Voltaire, keeping busy was very important (from my readings of his correspondence). I've reworded the sentence to make this clear. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2008

• Some critics conjecture that Voltaire meant to spare Pope this ridicule out of respect, although Voltaire's Poème may have been written for Pope. - Slightly confusing - should the "for" be an "about"? Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've re-written this bit. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008

• The "Conclusion" section feels less coherent than the others, particularly the last paragraph. Could this last paragarph be integrated better? Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to do this. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008

• Are we sure there were no staged versions of Candide before the 20th century? Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I would have written that if the list in the back of the referenced book has not said it. If you can find a counter-example, I will remove the "20th century". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008

• Why are these particular works listed in the "Further readings" - there are hundreds of other articles and books on Candide - why these? Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of them are sources for commented out material. Others I included because I thought they would be good spring boards for further research into Candide. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008

• Did you use everything here? If so, we can remove this link. Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not. But I could, if you want, put those references into ==Further reading==. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008

Let's just leave the link, then. Awadewit (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Now that the copyediting has been done, we need a WP:MOS pass to fix WP:DASH and WP:ELLIPSES problems along with others. SandyGeorgia can recommend someone who knows the MOS well to help out. Awadewit (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What problems have you found? If you tell me, I will fix them. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008

For example, the article needs to have a consistent dash style - non-spaced em-dashes or spaced en-dashes. Ellipses need to have non-breaking spaces around them, if they have spaces. These small kinds of things. I haven't checked the whole article for MOS problems. These were just two that jumped out at me. Awadewit (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:DASH, WP:PUNC and WP:MOS#Ellipses. User:Epbr123 is very thorough at that sort of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've asked him. -- Rmrfstar (talk)

... and it looks like he's done it! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

This article improves every time I read it. Thanks for your hard work on this! Awadewit (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of these objections seem to be repeats of above. I'll try to address them as quickly and thoroughly as possible. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I continue. Thanks for responding to my responses. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I really want this article to succeed! I mean, it's Candide! Awadewit (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to nominator I will need to reread this article in toto to reassess my "oppose" since it has been significantly altered. Please let me know when to do so, that is, after all additions, deletions, copyediting, etc. has been completed. Awadewit (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

All that is left to be done, I think, is the copyediting of the second half. I will tell you when that has been completed. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 08:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It is done. CharlotteWebb has done it. I believe I have addressed all of your active objections. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I will reread the article today and tomorrow. Awadewit (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reread the article and updated my list. Awadewit (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've updated my responses. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh I seriously doubt I caught everything. — CharlotteWebb 18:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You're not the only user to have copyedited since the FA nom. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(out indent) I will change to "support" once the Voltaire image issue is resolved. Awadewit (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've changed to support. Awadewit (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Question What is wrong with citation 90?--Yannismarou (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to explain... but I've fixed it! -- Rmrfstar (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in "fixing" the problem, I introduced another one. The latter (and final) error was kindly repaired by Scartol. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Questions for reviewers

1) What do we think about the religion theme appearing in the "Reception" section? I myself think it is a bit too short and oddly placed here, but I would like to hear other thoughts on this. Awadewit (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

2) What do we think about the length of the plot summary? I myself think it is too detailed, but again I would like to hear more opinions on this matter. Awadewit (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

To 1 - the reception should be a response to the religious views, otherwise, it seems to belong in satire. To 2 - I actually thought Chapters X–XX could have a little more. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I'm sorry I don't understand what you mean in your response to (1). Could you please explain? -- Rmrfstar (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Your section is called reception. So, when you begin the paragraph "Organised religion, too, is harshly treated in Candide.", it focuses on what Voltaire said and not on what people said in response to Voltaire. The paragraph is correct if moved up to his themes. Its just a small change of perspective from Voltaire centered to outsiders looking in. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Done: I have moved the material on religion up to ==Style==, but not ===Satire=== (because it doesn't discuss satire). Actually, I'm really happy with how the paragraph fits there, now that I've added some transitional material to connect it to the rest of that section. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • "Since Voltaire admitted familiarity with fifteenth-century German authors who used a 'bold and buffoonish style, ..." - closing quote mark missing Epbr123 (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure the first one was just a typo: I have removed it. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• • "According to Bottiglia, "The physical size of Candide ..." - why is there an inline citation in the middle of the quote? Epbr123 (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• This was an error which I have fixed. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

plot

FWIW, I think the length of the synopsis is appropriate. There are in the work -- quite deliberately--as many events and reversals as the author could mange to incorporate--and he was the cleverest person in Europe at things like that. The details are often referred to, and given that unfortunately most people who come to this article will not--no matter how enticing the article--actually read the work--it is well to provide as much information as can be reasonably comprehended by those with no special interest. This is a major work as literature, but even more significant as history of ideas, and the more familiarity with it the better. DGG (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this entirely, and was a bit miffed by the number of paragraphs which had been <!-- commented out --> apparently by someone who decided they were "too much plot detail". I can only speak for myself, but I will say this article really does make me want to read the book. With luck I will find time for that. — CharlotteWebb 18:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

N.B. I commented out the sections per Awadewit's request to shorten the summary. I expressly commented them out so that if other editors should disagree with her, we could re-include them, by consensus agreement. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I see consensus is against me here and have struck my request for a shorter plot summary. Awadewit (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Note

Numerous unsigned comments throughout make it hard to follow the discussion. Please sign your posts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I suspect the prose needs more work, just read the lead and I will list some things I cannot straightforwardly address. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

::The novella begins with a young man, Candide, who has been indoctrinated with Leibnizian optimism (hereafter sometimes simply optimism) and lived a sheltered life in an Edenic paradise. - this is odd, there is a perfect tense and a simple past tense - the second should be "is living" or "has been living" I think.

• I've rewritten this bit to make the connexion between the paradise and the indoctrination more clear; and I've made the tenses of the verbs consistent. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As expected by Voltaire, Candide has enjoyed both great success and great scandal. - is 'forseen' a better verb? As the use of the perfect tense in the second clause leads me to think it is referring to contemporary/posthumous success (?)

I don't like "foreseen"; it almost implies clairvoyance to me... as if he knew everything that would happen to Candide, including becoming one of the most popular books of all time. I intentionally use "has enjoyed" because I want to say the success and scandal were not just directly post-publication but indeed have endured to the present day. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, point taken. Happy with the response. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The prose is repetitive - I know it is hard to avoid but the 1755 Lisbon earthquake is repeated alot in the beginning of Historical and literary background - it would be nice to streamline these.

I read through the section and could only bring myself to delete one instance of "earthquake" in "Historical and literary background". -- Rmrfstar (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Every little bit does help. I'll have another look too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article, thorough, and structured nicely, although something does seem a little off about the prose. An example in the 'Legacy' section is the sentence, "Charles Brockden Brown, an early American novelist, may have been directly affected by Voltaire, with whose work he was well acquainted.", it just seems a bit awkward to me. And the frequently used adverbs scattered around make this article read more as a school paper than for Wikipedia. Still, I support because it is up to featured quality criteria. Excellent work. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've reworded that one sentence. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Let's close this. With its pros and cons (it is definitely not perfect), this article (which reminded me my school years, when I was studying Zadig from the original) deserves to be featured. And, if I am not clear enough, I support!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - References have been reviewed and fixed by Doibot. --Meldshal42? 19:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.