Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/George Orwell bibliography/archive1

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:27, 3 February 2010 [1].

George Orwell bibliography[edit]

Nominator(s): Justin (koavf)
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because it is on a par with the other featured bibliographies. The Ministry (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support but possible conflict of interest, as I made most of this list. I had always intended on submitting it after I got a hold of Davison's volumes to round out the list of publications, but I suppose it can go through the procedure now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems you are the primary contributor, so I added you as a co-nominator and unbolded your support here. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just want to clarify, that koavf is without the primary contributor. I just found the list while browsing, did some edits, and then nominated it since I thought it was of FL quality. The Ministry (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comments This article is going to need a bigger lead. Also, I thought the book section was lacking, perhaps the original publishers of the books, and possibly a more specific publishing date could be added? -- Scorpion0422 05:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done The lead is somewhat longer to give some more context and I made more detail to the books and novels list. Of course, the intro could probably be better. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Resolved comments from Kumioko (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Kumioko (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for know There seems to be a few minor things that I recommend fixing.

:*There are disambiguous links for John Freeman.

Not done I included that link precisely so readers could see who "John Freeman" is. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC) this ones done. --Kumioko (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some minor issues with reference and date formatting according to a review using AWB.
namely references 4, 10 and 11
Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think Koavf should be included as a nominator since he contributed a lot in building this list.—Chris!c/t 19:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
dates with preceding zeroes such as 06 should be 6 per the MOS.
Not done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC) I don't see any preceding zeroes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the dates in the table you'll see them. WP isn't displaying them but they are there.--Kumioko (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'll do that now. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the alt text should be a little more clear
Not done Strictly speaking, there isn't any alt text, but a caption. I suppose if you think it's unclear, I can really only advise you to be bold, because it seems sufficient to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text is seperate from a captiomn. Alt text should describe what appears in the image so that readers who cant see it know whats in it.--Kumioko (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See below For alt text. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apologies for mutilating your text, but I figured it might be the most intelligible way to
respond. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can do I'll do that now. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a couple of minor edits with AWB and I see a couple more I can do with some regex code including cleaning up most of the dates. --Kumioko (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I keep nickle and diming you but this list is huge and its taking a while to go through. I noticed one more thing.

  • the sorting in the tables is off. --Kumioko (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries I prefer these simple, direct problems to address. Can you tell me how it's off? I spent a lot of time trying to fix that. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks ok now good job. There were also a couple places where the dates were out of order based on the comments. I will try and find them again. --Kumioko (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Images need WP:ALT text. If the infobox doesn't support it then it should be modified accordingly.
Not done I have asked someone to add this parameter and I have  Done it myself by adding text. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We no longer start our lists "The following ...." etc. Have a look at the current FLC List of works of William Gibson for some ideas on what we'd expect to see as an intro to this type of list. For a list of this magnitude, we'd certainly be looking for more than one short paragraph.
Not done I'm just bad at these, I guess I'll have to rely on someone else to add this or give it some serious consideration later. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, needs serious consideration for this FLC to be successful. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'm not saying you're wrong (you aren't), I'm just saying that I cannot do this right now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are "op/eds"?
Op-ed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "probably best remembered" according to whom? This kind of claim could use a few citations otherwise it reads like your opinion.
Done I figured the next sentence would substantiate it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by 1989" - we're now a few days short of 2010 - can we get an update?
Not done I would certainly like one, but I don't have it. Do you know of a resource (site or book) that lists book sales? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to say it, but it's not really my problem. You should be looking around for something that's more up to date than two decades ago. Or otherwise rephrase it to make it seem useable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay No, it's not "your problem" I was just asking for help. If you can't help me, that's fine. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Update with the sales figure from The Cambridge Companion to George Orwell, from 2007, which claims "almost 50 million copies sold". Instead of the old 40. The Ministry (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notable essays include:" what makes them more notable than other essays that didn't make the cut? Could this list not be comprehensive?
Not done This list would include over 300 essays (as included later in the article.) Some of his essays are better-known than others (as one would imagine), and some of them have been published independently. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line is, you've said "notable essays include" without any reference to what is notable. Either include them all, or clearly define what inclusion criteria you've applied to your own subset of essays which you consider to be more notable than other essays Orwell wrote. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not done but worth doing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 2000–2002" - between 2000 and 2002.
Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "criticizing" - presumably we'd expect this list to be written in BritEng so "criticising"
Done It is in British English, see Talk:George Orwell bibliography. I'm glad that you checked this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 3 missing a comma before the ISBN.
Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Orwell.ru a WP:RS?
Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 10 is malformed.
Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table is mammoth. I'll look at it once these comments are addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, refs 13 and 15 need accessdates, publisher details etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


See Talk:George Orwell bibliography/Comments for a simple list of all of the suggestions.

Comment According to the list, "War Commentary" #7 and "War Commentary" #8 were broadcast the same day; while perfectly possible, I just want to check that this is correct rather than a typo when writing the article. Nev1 (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The article is a valuable contribution, but:

  • Surely the lead should mention that Orwell's real name was Eric Blair?
  • There are a lot of red links ot BBC Eastern Service. Is there a reason why you chose to link it more than once? I notice that the service is mentioned in connection with Orwell in BBC World Service. While the latter article could do with an improvement around this area, I think it would be useful to create a redirect to the World service under the name you use.
  • You mention six novels but this are not identified sepcifically. Form reading the subsection I wouldn't have immediately worked out that Burmese Days counted as one. I suggest you identify the novels explicitly.
  • The foot notes needing checking for notable people to link such as Scott Bradfield and John Freeman (politician). There may be others.

--Peter cohen (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose
    • Several uncited paragraphs and sections need references.
    • The ISBN's are ugly and hard to read when they are included in the prose.
    • In the full list of publications, what do the acronyms in the "Collected" column mean?
    • Does ref 3 really support the sentence it references?
    • What makes references 4 and 5 reliable?
      • If 4 is reliable, it needs a publisher.
        • I have replaced 5, with The Cambridge Companion to George Orwell. I can't find a publisher for 4, but I will continue searching. However, Peter Davison is the editor of the 20-volumes of The Complete Orwell and have written George Orwell: A Literary Life, published by Random House. P. S. Burton (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refs 15 and 16 have really long quotes that I don't think are necessary. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the quotes are necessary, as the explain something that is quite complicated, and disputed. P. S. Burton (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status?Have Peter cohen's concerns been addressed, as well as the uncited section issue raised by the_ed17? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response I have taken it upon myself to fix these errors, but I have been slack about doing so for the past couple of weeks. I will try to get to them tonight or tomorrow. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 1 February 2010 (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_list_candidates/George_Orwell_bibliography/archive1&oldid=1142601966"