Talk:The Fountainhead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee The Fountainhead was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 22, 2016 Good article nominee Not listed
February 8, 2017 WikiProject peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Lead with Plot section[edit]

Is there any particular reason the plot comes third? Most other works of fiction, movies, books, etc, the Plot is the leading section after the introduction. Recommend changing from current:

> Background, Publication_history, Plot Summary, Characters, etc

to having the plot and characters first:

> Plot Summary, Characters, Background, Publication_history, etc

Anyone want to second this and do a quick switch? thx. (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The recommended layout from WikiProject Novels used to be different, and this article was organized based on that older layout. So I don't see a problem with updating it. --RL0919 (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I didn't know it changed and think to first establish the background is/was a good idea. I reverted, but will not do it again if there is consensus to have background somewhere late. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Pop culture references fluff[edit]

is there really a need for all those Pop culture references? even one that only hint at something in the fountain head? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no need for a list of trivial references and allusions. There is a section immediately above on "Cultural influence" that could easily absorb a narrative account of the novel's presence in pop culture, fully cited and mentioning only significant examples that have received attention in reliable secondary sources. However, it is hard to justify the bother of writing such a narrative unless there was some indication of consensus here, because resisting the forces of trivia list expansion requires ongoing vigilance. --RL0919 (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I am removing the section as it has been tagged as uncited for three years. Additionally it is the definition of WP:Trivia, it has no pertinence to the article beyond passing mention in other media. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 06:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
As suggested by my previous comments, I support this removal. Any commentary about pop culture allusions that comes from reliable secondary sources can go in the "Cultural influence" section, which remains in the article. --RL0919 (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Infobox changes ISBN & page count[edit]

Keeping an ISBN in the infobox is helpful to the readers. It allows for quick linking to the Book sources WP page. Page count info (695, 727, or whatever) serves to let readers know a obvious and important bit of information – that it is a long book. Providing info is what we want to do, and the fact that page counts vary or that ISBNs post-date the original publication shouldn't impede this dispersal of knowledge. Along the same lines, the book has a variety of WorldCat numbers. We need to select one for the infobox. When doing so, we should (IMO) select the one that gives the best listing for libraries which stock the book. (I see that the template parameters say don't use ISBNs for books published before they were started. I'm opening a discussion on this topic at the template talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have looked first before saying I'd leap in and open a discussion there. The archives for the template have lots of ISBN related threads. Most of them are about the technical aspects of rendering the ISBNs, but I'm going to study them more to see what and how the consensus is. (The infobox parameter says give page count for first edition.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Addition of ISBN from Wikidata[edit]

Please note that this article's infobox is retrieving an ISBN from Wikidata currently. This is the result of a change made to {{Infobox book}} as a result of this RfC. It would be appreciated if an editor took some time to review this ISBN to ensure it is appropriate for the infobox. If it is not, you could consider either correcting the ISBN on Wikidata (preferred) or introducing a blank ISBN parameter in the infobox to block the retrieval from Wikidata. If you do review the ISBN, please respond here so other editors don't duplicate your work. This is an automated message to address concerns that this change did not show up on watchlists. ~ RobTalk 01:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking much better[edit]

Article is looking much better since the first good article review.

So whoever's been on top of that, great job ! Sagecandor (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Fountainhead/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 20:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I know I was the GA reviewer on the first GA review. I see it's had a lot of work and effort on improvement since then, including a peer review. I'll re-read over the first review, take a look at the peer review, and take a look at the state of the article in comparison to the prior GA review. I'll read all that over and post up a review later. (Mind you, some of above-noted pages, histories, and changes, I've been looking over before, as I noted in my comment on the article's talk page at Looking much better.) Sagecandor (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)