Talk:Fyodor Dostoevsky/Archive 5

Query

*Stable. There are some recent edit disagreements present in the article history, though the matter is now being discussed on the talkpage. Will see how the matter develops. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC) *Captions in images may need attention per

• • I removed the last picture of the living FD. The pictures of Snitkina and his study are not so significant, so I may remove it. Will check the captions. --
    Tomcat (7
    ) 12:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Focus. There's no section that dwells too long, though it may be worth discussing the value and appropriateness of the section which gives plot summaries of the major works. I can see the value to the reader of placing those works in context of his life as he was writing them, but I'm unsure of the value of a section devoted to plot summaries. There's also in inconsistency in approach, with some works given mostly a plot summary, while others are given mainly reactions and responses. It may be a weakness of the article, that a work such as Karamazov is not mentioned in the Career section, while Crime and Punishment is mentioned only in terms of publication date, and how much money it earned Dostoyevsky. I'll probably return to the issue of the major works and the part they played in Dostoyevsky's life when looking more closely at Broad coverage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The inclusion of the plot summaries has been a frequent discussion. There is no overall consensus whether those are needed or not. --
    Tomcat (7
    ) 12:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Broad coverage. I've not finished looking into this. I'm waiting for some books I've ordered from my local library. Meantime, I feel that inclusion of the writing and publication of his major works in the career sections would be useful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Fail

• The lead will need attention to meet
  WP:Lead. At present it doesn't provide an appropriate summary of the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}
  21:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't summarized his liaisons, health, personality, beliefs in the lead, as I am unsure in which paragraph I should do that. --

Tomcat (7

) 11:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Factually accurate / Original research. Statements in the article are not closely cited. Paragraphs containing a variety of statements are cited at the end of the paragraph rather than next to the statements. When the facts are checked with available print and online sources, there are inconsistencies and differences which amount to significant in places. Nominator is currently looking into this. There are two related concerns here: one is closeness of citing, and the other is interpretation of sources. I am putting interpretation of sources down as OR, as the findings are not what is in the sources. I have considered going through the rest of the article and checking it all line by line, but that would take more time than I have available, and would hold up this review for far too long. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

General comments

• As this is a long and detailed article on a complex, high profile and significant topic, I did have a read through before deciding to take on the review. I did note that the article has had several GAN and FACs in the recent past, and I have noted the concerns raised in those reviews. My initial impression is that this is a decently researched, decently written, and decently presented article. I noted some wording that could be improved, but nothing significant, and nothing that impedes understanding. Essentially, the information is conveyed clearly and in a readable and approachable manner. I have some knowledge of Dostoyevsky, and have visited his home and haunts in St. Petersburg, but my knowledge is far from detailed, so I will need to do some background reading in addition to checking sources - as such I don't anticipate completing this review too quickly as regards areas such as broad coverage, but given the decent condition and clarity of the article, I don't anticipate significant delays in most other areas. My feeling from my initial read through is that this article is likely to meet GA criteria, though I haven't fully applied the criteria yet, and haven't done the background reading, so there may be snags yet unknown. However, I hope that any possible snags will be overcome, and that this article can be listed as a Good Article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Why are Russian measurements being used? "150 versts" and "2 arshins and 6 vershoks". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed.--

Tomcat (7

) 12:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not a GA issue - just raised while doing the review: Are all the External links needed, and do they all comply with
  WP:EL? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}
  21:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree and removed some external links.--

Tomcat (7

) 12:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• There's an inconsistency between the infobox and the article as to which are the main works. And who is deciding which are the main works? Are there sources which can be cited? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I propose removing the last section entirely.--

Tomcat (7

) 10:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Hold on, please. The infobox says "notable" works; the section is headed "major" works. Those are not the same, and "main" is not used as an attribute of his works anywhere in the article. Deleting the whole section would be a terrible waste of good content, just to resolve a superficial inconsistency with an infobox field, don't you think? If the two really need to be aligned, wouldn't it be better to align the contents of the infobox field with the subsections of Major works? --Stfg (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you feel are the differences between "notable" and "major"? If you feel that the term notable in the infobox is to be used in the same sense as

WP:Notable, then the box would list all the works contained in Category:Works by Fyodor Dostoyevsky - over 26. I note that featured articles such as William Shakespeare, Honoré de Balzac, Anton Chekhov, and Ernest Hemingway, do not list any works in the infobox, and that may be a better solution that having inconsistency in the article, or conflicting editorial opinion. Another solution would be to have a sourced section discussing Dostoyevsky's major works, and the works mentioned in that section listed in the lead, and a discussion held between contributors as to if it would be helpful/worthwhile to repeat such a list in an infobox. My understanding is that infoboxes are appreciated by some readers as a capsule of information which can be scanned more quickly and easily than a lengthy prose lead, so my view would be that while it may appear to be redundant, repeating a list from the lead in the infobox can be useful to readers in a hurry. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

13:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

A very good example of the distinction between notable and major would be Pergolesi's little opera buffa La serva padrona. It was written to serve as an intermezzo, that is, an entertainment performed during the intermission between acts of an opera seria. As such, it's far from major, but it's notable both in the everyday sense, because it's well known and still performed, and in the WP:N sense, because of how much has been written about it. As to the several solutions you list, I think they are all good, and would be content with any of them. But it would be sad to lose the whole last section, wouldn't it? --Stfg (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

On further reflection, if "notable works" in the infobox means everything satisfying WP:N, then it would need to include at least everyting that's bluelinked in the Bibliography subsection. Do you think that might be too much? I'd still be happy with any other option you mention. --Stfg (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• In 1843 he published his first work, a translation of Eugénie Grandet. This is included in a list of his works appended to the end of the article, but is not included in the main article. The paragraph on 1843 says he took a job as a lieutenant engineer, lived in an apartment owned by Dr. Rizenkampf, has a long quote by Rizenkampf - which might be more useful in a section on Dostoyevsky's personality than in his career history, and then says "Dostoyevsky's translated works were unsuccessful, and his financial difficulties led him to write a novel." We haven't been told about him doing any translations, so this summary appears a little odd. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have some texts on Dostoyevsky and will be working on the rest of the review this weekend. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps the most significant literaty engagement with Dostoyevsky is
  M. M. Bakhtin's analysis of his poetics. I think some kind of summary of Bakhtins interpretation and critique of Dostoyevsky should be included. [1][2] Bakhtin argues that Dostoyevsky created the novel as a genre by relying on the integration of many different voices within the fabric of the text. For Bakhtin the novel as we know it today did not exist before Dostoyevsky.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·
  17:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree that for a comprehensive article on Dostoyevsky that Bakhtin's views should be included. This article should not be considered for FA status without that. I wouldn't, however, fail to list as a GA if Bakhtin was not mentioned, as the criteria for GA is "broad coverage" rather than "comprehensive" coverage. As a good editing model though, it would be worthwhile to include mention of Bakhtin, and I fully support that. Would you care to get involved in editing the article, you appear to have some knowledge and understanding of the topic. Your contributions would be valuable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

I could take a look on how to include some of Bakhtin's work into the current structure of the article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. Please do. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a separate article which discusses this, see

Tomcat (7

) 17:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, althouugh this is more about style than themes. Also I think that article could be given a fuller summary in the article. I've corrected a bit of the treatment of Bakhtin in the daughter article and included a minor mention in the main article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not a GA question, but while we are doing an audit: Are all the External links needed - and do they meet the criteria in
  WP:EL? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}
  13:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You have already asked that. I had removed some external links.--

Tomcat (7

) 17:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes, you're right, I had asked this earlier. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not required for meeting GA criteria, but a question for future development (particularly if going for FA): Would it be worth mentioning the International Dostoevsky Society and the excellent series of Dostoevsky Studies they have published since 1971? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Done.--

Tomcat (7

) 17:27, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Most sources report the execution as being a "mock" execution. This source goes into detail, stating that the Tsar organised it, and indeed changed the instructions three times. Is there a reason why this article does not mention that it was a mock execution? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Why is this "Both of his parents may have had Tatar ancestry as well.^[1][2]" commented out in the article? Is there an intention to uncomment this at some point? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • There was a dispute with a user who disliked that cited fact.--
    Tomcat (7
    ) 18:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• " Marei, a serf and farmer from Darovoye, was a family friend who helped Dostoyevsky to deal with his hallucinations". Sources I am reading give Marei as a peasant or serf working for the family, rather than as a family friend. Dostoyevsky wrote about him in "The Peasant Marey", in which he recounts an incident in which Dostoyevsky is scared of rumours of a wolf, and is comforted by the serf. Dostoyevsky is impressed that the serf comforts him without regard for reward - just out of human compassion. I'm not seeing a source which gives the view that Marei was either a family friend nor that he helped Dostoyevsky to deal with his hallucinations. Can you check your sources? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I was reading somewhere that he was a good family friend. He also helped Dostoyevsky when he had hallucinations (he recounts that it in his Diaries)--
    Tomcat (7
    ) 18:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: From recent copy editing, we have: "In 1809, when he was twenty years old, his father was admitted to Moscow's Imperial Medical-Surgical Academy." Unfortunately, "he" and "his" in that sentence refer to different people, which is very confusing. That's why, in the section about the family, given names were oftern used (in this case, Mikhail was admitted ...). I believe this is quite common in such sections, including in FAs. --Stfg (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I'll have another look. If it's possible to avoid first names (especially when the same name is used by different people) then I would go for that - so Dostoyevsky's father is preferable to Mikhail, until repetition becomes tedious or awkward! Anyway - please feel free to copy edit. It's often quicker and easier to directly do copy-editing than bring it here. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all of that, the more so in this case considering that Fyodor's brother is also called Mikhail. Normally, successive copy edits move things gradually forwards, and as I did the last one, I'm reluctant to undo your work unless I can provide a clear edit summary, to avoid taking a step backwards. Anyway, it's going well, and thanks. --Stfg (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I trust you. And have no worries about correcting or amending anything I write. I do that myself all the time, so have no objections to anyone else doing it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Was Mikhail Dostoyevsky in a seminary or not? The article said he didn't go - a source I just checked said he did go. I have removed mention of the seminary in the meantime. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I've checked seven more sources. He went to Podolsk theological seminary - graduating in 1804 when he was 15. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• As I'm working through I'm finding that the article sometimes doesn't match exactly with sources. I've mentioned a few above. It will be quicker and easier for me to directly tidy those up in the article rather than bring each instance here. So, along with a bit of copy-editing for readability, I'll more align the text with what sources say, and place an appropriate inline source at that point. I will retain the content and the organisation of the current article, though may shuffle sentences and paragraphs to aid clarity and readability (such as in the childhood section, putting together mentions of literature influences, and mentions of living in the hospital grounds). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

They clearly support the content.--

Tomcat (7

) 13:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• In my last edit I removed that he eagerly looked forward to his parent's night-time readings. This may be true. But all sources that I am consulting do emphasise that the father was very strict. While the more modern critics and biographers feel that the father's cruelties have perhaps been over-emphasised (as there is no evidence for beatings), it appears he did shout and rage at the children, and demanded a lot from them. There is a mention in the article of the father's strictness, but it appears that more should be made of it, as the sources do mention it in detail, and a phrase suggesting a happy, idyllic relationship with the father is perhaps at odds with that. I bring this up here, as I am starting to wonder just how much work is needed to bring this to GA standard, given that I am questioning so much text (almost every sentence), and I haven't got very far yet in the article. I will work a bit more - perhaps looking at later sections of his life. And if it starts to look as though there is too much work to be done, I will close the review. I didn't expect that I would be saying that, as I have a lot of respect for the nominator, and the article does give a very favourable appearance. But it's not standing up to close scrutiny. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that some content here appears to be out of context. I am currently translating it to German, and I found some things I would like to remove or change. For example some quotes in the biography are out of context. Some events are too detailed.--
    Tomcat (7
    ) 18:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

When I first cast my eye over this article I thought it looked complete, and that with a bit of tidying up would meet GA criteria. But when looking closely at the content, it doesn't match closely enough to reliable sources, and overall there is too much work to be done to do it myself. The lead needs attention, but that is a matter of a couple of hours work. There is also the question of broad coverage, and how to deal with the major works (and deciding what the major works are). But the most important aspect is the factual accuracy. I feel that as it stands the article is not reliable, and may be presenting an inaccurate picture of what is one of the world's most significant writers. As such I feel it appropriate to tag the article with {{Disputed}} to alert readers and other editors to the situation. I'm putting the article on hold to allow Tomcat time to assess the situation and let me know what he wishes to do. If he feels he can put the article right in a reasonable space of time, I will leave the review open, and will help out where I can. If he'd like more time to address the issues, then we can close the review as not listed, and it can be renominated when the work has been done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no disputed content. --

Tomcat (7

) 13:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As Tomcat has not indicated he wishes to keep the review open, and no constructive work has been done on the article, I am closing the review as not-listed. When the issues have been addressed the article can be renominated. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

During the GA review a number of factual inaccuracies were found. The nominator has checked with sources used, and has agreed that there are inconsistencies with the sources. The GA review has been put on hold to allow the nominator time to consult with sources, and improve the article. In the meantime the article has been tagged as possibly factually inaccurate to alert readers that the contents cannot be relied upon to be accurate, and that they should check sources themselves. This is only a temporary situation, as once the article has been checked through, and any remaining errors corrected, the disputed tag can be removed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC).

No, I haven't said that the sources do not support the information. All information should be accurate. The aforementioned examples are very odd. The article says he went to the Imperial Medical-Surgical Academy (an academy is a seminary, right?), and I explained the events with Marei. Before your copyedits, it stated "Mikhail was admitted to Moscow's Imperial Medical-Surgical Academy". --

Tomcat (7

) 13:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, the article is about Fyodor Dostoyevsky, not his father. --

Tomcat (7

) 13:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No, a medical college is not a theology college. I think having English as a second language is perhaps what has caused the problems here. Slight misunderstandings of meaning have led to factual inaccuracies. I think on the whole your work on Wikipedia is very good, and you have made many very impressive improvements to articles. But perhaps the nature of the subject matter here, and the complexity of the topic, have led to some misreadings of the source texts. The "dispute" is that one editor (yourself) has interpreted sources one way, and another editor (myself) disputes the accuracy of the interpretation. It's not that I am in dispute with you, or feel that you have done anything wrong. On the contrary, I feel you have worked hard to improve this article to the best of your ability. It's just that due to the language issue, some misunderstandings have occurred. Let me know if you wish me to keep the review open. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A seminary is not always theological [3].--

Tomcat (7

) 13:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I am also curious why you stick so much to that seminary. The article does not even mention that information.--

Tomcat (7

) 13:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing the dispute tag is not the way to resolve this matter. The article needs checking against sources. When I checked, I found a very high proportion of errors. I just glanced at the article, and it still states incorrect information about the execution. Sources show that this was a planned mock execution, and not - as stated here - that Dostoyevsky was actually sentenced to death and this was luckily reprieved at the last minute. It was always planned to be that way. Having the tag in place alerts readers to the situation so they can make an informed decision about how much to accept at face value what is said here, and also alerts editors who can assist in improving the article. The tag is designed to be helpful rather than a badge of shame - it just identifies what work needs to be done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It was not a

Tomcat (7

) 13:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Bald contradictions are rude and cut no ice. The GA reviewer has checked several sources and shown good grounds to require further source checks, therefore more sources need checking, period. Simply contradicting and reverting is edit warring. --Stfg (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• The problem here is that if there is a problem of factual accuracy then a third party, preferably an expert in Dostoyevsky, would have to go through the sources and either list the problems or fix them. It is not fair to expect the nominator to fix factual accuracy problems without letting them know where such problems are found. But of course the article can't be a GA while there are doubts about accuracy. Which sources describe the event as a mock execution and which as an actual planned execution? Which reasons do we have to believe one over the other? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching this article since I was asked to review it several months ago. At the time, I had no idea how complex the subject is, which has been compounded by the Wiki-drama that's been well-documented. It's unfortunate because the subject is important and deserving of a high-quality article. To answer Maunus' question, though, it's my understanding that if there are two sources that are contradictory, first you accept the most reliable source. If both are equally reliable, then you state the contradiction in the article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Or you could just explain the conflicting reports in a note. Better than making a call. Ceoil (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think making a call may be OK if there is sufficient reliable evidence for one or the other. But we'd have to see the sources to see whether there is. If they appear more or less equally reliable then yes, noting both is best.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, that is why I am asking which arguments we have to consider one of these sources more reliable than the other.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

On the question of the mock (or otherwise) execution, SilkTork identified this source in his comment of 22:07, 18 June 2013, in the GA review, transcluded above. Since Tomcat did not reply to that comment, but nevertheless flat-out contradicted SilkTork today (just above here), I assume that Tomcat overlooked that comment and source. If this, then why not more? So I think that this does confirm the need for a third-party, preferably expert, review, as Maunus suggests. --Stfg (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I too have been watching since I did the very first peer review and then one of the FACs. I checked the sourcing then and posted this. (Note change of my user name since). Also there's this thread in the archives, [4], among others. I suspect the best way forward is to work from top to bottom and verify. Victoria (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me emphasize that I have used biographies in three languages, among of which was the original Kjetsaa biography. The reviewer still hasn't posted a single error, although he clearly stated there are a lot of them. The banner is meaningless and incorrect, and it distracts the reader from reading it. The aforementioned examples are not grammatical errors, they were probably misunderstood by different English speakers. SilkTork, you meant you have borrowed books from your library. If that is so, you may name a few more errors. Regards.--

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Vasily Perov - Портрет Ф.М.Достоевского - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 14, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-08-14. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821–81; depicted in 1872) was a Russian novelist, short story writer, essayist and philosopher. After publishing his first novel, Poor Folk, at age 25, Dostoyevsky wrote (among others) eleven novels, three novellas, and seventeen short novels, including Crime and Punishment (1866), The Idiot (1869), and The Brothers Karamazov (1880).Painting: Vasily Perov

Archive – More featured pictures...

Before this edit by an IP, the article read "A detective novel,[188] Crime and Punishment describes Rodion Raskolnikov's life...". The source for this was (well, wasn't, more like it) Cicovacki p. 80, which says "... the title may suggest a detective novel. Nothing could be further from the truth", expanded on in a footnote: "... the view that C and P is not a detective novel follows A Cascardi ..." (emphasis mine). Given that SilkTork detected many inaccuracies in their meticulous review – none of which have been addressed – and this glaring factual error, wouldn't it be better to put the tag back again? I mean, how can we be sure, without checking everything against the sources, that there aren't more inconsistencies like this? Best, --Coco Lacoste (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the lead section is extremely long, and should be shortened. Costatitanica (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Fyodor Dostoevsky/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following