Template:Did you know nominations/Poor Folk
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Length
Poor Folk[edit]
- ... that Fyodor Dostoevsky's Poor Folk was named Russia's first social novel?
- ALT1:... that Fyodor Dostoevsky intended to hang himself if his debut novel should become a failure?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Roestam Sutan Palindih
Created/expanded by GreatOrangePumpkin (talk). Self nom at 15:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
This is a nice article, and you did a good job with the expansion. The readable prose is expanded from 5,056 to 13,809 characters within the last five days. This is an expansion factor of 2.7, while DYK rules require fivefold expansion. Please correct me if I did something wrong in the calculations. I notice the article has been nominated for peer review, and wish good luck with the process of bringing it to GA or FA. Oceanh (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I notice that the article has been even further expanded. If we take out the plot section from the calculations, expansion is more than sufficient. I thus ask for a second opinion, and will support promotion if there is consensus (see also the ongoing discussion on the talk page). To complete the review: The original hook is fine; size is ok, it is cited in the article, and verified in the cited reference. I think the ALT1 hook would need to be rephrased (for instance changing "intended" to "said he intended"), as the cited letter does not verify that he really intended to hang himself; saying this in a letter to his brother might be a way of just pointing out he was in financial trouble. But original hook is fine. Oceanh (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
- As noted in WT:DYK, there is no plot exemption. By my count using DYKcheck, the article has expanded from 5,044 to 14,047 prose characters. The plot has decreased from 4196 to 3684 characters; though it has been cleaned up significantly, much is retained intact. Oceanh's original calculations are basically correct: the article would need over 11,000 additional characters to qualify for the 5x expansion. I'd be interested to hear whether some of the long-time DYK folks have found occasion to give exceptions to cases like this in the past or feel it's appropriate to do so now, since the article had only been a single paragraph of information about the book with an enormous plot section, and is now useful and informative. (In short, is this a case of WP:IAR or not?) If so, then there would be a reason to review it. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that there is no plot exemption in the DYK rules, and I don't recall any de facto plot exemption being applied in the past. The work on the article by GreatOrangePumpkin/Kürbis/Tomcat7 is impressive and the article and hooks are very interesting. I see that it has been submitted as a GA nomination -- it appears to be a solid candidate for that. If we were featuring GAs in DYK, this would be a great candidate.
- I also wondered if this is a good FA candidate, but concluded it isn't nearly there yet. When I poked around some of the cited references that are available online to look for content that could be used to expand the current article beyond its current size, I found some interesting possibilities. There apparently has been much literary analysis/criticism of this book that could be discussed in the article. For example, in the Apollonio book I learned that one scholar has found a strong and direct relationship between the book and Dostoyevsky's own life, and in several sources I learn that scholars consider this to have been highly "literary" (one source calls it the most literary of the author's works) and I find extensive commentary on the subplots and themes in the book. The "Reception" section of the current Wikipedia article seems to be limited to contemporary reception plus a somewhat flip newspaper piece from 2010; I would expect to see more information on critical reaction over the last 155 years. --Orlady (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- I will try to search for current reception.--Tomcat (7) 20:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
If there is no plot exemption then I can basically create a piece-by-piece plot section? --Tomcat (7) 20:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Note I found more reception which may have overall 11,000 characters. So don't close this discussion please! Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
It has been about 12 days, and no significant additions have been made: only a few hundred prose characters in that time period. Regrettably, this article is not going to qualify for approval under current DYK rules, as it has a 3x expansion and needs 5x, or another 10,000 or so characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not fair. Several users agreed in WT:DYK that there should be a plot exception as the plot summary is unencyclopedic and unreferenced and unjustified. Also plot was ignored for years, but someone changed the rules. There Lived Kozyavin for example was rejected because it was mainly composed of the plot summary. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- I'm willing to put the rejection in abeyance while this is further thrashed out on the WT:DYK page. However, I believe the declaration of consensus there was premature, and have registered my opposition to the proposed rule change. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Consensus is against exempting the plot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)