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 not promoted by GrahamColm 21:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Fyodor Dostoyevsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Fyodor Dostoyevsky/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Fyodor Dostoyevsky/archive2

Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 10:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again I am nominating this article following several extensive cuts, clean ups and copyedits. Unfortunately the last peer review was an image review, but it definitely improved the images that were problematic last time. I moved the content about themes and style into a separate article, as I had did last time before the first FAC, and created a short summary describing major themes and style. I also readded summaries of his major works, as has been recommended in the last GAN and the second to last PR. To round up his legacy I created a sub-section concerning his reputation worlwide, ie translations, adaptions, etc. Regarding the long pange ranges, I started a discussion here and was told that they are not a problem at all. I could simply remove the Frank footnotes if needed. I hope this review won't be chaotic and heated as last time. Regards. Tomcat (7) 10:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To clarify, the above statement regarding this article's themes and style sections isn't exactly accurate. [2] To Tomcat7's credit, however, he did finally follow many reviewers' suggestions, making a stronger article in the long run. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions 1) Why are some books with URLs in SFN format and yet others are not? 2) I'm checking whether the German statue has Freedom of Panorama or not. PumpkinSky talk 18:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, Germany has FOP. I think your image licenses are ok. That leaves question 1. PumpkinSky talk 18:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the sfn parameter from Christian Fiction and Religious Realism in the Novels of Dostoevsky. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on prose based on preliminary sample. Consider whether words like "however" and "nevertheless" are really earning their living in the article. The prose is meant to be "brilliant". It isn't, yet. --John (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what's the problem with words like "however" and "nethertheless". It seems that you English speakers prefer to leave out as many words as possible. Then please define "brilliant", because it is meaningless in this case.--Tomcat (7) 21:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also confused what you mean with "sample". Have you posted your samples somewhere else?--Tomcat (7) 21:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest getting a native speaker to copyedit it. --John (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest you answer my questions. It has been copyedited by a native speaker. If you find something troublesome, then post it here. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 08:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have done. --John (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You haven't.--Tomcat (7) 10:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose as nominator has engaged in argument about my oppose, and has tried to edit the FA criteria in a way I find pointy. --John (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have the right to engage in argument about your oppose, and I have the right to change articles and explaining my rationale in the edit summary.--Tomcat (7) 18:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I have to concur with the view that the prose does not yet meet FA standard. The article may have been copyedited by a native English speaker, but there are still many examples of prose that is either questionable or plain wrong. A few specific instances:

• "Dostoyevsky was raised in the family home on the grounds of Mariinsky Hospital." – in the grounds.
• "in their estate" → "at their estate"
• "After a short visit to Mikhail in Reval, Fyodor frequently attended concerts, operas, plays and ballets." Reads as a non sequitur
• "These stories were unsuccessful, leaving Dostoyevsky back in financial trouble and decided to join the utopian socialist Betekov circle, a tight-knit community that helped him survive." Not grammatical.
• "Dostoyevsky's served four years of exile with hard labour..." Why the possessive apostrophe? And the narrative flow that follows this sentence is most confusing.
• "...the bathroom was a small room occupying more than 200 people." Rooms do not occupy people.
• "Dostoyevsky was generally respected by the prisoners, but despised by some because of xenophobic statements." Statements made by him, or made about him? And is "statements" really the word required?
• "Describing his character, 'He looked morose. His sickly, pale face was covered with freckles'...". Who is describing whom here?
• "During a visit to Belikhov, Dostoyevsky met the family of Alexander Ivanovich Isaev and Maria Dmitrievna Isaeva, with whom he soon fell in love." He fell in love with a family?

Please note that I have only looked at a small part of the text. On the plus side, there is plenty of depth and detail in the article – perhaps too much incidental information in places. You have obviously researched deeply, and your dedication to the subject over a long period of time cannot be faulted. However, I note that the article has not been promoted to GA, despite four attempts, and has been archived at FAC once. If it is to succeed here, the prose is going to need an overhaul, not just tinkering. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on reference formatting, prose, and quite likely comprehensiveness issues. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand the criteria used to put some references in the base Bibliography and some in the "Biographies" section (and, for that matter, the "Religion" section).
• The Meier-Gräfe reference has problems. For one thing, the link is the Google Snippet View page of the 1928 version, not a nonexistence 1988 edition. I suspect this book wasn't actually at hand while writing the article, because the 1972 Haskell House edition (ISBN 978-0838313909) is much more readily available. If you are going to go with the 1928 printing, there's no reason the publisher should be in lower case.
• Quite a bit of work was clearly put into identifying book sources for this article. But I'm concerned at the complete absence of scholarly journal references for one of the major authors of the 19th century. Even the precise nature of his epilepsy has been a subject of scholarly debate.
• Although this article is generally well-referenced throughout, there are some sections where it is difficult to determine what source is supporting certain claims. See the use of "modern human" under Notes from Underground (whose words are those? who considers that the chief aim?), or the line in Crime and Punishment declaring that most of the criticism was from nihilists.
• I typically leave detailed prose reviews to others, but I share the above concerns. I understand that this was peer reviewed by a native speaker of English; however, not all native speakers are equally adept at brilliant prose, and, especially with an article of this size, no single reader will catch all problematic phrasings. Furthermore, I would like to second John's strong objection above. Attempting to change the wording of the FAC criteria to mitigate opposition based on the established wording is really not how this process is done.

Delegate's closing comment - The prose is not up to standard. It is clearly the work of a non-native speaker. I can hear a Russian accent in my head as I read it. The article lacks the indicators of accomplished writing such as absolute phrases and appositives and shows a poor understanding of the correct usage of finite and indefinite articles ("the", "a" and "an"). This contribution is well researched and shows potential, but I think too much work remains for promotion to be achievable on this occasion. Graham Colm (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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