Talk:Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand

Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 2, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 June 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Vonda McIntyre's 1973 short story "Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand", which won a Nebula Award, was used as the first chapter of her 1978 novel Dreamsnake, which also won a Nebula Award?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand.

Wikipedia

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Novels: Short story Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Short story task force.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following 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: promoted by DannyS712 (talk) 14:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Vonda McIntyre's 1973 short story "Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand" was described as a high point in fictional depictions of the relationship between humans and snakes?
- ALT1:... that Vonda McIntyre's 1973 short story "Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand", which won a Nebula Award, was used as the first chapter of her 1978 novel Dreamsnake, which also won a Nebula Award?

Reviewed: Gregory Gordon

Moved to mainspace by Vanamonde93 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems: - There are some broken citations to McIntyre 1973. I assume that this refers to the story, but they should be repaired so it's clear.

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I think ALT0 is better but both work b uidhe 04:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Apologies, dammit... Someone mucked around with the harv errors script, and then someone offered a fix, and it seems like the cure was worse than the disease because the script is supposed to catch these and no longer does. Should be good now...and I'm off to see if there's another script that works better. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll take this one. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

'Background' seems to me to consist of the authorial context (para 1) and the story's in-fiction context (paras 2 and 3). Perhaps these should be in two different sections.
I've retitled the section "background and setting"; I'd rather not separate them.
Refs 7..16 are primary, indicating the story locations being discussed. Personally I'd list them separately ('Primary [references]'). It's not a GA requirement.
I'd rather not, if it's okay with you; I frequently use the primary source for plot details and settings, but they sometimes are used in tandem with secondary sources, so I typically don't separate them in the bibliography.
"family is scared". Hm, maybe "terrified" would be closer to the mark.
Fair. Modified.
"with trusted friends". And he hasn't any...
Well he personally doesn't have any yet...
Healing emblem: it's a powerful image. Guess what I'd illustrate it with. Jones 1983 is certainly sufficient authority to use such an image. I'm well aware others wouldn't choose to do so.
I've added an image of a caduceus. I'd like an albino cobra image, but the only one on commons is dreadful...

Maybe you'll get the chance to photograph one, one day.

Triad marriages: perhaps the genders (and relative ages) of the partners should be stated.
Added.
Dune reptilians: I remember the sandworm - is that it? Maybe say what reptilians are intended for readers who may not have perfect recall (or read Dune at all).
Yep, that's the sandworms. Added.
Comparison with Le Guin's complex 4-way marriages and powerful women would seem inevitable. Has nobody mentioned this?
Funnily, no, not that I'm aware of. Admittedly, Mountain Ways was written long after this story.

I expect the critics will catch up eventually...

Incidentally, did Le Guin not say anything about the story, or Dreamsnake?
I'm quite certain she's commented on Dreamsnake; indeed, one of her pronouncements is on the dust jacket of my copy. I don't know that she's said anything about this story, though, and I've looked quite hard.

It's a lovely article, and thank you for getting me to read the story! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: Many thanks for the review; I've responded to everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 24 and ref 32 appear to be the same, but formatted differently.
Fixed.
References not needed in the lead, even for quotes, as they'll be in the body.
They're not necessary, but they're helpful, and there's no policy prohibiting their use.
If it's "The Guardian" then it should be "The New York Times".
Fixed.
Ref 29, should be "Awards".
Fixed.
Ref 26 vs Ref 29, seem to be from precisely the same source yet formatting of the reference is different.
Fixed
"1979 Locus Poll Award for Best Novel" if this isn't even notable enough for red link, why is it mentioned here?
It's plenty notable. Linked.
Around a third of the article is dedicated to the fictional "plot". Remove the lead, and you're left with very little critical substance about the work in question.
The article summarizes all of the available critical material, and combines it with a synopsis of normal length. Five paragraphs of themes and reception is reasonable for a story that is twenty pages long.

I don't find the plot section over-long. Notability is established both by the critical commentary and by the awards cited so I'm not concerned on that front. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" healer in society, and the relationship between a healer " repetitive prose.
Replaced one instance.
"responbility" basic typo.
Fixed.

A few basic notes, I'll review more when I have time. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome any constructive comments. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks both. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as the article seems to be stable and all the requested changes have been actioned, I'm happy to pass this as a deserved GA now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Chiswick Chap. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]