Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All the Light We Cannot See/archive2

All the Light We Cannot See

 * Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

All the Light We Cannot See is a 2014 novel written by Anthony Doerr, released to critical acclaim and commercial success. A Netflix adaptation will be released on November 2, 2023. This is my second nomination. I withdrew my previous nomination because of an academic summer program that prevented me from finding time to address the critiques raised. Since then, I have found time to address some points brought up in the previous candidacy. I hope to finish this candidacy in time for nominating it as the TFA on the date of, if not the release of the adaptation, the novel's tenth anniversary. I would prefer suggestions to be specific rather than overly general; telling me there are still prose issues is not good enough unless you tell me what those issues are. Lazman321 (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Upon further consideration, I have no choice but to withdraw my nomination. While I still don't see how I was insulting, copyediting the article is making me realize that it may need additional work beyond what can be done during the candidacy. Oh well. I'll come back at a later time. Lazman321 (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

MyCatIsAChonk

 * - the comma after technology is confusing, since commas were previously used in that sentence to list characters and then to describe them. Either cut the comma or "before being..." entirely
 * Done: Removed the clause. Lazman321 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * - I'm not too sure what this means- is it a novel-in-verse?
 * That's not what lyrical means. Lyrical has been defined as "having an artistically beautiful or expressive quality suggestive of song", "expressing personal thoughts and feelings in a beautiful way" , and "expressing strong emotion in a way that is beautiful and shows imagination" . It's basically saying the writing style is expressive. Lazman321 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Now I see, thanks for clarifying MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * - do the chapters flash between Laure's and Werner's stories, or between the Battle and events before? There's conflicting info here, as far as I'm reading it
 * It's both, actually. I've rewritten the two sentences for clarity. Lazman321 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * It might be worth clarifying the whole "alternating timeline" thing at the start of "Plot", before the first subsection
 * Won't that be redundant, given the analysis section discusses the alternating timeline? Lazman321 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * IMO, it would still be helpful, since it's divided into subsections; Memento (film) has a sentence to clarify the odd timeline of the film, even though it has an entire subsection called "Film structure". MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * - he broadcasts records formerly owned by his brother? Or recordings of his brother?
 * I've rewritten the sentence for clarity. The brother had recorded audio recordings that were meant to teach science. Lazman321 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * - "alongside" seems like the wrong word- "through" makes more sense
 * Done, though I also removed the piano recording information as they were broadcast alongside the messages, but is not significant for the sake of summary. Lazman321 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Wl amnesiac
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * - "entire house" suggests he also searched the attic where the gem is
 * Done: Removed "entire". Lazman321 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

More soon MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Addressed your concerns so far. Lazman321 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * - the interjection of "once told by his editor" is a bit confusing, I think it'd be better in commas before this sentence: "Saint-Malo was a coastal city that had been destroyed near the end of World War II;[6] when his editor told him this, he was amazed..."
 * Sorry, but I have rewritten the sentence to address a concern of . Lazman321 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Wl procrastinating
 * Done, though I might have to rewrite that part, also to address 's concerns. Lazman321 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * - letters are written and sent, but not diaries; IMO, just written is fine
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Wl fate
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * - period outside of quotes per WP:QINQ
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * NPR is not italicized; in the cite afterward, it should be the publisher, not the website/work name
 * While, I'm fine with removing the italics in the running text, but this type of request in regards to references is a major pet peeve of mine due to it being both common and explicitly against the manual of style. As stated by footnote b in MOS:WEBITALICS, "Do not abuse incorrect template parameters (e.g. by putting the work title in |publisher= or |via=) in an attempt to avoid italicizing digital sources." Lazman321 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough then, if there's some MOS policy about it. But, be wary of the info at Template:Cite news, which is what I base my own citations on; see this quote about the publisher parameter: "publisher: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company, organization or other legal entity that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.)." MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * - also an IMO, but the reviewer names are not needed; wrapping it into "multiple critics" is appropriate
 * Done, collapsed into "several critics". Lazman321 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * - using "contrasting" right after naming a criticism of the book sort of defeats the purpose; cutting the ind claue would be fine
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Anytime the title of the book is said in a citation title, it must be italicized per MOS:CONFORMTITLE
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

, all done, very nice work, and thanks for the quick replies above! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have addressed all your concerns, thanks for reviewing. Lazman321 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support - also, if you get any spare time, would appreciate any comments at this FAC- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose by Nick-D
I developed the Battle of Saint-Malo article to FA status, and will comment on the article largely from that perspective (noting I haven't read the book):
 * Thank you for posting your review. I will get around to addressing concerns once I find the time. Lazman321 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I have responded. Lazman321 (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "after Paris is invaded by Nazi Germany" - there was no such country as 'Nazi Germany'. It was just 'Germany'.
 * So? It's still a valid way of referring to Germany during this time period given that it's literally the title of a Wikipedia article. Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is factually incorrect. Nick-D (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * How? Just because the name "Nazi Germany" was retroactively applied to WWII-era Germany does not mean it is factually incorrect. By that logic, referring to one of the early 19th-century political parties as the "Democratic-Republican Party" would be factually incorrect because it's a retroactive term; it was referred to as the Republican Party at the time (not to be confused with the modern Republican Party). Lazman321 (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is indeed factually incorrect. The body of the article correctly uses the term 'Germany'. Historians generally discourage the use of 'Nazi Germany' in contexts such as this as it gives the impression that Germany during the Nazi era was a different country or some kind of step change in Germany history, when this is not the case. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "with chapters depicting the Battle of Saint-Malo interspersed with the events leading up to it." - I'd suggest noting here when the battle took place (e.g. 'the August 1944 Battle of Saint-Malo' or similar)
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * " after Allied forces bomb the hotel" - while the book may not be specific here, almost all firepower used in the battle was from American artillery and aircraft
 * Done: Turns out the book was specific. Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Werner is captured and sent to an American disarmament center" - he would have been sent to a prisoner of war camp
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "a fact that amazed him once told by his editor because of how old he perceived the buildings to be" - this is true for a lot of European cities, which were rebuilt to resemble their pre-war selves. The wording here is also a bit clunky.
 * Done: Rewrote sentence. Lazman321 (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The para starting with 'Critics praised All the Light We Cannot See's lyrical writing' should attribute all of the views noted, rather than attributing them to nameless critics
 * Not necessarily. Consolidating opinions shared by multiple critics is fairly common among reception sections in featured articles of media works, especially if there are a high number of reviews for the work (see The Dark Knight for example.). Successive "A said B" sentences do tend to get boring. Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The quotes here are the views of individual reviewers, not articles discussing themes in reviews, so I think that the views should be attributed if they're going to be quoted. An alternative (which I think would work better) would be to reduce the numbers of these quotes and draw on works that discuss the book's overall critical reception instead. Nick-D (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, so that's what you're referring to. In response to GWL, I have already consolidated the quotes into one statement, so that's taken care of. Lazman321 (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Have any historians commented on the book's accuracy?
 * There's one I'm aware of, though it is not a scholarly article. Dominic Green has a Ph.D. in comparative history, making him a historian, and he is the one that wrote The New Republic article you are suggesting. Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This article offers useful analysis of how the book fits into the literature on the war, yet isn't properly used - it's simply one of a few references to a broad statement that "some critics felt that the novel was overwritten", when it actually provides quite a complex critique that among other things argues that the book presents the Germans as no worse than the Allies. This Guardian review is much more positive, but briefly notes similar concerns, but doesn't appear to be consulted at present.
 * Done: I have utilized The New Republic review as you have asked and consulted the retrospective Guardian review. Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The material here is really just some throwaway lines - for instance, you note that they express concern about the book's portrayal of the war, but not why they raise this concern. I think that you're missing the opportunity to provide some substantive analysis of the book as a historical novel, drawing on one of the few sources that appears to have done so. Nick-D (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * While I can certainly clarify why they express concern over the book's depiction of war, I am concerned that what you asking me overall could lead to undue emphasis being placed on one analysis, especially one from a source that is generally considered biased according to WP:RSP. Lazman321 (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do that. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why these critical reviews are lumped together while positive reviews are treated separately. More broadly, the 'Publication and reception' reception section seems excessively positive about the book, with criticisms being noted only in passing.
 * That's because, as noted by several articles that are referenced, this book received critical acclaim. Nearly all the reviews have been positive, with critics sharing very few complaints, even among the mixed reviews. Given that you are an administrator, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the policy on WP:NPOV say, "A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources"? Shouldn't that also apply to reception sections? Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What has me being an admin have to do with anything? Given that you are presenting the negative NY Times review as a positive review, I'm sceptical of this to be honest. Nick-D (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the fact that the New York Times review is a mixed review, not a negative one, and is portrayed accordingly in the article, I don't see how this addresses my point entirely. The claim that the novel received "critical acclaim" is directly sourced from three reliable sources from different contexts with no source saying otherwise, implying universal agreement on the critical consensus. This, along with the awards the novel has garnered or was at least a runner-up or shortlisted for and the end-of-year lists it has appeared on, all seems to indicate a very positive critical consensus. Still skeptical? By my count, either of reviews used in the article or cataloged by Book Marks, there are 18 positive reviews.. In contrast, there are four mixed reviews|A683925863&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-AONE&asid=93e2ee5 and one negative review. This means about 78%, a vast majority, of all critics have reviewed this novel positively. Given all this, the reception section's portrayal of the critical consensus as being positive is not excessive, so you wanting me to place more emphasis on the criticism is a violation of WP:NPOV's policy of balancing opinions according to their weight in reliable sources. Me mentioning your adminship was me giving you the benefit of the doubt; maybe you know something about WP:NPOV that I don't that validates your concern, but nothing you have said so far has demonstrated this. Lazman321 (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * These are very rude responses to what I think are reasonable comments, and I'm not going to engage with this. Please re-read my comments here. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The way in which the New York Times review is used also doesn't seem properly reflect the reviewer's conclusions. The article summaries them as the book being fast paced and a Nazi character being badly realised, when the review is actually quite critical, arguing that while the book is highly readable it's ultimately disappointing as a work of literature and is a somewhat lightweight 'good read' (see the last para of the review)
 * Except I'm not summarizing the entire review; I'm summarizing the overall critical consensus, both overall and on certain elements of the novel. Nowhere in the article is it implied that the expressed opinions used by William Vollman were his overall conclusion. Not to mention, said conclusions about the novel do not reflect the critical consensus and were thus ignored. The reason his criticisms were used at all was because he and Steph Cha were the only critics to compare the two main characters in terms of quality and he was the only critic to address the Nazis' characterization aside from the two you have pointed out. Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the rationale for this. Aside from my concerns over how this reviewer's views are being presented, it's also a lost opportunity to include a discussion of critics views on whether this book should be considered serious literature or a light novel; quite a few of the articles cited on the book discuss this as well. Nick-D (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My rationale in short: Only the critical consensus is being summarized overall; the individual reviews simply serve as pieces of evidence to strengthen that summary. In regards to reviews that discuss this novel's place as serious literature or light entertainment, I say provide them. I am not aware of any other review, mixed or otherwise, that brings this up, and given that the novel did indeed receive a laudatory appraisal and win the Pulitzer Prize, I am not inclined to search them out.
 * I really don't understand this view, and I'd note that the TLS review (which is also little used, despite being a top tier source of commentary on books) has a focus on this issue. I think that you could write something really interesting here. Nick-D (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The article could include some photos of the battle that illustrate the book's themes - there are lots available on Commons.
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Some of the prose is rather cumbersome and wordy, which makes the article heavy going to read. In particular (though I'd suggest a broader copy edit):
 * "Doerr's first inspiration for All the Light We Cannot See..." (could be something like 'Doerr drew inspiration from...')
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * " During the ride, he witnessed a passenger become frustrated when his telephone call disconnected as the train entered a tunnel" (bit wordy)
 * Done: Tried to rewrite it for conciseness Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "a fact that amazed him once told by his editor because of how old he perceived the buildings to be"
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "part of which was spent procrastinating or researching" (rather different things!)
 * "According to Doerr, he procrastinated by writing the memoir Four Seasons in Rome (2007) and the short story collection Memory Wall (2010)" - not really procrastinating then! This seems to be portraying the book from the author's perspective rather than a more common perspective. It's quite common for authors to work on multiple books, or books to take a lot of work to complete.
 * "He cited the research as a reason for his procrastination" - this also doesn't seem to be procrastinating, and this para by this stage has used three sentences to not say a great deal.
 * Done: I have attempted to address your three concerns about Doerr's self-proclaimed procrastination. Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "the austere conditions of its occupying military lives" - I'm not sure what this means to be frank
 * Done: Rewrote for clarification Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "it also showcases optimism and redemption" - I don't think that 'showcases' is the best word here.
 * Done: Replaced with "portrays" and added to the sentenceLazman321 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Anthony Doerr found the novel's popularity unexpected due to it featuring a sympathetic Nazi" - this is odd. There's a huge literature with 'good Germans' of World War II being major characters, especially from the Cold War era. Some now-notorious Nazi war criminals like Albert Speer also had success in portraying themselves as being a 'good Nazi' on various grounds - Speer did this though his memoirs, which sold in vast numbers. Doerr doesn't seem to be well informed about the literature on the war if he believes this, and it would be good to draw on sources that discuss the book in this context instead like the New Republic article.
 * So you are objecting against this line because books with positive portrayals of Nazis did exist prior to this novel. Are you ignoring the fact that the contexts behind the publication of Albert Speer's memoirs and All the Light We Cannot See are completely different? Judging by his article, Speer wrote the memoirs to trick others into vindicating him despite his horrific crimes under the Nazis' regime. Doerr, who is an American writer, wrote All the Light We Cannot See partly as an attempt at a nuanced depiction of World War II. He published it long after the Nazis' gained widespread infamy, meaning it's not stupid of him to think that people would be unlikely to accept a sympathetic depiction of a Nazi. The New Republic article doesn't even analyze the book in the context you're asking; it analyzes it in the context of historical normalization. Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an example of the article presenting the book through the eyes of its author, who seems to be ill-informed at best. A FA should include better rounded critical analysis. Nick-D (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, Doerr's surprise over his novel's success due to the presence of a sympathetic Nazi is not illogical considering when and where the novel came out. And just because it's through the author's lens does not mean the statement should be removed nor would it preclude substantial critical analysis. Also, analysis of what exactly? What you had just proposed was impossible for me to address in the article. The idea of analyzing the novel's success in the context of the Speer memoirs is absurd due to, again, the highly different contexts of their publications, which you seem to be ignoring. Lazman321 (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that you have also misread my comment here, and I am also not going to engage with your rude response that is based on this misreading. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * More broadly, and this might reflect my interests/biases, the article would benefit from a section or at least paragraphs that focus on the book's portrayal of the war and the Battle of Saint-Malo; this appears to be a key element of the work and its popularity, but the article doesn't directly grapple with it. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The final paragraph of the morality and characters subsection of the analysis section addresses this already. Is there perhaps some way you think I could improve it? Lazman321 (talk) 02:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, describe how the battle is presented in the book. It might be better still to have a section on how the book shapes up as a historical novel more broadly, which has attracted some interesting coverage in various sources (e.g. the book includes elements that are presented as historically accurate, with the author saying that he did considerable research, as well as fantastical elements). Material on this topic is spread across the article, and there's scope to bring this together and flesh it out further per my comments above. Nick-D (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You say it has some "interesting coverage in various sources" and yet have only provided an unsubstantial Guardian review and two articles from biased sources, the New Republic article and the World Socialist Website article, the latter of which is only marginally reliable, and thus likely not high-quality. I feel like at this point, if you are going to ask such a huge request, you must show me better sources to indicate that there is significant enough discussion about what you are asking. Lazman321 (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd also suggest drawing on this review, albeit in moderation and with provisos about where the reviewer is coming from. The World Socialist Website seems to be considered a notable source of opinion on historical issues per Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 353, and it includes some discussion of the book as a work of history. Nick-D (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose I've thought quite a bit about the above responses, and I'm afraid that I'm moving to oppose as a result of them. I imagine that it is difficult writing articles on books like this: there's quite a bit of material on the book available, but not much that goes beyond reviews dating from when the book was released and quasi promotional material such as interviews with the author. What concerns me with the above response is that you seem to be looking for reasons to not cover aspects of the book and the limited amount of critical analysis it's received, to the extent of dismissing a New York Times book review and making little use of a TLS review. A key thing about FAs is that they need to be much better than an average article, and when sourcing is thin that means making the best of these sources to ensure that the article is excellent and treats readers with respect. I'm afraid that I don't think that this has been done here. From reading the first nomination, raised some broadly similar issues, which don't seem to have been fully addressed to my eyes at least. The rude responses to some of my comments above are also unnecessary, and I'm not going to engage with them. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I advise you to reconsider. Your refusal to engage with my concerns is unreasonable given that I have demonstrated a willingness to cooperate and you have provided meager justification for your disinclination. Whether or not you think I was rude, I did not personally insult you and have instead provided genuine concerns regarding your requests. I also wish to clarify that I am not "looking for reasons to not cover aspects of the book", but instead trying to ensure the article follows WP:NPOV, which values balancing attributed opinions in articles to the degree in which they appear in reliable sources. As for my post on the FAC talk page, disregard it. It was a momentary lapse in judgment. Lazman321 (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I get that nominating an article for FAC is stressful. However, I don't dole out 'oppose' votes lightly, and calling me "unreasonable" and "dishonest" is really unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

GWL
I just got the Netflix trailer in my YouTube recommendations and can't wait to see it! I'm currently overstimulated so I might not get some of my points across; please do tell me if my comment is confusing.  Gerald WL  09:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , I have addressed all your concerns. Thanks for your review. Lazman321 (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, since you haven't voted yet, are you willing to support it, or does this article still need additional work, especially given Nick-D's opposition? Lazman321 (talk) 05:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Paris is invaded by Nazi Germany" should probably be linked to the invasion article
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "The chapters alternate between Marie-Laure's and Werner's stories, which parallel each other and are framed with a nonlinear structure, with chapters depicting the Battle of Saint-Malo in August 1944"-- might make more sense as "The book alternates between chapters depicting Marie-Laure and Werner, which parallel each other and are framed with a nonlinear structure, with chapters depicting the Battle of Saint-Malo in August 1944". I'm not sure how to explain, but "The chapters alternate betwen their stories and other chapters" suggest that within the chapters there are other chapters, when it's actually one book with multiple alternating chapters.
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Link WWII
 * Uh, it already is in its first instance. Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My bad! I didn't see it.


 * "book trip" isn't really a common term, isn't it? I think "book" can be omitted in this case
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Netflix didn't produce the series, only distributed it. Rewrite to "A television adaptation produced by 21 Laps Entertainment was announced in 2019 and is scheduled for release on Netflix on November 2, 2023."
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "For simplicity, Marie-Laure's and Werner's respective narratives"-- repetition of their names which were just stated a few words ago. --> "For simplicity, their respective narratives"
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "will receive"-- is "will" the right word? It isn't really the future since you already made those subsections. "is given" seems like a better alternative to me.
 * Done, though rather than your suggestion, I replaced "will receive" with "have" Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Marie-Laure went blind at the age of six in 1934, and Daniel helps Marie-Laure"-- change both instances of her name to "She"; it has just been stated one sentence ago
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Might be useful to specify that it is Nazi Germany invading France, also per consistency with lead.
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Is Great War a common term for WWI? I didn't know what it was until I hovered over the link, but could be just me.
 * It was the term used to refer to WWI prior to WWII, but it is not a common name. I have changed it accordingly. Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "of the town of Saint-Malo"-- you already explained to us St-Malo is a town so "the town of" should be omitted
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "transmitting secret messages through important Morse code information"-- I think it is the messages that are important, not its Morse language, right? "transmitting top secret messages through Morse code" seems more fit.
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Nazi gemologist"-- Link Nazism and gemologist
 * Considering "Nazi" is a universally recognizable term and MOS:SOB advises against adjacent links, I will just link "gemologist". Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "In Nazi Germany"--
 * ??? Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't elaborate it further! This is just a minor comment, however, I think it'd be great if the Werner subsection first sentence starts with "In Nazi Germany" to be more precise.  Gerald WL  03:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Werner is exceptionally"-- "He is exceptionally.."
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Jutta hates Nazi values" --> "Jutta hates them"
 * Rewrote slightly differently Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "relating horrifying stories"-- horrifying seems subjective
 * Done: Rewrote to be more neutral. Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "whose weakness"-- another subjective
 * Done: Rewrote to be more neutral. Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "resulting in his"-- or him?
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Wehrmacht should be italics per its article
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "two soldiers named Neumann"-- there's only one here. If it's a collective term for two soldiers it should be specified.
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "traveling to the bakery"-- travel is typically for long-distance trips, the general term is "going" or "heading"
 * Done: replaced with "heading" Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "of Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas" --> "of science fiction novel Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Seas"
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Thirty years later, Volkheimer finds Jutta, who is now a married math teacher, and gives her Werner's belongings at the time of his death, including the model house that contained the Sea of Flames, and tells her that Werner was last seen in France and may have been in love." With three and-s I think this last sentence can be standalone; "He also tells her that Werner was last seen in France and may have been in love."
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Doerr drew inspiration for All the Light We Cannot See was during" --> "Doerr drew inspiration for the novel during"
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Link WWII
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "he perceived the buildings to be old"-- what makes this part noteworthy? Also it's probably not just a perception; objectively the buildings are old.
 * I removed the clause. It was redundant anyway considering the next sentence: "the city felt ancient to him, in spite of its destruction near the end of World War II." Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "part of which was spent researching, which Doerr says took significant time" --> "most of which spent on researching"
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "a capable disabled person"-- as a disabled person myself, I don't get what this means, since every disabled person are still "capable", just with few obstacles. I think you meant "a talented disabled person"?
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "he wrote over one hundred short chapters"-- I think it'd be interesting to contrast this with how many chapters there are at the final product.
 * It would be, but unfortunately the chapters are not numbered in the novel and the source does not give a definitive number; Doerr claims that he wrote 187 chapters, but it is preceded in the interview by "I think", implying doubt without any indication that it is the official number of chapters in the novel. Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the novel itself be an okay source for this? In my opinion, numbered or not numbered, the chapters are still countable. The ebook I got has a table of contents that lists up to 178 chapters.  Gerald WL  03:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "detailed" --> "as detailed"
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "The last part of the novel takes place in the present day"-- this is misleading, since in the Plot you said it ends in 2014, yet here we are in 2023, so it's not present day.
 * Done: Rewrote to "The ending of the novel takes place in the 21st century." Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Fate and self-protecc might be overlinking
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "even the heroes"-- I don't know how novel articles handle this, but in the film WikiProject there's WP:PROTAGONIST, which states that such mentions of heroes or antagonists are quite subjective. I'd say this can be specified, "even those established as heroes". I didn't comment on the "evil Nazi archetype" part because I think you established well that it's an archetype.
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "All the Light We Cannot See conveys "the desolation and barbarism of war"" --> "All the Light We Cannot See also has anti-war themes."
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Link Allies of World War II
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think you need to mention "According to Jin Mengqi of the International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences", it gets kinda wordy
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "traveling them"-- between them
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "Some critics felt" --> "There were also critics who felt"-- I think this might be more engrossing
 * Done Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "calling it "lovely", "gorgeous", "vividly rendered", and "opulent""-- I don't think you need to specify this; it can be simplified to "Critics praised the aesthetic of All the Light We Cannot See's lyrical writing"
 * Done, though written slightly differently. Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd say prepare for when the series is released; might wanna add more stuff like its reviews and comparison with the novel. In the meantime, there are already reviews you might wanna add: here, there, everywhere.
 * Done: I've added information about the series' initial reception and its differences from the novel. Lazman321 (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Detailed material on TV series and movies based on books is usually covered in the article on the series/movie, rather than the book. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be detailed-- I agree it is reserved for its own place. But a brief comparison (what is omitted in the series) and statement that it "gained mixed reviews" or whatever the consensus is eventually, I think that can add a bit to the comprehensiveness of the section.  Gerald WL  03:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose from UC
Echoing Nick above: when this article was first nominated, I raised concerns about the quality and accuracy of its prose, the WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on positive reception of the novel, and similar WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on the author's own narrative of its background, themes and genesis. I cannot see that either of these concerns has been substantially or sufficiently acted on in the current version. I can see that pointing out individual examples would quickly lead to a WP:FIXLOOP, and indeed would in some part duplicate the original FAC and the review already provided by Nick, including several comments upon which the nominator has chosen not to act. I am very open to revisiting this vote if changes are made. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't see how specific requests for improvement would "quickly lead to a WP:FIXLOOP" nor do I see how the article is placing WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on the author's ideas or the positive reception given the available sources, but do what you wish. We'll see how this goes. Lazman321 (talk) 05:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am archiving this per the nominator's request. Hopefully it will be back after it has been worked on off-FAC. In any event, the usual two-week hiatus will apply.