Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dreamsnake/archive1

Dreamsnake

 * Nominator(s): Vanamonde (Talk) 22:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a 1978 science fiction novel that is likely Vonda McIntyre's best-known work. I have spent some time on it, and it recently was given a thorough GA review by, so I think it's in decent shape. All comments are welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Image review

 * Don't use fixed px size
 * Predated my involvement, but should have caught it; removed. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the cover artist known? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, Stephen Alexander, mentioned in the text; do I need to mention him elsewhere? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Should be included in the media information on the image description page for the cover image. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Now added. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review
Spotchecks not done
 * Suggest elaborating on note B - I'm assuming that for some reason non-paperbacks are ineligible but would suggest explaining this
 * It's not that non-paperbacks were ineligible, but that a book released in both formats in different years got two shots at the award, so to speak. I have tried to clarify. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * FN4: I'm assuming based on what this is citing that Le Guin was the author here?
 * Yes, but it's just a quotation, similar to the blurbs on the back of books (indeed, this one also appears on the back of the book); not an article; do you want me to list Le Guin as the author?
 * No, but what kind of source is this? Is it a republication of the blurb? A review? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Republication of the blurb. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Suggest either making that clear in the citation, or just citing the blurb directly. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to be difficult, but how would I do that differently? It's on a page of the magazine, or the back cover of the book; what else do you add? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You can either just add a note at the end of the citation, or be more formal and include a double citation (cf). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Added a note. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * FN6 is oddly formatted, and what makes this a high-quality reliable source? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not sure it is; the author is a dedicated speculative fiction bibliographer, but has no credentials beyond that. I had added it to bolster the isfdb source on a specific detail that nobody else covers, but it's not strictly necessary, so removed. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia of Science Fiction entries for the most part do have credited authors that should be included in citations
 * I am aware of this, but unless I'm missing something, that's not the case for the two entries cited here. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems to be - initials listed at the end of the entry body, right above See also. Nikkimaria (talk)
 * Apologies for missing this, now added. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What makes io9 a high-quality reliable source?
 * It's run by Gawker media, which isn't a weighty enough source for its own views to be given much space, but has enough oversight that I believe we can assume it's reporting McIntyre's interview accurately. It's only used for her statement about the internal chronology, which is attributed to her. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Gawker is listed as generally unreliable at WP:RSP. Is there an editorial policy or other document outlining the oversight provided? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Gawker, the blog, is listed at RSP as unreliable. Gawker, the parent media company, is not. However, turns out that's irrelevant; io9 and other sites were bought by G/O Media in 2019; G/O media has an editorial policy, here. io9 has its own editors, listed here. is that sufficient? If not, I'll remove it, and the one sentence it's used for. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the source cited predates that acquisition, I'd like to see the Gawker equivalent, if there was one. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure there was one. I dug a fair bit on the internet archive, but no go. There's several references to an editorial policy in legal disputes beginning in 2015, but none from 2013. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Would suggest omitting in that case. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Omitted. Can't argue too much with that, I suppose. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't mix citation with cite-family templates
 * Removed one instance of "citation" Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How are you deciding which works end up in Sources and which don't?
 * Necessity, usually. I have been told sfn citations are somewhat harder to follow, because you need two clicks to go to the source, and can't go back up easily; but are harder to use multiple page-ranges with...I assume by your question that you'd prefer something more consistent, so I have now moved all books and journal articles to "sources"; newspapers and web sources remain in "references". Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * FN66 is missing page number. Ditto FN67, check for others
 * There were a few others, apologies; fixed all now, I believe. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * FN73: SWFA is publisher not work
 * Fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * FN76 is a dead link
 * Broken since I used it; added archive url. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * FN85 date doesn't match source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Typo, fixed. Thank you; I've responded; couple of questions for you. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think that's everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review. The last time I reviewed one of your articles I ended up rereading half of LeGuin's oeuvre. I have just pulled McIntyre's first two novels off the shelf. I had forgotten I had them!


 * "winning the 1979 Hugo Award, the 1978 Nebula Award, and the 1979 Locus Poll Award". Is there a reason these are not in chronological order? As is done in the main article.
 * Oversight...fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "While her cobra Mist manufactures an antidote in her venom glands". Antidote seems an odd word to describe a tumour treatment. From memory it is not used in the book.
 * Well, it's the content of Mist's venom sacs. McIntyre doesn't say antidote, but then she dances around it. I'm using "antidote" broadly; I could say "cure", I suppose, would that help? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That would work. Or treatment, remedy, drug, curative, solution. To me, an antidote is used against a poison. I suppose that a tumour could be considered a poison, but it seems a stretch.


 * "and she escapes with a bag of dreamsnakes while North's henchmen are in venom-induced comas. She finds Melissa similarly comatose, and escapes with her." "and she escapes ... and escapes". Is it possible to avoid the repetition? And the implication that she escapes twice.
 * I've rephrased; better? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me.


 * "modern-day physicians use a Caduceus, or staff with intertwining snakes, as an emblem." 1. Why the upper case C? 2. Does this, or any other sources discuss the ancient associations of the caduceus, or snakes more generally?
 * Fixed the capital C, a copy-paste error. The source does discuss the meaning of the caduceus, and specifically its implication that its bearer is a messenger of the gods. It's a little removed from the analysis of Snake, so I was hesitant to use it, but I've added a little now. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Snakes have a number of other symbolic meanings". It would be nice to have a summary of them without having to click through the link, especially any relevant to the book.
 * This is also a little tricky...I've added a fragment, which hopefully helps; but he's devoted much of that section to discussing how widely depictions of snakes vary, and it's hard to pull a short summary from that. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK.


 * Consider putting the text on Centre in a separate paragraph.
 * In "Themes"? Unless you feel strongly, I'd rather not. The implication is that though the city is named "center", it is at the margin; and this is the sort of linguistic play and symbolism discussed in the rest of the paragraph...
 * I would still prefer a separate paragraph, but I certainly don't feel strongly about it. So look as you have a coherent reason.


 * Link gigantism.
 * Done. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As the lead gives the years of the various awards, the main article should too.
 * Added. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * An aside: interesting pick of three female authors.
 * Always hard to pick from a list, but I've tried to name those who are also mentioned in the same breath by other sources too... Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the one who was thought male until 1977 jumps out. And what about Russ? But this is well off topic.


 * "use of language explored in Dreamsnake also attracted comment. Scholar Diane Wood also praised McIntyre's writing" "... also ... also ..."
 * Reworded and trimmed slightly; better? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep.


 * "Reception": I am unhappy that there is a section for positive comments; then one which starts with less positive ones but ends with two positive comments. It seems a bit PoV to me.
 * Hmm. I've tried not to sort the comments by whether they are positive, but by their content; the reception section (in theory) has a paragraph on recognition; a paragraph on prose; a paragraph on themes/symbology/characterization; and a paragraph on structure/plot/comparison to the short story. So I don't think I want to move material elsewhere, but if the ordering conveys POV (it isn't meant to) I'd be happy to reorder comments; Card, for instance, could go at the end; it's not a negative comment, but it's not terribly flattering either. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to push too hard, I was just flagging up my first impression. If you can jiggle it around a bit without wrecking your thematic order that would be good.
 * Reorderered slightly. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

A superb job. A very solid piece of writing. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, . Some responses for you to consider. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding my minor rejoinders above I see no reason to delay my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, much appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Ealdgyth
Source review by Ealdgyth
 * What makes the following high quality reliable sources?
 * http://www.isfdb.org - note per http://www.isfdb.org/wiki/index.php/ISFDB:FAQ this is a freely editable database. This is like a big no-no to use. Normally I don't get too fussed about one or two more marginable "high quality" sources, but we should not be using a crowd-sourced source.
 * Pardon me for jumping on this one; I’ve tried to get an opinion on the ISFDB a couple of times at RSN. See here for example.  If consensus is against using it, I can deal with that, but I feel it’s OK for purely bibliographic information.  I wouldn’t use it for e.g. dates of birth of authors.  To me the main argument in its favour is that SFE3 treats it as a reliable source: it says "The more specialist Internet Speculative Fiction Database is incomparable for its cataloguing of books and stories published", and includes thousands of links to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On this one, I'm going to go a hard "no" for an FA. It MIGHT be allowable for a regular article but no way it meets the high quality threshhold. And this is the sort of basic bibliographic detail that should be findable elsewhere in better sources. Sorry, but no. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. I'll stop using it in my own articles and will have to go back and start looking for alternatives for some of my existing FAs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I searched for an alternative source for the fact that the book is a fixup of the three stories, and couldn't find one; I did manage to dig up my copy of Foundation 16, which has Brian Stableford's review. Let me know if you want me to email you a scan. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 04:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Stableford review has been digitized, so I have it; thank you though! I tried quite hard to find a source for the three stories that wasn't isfdb. The only options I can come up with are a) citing Phil Stephensen-Payne, whose website documents that the three stories were incorporated into Dreamsnake (the term "fixup" is covered by SFE), and b) omitting this fact. would you accept http://www.philsp.com/ as a source? It's an SPS, but it is run by this man, who is a dedicated bibliographer and is recognized as such. Otherwise, I'm feeling a bit of a Catch-22; the detail is obscure enough that only the aficionados make any mention of it; but because it's known, omitting seems not to be an option. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Stephensen-Payne has editorial control over that site and is a highly respected bibliographer, so I think his site is reliable. SFE3 has an entry on him and describes his website as "a particularly valuable resource". Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks; I'll wait to see what Ealdgyth has to say; if she deems the source insufficient, though, do you think that's a problem for comprehensiveness? Also, when you have a moment, I'd appreciate your own review, if that's alright to ask. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a problem; I'll definitely be reviewing; just been a bit busy. If she says no, two other options are possible: does the book give the copyright attribution to the 1978 stories?  And do you have the magazines with the stories in?  A direct comparison of the text might be evidence.  As opposed to a fixup, do you think it's possible that she wrote the novel knowing she could sell excerpts as additional stories before the release of the novel?  The late timing makes me think that's possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I look forward to the review. As to the rest; I think a comparison of the text is viable, I think I was worried it was verging on OR. I don't have the magazines, but I could get them, I suppose. The book does not provide copyright attribution that is sufficient for this detail; it just says "a portion of this book appeared in..." I've worried over the timing for some time; I think it's more than likely it's not a true fixup, in that she probably wrote the novel, and then published excerpts. However, they were published, and the term is used, so omitting altogether seems iffy; and nobody that I have seem comments on it at all. No reviews of the story that I can find, and no reviews of the book mention the stories. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say that doing a comparison ourselves is probably verging into OR territory. To be honest, I think the most we can say is what is given on the copyright page - that portions appeared elsewhere. I think without the author specifically giving more detail, it's probably speculation by the various sites/people on why/what happened - that the stories were folded into the novel or that the novel had parts excerpted. Sometimes we're just not going to know everything, and that's okay. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to be a pain, but I wanted to make sure you'd seen the question about philsp.com. The reason I ask: Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand was also published in Analog, and was definitely not an excerpt; so the novel's copyright statement doesn't necessarily say anything about the other two; and without that the statement about it being a fixup is meaningless. I can omit it all, but if the bibliography is okay, I don't see why we shouldn't use it. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * no need to ping... I watchlist reviews until I say I'm finished or it is promoted/archived. I could deal with philsp.com as marginally high quality ... as long as its the only source that way.. which if we remove the isfdb it should be. Sorry for the delay, we were late getting in last night and I took some time to think it over. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries about the delay; and I'll keep your preferences about pinging in mind. I have replaced the isfdb source, and reworded it to make the text as agnostic as possible with respect to the fixup vs excerpts issue, without wandering into OR. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20200709162651/http://bookviewcafe.com/bookstore/book/dreamsnake/
 * It is a cooperative publisher, owned and run by the authors it publishes, listed here. As such I think it's as reliable for uncontroversial content. Given the standard we're trying to apply here, though, I've found an alternative, now added; blurb at the head of a McIntyre story in an edited anthology. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that I did not do spot checks or check for formatting, etc. Just reliablity.
 * Note also that I will claim this review for points in the Wikicup.
 * Ealdgyth (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
Support. I went through this at GAN with a eye to FAC, and as a result have little to add here. I just have one comment: you mention "Grum" without explanation in the "Characterization" section. I would either position them in the plot at that point, or add a mention of them to the "Plot" section. Other than that nit the article is in very good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mike; your GA review was exceptionally helpful. I have mentioned Grum in the synopsis (she was mentioned before, but not by name). Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe

 * Support on 1a; I read through the article and did not see any prose issues. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated; working on the rest of the sources comments. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I also conducted spot checks on some sources (now moved to the talk page). All problems that I flagged were fixed to my satisfaction, but I will not be supporting or opposing on 1c as the amount of text–source integrity is similar to what I've found on other FACs. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Sturmvogel_66

 * Snake control Mist as she Who the "she" is here is unclear to me. Is this a typo as the pronoun best fits Stavin, IMO?
 * "She" is Mist, actually; I've reworded to avoid ambiguity. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * While North's henchmen are in venom-induced comas, There's no preliminaries for this. It's been many, many, many moons since I've read the book, but does Snake release the dreamsnakes or what?
 * I believe it's implied that they are addicted too, like the "crazy"; I'll double check with the primary text shortly. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Now checked; McIntyre doesn't make it very explicit at the end, but Snake has nothing to do with it; the entire community regularly partakes of Dreamsnake venom, and is presumably doing so when Snake escapes. I've added a piece of directly stated detail earlier, which should help, I think. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Critic seems more accurate than scholar, but maybe that's just me
 * Which one of the uses are you asking about: or perhaps you mean all of them? I prefer "scholar" as it's a little more specific, when applicable; someone reviewing in a newspaper or such, I would call a critic. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Supporting now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you; some replies for you to consider. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)