Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/La Peau de chagrin


 * 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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:36, 8 August 2008.

La Peau de chagrin

 * Nominator(s): – Scartol  •  Tok 

Another of the ~100 novels in Balzac's magnum opus La Comédie humaine. Peer reviewed by. Thanks in advance for your consideration. – Scartol  •  Tok  17:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments Some things I noticed at first glance.
 * Thanks for your comments, Julian. – Scartol  •  Tok  21:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Right-align images under section headers.
 * Assuming this is in reference to the MOS guideline, that refers to second level ( === ) headings. In Peau, I've right-aligned all such images, or placed them just above the heading itself. Please let me know if I've missed any. – Scartol  •  Tok  21:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I should have specified. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  22:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 750 copies of an octavo edition were agreed upon, with a fee of 1,125 francs paid to the author upon receipt of the manuscript – no later than mid-February. Avoid starting sentences with numbers.
 * Oops! Fixed. (That also remedies the icky passive voice, which somehow was used.) – Scartol  •  Tok  21:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "somehow was used" made me smile.  Plasticup  T / C  20:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Paris is linked twice.
 * Hmm. I see it linked once in the lead and once in the body – which I've always considered standard practice. I've also linked the Revue de Paris and the Paris Observatory; perhaps one of these was at the start of a line and looked like just Paris? – Scartol  •  Tok  21:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've always tried to link things once in an article, but that's fine too. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  22:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * At the start of the book, the shopkeeper discusses with Valentin "the great secret of human life"[39] – three words, which Balzac renders in capital letters: VOULOIR ("to will"), POUVOIR ("to have power"), and SAVOIR ("to know"). Not a huge deal, but try not put dashes directly after footnotes.
 * Agreed. Reworded to remove dash. Thanks again! – Scartol  •  Tok  21:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  20:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Object - Images were apparently never reviewed. :)
 * Wow, I was really sloppy. Thanks for checking up on these, A. – Scartol  •  Tok  17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Hdb 01.jpg - The source information for this image is incomplete (full citation, please!) and I'm not sure it is in the PD. The illustrator who copied the image did not die over 70 years ago.
 * It was published in the US in 1901, so – since it was before 1923 – that makes it PD. Right? I've fixed the tag at Commons. – Scartol  •  Tok  17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Still needs full source info, though. Awadewit (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Added. – Scartol  •  Tok  20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:1830 ad 200.jpg - This is licensed under GFDL 1.2, but the site claims copyright over the prints. I do not think they can do this, however we need to figure this out. If anything, this is the wrong license for these images because the site does not license them under the GFDL license.
 * Many websites put a general copyright notice up for whatever original content they have in the design. My guess is that's in play here. I think you're right that they can't copyright the images; my understanding of this section is that the image in question (pub. 1830) is unambiguously in the PD. Since Grandville died in 1847, we can use PD-old – to which I've switched it. – Scartol  •  Tok  17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since it is in the public domain, it would also be nice to put it up for a commons move so that it is available to all wikiprojects. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. – Scartol  •  Tok  20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:George sand.jpg - This image is up for deletion. You might want to enter into that debate or at least look into it. Note that the reason for the deletion request is "this painting does not depict George Sand".
 * Well, that shows how much I (don't) know about George Sand. Replaced with Image:Sand-Nadar.png. – Scartol  •  Tok  17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The new image has no source. Awadewit (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * D'oh! Added. – Scartol  •  Tok  20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Peau de chagrin sanskrit.jpg - The source information for this image is incomplete - full citation please!
 * I assume you mean publisher info? Added. – Scartol  •  Tok  17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Peau de chagrin squiggle.jpg - The source information for this image is incomplete - full citation please!
 * Same as above? Added. – Scartol  •  Tok  17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:JudHolofVernet.JPG - The source link on the image description page does not take one to the painting.
 * Yeah. While I found the painting on that site, it appears to be a painted reproduction. I switched the image to this one. Is it too racy? – Scartol  •  Tok  17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is perfect for a Balzac article. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Transfiguration Raphael.jpg - There is no source for this image.
 * But does it need one? It is a photographic reproduction of the original painting at The Vatican, and as such can't be copyrighted. My understanding is that the source is only necessary for copyright purposes. – Scartol  •  Tok  17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All images need sources. See Help:Image page. The source helps establish the copyright. Awadewit (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Added. – Scartol  •  Tok  20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Théophile Gautier by Bertall.jpg - Ideally, the uncropped version of this image should be uploaded and linked to this image so that users can follow the image's transformation. Also, describing the cropped version as "cropped" is a good idea, so that other users know the photo has been altered.
 * Done and done. You didn't mean to specify in the article that the image has been cropped, did you? – Scartol  •  Tok  17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (No, not in the article - what you did was perfect.) Awadewit (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:Hanska Holz Sowgen 1825.jpg - The link to the source is not working for me. Is it working for other people?
 * Works for me. Perhaps your computer is Francophobic. =) Thanks for your eagle eyes. – Scartol  •  Tok  17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

These issues can easily be resolved with a little attention. Awadewit (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Support 99 bottles of beer on the wall, take one down, pass it around, 98 bottles of beer on the wall. :) That's what I always think when I see another Balzac article. :) This article is well-written, well-researched, and well-illustrated (love the squiggle!). Here are my nitpicks:
 * Aw, you just like the squiggle 'cuz of Sterne. =) JK. Thanks for your comments. – Scartol  •  Tok  16:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Realistic detail also appears in the geographical descriptions of Paris: the novel is filled with actual locations, including the Palais Royal and the Notre Dame Cathedral. The narration and characters allude repeatedly to art and culture, from Gioachino Rossini's opera Tancredi to the statue of Venus de Milo. - This paragraph is just kind of hanging there. Could these two sentences be integrated into the opening paragraph on realism?
 * Yeah, I meant to do this and must have overlooked it. Rearranged. – Scartol  •  Tok  16:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is demonstrated in the book through the gambling house, the orgiastic feast, the displays in the antique shop, and the discussions with men of science. - Weak construction
 * Agreed. Reworded. – Scartol  •  Tok  16:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh. Probably could still be better. It's the whole "this theme appears" that bugs me. But this is small potatoes. Awadewit (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I eat small potatoes for breakfast. =) (I actually did have tater tots this morning.) I changed it to: "In the gambling house, the orgiastic feast, the antique shop, and the discussions with men of science, Balzac examines this dilemma in a variety of contexts." Better? – Scartol  •  Tok  15:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Much. Awadewit (talk) 13:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The novel established Balzac as a genuine figure in the world of French literature. - Is "genuine" the best word? Perhaps something like "prominent"?
 * I think "genuine" contains something oddly appropriate, but I can't explain it – so it might just be in my own head. =) Changed. – Scartol  •  Tok  16:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The publication information seems to be split between the "Writing and publication" section and the "Reception and legacy" section. I still feel like information is being repeated. Perhaps the last paragraph of "Writing and publication" should be cut and integrated into "Reception and legacy"? I hate to suggest this because "Writing and publication" is a complete section as it is - it flows so nicely! I feel like the deficiency is more in the first part of the "Reception and legacy" section which doesn't flow as well. If I had any brilliant ideas, I would offer them, but unfortunately I don't. Does anyone else?
 * I struck the paragraph about the Romans et contes philosophiques and how it was followed by the Nouveaux Contes philosophiques. It seemed important when I was first composing the article, but I think you're right in that it mostly repeated what was said earlier. (The Nouveaux info will be good to put into the LCH article when I finally get around to that.)


 * Not that anyone asked, but I think this problem is somewhat related to Balzac's obsessive work patterns – constant revisions and re-editions lead to a confused history for each book that doesn't fit neatly into the section headings we're trying to use. – Scartol  •  Tok  16:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

My to-read list just gets longer. Awadewit (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd say this one is – with Le Père Goriot – one of his must-reads. Thanks again, A. – Scartol  •  Tok  16:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I added a missing non-breaking space. Most of them were in there, so I assume you know how to use them (which saves me looking up that WP:MOS link), but you might want to run through it again and check them.  Plasticup  T / C  20:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks. – Scartol  •  Tok  20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Fantastic article. The writing is compelling. Couple of nitpicks/questions:
 * Is there bibliographic info for the book, like an ISBN #?
 * As noted in References, the 1901 English edition is . ISBNs were first issued in the 1960s. – Scartol  •  Tok  01:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Reviews from others, however, were also very positive." - I'm not sure "however" is used correctly here if the reviewers agree.
 * The "however" here contrasts with the fact that the earlier sentence refers to a review by Balzac himself. (ie: Even though the most glowing review was written by Balzac, others also agreed.)


 * "He probably wrote the following note in his scrapbook at the same time:..." - what is the "probably" referring to? that he wrote it, or that it was written in his scrapbook, or that it was written at that time? maclean 22:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That it was written at that time. I've clarified – thanks for the catch. – Scartol  •  Tok  01:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Another Balzac novel brought to vibrant life by one of our best writers, Scartol.  Although I know I need to find something to criticize (lest I seem totally useless!), it's honestly rather difficult with such a nice article. :)  How about the following?


 * The occasional references to the painter Raphael, the protagonist's namesake, are tantalizing to one who loves his paintings. Is there more than a coincidental connection?
 * I've not found any explicit connection made, by Balzac or reviewers or critics or elsewhere. I agree that the connection seems obvious, but I didn't want to stray into possible WP:OR terrain. – Scartol  •  Tok  20:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not terribly surprised. Thank you for looking, I was just curious and imagined that other readers would be as well, Willow (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Did Goethe really conclude that La Peau de chagrin demonstrated the incurable degeneracy of the French nation? Quel citoyen du monde!  A little preparation for, or clarification of, that sentence would be helpful to readers, methinks.
 * Yes, apparently he did. I included the footnote: "Critics continue to argue about whether Goethe's comments were praise for the novel or not." Maybe I should move that into the article itself? – Scartol  •  Tok  20:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a rather shocking quote; can we add any more context? I guess I would add the "Critics continue..." sentence to the article itself; it's a relatively short paragraph and tempers its predecessor more immediately than a footnote would.  Willow (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I also added a phrase of lead-in. – Scartol  •  Tok  22:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we get a transliteration or, even better, a translation of the Arabic? Does it come from the Arabian Nights, or some antique poem perhaps?
 * Again, I've not found anything discussing the source. I ran it by some folks at the Writing Systems project as well as User:Haytham abulela, both of whom confirmed the accuracy of the translation. Providing the full English translation felt a bit heavy; would you recommend it in the caption or the article itself? – Scartol  •  Tok  20:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we shouldn't distract the reader; perhaps you could present the translation in an explanatory footnote? It's pretty cool.  It's a pity that nothing is known of the source. I suppose the most plausible explanation is that Balzac wrote the quote in French and then had it translated and written out in Arabic calligraphy - oops, that's more WP:OR! ;) Willow (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I suspected, but I like your idea about him seizing it from somewhere else. If I ever find out, I'll let you know. – Scartol  •  Tok  22:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Does Balzac really espouse the philosophy that someone powerless and poor but gifted with knowledge can be happy? Or is it rather a Platonic ideal of harmony, that all three are needed in proper proportion?  Does Balzac suggest that knowledge, like wealth and power, demands its own price?
 * It's often difficult to figure out what he believed, especially since he often kept his true beliefs behind a wall of ego and "I'm a genius and you probably wouldn't understand me" obscurity. He apparently did feel that knowledge by itself can provide happiness – Balzac wasn't really about harmonic ideals. (He ate huge portions, worked for days without sleep, guzzled gallons of coffee, etc etc.) Though he didn't seem to feel that knowledge itself demanded a price, the story suggests that desire and power (the vouloir and pouvoir mentioned by the shopkeeper) did demand a heavy price indeed. – Scartol  •  Tok  20:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your last point is made very well in the article, and it seems as though my other questions would carry us into WP:OR. I'll confess to being surprised, though, that Balzac didn't think so; it seems almost an archetype of literature that knowledge too comes with a price.  Perhaps someday you can let me know whether his opinion changed in his later novels; I'm curious to know. ;)  Willow (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, given the fact that for much of his life he had no real power other than his considerable intellect and creativity (and will), perhaps it's not surprising that he saw knowledge as a complete good. I'm definitely planning to move into some of his later novels next, so I'll let you know what I can glean about all of this. (Although he really didn't return to these issues much in other novels; the Études philosophiques is a pretty slender section of LCH.) Thanks again for your generous consideration. – Scartol  •  Tok  22:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for another beautifully written article! :) Willow (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful feedback. – Scartol  •  Tok  20:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note, attention to spacing per WP:MOS is needed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.