Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lad, A Dog/archive1


 * 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 Karanacs 13:25, 8 June 2010.

Lad, A Dog

 * Nominator(s): -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all of the featured article criteria. Currently a good article, it has undergone a peer review and been copy-edited by two editors who work in the CE areas. It is neutral, stable, well-written, comprehensive, and well-researched, covering all major aspects of the work, which satisfies the first criteria. It follows WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, and WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines, and uses a consistent and valid citation style, satisfying criteria two. The article has three images, one of which is a non-free image of the novel's cover, and two public domain illustrating the real life dog the novel is based on, some of the other dogs frequently mentioned in the work, and the author who is the novel's "Master". This satisfies criteria 3. It also stays on topic without excessive detail, meeting the final criteria. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Leaning towards Support with comments
 * Proofread done - no issues found, no amendments made - there is one bit where the text says "vice verse", I wondered whether that should be "vice versa"?
 * Comment - Section: Sequels and adaptations, paragraph 2 says "saving the baby from a snack". This sounds odd. So the baby was reaching for a dangerous foodstuff and Lad stops the baby? The sentence sits a bit unhappily and raises unanswered questions; perhaps put something in parentheses to clarify.
 * Article v FAC criteria
 * 1(a) Prose style - PROFESSIONAL, ENGAGING - yep, I have no interest in dogs and I think, were I to read these stories, I'd probably hate them. But this article reads very well.
 * 1(b) Comprehensiveness - COMMENT: - I was left wondering if Lassie has any relationship to this book? Was this book not an inspiration for Lassie in any way? If not, fine. But if any parallels have ever been drawn it would be good to see them mentioned. Otherwise, to my untrained eye, I feel this article covers the subject well enough.
 * 1(c) Research - COMMENT: - I am a little worried about Section - themes... virtually the whole of that block is from one source; please check that we're not violating the referenced works copyright or stripping out too much of its content. As a further note, I would be grateful if other reviewers would leave a message on my talk page letting me know if we have any policies on how much we can take from a single source.
 * 1(d) Neutral? - YES - Doesn't evangelise; includes a negative review of the subject.
 * 1(e) Stable? - YES - No sign of strife throughout article history; article begun in October 2009.
 * 2(a) Lead - V.GOOD
 * 2(b) Structure - V.GOOD - The order the sections are placed in makes perfect sense to me.
 * 2(c) Consistent citations - NOT CHECKED
 * 3 Images - NOT CHECKED - I'm not sufficiently aware of image policies.
 * 4 Length - EXCELLENT - article is well within upper bounds of article length. Doesn't outstay its welcome and seems to cover everything; I wasn't left unsatisfied.
 * bodnotbod (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed the typo. The novel has no relation to Lassie Come-Home that I could find. Though the latter was published 19 years after this novel, Knight has never stated any inspiration from Terhune and though I agree, it would seem to be obvious to draw parallels from the literary perspective, I found no reliable sources doing so. Knight himself stated he was inspired to right his novel based on his own collie, and at the time he wrote it, collies were one of the most popular breeds. I did, however, just find one article from a Sport's Illustrated archive comparing Terhune's dogs to Lassie by noting that unlike Lassie, they did not stay perpetually young, but grew old and died. I'll add that note in. :-) (Yay to SI for putting old archives online for free finally!) For the themes section, it primarily draws from one source because that source gave the most in-depth look at the novel's themes. Most sources simply gave reception information, rather than literary analysis. Unfortunately, I have yet to find any other reliable source that really goes into the themes at all. I don't think it is a copyright violation as it is a summary of some ten pages of material in four paragraphs, and it is written in my own words so I don't think it is a plagiarism issue. If it makes the article seem unbalanced, I suppose some of it could be cut, but I think it would lose some really great information. I've added a bit from the Sports Illustrated article there as well. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 10:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Question If the name of the book is Lad: A Dog, why is the article named Lad, A Dog?—indopug (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it can't be put at Lad: A Dog Because Lad: is the interwiki prefix for lad.wikipedia.org, the Ladino (Judaeo-Spanish), Wikipedia. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The title ought to be accurate. Have you inquired about a technical fix? Everyking (talk) 08:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, as I didn't think there was any way to change it, as I'd presume they'd give preference to an interwiki link. Looking at Naming conventions (technical restrictions), display title can't be used for this as the displayed name is supposed to still resolve to the article and there is no fix mentioned. But I've added Namespace conflict to the article per its suggestions. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly it's a good article. The template partially addresses the concern, but I still think it would be a good idea to get a definitive answer about the technical aspects of the situation. Everyking (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll ask around, but I don't think it should affect the FAC one way or another. There are quite a few other articles not at their "proper" name because of technical issues. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I came here from Village pump (technical). AnmaFinotera has indeed done everything in her power to resolve this issue; unfortunately, it isn't technically possible. The title could at best be "plastered over" via a clumsy solution similar to Title override, but it does not work for all browsers, and does, quite frankly, look miserable. Replacing one of the characters in the title with a similar non-Latin character is another possible stunt, but is undesirable since it will inevitably cause linking-concerns. (the only solution here would be to build a time-machine, and talk the book's author into a different title for the novel...) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing and referencing matters
 * The author is Unkelbach, not "Unkleback"
 * Note: UNKELBACH - it still needs fixing! Brianboulton (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that the full correct title of the Unkelbach book is  Albert Payson Terhune: The Master of Sunnybrook: A Centennial Biography. (refs 1, 5, 10, 11)
 * Suggest redlink only the first "Collie Health Foundation", as per normal linking rules.
 * My point is that you don't need two redlinks on "Collie Health Foundation" in the references list. Brianboulton (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * When you are citing audio, video or film sources, more information is needed beyond title and date. See WP:CITET ("cite video") for an indication of the required info; you don't have to adopt the template format.
 * I notice numerous links to Amazon. If the sole purpose is to verify that a book exists, or to confirm publication data, that's OK. However, the second paragraph of the "Sequels and adaptations" section, which cites four Amazon pages, contains content detail which does not appear in the Amazon details.
 * The "Further reading" section should follow, not precede, references.

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * First two fixed. The title was confusing as the side of the book just has Albert Payson Terhune: A Centennial Biography while the inside title pages has Albert Payson Terhune: The Master of Sunnybrook. Fixed the further reading. Only the first instance of Collie Health Foundation is redlinked in the text (authors/publishers in references are always linked in each instance for reader convenience). I am not citing any audio, video or film, so I don't understand that remark? Amazon is used to verify publication data. If needed, I can add cites to the individual books as well, which confirm that he saved her from a snake rather than just saved her. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was looking at 17 (audio cassette), 18 (audio CD) and 33 (film). Brianboulton (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are cites to Amazon to confirm the items release details, not sources to the items themselves, as such the current cite web is the appropriate template :-) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unkelbach fixed. The redlinks in the references are fine, to me, as they will eventually be blue links and therefore acceptable per WP:REDLINK. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am asking why you need two redlinks on Collie Health Foundation in the references. One is fine. Two is unnecessary. Brianboulton (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They are references. The publisher of a reference is linked in all instances of the references, not just one, because you can't predict which one a reader will go to first, so the link is done for all instances. It is done in many other FAs and I see no reason not to do it here just because this particular one is a "red link" when it meets WP:REDLINK. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. I was wondering why "baby" is sometimes upper-case, sometimes not. "One spring, a relative of the Mistress brings her invalid Baby to the Place in the hope that the weather will help her grow stronger. Lad immediately befriends the girl and becomes her constant companion. By summer, the Baby is growing healthier, though she is still unable to walk. One afternoon, the mother sits the baby near the lake, then leaves her to go meet the Master and Mistress, who are returning from town. Lad saves the baby from a copperhead snake, but the distraught mother only sees Lad throw the baby backwards and begins beating him. To protect her friend, Baby manages to shakily walk to her mother and explain what happened." SlimVirgin talk  contribs 20:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The character is called "Baby" in the story, but is also referred to as a baby (though from the story she sounds more like a toddler). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're using Baby as a name, that's fine, but it seems to be used inconsistently, e.g. the Baby is growing, but mother sits the baby. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 16:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it a bit to replace most descriptive baby usage to child or toddler, or to use the proper noun version. How does that work? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a lot better, thanks. SlimVirgin  talk  contribs 16:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose On no basis is File:Lad_a_Dog,_Anniverary_Printing.jpg, not replaceable by free content. Fasach Nua (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As this particular person basically opposes any FA with an image, will be disregarding the comment. Image is not replaceable by free content as any accurate cover would still be non-free. Image meets Wikipedia's fair use guidelines and WP:FAC. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fortunately the delegate will take this comment into account. Why the free 1919 edition is not used and the unfree 1965 edition is used will be a big factor on how this article is graded. I note that you have attacked me rather that properly responding to this comment. I will take no further part in this FAC as I feel FAC nominators should assume good faith when dealing with reviewers who voluntarily give up their time to review the nominators' articles for them. Fasach Nua (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The 1919 edition is not free. The cover shown in the 1965 edition is the same cover, and the book is still under copyright. Nor is a 1919 edition obtainable. Sorry, but I don't see how you have given up any time to review articles, all I see is you going to every FAC and making the same oppose if you find a single non-free image. Nor did I attack you, I made a basic statement of fact as shown by your own edit history with FACs. I assumed good faith the first time you did it, that you continue to make the same incorrect argument over and over again, despite numerous editors pointing out that you are wrong, is what makes your comments something no longer something I will take any regard for. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to check Lad: a Dog and Further Adventures of Lad both in the public domain and available with pics. --Brad (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither of those have the actual original covers, only the inside title pages and the under covers. Nor do I see how those are somehow public domain as Dutton owns the copyright for both. It seems pretty clear from the sources that Dutton did renew the copyright, so how can it be public domain now? And if it is public domain, then that would make the current image also public domain making the entire question moot. However, since it seems like it will just become a stumbling block on this FAC, even if I disagree with the logistics, I have removed the image all together. I see no value in adding the one from the Google Docs, as it is just a plain cover with the title. Of course, I suspect now the FAC will be opposed for lacking a cover image... -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If a book was published in the United States prior to January 1, 1923, it's in the public domain. Therefore, yes, the 1919 edition is in fact free; you may want to see Public domain for details.  That's one of the reasons the entire book is available via Google. :)  Use the title page, or perhaps even the picture of Lad included in the Preface, if someone pushes for an image.  I wouldn't typically agree with such an oppose rationale, since many book-related FACs have been passed with a non-free cover included, but seeing as how there is a free edition of this book available... María ( habla  con migo ) 13:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I read that, but it didn't really explain why one copy is PD, but not the other. I would think that if the 1967 copy is still copyrighted, then the work itself is still copyrighted, since it is the same work. The whole thing is rather confusing. I used that particular image because Dutton used the original 1919 cover (the only difference is the addition of the "Anniversary Edition" text, and because a decent quality image of the actual 1919 cover (rather than the book's plain inner cover) has been unfindable. Wish I did have a first edition, but they are going for $1500 and more...even I'm not that book crazy. :-P The picture of Lad from the preface is used in the article further down, but I don't think it would be a good infobox image since it isn't a picture of the book itself. As you said, if someone opposes now for no infobox image, I'll throw in the title page, because I'd hate to see this article fail for such a silly thing. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the cover version you scanned had the "Anniversary Edition" added to the 1919 cover then the publisher was able to claim a copyright as it was a modified version. The same would apply when the publisher made an "Anniversary Edition" of the book which would allow copyright on the entire work. They probably had a different introduction and the history behind the book in the 67 copy. I did check the library networks I have access to and there are several copies of the 1919 book available for loan. In the meantime the lack of a cover photo should not be a reason to fail this nom. Brad (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.