Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paradises Lost/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 promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2017.

Paradises Lost

 * Nominator(s): Vanamonde (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a 2002 novella by Ursula K. Le Guin. A recent and short work, it has received coverage lower than is typical for that author, and as a consequence the article is somewhat shorter than usual. Nonetheless, I believe it is comprehensive. It is the first time I am nominating something at FAC that I created (rather than rewrote). All feedback is welcome, as always. Required disclaimer: I am, as of this nomination, a Wikicup participant. Vanamonde (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt
Haven't read very far yet, but "angels" is inconsistently capitalized in the plot description.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I checked the original: Le Guin does not capitalize. Standardized. Vanamonde (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "inessential items" Consider "nonessential items"
 * Done


 * " feel value for " consider "value"
 * Yes, flows better...


 * "of which members are known as angels" consider "with members known as angels"
 * Done


 * "and not the origin or destination, matters.[20][19] " refs are backwards
 * Fixed.


 * You are inconsistent "Discovery" vs Discovery. Also the same re Paradises lost (quotes or italics
 * The sources seem to use the title in quotes, so standardized, along with making a switch to the "short story" template.


 * "human beings who are living entirely in interstellar space," This makes it sound like they are living in the void rather than a generation ship.
 * Rephrased


 * check your capitalization of "Bliss". It seems a bit inconsistent.
 * Fixed


 * "had been previously published elsewhere.[46][39][1] " also backwards
 * Fixed


 * Opera: who wrote the libretto and the book?
 * Added libretto author; not sure what book you are referring to, but then again I know nothing about opera...


 * "Attebery credited Le Guin, among others, of reviving generation ship stories in the 1990s, but wrote that these authors shifted the emphasis of such stories away from individuals towards exploring communal action and belief in generation ships. " I might cut the last three words. I think it's implied, and it creates mild ambiguity.
 * Done
 * Interesting read. I've always liked the concept of the generation ship, though I'm dubious about the science. Just a few things above.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review: I've addressed your comments. Vanamonde (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support All looks good. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review
Both images seem to be used appropriately. Alt text is present.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, as always. One question for you; I've been wondering whether the images are too few, and if so, what to do about it. What do you think of including either a PD image of Le Guin in the "publication" section, or a fair-use image (that I would have to upload) of The Found and the Lost in that same section? Vanamonde (talk) 12:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The image of Le Guin would be better. As for the other, how would you tie it in? Unless you could tie it in well, I'd avoid it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've added the Le Guin image. I guess it would be tricky to justify a loosely related second fair use image, so I've dropped the idea of uploading the anthology cover...though it is a gorgeous image. Vanamonde (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No question it's a nice cover. The new image is fine. All clear.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber
Notes/queries follow:


 *  The novella begins with 5-Liu Hsing, as a child, being taught about Earth through the use of virtual reality tapes, an experience which the young Hsing takes exception to - has two "Hsing's in it...maybe "The novella begins with 5-Liu Hsing, as a child, being taught about Earth through the use of virtual reality tapes, an experience which her young(er) self takes exception to"?
 * Done.


 *  Hsing has disagreements with her friend Rosie, a member of a Bliss, leading Hsing to explore the philosophy of the angels.  - this one too, though thinking on ways of rewording...which is tricky.
 * Rephrased as "Disagreements with her friend Rosie, a member of Bliss, lead Hsing to explore the philosophy of the angels."

Looks good overall. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking it over. I've addressed your points. Vanamonde (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as I can't find any other prose or comprehensiveness issues Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Chiswick Chap
I reviewed this article at GAN and was happy to pass it as a careful and informative article easily up to the required standard. Having read the story (is one allowed to mention such a thing here), I can attest that the summary covers it well; and the analysis is cogent and cited to reliable critics. I have little to add now, except to note that the other reviewers here have found little to criticise and much to praise in the article's content and construction. I suspect we're even reaching the point of diminishing returns: for instance, I find "inessential" preferable to "nonessential", but it's a matter of no importance. The article is surely a worthy FA and I'm happy to Support its promotion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Chiswick Chap. I've addressed two of your points, and will investigate the third. Vanamonde (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * In Reception, "that that of" should be "with that of".
 * Yes, thanks.


 * Molly Gloss is not just a science fiction writer so perhaps she should be glossed as "the novelist", "the historical novelist" or some such.
 * Done.


 * Perhaps the choice of the ship's name Discovery deserves a footnote; the name echoes both the Space Shuttle and 2001: A Space Odyssey.
 * I'd like to, but I haven't found anything in the sources...perhaps they consider it self-evident, or maybe Le Guin didn't intend a specific reference? I'm not certain.
 * Not to worry. The coincidence still might be worth mentioning in a note.

Comments and support from Gerda
Invited and interested, I'll comment as I read.

Lead:
 * I think "adapted as an opera" comes too soon, - I'd want to know more about what it is first. Also, adapted as a university project by a composer without an article: possibly not breaking news about the novella.
 * I've shifted the order of the sentences. Normally, it wouldn't be a big deal (as you said, a university production) but Le Guin paid attention to it (even went to a performance, though there's nothing reliable for that) and there's coverage for the performance in Portland.
 * Well, I just met Aribert Reimann in a "normal" performance of his Medea: they love to see their work performed, nothing so special ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I confess that I don't understand the summary of the plot, but perhaps I will better when reading further.
 * added later: "The story follows them as they deal with a religious cult which does not believe in the ship stopping at its intended destination" - I understand that the "the cult" doesn't believe arriving (anywhere, ever) would be a good idea, no? (Confess that I still have trouble understanding.)
 * True; but obviously the cult's own belief is fuzzy, and I'm not sure I want to complicate the lead further. What is certain is that they don't wish to stop.
 * perhaps mention "angels" here already, because it could be easily missed - especially as not capital -- that the meaning is not the normal meaning of angels. Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, done after reading it, changed my mind. It seemed like a parenthetical addition unnecessary to understanding the lead, and disruptive to the flow. If you feel strongly, I will reinstate it again.
 * The lead is normally the last thing to be polished, - I will look again later. It's on the shortish side, don't be afraid to tell "skimming" readers - who may never get to below - a bit more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Setting Opera That's all for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comparing to the other works and authors is not so helpful to readers who don't know them, - please a bit more about what is comparable.
 * Added.
 * The first sentence is rather complex, and do we need four references?
 * The references are necessary, as they all cover overlapping but individually incomplete bits of the first sentence. I'll think about how I can make it simpler.
 * What I do in such a case is place a ref right behind the bit it supports. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I've collected two of the refs into one: I don't want to complicate the structure by doing anything further, as it will involve duplication as well.
 * Okay, broken into two sentences, though I kinda liked my contorted original :)
 * "The two protagonists of the story are 5-Liu Hsing and 5-Nova Luis" - would it be possible to not only tell us about the 5, but also who is male and female, and to be called by which short name later?
 * I've added their given names. I don't really want to add gender in the "setting" section, as it isn't directly relevant (whereas the parentheses I just added at least fits with the information about names).
 * You think in Romeo and Juliet, the doesn't matter? We happen to know by names that Romeo is male, but not for a Chinese name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No no, it's important to the story! Just not to understanding the setting of the story, I think. In the plot, the "he" and "she" make it clear, do they not?
 * In the plot, it becomes clear, but I suggest to clarify in the setting, perhaps even in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I know I'm being a little resistant here, but I really don't want to add gender in the setting; in addition to what I said earlier, an additional "Hsing, a girl, and Luis, a boy" seems like rather old-fashioned writing to me. I took a look at some other FAs: To Kill a Mockingbird, in which the narrator is a girl, doesn't mention her gender until the plot; most FAs don't even have a setting section. If you still feel strongly about this, would you be okay with asking for a second opinion? reviewed this already; perhaps they would be willing to provide one. Vanamonde (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My friend Wehwalt will not have gotten a ping, because I just fixed it, but doesn't need one. I don't feel strongly about it, just wondered. - I reviewed so many LGBT articles recently that girl and boy seemed to be something worth mentioning ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * maybe use pronouns very quickly and so avoid the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The last sentence would perhaps be good to know in the lead already.
 * Unsure about this. To the general public, it is a fact of no importance; it is only those folks already somewhat familiar with her work that might wonder "is it part of the Hainish cycle?" I'll think further.
 * Don't think further, it's fine, was just an idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The composer is named Stephen A. Taylor in one source.
 * Changed.
 * Do readers know what a celesta is?
 * Good point. There's some guideline somewhere about not linking things in quotes, but I think we can make an exception here, as there isn't any ambiguity as to what he is talking about.
 * I could imagine the opera section after Reception, or as part of it.
 * This change I'm going to resist. I really think it belongs with the publication; additionally, reception is already long, while publication is short; and in other stories, I've tended to place adaptations with the publications.

Thank you for changes, and we'll think further. I understand the points where I didn't reply ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you think Paradise Lost should at least be mentioned? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (stalker): You're surely right. The allusion is clear, and can be cited: Charles Wright Academy states "Each novel relies on a central allusion to John Milton's epic poem Paradise Lost, which depicts the fall of Adam and Eve and their expulsion from Eden." In which case it would make sense to wikilink Paradise Regained even though it's mentioned in a quotation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I want to include this, I really do: I noticed the allusion the first time I read it. But, I need a source that will not be thrown out in a source review. I've been trying to find one for quite a while, so far without success. Vanamonde (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's unduly timid, given that it's obviously true and academics who have no reason to be doubted on the matter are saying so. However, Margaret Atwood's New York Review of Books quote, already in the lead, makes an unambiguous allusion to Milton, so I suggest you footnote that quote to point out that Paradises Lost alludes to Milton's Paradise Lost/Paradise Regained. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:46, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You say "timid", I say "particular"; and maybe you'd be, too, if you'd worked on south Asian politics as long as I have! I take your point, though. Additionally I guess it's tricky to find sources for such things given that scholars are too preoccupied with deeper analysis, and media sources do not go into non-standalone stories in sufficient depth. I've added the fact, using Atwood as the source.


 * Can you translate 'Le Guin described its universe as "well-used one: the generic, shared, science fiction ‘future.’ In this version of it, Earth sends forth ships to the stars at speeds that are, according to our present knowledge, more or less realistic, at least potentially attainable."' for someone who never read science fiction in English (and only little in German)? I think the sentence needs "a" before the quote begins. What's a well-used universe? ... a generic future? ... a shared future? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good catch. All of us before you missed it. Yes, it would need an "a"; but in light of your concern about the rest of the sentence, I've paraphrased the first bit, and it does no longer. Take a look.
 * I like the change. I have no time right now, but will look again after a while, after having read the German source also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I read now the dissertation, and will put here what I find, rather than on my talk where you mentioned it. Preface: the author analyses for each work whether it's more utopia or science fiction. He sees four aspects more or less apparent in her work: feminism, ecology, anarchism and pacifism. Now to Paradises lost (p. 231): Setting is described as in the article, on a voyage, 141 years after it started, narration over around 25 years, plants and bacteria on board, but no animals, Earth often called "dirtball", strict recycling on board, one person/one child rule. Discovery is divided in four sections, originally by ethnic group but in the fifth generation almost not relevant, only some Asians respect it but are call racist for it. Teachers rotate, so that children get educated by members of different former ethnic groups. ... naked children, dressed age 5, early sexual education, inviting to bisexuality ... education about Earth only at age 10. (so far p. 232, p. 233 missing from preview) more tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! Hang on a moment though; are you saying it is a dissertation, as in a PhD thesis? I had imagined it was a book! Theses are not always the best sources. I'm wondering now if it might be better to wait for a source review to take a look at the source, before I add anything based on it...Vanamonde (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't mean to bother you, just want to make sure this did not drop off your radar. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Little time on a Sunday, no bother, I thought I'd wait for a source review, no? It seems that the dissertation - about all her works, perhaps worth mentioning - supports the article, more or less. Every other page is not visible to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't mean to be a bother, Gerda, but was there anything more? If not, could you see your way to supporting this? If you want to go over it again I'm happy to wait for you to do so, but if you're actually done I'm hoping to wrap this up soonish and get one of too many things off my mind. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I read it once more, and - while I'd probably place the characters before the story, and reception before the (later) opera - support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review

 * I was struck by the number of citations to the primary source, the work itself. My understanding has always been that we did not generally cite the work except in cases such as a direct quotation from the text, as you have done in the quotebox at the start of the "setting" section. This view appears to be upheld by  this guideline.  I am not sure why you felt it necessary to cite straightforward plot features – it's not necessarily wrong, but it does seem contrary to wide WP practice and guidelines. Perhaps you would comment on this?
 * Well, based just on common sense it seems to me that if we can make something easier to verify, then we should; disputes over plot details are not unheard of, and there are occasions (even here) where secondary sources get plot details incorrect. I looked at the linked guideline, and the bit that seems relevant to me is "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. However, editors are encouraged to add sourcing if possible." (emphasis mine). Which to me suggests that inline refs are not a bad idea.


 * Apart from this, there are a couple of very minor formatting points:
 * Ref 34 requires p. not pp.
 * Done
 * Ref 48: the source is, I think, Locus Online
 * Done

No spotchecks carried out. Sources seem in general to be of appropriate authority and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've addressed your points: thanks for the review. If I may ask you one more question: and myself have been discussing the use of this source. It is a PhD thesis in German, and my gut feeling is that though it is not quite as reliable as the others, and is dodgy for any radically different interpretations, it may provide a couple of useful tidbits. Gerda may have a different assessment. What do you think of its reliability, and do you have any thoughts on whether it is needed? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't mean to bother you, but since you're active, wanted to make sure you had seen this. Vanamonde (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * On your final point, the source is in German, so whether or not it can be considered reliable, it won't be much use to the great majority of your readers. This is, after all, English Wikipedia. The article is well sourced, doesn't need this extra, and I wouldn't spend any more time considering it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Brianboulton., based on this I think we should only use that source if there's some fascinating tidbit that's not already in the article; what do you think? Vanamonde (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You asked me about that source. I'd keep it (perhaps as external link) just to mention that the story had extensive scientific coverage even in German, and the source supports the article, as far as I could see. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a good thought: I've added it as a further reading entry. Feel free to make any tweaks to the description/formatting. Did you have any other points you wished to raise, since you mentioned above that you were waiting for the source review? Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.