Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Day Before the Revolution/archive1

The Day Before the Revolution

 * Nominator(s): Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a 1974 short story from American writer Ursula Le Guin, some of whose other works I have brought to FAC before. I rewrote this page entirely some months ago, and it's since had been reviewed at GAN by and had a pre-FAC review from. I've done my best to dig deep into the sources, and I feel it to be comprehensive, but all feedback is welcome. I'm aware I haven't kept up with reviewing at FAC as I should, but I hope to remedy that somewhat in the coming days. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
Having reviewed this on the article's talk page I don't have much to add here. These are all minor, and I'll certainly be supporting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The first link to anarchy is in the body, though there are a couple of opportunities to link it in the lead. I see you link separately to "anarchy" and "anarchism"; what's the thinking there?
 * I've added a link in the lead now (though to anarchism). The two articles are, theoretically at least, about an anarchist society and about anarchy as philosophy; lots of overlap, of course, but I've tried to use the link appropriate to the usage in the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "The experience of death, grief and sexuality in older age are major themes ...": I found myself parsing this as "The experience of " which I don't think is intended. (If it is, I'd make it "experiences" instead.)  How about "Grief, sexuality in older age and the experience of death are major themes ..."?  The similar phrasing at the start of the "Themes" section might be rephrased too.  Any reason the lead only lists three of the four themes mentioned at the start of "Themes"?  For the "Themes" section how about "The short story explores grief, sexuality in older age and the experience of aging and death, themes that were largely absent from The Dispossessed, which has a younger protagonist"?
 * This took me a little while...I've come to the conclusion that "experience" is actually somewhat superfluous for the lead; I've written simply "Aging, death, grief..." How does that look? For the body I've implemented your suggestion. There was no reason to omit aging in the lead, I've added it now. Strike that last: I see why I omitted it, it was to avoid the repetition of "aging" with the rest of the sentence. If the meaning isn't clear I can try to reword.
 * It's a pity that the first mention in the body of "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" is not the natural place to explain the meaning of that story; you give the meaning right at the end of the article. I can't think of a good way to finesse this.  Maybe a footnote giving a sentence or two of explanation of that story, so that the reader has a sense at this first mention what Le Guin means by calling Odo "one of the ones who walked away from Omelas"?
 * I'm open to ideas on wording, but I can't think of a good way to do this that isn't confusing, even in a footnote: because the links are philosophical, rather than plot-related. Odo doesn't live in anything like Omelas. The sentence that follows I think provides more context than a summary of "Omelas" would; because, despite the similarities, one has to get fairly deep into that story ("there are some people who choose to walk away from the idealized society...") for it to connect meaningfully to Odo.
 * Looking at ways to get rid of some more "wrote that"s, which I think sound awkward. Could we do "For Spivack, Odo exemplifies" for the last paragraph?  And maybe change "Scholar Jane Donawerth wrote that" to "In scholar Jane Donawerth's view"?
 * Done as suggested, thank you.
 * Done: these are all your comments, Mike, but perhaps you'll want to have another read through once I've handled the others below? Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll wait for the outcome of UC's review, just in case I have anything to contribute to those points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Support. Have read through again; I made a couple of minor copyedits, but no problem if you want to tweak those again. Looks great. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69
Hey Vanamonde! This seems like an interesting subject, and I might as well jump in with a quid pro quo, right? ;) I'll be back with some comments later this week. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Source and image review
Review time! Citation numbers from this revision. I'll put the quality concerns at the top.


 * What makes citation 12 reliable and high-quality? The database appears to curated by a single person without editorial oversight.
 * I would consider him an expert in the field, but please also note I'm using him for strictly bibliographic information which isn't otherwise easily available. See a previous discussion about the website at FAC.
 * Works for me. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What makes citation 15 reliable and high-quality? The article has a "blog" tag at the top and the writing style is candid to the point of being unprofessional.
 * I see that the original url redirects to a different one, which I would agree wouldn't be reliable by itself. The piece was first published, AFAICS, on Tor.com, which has editorial oversight and is comparable to any SF mag review, I'd say. See the archive url, which has no indicator that it's different from other material they publish.
 * Ah, I hadn't seen that Tor.com had gone through some restructuring. Worth noting here that even before the switch to Reactor, the magazine had open submissions for contributions. However, since the author seems to be recognized for their SFF reviews based on their site bio, taken together with the editorial review this source should be good to go. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Less important gnome-y suggestions are below.


 * In citation 4: link Extrapolation.
 * In citation 9: →
 * In citation 14: add Pamela Sargent, consider switching the title to title case.
 * In citation 15: italicize, link Tor.com.
 * In citations 17, 18, and 20, consider adding Locus.
 * Done but without the italics, the template gets upset. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In citation 19: Wildside Press LLC → Wildside Press
 * In citations 22–26: use cite magazine instead of cite journal.
 * Given that I'm using the same parameters, this is cosmetic, no? But I've no objection, so okay.
 * In citations 22 and 23: link Publishers Weekly.
 * In citation 24: italicize, link Locus, add Susan Wood (literary scholar).
 * In citation 25: link Fantasy and Science Fiction. Also, I wouldn't consider an access date necessary here since it's a courtesy link to the Internet Archive.
 * In citation 26: link Galaxy.
 * In citation 28 and Slusser 1976: link Borgo Press.
 * In citation 31: Sydney Morning Herald → The Sydney Morning Herald
 * Related to the above, make sure the formatting of the name in the prose matches.
 * In citation 32: link St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
 * In citations 35 and 39: link Science Fiction Studies.
 * In citation 35: italicize.
 * In citation 37: add Robin Anne Reid, link Bloomsbury Publishing.
 * In citation 38: add Kenneth Roemer, link Utopian Studies.
 * Only some of the citations in have locations. I'd prefer to remove them for consistency with the others. (I also consider locations an extremely dated feature of citations in the age of the Internet.)
 * Agreed, removed (also per Gog below).
 * In Cummins 1990: link University of South Carolina Press.
 * In Harris-Fain 2005: →  (with an en dash)
 * In Le Guin 2017: link HarperCollins, consider adding Ursula K. Le Guin if you're feeling superfluous.
 * Linking UKLG would be superfluous, I think.
 * In Spivack 1984a: link Twayne Publishers.
 * In White 1999: link Camden House.
 * All done with a couple of exceptions noted above, thanks for your diligence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank for your work on this article! I made a couple of minor fixes not mentioned here while finishing up the review. Source review passed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Image review passed. The Day Before the Revolution.jpg is a non-free file with an appropriate use rationale and resolution. Ursula Le Guin (3551195631) (cropped).jpg is a free image and is captioned appropriately.

Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

UC
Saving a space -- I've just started to dip my toes into Le Guin's short stories. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * : more concise as.
 * Done
 * wl "anarchist" to anarchism in lead.
 * Done
 * : per MOS:LEAD, better if repeated in the body and cited there, with the lead clear of citations (MOS:LQ)
 * I hope you don't mind, but I'm rather attached to lead citations when it's possible to cite individual sentences. I waste far too much of my time on-wiki reverting people who remove lead content claiming it's uncited: and I've also seen cases where our guideline is abused to add original research to the lead. As to the quote, I assume you're referring to "general strike", which i've unquoted per below.
 * MOS:LQ allows rather than requiring citations to be omitted, so as long as all is cited in the body as well, this is fine. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe everything is cited in the body. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would echo the comments above about death, grief and sexuality in old age, and about the virtue of a footnote to explain "one of the ones who walked away from Omelas".
 * See my replies above.
 * I can think on this, but I think it's possible to get the point in a sentence or so: perhaps something like My general principle would be that if a line like this is important enough to include in the article (and it is), it's important enough to spend a minute making sure the reader understands it.  UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added a shortened version of that, with a couple of sources.
 * Another thought: has Le Guin ever, perhaps in an interview, said (hopefully in a pithy and quotable way) what she imagines the ones who walk away to be, or represent? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not unlikely that she did, but off the top of my head I'm unaware of such: in those that I've seen (and I looked again just now) she mostly refers to it's popularity, and ambiguity.
 * : if this is a quote from Le Guin's foreword, shouldn't it be cited to that, rather than a secondary source?
 * No, the quote is from a secondary source directly; do you feel that requires clarification?
 * Yes: as written, it reads as a Le Guin quote. I would always make sure it's clear in the text who said what. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This ended up being omitted altogether in a lead rewrite, see below. Vanamonde93 (talk)
 * : this is a bit fluffy for me, at least in the lead: even in the body, we don't actually talk about any imagery ("looks down at her feet with loathing" is not really that). If we must talk about something like this, I'd be much happier with e.g. "critics have drawn attention to the vivid imagery Le Guin uses..." or similar.
 * Reworked slightly.
 * : I would capitalise (see the FA Academy Award for Best Actor), as this is the specific title, not simply a description.
 * Done as suggested.
 * : if this is a quote, it should be attributed (did they all use those words?): if scare quotes, it would be good to think if we can say what we mean a little more directly. Later it seems that these are specifically White's words.
 * I'm without access to Erlich at the moment, but should get my hands on the book (again) in a few days: I'll work on this then.
 * I now have Erlich in hand again. He very clearly notes Le Guin's movement away from romanticism, but does not (unsurprisingly) use the same quote. As such I've removed it from the lead.
 * : Hain will not be familiar to most readers, so something like "evolved on the planet Hain, rather than on Earth", would be clearer. Is Hain an earthlike planet, or materially different? Perhaps worth an adjective.
 * Hain features in several works, but as far as I'm aware it's ecology isn't analyzed in secondary sources, so I'd rather not get into OR...but I've added "the planet", as you suggestion.
 * : This sentence wasn't totally clear to me; I'd put a comma after systems, as a start. Possibly threw me off a little: do we mean that they definitely colonized them, but nobody remembers exactly how long ago it was?
 * Yes, that's the intended meaning; "million or a half-million" is what the source says. I could say "hundreds of thousands" instead, it's a little wordy but perhaps clearer?
 * : it's usual practice, I think, not to cite plot details from a work of fiction, as the work itself is considered the source. Is this (or any of the other similar details here) not obvious from the text itself? If so, it would be wise to explain how we get to it.
 * This is my attempt to finesse a few different matters without confusing the crap out of the reader: Odo's name, her death at the end of the story, and the fact that these are not covered by the same source in the same way. Also, it is my practice to cite the primary text outside the plot summary, because otherwise it isn't clear what parts I'm getting from the primary text and what parts are from elsewhere.
 * : I'd cut ownership as tautological: private property is, by definition, owned.
 * Done
 * : why quotes only for Odo?
 * Removed; it felt natural, I suppose, but I see the asymmetry
 * : commas around Laia, as there's only one protagonist.
 * Done
 * : reads slightly stilted to me: When she wakes is more natural, I think.
 * Done.
 * : do we find out which one?
 * We do not; they are referred to separately (they don't both die), but with no indicators of gender.
 * : rather than in A-lo?
 * Yes; is it ambiguous? I don't believe I've introduced any other territory.
 * The ambiguity is that first is superlative: it's not clear whether they're surprised that Thu was the first place (out of anywhere) to have a revolution, or whether they're surprised that A-lo didn't have a revolution before Thu did. It's not massively important for comprehension: more a matter of good prose. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten this sentence; on reflection, the surprise is the less important part of the material.
 * : as we've presented her so far, I'm surprised to hear that she has obligations. What are they?
 * She's required to speak with the visiting students, and answer some letters..."obligations" seems the most concise description
 * : why the quote marks -- could we simply link to general strike, or is it a cover for something else?
 * No conscious reason; changed as suggested
 * : reads as scare quotes to me: would remove per MOS:QUOTEPOV
 * Not intended as such, just quoting from source, but I suppose it's a common enough expression, so quotes removed.
 * I think the middle paragraph of "Publication and reception" is going the right way in terms of imposing order upon a busy critical field, but I still find myself losing my way in it a little: I think there's still more than can be done here to pull out the threads and patterns and to guide the reader through this dizzying number of voices. I'd like a bit more explanation on : what is feminist about this story?
 * Now considerably expanded and reworked.
 * : fiction is in the eternal present, so subverts.
 * It reads a little odd to me with the use of past tense for Spivack, but I cannot dispute the grammar with you, so changed.
 * : Might be subjective, but I find this simultaneously pompous and patronising: is everyone else's fiction writing not art?
 * I'd agree it's both of those :) But it's the reviewer's opinion, no? They're known to be pompous. But I may omit it if need to include more material per Czar's comments below.
 * We are always judging what to include based on its value to the article: the reader might also have had a strong opinion about coffee, but we don't need to include that simply because they did. I wonder whether a paraphrase might be kinder to this reviewer: something like "wrote that Le Guin had elevated The Day Before the Revolution to a higher artistic level than a typical story"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I like your suggestion; done.
 * : I would always, at least where possible, attribute quotations like this in text (I think it's in the MoS to do so when the quotation is an opinion, as here). On another note, I'm a little wary of the straight line we've joined between the two, that the ambivalence is between these four things: it's a kind of WP:SYNTH, since each quote comes from a totally different source.
 * I've reworked this section considerably as well.
 * : being a monument, or the movement?
 * The former; wording adjusted
 * : this could be clearer: as in, she feels that she is being treated as a historical artefact by them? She is upset by the reverence with which they treat her? She is upset that they no longer consider her relevant?
 * All of the above, is my reading; but I've adjusted the text, is that better?
 * : responsible is slightly ambiguous: did she make them come into being, or is she charged with ensuring that they go well?
 * Neither, really, it's just the things she has to do (see above re: obligations). Gone with "tasks", perhaps better?
 * : any reason not to cut after "her role"? Lots of quotes in this section: some are clearly from the text, and others from scholars, but it's not totally clear which.
 * : interspersed with implies that this only happens when she's not awake; if this is so, I'd make recollections of into dreams recalling or similar.
 * The issue is with "waking periods" rather than "recollections": she's awake, and getting lost in her memories. I've reworked, but please feel free to suggest something different.
 * : I'm not sure about the word traditional here: suggest cutting (a trope is, by definition, established in the cultural firmament, and I don't think we need the moral connotations of traditional here).
 * Agreed. Omitted.
 * : there is no single titular individual of that story.
 * Tweaked to "individuals": look okay?
 * My usual question on Further Reading: what would a reader gain from Elrich, and would any of it be of value in the article? In general, if it's useful, we should cite it; if it's not, we shouldn't waste readers' time with it.
 * An oversight; Erlich is already in the sources, section removed. FWIW, I do think such a section can have a role when there's more material than can reasonably be cited in the article, but which could benefit someone wanting to go deep. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I do believe that's everything: sorry to keep you waiting, but some of the comments required me to reacquire some library sources and pore through Erlich's lengthy non-indexed work. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you -- I will go back through and have a look at these, but it will probably be piecemeal over the next couple of days. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: happy with all of this, and the article reads well. Great job. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 07:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Czar
I had these additional sources in my citation manager for this title, in case you haven't seen them:



Also this story is dedicated to Paul Goodman and I happen to have an FAC open about one of his works (The Structure of Literature), in case you're interested. czar 14:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would gladly review that when I have a moment; it had caught my eye already when looking through the list for places where I could usefully comment. Thank you for your sources. I own Bucknall, but IMHO there is nothing to be added from that source; she doesn't say anything that I haven't already covered. Walton looks good, not sure how I missed it: I will work it in. Are you able to access the other two? If not, I can ask at RX. I'm quite open to adding more material as it is found, but I will say that there's a lot of sources that make brief mention of this story, thanks to its proximity to The Dispossessed; few of these have any unique material to add. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've now worked in De Bolt and Walton. Bucknall, though I've used her elsewhere, doesn't have anything to add here IMHO. I am quite unable to find the Sunfrog source. I do think that as a publication from a non-scholarly organization, it would carry less weight in any case, so I'm comfortable omitting it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.

Lovely stuff, I expected no less. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A lead of four paragraphs for a short article seems to clash with MOS:LEADLENGTH.
 * I don't love paragraphs as a metric; I could easily combine them into four longer paragraphs. It's currently at 13 sentences, which is in the middle of what the MOS has to say about FA lead size...I do think this hinges a little on your next comment, though; if I removed those, it'd be a lot shorter.
 * Now shortened, per below.
 * The last two sentences of the third paragraph of the lead seem over detailed, or even completely out of place, the lead being a summary.
 * I take your point, but I'm hesitant only because of how often that introduction of Le Guin's is mentioned by the sources. I seem to recall multiple sources (that I probably didn't use) that say nothing of the story besides Le Guin's introduction., can I bother you for another opinion here? Would it detract greatly to omit this fragment from the lead? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine as is, but I also don't think it would be a problem to remove it. Having it in the lead requires a bit of inline explanation which makes it a touch clumsy, perhaps. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Trimmed.
 * "the setting of the stories". The plural, as you have not introduced any stories other than TDBTR this jars. Perhaps make singular?
 * It's a reference to "Hainish cycle", but I suppose that's ambiguous, and it's not inaccurate to say it about DBR alone. So amended.
 * "her younger self and her lover". Maybe 'her younger self and her then lover'?
 * Done.
 * "Publication and reception", second paragraph: consider a paragraph break before "Conversely".
 * I've reworked this section considerably.
 * "Multiple scholars commented that it represented a tonal and thematic shift in Le Guin's writing away from "romantic quests" and toward works infused with feminism." "Multiple": only one such scholar is mentioned in the article.
 * Only one scholar used the phrase "romantic quests", so I've removed that from the lead; other commentators making the broader point are now mentioned in the text.
 * "and said that the thorough character development in "The Day Before the Revolution" made it one of the stories that demonstrated the literary worth of science fiction." I suspect a typo somewhere in there.
 * I'm not sure I see the grammatical problem, but I agree it's a little mealy-mouthed; I've shortened it; how does it read now?
 * "dynamic ambivalence"' "defiance and resignation, action and inertia", "tension of opposites" etc. The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
 * Reworked to allow attribution. In general this is challenging with literature; arguably everything is opinion, but that leads to very stiff prose. In this case, though, I think it's a valid concern.
 * "For Spivack, Odo exemplifies the titular individuals of the short story". Which short story?
 * Omelas. Adjusted.
 * In Sources three works don't have publisher locations.
 * Omitted.
 * Thank you, as always. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Vanamonde93, are we still waiting for your last couple of responses? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and my apologies for tardiness. I've put in a fair bit of work, but the outstanding comments in each section are largely intertwined and are waiting for me to rework some bits of "Themes", particularly the rather complex first paragraph. I can get to it this weekend if that's okay. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries. I have been away for most of a week and was just checking that I hadn't missed anything. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * , I do believe that's everything, you may wish to have another look. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

New That said, supporting nonetheless. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * While I am a comma minimalist, I think that a serial comma in "Death, grief and sexuality in older age" would add clarity.
 * I did this, but forgot to note it (I'm not a comma minimalist, also :) )

Comments by TompaDompa

 * General comments
 * At slightly over 2,000 words, the article seems remarkably short for what is described as "one of Le Guin's most famous short stories, as well as one of the most frequently analyzed".
 * I don't disagree with you; I would prefer if I could flesh out some themes. But I'm honestly unaware of any more material I could reasonably add, and I've looked quite hard. Some more (Jose, Walton, de Bolt) was added during this FAC courtesy Czar and others. A few dozen newspaper sources exist that don't add anything besides an adjective about the story. The Donawerth source has a little more material, but it's exceedingly dense to the point of being incomprehensible to anyone who isn't themselves a literary scholar. If you have suggestions on what to add I welcome them, but I'm hard put to think of what I could reasonably lengthen.
 * That's a shame. It is after all a short story, so it stands to reason that it would have less extensive analysis than a significantly longer work would (e.g. The Left Hand of Darkness, to pick another work by the same author, where the "Themes" section alone is nearly 1,700 words). TompaDompa (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, TLHoD alone accounts for probably a quarter of all the critical attention Le Guin has received. This story, while important, doesn't receive anywhere near as much scrutiny; I should know, seeing as I wrote the themes section you refer to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I would link authors in citation templates using the author-link parameter(s).
 * Done, I believe.
 * It's done for some but not all. Pamela Sargent is linked whereas Algis Budrys is not, for instance. None of them are linked in the "Sources" section. And just to be clear, linking authors like this is a matter of preference, not a requirement. TompaDompa (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Done Budrys and a couple of others.
 * The reference to Le Guin's The Wind's Twelve Quarters is apparently to a 2017 edition, which is not a problem in itself, but the orig-date parameter should be used as the original date is kind of important to the context of this article.
 * Added.
 * This is a matter of preference, but I would include some WP:REDLINKS for e.g. Darren Harris-Fain and Charlotte Spivack, both of whom seem to likely be notable.
 * Added in the body: I don't want redlinks in the lead, however.


 * Lead
 * "the American writer Ursula K. Le Guin" – the rest of the article uses the construction without the definite article (e.g. "anarchist theorist Paul Goodman" and "Literary scholar Richard Erlich", without any preceding "the"). Either works, but it should be consistent.
 * Omitted from the lead.
 * "Le Guin refers to Odo as "one of the ones who walked away from Omelas", a reference to another of her stories in the same volume. Odo is described as exemplifying the ideal of that story" – this would seem to imply that Le Guin is the one who describes Odo as exemplifying the ideal. The body makes it clear that it was Spivack who said that.
 * This was reworked just about the time you were reviewing, I believe, and is no longer in the lead.


 * Background and setting
 * "In The Dispossessed, she is usually referred to as the historical figure Odo, but in this story, told from her point of view, she is called Laia." – this seems to imply some kind of significance that is not spelled out. I note also that it is sourced to Le Guin herself.
 * There isn't significance; it's there to avoid reader confusion about the name. As a plot detail a primary source is okay.
 * Fair enough. TompaDompa (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Plot summary
 * "has had a major stroke" – how is she affected by this stroke? She is later described as taking a walk and discussing matters with others.
 * It's very difficult to expand upon this without getting into OR. It's implied that her rambling thoughts and her drooling have to do with the stroke, but I don't believe it is stated explicitly.
 * I would then question the description of the stroke as "major". TompaDompa (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Omitted the adjective.
 * Is Odo's death implied or explicit? It is mentioned elsewhere in the article but not in this section.
 * Implied. See comments above. I cannot say it in the plot without veering into OR, but among commentators it isn't controversial.
 * It seems to me that this should be stated explicitly somewhere in the article, then. TompaDompa (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed in principle. However, the primary text only implies it, and the secondary sources (Spivack and Slusser) say she died without explaining their inference.
 * Alright. Sometimes we have to accept that the sources aren't sufficient for what we want to add to the article. TompaDompa (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Publication and reception
 * New comment: "The story was first published in Galaxy" – might gloss here. I know it's a magazine (and not, say, a book), but readers who don't shouldn't have to follow the link to find out. TompaDompa (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A fair point; gloss added.
 * ""The Day Before the Revolution" received positive reviews, and multiple commentators noted that it represented a landmark for Le Guin's writing." – source?
 * This section has been redone, but in case this is still a concern, this is a summary sentence, of the same sort one would write in the lead; I don't see how it could be a controversial summary of the next few sentences, but if you feel it is, I'm happy to discuss.
 * The sentence is now ""The Day Before the Revolution" was critically well received, with multiple reviewers describing it as among Le Guin's best works.", for future reference ("Multiple commentators considered "The Day Before the Revolution" a landmark for Le Guin's writing." appears later and is indeed a straightforward summary of what follows). The second part is fine—multiple examples are quoted—but the first part is rather dubious. Summarizing critical reception for works with more than a handful of reviews in total (as may be the case for comparatively obscure works) easily crosses into WP:ANALYSIS of the overarching critical trends. This seems like the kind of work where there should be sources that can be cited for an assessment of the overall critical reception. TompaDompa (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If there is such a summary source, I'm not aware of it. I don't think this veers into analysis, because the number of sources isn't as low as you'd think; they're just spread over the subsequent four paragraphs, which I think you've to take together. There's also another dozen non-substantive newspaper sources that are also positive. Also, of the sources in this article, I believe only two (the two I cite) have anything negative to say. As such I think this is a headcounting exercise of the sort we permit.
 * My point is rather that if there are only (say) six sources in existence that could theoretically be cited to say something about the critical reception, summarizing their contents as e.g. "reception was largely positive" or "mixed" is probably fine—but if there are sixty, it's a lot more dubious for a Wikipedia editor to summarize the overall critical reception rather than deferring to sources that do so for us (with a higher number of sources to summarize, it's starting to look a lot more like editorial WP:ANALYSIS/evaluation). It's a sliding scale both in terms of the number of sources (we are obviously allowed to state "Critic X gave it a positive review", summarizing a single review) and the statement itself. One thing to keep in mind is that a more exceptional/intense/extreme statement is less likely to be okay than a more moderate one: "widespread critical acclaim" versus "largely positive reception", for instance. Another is that a more complex statement is less likely to be okay than a simpler one: "critics from the author's home country were more positive than critics from other countries" versus "reception was mixed", for instance.In summary: I understand your perspective; this seems like a borderline case to me. TompaDompa (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I do recognize your point about moderation, which is why I went with the blandest summary I could conceive of; "critically well-received". Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record and to clarify: It seems that we are largely in agreement here. The current version seems to me to likely be okay in this regard, but I'm not comfortable saying so unreservedly in this case as I'm not sufficiently familiar with the topic and sources. TompaDompa (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Conversely, Algis Budrys, reviewing More Women of Wonder" – "conversely" is analogous to "vice versa" in meaning. Budrys' assessment is not the inverse of that described in the preceding sentence in that sense.
 * This has been reworked.

TompaDompa (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Themes
 * This section, and the first paragraph especially, relies very heavily on Spivack. That raises the question of whether this is proportional/WP:DUE, and I also think the way it is presented is questionable in terms of presenting opinion/interpretation/analysis as fact.
 * I've added a lot of in-text attribution per Gog and others above. Spivack devotes more pages to this work than most other source, and as such deserves more length, I'd say, but in any case I've trimmed the usage slightly.
 * If Spivack is the central source on this topic, then Spivack should indeed be cited heavily. The section looks much better now in terms of attributing opinion and whatnot. TompaDompa (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "she replies that she "won't be here tomorrow". Her reply refers to her physical condition, but has a deeper meaning, as she dies after climbing the stairs to her room, and so does not witness the revolution she was responsible for" – what am I missing? "I won't be here tomorrow" referring to her physical condition would seem to me to be about her dying, no?
 * Spivack intends to imply that Odo didn't mean to say she was dying, only that she was tired/recovering/old; but having re-read Spivack I don't want to interpret her words too far. I've reworked.
 * New comment: "according to Science fiction critic George Slusser" – Slusser has already been glossed above, and "Science fiction" should not have a capital S. TompaDompa (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I made this change myself. TompaDompa (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Spivack analyzes Odo as an example of a dynamic elderly figure" – I happened to notice that this is cited to White, so just to double-check: does White say this about Spivack?
 * A valid question, but yes, White's is a summary of critical views (The book is subtitled "Ursula K. Le Guin and the critics") and she is summarizing Spivack's work here more pithily than I can.
 * Very well, then. TompaDompa (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that's everything, thank you for stopping by. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Cautious and conditional/preliminary support. I stand by my above-outlined reservations about comprehensiveness and the appropriateness of summarizing the critical reception in the way it is currently done. I would really like editors more familiar with the topic and the sources (perhaps, who suggested a few sources to use above?) to weigh in on these specific points. TompaDompa (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Responding to TompaDompa's comment here: I think the summary of the critical reception is appropriate -- from the listing of other reviews on the talk page, it can be seen some were not accessed but these were often in minor sources such as fanzines or in non-genre sources that typically give only a sentence or two. In the cases where Vanamonde was able to find the review it would sometimes turn out not to even mention this story.  So I don't think there's any way there's a body of reviews out there that could overturn the fairly bland summary currently given. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support. Nice article, fits the criteria, etc. I haven't read any Le Guin for years, so this was a nice reminder of her work too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not in a hurry here, and am happy to wait for more comments if you feel it to be needed. However, we have five supports, no outstanding comments, no opposition, and completed image and source reviews; I wonder if perhaps this can be moved off your docket? If nothing else I'd like to return a couple of books to the library. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)