Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Fountainhead/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) 22:01, 24 October 2017.

The Fountainhead

 * Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This novel was the first bestseller for Ayn Rand, a writer who still generates controversy (and sales) over 35 years after her death. Some readers find it inspirational and life-changing, while others think it is poorly written and immoral. It's about an architect, but it also has kinky sex, satires of other writers, critiques of the New Deal, and an explosion. If you aren't a novel reader, there's a movie, a comic, and a stage version. The article has been GA since July and just got a GOCE copy edit, so now I'm looking for your reviews to build it up to FA. RL0919 (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Harold_Laski_1936.JPG: what's the status of this work in the US?
 * File:Fountainhead_cafe.jpg: as a representation of a 2D work, typically the photographer wouldn't have a copyright claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt IR. Regarding the Fountainhead cafe image, I kind of figured that could be a problem, so I was prepared to remove the image if needed. I did not notice the problem with the Laski image previously. After rooting about for an hour, it isn't clear to me that the images from the 3rd edition of this source (the one this photo would be in) actually would be PD in the US. I've put in an inquiry on Commons about it. In the meantime I've removed both images. If I get information that justifies restoring the Laski image, I'll ping you about it. --RL0919 (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the whiplash, but after some helpful clarifications around older Swedish copyright law, I've updated the tagging for the Laski image on Commons and restored it to the article. The cafe image is still out. Let me know if there are any other concerns. --RL0919 (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to pester, but I wanted to confirm whether you have any further concerns with the images, or if the changes described above took care of it. --RL0919 (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gertanis

 * "The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Ayn Rand and was her first major literary success." – inconsistent tense (is/was). Also, who is Ayn Rand? Give brief description on first mention
 * Split the sentence and mimicked the description used for Rand in another FA. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "The novel's protagonist, Howard Roark, is an individualistic young architect who refuses to compromise his artistic and personal vision for worldly recognition and success" – purple prose (and probably non-neutral)
 * "The story follows his battle to practice modern architecture while opposed by an establishment centered on tradition." – how do you practice modern architecture?
 * I revised to combine the sentences from this point and the one above to address your comments. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Roark is opposed by what Rand described as "second-handers", who value conformity more than independence and integrity" → "over independence and integrity". Also, isn't "second-handers" also Roark's evaluation?
 * Yes, it is his evaluation (albeit not until almost 600 pages into the text), so copy edited accordingly. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * "Their relationship begins with a sexual encounter that feminist critics have denounced as endorsing rape." – how can a sexual encounter endorse rape?
 * Its presence in the novel suggests to some that Rand was OK with rape, so re-worded accordingly. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Why does the Gary Cooper image appear under ¶ Impact on Rand's career and not ¶ Film?
 * Primarily to spread the images out a bit so there aren't large stretches of text. The film adaptation is mentioned in the section, so it isn't entirely misplaced. But if it's a big deal, it's not hard to move one image. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

--Gertanis (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I have made changes and inserted replies above. Possibly some of the wording could be further improved, so let me know if you have additional feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry to pester, but since it has been a while since your last comments, I wanted to see if you had any further concerns, or perhaps if you wanted to express your support? :-) --RL0919 (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit short on time atm, but here are a few more suggestions:


 * Consider using authorlinks in the 'Works cited' section
 * Had some, but missed several, now added. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Every para in the section 'Other adaptations' starts w/ "In [year]"
 * "Rand was irritated that Bobbs-Merrill allowed the edited version to be published without her reviewing the text" — reword: 'irritated' feels awkward in this context (kinda itchy to be frank); delete the '-ing', try smth like "...her having reviewed", "her approval of"; perhaps restructure along the lines of "To Rand's great bewilderment/dissatisfaction/dismay, Bobbs-Merrill..."
 * "A reviewer for The Guardian praised the Festival d'Avignon production, describing it as "electrifying theatre",[154] while that for La Croix praised the writing, acting, and staging." – 'that' does not rhyme with 'reviewer'
 * I don't want to be mean or anything, but I find the writing in this entire section ('Adaptations') to be rather pedestrian. It's not quite of a brilliant standard yet. Perhaps WP:RECEPTION could be of help.
 * Technically, "brilliant" is no longer in the FA criteria, but I have revised to address all the points above and hopefully made it at least a little shiny. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "The year 1943 also had the publication of..." → "... saw the publication of..."
 * Fixed. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "In more recent years, The Fountainhead has received relatively little ongoing critical attention." – weasly prose: more recent than what? relative to what? 'ongoing'? Pardon?
 * Reworded. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

That's that for now. Gertanis (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for taking the time to review. Hopefully I've addressed all of your concerns; specific replies inserted above. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator query:, do you have anything further to add here? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. Sorry for the tardy response, but RL has kept me occupied these last weeks. Anyway, here we go:


 * "several directors and writers have considered doing a new film adaptation" – informal/unencyclopedic language
 * Changed to "developing". --RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Today, more than 6.5 million copies of The Fountainhead have been sold worldwide and it has been translated into more than 20 languages." – doesn't the MOS somewhere recommend against this usage of 'today'?
 * Not sure offhand about the MoS, but the word is superfluous anyway, so removed. --RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "...and has enjoyed a lasting influence, especially among architects and political libertarians." – might want to specify what breed of libertarians, lest Chomsky become enraged :)
 * Changed to "right-libertarians". --RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Initial sales were slow" – 'slow' in what sense?
 * In the sense that it did not sell a large number of copies per week. This phrase or close variants (e.g., "slow sales") is commonly used in reliable sources to describe the novel's early sales. --RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Some praised the novel as a powerful presentation of individualism, while others thought it was overlong and lacked sympathetic characters." – is 'presentation' the right word here? Perhaps 'endorsement' or 'paean' or 'encomium'. Also, to enhance parallelism, try "..thought it overlong and lacking sympathetic characters/proper reader identification [character(s)]."
 * Revised per your suggestions. --RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Their relationship includes a first sexual encounter that feminist critics have denounced, accusing Rand of endorsing rape." – Sorry to harp about this, but I find the sentence still grammatically and stylistically troubling. Can a relationship include a sexual encounter? Why is 'first' significant? Denounced as what? Maybe censured/criticized/condemned would be better.
 * Rewritten to "Feminist critics have condemned Roark and Dominique's first sexual encounter, accusing Rand of endorsing rape." Regarding the word 'first', these criticisms are strongly focused on what happens the first time the characters have sex, not their subsequent sexual activity. --RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

There you are, a few comments on the lede. I appreciate that the FAC criteria no longer commands that the prose be 'brilliant', but it still says "engaging and of a professional standard"—I don't think we're quite there yet. I recommend querying, or other superlative prose stylists for their belle-lettrist advice. Gertanis (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Responding to that irresistibly flattering ping (I shall need a larger hat) I offer my opinion, for what it's worth, that in terms of readability the lead is fine as it stands. Whether it adequately sums up the content of the main text I could not say without reading the latter, which I don't propose to do, preferring to avoid such a subject as A. Rand.  Tim riley  talk    12:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Updates and replies to your latest comments above. As always, I welcome more input on how to improve the article.
 * Tim, I wouldn't insist on anyone reviewing an article on an unappealing subject, so thanks for the feedback on the lead. --RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator query: Sorry to be a nuisance,, but I'd like to wrap this up fairly soon. I'd like to clarify if you still have concerns over the prose. If so, is there anything specific you feel needs to be addressed? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support by Wehwalt
I've read it several times over the years. A few comments:
 * "The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Russian-American author Ayn Rand. It was her first major literary success." I've read the comments above. May I suggest, "The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Russian-American author Ayn Rand, her first major literary success." Because I do think it's a bit choppy at present.
 * "with an architectural establishment centered on tradition. " For "centered on tradition", I might say  "unwilling to accept innovation". Tradition is a pretty broad term and I'm not sure the reader is going to get what you're saying.
 * "describes as" I would say "calls" is simpler.
 * ✅ --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "that feminist critics have denounced as indicating that Rand endorses rape." I hesitatingly suggest "that feminist critics have denounced, accusing Rand of endorsing rape".
 * " Cameron was once a renowned architect, but he now gets few commissions." I would strike "he"
 * "He later gets a job in a granite quarry owned by Francon." The "later" de-emphasizes the fact that he is forced to work in the quarry because he cannot earn a living as an architect. The two are closely related, you make it distant.
 * "that he pays off Keating to divorce her," I would strike the word "off". It still means the same thing.
 * "and thus hires him." I would say "so", not "thus"
 * "Roark's past relationship with Dominique." I would change this. "Relationship" could be taken to mean the sexual encounter, which you mention is controversial. Possibly "that they met at the quarry" or "that  they knew each other from the quarry" or similar.
 * By this point in the novel, there have been other sexual encounters between Roark and Dominique, which she initiates, so "relationship" is more accurate. This was a significant omission from the plot summary, which I've corrected instead of changing this word. --RL0919 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "for his influence " maybe "to use his influence"
 * "Roark returns to discover that the Cortlandt design has been changed." maybe "Roark returns to find that Keating was not able to prevent major changes from being made in Cortlandt's construction"
 * " Wynand dismisses Toohey for criticizing Roark." consider "Wynand dismisses Toohey for disobeying him and criticizing Roark". It might help to mention that Wynand uses his papers to defend Roark.
 * "Roark also wins over Dominique, who leaves Wynand for Roark." I might put it more directly: "After Wynand gives in, Dominique leaves him for Roark."
 * I might make it clearer that Wynand conceives that by allowing the denunciation of Roark to be printed, he has sullied himself from the ideal.
 * "Rand's denials have not stopped other commentators from claiming stronger connections between Wright and Roark." I might strike "other" . It's questionable whether an author is a commentator.
 * "Wright equivocated about whether he thought Roark was based on him, sometimes implying that he was, at other times denying it." The second "was" should probably be "did" as the question is Wright's belief, not whether Roark was in fact based by
 * "than follow his personal interests." I would say "desires" for "interests".
 * Being familiar with Rand's other writings about self-interest and how that differs from desire, I think my word choice better reflects her intent. --RL0919 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "By middle age, Keating's career is in decline and he is unhappy with his choices, but it is too late for him to change.[18][19]" I might say "path" for "choices". He is certainly unhappy about not painting instead of building, but to me anyway, his unhappiness otherwise seems more about the outcome.
 * "also contributed inspiration" maybe "also helped inspire"?
 * "In 1927, Rand was working as a junior screenwriter for movie producer Cecil B. DeMille when he asked to write a script for what would become the film Skyscraper." possibly a word missing, possibly "her" after "asked"?
 * "That earlier novel was based partially on people and events from Rand's experiences" a bit hard to read,  perhaps "That earlier novel was based in part  on people and events familiar  to Rand"
 * "She did not place the quotes in the published novel," sort of repeating, maybe "In addition to redacting the quotes in the published novel," You might be able to do without "in the published novel", too. I would omit the "she" from the second half of the sentence, as not needed.
 * "Twelve other publishers (including Macmillan and Knopf) had rejected the book.[61][67][68]" This sentence might do better at the end of the previous paragraph and in the present tense. It seems out of place where it is,
 * "Second Hand Lives" You are not consistent as to whether the first two words of this title have a hyphen between them.
 * Interesting article. I'm glad to learn more of the background.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing. I've implemented most of your suggestions, with comments inserted above only for exceptions. Let me know if you have any other feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * SupportLooks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Aoba47

 * The following part reads awkwardly to me (especially among political libertarians and in the field of architecture) as I feel there is something missing in front of the phrase “in the field of architecture”. It just reads a little weird to switch between saying something’s popular with a noun (i.e. political libertarians) and not using the same structure for the rest of the sentence. I think consistency is the point that makes it a little off for me.
 * I have a question about this part (several directors and writers have considered remaking the film). Do they really want to do a remake of the film, or do they really want to do a new film adaptation of the book? It seems to me that they want to do a new film adaptation of the book and not necessarily a remake of the past film itself.
 * In the following phrase (Rand viewed as wrong ideas:), should the colon be a period? I am not sure of the purpose of the colon in this context.
 * I would add the year in which Skyscraper was released (i.e. 1928).
 * ✅ --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Great work with this article. My focus was on the prose; I will leave everything dealing with the source reliability and use to the source reviewer. My comments are very minor as I think there is not much that requires improvement. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide comments for my own FAC. Either way, I will be more than happy to support this once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For this first phrase (following the completion in 1934 of her first novel, We the Living), I would change it to the following (following the completion of her first novel, We the Living, in 1934) as it reads smoother to me.
 * Add the year in which Journals of Ayn Rand was released. Same goes for Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and For the New Intellectual and Atlas Shrugged.
 * I am not sure the thesaurus link is entirely necessary.
 * Thanks for reviewing. Another editor apparently jumped in to address one of your comments. I have made edits to address the rest. Let me know if you have any other feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this nomination. Good luck with getting this promoted and have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind my jumping in to assist, just saw an opportunity to help out in a minor way without making too many major changes (as I am unfamiliar with topic). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It was unexpected, but nothing to object to. --RL0919 (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources review
Sources in general look good. Only one query: in ref 87 the Cox essay is stated as being in "Thomas 2005", this being The Literary Art of Ayn Rand. But the source says the essay is reproduced from The Fountainhead: A Fiftieth Anniversary Celebration, published by the Atlas Society. Strictly speaking, the citation should be direct to the website since this is your source.

No other queries. Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review. I know this is terribly old-fashioned, but I have physical copy of the 2005 book The Literary Art of Ayn Rand, edited by William Thomas, which I used as a source for refs 41 and 87. The web page in ref 87 is a convenience link. I did overlook the page number for ref 87, which I've now added. In double-checking for any similar mistakes, I found two sources that I did get online that lacked access date info, so I added those also. --RL0919 (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment (Support)

 * It seems to me that referring to the sexual encounter as a "rape scene" ("Responses to the rape scene", "One of the most controversial elements of the book is the rape scene") begs the question under discussion. Wikipedia has decided that it is a rape scene? Aureliano Babilonia (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That is how it is most frequently referred to in sources. In some sources quote marks are used -- the "rape scene" or the "rape" scene -- and the article has had those in some versions as well. Occasionally the word alleged has been used in the article, although I don't think that phrasing has much source support. It hasn't changed with enough frequency to trigger discussion of it on the Talk page. You are welcome to suggest alternative wording. --RL0919 (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wanted to follow up on this since you had not replied further. After thinking about it a bit more, I came up with alternative wording for the description and the section header that avoids using the phrase "rape scene". Let me know if that looks good or if you have further feedback. --RL0919 (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I do find it an improvement, and it is along the lines of what I would have suggested if I felt like pushing it, which I didn't. ;) The section name is more 'encyclopedic'-sounding now as well, vs. "responses to the rape scene". Aureliano Babilonia (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think the article is very good, thorough, well-sourced, etc. I wasn't planning to weigh in, but I am willing to support this nomination. I would like to point out that the entire "critical reception" section uses secondary sources properly to synthesize the reception of the novel. But there is one exception, which simply points to a random(?) Village Voice review. It seems like cherry-picking in the context of a section that otherwise uses sources in a more sophisticated way. I would suggest either removing the "Village Voice" sentence or using a secondary source to state that negative reviews continue. I mean, of course they continue, I grant you that, you can find breathless takedowns of Rand all over the internet, but this particular review has been chosen essentially randomly, as far as I can see. I hope you understand my drift here. It's not a huge deal, and in fact this approach to "reception" is the norm for the huge number of articles for which there are no secondary sources about reception (other than wordless technocratic aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes etc.). However, since this novel has plenty of secondary literature, and it's going to be an FA, it's better not to choose a random review as an exemplar, IMO. Aureliano Babilonia (talk) 01:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. It took a bit of looking to find an appropriate source (many cover only the contemporary reception, or discuss recent reception for Rand in broad terms rather than specific to this novel), but I've now updated based on your suggestion. --RL0919 (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A great improvement - thanks! Aureliano Babilonia (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda
Thank you for expanding a book that made history. Only few comments:

Lead
 * "but turns to Roark for help with design problems", - doesn't Peter seek for help rather for technical problems?
 * There are various incidents, but often it's significantly more than technical. For example, Roark thoroughly redesigns the Cosmo-Slotnik building, even including updates to the Renaissance facade; Keating's contribution is pretty limited. Cortlandt is entirely Roark's design with Keating's name slapped on it.
 * It's probably that "Design" in German means foremost the outer appearance. How about mentioning "structural" also? Just an idea.


 * "newspaper publisher", - how about mentioning tabloid here already? (and later)
 * Done, although I think tabloid journalism is a better link; not all of Wynand's papers are tabloid format.


 * "Their relationship begins with a sexual encounter", - no, there was some relation before.
 * Fixed.

Plot
 * I miss the Temple of the Human Spirit, - it's not any building that causes the lawsuit, and I miss Dominique posing for its statue.
 * Added more specifics about that incident.


 * "Roark and Wynand become close friends, although Wynand is unaware of Roark's past relationship with Dominique." - I question the "although", it's rather "because" ;)
 * Not exactly because, but I take your point. Reworded.

Other adaptations
 * Any way (by description or quoting a review) to make us understand how such a vast topic can be brought to a stage?
 * I don't have info on how they handled the plot, but I added some detail about the staging.

That's all. Thank you again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Replies on all points above; let me know if you have further concerns. --RL0919 (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: As this has been open six weeks, and has had plenty of support, I think we are good for promotion now. Any further concerns that has can be addressed on the article talk page after promotion. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.