Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Old Man and the Sea/archive2

The Old Man and the Sea

 * Nominator(s): AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The Old Man and the Sea was the last major work written and published by Ernest Hemingway while he was still alive. A staple of English classrooms ever since, the book has often been passed over by academics keen to explore earlier, seemingly more complex works. In my rather uneducated opinion though, it's the best thing he ever wrote.

This article was originally promoted to Featured Article status in 2005, before being downgraded two years later (no, I don't know what's up with the links up there either). It is my first nomination of a literary work, and if successful and on time (rather unlikely at this point) it'll be used in the WikiCup. I'm aware that the critical analysis section could probably be expanded, but am reluctant to do so for reasons of WP:WEIGHT and WP:TECHNICAL (seriously, some stuff just breaks brains, and I don't want to put hundreds of thousands of children off reading forever) ; if you disagree, let me know. I hope you enjoy. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review

 * The Background image is lacking alt text
 * Fixed.
 * File:Ernest_Hemingway_at_the_Finca_Vigia,_Cuba_1946_-_NARA_-_192660.jpg: why is this believed to be the work of a government employee? Ditto File:Ernest_Hemingway_Aboard_the_Pilar_1935_-_NARA_-_192674.jpg
 * Is that not the appropriate tag for works given to Commons as part of Commons:Commons:National Archives and Records Administration?
 * I don't see anything on that page to suggest so? However, the tag you've added to Ernest_Hemingway_1950.jpg might work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've checked that the tag is applicable for both, and it is . AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Great, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * File:Ernest_Hemingway_1950.jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published?
 * Updated source link, also updated tags so date of first publication isn't required.
 * File:Rembrandt_-_Sankt_Jakobus_der_Ältere.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Giovanni_Battista_Tiepolo_-_St_Jacobus_in_Budapest.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Done both . AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Phlsph7
I've had a first look at the article with an initial round of comments. The nomination looks promising and my points so far are minor. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Prose
Phlsph7 (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC) Phlsph7 (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * replace "which" with "that"
 * Done.
 * This is a lot of information condensed into a single sentence. I would suggest splitting it up.
 * Done.
 * should this be "the whole text" or "the whole book"?
 * seems to have fixed this error already, so thanks to them.
 * This sounds like Santiago had trained the parents rather than Manolin.
 * Fixed I think; let me know if still unclear.
 * should the term "brief" be removed?
 * Done.
 * the expression "the idea" is repeated. Is the "wished to" necessary or could we just say "Hemingway rejected the idea"?
 * Removed the duplication; I prefer the "wished to" as he explictly expresses it as a desire.
 * both sentences use the term "reject". Maybe one could be replaced for the sake of variety.
 * Done.
 * the possessive "his" together with the possessive "Scribner's" sounds strange to my ears. How about "He rejected the initial cover designs from his publisher, Scribner,...".
 * Reorganised sentence; Scribner's is the publisher name, so I've used the full title to try to alleviate confusion.
 * To my ears, the phrase "earliest work" sounds like it is referring to one particular work. Would "earlier works" be better?
 * Changed to "earliest works"—they are typically referring to his very early output, which is most highly regarded.
 * I assume this should be "1953"
 * Certainly.
 * is such a general statement justified? It's questionable at least for the early reception.
 * The statement was altered by ; I have changed it back to the earlier version.
 * might be better to use "often-cited", which is more common
 * Done.
 * The whole section "Critical analysis" relies a lot on quotations to make its main points. I think having more paraphrases here would be better, see WP:OQ.
 * I have paraphrased a couple; I think that since most are the subject of commentary or explanation through non-quotation text, I prefer to keep them. If you have any specific examples, I will try to oblige. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks better now but I still have the impression that it relies too much on quotations. I don't work a lot on articles involving literary criticism so feel free to push back if the quotation-heavy style is common for this type of article. Otherwise, I would suggest some changes to the following passages/paragraphs.
 * Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Phlsph7 (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, have you addressed these points? If not, perhaps you could; if you have, perhaps you could inform Phelsh7? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Others
Phlsph7 (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:EARWIG shows one potential copyright violation, which is a simple copy-paste from our article.
 * I didn't spot any unreliable sources
 * Should there be something about the potential influence from and parallels to Moby Dick? I remember reading something in this regard but I don't if that information was reliable and important.
 * I don't think there was much in RS about it—the article mentions it in the reception section as a comparison point, but I think that's about it.
 * Do we need the template for Billfish on the bottom or is having a wikilink to marlin sufficient?
 * Removed.
 * Baker 1962a lacks an identifier, like OCLC
 * Done.
 * the ISBN of Baker 1969 is for the 1988 edition, maybe use an OCLC since 1969 might be too early for ISBNs
 * Changed the dates around, as my copy is the 1988 version, it appears.
 * Brenner 1991 lacks ISBN
 * Added
 * Macdonald 1960 missing identifier, like DOI or ISSN
 * I don't think the magazine he wrote in, the Partisan Review, would have received such identifiers; I might be wrong, however.
 * Sylvester 1996 lacks ISBN
 * Added.
 * Thanks very much for your comments, . Apologies for the delay in answering—my internet was unexpectedly faulty, and I've not been able to do anything in detail. Let me know if any issues remain unresolved. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The changes look fine so far. Two more points about the subsection "Themes":
 * I would put the religious interpretations next to each other. They are currently divided by the theme about not being defeated. Is the theme about not being defeated identified as a classical theme in the reliable sources?
 * Should this subsection have more information on themes like life cycles (the contrast of youth and old age), man against nature, and the fixation on high achievement?
 * Phlsph7 (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

MyCatIsAChonk
So this is the aforementioned new FAC, would not have been my first guess... let's take a look! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC) , all done, lovely work MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * - because a comma is first used to separate two ideas, using the comma before "amid" is confusing; "and he had fallen in love with his muse Adriana Ivancich, amid a breakdown in relations with his wife Mary" is one idea, but the previous comma was used to separate ideas; I think it's best without this second comma
 * I've split the sentence on the recommendation of Phlsph7 above; what do you think?
 * Every sentence in para two of the lead and the first three sentences of lead para three all start with dependent clauses. This is extremely nitpicky, but it becomes old after a while; throw some independent clauses in there for variety
 * I think this has been nullified somewhat—does anything stand out to you?
 * - not sure if I'm missing something, but how is Life related to this book? The novella is not mentioned
 * Fixed by someone who noticed the same issue.
 * - I have never heard praise referred to as applause, unless Hemmingway was literally at some venue
 * I think it's worth linking Christian in the lead
 * - Scribner should not be italicized
 * Changed all
 * - was met with?
 * I think both work?
 * - in the three weeks...
 * Wl sermon
 * Done both.
 * - might just be me, but having one idea inside another ("believed that the relief that") is confusing
 * Altered.
 * - "the" in the title is italicized too
 * - extra bracket at end?
 * Well spotted on both.
 * Thanks for your comments, ; apologies for taking so long, but my internet connection decided to take an unnannounced holiday. See what you think. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good now- support. Also, if you get time, would appreciate any comments here- thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Ceoil
Delighted to see this brought back. My feeling is that its close but needs some polish, and I see discussion re adding more up-to-date sources is ongoing on article talk. Still reading through, so placeholder. Have been making light ces, mostly around tense. Ceoil (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much ; I'm a historian by training, so I expected it would need a lot of polishing. Will get to your comments shortly. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The two sentence lead paragraph seems unsatisfying. Given short attention spans these days (grumble grumble) would at least merge with the 2nd lead para, or better expand with more synopsis and a hint at lasting importance.
 * I agree, and have had a go; not entirely satisfied, so what do you think?
 * thumbs up. Ceoil (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The Old Man and the Sea was Ernest Hemingway's sixth novel, following The Sun Also Rises (1926), A Farewell to Arms (1929), To Have and Have Not (1937), For Whom the Bell Tolls (1940), and Across the River and Into the Trees (1950).[1] - could we just not say that he was already well established and it was this 6th novel (so not so listy).
 * I prefer the "list" for two reasons: it allows the article to refer back to previous works (as in the reception section, for example); and it also provides one sentence of a wider perspective—of the novella's placing in the breadth of Hemingway's life.
 * No worries; these are suggestions only. Ceoil (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * hailing a return to form for Hemingway after Across the River's negative reception - dont like "hailing a return" very much, and "Across the River's" negative reception is a bit of a cop out...was it a dip in quality or just not appreciated at the time.
 * What about the hailing phrase don't you like? I've added a "what they saw as" if your issue was with the in-wikivoice tone. On Across the River—that's still under discussion.
 * "hailing" is a bit old fashioned, and also a (music) journalism / pa blurb cliche Ceoil (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Enjoying reading through, more later. Ceoil (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 *  it tells the story of Santiago - follows Santiago
 * lead: "rephrase "Having completed one book of a planned "sea trilogy", Hemingway began to write as an addendum a story about an old man and a marlin that had originally been told to him fifteen years earlier." as something like "Having completed one book of a planned "sea trilogy", Hemingway began an addendum about an old man and a marlin told from a story told to him fifteen years earlier". Ceoil (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Eddie

 * Intend to have some substantive comments on content sooner or later. Hoping to have a nice sit down in my library in the Hemingway section. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually not sure whether I will have the time to get to this. Hopefully I will, but no promises :( Eddie891 Talk Work 12:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Victoria
Hi AirshipJungleman29, I don't know if you saw the comments I left on the talk, but I'll link them here to keep it all together. Sorry about mentioning Stoneback in those comments; it's good to see it's in the article. A couple more comments for now, and apoligies in advance that I may not be able to get back to this: That's it for now. Victoria (tk) 18:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For the biographical info, the most recent and best is Michael Reynolds four volume bio. Part 4, Hemingway: The Final Years covers this period. The Old Man material is on pp.249-263 in the volume I have sitting on my lap. Try to find it. If you can't get access, Linda-Wagner Martin is also good. I have this volume in digital format and would be happy to send it on. Meyers is good & okay to use. James R. Mellow is also good; his Life without Consequences might be available on archives.org. There are issues with Baker, aside from being dated. He wrote the bio before EH died, Mary contributed and approved, so it's not completely objective. That said, I do like his critical analyses, but again, because they're dated - though I think they're generally really good - they need to be used sparingly.
 * There should be a writing style section. Because, well, Hemingway.
 * Thanks ; sorry, my internet's been patchy this past week and I haven't had the time to address ... anything, really. I can get on with substituting Reynolds and others for Baker, and with addressing the comprehensiveness aspect. I can't remember much analysis of the writing style that doesn't directly connect it to questions of quality (the couple of lines in the quality section); anything specific you have in mind? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it's Hemingway, and the Nobel Prize, so it's really all about style. I forgot to check Jstor and there are thousands of entries there! For criticism I think generally Johnston is good so try this, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2923916. To do with style, I'm only seeing older entries but this https://www.jstor.org/stable/42945039 is a good start. A Hemingway/Old Man & the Sea/Style search returns 5000+ entries, fwiw. I would expect Wagner-Martin to cover it and I'll check my Cambridge Companion. Anyway, I'll leave this now, but again, it's Hemingway, a story about a man in a boat, a Nobel prize, so, well, style. Victoria (tk) 18:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Noted. Well, tally-ho, into the valley of (literary) death and all that. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't mean to be flippant. Old Man and "Big Two-Hearted River" are where he used Iceberg theory to the n-th degree. The latter is a crap article, but the sources I used there will give you a good start; Big Two-Hearted River is FA & some of those sources will probably also apply to Old Man plus some of the style section might be usable so feel free to copy to Old Man. That should give you a start. Victoria (tk) 19:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also here's a good one re style from Linda Wagner-Martin ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/26279846 ), though heavy re imagism, but that's kinda unavoidable. Definitely stopping now :) Victoria (tk) 19:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding: Michael Reynolds is on archive.org, link. Victoria (tk) 16:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Reynolds has always been in the article—I have a copy. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry about that - I went a little ref blind w/ the bundled refs. Struck. Victoria (tk) 17:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done


 * Check alphabetization of Sources


 * How have you decided what is in Sources vs fully cited inline?


 * The Writer as Artist is missing location. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator query

 * Hi, I note that you haven't edited this page for nearly three weeks. Is there a problem? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, there were issues accessing a couple of sources. I'm getting back up to speed with the article (not my usual specialisation) and should be able to respond in detail by Wednesday, if that's okay? AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's fine, so long as all outstanding comments are addressed by the end of the week. I was thinking of reviewing it myself, but didn't want to put the work in if there was some ongoing reason for your absence. Ping me once the current reviews are sorted or on their way there and I'll see if I can fit it in. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Wednesday has gone and so has the end of the week. I appreciate that real life always takes priority, but this is probably past the point where it would be best to archive it and re-nominate when you have the time available to do justice to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am regretfully timing this out. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)