Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Red Badge of Courage/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 SandyGeorgia 05:54, 27 May 2011.

The Red Badge of Courage

 * Nominator(s): María ( habla con migo ) 19:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Less than a month after the 150-year anniversary of the Battle of Fort Sumter, I present to you the best known novel about the American Civil War. The Red Badge of Courage is striking, unique and very modern by today's standards, despite being published in 1894/5. Written by a sickly twenty-three year old young man who was born six years after Robert E. Lee's surrender at Appomattox, its realistic portrayal of fear is captivating. The novel is one of my personal favorites, so I hope I've done it justice in completely revamping the article from scratch. It follows in the footsteps of Stephen Crane and "The Open Boat" (both FAs) as part of my one-woman campaign to improve Crane-related articles on Wiki. Red Badge was promoted to GA and recently had a PR. Thanks! María ( habla con migo ) 19:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support - I was recently involved in the peer review and all of my concerns were addressed during the PR or shortly thereafter. Well-done and fully meets the FA criteria. I note that the article has no disambuguation links and no dead external links. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Image review - the article has three images, all of which are freely licensed and properly sourced. The first two are PD-Old and the last one has an OTRS permission for its use. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: A fourth image (the first edition cover) has been added to the article, and is sourced and verified. The newest addition falls under PD-1923 because it was published in 1895. María ( habla  con migo ) 15:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. The new fourth image is also free (PD-US, published before 1923). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. This looks a fairly comprehensive and readable article. The lead could be developed a little more in line with WP:Lead. There appears to be nothing from the Background section, and little from Publication history. A bit more plot would also be useful, as we learn little about that in the lead. In the lead we hear nothing about the initial criticisms of the novel, that it was a best seller, and not enough about its general importance.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment! I expanded the lead slightly, going off your suggestions.  María ( habla  con migo ) 17:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent adjustments.  SilkTork  *YES! 08:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Support for half of it on prose and MOS per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at The Red Badge of Courage. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Source review
 * Why not include both authors in shortened citations?
 * Note 41: formatting
 * Use a consistent formatting for anthologized essays
 * How are you ordering multiple books by the same author? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixes made: citations are now consistent and correctly formatted, as far as I can see. Thanks!  As for your first question, I don't believe both authors are necessary in the shorthand citations, so I chose not to include them.  The same was done for "The Open Boat". María ( habla  con migo ) 19:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: As today's "On this day..." feature tells us, May 6 marks the anniversary of the Confederate victory at the Battle of Chancellorsville. As the article states, it's likely that Chancellorsville was Crane's intended setting for Red Badge. Perhaps a kind editor or two can honor history and review the article? :) María ( habla con migo ) 15:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Support - I thought this was a nice page when reviewed it for GA, and impressed with the additions since. I have few nitpicky, mostly MoS related, comments:
 * Lead - I think it might flow better to begin the second para with the sentence "Although Crane was born after the war ... " It feels like a too much of a shift to go from Fleming as standard bearer to Crane, w/out a para break.
 * Good idea; changed. María ( habla con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "he borrowed the private's surname" - bothers me a bit. Can a surname be borrowed? It's not really a big deal though.
 * I agree it's awkward, but I couldn't think of a better way to word it at the time. Changed to "took" for now, but if anyone else has suggestions... María ( habla  con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Number consistency: two-hundred / 550. I think should be made consistent > 200/ 550
 * Fixed. María ( habla con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This coming from a person who is punctuation challenged but this "a version which was 5,000 words shorter than the original manuscript was printed" feels as though the "which was ...." part is an appositive and needs commas
 * Added em dashes instead, if that's better? María ( habla con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Can't find it in MoS, but I thought we used "because of" instead of "due to"
 * Chapter numbers need to be consistent chapter 9, chapter seven - good luck figuring this out in MoS
 * Blargh! Made consistent. María ( habla  con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * delink Great Britain? & link Norton?
 * Done both. María ( habla con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is the Binder edition questioned? Is a note necessary?
 * The sentence continues to say that some feel Crane made the edits on his own accord. Is more explanation needed here? María ( habla  con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, not a big deal. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Also something I can't find in MoS, but I thought we discouraged "amongst"
 * Why is the biography problematic? Does this need a note?
 * I've added a note; really, Beer just made stuff up. María ( habla con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise very nice job. I'll go off to delve through MoS to see if I'm wrong about any of the above and strike if necessary. Nice job on an important piece of American literature. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Writing more than thirty years after the novel's debut, author Joseph Conrad agreed that the novel's main struggle was internal rather than external, writing that Fleming" > two instances of "writing". By the way, should that be thirty or 30?
 * Thanks so much! María ( habla con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Support – regardless of the responses to the following very minor comments and queries: That's my modest collection of quibbles, none of which sways me from the view that this is a first rate article, well-balanced, clear, a pleasure to read, and impressively referenced. Loud applause. Tim riley (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Background
 * "Crane was forced to publish the work privately" – not strictly true; nobody forced him; he resorted to doing so, no doubt, but not under compulsion
 * Changed to "chose". María ( habla con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Publication history
 * "held onto it for six months" – I think (but am perfectly willing to be told I'm wrong) that this ought to be "held on to it for six months"
 * I think you're right; fixed. María ( habla con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "John Berryman asserted that the story" – other people may not read it as I do, but the use of "assert" here seems to me to carry a hint that the assertion is disputed or even untrue. Would a neutral "wrote" do instead?
 * Sure, changed. María ( habla con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "two-hundred small city dailies and approximately 550" – odd mix of words and numerals for these numbers. I believe we are supposed to use numerals for numbers higher than ten. This would also apply to the chapter numbers in the same sentence.
 * Fixed the 200, but leaving the chapter numbers as is later in the paragraph; seven, ten and fifteen are much smaller, I think. :) María ( habla con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Great Britain" – if poor old Britannia needs a blue link, so does Uncle Sam in the lead. See WP:OVERLINK.
 * Agreed and removed. María ( habla con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Plot summary
 * "Flemming" – he was "Fleming" in the lead. I am sorry to admit that I haven't read the book, and so cannot comment on which is correct.
 * That's just a stupid, no-good typo on my part. Fixed. María ( habla con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Deserts" – is this blue link likely to be used by any of your readers?
 * Hmm, I'm kind of inclined to keep it. It leads to desertion, which has an interesting explanation regarding military policy, etc.  If you feel strongly otherwise, however, I'll remove it. María ( habla  con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Historical accuracy and inspiration
 * "Thomas Beer wrote in his problematic 1923 biography" – in what way problematic? A brief explanation would be helpful here, even if only in a footnote.
 * See above re: Truthkeeper's point. :) I've added the note. María ( habla  con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "where Crane's family at times resided" – the repetition of the name could be avoided in this sentence by changing this second incidence to "his"
 * Agreed, fixed. María ( habla con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Themes
 * "yet is says the opposite" – "yet it", rather than "yet is"?
 * Yup, thanks! María ( habla con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Reception
 * Really petty quibble, but what has "upon its initial publication" got that "on its initial publication" hasn't?
 * Just two extra letters; changed. María ( habla con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "a friend of the author's" – perhaps just "a friend of the author"?
 * Changed. María ( habla con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * " the reviewer for the Critic" – The New York Times gets its definite article capitalised just above, but the Critic doesn't; seems unkind.
 * Wouldn't want him to be jealous; made consistent. María ( habla con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "in England when it was published in early 1896" – according to the archives of The Times, it was published by Heinemann (at two shillings and sixpence) in 1895. See "Publications Today", The Times, 27 November 1895, p. 12.
 * Aha, good catch. The source referred to a later edition's impact, but no matter.  Fixed. María ( habla  con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Notes
 * I see some IMDb citations here, but I understand IMDb is not accepted by Wikipedia as a reliable source.
 * From what I gather, IMDb is acceptable if it's not used for critical input. Really, the links are just there to prove the films exist. María ( habla  con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I gratly appreciate your insightful comments, Tim -- and the applause doesn't hurt. ;) María ( habla  con migo ) 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks - Due to the overwhelming majority of book-based sources (definitely not complaining there!), spot checks are a bit difficult. I checked the three web-based sources, however, and they all look good - they cover the information without any close paraphrasing. Dead tree sources taken on good faith. Dana boomer (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly! Dead tree sources rule. María ( habla  con migo ) 01:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I have lots of WP:PUNC queries on logical punctuation-- please review and doublecheck. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.