Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Enid Blyton/archive1


 * I'll leave off here. It doesn't seem quite ready. The prose as far as I've seen it seems to me to be below FA standard at present, and imo it needs copy editing. --Stfg (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC) Redacted --Stfg (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that we should withdraw the nomination then? Or are you saying that the bar at FAC has risen so high that only perfect articles should be submitted? Eric   Corbett  14:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither of those. I'm making constructive comments suggesting where the prose could be improved, and saying that the quality of prose I'm seeing here isn't yet professional, much less "brilliant". --Stfg (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in here, the prose doesn't have to be brilliant at FAC, that's the whole point. This article has received a peer review AND a GAR, so surely the natural progression would be FAC, no? I admit, the article isn't perfect and neither of the editors assume it so.  I think you are being a little harsh at such an early stage.  Cassianto talk  19:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Cassianto, I did not say that the nomination should be withdrawn. Eric asked if that's what I meant, and the reply immediately above yours says that it isn't. So please don't put words in my mouth, guys. As for "brilliant", you know what criterion 1a says: "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". So how is it "the whole point" that it doesn't have to be brilliant? And when I comment that the prose isn't that good yet, and indicate specific actionable problems, how am I being "harsh"? I see this done at other people's FACs all the time. Eric is a good writer, and if he'd get off his high horses he's capable of very much better than the section I mainly commented on. Please note the "yet" I emphasised above. Thank you.


 * And I have to say, there's a coterie here at FAC that drives newcomers away by meeting constructive comments with hostility. Don't criticize, defer. If criticized, don't reply, defer. It's feels like a closed shop here. I can't prove it, but I strongly believe you're losing good contributors here because of this. --Stfg (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well what were you implying by saying that it "didn't seem quite ready". "Quite ready" for what? It is you who is putting words in my mouth by suggesting that I accused you of saying "withdrawal". FAC, by definition, is a strict place to be; it has to be, otherwise we will be passing shite just to save people's feelings.  If you would like to go to the talk page to discuss further then please meet me there.  This is not the place to be bickering.  Cassianto talk  21:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was implying that the prose is not up to scratch yet, and needed some copy editing. Here, look, I've redacted it to make it clearer. The edit summary of your earlier post was "re withdrawal --- no no no", and in the preamble to your own comments you said "I don't think the article should be withdrawn as suggested above". So would you care to review your accusation of putting words in your mouth? As to "bickering", I replied to Eric's question. It was you that "butted in". --Stfg (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well why didn't you say that rather than leave the ambiguous "didn't seem quite ready" statement? If you had of made your entry clearer, then I wouldn't have assumed that your desire was to have the article withdrawn. You replied to Eric yes, but you bickered with me. It was that bickering which I was referring too. So no, I shan't be reviewing anything.  I butted in because, foolishly, I thought it was a discussion.  Seriously, you need to chill out!  Cassianto talk  22:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If it was ambiguous, why didn't you seek clarification? Why did you ignore the clarification I gave Eric? And why did you accuse me of putting your own words in your mouth? Seriously, so do you. --Stfg (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * With respect, your clarification was shit. Eric sought clarification and you chose to give an unrelated answer.  Your response of "Neither of those. I'm making constructive comments suggesting where the prose could be improved, and saying that the quality of prose I'm seeing here isn't yet professional, much less "brilliant"" does not fit in with your initial "doesn't seem quite ready" statement.   Furthermore, why should I then need to seek further clarification on something which you have just "clarified".  How many I times do you have to be asked to clarify something before you actually clarify it. IMO, this was a stone bonker "this is not ready for FAC" comment.  That is not a problem in itself as this is your view, but given that the article has had a PR and GAR, why should it then not progress to FAC?  What would have been your next step?  Cassianto talk  00:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * With respect, please re-read Eric's question, please note that one of the two possibilities he recognizes is a suggestion to withdraw the FAC, and tell me which part of "neither of those" you don't understand. Please note further that everything you have done in this thread is accuse, accuse, accuse. Unless and until you deal with your lie in accusing me of putting your own words into your mouth, and respond to my question as to why you claim that "the whole point" is that "the prose doesn't have to be brilliant at FAC" in spite of criterion 1a, I'm not going to respond to any more of your bullying. --Stfg (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't need to re-read the question. Owing to your ambiguity, Eric asked if you were insinuating that the article should be archived.  I also, upon reading that, thought that this was what you meant.  I dare say that others also thought it too.  In response to Eric, you gave an answer which did not fit in with the original "didn't seem quite ready" statement.  Ready for what? If you meant "didn't seem quite ready of FAC" then for heavens sake say it! We all know that this was what you meant. You even retracted it above!


 * Instead of admitting that yes, you had been a little hasty in wanting the nomination to be archived and then copy edited (which would have fitted in with your original statement of "not quite ready"), you avoided the clarification request and gave an answer about the prose not being up to scratch and in need of some copy editing. That answer whichever way you look at it, does not clarify what you had originally said, despite admitting that this was not what you meant.


 * The criteria then is (dare I say it) ambiguous. The prose doesn't have to be brilliant, and I draw you back to my comment above that if it was indeed brilliant, then what's the point of FAC? Let's promote it straight away! "Brilliant", I take to mean, is an adjective which describes something that surpasses excellence. Every article that comes to FAC needs work, fact, so none of them will be surpassing excellence. Oh, and why are you now playing the bullying card?  This is a discussion! It's a shame you can't interact without accusing others of bullying, just because they disagree with you.  Cassianto talk  09:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That's the first specific mention of archiving, so I'll have one last try. I think that the prose, at least what I saw of it yesterday, was not of professional standard and needed copy editing. I think that the nomination was somewhat premature because of that, but that does not mean that I wanted the nomination withdrawn, and even less do I want the FAC coordinators to cut short the review and archive it. I have never wanted either; not yesterday, not now. Copy editing can be and sometimes is done during a FAC review. Let me summarise that: needed copy editing; premature nomination imo, but no need to withdraw it; definitely no case for the coordinators to archive it. That is now and always has been my view, whether you chose to believe it or not. --Stfg (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

But that's what a peer review is; a chance for others to identify problems and the nominator's to fix them. Why would you need a copyedit after both a PR and a GAR? A copyedit should come before anything else IMO. If you don't want articles archived, then might I recommend that you choose your language a little more carefully in future, as saying "not quite ready" sends out a signal that you don't think it's *ready* for FAC. If you thought it needed copy editing, then you should've said that, which would have inevitably avoided this rather embarrassing thread. Cassianto talk 12:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I will try to remember that in future. May I ask that you in turn bear in mind that natural language is inherently imprecise, especially in a written medium, and that nobody in the world can control all inferences that others may draw from what one says. A large part of AGF is entertaining the possibility that we may not have understood precisely what the other guy meant, giving him room to clarify what we need clarified, and accepting the clarification given as sincere. I do feel that I've been made to say far too many times that I don't want the nomination withdrawn, and I do feel that you've been more than forceful in telling me that my words were ambiguous but that you knew exactly what they meant anyway. And, please, have I falsely accused you of saying anything that you did not in fact say?


 * I agree that a copy edit should ideally precede anything else, but sometimes one is still needed when an article arrives at FAC, for various possible reasons including: the article may have been edited by less skilful editors in the meantime; or the standards applied at the PR and/or GAN may have been lower than those applied by FAC reviewers (especially GAN, in my experience). --Stfg (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I do appreciate that inferences should not be drawn from textual communication. I never assumed otherwise, and for me, your words seemed that precise that there was little else to assume.  If I wasn't sure of the meaning, I would have questioned it beforehand. Yes, you have been made to say that you didn't want the nomination to close a few too many times, but with respect, that was caused mainly by the ambiguity of your statement. In an ideal world, an article, depending on the reviewers at GAN and PR, shouldn't need a major copy edit after they have been reviewed. But I agree with you (and I'm sure Dr. B and Eric will too) some articles slip through and emerge from both reviews looking as bad as when they went in! No hard feelings on this my end and I pressed the "thanks" button for your acknowledgement of the "too abrasive" comment which caused all this :)  Cassianto talk  00:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see hostility or incivility, Eric and myself are glad of all of the input here. I don't agree on all the points, neither does Eric. We do, however, appreciate constructive comments which will see the article improve. Part of the issue, and I said this to Sagacious Phil earlier, is that there is surprisingly very little solid material written about her works other than the very popular series in chrono order and in detail as you'd expect in an encyclopedia. Most sources document her haphazardly and it was very difficult to write a good career section without detailed sources about each book. I think we've done an adequate job of arranging the content and writing a decent article, but it is very difficult to write "brilliant" prose given the material in most of the career section anyway, especially as there is so much to cover. Neither of us saw anything problematic enough to stop it being nominated anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dr. Blofeld. I don't see incivility either, but there's plenty of coded hostility. Anyway, the temperature is rising and this is looking like a train wreck in the making, so I'll be off unless I get badgered again. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments which are a move forward and constructively improve the article and the quality of prose are warmly welcome Stfg, so let's keep things purely focused on the article from now on rather than each other. I'd suggesting moving any comment here which isn't about the article to the talk page.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd have no objection to that. I'd like my post of 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC) to stay here and visible, please, but I'll let you choose where to make the cut from there on. I regret I won't be continuing to review this particular FAC. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that. Thanks for taking the time to look at it anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If anyone wants to hat this thread, I would have no objection. --Stfg (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)