Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/The Fox and the Hound (novel)/archive1

Moved

 * Comment Remarks by a shiny new account removed as presumed vandalism/hoax based on likelyhood of it being a malicious sock and its "GA" review started in its next edit. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment

Image Lead:
 * I'd like to see a more professional-looking image to remove all the background scrub around the cover. This is FA after all. Since the book is in the editor's possession, this shouldn't be too difficult.
 * a half-bloodhound dog owned by an area hunter. What is the dog's other "half" and what does "area hunter" mean? Is it a technical term for someone who hunts a certain area or do you mean "a hunter in the area"? This is confusing at first glance and should be clarified. Suggestion: a half-bloodhound, half-beagle (or whatever) dog owned by a hunter simply called the Master ... 'Area' can be safely dropped.

Plot Development
 * The plot summary needs to be grounded in the real world. Rewrite the first paragraph to read: "Within the novel's first several pages (or sentences or chapters as the case may be), the reader learns that Copper, a bloodhound crossbreed, is the favorite among his Master's pack of hunting dogs but suspects Chief, a younger, faster Black and Tan Coonhound is usurping his leadership role. During a bear hunt, Chief protects the Master while the frightened Copper hangs back and is consequently ignored by the Master. Copper's hatred and jealousy deepen with this incident."
 * Subsequent paragraphs should be set in real world terms: In chapters six through eight ..., following this incident, the author describes ...,  in the novel's closing moments ... etc.
 * Some of the plot summary may provoke an emotional response in readers, especially the last few sentences. How can one not get "choked up" over the description of Copper's end as related here? In an encyclopedia, this is not good writing.  Rewrite the plot summary incorporating real world terms and phrases as suggested to prevent this sort of response from readers.  Encyclopedic prose should not be written in such a way as to provoke an emotional response from the reader.
 * The first sentence is awkward and 'desiring' not the best choice: "Desiring a realistic depiction of vulpine behavior and habits, Mannix spent more than ..." The sentence is more effective beginning with 'Mannix': "Mannix (sought, wanted, attempted) to depict vulpine behavior realistically in (the, his) novel and, to that end, spent more than a year ..."
 * "locals on" ---> "locals of"

Reception
 * Booklist not "The Booklist"
 * What is Best Sellers? Describe it: "Best Sellers, a popular monthly publication from XYZ, etc."
 * Keep the best known publications (Booklist, Publishers Weekly) and drop the lesser known such as Moutain Democrat. They have nothing say that hasn't already been said and the reader needs to get on with his life. These lesser known publications actually disminish the prestige of the article by their very obscurity.

Film adaptation
 * The reader is directed to a main article so this section should be heavily pruned. Only the text dealing with the differences between novel and movie need to be retained here and that given only scant depth. The animation team, Don Bluth walking out, how much the film grossed, etc. belong in the film article -- not here. Prune this section of information irrelevant to the novel.

Yours for a better article! ;) USSMinnesota (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments ...
 * I would like to see a reason why this award-winning book has fallen into neglect. Is it because the finale is melodramatic and doesn't ring true? Copper could have been given another home in the community (being a hero dog he would have found no difficulty in doing so) rather than senselessly killed by his alcoholic Master. The end presents a cruel and selfish picture of humanity and I am wondering if this is the reason the book has fallen out of favor? Is there any information on this? Are there any contemporary reviews that point out some of the book's improbabilities, melodramatics, or misplaced sentimentalities?


 * This statement needs to be clarified: "Along with a cash prize of $10,000, the company obtained the publication rights for the novel, releasing it in hardback form on September 11 that year." Did the company obtain a cash prize or what? This should be clarified. USSMinnesota (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * *Note: This user has made few other contributions on Wikipedia and is listed as a suspected sockpuppet. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There was some issue with AnmaFinotera being pursued, which is why the article is semi-protected. And she earlier removed some of this account's comments, which is why I followed suit. I don't know that it's the same person who caused her a problem before, but I'm assuming there's a link. New accounts don't often rush to review FACs. More's the pity, perhaps. Perhaps. :) SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 21:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose
 * The article falls short of FA comprehensiveness and I don't think it can ever reach it. It lacks a Themes or Analysis section. The Reception section could end with the second paragraph (there's no need to list every little glowing review from every little newspaper across the U.S.). The Film adaptation section should focus solely on the similarities and differences between film and book in a less than in-depth manner (the reader will get most of the information from the Main Article) and the technical aspects of the film's production and problems with the crew should be dropped. They're irrelevant in this article.  The plot should be grounded in the real world terms ("The books opens with..."; "In the book's final pages..."; "The author indicates..."). Once these are addressed, there is very little actual article left and certainly not enough to merit FA status. Well-written Plot summaries and crossing all one's t's and dotting all one's i's do not make an FA. This article lacks comprehensiveness and will never attain that comprehensiveness because the material is just not out there. I suggest withdrawing the nomination and keeping the article on a back burner somewhere to add information as it becomes available over the years ahead.USSMinnesota (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * *Note: This editor still has only seven contributions to Wikipedia, three of which are to this FAC; see previous note directly above for additional concerns. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 01:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * SPI underway. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Highly likely to be SPA and opposing purely to try to ruin this FAC. I will be ignoring all remarks made by that person while SPI is on-going, and I ask that their "oppose" be completely disregarded. Beyond being rather stupid (the article is comprehensive per the sources, we can't make up statements like this likely sockmaster liked to do, nor does the plot require "real world terms" - its a plot). Saying to drop its production section is, obviously, stupid advice, which is also in kepeing with teh probably sockmaster account, which delighted in making bad suggestions that lowered article quality rather than raised it. Anyway, CheckUser has already been endorsed. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked by yours truly. –MuZemike 04:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)