Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bezhin Meadow - Wikipedia


Article Images
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 00:11, 14 April 2008.

Self-nomination. I found this one day back last September when browsing Special:Random, when I landed on Sergei Eisenstein, who I hadn't heard of in ages. The name "Bezhin Meadow" caught my eye, I landed at this version of the article. I started reading up on it, and added it to my to-do list, but it sat idle forever. I've worked on it on and off, and finally put it up for GA, but decided to go for FA instead and pulled the GA nomination when I really realized how long the article already was, with another 12-25 sources give or take that I still haven't even had time to properly look at. This is still just my second FA nom after Storm botnet, so please be gentle! I think this article can reasonably expand another 3-4 paragraphs over time (perhaps 5-6), based on sourcing. Lawrence § t/e 19:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentSupport I think that the article is very good and overall well written. It seems to conform well to the FA criteria of content comprehensiveness, stability and neutrality. I think the areas that will acquire most attention are copyediting, prose, style and references. Lead: some minor language problems, repetitions of some words, e.g. wake, failure/failed, discussion. "The film is based on a historical Russian figure, a young boy who became a political martyr figure after his death in 1932, immortalized in school programs, poetry, music, and in film." It would be more informative if we got some information about the circumstances regarding the boys death which presumably is what lead to his martyrdom, also is nothing more known about his identity? In short I think the following note should be in the main text - it is certainly important enough to merit inclusion. Remember that the lead should be able to stand alone with the most important information. Generally I think the prose is clear and easy to follow but sometimes there are some slightly awkward wordings and dull repetitions. The only information I was left wanting on reading the article was why the title "Behzin Meadow"? is it just the name of the town where the story takes place? (Maybe its there and I just did't pay attention). I also would like a real bibliography section - also with all the discussion there has been over the movie I would expect more written sources to have been published about the movie, are you sure you have used all the best published resources? It seems as if you have focused on sources that are available on-line. to me it is important that all the major paper sources about the topic are reference in the bibliography section - also if you haven't used them much for writing the article, but simply so that readers can find them and verify whether the picture painted in the article is accurate.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the feedback, I'll work on expanding Morozov's section next. Ironically, for the title of the film: yes, the answer is literally what you guessed; they just took the title from the original short fiction in the end, and nothing else. I'll work on the rest shortly. Lawrence § t/e 20:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just an update; the section on Morozov and Turgenev (the titular short fiction) has been expanded out at Bezhin_Meadow#Original Turgenev story and Pavlik Morozov. As far as a proper bibliography, as I don't read or speak Russian, I have (the last time someone mentioned this for me) a loss of about 30~ odd sources. For the English language ones that I was/am able to get easy access to, I've got them all used now. There are far, far more references to Bezhin Meadow that are trivial, or just in passing, or with information already covered in the sources (24 sources, as of today) that they weren't overly worth adding. The bulk of the english language material on the film I think I've gotten covered from the works listed in the general References section now. I'm still going to do an additional few passes through for old news stories to see what else I can find; the vast bulk of the article is currently sourced to books rather than news media. There are apparently far more references as well in academic texts that are used in some film schools, but I don't have any access to those (and I don't know if whats in them isn't already covered in the ones I've found, unfortunately). Lawrence § t/e 16:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a look and I am ready to support. I would just ask you once again to consider putting the references to published books and articles into a separate bibliography section. Also I still don't find an explicit explanation of the title. These things however are not necessary for my vote of support which I am giving now. Its a really good article.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Maunus. The title explanation is basically summarized here, with "Eisenstein would later remove any direct references to Turgenev's fiction, aside from the title, from the film.[8]" That's basically it--they liked the title, and cribbed it. I've never seen from the sources I've looked in any other explanation.
As far as the bibliography, I think I'm missing something or being dense here. The current References section are the major non-trivial works on Bezhin that I could find, with the ISBNs listed (I see I missed two ISBNs, I'll add them tomorrow). I admit to being limited on building the article to just materials I found online. There are a lot more possible works from a quick look, but from going pretty deeply into the results that I could access these were the "main" ones that I already made us of. There certainly are more, though. Do you recommend additional works besides the ones already listed in the References section, or the ones already listed plus extra? Sorry for the dolt question--never done an article here with a seperate dedicated bibliography. Lawrence § t/e 07:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realise its not really necessary with a separate bibliography section the way you have included the entire information of the works used in the notes. I just prefer to have a section at the end of the article that shows all of the works. I simply find it more accesible that way - and it is what is normally done in scholarly literature. Look at an article like Nahuatl to see how bibliography section following the notes can look.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 07:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise all the links worked and the sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd debated using that source early on, but it's a well-written article, and the site itself appears to have a very wide array of well-written other news stories. The particular source in question actually in some cases sources back to other sources in turn, and seemed to be alright. The source itself here is used for fairly mundane, non-controversial information on the article. It seems to be a reliable source, but if there is a major problem with it I can try to cross-source to other sources and see if I can do it another way. Lawrence § t/e 23:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it isn't very contentious material it is referencing. I guess I'm a source elitist, I want the best possible ones for articles I work on, so I just can't help hunting for better ones for every article! (grins). Personally, I wouldn't oppose on the basis of it being used, but if get chances to improve you probaly should do so. If it makes Main Page you can be sure someone somewhere will complain about every less than perfect source. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'll do a bit of a copy edit to smooth out some of the rough edges identified by others here.
  • Question: Bezhin Meadow appears to be a short story by Turgenev, but is not listed on his article. Can you identify which collection it was from, and perhaps have some cross referencing there—e.g., "Turgenev's short story Bezhin Meadow, from the _______ collection, was in part the inspiration for the controversial 1930s Soviet film of the same name."
  • I'll probably add more comments as I go along in the copy editing. Risker (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, if you stick it into the Ivan Turgenev article in the paragraph starting "In 1855 Alexander II had ascended the Russian throne...", that will make the most sense; the short story First Love is discussed there. You can start the sentence with, "Another story from the same volume as First Love, called Behzin Meadow..." --Risker (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another question: "In the wake of the film's failure, Eistenstein was made to recant, in public, his art as an error.<ref name='Seton_Eisenstein_quote' /> " This sentence feels somewhat clumsy; could you provide the original quote so it can be fine-tuned?
  • The made to recant is a summary for the lead drawn from this passage and this passage in the Production section, from Eistenstein's response to Shumyatsky, The Mistakes of Bezhin Meadow that was a published originally in Pravda. Made to recant might be too strong of a wording, and it should probably say "did recant" in tone and form there. You want to change it while you're in or should I? I was going to hold off on anything substantive till you finish. Lawrence § t/e 01:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I fixed that sentence, made it a little more benign. Risker (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the shelving and production of Bezhin being discussed, that summary sentence of it being cited and discussed is drawn from this source, on page 90, with the reference to it being the most cited Soviet film from that era in academic works. Combined with the extensive reaction, Party meetings to examine the film, and the Jay Leyda retrospective from 1988 mentioned in the Legacy seciton. No one source ever outright specified it's been discussed for "x years" since it's release, or anything that easy, but since we have discussion and review of the film (add in the reconstruction in the 1960s) I left it general for that point to avoid WP:OR. It's obvious though and not really OR to say it's been discussed and examined for years, since we have documented instances of that in the late 1930s, 1960s, and 1980s. Does that make sense? As far as the geographic scope, Leyda was in New York, the reconstruction was Soviet, and most of these sources themselves are American or British, but I wouldn't want to say the attention was international, maybe, without a source. Or if its this obvious, its ok? Lawrence § t/e 02:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, better to leave it unspecified. Risker (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more question (my last, I think!): "The fire was set in the film by leaving matches in smoldering sunflowers which were thrown into the area that stored the fuel for the community's tractors." This sentence is a bit confusing - was that the technical method by which the fire was set, or is that how the fire was portrayed in the film? Would it be more accurate to say "In the film, the fire was started when the arsonists threw dried sunflowers and lit matches into the community's fuel storage area"? Risker (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more: "A former student of Eisenstein, Pytor Pavlenko, defended his work in the wake of Bezhin Meadow"....did Pavlenko defend Eisenstein's work or his own? Glad to be of help! Risker (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll clear it up, Pavlenko defended Eisenstein's work there. Again--I love the rewrite and changes. I think the tweaks make the article stronger. Lawrence § t/e 05:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! Based on Maunus's comments, I'm actually going to go back and redo all the sourcing like that, afterwards--his example really is easier for readers (it will just take a good chunk of time to do so). Lawrence § t/e 00:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, Lawrence, in case you want to take this up somewhere later, I was uneasy changing to "Further reading" to conform to WP:LAYOUT when one was a book, the other a film. Layout should deal better with that, in case you want to raise it over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any little changes that like that which improve the article (Risker mentioned not wanting to change too much of my wording/voice and such) are fine by me--the MOS stuff is still a black art to me. What do you think is the best wording for that given it includes a film...? I was stumped on that as well. Maybe change the reflist section to Notes and the extra section to References, something like that? Lawrence § t/e 23:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. I've not come across that before, and haven't thought about what to call Further reading when it includes a film. Maybe ask the Film Project, and then raise it on the talk page at WP:LAYOUT, but no need to hold up this nom over that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be legal, since the film would be out of copyright by far at this point. I hadn't clicked on it after it was added by Alex. Is that a torrent link? It doesn't work for me on Firefox or IE. For movies that would be out of copyright, do we allow linking to direct sites? Or torrents? Thanks for the cleanup by the way! Lawrence § t/e 23:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.