Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Coral Island/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 not promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

The Coral Island edit

The Coral Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox

Nominator(s): Drmies (talk), Eric Corbett (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of my two favourite books as a kid, and with the help of Drmies I've been trying to do it justice. It's a Victorian boy's own ripping yarn of shipwreck, pirates, cannibals, self-sufficiency, you name it. It was the inspiration for William Golding's dystopian Lord of the Flies, which inverts the morality of The Coral Island. I hope you enjoy reading about the book as much as I enjoyed reading it all those years ago. Eric Corbett 16:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting topic.

  • Three articles which may be useful- Have you read this? I could send it to you, if you're interested. Ditto for this or this.
    The article already makes use of McCulloch's "The Broken Telescope", and from memory the other two sources are more geared towards Golding's Lord of the Flies. Eric Corbett 20:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll get them when I'm at work tomorrow, and will see. Thanks for the suggestion. I thought I'd done a pretty exhaustive literature search and I am gladly proven wrong. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Katharine Anderson sees a "pious significance" in the coral jewellery so beloved in the period, and the "coral garden" tended by the boys is suggestive of "missionary encounters with the societies of the Pacific Island"." You're yet to mention a coral garden, and so a reference to "the" coral garden is slightly jarring
  • Ditto "the little coral insect".
    Good points, I'll address both shortly. Eric Corbett 20:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully done now. Eric Corbett 22:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Coral Island was adapted into a children's television series in a joint venture between Thames Television and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in 1980, first shown on British television in 1983.[36] The novel was also adapted into a four-part children's television drama by Zenith Productions, broadcast by ITV in 2000.[37]" Do we have articles on either of these to link to?
    If we do, I haven't been able to find them. Eric Corbett 20:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really fault the prose. I wonder whether there's more good analysis to cite, but looks like an excellent article. J Milburn (talk) 19:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problems on prose or structure and it looks well-sourced. I'd be interested to hear from an expert on this period of literature (which I am not) about whether it is complete enough. Looks good though. --John (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

  • A few more sources to consider, let me know if you need help obtaining: doi:10.1111/j.1540-5931.2006.00235.x, doi:10.1177/002198949202700115, doi:10.1353/chl.0.047, doi:10.1353/jvc.2007.0026, doi:10.1353/chq.0.0620
    Drmies may be able to get hold of those through his university, but I'd certainly be interested in seeing copies of those last two, if not for this article then for the more general Robinsonade, which badly needs some help. Eric Corbett 16:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If he can't, just shoot me an email and I'll forward them. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do, thanks. Eric Corbett 19:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images are both correctly licensed, captions are fine
  • FN23: should be endash not hyphen
    Fixed. Eric Corbett 16:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN31 is getting blocked by my antivirus software - what is it and what makes it reliable? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a report on WWW2006, the 15th International World Wide Web Conference held in Edinburgh, published by the organisers at Southampton University, so I don't understand why your anti-virus software would be complaining. Eric Corbett 16:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that sounds good. Not sure why it won't open for me. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Support. Two comments so minor as to be barely visible with the naked eye:

  • -ise and -ize – you use both in your prose (ignoring those in quotations, of course). I suspect this reflects a strict adherence to Fowler's austere principles, but I mention it in case it is inadvertent.
    Entirely inadvertent and down to the fact that Drmies wrote some bits and I wrote others. I think I've got that now. Eric Corbett 19:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Influence" section – I think the MoS bids us put ref numbers outside, not inside, closing brackets, as at ref 33.
    Makes sense to put the citation outside the closing bracket, so I've moved it. Eric Corbett 19:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's my meagre haul of quibbles. A delightful article that seems to me to meet all the FA criteria for prose – comprehensive, balanced, handsomely referenced and a pleasure to read. – Tim riley (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to read through the article Tim. Eric Corbett 19:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MasterOfHisOwnDomain: Great work so far. My concern is with criterion 1a, comprehensiveness, particularly around the "Critical Reception" section. I don't suggest my own work as par excellence, but compare for instance the detail of the "Reception" section of Passing with this one; the contemporary reception to the book here is half a sentence. Also:

  • This book (p. 61) suggests that Ballantyne specifically consulted and incorporated the work of Michael Russell's book on Polynesia—worth mentioning (and seeing if other sources confirm this). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Some interesting snippets in that book, thanks. Let's remember though that Passing was published in 1929, not 1857. Eric Corbett 16:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite, but still, I would be surprised if there wasn't some contemporary reaction to it that could be included—Drmies is probably right that "juvenile fiction" is less likely to feature in periodicals, but still. Even the comment that you make about being widely admired is not fully elaborated. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you aware of any that we've missed? Eric Corbett 11:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not off-hand, no—but I don't know the book well enough to say. I re-emphasise the point above though, can the existing comment be expanded in any way? I don't have access to the source, but does the Children's Literature Review article mention why it was widely admired? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes--it would have been easier had our book come in an NCE, like Passing, since those typically have a section specifically devoted to contemporary reception. It's odd that I haven't found much in the way of 19th-century reviews; I'll try again, but I don't hold out much hope. I think the problem may be that youth literature is less likely to be reviewed in the standard periodicals. Some of the content in Passing, "Reception" is covered in our article in "Legacy" and in "Themes", I think. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Literary Encyclopaedia says that this is the second novel by Ballanytne, whereas the source you use says it is the third. Might be worth confirming which is correct, just to avoid errors.
    Ah, it was his third book but his second novel. His first, Hudson's Bay; or, Every-day Life in the Wilds of North America (1848) is non-fiction, so Short 2002) is wrong. I've corrected that in our article. Eric Corbett 12:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same source says this of the contemporary reaction, which could be worth using: "Ballantyne’s mixture of gory adventure and devout, imperial enthusiasm scored an instant success both with his juvenile readership and with approving parents, schoolmasters and clergymen." i.e., how it had appeal to multiple readerships. Can obtain the citation if you agree. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like a nice quote to add, so yes please. Eric Corbett 12:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a rich seam. Brings back memories from my youth.

    There is some useful stuff in Edmond's book, Representing the South Pacific; you already refer to a couple of reviews, I think. See [2], particularly p.117 - passages lifted from Rev John Williams' Narrative of Missionary Enterprises in the South Sea Islands about Arorangi - and p.145-159 - the novel absence of the authority figures that were present in Swiss Family Robinson and Masterman Ready, links to accounts of Cook's voyages, links to Byron's cave and William Mariner's cave in Tonga, language choices (black=bad and sable=good), yet more details lifted from Williams, and a public schoolboy social order (prefect, younger friend and fag) - and p.160 - Robert Louis Stevenson knew Ballantyne. As well as reusing the three main characters in The Gorilla Hunters, Ballantyne wrote further but less successful novels based in the South Seas, such as Gascoyne the Sandal-wood Trader (1864).

    It may also be possible to draw a contrast with the negative impact of missionaries described by Herman Melville in Typee and Omoo. -- Ferma (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the note. I don't have access to Edmond's book, unfortunately; perhaps Eric does, and I'll see if I can get a hold of it through the library. Gascoyne is discussed in one of the articles linked above that I'm working on; I'll see if placing a note is worthwhile. As for Melville, I have not seen comparisons drawn in the scholarship and that's what we must depend on, but, again, I'll see if there's anything I can dig up. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking through Edmond's book now, and I've already added his comment about Ballantyne's extensive borrowing from Williams' Narrative of Missionary Enterprises, which seems to me to be the only relevant detail. Eric Corbett 21:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Victoria

Drive-by comment - I started to review, but instead decided to make this drive-by comment:

  • These three sources should be looked at: [3] (Honaker), [4] (Moffat), [5] (Dutheil). Also Frank Kermode is quite a well-known literary critic and apparently has written about this book, so that should be found and incorporated. Sorry to dump this on you. I'll keep the review watched and the page watched. I've skimmed the sources and have a general idea of what areas I believe need to be developed, but without having read the book and the literature, probably better for Eric and Drmies to look at these and decide what, if anything, should be extracted. Formerly Truthkeeper 88, now Victoria (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll have a look, thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Victoria, I've added author's names to your URLs; hope you don't mind. Some (more) notes from Dutheil, Kermode, and Honaker added. Moffat is next on my list. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're all in there now, with the exception of Moffat, who only mentions Ballantyne in passing, in a footnote. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Drmies - I might have picked up the wrong one by mistake, or I might have simply scanned and thought it was going somewhere - but I'll check there. If you're finished with the reorg, I'll come through and review. Btw - this wasn't a request to add - I just thought they might have stuff worth adding. That's all. Victoria (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I added a section in the "Backgrounds" bit, based on your and others' suggestions; for now I'm done with the articles and scholars those comments have given me. So thanks--it's more complete than it was before. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you can get more out of those, to be honest. They're quite good analyses. Victoria (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Victoria edit

Lead

  • Infobox has wikisource, but that's linked too in the ELs > should probably delete one of these
    I've removed it from the External links section. Eric Corbett 16:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Literary context

  • "it also starts a tradition in boys' fiction, by substituting boys for the main characters, a device now "naturalized" in the genre." > not sure what this means. Substituting boys for whom? Nor am I convinced this is "naturalized" (why in quotes?) in the genre. Naturalized when? Now, or then?
    I've changed that to "placing boys centre stage as the main characters". "Naturalized" is in quotes because it's a quotation. Eric Corbett 16:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I understand that. And it makes more sense now. Was trying to parse who the boys were substituting. Victoria (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hence the US spelling also. :) Drmies (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It preserves what literary critic Minnie Singh calls "the homiletic form of the educational tract", but does so (and is a "founding text" in that regard) by the "congruence of subject and implied reader": the story is about boys, and told by a (former) boy to an audience of boys.[15]" > suggest translating to plain English. If it's didactic, which children's lit of the period was, then that should suffice.
  • I've paraphrased the first quotation. I may take out the second, though "founding" is a nice qualifier for Ballantyne. I'm leaving the third quote since I like the sound of it: if Eric disagrees, he is free to drop it. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's better - the first quote was the one that I had the most difficulty with. Thanks. Victoria (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section introduces Rousseauean and Darwinian theories (oversimplification is that per Rousseau children learn by doing and experimentation; per Darwin (oversimplification again) the fittest survive. I think these concepts, if important to the background, should be echoed in the themes section if the sources support that.
  • The sources I looked at support about as much as I've put in that section. I doubted whether to put the information in a background section or among the themes, and chose the former since Singh and McCulloch both discuss it more in terms of a background than as a theme to be thoroughly mined. I'll have another look at some of the articles cited in the Themes, but for now I think it would be little more than echoing repetitively: those themes are undoubtedly important to the literature of the period but they are not discussed in great depth for this novel, as far as I can tell right now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fiona McCulloch argues that the unmediated knowledge the boys gain on their coral island reflects the tradition of Robinson Crusoe's and the "direct language for children" Rousseau advocates in Emile" > having some difficulty parsing this. Does it mean that learning by seeing/touching/experiencing, ie. Rousseau's theory of education is the "direct language for children" or does it have to do with the prose style?
    • I've simplified and hope that it's clear now. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

  • "tells the story retrospectively" > if not using the literary device of flashback, is this then a framing device? A Frame story? Though my sense is that it's not.
    Ralph is recounting the story as a grown man, writing about his experience as a young boy; nothing to do with flashbacks or frame stories. Eric Corbett 16:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a literary perspective, that's a flashback. But won't argue. Victoria (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not. Eric Corbett 16:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The account starts briskly" > because this is an opinion should have a source, or be trimmed out.
    It's hardly an opinion, as the following sentence explains. Eric Corbett 16:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One person's brisk is not another's, regardless of the number of pages. But, again, I won't argue. Victoria (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But the same point could be made no matter which authorities are cited. Eric Corbett 16:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My last comment about this: plot summaries aren't cited because they're a very dry summary of the plot. What I mean, and perhaps haven't conveyed well, is simply to drop "brisk". But again, won't argue. Victoria (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No reason why they have to be dry, and if necessary I could provide a citation for "brisk"; it isn't just my opinion. Eric Corbett 20:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's kind of what I was getting at. It's not a big deal, just mentioning. And yes, agree that summaries shouldn't be dry. Victoria (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's in Carpenter, or elsewhere, and so needs to be attributed. Victoria (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

  • Quite a few direct quotes here; suggest trimming out some. "Fun" for example doesn't need to be a quote imo.
    I've removed "fun" and one other, but I believe the others serve their purpose, and paraphrasing them would be to lose their flavour. Eric Corbett 16:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Themes

  • Suggest adding a topic sentence of sorts so as not to begin with a quote. From the little I've read about this, and what I know of the genre, period, and children's lit, my sense is that the overarching theme is that Victorian imperialism = civilized. The children are not yet, because by nature children need to be civilized; the natives are not (they never will be); the pirates are not (outside of the law). By the end of the story the children learn the perils of not being civilized, and rejoin the Victorian imperial christian fold. This again is oversimplified, but if what is already there can be rearranged a bit to suggest these themes, it would help the flow. These ideas, too, go to the Rousseauean and Darwinian themes > in prevailing the children uphold the dominance of the Imperialist worldview; but they come away wiser, having applied Rousseau's theories of learning by doing. Almost all of what I've written is already in the article, but needs to be said a bit more clearly imo.
  • I've struck the above. I know what I'm trying to say, but apparently not conveying it well and it's probably not important. Victoria (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the above needs to be dealt with and the themes should be tied together and presented in a more to-the-point manner. Victoria (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, perhaps a few too many direct quotes
  • The sentence about the boys' "domestic arrangements" should be rewritten imo.
    I've done a little bit of rewriting in that area. Eric Corbett 20:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a look at the source. I'll probably have a go at that myself, and will decide later how much of this to revisit. Victoria (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I rewrote it. Victoria (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's about it, except for a few small points I might still add. Apologies for the length and for rambling. We can move to the article talk or to the FAC talk. And feel free to disagree. Victoria (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • One more: "Martine Dutheil, in an essay published in a 2001 special issue of College English devoted to oral fixation and cannibalism,[36] stated that" > probably should be "states that" to preserve literary present tense, or recast somehow. Victoria (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eric's taken care of that, I see; thanks to both. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - these were mostly minor and easily fixed. Nice job & it's nice to see a boy's children's book here. Victoria (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reception
  • Added a piece from one of the best scholars in the field to the talkpage here. Victoria (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dr.Blofeld edit

Looks good, short but sweet. A few things:
  • "One of the first works of juvenile fiction to feature exclusively juvenile heroes" I think this is worthy of mentioning in the lead.
    Added to the lead Eric Corbett 11:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although generally considered to be dated in many aspects". I see this as rather vague in that a] it doesn't say who considers it dated and b] Does not state why it was dated. I think you should elaborate on it more and examine why this is so in the themes section. I'd probably explore the "arguably racist undertones" in a more detail as it is quite an important statement to make.
    I think it's already explained by Jack's comment: "all the natives of the South Sea Islands are fierce cannibals, and they have little respect for strangers". Eric Corbett 11:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little concerned by the number of quotes which in parts I think would be better converted to prose. I count 37 quotes, which in a relatively short article I think is rather a lot and I'd probably reduce the number of quotes by a third. I think you can cut back a bit on the quoting without it affecting the content which will improve the overall flow of it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I agree, but I'll wait to see what Drmies thinks. Eric Corbett 11:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The pleasant surprise on the article (not for you as an editor but general articles like this) is that it's short and concise. So many articles on books like this warble on and on and I think this is one of it's biggest strengths that it is a comfortable read. Interesting piece here which compares the evil of Coral Island with the Lord of the Flies, might be worth including.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I think we've already adequately covered the difference between Lord of the Flies and The Coral Island? Eric Corbett 12:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, yes, I just thought it might have contained something you'd find useful.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the quotes, yeah, I count ten in the "Genre and style section", for instance. I'd hope, though, that the quotes are well chosen and in that section (to take it as an example) it's difficult to rephrase many of them. Idiosyncratic phrases such as "pedestrian realism", "light-hearted confidence", and "ethnographic gloss" don't easily translate, and that's part and parcel (in my opinion) of the business of literary criticism. Before you know it you're not paraphrasing but translating, since the terms often come with (critical) baggage. "Over-concerned with flora and fauna" probably could be paraphrased, but I don't know that we'd gain anything by rendering it as "showing too much of a concern with the characteristics of animal and plant life on the island"... Drmies (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A few more quotes than I'd ideally like but they're generally used appropriately. I love the fact that this article is short and sweet and not one of the typical bloaters. Makes it much easier to read and digest. A hearty well done to the article writers.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 07:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ernst. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wadewitz edit

Leaning towards support This is a very good article on an important children's book! Yay! Thanks for all of your hard work. Below are my concerns about organization and comprehensiveness, which I think can be easily addressed.

  • One of the first works of fiction to feature exclusively juvenile heroes - There is well-over a century of literature coming before this that has juvenile heroes. Do you mean one of the first adventure fiction to feature juvenile heroes? I'd be curious what those scholars say that you cite, especially Singh. What part of Singh are you using to support that claim?
    • I've tweaked that sentence some. Drmies (talk)
    • And to answer your question: it's in Singh, p. 206, "But the adventure story that was almost schematically Golding's pre-text was Robert Michael Ballantyne's 1858 Coral Island, one of the earliest such stories to have boys, in the absence of adults, for its main characters. Children's literature has so naturalized this device that we forget how important a narrative innovation it must have been". Drmies (talk)
      • I read that as one of the first such adventure stories, but that is informed by the fact that I study the century of children's literature that comes before this and know the larger claim to be wrong. Adventure stories with boy heroes were definitely new in the 19c. Wadewitz (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I think the important word is exclusively juvenile heroes. Eric Corbett 22:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ballantyne's ignorance of the South Pacific caused him to erroneously describe coconuts as being soft and easily opened. A stickler for accuracy, he subsequently only wrote about things of which he had personal experience - Do you mean because he was criticized for this errors in this book? If so, that should be made explicit.
  • Ballantyne had a "deep religious conviction" and felt it his duty to educate Victorian middle-class boys – his target audience – in "codes of honour, decency, and religiosity" - Ballantyne was no different than many children's authors of his day in this respect. Does the source mention that, because it might be worth adding. This sentence makes it sound like Ballantyne was different somehow.
    • Hmmm I can't say I hear that. The source states it all very matter-of-factly, and I think our article reflects it neutrally (see the source). I mean, I could add "like most Victorian writers" or so, but the source doesn't actually say that, and most readers probably don't know that it was a general attitude. Eric, do you have any ideas for tweakage? Drmies (talk)
      • If you could find a source that does say that, it would be nice because it was such a widespread practice. Any survey of 19c children's literature would probably say it. Wadewitz (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first edition of The Coral Island was published by T. Nelson & Sons, who had a policy when accepting a manuscript of buying the copyright from the author rather than paying royalties - Again, this was the usual practice, especially for untried authors, in the 19c. It might be worth pointing this out. Ballantyne's experience was mirrored by most other authors in the period.
    • I placed a short note--a longer note would require an extensive discussion on copyright laws in Britain and the US. I am sure there are monographs and/or journal articles devoted to the very topic which could more profitably be cited, but I hope this suffices. (Fascinating topic, by the way; unfortunately, Copyright law of the United Kingdom is silent on the topic.) Drmies (talk)
  • The Coral Island employs "aspects of evolutionary theory" - This paragraph needs more detail about what aspects of evolutionary theory are in the book and how they play out. The paragraph as it stands really just lists names and doesn't help the reader understand how this new idea influenced the actual text. The actual information comes in the "Themes" section, which makes me think this whole paragraph should be moved there.
    • I've tried to separate them out also in hopes of not bloating the Themes section too much with background information. I've followed your suggestion, though, and got a bit specific--in fact there was a pretty significant quote to be gotten from McCulloch, and I've taken the less meaningful "aspects of" quote out. See what you think. Drmies (talk)
      • This is better but the last sentence seems rather awkward - is there a way to group all of the natural evolution material together and all of the social material together? Wadewitz (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I shifted the last to the beginning of that section. Is that better? Eric? Drmies (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of "Literary and historical context" is about genre - about Robinsonsades, so it seems to belong to the "Genre and style" section, where that topic returns.
    • See above: the Robinsonade was a very happening genre, and I would prefer to keep "Genre and style" more specific to the novel. If Eric also thinks that these sections should be combined that's fine. Drmies (talk)
      I think I largely agree with Wadewitz, although I'd probably think about splitting parts of that paragraph off rather than just moving the whole thing. I'll have a bash at that. Eric Corbett 01:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      ... OK, I've had a bash. See what you think now. Eric Corbett 01:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now that last sentence is just hanging there. Maybe move the sentence about a history of ideas to the beginning of the paragraph and then get more specific? Wadewitz (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmmm, I see what you mean, so I've moved a couple more sentences around. Eric Corbett 22:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Themes" section, there should be an entire paragraph devoted to imperialism and orientalism. These are the two major issues that modern critics write about in relation to this novel, but they are rather buried in a paragraph that begins "modern critics find darker undertones in the novel". Highlight these two themes more and organize this paragraph a bit better.
  • The second paragraph in "Influence" about how the novel represents typical Victorian ideas might be better used in the "Themes" section.
    I think I agree, so I've moved it. Eric Corbett 01:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Reception" section is extremely thin when it comes to contemporary reception. Have you searched 19c newspaper and magazine databases? I would help you search them, but my current institution doesn't subscribe to them (sad face). Do either of you have access to them? I'm surprised that none of the sources you consulted listed any reviews in the bibliographies.
    I've looked through the online archives for The Times, The Observer and The Guardian, and none appears to have published a review of the book. Eric Corbett 22:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol. No those papers would not have. What I meant was do you have access to databases like these which index more obscure papers and magazines which might have reviewed the book. Searching individual newspapers one by one won't be effective for a period in which newspapers flourished like weeds. :) Also, have you tried various periodicals like the Quarterly Review? The database British Periodicals Online brings together a lot of these and many of them reviewed children's books in the 19th century. I hope that is helpful! Wadewitz (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That British Library database has nothing on The Coral Island either. Victoriaearle has suggested that the Oxford Companion to Children's Literature might have something relevant, but she seems to have picked up her ball and gone home for some reason. I'll see if I can get anything from that. Eric Corbett 00:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you have any questions about the above! Wadewitz (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving to go camping in a few hours and won't have internet access again until Sunday. I'll check back then. Wadewitz (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and note to delegates - Apparently my review was disregarded because I'm a new user [6] and I lack the necessary qualifications [7]. I would like to note that I was unaware of the necessity to divulge one's profession, degrees and discipline to review a book.I take this as a serious personal attack. Regardless, the support stands. Furthermore, I won't review another FAC, though I do thank those who've taken the time to review mine. (Truthkeeper88) Victoria (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you've just struck through your support Victoria. I really do hope you'll reconsider your decision not to take any further part in FAC, as I enjoyed helping with your Ezra Pound article for instance, and I learned a lot from it. Eric Corbett 03:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm no longer objective, so it's best to strike the support and leave as comments. Victoria (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado edit

Lead

  • dystopian: need a wikilink: dystopian ([[dystopian novel|dystopian]]) is probably better than the dystopian redirect in this case.
    I'm happy with that and I've added the link. It's hard to know these days what words readers might find difficult. Eric Corbett 00:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Themes

  • The hierarchy of the natives is imposed by savagery. Ballantyne's message is that leaders should be respected by those they lead, and govern with their consent.:
    The final phrase is too detached from the rest of the sentence: perhaps:
    The hierarchy of the natives is imposed by savagery. Ballantyne's message is that leaders should be respected by those they lead and with whose consent they govern.
  • devoted to oral fixation and cannibalism: I only had the faintest idea what this sentence means after following the wikilink. Can we provide some in-article context so a reader can assimilate the sentence without following the link? Perhaps "the Freudian concept of oral fixation" or similar?
    • I've looked at the opening essay in that collection again, and "oral fixation and cannibalism" is a simplification (besides, it's not about the Freudian concept anyway). To explain it (that an explanation is necessary is clear from the title of the 1999 conference, "Fixations: Cannibalizing Theories, Consuming Cultures") would take forever; moreover, the passage we cite doesn't even involve orality, so it was simpler to scrap it. Drmies (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Savage in Literature: Representations of 'Primitive' Society in English Fiction: Am I correct that we normalise punctuation and similar in a title? In which case double quotes would be better here.
  • The domination imposed by "geographical mapping of a territory and policing of its native inhabitants", an important theme in the novel both specifically – the topography of the island as mapped by the boys – and in general – the South Pacific's "eventual subjugation and conversion to Christianity" – is continued in Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island.:
    on first reading I lost track of the dashes. Something to highlight when proofreading is anything which makes it necessary to read a sentence twice. The author has of course read it so often that the problem is no longer apparent. Perhaps:
    The domination imposed by "geographical mapping of a territory and policing of its native inhabitants" is an important theme in the novel both specifically when the boys map the topography of the island and in general with the South Pacific's "eventual subjugation and conversion to Christianity". This theme is continued in Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island.
  • and the little coral insect it was believed in Ballantyne's time to be responsible for building coral reefs: "that was believed".
    That seems like a nice change, done. Eric Corbett 00:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments:

  • are Robinsonade, Daniel Defoe and Robinson Crusoe overlinked? Perhaps once in the lead and once more in the body of the article are enough?
    Quite possibly. I've removed all the links except for those in the lead and the first occurrence in the article. Eric Corbett 01:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the whole paragraph about "The novel's exploration of the relationship between nature and evangelical Christianity" reads like nonsense that the reviewers made up in order to write something original. Would it be possible to provide a clearer context for this Victorian viewpoint?
    • I'll see what I can do, but it's not made-up nonsense. If you have access to JSTOR or some other database you can see the two journal articles that argue the point. Coral insects as an allegory of little Christian souls--I wish I could make that kind of stuff up. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Butting in: this can be put into context. Victorians saw in coral reefs a reflection of sprawling imperialism; Darwin's work brought attention to them; and an evangelist wrote a poem about coral and its transformative nature. So these were not unknown concepts in Victorian society, but imo needs to be brought out in a more to the point manner in the article. Victoria (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I expect I will add a bold support after any responses. --Mirokado (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Coral_Island/archive1&oldid=562956679"