Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H./archive2

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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2017 [1].

The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H. edit

Nominator(s): —Bruce1ee^talk 07:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is this article's second FAC; the first received a couple of reviews (thanks Imzadi1979 and Nikkimaria), but all the issues raised by them were addressed.

This article is about George Steiner's controversial 1981 literary and philosophical novella in which Adolf Hitler (A.H.) is found alive in the Amazon jungle thirty years after the end of World War II. It is currently a GA and has recently been peer reviewed. I believe it meets the FA criteria, but I'm open to any comments/suggestions. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with a few minor points:

I made a small edit, which is here.
Thank you, I'm happy with that. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is Orosso a town? When I first read the line that mentions it, I was a little confused.
Orosso is a town, as stated at the end of that sentence. If you feel it's still confusing, I'll reword the sentence. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence in "Reception", as a stand-alone sentence, looks incomplete. Are there other awards for which the book was nominated? Was there any notable reaction to its nomination for the Faulkner Award?
From what I've found this book didn't receive any other nominations/awards. Further, I can't find any notable reaction to this nomination. The nomination is mentioned in the lead – I could cite it there and remove it from the Reception section. What do you think? —Bruce1ee^talk 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Was it ever translated into other languages? --Coemgenus (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it has – I've added this to the Background and publication section. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coemgenus, thanks for picking up this review and for the support. I've responded to the issues you raised above. Please let me know if you find any others. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks great. The Orosso sentence seems clear to me this morning, so I must have just been being especially dense yesterday. Nice work, good luck with the review. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

~~"and as requested by Steiner—it was a paperback original" might read more smoothly as "and, as requested by Steiner, it was a paperback original".~~
Yes, that is better – changed. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"the play confronts the audience with an event that "logic, facticity and morality", and a "knowledge of Hitlerian atrocity" are of little help": I can't quite parse this, and I suspect a verb or clause has been lost in editing.
Simplified the sentence – I hope that helps. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's still an issue. The last clause of that sentence is "an event that "logic, facticity and morality" are of little help"; but there's a verb missing -- of little help in doing what? I suspect it should be something like "of little help in resolving", or perhaps "confronts the audience with an event, in the resolution of which 'logic, facticity and morality' are of little help". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the sentence – how does that look? —Bruce1ee^talk 12:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Responding to theatre critics that Hitler had the last word": I think this needs to be either "Responding to criticism that" or "Responding to theatre critics who objected to Hitler having the last word"; the latter seems preferable to me.
Changed to the latter. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"He described it as "wearisome" that is "suffocate[d]" by too much "fine writing" (belles-lettres)." I think you're missing a noun after "wearisome", or else make it '"wearisome", and suffocate[d]', with a comma to separate the clauses. And why the parenthetical link to belles-lettres?
Fixed. I parenthesised "belles-lettres" to explain "fine writing". I could pipe "fine writing" to "belles-lettres", but that means linking inside a quotation. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- I don't think you need the explanation, to be honest, but it's fine as is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of "Themes" gives the source for each of the scholarly opinions quoted; is that necessary? It breaks up the flow; the other two paragraphs read much more naturally.
I don't understand this point. The source of each quotation has to be cited. I don't see how this differs from the other two paragraphs in the section. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the name of the source work. Why not make it "Margaret Burton sees the language in the book as polarised between "a venue for truth" and "a source of destruction", with Lieber representing the former, and Hitler the latter. Bryan Cheyette argues, however, that Steiner is not contrasting Lieber and Hitler, but is "portraying them as part of the same dialect", and that they reflect a dichotomy in Steiner himself." Not that particular phrasing, perhaps, but why mention the source works in the text? It's a way of introducing these names, but I think in a "Themes" section the reader is going to assume these are scholars and can check the citations for more information. It's not a major point, but I think naming the works inline makes it a bit less readable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misunderstood you – I thought by "sources" you meant source citations. Anyway I've adjusted that 2nd paragraph. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't very clear; sorry. I cut it a bit more; looks better now, though the sentence structures in that paragraph are all a bit too samey. I'll see if I can think of a way to rephrase some of it, but in the meantime I'm supporting below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, any further help would be appreciated. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, thanks for picking up this review, and your edits. I've responded to the issues you raised above. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the outstanding issues. Please have a look when you get a chance. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and your helpful edits and suggestions. I appreciate it. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Imzadi1979 did a prose review on December 28th, here. FWIW, I've looked at the changes since then, and they look fine. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dank, thanks for that. —Bruce1ee^talk 18:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cas Liber edit

Taking a look now....

~~he brushes aside his "defence attorney" and begins...~~ ~~- why the quote marks here?~~

I quoted "defence attorney", "prosecution attorney" and "presiding judge" because they aren't real attorneys or judges – see also the quoting of "defence attorney" on p.199 of LaCapra (2001). If you feel we don't need the quote marks, I'm happy to drop them. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is there any more discussion on what Teku means by "proven"?~~

Teku's statement is ambiguous, he didn't understand Hitler's speech but was moved by it. I've expanded on this at the end of the Plot and Controversy sections for clarity. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks sound overall though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cas Liber, thanks for picking up this review and your edits. When you get a chance, please have a look at my replies above. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 13:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cas Liber, thanks for support – I appreciate it. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Sources are reliable and correctly formatted. Footnote 36 has "pp. 65". Otherwise everything looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike, thanks for the review, and for spotting the error – fixed. —Bruce1ee^talk 11:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it, I think we still need an image review. One can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarastro1, we are still in need of an image review – I've added it to WT:FAC. Thanks. —Bruce1ee^talk 22:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

Fair-use book cover for identification - OK.
Reviewed frame from YouTube video under CC license - OK (the channel is the institute's official channel, per their official website). GermanJoe (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! Thank you very much GermanJoe. —Bruce1ee^talk 22:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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