Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Roald Dahl bibliography/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Roald Dahl bibliography edit

Roald Dahl bibliography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Roald Dahl was a superb writer and story teller. Depending on your taste and age, he was either the man who gave your childhood reading matter a dark and macabre twist, or he was the man who gave some adult short stories a dark and macabre twist, which translated well into television viewing too. This new bibliography of his work has been split off from the main article, and has been much expanded, updated and provided with citations—which were sadly lacking in the original. Any and all comments are most welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dahl is of course one of my favorite writers, looking through this reminded me of my childhood favorites that I read numerous times. This looks great, though I'd love to see Roald Dahl short stories bibliography merged into this article. It's not that long and would fit into the main list well to be comprehensive. Reywas92Talk 07:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment Reywas92. I think the reason the short stories bibliography is so short is that it's not complete, as far as I can see. I think there would be a lot of work to do to ensure it is a full and accurate record, and to bring it up to scratch. I have plans to do that in the future, but I think it may possibly be better as a separate list. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well short stories are still part of his bibliography, so the main list is simply not complete without them; you can't just leave those on another page and only include the full books. The sublist does say it's comprehensive with two books cited but that would have to checked. Also, it mentions two compilations the main list misses: The Great Automatic Grammatizator and Skin and Other Stories, plus the navbox has Roald Dahl: Collected Stories, The Roald Dahl Omnibus, and The Collected Short Stories of Roald Dahl. These and whatever they include all need to be added. Reywas92Talk 01:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, as the bibliography is complete with the full books, and the short stories can just as easily be separate (there are other FLs that follow this pattern). I've looked at the sources again on this, and none try to include full lists of short stories (two have a "selected stories" section, but they consist of only a handful of books): te remainder list only the books. As to the other books you have listed, they are re-hashes of material already published in book form, but collected in a different order. As they contain previously published material, and as they were collected and published post-mortem, they do not need to be included (they represent ways forthe publishers and estate to try and extract more money from "new editions"). Again this is a fairly common practice and there are several other FLs that follow this pattern. – SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though the biographical detail is probably slightly more than I would have expected, this looks a sound list well worthy of promotion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Glad someone decided to work on this; Dahl is one of my favorite childhood authors. Not missing the opportunity to review! Anyway, here's my comments:

  • The following life detail is better for his main bio:
  • His birth location
  • His heritage
  • The types of stories his mother told
  • His marriage to Patricia Neal
  • The number of children he had
  • Points 1, 4 and 5 done totally; 2 partially; and point 3 left in. I've trimmed out what was obviously, the superfluous stuff, but I've left in the Norwegian story influence, with their dark tales, which I think were a strong influence on the young boy. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, the lead should specifically say so (it currently doesn't) Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was asked by the writer C.S. Forester"..... try using active voice; C.S. Forester asked him
  • Matilda is his most popular works and should be included in the lead
  • Really no idea why this one was missed! Now added - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only one image of Dahl is really needed
  • Probably, but without the other two images in there, we'd be left with the one in the IB and his gravestone at the bottom, with little to break the tables in between. Personally I prefer to put in a couple of decent book covers in there to show the artwork used, but he's still all in copyright at the moment. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Scripts", why is an exact date given for "William and Mary" but only years for all the other entries?
  • No idea! Now trimmed to the year. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a bit of work but there are no major concerns. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers SNUGGUMS, much appreciated. I've followed all your advice bar one and a half bits. I could be persuaded on those too, but hopefully you'll see where I'm coming from with the explanation. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do understand. At least fix up the influence his mother had (see above) and get rid of the stray comma in "when he was three, gave his writing". Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers SNUGGUMS; both points now dealt with. Many thanks once again. – SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can now gladly support. Happy to help. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

  • This infobox violates two style guidelines:
  • "Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function" (Purpose of an infobox).
  • "infoboxes should not be arbitrarily decorative" (Style, color and formatting) – the colors serve no purpose.
  • The guidelines on the three comments above are not binding on any article, and this IB format is used in several lists, including a number of FLs. – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this kind of design was also used before in artists' discographies but was changed per the aforementioned guidelines. -- Frankie talk 15:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The format is used in numerous lists, including several FLs; it may not fit with one dubious guideline from elsewhere, but that's for a wider audience than one FLC. - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider adding alt text for the image and make sure it offers something different than the caption otherwise what's the point
  • File:Roald Dahl (1982).jpg - ditto.
  • I'll consider it, although alt text is advised, rather than required – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is why I said "consider". -- Frankie talk 15:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ALTS now added to all images. - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The death of an elder sister and his father within" – a verb is missing between father and within.
  • No, it's entirely correct as it is - there is nothing missing – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, my bad! After rereading, it looks completely fine. I think I didn't read the complete sentence and jumped to a conclusion. -- Frankie talk 15:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider linking World War II in the second paragraph.
  • "As at 2015" – as of is more preferable.
Please excuse my ignorance. -- Frankie talk 15:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest not using {{Sort}} for years in the tables as they serve no purpose in this case. -- Frankie talk 15:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could taken them out, but that serves no purpose either, I think. – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case it unnecessarily increases bytes. -- Frankie talk 15:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments. I'll consider the alt text point, and probably add some description shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks FrB.TG: I've now added alts to the images. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments. Clearly to be supported – an excellent piece of work, but I have few small queries first:

  • There is a comma splice in the first sentence of the second para of the preamble; a semicolon would put it right.
  • "The following year he edited a book on ghost stories" - did you mean "on" rather than "of" here?
  • In the short story collections table, the heading "First edition publisher (All London)" is wrong, as the column includes three New York firms.
  • In the non-fiction table, the heading "First edition publisher (All London)" is also wrong: the column includes Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.
  • Is the publisher variously called "M Joseph" and "Joseph" in fact Michael Joseph? They printed the full name in the volumes on my shelves.
  • "Puffin Books, London" in the third table is just "Puffin Books" in the the sixth
  • Similarly, "Jonathan Cape" sometimes has "London" after it and sometimes doesn't.
  • On a point of purely personal preference, I wouldn't give each section both a header and an immediately-following title for the table: e.g. "Novels" followed by "Dahl's novels", but I don't strongly object, and if that's the usual form then I'm happy to leave it at that. Tim riley talk 08:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Tim: I've addressed all your points bar the last. I'm not too keen on the duplication either, but it's the way we're supposed to do things (or so I'm told!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough on the last point. The "All London" is still in place in the non-fiction table. Tim riley talk 11:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding my support now. This page certainly meets the FL criteria. Tim riley talk 12:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Solid list. Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review
Passed
  • Spotchecks: checked 13, 14, 16, 18; all clean
  • Formatting: I see that you're not linking publishers that are linked in the main text (The Times); not a fan, but consistent. You have a couple cite errors, but I've fixed them since they're hard to see unless you turn on the big red messages
  • Comprehensive: Looks good, nothing striking me as an obvious missing source. --PresN 20:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 20:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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_list_candidates/Roald_Dahl_bibliography/archive1&oldid=1138488773"