This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aleksandr I. Kuprin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Who are the pathetic adventure seekers in The Garnet Bracelet? I beieve it is an absolutely wrong term for the most of his novels. abakharev 21:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Also are you sure that the Shtabs-capitain Rybnikov is the pinnacle? Indeed search for Japaneese spyes became a national pastime in 30 years after publishing the story, but I am not sure it was the Kuprin's influence. Why not The Garnet Bracelet? Sashka? Sulamif? The Solomon Ring? or the Pit? abakharev 21:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I try to stick with scholarly sources on Wikipedia, when available. All these pronouncements of greatness are of course subjective, but it is still possible to give the reader some sense of direction where the majority (scholarly) opinion leans (ie. signed (named) author and/or university press or well known critic). Re: page number it's viewable via Google indirectly through JSTOR ( first entry). Some further cites found on books.google.com (search on Kuprin "the duel")
As you can see there are a ton of reliable, scholarly verifiable sources available. Unfortunately the article is heavily slanted towards a single source, a journalism article, in Russian, that is not online - hardly verifiable or reliable IMO. Fothergill Volkensniff IV ( talk) 12:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell Nicholas J. L. Luker appears to be the most prolific and recent specialist on Kuprin (in English). If I was looking for an authoritative source, Luker would be at the top of the list. This article would be more reliable and mainstream if it had more citations to his work (some of which is freely online already in the ext links section). This is true for most minor but important authors, there is usually one or two scholars who are the authorities. Big fish, small pond. So in a way it's not too difficult to filter out the noise because most sources are just parroting a few specialists (or are unreliable). Fothergill Volkensniff IV ( talk) 12:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aleksandr I. Kuprin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Who are the pathetic adventure seekers in The Garnet Bracelet? I beieve it is an absolutely wrong term for the most of his novels. abakharev 21:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Also are you sure that the Shtabs-capitain Rybnikov is the pinnacle? Indeed search for Japaneese spyes became a national pastime in 30 years after publishing the story, but I am not sure it was the Kuprin's influence. Why not The Garnet Bracelet? Sashka? Sulamif? The Solomon Ring? or the Pit? abakharev 21:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I try to stick with scholarly sources on Wikipedia, when available. All these pronouncements of greatness are of course subjective, but it is still possible to give the reader some sense of direction where the majority (scholarly) opinion leans (ie. signed (named) author and/or university press or well known critic). Re: page number it's viewable via Google indirectly through JSTOR ( first entry). Some further cites found on books.google.com (search on Kuprin "the duel")
As you can see there are a ton of reliable, scholarly verifiable sources available. Unfortunately the article is heavily slanted towards a single source, a journalism article, in Russian, that is not online - hardly verifiable or reliable IMO. Fothergill Volkensniff IV ( talk) 12:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell Nicholas J. L. Luker appears to be the most prolific and recent specialist on Kuprin (in English). If I was looking for an authoritative source, Luker would be at the top of the list. This article would be more reliable and mainstream if it had more citations to his work (some of which is freely online already in the ext links section). This is true for most minor but important authors, there is usually one or two scholars who are the authorities. Big fish, small pond. So in a way it's not too difficult to filter out the noise because most sources are just parroting a few specialists (or are unreliable). Fothergill Volkensniff IV ( talk) 12:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)