This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
As per HQCentral, I've posted this here. As it stands, this article is exceedingly long. Even with the analysis gone - which it should be; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - the article is still very large.
One big target for reduction of the page should be the "background" section. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; as such, we should be able to give background by leading the reader to pages describing the historical events being mentioned. Of these events, which of them have articles? Which need articles? Create and link as necessary. Zetawoof( ζ) 06:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I am a bit bothered by the "interpertation" of this novel, which is, as stated, excessivly lengthy and more appropriate for a Journal or Critical Review. What was written here is not simply a synopsis of standard understanding of this novel, but unique, and often personal insight into a novel from one perspective only - with no reference to other perspectives on this novel.
I'm also curious why there was no real mention of this novel's understanding from American Indian perspective, which is one of the more unique aspects of HMOD. -- Kipruss3 16:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Why are there like a thousand references at the bottom of the page? Seems superfluous. 70.160.240.45 00:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've done some merciless editing on the article to try to get it back under control, as well as leaving the following message on HQCentral's talk page:
Do please leave any comments on these deletions and edits below. Vizjim 09:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The historical/literary criticism was an excellent addition (unless I just missed it the first time through), as it begins to touch some of the questions that can be raised by a book *by* a native author but *for* a white audience. That was the kind of launching point I was hoping to see. The tight synopsis provides a more useful Wiki type experience to get the gist of the work.
And it looks like most of the edits have been reverted - the article is back to nearly the same state it was in when I tagged it as {{ verylong}}. This really isn't OK; in particular, the analysis is original research:
There's actually some discussion going on at the Wikipedia mailing list over what degree of analysis of a fictional work is acceptable. Consensus appears to be that articles on fictional works should be limited to a neutral plot summary, and perhaps a brief summary of published or commonly accepted readings. Original readings, such as the one shown above, aren't acceptable; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a literary journal.
As such, I've reverted the article to Vizjim's last edit. Although I appreciate the work which must have gone into your historical background and analysis, HQCentral, it really doesn't belong here. Zetawoof( ζ) 00:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a note on the length of articles. This is not a paper encyclopedia. Associated subject should be linked to, not reproduced - even in varied form - within an article on another subject. IF a subject does not have a "suitable" treatment in wikipedia already then it maybe that another article is called for. i.e. "American policy as seen within 'xxxx' novel" or some similar title. This article would need to stand on it's own terms. And comply with all wikipedia standards, policies etc. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 07:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The question of keeping or removing the material was in mediation. You can still come to the page and post your opinion and arguments.
The case is closed, and the consensus was to move analysis into a separate article, here or on Wikibooks, leave a small annotation, and link to it as the main article for the section. Please implement this if you are familiar enough with the subject.
CP/M ( Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 22:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It's quite clear that the way it is now the analysis doesn't fit Wikipedia standarts. It's a good work, and we actually value original research. There's WP:IAR, and no rules are strict boundaries, but IAR works when there is no controversy or doubt about positive effect. Since several editors argue the analysis is not for this article, it is the case when the policies take priority.
The article is excessively long, and the complete analysis makes it hard to read, but, being valuable for understanding the book, it must be kept. First of all, I suggest you make a brief summary of it, restricted to about 1-2 kilobytes, and just mentioning what are the main concepts of the book. This analysis will be kept in the article.
For the full analysis, I suggest two main options:
So it will be not much difference for article readers, it's just about how much original thought was applied. I personally feel the second option offers much more freedom in editing and requires less effort.
CP/M ( Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 22:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Was a solution ever done to this? The article is so unweildy at this point, I don't think anyone noticed that there was an entire section in two places. It would be nice to see something pared down with this article. Athryn 09:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
We've discovered that HQCentral ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock puppet of notorious plagiarist Primetime. Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime. - Will Beback 02:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Image:NScottMomaday HouseMadeOfDawn.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This section ends with "—and its subject matter and theme did not seem to conform to the prescription above." There is no prescription above; the clause refers to nothing. Either some large preceding section has been removed, or (as seems more likely) the paragraph was copy-pasted from some other source which had such a preceding section. I suggest removing that final clause. Philgoetz ( talk) 06:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
As per HQCentral, I've posted this here. As it stands, this article is exceedingly long. Even with the analysis gone - which it should be; Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - the article is still very large.
One big target for reduction of the page should be the "background" section. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; as such, we should be able to give background by leading the reader to pages describing the historical events being mentioned. Of these events, which of them have articles? Which need articles? Create and link as necessary. Zetawoof( ζ) 06:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I am a bit bothered by the "interpertation" of this novel, which is, as stated, excessivly lengthy and more appropriate for a Journal or Critical Review. What was written here is not simply a synopsis of standard understanding of this novel, but unique, and often personal insight into a novel from one perspective only - with no reference to other perspectives on this novel.
I'm also curious why there was no real mention of this novel's understanding from American Indian perspective, which is one of the more unique aspects of HMOD. -- Kipruss3 16:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Why are there like a thousand references at the bottom of the page? Seems superfluous. 70.160.240.45 00:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've done some merciless editing on the article to try to get it back under control, as well as leaving the following message on HQCentral's talk page:
Do please leave any comments on these deletions and edits below. Vizjim 09:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The historical/literary criticism was an excellent addition (unless I just missed it the first time through), as it begins to touch some of the questions that can be raised by a book *by* a native author but *for* a white audience. That was the kind of launching point I was hoping to see. The tight synopsis provides a more useful Wiki type experience to get the gist of the work.
And it looks like most of the edits have been reverted - the article is back to nearly the same state it was in when I tagged it as {{ verylong}}. This really isn't OK; in particular, the analysis is original research:
There's actually some discussion going on at the Wikipedia mailing list over what degree of analysis of a fictional work is acceptable. Consensus appears to be that articles on fictional works should be limited to a neutral plot summary, and perhaps a brief summary of published or commonly accepted readings. Original readings, such as the one shown above, aren't acceptable; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a literary journal.
As such, I've reverted the article to Vizjim's last edit. Although I appreciate the work which must have gone into your historical background and analysis, HQCentral, it really doesn't belong here. Zetawoof( ζ) 00:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a note on the length of articles. This is not a paper encyclopedia. Associated subject should be linked to, not reproduced - even in varied form - within an article on another subject. IF a subject does not have a "suitable" treatment in wikipedia already then it maybe that another article is called for. i.e. "American policy as seen within 'xxxx' novel" or some similar title. This article would need to stand on it's own terms. And comply with all wikipedia standards, policies etc. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 07:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The question of keeping or removing the material was in mediation. You can still come to the page and post your opinion and arguments.
The case is closed, and the consensus was to move analysis into a separate article, here or on Wikibooks, leave a small annotation, and link to it as the main article for the section. Please implement this if you are familiar enough with the subject.
CP/M ( Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 22:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It's quite clear that the way it is now the analysis doesn't fit Wikipedia standarts. It's a good work, and we actually value original research. There's WP:IAR, and no rules are strict boundaries, but IAR works when there is no controversy or doubt about positive effect. Since several editors argue the analysis is not for this article, it is the case when the policies take priority.
The article is excessively long, and the complete analysis makes it hard to read, but, being valuable for understanding the book, it must be kept. First of all, I suggest you make a brief summary of it, restricted to about 1-2 kilobytes, and just mentioning what are the main concepts of the book. This analysis will be kept in the article.
For the full analysis, I suggest two main options:
So it will be not much difference for article readers, it's just about how much original thought was applied. I personally feel the second option offers much more freedom in editing and requires less effort.
CP/M ( Wikipedia Neutrality Project) 22:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Was a solution ever done to this? The article is so unweildy at this point, I don't think anyone noticed that there was an entire section in two places. It would be nice to see something pared down with this article. Athryn 09:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
We've discovered that HQCentral ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock puppet of notorious plagiarist Primetime. Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Primetime. - Will Beback 02:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Image:NScottMomaday HouseMadeOfDawn.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This section ends with "—and its subject matter and theme did not seem to conform to the prescription above." There is no prescription above; the clause refers to nothing. Either some large preceding section has been removed, or (as seems more likely) the paragraph was copy-pasted from some other source which had such a preceding section. I suggest removing that final clause. Philgoetz ( talk) 06:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)