A fact from Kilometer 101 appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 March 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of
Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion. For a listing of essays see the
essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The book sounds interesting, but parts of this article are really unclear. In the lede it is called a full-length essay collection and a nonfiction book, but then it says it also contains short fiction. Better would be to say in the first sentence that it is a collection that contains both nonfiction essays and short story fiction. Then the structure isn't clear – is all of Part 1 fiction and all of Part 2 essays, with one essay at the very beginning before the two parts? I think so, but that should be stated explicitly. Then the tone in the "Synopsis" section is more than a bit off for Wikipedia. It's both too informal (especially in the contractions) and too interpretative (as two of many examples, by focusing on interiority, Osipov’s narratives resolve within the characters themselves. and Despite all of this, Osipov reaches a tenuous depiction of Russian culture and identity). Indeed, things that read like this often turn out to be copyvio issues. I'm not saying that's the case here, but it's an indication that a rewrite, or quoting/citing to interpretative sources, is called for. Finally, the article should be added to categories such as
Category:Russian short story collections and
Category:2020s essays and possibly others.
Wasted Time R (
talk) 15:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Wasted Time R: Thank you for your review; I've overhauled the article and added citations to the more interpretive pats of "Content and themes" as well as addressed the confusion surrounding what type of book it is.
MyCatIsAChonk (
talk) 00:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I saw your response a few days ago and then lost track of it. The article is better structured now, but I am still confused about the part titles – the lede says the parts are called "Stories" and "Essays" but the content and themes section says they are called "Luxemburg" and "Kilometer 101" – which is it? And the background section talks about "the fictional essays" which sounds like an oxymoron, which part is that referring to?
Wasted Time R (
talk) 01:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Wasted Time R: I see the confusion now. It is quite odd, because looking at the
Google Books preview, it looks like it's... both? I've fixed it nonetheless, but that is a good point you raise.
MyCatIsAChonk (
talk) 02:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Just a comment, but the hook says 2020 when it seems like 2022 is more accurate.
BuySomeApples (
talk) 08:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Oh, that must've been a typo, thanks for clarifying that.
MyCatIsAChonk (
talk) 17:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)reply
@
MyCatIsAChonk: Sorry about another delay. But I have concerns about text-source correspondence with the article as it stands. I will give two examples though I strongly suspect there are more. The entire paragraph about "Sventa" is cited to the Polly Jones TLS piece. Yet that review never mentions that it's written in the second person and presents a different interpretation ("fruitless quest") about the conclusion of the essay. Later, the Maria Lipman Foreign Affairs review is said to say the book concerns "a doctor fighting a losing battle in a provincial Russian town that doesn’t prioritize health." But Lipman's review, while it does mention alcohol, doesn't say that. (I did see it in one of the other sources, don't recall where now.) So I think you need to go through line by line in this article, with all the sources open, and make sure that the citing in the article correctly maps to which sources support what.
Wasted Time R (
talk) 12:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Wasted Time R: Thanks for getting back to me. For the issue in "Reception", I cut that statement. Secondly, in "Content and themes", I find it difficult to distinguish what complies with
MOS:PLOT and what doesn't. I've gone through this like you said, but there are some statements that aren't cited as I believe they comply with plot summary guidelines. Do you feel they're ok now?
MyCatIsAChonk (
talk) 14:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)reply
@
MyCatIsAChonk: Well, what's there now in the "Content and themes" section is a mixture of uncited PLOT and cited observations. Unorthodox, but maybe it is okay. Separately, I have done a bunch of copyedits to the article for clarity and MoS conformance and citing at the beginning. However I see there are a couple of issues with the hook, besides the year correction that was already made. First, it is not an essay collection, as it has short stories also, so the hook should just say 'collection'. Second, is there any source that says it was compiled after the Russian invasion? It was published after the invasion, yes, but given normal publisher timelines, I would guess that the volume may have already been in the works before February 2022.
Wasted Time R (
talk) 11:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Wasted Time R: Thanks for the copyediting. I think it's ok to call it an essay collection.
Merriam-Webster describes an essay as "an analytic or interpretative literary composition usually dealing with its subject from a limited or personal point of view". Since the short stories are based on Osipov's experiences, I personally believe it fits the description. On the compilation, I'm not sure- none of the sources specifically state that, so I do see a problem too. Here's an ALT proposal, just replacing "compiled" with "published":
@
MyCatIsAChonk: I'm not trying to be difficult, but essays are non-fiction and short stories are fiction and they really are two different things. See for example
this from Palomar College or
this from Writer's Digest. And wording that indicates the collection contains both essays and stories would actually make for a more compelling hook.
Wasted Time R (
talk) 22:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Wasted Time R: Ok, thank you for clarifying that. How about these:
Okay, this is good to go with either ALT2 or ALT3, the DYK promoter can decide which fits best with whatever's going up in that set.
Wasted Time R (
talk) 00:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)reply
A fact from Kilometer 101 appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 20 March 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of
Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion. For a listing of essays see the
essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The book sounds interesting, but parts of this article are really unclear. In the lede it is called a full-length essay collection and a nonfiction book, but then it says it also contains short fiction. Better would be to say in the first sentence that it is a collection that contains both nonfiction essays and short story fiction. Then the structure isn't clear – is all of Part 1 fiction and all of Part 2 essays, with one essay at the very beginning before the two parts? I think so, but that should be stated explicitly. Then the tone in the "Synopsis" section is more than a bit off for Wikipedia. It's both too informal (especially in the contractions) and too interpretative (as two of many examples, by focusing on interiority, Osipov’s narratives resolve within the characters themselves. and Despite all of this, Osipov reaches a tenuous depiction of Russian culture and identity). Indeed, things that read like this often turn out to be copyvio issues. I'm not saying that's the case here, but it's an indication that a rewrite, or quoting/citing to interpretative sources, is called for. Finally, the article should be added to categories such as
Category:Russian short story collections and
Category:2020s essays and possibly others.
Wasted Time R (
talk) 15:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Wasted Time R: Thank you for your review; I've overhauled the article and added citations to the more interpretive pats of "Content and themes" as well as addressed the confusion surrounding what type of book it is.
MyCatIsAChonk (
talk) 00:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I saw your response a few days ago and then lost track of it. The article is better structured now, but I am still confused about the part titles – the lede says the parts are called "Stories" and "Essays" but the content and themes section says they are called "Luxemburg" and "Kilometer 101" – which is it? And the background section talks about "the fictional essays" which sounds like an oxymoron, which part is that referring to?
Wasted Time R (
talk) 01:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Wasted Time R: I see the confusion now. It is quite odd, because looking at the
Google Books preview, it looks like it's... both? I've fixed it nonetheless, but that is a good point you raise.
MyCatIsAChonk (
talk) 02:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Just a comment, but the hook says 2020 when it seems like 2022 is more accurate.
BuySomeApples (
talk) 08:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Oh, that must've been a typo, thanks for clarifying that.
MyCatIsAChonk (
talk) 17:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)reply
@
MyCatIsAChonk: Sorry about another delay. But I have concerns about text-source correspondence with the article as it stands. I will give two examples though I strongly suspect there are more. The entire paragraph about "Sventa" is cited to the Polly Jones TLS piece. Yet that review never mentions that it's written in the second person and presents a different interpretation ("fruitless quest") about the conclusion of the essay. Later, the Maria Lipman Foreign Affairs review is said to say the book concerns "a doctor fighting a losing battle in a provincial Russian town that doesn’t prioritize health." But Lipman's review, while it does mention alcohol, doesn't say that. (I did see it in one of the other sources, don't recall where now.) So I think you need to go through line by line in this article, with all the sources open, and make sure that the citing in the article correctly maps to which sources support what.
Wasted Time R (
talk) 12:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Wasted Time R: Thanks for getting back to me. For the issue in "Reception", I cut that statement. Secondly, in "Content and themes", I find it difficult to distinguish what complies with
MOS:PLOT and what doesn't. I've gone through this like you said, but there are some statements that aren't cited as I believe they comply with plot summary guidelines. Do you feel they're ok now?
MyCatIsAChonk (
talk) 14:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)reply
@
MyCatIsAChonk: Well, what's there now in the "Content and themes" section is a mixture of uncited PLOT and cited observations. Unorthodox, but maybe it is okay. Separately, I have done a bunch of copyedits to the article for clarity and MoS conformance and citing at the beginning. However I see there are a couple of issues with the hook, besides the year correction that was already made. First, it is not an essay collection, as it has short stories also, so the hook should just say 'collection'. Second, is there any source that says it was compiled after the Russian invasion? It was published after the invasion, yes, but given normal publisher timelines, I would guess that the volume may have already been in the works before February 2022.
Wasted Time R (
talk) 11:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Wasted Time R: Thanks for the copyediting. I think it's ok to call it an essay collection.
Merriam-Webster describes an essay as "an analytic or interpretative literary composition usually dealing with its subject from a limited or personal point of view". Since the short stories are based on Osipov's experiences, I personally believe it fits the description. On the compilation, I'm not sure- none of the sources specifically state that, so I do see a problem too. Here's an ALT proposal, just replacing "compiled" with "published":
@
MyCatIsAChonk: I'm not trying to be difficult, but essays are non-fiction and short stories are fiction and they really are two different things. See for example
this from Palomar College or
this from Writer's Digest. And wording that indicates the collection contains both essays and stories would actually make for a more compelling hook.
Wasted Time R (
talk) 22:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Wasted Time R: Ok, thank you for clarifying that. How about these:
Okay, this is good to go with either ALT2 or ALT3, the DYK promoter can decide which fits best with whatever's going up in that set.
Wasted Time R (
talk) 00:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)reply