Daily page views
|
The Coral Island is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 19, 2015. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Definition lists are not a sensible way of marking up subheadings. The markup ;Notes
produces this html:
<dl> <dt>Notes</dt> </dl>
which is a definition list. See
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/lists.html#h-10.3 . Although it may look like bold markup to a sighted reader, anybody using a non-visual agent will hear the start of a definition list, but no definition. We should not be making our text any more confusing for the visually-impaired than we have to, so I have reverted to using the wikimarkup for bold to delineate the headings. That at least is harmless to most screen readers. Ideally, however, the subheadings should be marked up as third-level headers (using ===) but I understand that some people dislike seeing them in the table table of contents. If there is no objection, I'd like to markup those subheaders as <h3>...</h3>
, and will do so in the absence of further discussion here. --
RexxS (
talk) 15:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sarastro1 ( talk · contribs) 22:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
No real problems, and a very readable, enjoyable article. Although I confess that I'd never heard of the book or the author! My only minor issue is over in-text attribution of one or two quotes, but (if I understand the MoS correctly) you are perfectly entitled to disagree and say that they do not need attribution.
I will place this on hold for the moment, but these are very minor points. Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment: One image licensing issue:
Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 20:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The Coral Island quickly became one of the most popular 19th-cent (sic) adventure stories and was translated into most European languages during the 50 years following publication.
Source: Carpenter, Humphrey, and Mari Prichard. (1984). The Oxford Companion to Chidren's Literature. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-211582-0, p. 131
About evil - [1] > mostly first half but picked up again at the end. Negative review (very short) from well-known critic Harold Bloom > page 8. Victoria ( talk) 15:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The edit was made because at first I thought that this was the only person whose professional status is given. Actually this isn't the case, but the article nevertheless inconsistently applies details for the figures that it offers. For instance, "Brian Street", "M. Daphne Kutzer", "Katharine Anderson" and "Fiona McCulloch" are all not identified by their professional status, but others are. MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk) 12:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/The Coral Island -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Which 3 characters in LotF compare with the 3 in Coral Island? Jack and Ralph are obvious as they share names, but is Peterkin analogous to Piggy, or is he analogous to Simon, since together they suggest Simon Peter? This was the view of the teacher when we studied LotF at school. PatGallacher ( talk) 00:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The current text here claims that The Coral Island (published 1857) is rooted in Darwin's theory of evolution (published 1859). This would be a neat temporal trick, and the current text tries to justify this apparent backwards causation as follows: "Published a year before Darwin's Origin of Species (whose ideas were already being circulated and discussed widely), The Coral Island reflects the then prevalent view of evolutionary theory; ..." This is a nice try, but unconvincing as Darwin's decision to finally publish his ideas was (according to the Wiki article, On_the_Origin_of_Species#Time_taken_to_publish due to his receipt of a letter from Wallace on 18 June 1858 which made him realise that Wallace was also on the same track. Ergo, Darwin/Wallace's ideas could not already have been in widespread circulation in the previous year 1857, when The Coral Island was published. If these ideas had already been circulated and discussed widely, then Wallace's letter would not have had its reported impact on Darwin's decision. I'm suggesting the simplest fix would be simply to delete this paragraph? Dodo64 ( talk) 00:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.214.37 ( talk)
I changed 'elementary school' to 'primary school'. The article already has mentions of primary school in the lead; it's about a British author and talking about the British education system, so it makes no sense to use the US school system descriptor. I have linked to primary school to elementary school so anyone unfamiliar with the term can click on the link, as I had to do with elementary school. US terms don't take precedence.
Also a sentence about a simplified version for 12-14 year olds didn't state which country. US is not the default in Wikipedia. The country needs stating.
Otherwise, great article and congratulations to those involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.195.19 ( talk) 06:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Immediately following the bolded title, 1858 is given as the year of publication. But in the second paragraph it says "the book first went on sale in late 1857". So which is it? JH ( talk page) 08:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/The Coral Island - 2 -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Coral Island (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Daily page views
|
The Coral Island is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 19, 2015. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Definition lists are not a sensible way of marking up subheadings. The markup ;Notes
produces this html:
<dl> <dt>Notes</dt> </dl>
which is a definition list. See
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/lists.html#h-10.3 . Although it may look like bold markup to a sighted reader, anybody using a non-visual agent will hear the start of a definition list, but no definition. We should not be making our text any more confusing for the visually-impaired than we have to, so I have reverted to using the wikimarkup for bold to delineate the headings. That at least is harmless to most screen readers. Ideally, however, the subheadings should be marked up as third-level headers (using ===) but I understand that some people dislike seeing them in the table table of contents. If there is no objection, I'd like to markup those subheaders as <h3>...</h3>
, and will do so in the absence of further discussion here. --
RexxS (
talk) 15:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sarastro1 ( talk · contribs) 22:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
No real problems, and a very readable, enjoyable article. Although I confess that I'd never heard of the book or the author! My only minor issue is over in-text attribution of one or two quotes, but (if I understand the MoS correctly) you are perfectly entitled to disagree and say that they do not need attribution.
I will place this on hold for the moment, but these are very minor points. Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Comment: One image licensing issue:
Grandiose ( me, talk, contribs) 20:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The Coral Island quickly became one of the most popular 19th-cent (sic) adventure stories and was translated into most European languages during the 50 years following publication.
Source: Carpenter, Humphrey, and Mari Prichard. (1984). The Oxford Companion to Chidren's Literature. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-211582-0, p. 131
About evil - [1] > mostly first half but picked up again at the end. Negative review (very short) from well-known critic Harold Bloom > page 8. Victoria ( talk) 15:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The edit was made because at first I thought that this was the only person whose professional status is given. Actually this isn't the case, but the article nevertheless inconsistently applies details for the figures that it offers. For instance, "Brian Street", "M. Daphne Kutzer", "Katharine Anderson" and "Fiona McCulloch" are all not identified by their professional status, but others are. MasterOfHisOwnDomain ( talk) 12:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/The Coral Island -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Which 3 characters in LotF compare with the 3 in Coral Island? Jack and Ralph are obvious as they share names, but is Peterkin analogous to Piggy, or is he analogous to Simon, since together they suggest Simon Peter? This was the view of the teacher when we studied LotF at school. PatGallacher ( talk) 00:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
The current text here claims that The Coral Island (published 1857) is rooted in Darwin's theory of evolution (published 1859). This would be a neat temporal trick, and the current text tries to justify this apparent backwards causation as follows: "Published a year before Darwin's Origin of Species (whose ideas were already being circulated and discussed widely), The Coral Island reflects the then prevalent view of evolutionary theory; ..." This is a nice try, but unconvincing as Darwin's decision to finally publish his ideas was (according to the Wiki article, On_the_Origin_of_Species#Time_taken_to_publish due to his receipt of a letter from Wallace on 18 June 1858 which made him realise that Wallace was also on the same track. Ergo, Darwin/Wallace's ideas could not already have been in widespread circulation in the previous year 1857, when The Coral Island was published. If these ideas had already been circulated and discussed widely, then Wallace's letter would not have had its reported impact on Darwin's decision. I'm suggesting the simplest fix would be simply to delete this paragraph? Dodo64 ( talk) 00:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.214.37 ( talk)
I changed 'elementary school' to 'primary school'. The article already has mentions of primary school in the lead; it's about a British author and talking about the British education system, so it makes no sense to use the US school system descriptor. I have linked to primary school to elementary school so anyone unfamiliar with the term can click on the link, as I had to do with elementary school. US terms don't take precedence.
Also a sentence about a simplified version for 12-14 year olds didn't state which country. US is not the default in Wikipedia. The country needs stating.
Otherwise, great article and congratulations to those involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.195.19 ( talk) 06:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Immediately following the bolded title, 1858 is given as the year of publication. But in the second paragraph it says "the book first went on sale in late 1857". So which is it? JH ( talk page) 08:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/The Coral Island - 2 -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Coral Island (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)