![]() | A fact from The Undercommons appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 December 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
02:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Created by Ezlev ( talk). Self-nominated at 06:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
(
t ·
c)
buidhe
13:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
to show the views of the groups represented by those journals– so I think it's okay to leave the mention of the review, which is clearly attributed, but I've removed the portion of the synopsis that's currently sourced to that review. Let me know if you disagree or if you think we're good to go, and thanks for the review! ezlev ( user/ tlk/ ctrbs) 19:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Ezlev: - The current Synopsis section is woefully short, to the degree that if I'd been the DYK reviewer I wouldn't have passed it. There's an obvious, obvious question here - what was the criticism? There's LOTS of things that people can dislike about academia - which angles does the author take? Too many PhDs, not enough professorships? Grad students / lecturers are underpaid? Administration / faculty is too liberal / too conservative / too spinelessly moderate? Racist or classist? What even are the "undercommons" anyway (I'd guess the grad students & postdocs myself, but I'm wildly guessing)? Is it possible to expand this section at all? SnowFire ( talk) 02:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
What even are the "undercommons" anywayis a question I'd love to answer in concrete terms but I'm not sure I could even after reading the book from cover to cover, which I think the authors might say is part of the point. All that is to say that I wouldn't want my own (potentially mis)interpretations of the essays to serve as Wikipedia's synopsis for them. I'd be more comfortable letting third-party sources do the talking, but the ones I found don't go into much detail.
I see what you're saying about the sources, though. Why is nobody willing to state the freaking obvious that this is a far leftist perspective? You'd think that quoting Fanon and the like would have tipped people off, but I guess it's too obvious. Or even just basic things the essay seems to be trying to say that I'm pretty sure I understand the attempted statement, but have similar reservations as to you, it's not stated quite 100% plainly, yet the sources don't acknowledge this? I read the first two essays, and I have to say I really don't like this work, but I guess I'm not the target audience... SnowFire ( talk) 04:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I saw that there is a draft for Stefano Harney. Any help would be appreciated! Thriley ( talk) 05:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from The Undercommons appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 December 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result was: promoted by
Theleekycauldron (
talk)
02:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Created by Ezlev ( talk). Self-nominated at 06:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
(
t ·
c)
buidhe
13:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
to show the views of the groups represented by those journals– so I think it's okay to leave the mention of the review, which is clearly attributed, but I've removed the portion of the synopsis that's currently sourced to that review. Let me know if you disagree or if you think we're good to go, and thanks for the review! ezlev ( user/ tlk/ ctrbs) 19:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Ezlev: - The current Synopsis section is woefully short, to the degree that if I'd been the DYK reviewer I wouldn't have passed it. There's an obvious, obvious question here - what was the criticism? There's LOTS of things that people can dislike about academia - which angles does the author take? Too many PhDs, not enough professorships? Grad students / lecturers are underpaid? Administration / faculty is too liberal / too conservative / too spinelessly moderate? Racist or classist? What even are the "undercommons" anyway (I'd guess the grad students & postdocs myself, but I'm wildly guessing)? Is it possible to expand this section at all? SnowFire ( talk) 02:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
What even are the "undercommons" anywayis a question I'd love to answer in concrete terms but I'm not sure I could even after reading the book from cover to cover, which I think the authors might say is part of the point. All that is to say that I wouldn't want my own (potentially mis)interpretations of the essays to serve as Wikipedia's synopsis for them. I'd be more comfortable letting third-party sources do the talking, but the ones I found don't go into much detail.
I see what you're saying about the sources, though. Why is nobody willing to state the freaking obvious that this is a far leftist perspective? You'd think that quoting Fanon and the like would have tipped people off, but I guess it's too obvious. Or even just basic things the essay seems to be trying to say that I'm pretty sure I understand the attempted statement, but have similar reservations as to you, it's not stated quite 100% plainly, yet the sources don't acknowledge this? I read the first two essays, and I have to say I really don't like this work, but I guess I'm not the target audience... SnowFire ( talk) 04:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I saw that there is a draft for Stefano Harney. Any help would be appreciated! Thriley ( talk) 05:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)