Talk:Indian Camp

This review is transcluded from Talk:Indian Camp/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: One found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  

   Prose is good, complies with essential details of MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  

   Those that are on-line, OK, assume good faith for off-line sources, sufficiently referenced, no signs of OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):   b (focused):  

   Hemingway was on a train, returning from New York to Toronto, during Hadley's labor. Presumably Hadley is Hemingways' wife or lover but needs a little more explanation.   Done

• I'd just noticed that wasn't explained or linked, but now done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:  

   NPOV

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:  

   No edit warring

3. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  

4. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:  

   One small point to be addressed. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

   Thanks for the quick response, I am happy to pass this as a GA. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

   Thanks! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi TK88. This sentence is confusing because of the double quotes: At that time Edmund Wilson wrote "that 'Hemingway's prose was of the first distinction'". If there is an internal quote (inside Wilson's), then essentially it's quoting someone else. In any case the "that" should be outside quotation marks because it functions as part of the article author's voice ("wrote that..."). I'll leave any other comments here... Riggr Mortis (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's probably a mistake. At any rate it's better to start the quote with "Hemingway ..... " Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I found the source. It's someone else quoting Wilson [2]. How about At that time Edmund Wilson wrote that Hemingway's writing was "of the first distinction".? Close paraphrasing? Or something. Riggr Mortis (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, missed this. It's maybe a little close now, but I think I have to work on the IOT vs iot issue, so let me see if I can put it all together. I have another source with Wilson's review that I might get more than a few words from. Something's come up in real life, so working slowly at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

There were two IOT's; the first printed in Paris and titled in our time; the second published in New York and titled In Our Time. "Indian Camp" was published in the second but not the first. I think that's maybe not clear, the problem is that I haven't found a source to explain this in a succinct manner. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oops. Riggr Mortis (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just fixed it. Also remembered there's text in the biography I can copy over to explain. But will wait until later. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Had a bunch of review comments. 3 pages of legal pad. It's just how I engage with things. It's really the norm in academia or certain types of business work.

Started to transcribe it, but it is a lot of work. So...I stopped. And the things vary from ones I could probably CE myself with no disagreement ("Hemingway has Nick is left in the woods") to ones where you may not agree with me. And then I had a few comments on the story itself, which boil down to Hemingway is over-rated and Steinbeck under-rated. Suggestions?

TCO (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm familiar with how things are done in academia and in the business world. That said, it sounds as though you've got a fair number of things to say, and at the moment I'm not much in the mood for Wikipedia. This honestly began as a student project (I wasn't the student) and will continue to be used in that manner, so if you have strong feelings about how it's written I'd prefer you strike your support and just let it be. Otherwise, post here and I'll have a look. No-one touches the Steinbeck pages and I'm the only person to touch Hemingway. I like both equally and I don't think our job is to make those kinds of distinctions. Our job is to report what we find in the best sources, not to look for a source to cite an opinion we might have. Apologies if this seems rude, but as I said earlier, am fairly disgusted at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

No sweat. That's one of the reasons I did not share it. I didn't want to move things backwards by being demotivating.

The support stands. It was more in the nature of nuances, but I honestly think the thing is quite strong enough for a star already.

Hope you feel better and don't let the Wikipediots get you down.

P.s. I absolutely don't think you should compare the writers in your article! I'm just sharing that your article made me think of the two. I engaged in the content...this has nothing to do with Wiki. Just a personal reaction. 22:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

For the source Hemingway's Primitivism and "Indian Camp", should the original journal submission be cited? (http://www.jstor.org/stable/441078)Smallman12q (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

I didn't get it from there, so would prefer not to, unless there's a compelling reason. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

We have two different articles on two different journals. The uppercase Transatlantic Journal is not the same journal as the lowercase transatlantic journal. I'm up to my eyeballs with work (as in the paying real world kind of work) and have had to revert this twice today - apparently because of MOS issues. If MoS doesn't allow lowercase, though the journal was intentionally titled in lowercase, then at least allow me to dab to the correct page, and give the benefit of the doubt that editor who brought this to FAC knows their research. This link shows an image of Ford's transatlantic review. I'd prefer it to be lowercase - what do we do about e.e. cummings? Truthkeeper (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

You are correct about dabbing to the correct page. Sorry, I missed that. I was correcting capitalization according to MoS, without noticing there was another Transatlantic Journal, so your disambiguation is the correct solution, which I applied to the Main Page summary as well.

e.e. cummings is not capitalized, according to MOS:CAPS#Mixed or non-capitalization. But according to that guideline as well as what I cited earlier, trademarks like "adidas", "thirtysomething", and "craigslist", but not necessarily individuals, should be capitalized.

As for the phrase appearing uncapitalized in the previous Featured Article Ernest Hemingway: Although I don't watch Featured Articles much unless they get to the Main Page, I believe the usual reason for non-compliance with the Manual of Style is because nobody noticed, not because there was a consensus for an exception. My software almost always finds Manual of Style problems of some kind in Featured Articles. The Manual of Style, complete with subpages such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademark), contains 1.4 megabytes of text last time I added it. And as I have often complained, the MoS is harder to search than it needs to be.

Finally, if you want to change that guideline, I won't stop you at all. I just think that if we have a guideline, Wikipedia runs more smoothly if we use it. More details at User:Art LaPella/Because the guideline says so. Art LaPella (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I'm just very cranky because I'm exhausted at the moment. The issue with this page is that Hemingway published this story in a literary journal titled transatlantic review (no caps), and in the book In Our Time. To add to the complication, In Our Time was published first in Paris as in our time (no caps) with somewhat different content, but the reviews he initially received were for the Parisian in our time, not for the American In Our Time. So, as with many things with the modernists, it's all a little complicated, but it should be correct when it goes to the front page. If that makes sense. And I apologize for being snarky - have only peeked in twice today and twice have had to revert, which I don't generally like doing. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I didn't notice any snarkiness (MoS issues often cause total war over things like spaces). But I'm not sure if "should be correct" means you agree or disagree. So I'll just re-emphasize that the guideline anticipates that trademarks of publications like "craigslist" are ordinarily uncapitalized off Wikipedia. Also, the first edit wasn't mine. And "in our time" makes a good case for an exception. Art LaPella (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ah, good thanks. That's what I was worried about - the title for that edition shouldn't be changed. I realize I only reverted you once - and that I'm not being totally clear at the moment. Am trying to get finished with work so I can swing through the page and check it before goes to the main page. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wouldnt an actual picture of a copy of "Indian Camp" be more relevant as the main picture than a picture of Hemingway? I dont know if a picture is out there... BlakeAllred (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

There isn't a picture and the picture of the book had to be removed from the lead at some point. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

There are no pictures of the book that can be used without copy right infringement? The picture of 'In our time' is misleading.Meatsgains (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand the significance of this: "blocked out much of the caesarian but he had clearly seen the father's head tilted back." What was the importance of seeing his father's head tilted back?

Also, Hannum writes that the treatment of the Uncle George character results from the "never-resolved implication of the paternity of the Indian child". Was Uncle George purported to be be father of the Indian child, or what? Thanks, Manny may (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

First, thanks for your copyedits - very much appreciated. I've had no time to do anything about this page & haven't been able to tend it, so your help is welcome. I need to get into the sources which will take a little time - but off the top of my head: Nick seeing the father's head tilted meant he saw the fatal wound (but need to see what exactly the text and the source has to say); and yes, there has been suggestion by some critics that George may have been the father of the child. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello there. Firstly I'd just like to say well done on getting this to FA status, but I do have a point that I'd like to raise; this article talks about "Indians" in the opening introduction, but I (as an English Wikipedian) immediately assumed that they were talking about the people of the Indian subcontinent; only reading on did I come to assume that the article was in fact discussing Native American "Indians". This really needs to be made clearer, as for millions around the world the term "Indian" does not naturally conjure up the idea of Indigenous Americans. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC))Reply

Good point. I'll fix it if someone else hasn't already. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, given the subsequent discussion, saying "Native American" may be equally flawed, as Hemmingway could have very well been referring to Canadian indigenous peoples (First Nations,etc.) I don't think it's wrong to use Indians in the context of describing what he was writing about, because that's the word he used. I understand it's not a preferred term, but the article is not about the (anonymous) peoples in question, it's about the story. In the story, they're Indians. Perhaps it would be best to add an explanatory note? I was going to revert and ask we come to consensus here, but there have been a slew of changes since. Please discuss here, and let's agree what to change accordingly. My suggestion is that anytime we are referring to the plot, what happens, the subject of the book, we should use the language included in the book. In the context of the story, there is no confusion over what "Indian" means. 204.65.34.156 (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

As an extension to my previous point (see above), I was wondering if there was an information on which particular Indigenous tribal and/or ethnic group the "Indian camp" belonged to ? If this knowledge was known then it would surely be of great relevance to the article. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC))Reply

I would have added it if I knew, and I searched all the literature. Hemingway grew up in Michigan - some critics speculate the story was set in Canada, others that it was set in Michigan, and to be honest, I haven't all of my sources at hand at the moment - this TFA was unexpected. I really don't know which tribe, but to be honest, the way Hemingway wrote, he would have intentionally not identified the tribe because it's not relevant to the story. We can't put that in because it's OR. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please refer to discussion above. We need to come to some sort of consensus on a consistent terminology in the article. This discussion points out the issue of using "Native American" or even American indigenous people in place of Indian. We don't know that they're American, so the first is out, and the second is not a widely used name, which leads to the same issues with confusing Indian (North American indigenous) with Indian (of the Asian subcontinent).204.65.34.156 (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

'Native American' does not only refer to tribes who lived in the continental U.S., it refers to the actual continent as a whole, which includes Canada. So its use in the article mades sense.Meatsgains (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I can't at the moment remember which source it's in, but I've read somewhere an inconclusive discussion about whether they were crossing a lake from Michigan to Canada, or to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Without a source we can't know. Certainly it would be nice if someone could find a source pinpointing a specific tribe, but had Hemingway wanted us to know the tribe he would have mentioned it. In the meantime, I think Native American is the better term if we have to link at all. I'd prefer not to link, but the point about our readership is valid, so some kind of link should be provided to ease confusion. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

How about simply referring to an "unspecified Native American people in northern North America", as the term "Native American" includes not only the peoples of the contemporary U.S. and Canada, but the peoples of Mexico, Peru, Bolivia etc. ? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC))Reply

To be honest I think it's much ado about nothing. We don't know. The title of the story is "Indian Camp" and to change all the incidences of Indian to Native American seems a bit odd - the title of the story won't be changed. Anyway, I welcome consensus for this. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

unspecified Native American people in northern North America is very acquard and obviously not a phrase used in the sources. The context explains, I don't see an issue here. Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Agree with Ceoil. The story was written nearly 100 years ago and uses the terminology of the time. Absence evidence from a RS, I don't believe Hemingway wanted to specify what tribe, as it is immaterial to the story. To do so now with 2011 eyes runs against the spirit of the piece, IMO, since the author didn't even want to specify the location. Manny may (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Quite. Thanks Mm. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've put back Indian. I don't mind dabbing Indian to Native American for readers who are unfamiliar with Hemingway - I think that's reasonable. But I think we need to stick with the language of the story, even if that language has changed in the past century. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

and thanks a lot to the main author (Truthkeeper88 ?). Just wanted to add : I thought the photo of Ernest & Hadley in 1922 had been taken in Chamby, a little village above Montreux , Switzerland ( I live nearby, on the southern shore). Many thanks nevertheless : great text. T.y. Arapaima (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for these comments. I see that I need to fix the link for the image of Ernest and Hadley - if it is Chamby, then it should be removed. But I think there is one of them in Schruns. I'll have a look at the article on fr WP. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Is reference 23 formatted correctly? Surely it should be Meyers 1985, pp. 120–208, 560 as opposed to the current Meyers 1985, pp. 560, 208–120? -- Cassianto^Talk 17:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply