290:, there is no plot exemption. By my count using DYKcheck, the article has expanded from 5,044 to 14,047 prose characters. The plot has decreased from 4196 to 3684 characters; though it has been cleaned up significantly, much is retained intact. Oceanh's original calculations are basically correct: the article would need over 11,000 additional characters to qualify for the 5x expansion. I'd be interested to hear whether some of the long-time DYK folks have found occasion to give exceptions to cases like this in the past or feel it's appropriate to do so now, since the article had only been a single paragraph of information about the book with an enormous plot section, and is now useful and informative. (In short, is this a case of
324:
There apparently has been much literary analysis/criticism of this book that could be discussed in the article. For example, in the
Apollonio book I learned that one scholar has found a strong and direct relationship between the book and Dostoyevsky's own life, and in several sources I learn that scholars consider this to have been highly "literary" (one source calls it the most literary of the author's works) and I find extensive commentary on the subplots and themes in the book. The "Reception" section of the current Knowledge article seems to be limited to contemporary reception plus a somewhat flip newspaper piece from 2010; I would expect to see more information on critical reaction over the last 155 years. --
225:). To complete the review: The original hook is fine; size is ok, it is cited in the article, and verified in the cited reference. I think the ALT1 hook would need to be rephrased (for instance changing "intended" to "said he intended"), as the cited letter does not verify that he really intended to hang himself; saying this in a letter to his brother might be a way of just pointing out he was in financial trouble. But original hook is fine.
497:
283:
164:
217:
523:
448:
167:
This is a nice article, and you did a good job with the expansion. The readable prose is expanded from 5,056 to 13,809 characters within the last five days. This is an expansion factor of 2.7, while DYK rules require fivefold expansion. Please correct me if I did something wrong in the calculations.
323:
I also wondered if this is a good FA candidate, but concluded it isn't nearly there yet. When I poked around some of the cited references that are available online to look for content that could be used to expand the current article beyond its current size, I found some interesting possibilities.
317:
plot exemption being applied in the past. The work on the article by GreatOrangePumpkin/Kürbis/Tomcat7 is impressive and the article and hooks are very interesting. I see that it has been submitted as a GA nomination -- it appears to be a solid candidate for that. If we were featuring GAs in DYK,
451:
It has been about 12 days, and no significant additions have been made: only a few hundred prose characters in that time period. Regrettably, this article is not going to qualify for approval under current DYK rules, as it has a 3x expansion and needs 5x, or another 10,000 or so characters.
220:
I notice that the article has been even further expanded. If we take out the plot section from the calculations, expansion is more than sufficient. I thus ask for a second opinion, and will support promotion if there is consensus (see also the
355:
As noted, several of the cited sources contain discussions of critiques of this book (mostly by scholars) over the last 1-1/2 centuries, but this information was largely absent from the article. --
138:
471:
that there should be a plot exception as the plot summary is unencyclopedic and unreferenced and unjustified. Also plot was ignored for years, but someone changed the rules.
548:
426:
There are 14892 characters now. It is almost impossible to reach the goal of 25000+ characters. I may create a section discussing the book's characters. Regards.--
504:
page. However, I believe the declaration of consensus there was premature, and have registered my opposition to the proposed rule change.
36:
244:
before, but started reading it tonight (the book was already present in my bookshelf, along with most of
Dostoyevsky's major works).
17:
168:
I notice the article has been nominated for peer review, and wish good luck with the process of bringing it to GA or FA.
376:
346:
268:
205:
188:
152:
44:
82:
406:
I found more reception which may have overall 11,000 characters. So don't close this discussion please! Regards.--
201:
184:
148:
531:
509:
457:
299:
65:
472:
501:
468:
287:
245:
226:
169:
29:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.
482:
433:
413:
120:
98:
527:
505:
453:
393:
360:
329:
295:
249:
230:
173:
61:
369:
If there is no plot exemption then I can basically create a piece-by-piece plot section? --
500:
I'm willing to put the rejection in abeyance while this is further thrashed out on the
475:
for example was rejected because it was mainly composed of the plot summary. Regards.--
40:
216:
542:
291:
496:
282:
163:
476:
427:
407:
370:
340:
262:
522:
447:
222:
313:
I agree that there is no plot exemption in the DYK rules, and I don't recall any
389:
356:
325:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
126:
104:
240:
Obviously, I also find the hooks interesting. I have not read the novel
47:), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page.
183:
If you take out the plot section it is 100% expansion. Regards.--
294:
or not?) If so, then there would be a reason to review it.
200:
I know checked and the tool states that it is elligible.--
261:
Could someone eventually review this? Thanks. Regards.--
139:
Template:Did you know nominations/Roestam Sutan
Palindih
87:
526:
Consensus is against exempting the plot. —
339:I will try to search for current reception.--
8:
49:No further edits should be made to this page
155:). Self nom at 15:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
549:Failed DYK nominations from October 2012
109:was named Russia's first social novel?
388:I don't understand the question... --
7:
223:ongoing discussion on the talk page
467:Not fair. Several users agreed in
24:
18:Template:Did you know nominations
521:
495:
446:
318:this would be a great candidate.
281:
215:
162:
123:intended to hang himself if his
534:) 23:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
68:) 23:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify this page.
512:) 16:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
460:) 15:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
396:) 02:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
363:) 02:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
332:) 14:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
302:) 01:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
1:
382:20:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
352:20:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
252:) 23:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
233:) 22:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
208:) 17:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
191:) 09:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
176:) 01:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
488:15:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
439:18:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
419:20:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
274:10:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
45:Knowledge talk:Did you know
37:this nomination's talk page
565:
131:should become a failure?
41:the article's talk page
147:Created/expanded by
473:There Lived Kozyavin
149:GreatOrangePumpkin
156:
121:Fyodor Dostoevsky
99:Fyodor Dostoevsky
556:
525:
499:
450:
285:
219:
166:
146:
60:by —
56:The result was:
34:
564:
563:
559:
558:
557:
555:
554:
553:
539:
538:
537:
94:
92:
88:Article history
76:
69:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
562:
560:
552:
551:
541:
540:
536:
535:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
490:
489:
462:
461:
443:
442:
441:
440:
421:
420:
400:
399:
398:
397:
367:
366:
365:
364:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
320:
319:
306:
305:
304:
303:
276:
275:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
235:
234:
210:
209:
197:
196:
195:
194:
193:
192:
178:
177:
144:
143:
142:
141:
132:
111:
110:
91:
90:
85:
83:Back to T:TDYK
79:
77:
75:
72:
54:
53:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
561:
550:
547:
546:
544:
533:
529:
524:
520:
519:
511:
507:
503:
498:
494:
493:
492:
491:
487:
486:
484:
478:
474:
470:
466:
465:
464:
463:
459:
455:
449:
445:
444:
438:
437:
435:
429:
425:
424:
423:
422:
418:
417:
415:
409:
405:
402:
401:
395:
391:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
381:
380:
378:
372:
362:
358:
354:
353:
351:
350:
348:
342:
338:
331:
327:
322:
321:
316:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
301:
297:
293:
289:
284:
280:
279:
278:
277:
273:
272:
270:
264:
260:
259:
251:
247:
243:
239:
238:
237:
236:
232:
228:
224:
218:
214:
213:
212:
211:
207:
203:
199:
198:
190:
186:
182:
181:
180:
179:
175:
171:
165:
161:
160:
159:
158:
157:
154:
150:
140:
136:
133:
130:
129:
128:
122:
118:
115:
114:
113:
112:
108:
107:
106:
100:
96:
95:
89:
86:
84:
81:
80:
73:
71:
67:
63:
59:
52:
50:
46:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
480:
479:
431:
430:
411:
410:
403:
374:
373:
368:
344:
343:
314:
286:As noted in
266:
265:
241:
145:
134:
125:
124:
116:
103:
102:
57:
55:
48:
31:
28:
528:Crisco 1492
506:BlueMoonset
454:BlueMoonset
296:BlueMoonset
127:debut novel
62:Crisco 1492
119::... that
242:Poor Folk
105:Poor Folk
97:... that
74:Poor Folk
543:Category
315:de facto
135:Reviewed
58:rejected
70:Length
502:WT:DYK
477:Tomcat
469:WT:DYK
428:Tomcat
408:Tomcat
390:Orlady
371:Tomcat
357:Orlady
341:Tomcat
326:Orlady
292:WP:IAR
288:WT:DYK
263:Tomcat
246:Oceanh
227:Oceanh
202:Kürbis
185:Kürbis
170:Oceanh
16:<
532:talk
510:talk
458:talk
404:Note
394:talk
361:talk
330:talk
300:talk
250:talk
231:talk
174:talk
153:talk
117:ALT1
66:talk
101:'s
43:or
545::
137::
78:(
39:,
530:(
508:(
485:)
483:7
481:(
456:(
436:)
434:7
432:(
416:)
414:7
412:(
392:(
379:)
377:7
375:(
359:(
349:)
347:7
345:(
328:(
298:(
271:)
269:7
267:(
248:(
229:(
206:✔
204:(
189:✔
187:(
172:(
151:(
93:)
64:(
51:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
