Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Agatha Christie bibliography/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:06, 18 October 2015 [1].

Agatha Christie bibliography[edit]

Agatha Christie bibliography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agatha Christie was a truly prodigious writer who turned out 73 novels and 28 short story collections, alongside plays, poems and autobiographical works. Best known for her crime stories, she invented a string of colourful and eccentric characters, including Hercule Poirot, Miss Marple, Parker Pyne, Harley Quin and Tommy and Tuppence Beresford. This list has been extensively re-worked to make it MoS compliant, fully sourced throughout and ready for FLC. Any and all comments welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – A model of its kind. I have tried to find something to quibble at, but can't. Meets the FL criteria, in my view. (I bet I'm the only reviewer you get here who has been running longer than The Mousetrap.) Tim riley talk 19:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Tim for your time and efforts in going through this - all much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, quite well done and well cited. Just too bad we couldn't get an interview with the Tenth Doctor about his impression of her works. — Cirt (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks, Cirt! Your thoughts and comment are very much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks very well researched and compiled. One could say though that the infobox bibliography consists of a "string of colourful and eccentric colours" too though!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Doc, for your time and comments - much appreciated! – SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great effort here on one of my favourite authors.
  • I seem to remember that her work is noted as only being outsold by the Bible and Shakespeare, reaching over a billion copies. If there is a reputable source for that, would really highlight how much of titan she was of literature.
  • Could we reduce the The Floating Admiral note to a footnote or something as it looks very stretched out? In fact since there are very few entries in the notes column, a footnote format may work instead of having a notes column for some of the tables.
  • I've moved the Admiral info into a footnote, and I'll spin through the rest of the notes to see which works best, but I think you're right that more could be moved down to get rid of at least one of the columns. - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lost one of the columns. I think the others have enough in them to be OK. - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A mention of her second husband Max Mallowan in the lead perhaps as travels with him did have an influence in at least the location of many of her works.
  • Perhaps some more discussion on the plays in the lead as The Mousetrap surely deserves a mention as the longest running play.
  • And Then There Were None should also probably be mentioned as it's by far the most popular of her books in terms of sales and critical acclaim.
  • Some discussion of the themes, plot devices that are common in her books and form part of her legacy. The only mention of this currently is "unfailingly clever plots".
  • I'm mulling this one over. At the moment I'm not sure that's the right step for a bibliography like this, as it should go in with the main article (one I want to have a re-write of soon), but let me have a bit more of a think about it. - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you've mentioned a few characters that became popular from her novels. I was wondering if a special mention could be made of Hercule Poirot as she wrote more novels about him than any other and he's certainly the most popular with many adaptations, including an NYT obituary. Obviously with sources supporting this.

Cowlibob (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Cowlibob. All excellent comments; I've actioned some easy ish ones, and will work on the others over the next day or so. The only one I am less sure of is the one about the plots – I'm still thinking it thorough, but this may be best in the main article, rather than here. Cheers, and I hope to have the rest of your points covered soon. – SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All now covered on all but one - the question of the plots. I think that the examination of her technique and the devices is probably best suited to the main Christie article, rather than here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good job, you certainly used your "little grey cells" on this one. Cowlibob (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Cowlibob: good comments and the article has certainly been strengthened because of them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Overall, an excellent job, but I have a few nits to pick:
  • I think the garish infobox should be removed (leaving the picture). It has multiple problems (see my comments here), one of which is that the numbers are often wrong; and indeed, the number for broadcast works is wrong unless the two works with coauthors are discounted for some reason.
  • The IB is fine being there: it is used in several other FLs and many users have previusly commented that they find it an advantage. I've tweaked the number of broadcast works, which negates the problem of the number. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the three sources cited at the top of most of the tables, two (Dalby and Morgan) are very obscure. The Dalby reference is a bit confusing; it's an article in a sort of journal, but no page numbers are provided in the entry under Sources. No version can be accessed online, so I guessed that the entire article spans pages 32-38. Also, I was a bit mystified by the gray number 243 that seemed to float at the end of the citation, so I tried changing the field to volume. It was hard to find the Morgan reference until I discovered that it was volume 77, so I added that information. There are 69 novels in Contemporary authors online, but 73 in the table, so the sourcing implies that the other four are listed in the two sources I can't read. Aren't there more authoritative and accessible overall sources for the list?
  • The two sources are not too obscure (certainly not obscure enough to warrant exclusion and they have been used in several other FLs). I've reverted your alteration to their description as they are issues, not volumes. The sources contan a biography, publication history and then a bibliography of first editions, and the page numbers are for the bibliography only, not the full article. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: I can't find The Book and Magazine Collector in OCLC WorldCat, and all I can find on the web is a picture of the cover for this issue. That's pretty obscure. It means that, for most people, it will be next to impossible to verify any statement using that source. I'm not saying that you need to exclude them - but are there any more accessible sources? As for the issue/volume question, that is just how they are identified in the template. What matters is whether the entry makes sense to readers. Compare these two versions:
  • Dalby, Richard (June 2004). "Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot". The Book and Magazine Collector (243). Diamond Publishing Group. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  • Dalby, Richard (June 2004). "Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot". The Book and Magazine Collector. 243. Diamond Publishing Group: 32–38. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
In the first one, the reader will probably wonder what that number in parentheses means, but they will have no trouble interpreting the second. Also, the first one leaves the reader with the impression that Richard Dalby wrote the whole issue, not just one article in it. The entries in Agatha Christie bibliography#Sources should make sense by themselves, since they are not the actual citations. You could put the page numbers for the entire article there and leave the more specific page numbers in the inline citations. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've already answered this above. Just because you are unable to obtain the publication does not make this an invalid source. As to the formatting, this has been done correctly, but if you don't like it, I suggest you start a discussion at MoS level to determine how we do this on a project-wide basis. – SchroCat (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hall source needs page numbers.
  • The page numbers are inthe individual references and are not needed in the source list. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because of the table format, for some window sizes the pictures won't fit beside the tables so there is a large white gap. I don't know if there is any solution for this.
  • Not as far as I am aware. The images have been shrunk as they are, so unless they are reduced to a ridiculously small size then there is a problem for very small screens. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RockMagnetist(talk) 06:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sorry, but there are a number of statements that are either unsourced or don't agree with the sources:
  1. the number of detective novels is given as 66 in the lead but ref #1 in Contemporary Authors has 69 (which I had to determine by counting the entries).
  2. The infobox says there are 73 novels total, which agrees with the first section, but if you include the 6 novels published under other names in ref #1, there are 75.
  3. The infobox says that there are 28 collections, but there are 34 short story collections in Ref #1.
  4. The infobox says there are 3 collections of poems, ref #1 only identifies two.
  5. The infobox says there are 7 broadcast works, but only two are identified in ref #1.
It is o.k. to provide individual sources for entries in the list, but if you want to provide totals, you need a source that proves the list is complete. And even if you can find sources for the infobox, it does not offer any way to include them. If you get rid of it, all but one of the source problems goes away (but leave the picture!). RockMagnetist(talk) 04:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contemporary Authors is an American publication that doesn't take into account publications outside the US. Take the poems, for example: they say there are 2 collections of poems, but THREE were published. They got the figure wrong, that is all, which is why there are also other sources used alongside it. The same problem comes up with broadcast works: shall we repeat the source that says 2 works, and have a table with seven sourced entries? As with all thing on Wiki, the indobox summarises the article, which is the case here. I'm not impressed that you are opposing based on your opinion of this IB format. You seem to be trying to force removal of this perfectly acceptable IB, which is a questionable approach. – SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the other sources have the correct numbers, then why don't you state them in the body of the list and cite the sources? The actual purpose of the infobox is to "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article" (see Purpose of an infobox). Also note INFOBOXREF: "References are not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious." As your discussion of Contemporary Authors demonstrates, the information is not obvious. Asking the reader to count the entries in the article does not constitute a citation. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The other sources don't show any figures at all: they list books. No-one is asking the readers to count anything, so that's a straw man. – SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I am opposing this article based on your inclusion of this infobox, and I don't care if you're impressed or not. One of the Featured list criteria is that the list must comply "with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages." This infobox violates multiple guidelines, including the above citation issue and the following:
  1. "Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function." (Purpose of an infobox)
  2. "... infoboxes should not be arbitrarily decorative." (Style, color and formatting).
RockMagnetist(talk) 15:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The IB is used in several lists, including FLs. As above, go to the MoS and complain there about the IB, not on an individual FLC based on your personal opinion. – SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So now if an infobox violates the MOS, we should "go to the MoS and complain"? I'm done here - I'll let the director/delegates decide this one. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This box, and several of a similar format, are used across various pages of the project. Some of them have previously reached the level of FL, where they have been promoted with these boxes in place. Targeting a single nomination based on your personal dislike of the box is not the best approach. – SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Agatha_Christie_bibliography/archive1&oldid=1138478918"