Wikipedia

Talk:Fyodor Dostoevsky/GA2

< Talk:Fyodor Dostoevsky
(Redirected from Talk:Fyodor Dostoyevsky/GA2)
Latest comment: 12 years ago by GreatOrangePumpkin in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago51 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer:: Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Figureskatingfan's review

Hi, I tend to do a cursory review, and then follow up with comments. Will try to complete over the weekend, in fits and starts.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

A comprehensive (meaning: long) piece of work; the editors have obviously worked lovingly and arduously on it, and I commend you for that.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    The prose is certainly good enough at the GA level, but there are, as the previous reviewer pointed out, some peacock usage, as well as some awkward wording. I like to make suggestions about the prose after my initial review, so see below. My main problem with the current version of this article is that it's very long. I highly recommend that you cut its length by WP:Content forking. For example, you could create new articles out of Themes and styles and Legacy, and perhaps even of Religious views, and then write summaries of them in this article. I did that very thing in one of the articles I work on: Maya Angelou. The lead is, consequently, not complete; it doesn't summarize the content in the final sections. Forking would correct that issue.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    As with many literature articles, most of the sources in this article, and rightly so, are from off-line sources. That's a necessity, but the challenge in reviewing it is that it's impossible to check for sourcing. Consequently, one has to assume good faith, and with the experience of the main editor, I'm willing to do so. I do have some concerns about close paraphrasing, which I'll address in my comments below.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    This area is one of the article's strengths.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    Neutral, well reasoned, and does a good job at presenting different views about Dostoyevsky's life and works.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
    The issue the previous reviewer had with stability is due, I believe, to the main editor's enthusiasm for improving the article. I see no problem with instability or with edit wars, etc.
  6. 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):  
    I'm so jealous of you guys that edit about old stuff! It's so easy to deal with images, since they're all in the public domain due to age. Most of the articles I edit are about more modern topics, so I don't have it as easy. ;) At any rate, the images in this article are beautiful, and well chosen.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    Once you address the issues I raise, this shouldn't have any problems passing to GA. See below for further comments, which I'll get to later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Comments

Childhood

  • The Dostoyevskys were a multi-ethnic and multi-denominational Lithuanian nobility from the Pinsk region... I'm not sure what that means. If it means that D's family were made up of many ethnic Lithuanian groups and Christian denominations, say so. I'm also confused about the family being "multi-denominational" and part of the clergy.
That doesn't answer my question. What does the source say? If the source is unclear, it's best to remove it. The most important thing is that his family were noble.
Well, it means that the Dostoyevskys are a Lithuanian noble family which have roots up to the 16th century [1]. There were branches of Orthodox and Catholic members, as the citizens of the Pinsk region were of either denominations.--Kürbis (✔) 19:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • ...however, Dostoyevsky's immediate forebears had fallen on hard times and had been reduced to the class of non-monastic clergy. Here's one of my close paraphrasing issues. Frank states, The Orthodox Dostoyevskys, however, falling on hard times, sank into the lowly class of the non-monastic clergy. Both versions are pretty close, so I recommend changing it. I'm not sure that it's necessary to mention the particulars; you could just state that D's family was nobility and that many had been monks and priests. It is important, however, to mention that D's father was expected to become a priest and broke with his family over it. I would recommend that you go through your sources and correct for close paraphrasing, because if you take this to FAC, they will zap you for it. I also suspect that much of this article's choppiness and awkward wording is a result of close paraphrasing, and that improving it will take care of it. I'm not going to go through every instance of it that I see, since I don't have access to all the sources, and I won't fail this GAC because of it, since I think the prose currently fulfills the lower requirements of GAs. I think you should do it, though.
  • Another consistent issue with this article is wordiness, which I think could be improved with a good copyedit. For example, if I were copyediting this, this is what I'd do with the second paragraph of this section: "In 1809, at the age of twenty, Dostoyevsky's father Mikhail entered Moscow's Imperial Medical-Surgical Academy. He was assigned to a Moscow hospital as a military doctor and was appointed senior physician in 1818. In 1819 he married Maria Nechayeva. One year later he resigned from military service to accept a post at the Mariinsky Hospital for the poor. After the birth of two sons, Mikhail and Fyodor, he was promoted to the post of collegiate assessor, a position that gave him nobility-status and enabled him to acquire a small estate, 150 versts (about 150 km, 100 miles) from Moscow, called Darovoye. Dostoyevsky's mother Nechayeva was descended from a family of Russian merchants. Both parents may have had Tatar ancestry as well. Maria and Mikhail had five more children after Fydor and his elder brother were born."
  • The following paragraph isn't always clear. What stories was D obsessed by? Was Frolovna one of his nannies, and what connection does Marei have with D and his family? "Terrible tales", "miserable hospital garden", and "undesirable influences", "convalescing patients", and "traumatic experience" are all weasel-y. Again, correcting for close paraphrasing and a good copyedit would help correct this problem. Again, I won't go through all instances of weasel words, since this review would be really long if I did.
  • With stories general. Yep. Marei influenced his view of Slavophilism. I can ensure 99% that this is not close paragraphing. I used my own words instead. Not sure why they are weasly. It is important to say that the tales were not tales as you know them but really terrible . Same situation with the garden. Ditto with undesirable. Convalescing describes ill people.--Kürbis (✔) 10:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I suggest that you read WP:W2W, which lists what you should avoid (also includes peacock terms).
I know this guideline. These adjectives are not "weasily" as stated. Sometimes it is important to add such words. There should be "terrible" before "tales" as tales are normally not terrible. It should be noted that the garden was not beautiful but miserable. His influences were not to be desirable, but undesirable; a big difference. The patients were convalescing and not just simple patients.--Kürbis (✔) 19:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Youth

  • Again, more questions. First paragraph: What "political propensity under Nicholas I"? You either need to explain it, or if you can't, omit it. What's a "posting house" and "carter"? Who are D's "godmothers"? This is the first reference to them. Also the first sentence has a tense-agreement error: Fyodor and Mikhail were therefore forced to abandon their academic studies at the Moscow college in favour of a career path that seems already to have been decided...
  • Propensity means "inclination, tendency". Godmother is a legal guardian; they helped them financially. A posting house is a house to post the post. A carter is a carriage driver. Not sure about "seems" either; for me it is a general statement uninfluenced to any time or period.--Kürbis (✔) 10:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
You misunderstand what I'm asking. What was it about Nicholas I's "political propensity" that made it possible for the brothers to enter a military career? Again, without the source, I can't know what you're talking about. Re: the godmothers: I have no idea who they are. Perhaps it's too specific. Would it be enough to simply refer to them as the brothers' family members? The word "seems" breaks the tense-agreement rule in English. How about: " Fyodor and Mikhail were therefore forced to abandon their academic studies at the Moscow college in favour of a career path that was already decided for them..."
I linked to Godparent. I reworded per your suggestion. Added that Nicholas I supported the academy.--Kürbis (✔) 19:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Why is it important where D's academy was built? I ask because you seem to add things that have bearing on his later works, which is positive.
Yes, it's interesting, but it has nothing to do with D. It has no connection with his life or with the other facts in the article. It seems to be just thrown in like trivia.
Removeed.--Kürbis (✔) 19:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • However, one peasant, Pavel Khotiaintsev, meant that he was killed by the other peasents, but whether it is true is unknown as he may have ruthlessly said that only to buy their land. I wonder if this sentence (and some of those that follow) suffers from more close paraphrasing. "Meant that" is unclear usage. Also, tense agreement error as bolded.
  • List of translations too long; just list them.
Perhaps I can explain by re-writing the sentence: "He began to translate works of literature into Russian, including George Sand's La dernière Albini, Balzac's Eugénie Grandet, Schiller's Mary Stuart, Pushkin's Boris Godunov and Goethe's Reineke Fuchs, Schiller's The Robbers, and Don Carlos." Personally, I wouldn't necessarily list all the translations, or perhaps any of them. It's enough to state (and shorter), "He began to translate works of literature into Russian." The important thing isn't what he translated; it's what follows, which is that he hated doing it. I mean, why chose these translations? It's not up to you which ones are important enough to mention. Yes, the source probably lists them, but first-hand sources can do that, not us encyclopedia editors.
Ok, shortened.--Kürbis (✔) 19:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

More later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. I hope that my clarifications help. I'll try and continue later this afternoon. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Early career

  • He risked everything for this book. Unclear meaning, which brings up another issue with this article. What is meant by "he risked everything"? If you can't be specific, I recommend removing the sentence, since you follow up with D's intense feelings about the novel. This kind of thing happens throughout the article; there are too many generalities, which can confuse the reader. IOW, if the reader goes, "Huh?" you need to explain it, and if you can't, I suggest removing it, especially if it doesn't add anything substantiative.
  • 1st paragraph: I can't check the sources, since Google books omits the pages in question from Frank and Kjestsaa is unavailable, but I suspect this is close paraphrasing as well. It doesn't read encyclopedic enough.
  • 2nd paragraph: What is the "Belinsky circle"? First mention here; I assume it has to do with the literary critic mentioned above.

Exile in Siberia

  • I'm unclear as to D's arrest. Was it illegal to read those books? If so, tell me and explain why.
  • The section explains why. The book contained anti-religious text, and Belinksy meant that religion has no basis in Russia as it hindered the social progression which he and the socialists wanted. They did not like this and arrested the circle. If you want I can add a quotation of Belinksy.--Kürbis (✔) 09:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • A mock execution was staged and then cancelled by the Tsar. How can a mock execution be staged and then cancelled? To me, that means that it was supposed to happen but never did because the Tsar cancelled it. The rest of the article suggests that it did happen. Please explain.
  • Not sure I understand you. A mock execution is a pseudo-execution. They deliberately made it to torture the group. Then they cancelled it and the group was send to a prison for four years.--Kürbis (✔) 09:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Crime and Punishment

  • 3rd paragraph, beginning with the 3rd sentence: Instead of explaining my issues with this paragraph, I'll just copyedit it for you, since it shows some of the issues that could be solved with a good copyedit. "Snitkina (now Dostoyevskaya) also had difficulties with his relatives and their neighbours, and the 7,000 rubles he had earned from Crime and Punishment was not enough to pay their debts. She avoided a compulsory auction by selling furniture, jewellery, and her piano, and on 14 April 1867, they were able to begin a delayed honeymoon in Germany."
  • Again, the rest of this section needs a good copyedit. The prose is good enough to pass this GAC, but it's something I highly recommend.

The Idiot

  • Dostoyevsky felt himself squeezed between the mountains and the Geneva lake. They left Geneva and moved to Vevey, hoping for a better atmosphere for Dostoyevsky to complete The Idiot. This is somewhat unencyclopedic; the phrase "squeezed between" is too colloquial. How about: "Dostoyevsky felt uncomfortable with their surroundings, so they left Geneva and moved to Vevey so that he could complete The Idiot."

Return to Russia

  • The resulting painting, according to Danish critic Georg Brandes a depiction of a "partly Russian peasant face, partly the likeness of a criminal", is possibly the most popular image of Dostoyevsky we have. Too informal. How about: Perov's painting, which according to Danish critic Georg Brandes, depicted a "partly Russian peasant face, partly the likeness of a criminal", is the most popular image of Dostoyevsky created." You also need attribution, both of the quote and of the assertion of the painting's popularity.
  • 6th paragraph: By "Russian bureaucracy" do you mean the Russian government?
  • Dostoyevsky offered The Russian Messenger a new novel he had not yet begun work on, but the magazine refused to give him the fee he asked for (the actual reason, which they kept secret from him, was that the periodical had already arranged to publish Leo Tolstoy's Anna Karenina). The second statement doesn't need to be parenthetical.
  • People of different ages and occupations visited him, now a theology student who had religious doubts, now an agnostic teacher. The wording makes this sentence unclear. I'm not sure if you're calling D a theology student and an agnostic teacher, or if you're describing his visitors. Please clarify.
  • The sentence states that many people visited him (Dostoyevsky). Why should I state that they visited him and then explain that Dostoyevsky was now and now? Also Dostoyevsky never studied theology as I would mention it and that age studying is very odd ;). He was not a teacher in the professional sense, and no he was not an agnostic as the religious beliefs section explains.--Kürbis (✔) 09:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • ...Gradovsky thought that he would idolize the people in his speech...' Again, who are you talking about? Is Gradovsky idolising the people in the speech or is D? If it's D, this might make it clearer: "...Gradovsky thought that Dostoyevsky idolised the people he spoke of in his speech..."
  • D's last words need an attribution.

I'll stop here. I could bring other comments here, but most of what I'd say are copyediting issues. If you fork sections of this article like I suggest in my initial review, let me know. If you don't, the longer version is okay for a GA, but I suspect that if went further with it, other reviewers would have the issues with its length. If you create new articles, I can help out with them (i.e., review and/or copyedit). Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments :)! Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Religious beliefs

  • I was curious about Mother of God, keep me and preserve me under Thy wing!, so I googled it and found the reference in Frank. [2] (The source lists p. 24, not p. 30 as stated in the reference section, but perhaps a difference in editions.) It's a prayer that D was taught as a child; Frank actually lists two. I wonder, then, if it'd be better to not even mention Job, but to reword the last sentence in the 1st paragraph: "One of his most remembered accounts of his childhood were the prayers recited in front of guests, which "made an impression on [Dostoyevsky]" when "still almost a child"."
  • I reworded this part and fixed the page numbers.
  • Through his visits to Europe and discussions with Herzen, Grigoriev and Strakhov, Dostoyevsky discovered Pochvennichestvo and the theory that the Catholic Church adopted the principles of rationalism, legalism, materialism and individualism from ancient Rome and passed on its philosophy to Protestantism and finally to socialism, which leads to atheism. You should wikilink Pochvennichestvo. This sentence is a bit long. Personally, and you can disagree with me, the important part is that D discovered Pochvennichestvo and that he later wrote about it. How about: "Through his visits to Europe and discussions with Herzen, Grigoriev and Strakhov, Dostoyevsky discovered Pochvennichestvo, the concepts of which he later wrote about in his essays and novels."
  • This is one of the core theories of this movement. Not sure if I should shorten it.
  • Dostoyevsky stated that he did not hate Jewish people and was not antisemitic, and even though he spoke of the potential negative influence of Jewish people, he advised Emperor Alexander II of Russia to allow them positions of influence in Russian society, such as access to professorships at universities. Again, too long of a sentence. You could get away with separating it into two: "Dostoyevsky stated that he did not hate Jewish people and was not antisemitic. He spoke of the potential negative influence of Jewish people, but advised Emperor Alexander II of Russia to allow them positions of influence in Russian society, such as access to professorships at universities."
  • Done

The Themes and styles sections are a bit of a mess. There are several grammatical and spelling errors. The prose quality is much lower than in the previous sections, which aren't great, but GA-quality. I can't say the same for these later sections. I'm also not sure the structure fits the content. You have "Early writing" and "Later years" sections, but what about his writings in-between? There are a number of ways you can structure the content; Mary Shelley, which you've said was a model for this article, is structured by each genre Shelley writes. I'm not sure you can, since most of D's writings were fiction. I recommend looking at what other FAs about writers do. Maya Angelou, an article I know the best since I wrote it, has a forked article, Themes in Maya Angelou's autobiographies, and it treats her themes topically. I think that the content in "Philosophy" can be put into other sections. I also suspect that "Criticism" isn't comprehensive enough, but that can be expanded later. I'll go ahead and pass this, but you need to commit to having it copyedited and then to having other lit editors help you improve it. I suggest that you go to WP:WikiProject Literature and get their help.

  • He was in prison and only finished one work in between the two periods. Dostoyevsky's style is not as individual as Angelou's and I can't imagine to write such a long article about his style. That Wikiproject is not very active. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Well, that's potentially a problem, because without it, this article isn't comprehensive. I can promise you that if you brought this article to FAC, the reviewers over there would fail it for that very reason. You stated that your model is Shelley, and that's a long, comprehensive article about a subject with a more complicated list of works. I didn't know about the Lit wikiproject, but I stand by my suggestion that you get other knowledgeable editors to assist you. Currently, with the later sections as they stand, I can't pass this to GA. I recommend that you create new articles from the content and keep this article as bio only. I can assist if you like.
I may create a subpage about his style but I don't know how to summarize everything in the main article.--Kürbis (✔) 17:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I can help with that. I'll have time perhaps later this afternoon but definitively over the weekend. I'll go ahead and do it, and if you or anyone else has issues, you can revert. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I created a new article Themes in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's writings. Still need to write an intro, do some more clean-up, and write a summary for the bio article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for all your work! Unfortunately several writings by Toporov are curiously not available on the net. However, I found content on books about his writings, but I can not find that he used precise wordings and rounded numbers. Perhaps Dostoyevsky's books alone may be used as a source? What I found is that he used the word vdrug (suddenly) 560 times in Crime and Punishment. What do you think about the introduction of his style on this page? Regards. --Kürbis (✔) 20:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
I remind you of the vertifiability policy. I'm with Jimmy Wales; if a statement can't be substantiated with a reliable source, it should be removed. I would think that someone else out there, perhaps several, would've say something about those things. I'm also certain that there's been enough written about D, even in English, that a comprehensive article about his style could be created. Using D as a source is a tricky thing; it borders on original research. This is one of the tricky things about lit articles; it's easy to fall into OR because it's all there in the books. It's my opinion that as interested and opinionated as we are about literature and its authors, it's not our place as encyclopedia editors to put in our opinions, even though we become experts and academic about our subjects as we write about them. I can see becoming an expert on D could become as fun as becoming a Maya Angelou expert like I have from being here, but I don't have the time or the interest to do so. Read everything you can about him, not just his books, but all the commentary and analysis, and you too can gain the equivalent of a PhD in literature without the effort and student loans! ;) I think the summary is fine. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Ok then. I added a section and now think that the article is not far away from being a FA. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I think it's very far from that. It is closer to GA, though, but it's still not there, either. The prose remains problematic, as is your overuse of peacock terms. It's doubtful from your both your responses to MathewTownsend and me that will improve. Let's wait for Wadewitz to chime in. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
It was already copyedited. Why are there still issues with the prose? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Question Why did you remove that he contracted a serious throat disease, that Nicholas I supported this academy, that it was neither a wealthy nor a poor home, that he was brave and had a strong sense of justice, as opposed to his uncultured and brutal class fellows? Please don't remove useful information. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Because none of those things are important. The throat disease, for example, seems to be thrown in and doesn't have any stated connection with any of the text surrounding it. You subsequently changed it, stating he had a "brittle voice", but what does that mean? Also, what does "neither a wealthy nor a poor home" mean? It comes close to opinionating, something we're not supposed to do. I think the same about the evaluation of his classmates. It's also close to stating that they were brutal and uncultured because of their ethnicity, something that D might have believed but again, not appropriate here. You can state if the sources give that opinion, but you state them as if they're facts. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
They are important. After the disease, his voice did not regenerate and became brittle forever, which is not trivial. Why is "neither a wealthy nor a poor home" an opinion? It is a simple fact. Perhaps I can reword it somehow, but it is really important since the reader would otherwise think he lived in a very poor home. How does the ethnicity have anything to do with being brutal and uncultured? These are important facts which needs to be mentioned here for the sake of comprehensiveness. The reader needs to take a picture of what was going on at that time. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Legacy

  • Together with Leo Tolstoy, and despite this criticism, Dostoyevsky is often regarded as one of the greatest and most influential novelists of the Golden Age of Russian literature. When you say "despite this criticism", what are you talking about? The criticism that D's regarded as great as Tolstoy, or some other criticism?
  • The section above.
Ok. I can't find it in the MOS, but it's customary to not refer to the previous sections because people tend to read sections individually. I recommend removing the phrase about the criticism. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

All done. Hate to beat the dead horse, but I'll pass this with the promise that it will be copyedited, and then an attempt to improve it at a later time. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your review. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
comments from another editor

Problems with failing 1(a) prose: clear and concise  1(b) words to watch , 3(b) (it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail)  and 4 neutral point of view 

Examples (and I will add many more if necessary).

  • "In May, before his mother's death, it had been decided that Fyodor and his brother Mikhail should be sent to St Petersburg to attend the Nikolayev Military Engineering Institute. Fyodor and Mikhail were therefore forced to abandon their academic studies at the Moscow college in favour of a career path that was already decided for them, since his father expected spaces to be available at the academy for his sons, and the political propensity under Nicholas I allowed them the opportunity of a good professional military career as he supported the academy."
  • vague and imprecise: why "it had been decided" rather than, "his parents decided" (if that was the case), if not, who was "it"?
  • Done
  • " Fyodor and Mikhail were therefore forced to abandon their academic studies at the Moscow college in favour of a career path that was already decided for them, since his father expected spaces to be available at the academy for his sons, and the political propensity under Nicholas I allowed them the opportunity of a good professional military career as he supported the academy."
  • this is a wordy, run-on sentence;
  • "in favour of a career path that was already decided for them," - when did the father decide this? The implication is that the father had decided this previously ("already"), before their exit from the Moscow college. Else the wording could be "leave their studies in the Moscow college to enter the career path decided by their father who expected spaces to be available at the academy for his sons."
  • Yes
  • Yes
  • " the political propensity under Nicholas I allowed them the opportunity of a good professional military career as he supported the academy." - what does "political propensity mean? - that there was a war, or going to be a war, or that the military was being built up for some other reason, or what?
  • Propensity general. Is the word so confusing for English-speakers :)?
  • suggestion: "Fyodor and Mikhail were forced to abandon their academic studies at the Moscow college for a career path decided by their father who expected spaces to be available at the technical university for his sons. Nicholas I supported the technical university which provided the opportunity for a good professional military career."
  • ok done
  • " At the academy he was separated from his brother, who was later sent to Reval, Estonia, due to his poor health and the better studying conditions that were available there." grammatically unclear - was Fydor separated from his brother who was later sent to Revel, Estonia, due to his poor health and the better studying conditions that were available there." Or is what is meant: At the academy he was separated from his brother and later sent due to his poor health and the better studying conditions that were available there. (or was it the brother who was sent to Estonia?) ?? placement of the commas make the meaning unclear - there are too many commas.
  • I think it is fine. There should be a comma after Estonia I assume.
  • "Among his 120 classmates, who were mainly of Polish or Baltic-German descent, Dostoyevsky's character and interests made him an outsider; he was brave and had a strong sense of justice, as opposed to his uncultured and brutal class fellows. He protected newcomers, aligned himself with teachers, criticised corruption among officers and helped poor farmers. But although he was a loner and lived in his own literary world, his brutish, uncultured classmates respected him.
  • peacocky and POV - Dostoyevsky sounds idealized.
  • "his brutish, uncultured classmates respected him" even though they were brutish and uncultured and he "aligned himself with teachers" - why?
  • Not sure what you mean.
  • Implies that his "classmates, being mainly of Polish or Baltic-German descent" were "uncultured and brutal class fellows" because they were mainly of Polish or Baltic-German descent. "Brutal" is POV.[citation needed] Implies they were brutal because of their descent.
  • Not at all. Brutal is correct, see first nomination.
  • "Dostoyevsky was called "Monk Photius" because of his reclusive way of life and his interest in religion"
  • By the "uncultured and brutal class fellows"? humm - kind of doesn't go with being "brutal and uncultured"; sounds peacocky.
  • See GA1
  • "Dostoyevsky's first serious epileptic fit occurred after receiving a message informing him of the death of his father. The circumstances of his father's death were unclear. The officially accepted cause is an apoplectic stroke. However, one peasant, Pavel Khotiaintsev, believed he was killed by the other peasants, but his point of view can not be determined as he may had craved for more land, which he may have received if the peasants were imprisoned. After three investigations and more than a year later, a criminal court in Tula decided that he died of natural death, and ultimately acquitted the peasants."
  • This paragraph wanders from Dostoyevsky's firt serious epileptic fit to a long discussion on what caused his father's death, including on peasant's view and three investigations.
  • Yes, this is comprehensiveness
  • There is no indication if the cause of his father's death or the "officially accepted cause" or what others thought or the three investigations affected Dostoyesky. It's unnecessary detail, irrelevant to the subject of the article.
  • It is relevant
  • "In August 1843 he took employment as a draftsman and lived around this time in an apartment with Adolph Totleben (the brother of Eduard Totleben, whom Dostoyevsky would later appeal for his release from the military after prison) owned by the German-Baltic Dr. A. Riesenkampf, who was a friend of his brother Mikhail."
  • too wordy. Is all this detail necessary?
  • Yes
  • What does "would later appeal for his release from the military after prison" mean? - this could only have meaning if the reader already knows what is farther down in the article.
  • Then the reader can read this part
  • grammar - "from whom"
  • Done

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments. Feel free to post more. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

ok. The first sentence in last two paragraphs under "Stance on Jews in Russia" start with the same words: "Dostoyevsky expressed" and seem to repeat the same information

"Dostoyevsky expressed antisemitic sentiments such as these, but he also stood up for the rights of the Jewish people." ...

"Dostoyevsky expressed support for the equal rights of the Russian Jewish population, an unpopular position in Russia at the time." ...

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Removed the section, as stated on the talk page. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fyodor_Dostoevsky/GA2&oldid=829521260"