Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Beautiful Crime/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 December 2021 [1].

A Beautiful Crime

[edit]
Nominator(s): DanCherek (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 2020 novel in which a young couple travels to Venice to sell an inherited collection of forged antiques to an unsuspecting collector... what could possibly go wrong? The article has been taken through peer review and most recently a GOCE copyedit. Thanks in advance for any comments and feedback; I'll do my best to address them. DanCherek (talk) 14:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

[edit]
  • I do not think it is necessary to name The Destroyers unless that book is somehow more closely tied to this one. If it was just the last book he wrote prior to this one, then I do not think this information is notable or informative enough for inclusion here.
    Agree, I've removed it from the lead. DanCherek (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a silly question so apologies in advance. For this part, which is set in modern-day Venice, would "modern-day" be appropriate? I am curious as this will change depending on when the reader approaches the article as "modern-day Venice" may be dramatically different in 20 years for instance. However, this is likely already clear from context, specifically the book's publication year, but I still wanted to get your opinion on this one.
    That's a great point that I didn't consider. I've removed "modern-day" as you suggested, per the spirit of MOS:CURRENT.
    Thank you for addressing this point. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a link for depopulation in the lead would be beneficial.
    Link added. DanCherek (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would include the year that The Talented Mr. Ripley was published to the lead.
    Added. DanCherek (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is probably obvious so apologies in advance, but what happens to Richard after he is exposed as the anonymous investor?
    Not obvious at all, thanks for asking! He remains mute; public sentiment turns against him and his home is vandalized, and his wife transfers him to a neurologic clinic in Leipzig. I've added his transfer to Leipzig to the article to wrap up his part of the plot. DanCherek (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for adding this part in as it does clear this up for me. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is another clarification question, but do we know anything further about Freddy van der Haar's more prominent role in the first draft?
    Unfortunately, not really—it's based on this source which doesn't really answer that question—but I've added a few words about his character representing an older generation of gay New Yorkers. DanCherek (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is understandable. The bit about the older generation of gay New Yorkers adds a lot more context by itself. It is understandable that further details from a first draft would not be publicly discussed so this part looks very good to me now. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Patricia Highsmith photo, I would clarify in the caption when it was taken to provide a clearer context for readers. I am also curious on why this photo was selected rather than one like File:Patricia-Highsmith-1962.jpg which was taken closer to the time that The Talented Mr. Ripley was published. I do not a preference either way. I was just curious about it.
    Honestly, I'm not very good with image licensing and I wasn't sure whether File:Patricia-Highsmith-1962.jpg was actually freely licensed because I didn't know how to confirm that it was published without a copyright notice. The source link is live but it's just a link to the image itself without any context, and the uploader's talk page has some copyright concerns, so I went for the VRT-confirmed File:Highsmith on After Dark.JPG. (Besides license questions, I don't have any objections to the 1960s photo.) In the meantime, I've added "(pictured in 1988)" to the caption. DanCherek (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for adding the year to the caption. If I am being honest, I am the worst with images. That is really my biggest blind spot on Wikipedia. I can understand your concern, and I think that is valid. The current image should be fine, and I would honestly give more weight to whomever does the image review as they will likely be more well-informed on image policy than myself. Aoba47 (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. It is always great to see a book article in the FAC space. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will re-read the article to make sure I did not miss anything. I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks for taking the time to leave these comments, very much appreciated along with your copyedits. I'll be happy to address any additional concerns, questions, or clarifications. Enjoy the rest of your weekend! DanCherek (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Urve

[edit]

I watched this article's good article nomination and its peer review. There have been changes since then, but none that are troubling to me. My view is that comprehensiveness is only able to be judged in reference to what sources exist, but not what sources could exist. There are many details here that, in a perfect world, would have further elaboration - but since those questions are not answerable by sources in either the nominator's searches or my own, I believe this article to be comprehensive. The prose is of an excellent quality. That's all to say, I support promotion.

I continue to think that you should read Garth Greenwell's What Belongs to You (currently a redirect - maybe a future project, should our paths cross again). Urve (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments during peer review and here. And yes, it's next on my to-read list and I'm very excited to get to it! DanCherek (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
File:PI5DAE~2 - CopyPeggy Guggenheim Museum.JPG - per C:COM:FOP, there's no freedom on panorama for buildings in Italy. We need more information here - when did the architect die? Also, if the museum is considered cultural heritage, things get trickier, as well.
Thanks for the image review, I totally forgot about FOP. The original architect, Lorenzo Boschetti, worked in the 18th century so it has been more than 70 years since his death. But I spent a while looking through the pages and discussions linked at c:COM:FOP Italy and a lot of it is still pretty impenetrable to me, including whether {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} would be appropriate for photos of the Peggy Guggenheim. I asked a question about this at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Freedom of panorama in Italy and will either remove the image or add an appropriate tag based on any guidance I get there. I'll follow up here once I do that. DanCherek (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I've gone ahead and added the {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} tag to the image, assuming that the museum is a cultural heritage asset since it is more than 70 years old and listed on the Ministry of Culture's beni culturali website. I've also added the architect Lorenzo Boschetti to the description, and the fact that he was from the 18th century, so hopefully that is resolved on that front. Let me know if you think that's sufficient. In the end, I don't mind removing the image if it gets too tricky to figure out, as it's not integral to the article. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FUR for book cover is fine, the district image is presumeably fine as it doesn't focus on any building and is more of the canal than of anything else, and the cruise ship one ought to be fine. Highsmith image is VTRS, and the other person image is CC-licensed by source. Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass

[edit]

This version looked at. The fact that literally every source is an internet source is noticeable, but perhaps to be expected for an article on a 2020 book. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: Thanks for the source review, I appreciate it! I've responded to each of them above, let me know what you think. DanCherek (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, DanCherek. Left a minor comment above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment

[edit]

I notice that the lead seems to be trying to avoid spoilers. I’d suggest revising the phrase “but their attempt to escalate the deception leads to unexpected and dangerous consequences” into something more specific. As written, it sounds like “teaser” text that could equally apply to comic misunderstanding hijinks as to the actual events of the novel. I would state explicitly that Nick commits further crimes, including murder, or at least spell out to whom the consequences are dangerous. Overall it looks like a very nice article! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn: That makes sense! I've changed that sentence to "Their deception quickly leads to more serious crimes, as Clay attempts to sell an expensive property that he does not fully own and Nick murders a silver appraiser who threatened to expose their initial scheme." – I'm happy to revise or wordsmith it further if you have additional thoughts. Thanks for the comments! DanCherek (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That’s great! You packed in a lot very efficiently and I think that’s a much more thorough overview of the latter half of the book. I only read the lead & plot summary but with that change both are now very clear and well-written, from the POV of someone who doesn’t know the book. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Support. I just read through and didn't find a single thing I wanted to change; the writing is excellent and the article is well-structured and clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! DanCherek (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2021 (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 "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/A_Beautiful_Crime/archive1&oldid=1060189519"