Featured articleThe Day Before the Revolution is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 26, 2024.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 28, 2023Good article nomineeListed
March 26, 2024Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 30, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Ursula K. Le Guin's short story "The Day Before the Revolution", which won Nebula and Locus Awards in 1975, was praised for its depiction of a "revolutionary icon as a curmudgeonly old woman"?
Current status: Featured article

External Link to Copyright Violation[edit]

I would assume that this short story is still copyright. So I am concerned about the external link to a website hosting the entire text of the story at no cost. Perhaps I am mistaken, but if not, the external link should be removed. Wikipedia shouldn't function as a guide to locate stolen material. Cheers! Npd2983 (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Day Before the Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Book reviews not indexed by the ISFDB[edit]

Vanamonde, I took a look in Hal Hall's SF Book Review Index 1974-1979 and found some not mentioned in the ISFDB entries. Rather than try to expand the cryptic entries, I'll type them in verbatim (minus the ones in the ISFDB) and then give the key, though some of this is obvious enough.

-- More to come later this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The key:

The structure of a line is: Magazine code/volume & issue/pagination/date/reviewer. Hope this is useful; some of these I've never heard of and are probably little more than high end fanzines, but others might be accessible via WP:LIBRARY or WP:RX. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Day Before the Revolution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 14:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Happy to take this on for review, as I'm quite the fan of Le Guin's work. Thanks for submitting it for Women in Green's 5th Edit-a-thon! Per my reviewing style, I'll give section-by-section comments before checking the article against the GA criteria.

Thank you, I'll begin working on the comments now. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Background and setting

Plot summary

Publication and reception

Themes

Lead and infobox

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    For the most part, everything is well written. There are a couple of odd sentences that could do with tightening up.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    A couple citations could do with some more detail for easier verification, but there's no problems here.
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    One case of a citation ([12]) being unclear as to how exactly it's being used.
    C. It contains no original research:
    Found no examples of OR, most spotchecks easily verified the text.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig only flags direct and attributed quotes.[7] Found one case of close paraphrasing that should probably be rewritten.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Seems like everything that could be covered has been.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    A couple cases where it veers off to talk about The Dispossessed that could probably be trimmed.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    No obvious cases of non-neutral POV.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    Article hasn't been edited since its GA nomination. Last reversion was a self-revert done by the nominator in January 2023.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    No images in the article. Consider adding cover art with valid fair-use rationale for the infobox. Maybe an image of Le Guin herself in one of the later sections could be helpful. Image is licensed under creative commons.
    Missed this earlier...this is very difficult to do for short stories. NFUR of cover art is valid for a book, but I don't think it could be reasonably applied to all 17 stories therein (this is Le Guin; all are probably notable, though only eight have articles at the moment). See, for instance, the discussion in the image review section here. I've added an image of the author.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    No images in the article.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On the whole, this article is very well-written and a fantastic insight into the short story and its reception. There's a few issues currently holding it back from passing, namely a couple prose quirks and confusion around a citation. Though not a strict requirement, it could also benefit from some images. @Vanamonde: Ping me when you've addressed my comments and I'll give this another look over. Nice work on this. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst: Thank you for a careful and helpful review. I believe I have responded to everything. In a couple of cases I've disagreed with your suggestions, but I'm happy to discuss them further. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: No worries on disagreements! Think it's all good. Just wanted to check if you have any thoughts on adding images? Images aren't necessarily need for a GA, but just thought I'd see if there were any reasons for not including one. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst: I think I added a belated comment while you were replying, see above. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:03, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, all good. I'll pass the review now. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 talk 12:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Vanamonde93 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Day Before the Revolution; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Interesting book, fine detailed GA on excellent sources, offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious. In the hook, I believe one award would be enough to make the case. In the article, I wonder why death and grief are linked, at all, but I saw two of each. I'm open to other hooks if you'd rather say more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Guynes, Sean (August 26, 2020). "The Wind's Twelve Quarters, Part II: Le Guin's Psychomyths and Those Who Walk Away". Tor.com. Retrieved October 22, 2023.
  2. ^ "Nebula Awards Winners List". The Locus Index to SF Awards. Archived from the original on April 24, 2012. Retrieved July 9, 2011.
  3. ^ "Locus Awards Winners List". The Locus Index to SF Awards. Archived from the original on May 5, 2009. Retrieved July 9, 2011.

Pre-FAC review[edit]

I should be able to make a start on this today. Do you have all the Locus reviews, by the way? I think I got access to more after we last spoke about this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as always. It may take me a day or two to work through this but it's at the top of my list. I did work in the Locus reviews we discussed, but I'm happy to hear suggestions for points I've missed. There's also some newspaper reviews I skipped, because I didn't feel they added anything; typically a single sentence with an adjective or two. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make minor copyedits as I read through. Of course revert anything you don't like. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done except for Themes; I want to have a bit more mental energy to think about that one -- maybe tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything. Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I've tried to address everything; happy to hear more responses, if you don't have further changes to suggest I'll nominate this over the weekend. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories