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 Ian Rose 10:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

The Coral Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/The Coral Island/archive1
• Featured article candidates/The Coral Island/archive2

Nominator(s): Drmies (talk), Eric Corbett (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my introduction to this article's first nomination, this was one of my two favourite books as a kid, and I want to do it justice. It's a Victorian boy's own ripping yarn of shipwreck, pirates, cannibals, self-sufficiency, you name it, and the inspiration for William Golding's dystopian Lord of the Flies. Unfortunately I managed to get myself blocked during the previous FAC – hard to believe I know – and so Drmies thought it prudent to withdraw the nomination. But now we're back for a second bite at the cherry. Eric Corbett 20:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "one of the top twenty Scottish novels at the 15th International World Wide Web Conference in 2006": why is the opinion of a bunch of tech nerds in 2006 so siginficant to the novel that this should close (or even be in) the lead? I'd think that other tidbits would be more interesting, such as that it was on recommended reading lists, or that it's had a number of adaptations as recently as 2000.
  • I don't disagree; let me ponder that some. Drmies (talk)
  • I've changed that. Eric Corbett 19:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The third paragraph of "Biographical background and publication" jumps all over in time: published in 1858, but, oh, wait, actually 1857, and before that he wrote something else, and after that he wrote even more, meanwhile back in 1858 ... not that I can see anything wrong with it, but it can't discern the logic that has produced this ordering.
  • Hmm. If you put it that way, it sounds pretty disorganized, but I myself don't see the problem in the paragraph as it stands right now. I'll leave this for Eric to judge. Drmies (talk)
  • I don't really see the problem with that paragraph, but I've made a small change nevertheless. Eric Corbett 20:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "three of them published in 1858, the year of The Coral Island": is this meant to include The Coral Island, which as we've just been informed was published in 1857?
  • I wonder if this isn't simply the result of that source, Townsend, and how it phrases things; I don't have access to that at the present, but maybe Eric does. Drmies (talk)
  • OK, I simply cut the "the year of TCI" bit, which is a bit confusing for the reason you pointed out, and redundant, since the point about his productivity in that time is clear, I think. Drmies (talk)
• "The Coral Island was republished by Penguin Books in 1995, in their Popular Classics series.^[1]": Were they the first to publish it besides Nelson, or was this in some other way a milestone?
  • OK, I looked at the reference again: the point is that the novel is that it's not very popular anymore even though it's called a classic (and published as such): "In his now classic, if no longer popular, adventure story The Coral Island..." Perhaps someone with better rhetorical skills can tweak the sentence to make the point? Drmies (talk)
• "centre stage as the main characters": is "centre stage" not redundant to "the main characters"?
  • Tweaked. Drmies (talk)
• "the Victorian age based its imperialist ideology": can an "age" do such a thing?
  • In my business (English), yes. YMMV, of course. Drmies (talk)
• ""white, English superiority that was anchored in the notion of a civilized nation elected by God to rule inferior peoples."": is this a quote from the book?
  • I don't think Ballantyne could have conceived such a statement. I presume it's from McCulloch, reference in the next sentence, but I don't have that source here at home. We'll check, and perhaps add the old "according to". Drmies (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It is indeed from McCulloch, not Ballantyne. We could add the old "according to" if necessary, but I find it's overuse a bit stulted, particularly in cases such as this, where the statement seems to me to be entirely uncontentious. Eric Corbett 20:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "The story is written as a first person narrative from the perspective of one of three boys shipwrecked on the coral reef of a large but uninhabited Polynesian island, 15-year-old Ralph Rover." I think it'd read better if "15-year-old Ralph Rover" came after "perspective of"
  • Good call: thanks. Drmies (talk)
• "an 1845 wedding in which a duchess was presented with coral ornaments": that's tantalizing—could we get the duchess's name?
  • I'll check the source. FWIW, that Victorian coral thing is fascinating, and I'm still surprised that my (Victorian and modernist) colleagues don't find it as exciting as I do. Drmies (talk)
  • I've been checking, and it was the Duchess d'Aumale, which I've added to the note. Turns out as well that the wedding actually took place in late 1844, not 1845, so I've corrected that as well. Eric Corbett 19:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• A capsule history of Ballantyne would be nice (even just a sentence or two). As it is, we're told that a bunch of tech nerds consider the book one of the top Scottish novels, but the body doesn't even mention that Ballantyne was Scottish.
  • Hmm. The opening sentence of the lead does... I don't remember the references making much of his Scottishness. Eric, do you? Or, can you satisfy Curly Turkey? Drmies (talk)

    The lead states quite explicitly that Ballantyne was Scottish, as you say, so I don't see the problem. Is there some doubt that Ballantyne was Scottish? Eric Corbett 02:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Normally a "capsule history" would contain more than a nationality—I was hoping for some context behind the man who wrote the book, not details on his Scottishness. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll see what I can do. Eric Corbett 14:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added a short paragraph giving a summary of Ballantyne's life up to the point he wrote The Coral Island. Eric Corbett 21:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    More than I was hoping for—it looks good. I don't know if you think it's worth linking or otherwise clarifying, but the Canada Ballantyne visited would've been the pre-Confederation colony the Province of Canada, assuming he arrived after 10 February 1841. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment: I'm pleased to see this here. At present I've not had time for more than a glance, but I notice that you say that after The Coral Island Ballantyne "subsequently only wrote about things of which he had personal experience." In 1858 he published Martin Rattler, which was set in the Brazilian jungle, and in 1861 The Gorilla Hunters, set in Africa. I don't believe he visited either of these places – in fact his ODNB entry states explicitly that he didn't: "He set other works in places he had not visited, such as Brazil (Martin Rattler, 1858) and equatorial Africa (The Gorilla Hunters, 1861), but he preferred to write from experience." So it appears your statement should be modified. I hope to take a closer look at the article later. Brianboulton (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting observation. I'll look a bit more deeply into that and get back to you. Eric Corbett 14:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Tucker's book is not available enough in Google Books; Eric, was this on your shelf? We have it in the library, so I could have a look next week. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I paraphrased Tucker a little too aggressively. What he says is that Ballantyne "resolved never to write about things he had not come across first-hand", not that he never did again after his error with coconuts in this book. I'll correct that. Eric Corbett 17:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you have now is better, but it still bothers me slightly, since he wrote two further books on places he'd never been to, before effecting his resolve not to do that. My guess is that it was a while before Ballantyne realised his coconut howler, after he had written the two books. To cover this, I would slightly amend so that the sentence reads: "A stickler for accuracy, when he realised his mistake he resolved never again to write about things..." etc.

To my mind the issue isn't about places he'd never been to but rather about things he had no experience of. Eric Corbett 03:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Things, places – the principle is the same. The statement as it stands doesn't exactly cover the actual situation, and should be amended so that it does. Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "... he resolved that in future, whenever possible, he would only write about things of which he had personal experience." Eric Corbett 21:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few further observations:

• I'm inclined to agree with Mr Turkey, above, that the Background section should include a little more background on Ballantyne himself, e.g that he was largely unschooled, and received his education from his mother and sisters, that he spent five years of his youth in the wilds of Cannada as a trader, that his writing career was based on the journals he wrote during his Canada days. These things would be of interest to the reader. They can all be cited to his ODNB article.

  OK, I've added a short precis of Ballantyne's life up until the point he wrote The Coral Island. Eric Corbett 21:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In discussing the relationship to Golding's Lord of the Flies it might be worth noting that Golding even named his two main characters "Jack" and "Ralph".

  Ralph was already mentioned, but I've added Jack. And Peterkin/Piggy. Eric Corbett

• What is the source of the statement that "between £50 and £60" in 1858 is equivalent to £40,000 today? It sounds like one of Measuringworth's theoretical calculations which often produce extraordinary results. For example, the prime minister's salary at that time was £5000 a year, which on the same conversion basis would be £3.6 million today. This BBC article equates £5000 in 1830 with £425,000 today, which seems more reasonable and would make Ballantyne's £50 to £60 worth between £4250 and £5100.

  The calculation is explained and cited in note c. Eric Corbett 03:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry I missed the citation which, as I thought, is to Measuringworth. The problem with this site is, I believe, its over-theoretical approach. Its calculations do not take account of the entirely different wages structures and economic circumstances of past eras, and thus their comparative earnings figures always tend to give a distorted picture. Most readers will boggle at the thought that an income of £50–£60 then is worth £40,000 now. But it's basically a matter for you. Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't share your reservations about Measuringworth, particularly when it come to project costing. In this case though I think we'd be on pretty safe ground just going with an inflation adjusted amount rather than comparing average earnings, which gives a figure of around £5800 according to the Bank of England's inflation calculator. Eric Corbett 16:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see much else I would choose to change, and look forward to supporting. I am doing a sources review and will add that shortly. Brianboulton (talk)

Support: All my concerns, expressed above, have been met in full, and my minor sources issues (see below) are satisfactorily resolved. There may be further tinkerings to improve the article, but as it stands it meets the criteria for FA status. And was enjoyable to read, too, which is something of a bonus. Brianboulton (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's Eric's writing you're talking about. Thank you for your comments Brian, and Eric, thanks for taking care of issues while I was sleeping on the job. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I took the liberty of slightly tweaking the lead by inserting the bolded word: "It was the inspiration for William Golding's dystopian novel Lord of the Flies (1954), which inverted the morality of The Coral Island: in Ballantyne's story the children encounter evil, but in The Lord of the Flies evil is within them." This easily distinguishes whether the 1954 thing was a novel, film, play, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine by me. Eric Corbett 03:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not fond of this sentence: "He wrote The Coral Island while staying in a house on the Burntisland seafront, opposite Edinburgh on the Firth of Forth, and according to Ballantyne biographer Eric Quayle borrowed extensively from an 1852 novel by the American author James F. Bowman, The Island Home." It's a rather long sentence, covering different subjects, and ought to be split in two at the second comma. Moreover, this material would become more user-friendly if the "Firth of Forth" were briefly explained for the dummies who would otherwise have to interrupt reading this article to go look at that one; just add something like, "which is the area where the River Forth flows into the North Sea".Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  As you wish, changed. Eric Corbett 03:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider the next sentence: "He also borrowed from John Williams' Narrative of Missionary Enterprises (1837), to the extent that Rod Edmond has suggested that Ballantyne must have written one chapter of The Coral Island with Williams' book open in front of him, so similar is the text." In the previous sentence, you kindly said who Quayle is, and it's obvious that Bowman and Williams are novelists, but what of Edmond? Just some guy who said something? I'd recommend some slight identification, like "Professor" Rod Edmond.[2]Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Edmond is just some guy who wrote a book isn't he? Anyway, I've now identified him as a "cultural historian". Eric Corbett 03:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This sentence seems a bit odd: "Although the first edition is dated 1858 it was on sale in bookshops from early December 1857; dating books forward was a common practice at the time, especially during the Christmas period.[7]" Okay, but if this is worth mentioning then maybe it's worth explaining. Eric previously said at the talk page, “I could speculate that it was a marketing ploy to increase sales at Christmas time, and I'd be pretty sure I was right, but I've got no authoritative answer as to why it was common.” Well, if we don’t know then why burden the reader with it? In any event, postdating books was done so that books issued at the end of a year would not so soon lose their freshness.[3]Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't seem odd to me. Eric Corbett 04:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You lack objectivity. You're causing the reader to ask himself "Why the hell would they want to post-date books?" And you're not giving a clue as to the answer: so that the book would seem fresh the next year. Without giving an explanation, it seems more like useless trivia; it makes no more sense than saying "they postdated books published on Tuesdays but not on Thursdays". Make things easy on the reader, that's my advice.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I lack objectivity? Then I'll have to leave this to Drmies. Eric Corbett 04:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  No offense meant.  :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason I want to keep this is that it explains why some sources give 1857 as the year of publication and others 1858, and that such a practice was quite common during the Victorian period, not at all unusual. Eric Corbett 02:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't mind if it's kept, but can you tweak the phrasing to very briefly explain the reason for post-dating? As I understand, it really had very little to do with Christmas, and much more to do with New Year's. If someone bought a book in late December (as a Christmas present, a Hannukah present, or as no present at all), then this post-dating custom made the book seem fresh even into the new year. So, I'd rephrase like this: "Although the first edition is dated 1858 it was on sale in bookshops from early December 1857; dating books forward was a common practice at the time, so that the book would seem fresh even into the new year.[7]"Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Eric Corbett 03:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• On to this sentence (emphasis added): "Ballantyne received between £50 and £60,[14] equivalent to about £40,000 as of 2011,[c] but when the novel's popularity became evident and the number of editions increased he tried unsuccessfully to buy back the copyright." You can probably guess my gripe here. Can we at least have the dollar amount in note c? I say this not as an Ugly American (which I am), but as a citizen of the world, whose leading currency is (still, for good or ill) the almighty dollar.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The short answer is no, it's difficult enough to get a sterling equivalent. But maybe you or Drmies is cleverer than I am and can perform some magic. Eric Corbett 04:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Measuringworth can do the conversion for you from 2012 pounds to 2012 dollars.[4]Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The very idea of "2012 dollars" is mythical given how widely the exchange rate varies throughout the year—especially since a dollar's buying power desn't necessarily change when the exchange rate does, and I think it's buying power that a reader would want to know. I'd rather see the "today's equivalent" done away with as well (though I don't intend to make an issue of it). We can already see that two different "reliable" calculations have given us £40,000 and £5800. The value of money "means" different things the further the distance in time—given enough time that "meaning" gets lost in the "translation". "Curly" "Turkey" "("gobble")" 23:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  That's what the word "approximately" is for.  :-) But I agree with you, Curly, that getting rid of 2012 equivalents altogether would solve the problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The £40,000 was calculated on the basis of average earnings. What we're using now (£5800) is based on buying power, which is clearly explained. Eric Corbett 00:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care one way or the other whether this Wikipedia article provides a 2012 monetary equivalent of the 1857 amount, but if it does provide such an amount of British pounds, then why not also include an approximate equivalent in US dollars?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's enough of a distortion converting pounds to pounds—seriously it's a bad, bad, bad idea. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per this source, during the year 2012, one British Pound would buy you between 1.54 and 1.62 dollars. That is, you could multiply a pound amount by slightly more than 1.5 to get a dollar amount. Saying so in a mere note to this Wikipedia article is not the least bit problematic, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's makework, and far less "unproblematic" than you think—for example, how does the calculation work out with regards to Purchasing power parity? The meaning of these figures is different from what a mere calcuation expresses—the rate at which units of currency exchange is not the same as their value to those who use them, and we're talking amounts of currency from a century and a half ago when the meaning of those figures was quite different again from what it is today. A further currency calculation is just adding distortion to an already distorted figure. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Curly Turkey. It's tricky enough choosing the best conversion for sterling amounts, never equivalent dollar amounts. Eric Corbett 13:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of uncertainty is in converting old pounds to new pounds, as compared to converting new pounds to new dollars. Putting the exchange rate in a note seems usual.[5]Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's usual, as I've only rarely seen it done, and that only when the subject is clearly connected to the US, which isn't the case here. Eric Corbett 17:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly won't be the first Wikipedia editor to knowingly make an article more difficult to understand. This is a small point, and probably won't affect my overall opinion of the article, but it will be interesting to see if anyone else has any comments about this small point. Per United States Dollar (the lead): "The U.S. dollar is the fiat currency most used in international transactions...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it wasn't in 1858. Your request seems no more reasonable to me than demanding that all US articles covering the Victorian period provide sterling equivalent values. Eric Corbett 19:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All I'll say is that if you're a reader unfamiliar with spending pounds, then the value £5800 will not have meaning, and the reader will not understand that it equals about $9000.00.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may equate to $9000 today, but what about in 1858? Eric Corbett 20:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Footnote 15 says "Cite error: The named reference BOE was invoked but never defined (see the help page)."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• “He wrote bitterly to Nelsons in 1893”. Please check whether an apostrophe is missing from "Nelson's".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  No missing apostrophe, and no reason why there should be one there anyway. Eric Corbett 17:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, thanks for checking.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Curly Turkey and Drmies discussed this sentence above: "The Coral Island was republished by Penguin Books in 1995, in their Popular Classics series.[2]" I agree that a brief explanation would be useful of why this particular publication is singled out among many. I suggest, "The Coral Island – still considered a classic – was republished by Penguin Books in 1995, in their Popular Classics series.[2]"Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Eric Corbett 02:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider this sentence: "It preserves, according to literary critic Minnie Singh, the moralizing aspects of didactic texts, but does so (and in this regard it is a 'founding text') by the 'congruence of subject and implied reader': the story is about boys, and told by a (former) boy to an audience of boys.[17]" The congruence of subject and implied reader would be accurately described without the words "by a (former) boy", the subject being "about boys" and the implied reader being "an audience of boys". Crossing out the words "by a (former) boy" would also clarify and strengthen the sentence because readers might scratch their heads and ask what the difference is between a "(former) boy" and a man.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Rewritten as "... the story is about boys and written retrospectively as though by a boy, for an audience of boys". Eric Corbett 02:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "and in attempting to intervene are taken prisoner". By the non-converted ones?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• On reflection the battle isn't really all that important, so I've rewritten that bit. Eric Corbett 18:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider the way these two separate parts begin:

This seems like almost the same material, and the reader may misdiagnose himself with deja vu.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now. Eric Corbett 01:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Maher notes...." This is the first and only mention of Maher, and many readers will be asking themselves, "Where was Maher mentioned previously? Did I miss something?" This could be avoided by saying "Dr. Susan Maher" instead. Alternatively, you could go through the whole article and ensure that the other experts are introduced using last name only, but saying "Dr. Susan" is better and easier IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed. Eric Corbett 02:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider this sentence: "Romance, with its attention to character development, was only restored to the genre of boys' fiction with Stevenson's Treasure Island argues literary critic Lisa Honaker." Seems like you're introducing Stevenson's Treasure Island for the first time here, and without any wikilinks. Later on, you say "Robert Louis Stevenson's 1882 novel Treasure Island", and I think that should be moved to the first occurrence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Links moved. Eric Corbett 18:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There seem to be quite a few pertinent images available at Wikimedia Commons, and I'd recommend more in the article (which presently has only two).Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that many of them are pertinent – Ballantyne is too old in both portraits to make sense here – but I've added one more to the Plot section. Eric Corbett 03:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• At note "e" and accompanying text, there is discussion about how coral reefs form, as "believed in Ballantyne's time", and according to "generally received opinion". Presumably, that theory of coral formation is either correct or incorrect according to current science, and it would be nice if the note could somehow give a hint which (i.e. correct or incorrect). Darwin published a book about coral reef formation in 1842, as discussed in our Wikipedia article The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs, and maybe that wlink might be sufficient in note "e" to enable readers to explore the matter some more. Generally speaking, if a scientific theory is well-known to be incorrect, a Wikipedia article referring to that theory ought to say it's been refuted or discarded or the like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I've attempted to explain what's going on here. The Victorians knew that coral reefs were formed from the remains of coral polyps, and the common term "coral insect" referred to them; nobody believed that coral reefs were formed by insects at the time Ballantyne was writing. The uncertainty about reef formation was the extent to which factors such as subsidence played in their formation, which seems to be way beyond the scope of this article, so I've simplified the note. Eric Corbett 19:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Very well done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The section titled "Influence" is currently a single big paragraph, and I'd suggest putting a paragraph break after the second sentence. That would give Golding/Lord of Flies a paragraph of its own, which it warrants. Also, the implication of this Wikipedia article now is that Lord of Flies referenced Coral Island only once, which is incorrect. "Early in Golding's book, when the characters are still excited about being on the beautiful island, they mention Coral Island, hopeful that they can mimic its beautiful atmosphere."[6]Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I've rewritten that slightly to avoid giving the impression that The Coral Island is mentioned only once in Lord of the Flies. Eric Corbett 00:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This book was a major literary work, and I think it would be apt to include at least one extended quotation in blockquote format. My nomination would be this gruesome quote:

  I saw that these inhuman monsters were actually launching their canoe over the living bodies of their victims. But there was no pity in the breasts of these men. Forward they went in ruthless indifference, shouting as they went, while high above their voices rang the dying shrieks of those wretched creatures as, one after another, the ponderous canoe passed over them, burst the eyeballs from their sockets, and sent the life-blood gushing from their mouths. Oh reader, this is no fiction! I would not, for the sake of thrilling you with horror, invent so terrible a scene. It was witnessed. It is true—true as that accursed sin which has rendered the human heart capable of such diabolical enormities!

  As early as 1859, Ballantyne was criticized for making this up (as not "given in history or travels, or in any other book addressed to mature minds"[7]). However, Rod Edmond defended Ballantyne for saying that this stuff was true (see Representing the South Pacific: Colonial Discourse from Cook to Gauguin, pp. 146-147).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think I agree. Drmies? Eric Corbett 00:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  As Drmies appears to have gone AWOL I've made an executive decision to include that quotation in a quote box. It does at least give a good idea of the blood-thirstiness of certain parts of the book. Eric Corbett 20:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eric, I really appreciate that you included this. But, unfortunately, I have some concerns. First, Per WP:QUOTATIONS: "As a matter of style, quoteboxes should generally be avoided as they draw special attention to the opinion of one source, and present that opinion as though Wikipedia endorses it. Instead of using quoteboxes to highlight its notability, explain its importance before introducing the quote or in an introduction to the quote." Personally, I think quote boxes are cool, but are they kosher? My second concern is that the controversy about this quote is omitted. As mentioned above, Ballantyne was criticized in 1859 for making this stuff up (as not "given in history or travels, or in any other book addressed to mature minds"[8]). However, Rod Edmond said Ballantyne didn't make it up. See Representing the South Pacific: Colonial Discourse from Cook to Gauguin, pp. 146-147). Edmond writes: "Fiction or not, it certainly wasn't Ballantye's invention. This gruesome account had already appeared in J.E. Erskine's Journal of a Cruise Among the Islands of the Western Pacific (1853) as one of the many examples of the cruelty of Cakobau, chief of Bau in the Fiji group." Maybe that info might be okay for a note?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC) P.S. See Seru Epenisa Cakobau.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to lose the will to live. Let's see if Drmies can improve on my pathetic efforts. Eric Corbett 21:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've not yet driven anyone on Wikipedia quite that far. Maybe there's a special barnstar. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be leaving you now to the tender care of Drmies, as I'm boiling over with fury and won't be responding here again. Eric Corbett 21:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were doing good work. Sorry if I said something wrong. Incidentally, the Erskine mentioned above was John Erskine (Royal Navy officer).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We were. I was just being a little tired and emotional. Sorry. Eric Corbett 19:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Those are all the criticisms I have for now. Thanks for the interesting article, and I hope it continues to improve and becomes featured.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your comments. Eric Corbett 02:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The Wikipedia article is well-written, well-researched, and interesting. I crossed out all but two of my comments above, because I think a dollar value would be helpful (so that more readers would understand how little the author was paid), and because I'm not sure whether quoteboxes are good form. But those two things do not significantly detract from the Wikipedia article's excellence, and I'm grateful to Eric for bearing with me for so long.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• All sources are of appropriate quality and reliability (my private reservations about Measuringworth notwithstanding)
• Ref 8: as you are using the online edition of this source, the ISBN does not apply
• Page range formats should be consistent. Generally you use the form as in ref 2 (105–22), but in 6 and 45 you use a shorter form (167–8 etc), and in 7, 22 and 35 you use the longer (137–145 etc)
• The format used for the short quotation in footnote (e) looks rather untidy and would look neater without use of the "quote" template.

Otherwise no sources issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian. I think all of those have been dealt with now. Eric Corbett 16:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looked at this at the first nom and I was impressed with how clear and concise it was. This certainly looks a worthy candidate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Eric Corbett 21:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images: File:Coral_Island04.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've added the US PD tag. Eric Corbett 23:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I took a quick look at this and it looks great. Definitely the best of Wikipedia and fully deserving of the star. --John (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. Eric Corbett 17:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed--thanks, John. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article looks amazing. It is very precise and well-organized. Definitely worthy of of consideration. LeDrewww (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.