Talk:The Fountainhead/Archive 1

Archive 1

Toohey and Roark's Equivs.

"If Roark is Wright, then it is reasonable to propose that his nemesis Ellsworth Toohey is a composite of Henry-Russell Hitchcock and Philip Johnson. In an exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art in 1932, Hitchcock and Johnson first lauded Wright as a precursor to what they dubbed the International Style, of the generally politically left-leaning Bauhaus architects. A few years later, they revised their view of Wright, seeing him as a "Romantic individualist"."

I disagree with this - Toohey is pictured in the novel as pure evil, a man who admits (in private, to Keating) to be destroying human achievement and the human spirit by praising incompetence ("Build up Lois Cook and you've destroyed literature.") and attempting to destroy real creators like Roark or Cameron. I don't think there's a historical figure like that (I could be wrong, though). Dehumanizer 20:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree as well. Although, you might say that some Soviet leaders did that to stay in power.D prime 04:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

HELLO! why do we so often believe that Rome was the greatest civilization of its time? why do we forget the eastern hemisphere? you dudes ever hear of a cat named mao? chinese cultural revolution ring a bell? his actions perfectly articulate what toohey tried to do merely through influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredpcantrell (talk • contribs) 19:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as Rand denied it, and I don't believe it my self, I change the claim that Roark was 'almost certainly' based on someone else to, 'likely'. Along with that, I acknowledged that Toohey was a lot more obvious and aware in his being 'evil', and didn't change much else in that part, because it simply says that it is 'reasonable to think so'.

To the entity residing at 69.160.25.136: Nice job on the plot summary; I think your changes helped, and as you noticed my memory concerning the order of certain events failed me. Thanks. Ataru 03:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I got rid of the "If Roark is Wright..." text since there was no citation given, and I've never read it. It seems to me like someone just making an unwarranted hypothesis. LaszloWalrus 08:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Philosophically...

Ellsworth Toohey = Immanuel Kant

Gail Wynand = Friedrich Nietzsche

Howard Roark = Ayn Rand HSchickel 21:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I ask all of you, is not a Wikipedia article antithetical to the fundamentals of objectivism?71.107.223.89 20:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. So what? Wikipedia is not bound by the tenets of Objectivism. (nor, obviously, could it ever even try to be). Would you argue that it would be better for the Wikipedia to be utterly silent about her and her works? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.201.182 (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

I disagree, and believe that anyone with more than a superficial understanding of Objectivism would see that Wikipedia and Objectivism do not at all contradict. Anyway, that is irrelavent. It is not Wikipedia's policy to ignore or give alternative consideration to subjects the philosophy of which may contradict the purposes of Wikipedia.D prime 02:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't primarily a 'test.'

Though even I wasn't sure of this situation the first time I read it, Dominique and Roark didn't refrain from being together because she was 'testing' him. The reason was that she believed that greatness, which she could acknowledge, was doomed to failure. That is why she told him to give up architecture and live with her and he denied the offer. Ayn Rand has referenced this in her book The Art of Fiction, and I believe that there are others. I'm going to correct this soon.

Yes, the above sentence, which I may have written and do understand, is faulty. I'll correct it.D prime 01:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

I have disputed the neutrality of this article and will continue to do so until significant corrective measures are undertaken. The tenets Ayn Rand's philosophy rendered within The Fountainhead are well-explained in this article; at the same time, these tenets are extremely controversial and have not been endorsed by the vast majority of modern academic and philosophical thinkers. While popularity may have no bearing on the objective philosophical truth, this article fails to proportionately outline the controversy.

For example, the only criticism of Rand consists of one, single-sentenced statement which is then proceeded by a vigorous rebuttal which is clearly intended to reinforce the strength of Rand's ideas rather than establish the grounds upon which dissenting voices answer Rand's philosophy.

Therefore, the criticism of The Fountainhead and the Objectivist philosophy which undergirds it must be gathered and elucidated before this article conforms to the neutral point of view policy. Until then, this article remains biased.

I have restored the NPOV objection to this page as it was removed without discussion and without addressing the issues which currently necessitate its inclusion.--Tom Joudrey 11:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I've done this twice also, to this article and to Atlas Shrugged, though I don't personally think either article is especially biased. Opabinia regalis 04:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV tag - a critique of Objectivism is not appropriate on a page which discusses a fictional work. It would not be correct to include criticisms of Scientology in a NPOV article about Battlefield Earth (although this would be appropriate in an article about Scientology in general), nor would it be appropriate to discuss reactions to existentialism in an article about Sartre's "Nausea" (although this would be relevant in an article about "Being and Nothingness"). Similarly, an article about the Fountainhead should be an article about _The Fountainhead_, not about the Objectivist philosophy which Ayn Rand only formulated several years later. Discussing criticism of her ideas would be appropriate in an article about one of her technical books (eg "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology") or in an article about Objectivism itself, but not in one about a fictional work. Gordon Ross 28 May (UTC)

Well said! I mean, so what if "these tenets are extremely controversial and have not been endorsed by the vast majority of modern academic and philosophical thinkers"? I can see it now: "Postmodernist critical theory professor disagrees with Ayn Rand! Film at 11!" Afalbrig (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah hi. I'm new to this whole wiki thing (extremely so), but I know that if you want the portion discussing the Library of Congress' confiscation of the first and last pages of the manuscript, you should link the LA Times article http://www.peikoff.com/essays/library_la.htm, not the whole site.

As a non-objectivist who finds Rand readable, amusing, and disturbed, I find no objection to the neutrality of this article. Please make sure that you critique her writing and not her ideas. (Sourced) criticism about her ideas can be placed on any of the Ayn Rand or Objectivism pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Duncan (talk • contribs) 23:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the neutrality of this article is of no real concern when it's the neutrality of the book of which you focus. The points of view presented within the work should not be a concern. The presentation of the points shall be of issue. In this case, I find no considerable error in the points presented in the book itself and recommend the removal of the neutral notation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalblister (talk • contribs) 02:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Question on Skousen Criticism

How could Rand have responded to Skousen's criticism, when he wrote his criticism in 2001 and she died in 1982? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyth (talk • contribs) 15:10, 15 March 2007

Gail Wynand...

Does he really need his own article? I mean, the information that's there isn't even too much to be included in this article. It just seems strange that he is the only one with a separate article...Thoughts?67.142.130.36 05:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)JSto

Yes, he needs his own article. He is a many-faceted character. Ellsworth Toohey also needs his own article, and several of the other characters could also be written about. Let's all take this as an invitation to write these articles. Gator007 21:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Literary significance and criticism

I think it's a bit strange that there are so many quotes saying "The Fountainhead" is a book worth reading but only one that shows a weak point. Moreover the second quote disagrees with that statement and one could get the impression that the first opinion is totally wrong and must not be discussed. This article agruments in favour of this book (not Rand's philosophy). You can't find any negative quote about its literary significance. One could believe there are no negative responses. So it seems to me there is a POV. Remember: Audiatur et altera pars! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.53.48.13 (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

It's a very weak section. It should either be amplified - with one hopes a rounder selection of views on her work - or dropped entirely. Bacrito 19:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember originally there being both several positive reviews and several negative reviews, although that could have been for Anthem. All of the negative reviews seem to mysteriously disappeared. I would suspect that this page had recently been sugarcoated by a hardcore Objectivist. I'll try to find the other criticisms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.29.111.62 (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That certainly seems to be the case. How else could this section, for a book that got mostly negative reviews, now contain quotes only from a pair of glowingly positive reviews? 71.203.209.0 (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis Incorrect In Major Ways

I just finished this book today. The synopsis indicates that Dominique never married Keating (wrong) and there are other inaccuracies. I have no time to deal with this at this point, but the current synopsis is not to be trusted.--Fizbin 02:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

wrong chronology

the chronology ist wrong. the relationship between gail wynand and dominique francon starts long after the "quarry" and long after the meeting between dominique and howard at this gala. 139.174.197.81 18:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot Summary

The plot summary...as others have pointed out is still very inconsistent with the novel... in fact I would put this as completely altering the mood of the novel. Please, read this book for yourself do not trust this article in its current state.

Jonbyron 01:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Jonbyron

Is there an available Wiki tag that we can place on the article to let readers know that the plot summary is totally fraudulent, until such time that someone has the time to fix it?--Fizbin 15:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few problems with the synopsis off the top of my head:

1. Dominique is never engaged to Peter; she invites him to marry him and they marry that very day.

2. Wynand never unsuccessfully asks Dominique to marry him before the encounter with Roark. If I recall correctly, Wynand doesn't ask Dominique to marry him until the Stoneridge exchange, when she accepts his offer.

3. The workers don't strike because of the newspaper's position; they strike because Toohey and others are fired.

4. The thing about the engineer blowing up the building at the end is bunk, unless my version has an alternate ending...

Poor synopsis. 68.98.113.199 05:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, the "summer-long yacht trip" was actually December through April. 151.151.21.102 20:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we fix it ourselves, I am still in the middle of reading it so I can't help. I'll find a cleanup tag. Marlith ^T/C 04:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've already pretty much rewritten the plot summary a few days ago. I just got done reading the book, so it should be pretty close. ShatteredArm 06:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

k, so I'm looking to expand the fountainhead (film) since that's how I was first introduced to Ayn Rand's works... but I have to say the Plot summary, while complete is way to long. It would be much nicer if it could be segmented into parts. Either by chapters (chapters 1-15, chapters 16-30) or by common theme like location (him at school, Roark at first job, Roark at mine, etc). Right now it's hard to read.--Sparkygravity (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've reverted two edits by 66.245.132.153 (talk · contribs) that didn't seem justified. It was pointless copy-editing, i.e. hyphenating "word of mouth", removing relevant information, and bordering on a non-neutral POV at places. The current section on the Library of Congress could use sources and a neutrality check, though. Reinis^talk 22:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverted an another one that was blatantly non-neutral this time.[1] Reinis^talk 23:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the above edits Dominique meets Roark prior to marrying Peter. And a small comment on this edit. The workers strike because the men were fired, but as a condition of going back to work the asked that the paper change it's position on the Roark case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.201.31 (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Philosophical novels

Ok , nice cat, but where is this explained in the article? Aleichem (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Rand Shrugged

I happened upon this article "whilst roaming the back rooms." I readily admit that I am a fan of Ayn Rand's work. Ive read her books---more than once. I hope no one takes offense if I do a little chopping here and there. It's a bit wordy, don't "ya think? I did some rewording and rewriting on Roark and Toohey. I'll check back in a week or two to get feedback. If all the duplicated, peripheral, un-necessary "you-don't-even-have-to-read-the-book" stuff is removed, it can be a good article. In a funny way, its like one of Roarks archetectural drawings--someone adding a gargoyle here, a meander there, a stairway to nowhere over there.--Buster7 (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

...............Who is John Galt?...........--Buster7 (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Characters

I moved the characters around so that they would reflect the order as stated. They were out of sequence. Also, in some places the article reads like high school homework..."Write a 1,000 word essay on The Fountainhead." Well-intentioned but over stated and redundant. If someone minds...stop me before I edit again....--Buster7 (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In the section re--Gail Wynand. The mention of similarities to Randolph Hearst is out of place here...I'm not sure where they should go??? Maybe in the trash???--Buster7 (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Downgrade

This article has been DOWNgraded. It needs to be modified, improved, pared-down to a core...not lengthened by hyperbole. The recent additions about Toohey are utterly useless. Not now but soon they will go the way of The Courtland Project.--Buster7 (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ha.D prime (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"But I don't think of you"

this section is written describing the philosophy behind the novel in a non-encyclopedic manor. The language in the first sentence of the last paragraph of the section "But I dont think of you" needs to be changed. sorry for trying to destroy your wikipedia with the poor formatting of my first edit. hope this one's better. Modestmark (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Original research

Much of this article is original research--some person's (likely the editor's, if I may leap to that conclusion) personal analysis of the book.

Statements such as "The first two books are quite obviously structured as two parallel and contrasting biographies" and "Indeed, it is obviously far from prudent not to think at all about a cunning and dangerous enemy bent on one's destruction" may or may not be true, but you can't say them here in your own words. Find a reputable published source and cite it.

Statements such as "It has been speculated that Wynand is partially based on real-life newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst" are fine-- IF you cite a source for such speculation.

I'm totally not concerned about statements like "Roark takes pleasure in the act of creation" because the book itself is a sufficient source for such, uh, obvious conclusions. 67.164.125.7 (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference #1...

...isn't a reference at all, more of an observation or footnote. On an unrelated note, it is unlikely anyone would ever describe MIT as being on the 'seashore'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.6.2 (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Poorly written sentences

"Dominique Francon is presented as the perfect mistress for Roark, but over the course of the novel has to learn not to fear society and to not let their flaws hinder one's integrity." I can only guess what this is trying to say (I assume it is Dominique who "has to learn", but even so the referent of "their" is unclear, and while I suspect that "one's" alludes back to Dominique again, that is a mere guess). Could someone please rewrite this, to whatever degree is necessary to make it coherent?

"Ellsworth Toohey, a columnist for The New York Banner (a yellow press-style newspaper owned by Gail Wynand) and author of the popular column One Small Voice, is an outspoken socialist, who is covertly rising to power by shaping public opinion through his column and his circle of influential associates, and whose quite openly proclaimed designs are not understood or taken seriously." I don't understand this; Is Toohey an architech also? Also, this sentence is probably too long and hard to read. --Bobbozzo (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture references

It's also mentioned in the Warren Beatty "Heaven Can Wait." —This unsigned comment was added by 72.145.148.165 (talk • contribs) 11 March 2006.

Not relevant--and adding to a list is not the same thing as improving an article. TheScotch (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal Comment

Someone has commented on Howard Roark as to being a "pretentious asshole with delusions of grandeur" under his description. This comment cannot be edited or deleted.

Really? Why not? TheScotch (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture list

The subsection on "Cultural references" is basically a list without bullets. I don't have time to rewrite it myself, so I'm tagging it to see if someone else can improve it. --RL0919 (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Just chuck the whole section. TheScotch (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for Individuals

I believe that at the very least, Howard Roark deserves his own article. In addition, Dominique, Ellsworth Toohey and Peter Keating all could be made into interesting and worthwhile articles. Any thoughts on this?

The discussion on the Ayn Rand cross-talk page recently has been that any separate character articles largely be merged into the main articles for each novel. That's the opposite of the direction you're suggesting. You might want to weigh in there if you feel strongly about having separate character articles. My own opinion is that it is more important to focus on improving the main articles first before having spin-off articles. If a well-written main article gets to be too long and needs separate character articles, then so be it. But I don't think that's the case right now. --RL0919 (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that for a fictional character in a novel to deserve his own article he'd had to have an awful lot of cultural presence (Shakespeare's Falstaff, for example--although Falstaff is from plays, of course, several, not a novel), and none of Ayn Rand's characters in any of her works have anything approaching that presence. TheScotch (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What controversy?

The Cultural References section starts "due to the controversy surrounding the book and its influence...", but I can't see any explanation elsewhere in the article about what that controversy was. I don't know whether the book was controversial or not, but if it was the article should probably say why. --81.102.208.68 (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism

The entire text of "plot summary" has been taken directly off sparknotes.com. it needs to be written by somebody who can do more than cut and past off the internet. http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/fountainhead/summary.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.215.110 (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2007

How about this, PLOT SUMMERY: A group of poorly designed robots struggle with the question of which one of them should decorate their robo-hive. There is quite a bit of discussion about which robot is least likely to completely botch the job. There are also a few episodes of robot love making. In the end, they ironically decide the one robot in their group who is legally blind (Howard Roark) should do it. Everyone involved is equally unhappy about this choice. 71.185.74.8 (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Boring

This article is boring, preachy, and just really a kind of mockery of Wikipedia. Baleet it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.84.44 (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Way too notable to delete. The rest of the assessment is unfortunately true of many Objectivism related articles--we'd appreciate any help possible in remedying that. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is very badly written, and it does sound like something straight out of the Rand-ian's mouth (so far as "preachy" goes). TheScotch (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Rush album

On several separate occasions in recent months, editors have added comments to the effect that the band Rush dedicated an album to The Fountainhead. This is not true. In the movie Rush: Beyond the Lighted Stage one of the interviewees makes comment to the effect that he bought The Fountainhead when he was 12 because Rush dedicated an album to it, but this is just a mistaken recollection by one interviewee. The Rush album 2112 does include a credit to "the genius of Ayn Rand", but it does not specifically mention The Fountainhead. I expect that most editors who insert this sort of information won't bother reading the talk page, but hopefully some will, thus sparing a few unnecessary reverts. --RL0919 (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Racism

Some imbecile has placed hidden racist remarks around this article, non-related to the book content. Please someone perform a sweep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.179.79 (talk) 10:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide an example of what you are talking about? Nothing jumped out from a quick skim, but the article is over 5800 words long. --RL0919 (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The book follows his battle to practice what the public sees as modern architecture, which he believes to be superior, despite an establishment centered on tradition-worship

This sentence is irregular and confusing.

I propose:

"Roarke proposes his design is superior to tradition-worship practices." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.221.102 (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Jane Fields

Regarding some recent reversions, I would say that assuming there is a reliable source for it, the assessments of Jane Fields are as legitimate to include as those of others discussed in the article. However, we don't want to give undue weight to one person by quoting them at length when we can summarize their viewpoint more briefly. So that is what I've done. That said, online searching produced no information about this essay or the book that supposedly contains it. More information about the publication, such as date, publisher, and ISBN number, should be provided to assist in verification. If the existence of the published work can't be confirmed, then the entire passage should be deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that the IP who added this edited it again after I did, but did not add any of the verifying information I requested. I still haven't found any evidence for the existence of this essay or the book it is supposedly in. Therefore I've removed the passage. If this source is real, supply the details that would be needed to find it. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 15:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

translations to other languages

marathi - translator mohantara patil , name of book - shikhar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soukulkarni (talk • contribs) 12:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Spoilers

PLease add the "end of spoilers" tag to the appropriate area. As it is now the article only has a beginning of spoilers tag and that makes the rest of the article risky to read. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.120.86.154 (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2006

Well yea I avoided the spoilers until I finished the book. It's kind of a given wikipedia contains plot info Burnedfaceless (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

rape scene

God bless whoever put that there that cracked me up. Pretty typical and lame scene describing how they have sex and these feminists jump all over. What's next womb envy? I mean that's already been done. Thank God those days are over and I didn't live through them. Burnedfaceless (talk) 02:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead with Plot section

Is there any particular reason the plot comes third? Most other works of fiction, movies, books, etc, the Plot is the leading section after the introduction. Recommend changing from current:

> Background, Publication_history, Plot Summary, Characters, etc

to having the plot and characters first:

> Plot Summary, Characters, Background, Publication_history, etc

Anyone want to second this and do a quick switch? thx.

58.38.211.135 (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The recommended layout from WikiProject Novels used to be different, and this article was organized based on that older layout. So I don't see a problem with updating it. --RL0919 (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know it changed and think to first establish the background is/was a good idea. I reverted, but will not do it again if there is consensus to have background somewhere late. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox changes ISBN & page count

Keeping an ISBN in the infobox is helpful to the readers. It allows for quick linking to the Book sources WP page. Page count info (695, 727, or whatever) serves to let readers know a obvious and important bit of information – that it is a long book. Providing info is what we want to do, and the fact that page counts vary or that ISBNs post-date the original publication shouldn't impede this dispersal of knowledge. Along the same lines, the book has a variety of WorldCat numbers. We need to select one for the infobox. When doing so, we should (IMO) select the one that gives the best listing for libraries which stock the book. (I see that the template parameters say don't use ISBNs for books published before they were started. I'm opening a discussion on this topic at the template talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have looked first before saying I'd leap in and open a discussion there. The archives for the template have lots of ISBN related threads. Most of them are about the technical aspects of rendering the ISBNs, but I'm going to study them more to see what and how the consensus is. (The infobox parameter says give page count for first edition.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Pop culture references fluff

is there really a need for all those Pop culture references? even one that only hint at something in the fountain head? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.36.3 (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no need for a list of trivial references and allusions. There is a section immediately above on "Cultural influence" that could easily absorb a narrative account of the novel's presence in pop culture, fully cited and mentioning only significant examples that have received attention in reliable secondary sources. However, it is hard to justify the bother of writing such a narrative unless there was some indication of consensus here, because resisting the forces of trivia list expansion requires ongoing vigilance. --RL0919 (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I am removing the section as it has been tagged as uncited for three years. Additionally it is the definition of WP:Trivia, it has no pertinence to the article beyond passing mention in other media. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

As suggested by my previous comments, I support this removal. Any commentary about pop culture allusions that comes from reliable secondary sources can go in the "Cultural influence" section, which remains in the article. --RL0919 (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Addition of ISBN from Wikidata

Please note that this article's infobox is retrieving an ISBN from Wikidata currently. This is the result of a change made to {{Infobox book}} as a result of this RfC. It would be appreciated if an editor took some time to review this ISBN to ensure it is appropriate for the infobox. If it is not, you could consider either correcting the ISBN on Wikidata (preferred) or introducing a blank ISBN parameter in the infobox to block the retrieval from Wikidata. If you do review the ISBN, please respond here so other editors don't duplicate your work. This is an automated message to address concerns that this change did not show up on watchlists. ~ Rob^Talk 01:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking much better

Article is looking much better since the first good article review.

So whoever's been on top of that, great job ! Sagecandor (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Fountainhead/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 20:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I know I was the GA reviewer on the first GA review. I see it's had a lot of work and effort on improvement since then, including a peer review. I'll re-read over the first review, take a look at the peer review, and take a look at the state of the article in comparison to the prior GA review. I'll read all that over and post up a review later. (Mind you, some of above-noted pages, histories, and changes, I've been looking over before, as I noted in my comment on the article's talk page at Looking much better.) Sagecandor (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of July 27, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows no problems in a general comparison search. When compared with http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/fountainhead/summary.html - also shows no problems. There are a few links to fix as noted at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=The_Fountainhead -- that can be something for future improvements.

2. Verifiable?: The introduction satisfies WP:LEADCITE. It also is a good size per WP:LEAD. The plot summary is alright as is, per WP:PLOTSUMMARY. The rest of the article has excellent in-line citations and the referencing style of Template:Harvard citation type format is good.

3. Broad in coverage?: For featured article some sections could be expanded more. For good article the article is thorough enough as is. Article goes over Introduction, Plot, Major characters, Howard Roark, Peter Keating, Dominique Francon, Gail Wynand, Ellsworth Toohey, Themes, Individualism, Architecture, Philosophy, History, Backrground and development, Publication history, Reception and legacy, Critical reception, Responses to the rape scene, Impact on Rand's career, Cultural influence, Adaptations, Illustrated version, Film version, Television version, Theatrical version. (The "version" can be removed from these subsection header titles). Section that could be expanded with more research include: Philosophy, Critical reception, Illustrated version, Television version, Theatrical version.

4. Neutral point of view?: Article is refreshingly neutral point of view in its presentation and writing style. Wording style is matter of fact. Article satisfies WP:NPOV. More specifically, sections: Critical reception, and, Responses to the rape scene, present sourced critical commentary. Research has clearly been done to present the article topic from multiple perspectives. Well done on WP:NPOV overall.

5. Stable? There was a major addition, followed by a major revert, on 21 June 2017. No major talk page discussion about this. This did not result in a major conflict and no major ongoing edit wars. Article stable for over one month.

6. Images?: Eight images used in the article in total. The fair use image used in the infobox has a great and detailed fair use rationale for its use. The others are all from Wikimedia Commons and have good licenses there.

Good job! Good improvements from the prior GA review! Good work improving the page since then! Good job addressing the points from the prior GA review and good job with the research that went into work on the article! If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Sagecandor (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Fountainhead. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140820075332/http://www.hollandfestival.nl/en/program/2014/the-fountainhead/ to http://www.hollandfestival.nl/en/program/2014/the-fountainhead/

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)