INeverCry 

Thanks for the kind words. 

I've found that most of the greatest writers of all languages are unworkable here on Wikipedia; Sir Walter Scott, Lord Byron, Percy Bysshe Shelley, The Brontes, Lev Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Gustave Flaubert, etc will never be GA or FA (or if they make it somehow, they will never retain it). I'm sure it took a huge effort to get Chekhov to FA, though the article seems to have been given a bit of a break on quality requirements for some reason or other. 

One of my biggest problems is the eternally unfinished state of Wikipedia. Alexander Pushkin, Nikolai Gogol, and 100s of other articles used to be GA or FA, but they were demoted because editing is left open after an article is promoted, allowing them to be destroyed by "average" editors if there aren't vigilant babysitters watching. The other thing is that lovers of classic literature will usually find more info on their own out of a deep and abiding interest about writers and works than could ever be made available here. So who are we writing these literary articles for? A true reader will search things out like an Antiquary, and how many of those use Wikipedia as a reference? When it comes to writing articles on individual works, I favor reading the works themselves, rather than some trifle of an article, even if it's "scholarly". I won't even start on the strange pseudo-government and society of Wikipedia, the invitation into which I must've misplaced. 

I used to read 5+ hours per day, and I miss it too much. I'm going to start on Waverly soon and the other volumes I have of Scott in Penguin and Oxford, with the preparation of watching the BBC history of Scotland with Neil Oliver. I'll take a look at this page and my "old" talk page occasionally, so if you leave something for me I'll see it. (INeverCry) 71.94.14.136