Talk:Brother Jonathan (novel)

Did you know nomination

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 12:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Brother Jonathan by John Neal is the longest work of early American fiction? Source: Page 93 of this book says "Brother Jonathan, or the New-Englanders, published in London in 1825, enjoys the distinction of being the longest work in early American fiction, if not in all American fiction..."
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Nikova
  • Comment: Thank you in advance for reviewing my literary nomination!

Created by Dugan Murphy (talk). Self-nominated at 03:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Brother Jonathan (novel); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• New enough for DYK, and I won't bother you with the length. A truly fascinating article, by the looks of it already at FAC -- well-deserved, I think. My query is about whether the hook is exactly represented in it. The article's body makes an attributed statement (Writing in 1958, scholar Lillie Deming Loshe considered it the longest work of early American fiction and possibly longer than any other since. There are no other works of American fiction comparable in scope, length, and complexity until the Littlepage Manuscripts trilogy by James Fenimore Cooper twenty years later.), while the hook makes a certain one. DYK tends to prefer, as it is, a much more direct correspondence between hook and article than this. We could make the article more certain if justified, try a "has been considered" variant, or would you prefer a hook based around Loshe's thoughts it could still be the longest over a century later? Vaticidalprophet 12:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank for reviewing my nomination! I see what you are saying about the difference in wording and I think it would be best to go the "has been considered" route. How about this alternate wording?

• ALT1: ... that Brother Jonathan by John Neal has been considered the longest work of early American fiction?

And thank you for the compliments on the quality of the article! Since it looks like you have already read through it, would you be willing to leave some comments on its current FAC nomination? The nomination is a little over a week old and still in need of reviews. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Happy with ALT1. I can't guarantee FAC commentary -- haven't been great at keeping up with reviews lately -- but I'll see :) Vaticidalprophet 04:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for temporary protection?

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

As of now, the page can be edited by anybody and everybody, and since it's on the Main Page, it could cause a lot of problems – especially if vandals abuse this.

It might also be possible that I'm just seeing this when it shouldn't be on the front page, considering I live in the GMT+2 timezone.

That's unlikely though, since the whole website is synced, not based on time. Anyway, I hope someone can semiprotect this page. Usersnipedname (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)