Talk:Letters from an American Farmer

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Letters from an American Farmer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 20:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh thank you. Sometimes when I edit obscure medieval lyric tradition articles (two of my previous GANs) I wonder whether anyone notices my work! Glad you like it. Also, just to say, your goal of reviewing a GAN a day during 2013 is really admirable, and I hope you manage to keep it up. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

On first glance, this article gives a good overview of the Letters and their significance. It's well-researched and well-sourced, and reflects an impressive amount of hard work. I've got some small concerns below, and a bigger one (next subsection).

• " Often regarded as the first work of American literature" -- does this have a source? The claim in the body of the article is somewhat different.

• Re-worded. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• "the Letters has exerted a wide-ranging and powerful influence over subsequent texts and authors in that group." -- this, too, appears to lack a source or discussion, save a mention of Thomas Paine. (Though there is a bit of discussion of its influence on the English.)

• Re-worded, but also seeking out explicit citations. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Man and his environment" -- It's probably best to use gender-neutral language for the subheader and the parts of this section written in "Wikipedia's voice", though for any part summarizing Crevecoeur's views, the "man" part is fine.

• Agreed, and changed. Although not fully happy with the change either, so may come back to it. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• "the work is recognised as being one of the first in the canon of American literature" -- I'm a bit wary of this claim, too, since American literature goes back for more than a hundred years before the Letters to figures like Michael Wigglesworth. Is this definition limiting itself to only works after independence was formally declared?

• I agree with you, however that's the claim made by several sources and lacking any sources that critique it, or inserting my own opinion, it's not something I can change. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• " Thomas Philbrick has termed a "complex artistry"." -- the Philbrick quotation appears to need citation.

• Cited. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Potential areas for expansion

One early concern I have in looking at this article is that it's quite short (7Kb readable prose). In a way, this leaves me torn. Part of me admires the article's economy, which is far preferable to the usual mass of indiscriminate detail you find on Wikipedia. But I also feel like there's a lot of criticism out there that could be used to expand this one. I've made some suggestions below, but I in no way expect you to act on all of these (or even any of them)--full comprehensiveness is not a requirement for GA. Still, I wonder if you'd be amenable to a bit more expansion--adding a few more critical views, the political context mentioned by Saar, influences, etc.

You're more familiar with the sources than I, though, so let me know what you think.

• Dennis Moore discusses influences on the collection including John Dickinson's "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania" and Voltaire’s 1733 "Letters concerning the English Nation". (MOORE, DENNIS. Early American Literature, Mar2011, Vol. 46 Issue 1, p157-164, 8p.) Eric D. Lamore mentions Virgil as an important influence.(Lamore, Eric D.. Atenea, jun2009, Vol. 29 Issue 1, p113-134, 22p.) I don't know the work well enough to judge the merits of these arguments, but influences seem like a topic worth mentioning generally.
• Looking just at the bibliography already there, Saar puts it in the context of (Crevecoeur's) contemporary Whig politics, and Winston has a nice read of the book as prefiguring the move from Utopia to chaos in the works of authors like Melville or Hawthorne.
• Winston also has a good quotation from marketing for the work on his first page that might perhaps be included.
• The biography Philbrick, Thomas. St. John de Crèvecœur. Boston: Twayne, 1970. has two chapters on the letters and their creation, apparently, though I don't have access to it.
• Jeff Osborne has an interesting read of the Letters as moving from an idealized view of human nature to a dark one to critique the idea of a social compact itself.(Early American Literature, Vol. 42, No. 3 (2007), pp. 529-553)
• The discussion of the work's genre could be expanded into a full paragraph; what features do these critics focus on in giving it the labels romance, novel, epistolary, etc.? -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• The brevity was a worry I had before I took the article to GAN, but as you say since full comprehensiveness is not a requirement I thought I would just go for it. But that's not to say I don't have a number of areas in which to potentially expand it; I appreciate your suggestions for expansion as well, they will certainly come in handy. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• I gave this some more thought today, and I don't know that any "main aspects" are really left out, despite the concerns I noted above. It doesn't seem that there's anything commonly mentioned in discussions of LAF that's not covered in the article, and at least some of the criticism is touched on. I think I'm satisfied that it meets the broadness criterion. I'll give the article as a whole another pass tomorrow to see what's left, if anything, before this gets promoted. Thanks for your quick and thoughtful responses. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Second readthrough

Okay, I gave this a more careful read, and it's clearly ripe for promotion. A few minor points and then I'll start the checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's worth mentioning in the lead that the letters are from a fictional persona; it would be easy to mistake it for a more standard travelogue here. Or perhaps, more accurately, mention that the work appeared in two editions, one featuring a fictional persona, and one not.

• I've amended the wording to make it clearer. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• I changed some spellings from UK to US standard. It occurred to me partway that Crevecoeur was arguably a British citizen for a time, too, during the colonial era, but he seems most identified as an American (or Frenchman). I have no objections if you want to revert me on this, though.

• Nope that's fine per WP:TIES, I might stick a template on AE in the talk page to confirm actually. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Not necessary to pass as GA, but "has been said to exhibit a "model of decline"" -- is it possible to identify who specifically says this?

• It was in the reference at the end of the statement, which is my fault for forgetting to place these things specifically where they're actually needed! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I was unclear; what I meant to suggest was rephrasing to avoid the passive voice and say "Literary critic Sarah X called it a 'model of decline'", or some such. But like I said, not an issue for the GA review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• "The popularity of the book led to a second edition being called for" -- was the second edition only "called for" or actually printed? If the latter, this might be shortened to just "a second edition only a year later". -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Manning uses this wording, and it's ambiguous certainly. Will confirm and come back. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'd still suggest clarifying this if possible, but one mildly ambiguous statement is no reason for me to hold up GA status. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review, appreciate the detail and the many suggestions you've made! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See minor points above. Spot checks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See minor lead suggestion above.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article has room for expansion (suggestions above), but "main aspects" are clearly covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass