Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American Writers/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 November 2024 [1].

American Writers

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

America's #2 novelist travels to London in 1823 to become #1 and reverse British disdain for US literature. Pretending to be English, he hooks up with a Scottish publisher and becomes a regular contributor for a leading Edinburgh magazine – the first American to do so! One of his submissions is the first attempt anywhere at a history of American literature and the first critical survey of the new nation's authors. British readers appreciate it and American readers go nuts in their hatred, the biggest hater being a young newspaper apprentice named William Lloyd Garrison. In the long run, the words bear influence and the critic is to a degree absolved by scholarship. This is my 9th FA nomination (7th on a John Neal (writer) topic). I very much appreciate reviewers taking the time to read the article and leave comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hello Dugan Murphy, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

They are all in public domain, mainly because the underlying works are not covered by copyright anymore due to their age. All images are relevant to the article and placed at appropriate locations. They all have captions and alt texts. The only minor issue I spotted is that the caption of "John Neal by Sarah Miriam Peale 1823 Portland Museum of Art.jpg" says "1823" but wiki commons page says "circa 1823". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: Thanks for the image review and for picking up on the Peale painting date issue. I just made the recommended change to that image caption. Does the image review pass? Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that takes care of the remaining concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EG comments

[edit]

I'll leave some comments soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:
  • The two lead paragraphs are a bit long, which is not bad in itself. However, for readability, I recommend splitting off the sentence beginning with "The series was well received in the UK and exerted measurable influence over British critics" (currently in paragraph 2) into its own paragraph. This new paragraph seems like it would roughly correspond with the "Contemporary reactions" and "Modern scholarship" sections.
Recommendation accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: The phrasing "later critics decades later" is a bit clunky. I'd reword this, e.g. changing the first "later" to "subsequent"
Great point. I chose "other" instead. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "Moving there from Baltimore, his goals" - This has a dangling modifier. Neal, not his goals, moved to the UK from Baltimore.
I swapped "Moving there from Baltimore" to "Having moved there from Baltimore". Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "That edition remains the most accessible of Neal's literary productions." - Pattee's edition?
Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blackwood engages Neal
  • Para 2: "Neal's resources were running low after living in England with no income for three months." - This also has a dangling modifier (Neal's resources didn't live in England; Neal did).
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "a period in which such periodicals were more influential than ever before" - Should this be "a period when..."?
Yes, I think so. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "The magazine had not, however, published a single piece on an American topic from June 1822 until Neal's first piece in May 1824." - Unless June 1822 was when Blackwood's was first published (which it wasn't), I would rephrase this to "The magazine did not, however, publish a single piece on an American topic from June 1822 until Neal's first piece in May 1824." Otherwise, it may sound like it had never published a single piece on an American topic, ever, and that June 1822 was when its first piece ever was published.
Rephrased. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thank you for noticing all these! I have addressed each comment so far. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll have some more comments on Thursday or Friday. Thanks for getting to these so quickly. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I forgot about this. I will leave comments on Monday. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Hog Farm's review is complete. Feel free to jump back in when you're ready! Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll leave some comments shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Steady contributorship:
  • Para 1: I might have been missing something, but why would Blackwood reject Neal's articles after learning who Neal was? Was it because Blackwood didn't want to accept an American's submission?
It was Walker, not Blackwood. The rejection was because Neal was American, so I edited the sentence to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "The first installment of the American Writers series came out in the September 1824 issue" - The phrasing "out in" sounds kind of awkward so I would just use "was published" in place of "came out".
Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymity:
  • Para 2: "under the name X.Y.Z." - Technically this would be an initialism or an acronym.
Changed "name" to "initials". Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paras 2 and 3: "most British readers likely knew they were reading the work of an American" ... "Readers on both sides of the Atlantic largely knew they were reading the work of an American" - In light of the second statement, the first seems repetitive. I think you could rephrase this section to only include the second statement ("Readers on both sides of the Atlantic largely knew they were reading the work of an American").
I didn't follow your suggestion exactly, but I changed the first sentence of the last paragraph in that section to remove the reference to British readers. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Content:
  • Para 1: Do any of the sources explain why there is a discrepancy between the quantities of names? (For instance, were there instances in which several people were covered in the same paragraph?)
None that I can find. My understanding of the discrepancy is explained below in answer to one of Hog Farm's comments, but that's not appropriate to include in the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "a proportionality Richards said was "frequently grossly violated"" - Later on in this section, the article mentions that Neal wrote about all of these authors from his own memory. If I'm reading this correctly, was the proportionality of the description of each author based on how much he remembered about them (rather than being based on their importance in the American literary scene)?
I believe Richards in that quote was saying that Cooper (top US novelist at the time) deserved more than half a page if Neal was to give himself 8. None of the sources say that all the authors who got less coverage from Neal got that little because of Neal's poor memory. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "He wrote it all in a style unique to himself" - Do the sources describe this style at all?
I changed "style" to "conversational tone" to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 4: "Richards considered that coverage to be far out of proportion to his role in American literature" - Nothing wrong with this sentence, I just found it funny that he believed himself to be one of the few writers of "truly American literature" and wrote eight pages about himself.
That's John Neal. He was about as shy about praising himself as he was about taking himself down. He did both in American Writers, as the article states. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 4: "Neal's critique of William Cullen Bryant was likely the basis for the section on Bryant in James Russell Lowell's satirical poem A Fable for Critics over twenty years later" - Was this critique parodied for being inaccurate?
Not at all. The source quotes Neal's critique of Bryant and says: "Lowell later put this into metres in his Fable for Critics." Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thanks for these comments! They are all addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing them so quickly, and my apologies for being relatively slow with these comments. I'll leave more feedback this weekend. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
United Kingdom:
  • Para 1: "many used quotes to substantiate" - I'd clarify that they used quotes from American Writers.
Clarified! Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "with ushering a brief period of increased critical attention of his novels among British reviewers" - Would the British Critic review (in the previous sentence) be one such example of increased critical attention?
Yes. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, I take it that British periodicals reviewed American Writers much more positively than American periodicals?
Yes, that's what the second sentence of the "United States" section says. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
United States:
  • Para 1: "Neal wrote five novels in Baltimore" - This is referring retrospectively to Neal's authorship of these novels, so I would say "Neal had written five novels in Baltimore...".
Recommendation accepted! Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: Were there any other notable American authors, besides Fairfield, who reviewed the piece positively?
Not that I can find in the sources. Richards introduces that Fairfield quote by saying that Fairfield represented a minority in the US on the matter. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Portland, Maine:
  • I wonder if this section should be retitled to reflect that it's about Neal's return to Portland, Maine. The way the section is currently titled, it gives the impression that this is solely about commentary from people in Portland, Maine.
The parent category is "Contemporary reactions" and this subsection is "Portland, Maine". The way I see it, each of these subsections is thus understood to be "Contemporary reactions in <UK/US/Portland>". It feels beside the point that the contemporary reactions presented in the previous two subsections are all printed in periodicals, versus in Portland, where they were printed on broadsides and communicated with a racist prank and fistfights. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Influence on American writers:
  • "By claiming the US did not yet have a distinct literature, it is possible Neal helped authors of the later American Renaissance" - Did any specific person say this? The text that I've underlined gives the impression that there may be disagreement over whether Neal did help authors of the later American Renaissance.
I don't mean to give an impression of disagreement, so I've reworded to hopefully better reflect the source. This is what it says: "In his essays on American literature as of 1824 in Blackwood's Magazine, he described all American writers—including himself—as failing to imagine or enact a genuinely American literature suited to express the energy, newness, and difference that elsewhere distinguished the new nation from its English forebears. In brief, Neal suggested that Charles Brockden Brown, Washington Irving, and James Fenimore Cooper were little more than transatlantic reproductions of, respectively, William Godwin, Oliver Goldsmith, and Sir Walter Scott. With the decks so cleared, Emerson and his associates could imagine for themselves a fresh start, so disregarding fifty years of American writing since independence." Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have more by Thursday. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thank you for the additional comments! I have addressed them all. Looking forward to more. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to finish my review today. Sorry for the delay.
Modern scholarship:
  • I take it that this section is about 20th- and 21st-century scholars. The 20th century isn't exactly modern, so this section is more like "retrospective scholarship".
Fair. I changed it to simply "scholarship". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "Scholars have called American Writers the first history of literature from that country" - I presume you mean "the first history of American literature"?
Definitely. This is my attempt to avoid two Americans so close together. I changed it to "US literature". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "and according to one scholar, his most interesting to a modern audience" - Is it worth mentioning this scholar's name?
Why not? Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "An example of Neal's misinformation and unfairness was captured by the 1930 biographer of Fitz-Greene Halleck, who referred to Neal's critique of Halleck as "difficult to match for hopeless inaccuracy and unabashed egotism." - Nothing really wrong with this per se, I just found it interesting that this critique is wedged in between praise for the publication.
The praise is definitely balanced in other parts of that paragraph, so this sentence doesn't feel like a departure in my reading of it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, were there any other notable retrospective commentaries that criticized the inaccuracies in this series?
The intro to the John Neal section of the DiMercurio book says "Neal's essays favor passion over accuracy, however, and are known to be riddled with factual errors." I ended up not using this item in my notes, which feels fine to me because it is the only notable mention of American Writers in that piece. It is also a very brief piece, as opposed to the lengthier pieces that get cited more in the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Publication history:
  • Para 1: "Their first collection in one publication" - Was this the first time they were all published at once? Or were they published in different issues of the same publication?
American Writers was originally published serially over multiple issues of the same magazine. The first time the separate installments were presented together in one publication was 1937. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "This was the first republication of a substantial work by Neal since his death and the first of a series in the twentieth century that also included Observations on American Art: Selections from the Writings of John Neal in 1943, "Critical Essays and Stories by John Neal" in 1962, Rachel Dyer in 1964, Seventy-Six in 1971, and The Genius of John Neal in 1978, the last of which includes Neal's review of Irving from American Writers and his review of Cooper from "Late American Books"" - This sentence is quite long, and I would recommend splitting it up. For example, "This was the first republication of a substantial work by Neal since his death. It was also the first of a series..."
Suggestion accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's it from me. Overall, this is a pretty good article. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments! I have addressed them all. Do you see any other issues with the article worth discussing? Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not. I support this FAC. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'll review this once Epicgenius has completed their review. Hog Farm Talk 13:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm, feel free to review the article. It might take me a while to get through this page due to real-life work commitments, and I can resume my review once you're done. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here we go. I'm trying to multitask between reviewing this and listening to the KC Royals playoff game, so apologies if some of this doesn't make any sense. Hog Farm Talk 02:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • " The first postmortem republication of any of his works was 1937," - the phrasing in the body says that this was the first republishment of a substantial work by Neal; would it be better to weaken the statement in the lead similar to how it is phrased in the body?
Yes! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neal did not publish anything else substantial in Blackwood's until September, however" - how are we defining "substantial" here? Because this would imply what is mostly a gap between February 1825 and September 1825, but we've earlier state that he published an article in every issue between July 1824 and February 1826
Thank you for bringing this up. The Sears book does say he had an article in every issue between July 1824 and February 1826, but checking that against other sources, it seems that Sears has a typo and meant to say Feb 1825, not 1826. I have changed Feb 1826 to Feb 1825 in the first paragraph of that section and left the last sentence of that section alone. By saying he didn't publish anything substantial between Feb 1825 and Sep 1825, I could also say that the only thing he published in Blackwood's between those two issues is what Richards describes as a "short note" on Maximilian Godefroy. I think it's better as it is rather than adding this detail, but let me know if you think otherwise. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it intentional that the minimum number of authors detail in this work is 120, but the list of author critiqued at the end of the article only contains 119 entries?
The list of authors at the end of the article is based on the table of contents for the 1937 edition, which lists out the authors covered in each installment. Your comment gave me reason to double-check for differences between this part of the article and the TOC. I found 3 authors missing from the Wiki article, so now the Wiki list includes 122. There are two cases in which Neal lists one author name, but Pattee clarifies in each case that the name is a pen name shared by two different authors. This is to say that, if I used the pen names in this list instead of the authors' individual real names, there would be exactly 120. For the scholars who count 135, I think they are counting not only the 122 in this Wiki list, but a few authors mentioned briefly by Neal in the 5 core installments who did not make into the 1937 TOC, as well as the extra authors mentioned in "Late American Books", which is often lumped in with the American Authors series and was included in the 1937 edition. However, those authors are not mentioned in the 1937 TOC, so I decided not to include them in the article's list. Thank you for reading all that and let me know if you have any thoughts on it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check the page range in the long citation for Strachan et al? The long citation indicates that you are citing the introduction, which is pp. xxii through xx, but you end up citing p. 257 of that work
Good catch! The roman numeral citations are for the introduction to volume 6; the page 257 citation is to the introduction to the chapter on American Writers. I've added a separate entry in the source list for the item on page 257 and edited the inline citations to fit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work here; I fully expect to support. Hog Farm Talk 02:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thanks for the compliment! I have addressed all your comments. Do you think any of those comments warrant further discussion or do you have other comments? Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good to me; supporting Hog Farm Talk 02:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • What makes Project Britain a high-quality reliable source?
Now that I'm looking at it critically, I don't think it is. I've replaced that source with Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, which also supports the 21 shillings conversion. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This will need formatting to match the other refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added the location of publication, which I believe was the change needed to make the formatting match the other refs. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest formatting FN13 as a list
That's the citation that pops up when you use {{Inflation-fn|US}}, so I guess that's a comment for the template design and not this article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brennan publisher is misspelled
Good find! I committed the same typo in two other FAC-approved articles and nobody noticed. I've fixed it in all three. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how locations are formatted
I believe they are consistent now. Some lacked state names and there was a New York vs. New York City discrepancy. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether publishers are linked
Standardized! I went with unlinked. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JSTOR IDs removed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Thank you for reviewing the sources! I have addressed all your comments. Does the article now pass or do you see issues that still need to be addressed? Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I see your one reply and I believe it is now addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "Neal's disproportionate coverage of many figures and much disinformation about them". "disproportionate" is vague. Does it mean too much on some writers and too little on others in the view of later critics? This should be clarified. "writers" would be better than "figures". "disinformation" means intentionally misleading, which is presumably not what you mean.
I meant to use misinformation instead of disinformation, but I've reworded in such a way to use neither word. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in-person hostility". Why not "personal hostility" I would take in-person to mean with the participation of the person concerned.
How much more in-person can you get than a fistfight? I'm not sure what "personal hostility" would communicate if used in this sentence. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " it was republished by the New European" Presumably soon afterwards and it would be helpful to say so.
The cited source (Sears) doesn't give a timeline. Pattee quotes Neal's autobiography without correction that "before six months were over" after his arrival in London, he had published in a number of magazines, including the New European. Adding that Pattee source to the citation, I feel comfortable adding the word "soon". Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neal later wrote about this period to indicate he was already on a mission to write about American topics in the UK, but biographer Irving T. Richards argues Neal likely found the opportunity with Blackwood after he arrived." This is unclear. You say above that he wanted to raise the prestige of American writing, so what is the contrast? If you mean that he only decided to write about other US topics when encouraged by Blackwood, then you should clarify this.
The contrast is Neal's version of the story versus Richards's version of the story: at what point did Neal decide to write on American topics. I've reworded that sentence to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neal later wrote about this period to indicate he traveled to the UK on a mission to write about American topics". I think "Neal later wrote that he traveled to the UK on a mission to write about American topics" would be clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recommendation accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He dedicated half a page to James Fenimore Cooper, six pages to Charles Brockden Brown, eight to himself, and ten to Washington Irving—a proportionality Richards said was "frequently grossly violated"." I do not understand this.
I've added "based on their comparative importance" to the end of that sentence to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He dedicated half a page to James Fenimore Cooper, six pages to Charles Brockden Brown, eight to himself, and ten to Washington Irving—a proportionality Richards said was "frequently grossly violated" based on their comparative importance." This seems clumsy to me. How about "Richards said that the coverage of each writer "frequently grossly violated" their comparative importance, such as the half page on James Fenimore Cooper, six pages on Charles Brockden Brown, eight on himself, and ten on Washington Irving."? (Maybe delete Washington Irving if coverage of him is proportional.) Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recommendation accepted. I left the page numbering in for Irving because it was listed in the source alongside the others and was not labeled as proportional. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "attention of his novels" I would say "attention to his novels"
Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neal expected this reaction and was aware before he returned to the US." I would say "aware of it", but maybe your usage is AmerEng.
Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We cannot express sufficiently, our Indignation [sic] at this renegade's base attempt to assassinate the reputation of this country" Why sic?
Because "Indignation" would not normally be capitalized. Do you think [sic] isn't warranted? Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading MOS:SIC just now, I agree. This is not a "significant error". I removed the sic tag, but added an invisible note to dissuade future editors from uncapitalizing the word. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is excessive use of the word "likely". I suggest sometimes using other words such as "probably".
There were 14 instances of "likely". I've changed one to "preumably" and four to "probably". Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I've removed two more likelies while addressing other comments. We are now down to 7. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilinks removed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Thank you very much for reviewing the article! I have addressed all your comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Thank you for following up on a few things. I have accepted those recommendations. Do you see any other issues with this article keeping it from FAC status? Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Hawkeye7

[edit]

I have no expertise in this subject. All I know is from reading this article.

  • Spelling:
    • "rioutous" should "riotous"
    • "cleverist" should be "cleverest"
    • "anglophone" should be "Anglophone"
    Good finds! The first two are quotes, but it turns out I transcribed them wrong. All three spelling issues corrected. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have mentioned that I checked the quotes against the original. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The series was well received in the UK and exerted measurable influence over British critics" How do you measure influence?
I this is me wanting to say "considerable", but not feeling super confident that the sources really back that up. I've opted to simply remove "measurable" from the sentence. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blackwood and his editors likely figured out quickly they were dealing with an American" I am not fond of speculation in Wikipedia's voice.
I added "Scholars believe" to the beginning of that sentence and removed "likely". Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, "most British readers likely knew they were reading the work of an American" is not only speculative, but kind of WP:WEASEL-y as well.
Similarly, I've added "Cairns and Pattee believe" and removed "likely". Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a proportionality Richards said was "frequently grossly violated" I have no idea what the point is here.
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If you go in your natural shape, in the true garb of your nation, you will never be laughed at." hahaha. Great line. (Australians find irony very funny.)
I also like this line. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Literature scholars Alfred Fiorelli, Benjamin Lease, and Hans-Joachim Lang counted 120 names among the authors covered by Neal. Both Richards and scholar Alberta Fabris put the number at 135." But you have 122. Please explain.
The list of authors at the end of the article is based on the table of contents for the 1937 edition, which lists out the authors covered in each installment. There are two cases in which Neal lists one author name, but Pattee clarifies in each case that the name is a pen name shared by two different authors. This is to say that, if I used the pen names in this list instead of the authors' individual real names, there would be exactly 120. For the scholars who count 135, I think they are counting not only the 122 in this Wiki list, but a few authors mentioned briefly by Neal in the 5 core installments who did not make into the 1937 TOC, as well as the extra authors mentioned in "Late American Books", which is often lumped in with the American Authors series and was included in the 1937 edition. However, those authors are not mentioned in the 1937 TOC, so I decided not to include them in the article's list. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All looks very good to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Thank you for reading the article and writing out comments! I have addressed them all. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Relativity

[edit]
  • Blackwood engages Neal— "After eight years in Baltimore, in late 1823 John Neal sailed to England."— reads better IMO if it's written as "After eight years in Baltimore, John Neal sailed to England in late 1823."
Sure! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blackwood engages Neal— "supplant Washington Irving and James Fenimore Cooper as the leading US literary figure,"— just to clarify, Neal wants to replace Irving and Cooper with himself as leading US literary figure?
Precisely. I've replaced "supplant" with "supersede" to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anonymity—"operation", according to literature scholar Ellen Bufford Welch. "[H]e considered [it] an impenetrable disguise", according to Pattee."— could two consecutive sentences with "according to" in them be avoided?
Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content— "Literature scholars Alfred Fiorelli, Benjamin Lease, and Hans-Joachim Lang counted 120 names among the authors covered by Neal."— link Hans-Joachim Lang
That's the wrong Hans-Joachim Lang, actually. He was 10 or 11 years old when Lang the literature scholar identified Neal as the author of "David Whicher". Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content— "Both Richards and scholar Alberta Fabris put the number at 135."— You may want to explain who Richards is in this sentence again, since the last time he was mentioned was in the steady contributorship section.
Sure. Done.

I'll read through the rest a bit later. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 23:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Relativity: Thanks for the comments! I have addressed them all. Let me know what other issues you see. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have one more question:

  • Content— "As a result, Neal devoted more space in some cases to anecdotes relating to an author than to analysis of their work."— How did Neal not having any notes on the texts or authors result in him talking about the author more than the work itself?
Throwing in one more reply before the bot closes the nomination: Fair question! Neal wrote about what he could remember, which wasn't always the most relevant thing to say about a given author. I'll look into rewording that since you brought it up. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise I found the rest of the prose to be understandable and clear. Unfortunately, I am inexperienced with reviewing FAC (I generally deal better with GAN). However, I think that the prose is FA-worthy. Great work. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 18:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
@Gog the Mild: Thanks for finding that! There was a claim in the main article that used "measurable" to support this in the lead, but I removed "measurable" from the body per another comment above. I should have removed that word from the lead at the same time. I'll do that right now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/American_Writers/archive1&oldid=1255259328"