Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seventy-Six (novel)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 19 November 2021 [1].

Seventy-Six (novel) edit

Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody knows who John Neal (writer) is, so everybody doubly doesn't know about his novel, Seventy-Six (1823), even though it pioneered literary styles that later came to characterize American literature and foreshadowed better-remembered novels by better-remembered authors later in the 19th century. So I think it's interesting anyway, and hopefully you do too. I've successfully brought one other article (Neal's) through FAC and another through FLC, so I feel like I know what I'm getting into on here. This article recently passed GAN (Talk:Seventy-Six (novel)/GA1), which brought up one important comment that I was able to address. Because that reviewer already completed image and source reviews, they offered to do that here as well. Thank you in advance for taking the time to read through this article and making some comments! Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review - both pass edit

I reviewed this article at GAN and encouraged this FAC so I'll recuse myself from a full review at this time, but vetted the images and references at the time and will do so here. Based on this revision.

  • Both images used are PD-US, both pictured works date to 1823 so predate the cut-off for public domain substantially, the photography itself has also been released into the public domain.
  • Sources formatted consistently and cleanly, reliability thereof is also of a good standard. No CS1 errors or inconsistencies found. Spotchecks carried out only sparingly—cannot access JSTOR but have checked Neal 1869, Poe 1849 and Waples 1938 for accuracy and am satisfied. If a more in-depth spotcheck is required it may take JSTOR access or collaboration with nominator but as this is not their first FA this may not be customary.
  • As I'm not the most experienced in these matters I will defer to anyone wishing to give a second opinion on either review but I happy to consider this a pass for images and sourcing. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking it over! If a more thorough source spotcheck is needed, I can provide scans of requested pages in an of the print books sourced in the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47 edit

  • I would link George Washington on the first mention in the plot summary. I understand that a majority of readers will already be familiar with him, but I believe it would be helpful for those who want to learn more about him.
I was on the fence about this, so thank you for the push. Done! Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think either Randolph and Errata have the potential to have their own articles? I am just curious if either of them could have a red link.
This discussion has come up with reviews of John Neal bibliography. I do think many many of Neal's works are noteworthy enough to have their own articles (and I intend to produce some more myself), but it is hard to say which don't and it seemed like too much to redlink all over the place in the bibliography, so we decided just to redlink only his most famous work, Rachel Dyer. Do you have more thoughts on this? Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me. I trust your judgement as you are more knowledge about this subject than I am. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, Seventy-Six is also considered significant for its level of characterization, I would attribute in the prose who considers the book in this way.
I find in my notes that this claim is backed up by 3 different academic sources, so I added those other sources to the citation. If there are 3 different sources (4 authors) in the citation, do you still think it is necessary to include name attribution in the prose? Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify my point, I was not asking you to list all four authors in the prose. I just think it would be better to clarify which group of people was saying this (i.e. critic, academics, etc.). Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you're saying. I just modified the sentence to attribute this opinion to "literature scholars". That term pretty well describes all 4 cited authors. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, attributed authorship on the title page to "the author of Logan", shouldn't Logan be italics since it is a book title?
No, because the quoted title page does not use italics. I had the same reaction when I saw it written out. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a facsimile link would be helpful in this sentence: The original Baltimore edition was republished by facsimile in 1971.
Agreed! I added it in the reference list as well. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the "Publication history" repeats failing in some capacity three times (not counting the "without succeeding" part) and it is rather repetitious. I believe this is made even more noticeable since the paragraph is short. I would try to avoid this if possible.
Agreed. I rewrote the paragraph with this in mind, but also to remove some extraneous detail. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure about the first paragraph in the "Reception" section. It seems copy-and-pasted from the lead. This information is presented in the subsections below (and they include the citations) so I do not really see the value of this part.
Funny you should say that. I wrote that paragraph here to summarize the section after expanding it, then realized that this new content should be reflected in the lead, so I pasted a version of it there as well. I realize it's more appropriate for the lead and not necessary in the body, so I just deleted the paragraph from the body. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! The article moved after I wrote this. Thanks for noticing that. Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the edit. Moves can sometimes be annoying for this very reason lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence, The plot is "well-conceived, well-balanced, and developed smoothly, steadily, and without undue digression or stagnation" with characterization that "is even superior to its plot"., it was not immediately clear where these quotes were coming from so I would clarify that in the prose.
Sure! I just added an extra "he said". Let me know if it still looks unclear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting topic and I enjoyed reading the article. I am glad to see more articles on books in the FAC space. One of these days, I will work on a book article. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this nomination based on the prose. I hope this review is helpful, and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding these issues! Let me know if you feel they are all resolved and if you now support the nomination. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I just have one point left, but once that is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the last comment is addressed! Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Coordinator note edit

As this nomination enters its fourth week it has received just the single general review. Unless it sees more activity over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Is it appropriate to list this at WP:FACURGENT to attract more reviewers? Can I add it there or does a coordinator need to do it? Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone is allowed to, but in practice this is mostly left to coordinators, largely because of the formal and informal restrictions on what can be posted there. For example, is is usually reserved for nominations with two firm supports needing a third to gain the minimum needed for promotion to be considered. Can I suggest that you send a neutrally phrased request to anyone who you suspect may be interested in the article, to any editor whose FAC nom you have reviewed yourself (they are more likely to be sympathetic), maybe post a request on the FAC talk page. Perhaps ask Grapple X if they know anyone who may be up for an review. If in a couple of days this has generated nothing, ping me again and I'll think about it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to provide a content review in addition to the above; otherwise perhaps a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels asking (neutrally worded, as above) for interested editors to participate may attract fresh eyes, and potentially more specialist ones at that. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: and @Grapple X: Thank you for the advice. And thank in advance, Grapple X, for offering a content review. I'll avoid FACURGENT, but I'll post to the Novels WikiProject talk page and see if I can drum up some interest by reviewing others' nominations. I've been shy to participate in FAC as a reviewer, but I suppose I've gained enough experience now to be helpful. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re FAC reviewing. If you feel nervous, be clear in your summary which FAC criteria you have reviewed against. That may just be 1a, that's fine - it is all needed, it all helps. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I don't get to this tonight (GMT) then I should be able to get to it tomorrow by early afternoon. Dugan Murphy, if you're hesitant when it comes to reviewing, sometimes a source review is a good place to start; if there is one requiring spotchecks you can pretty much do one without much experience as you're simply comparing sources with the article for accuracy and paraphrasing, otherwise you have a much more defined scope to review (formatting, quality, and breadth of sources rather than doing so for all the article's text). It can also be daunting to review subjects you're unfamiliar with but as much as specialist subject experts are helpful, having a pair of eyes on an article to judge its accessibility for a lay reader is useful too, so don't be afraid to try looking at something outside of your usual wheelhouse. Good luck. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've given it a first look and will try to post a review this week as well. I'm not familiar with this particular novel, but I do have experience with FAs for literature. --RL0919 (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Grapple X edit

  • Previous comments can be seen at Talk:Seventy-Six (novel)/GA1. Re-reading this again more thoroughly and I have very little more to address.
  • "This style choice had little precedent and little following its footsteps until the works of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, and Mark Twain, which are all foreshadowed by Seventy-Six"--For context it might be useful to include some relevant time frames here, to give a sense of how long there was "little following in its footsteps" for.
Added. Let me know if you think that still needs tweaking. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...that fashioned Neal as Cooper's chief rival for recognition as America's leading novelist". Re-reading this, we have previously discussed the novel having been published anonymously. Is this to say that the anonymous author was recognised as such or when was criticism directly attributing this reputation to Neal?
That's a good point. This book, like many of Neal's anonymous publications, was quickly attributed to him. I just added a sentence to point that out. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad to see an extended section on modern opinion though it seems perhaps overly reliant on direct quotation; the sentence "The preface by scholar Robert Bain to the novel's 1971 edition boasts that the story is "bold and experimental" but that it "requires patience and charity of modern readers" with its "dripping melodrama", "lurking gothic horrors", and "improbable plotting" that "seem ludicrous"." is particularly guilty of this. Taking another pass over this heading to paraphrase it more would be a good step.
I just trimmed this section a bit so it covers the same ground with a little less detail and quotation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reading through the article again! If you feel that your comments have been addressed, do you support the nomination? Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good; happy to support at this time. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh.Singh edit

I remember promoting the DYK nomination of this article to a prep set. Completing my first read, this looks to be a well written, comprehensive and neutral article. Perhaps, I'm already leaning towards supporting it. Just a few comments suggestions. Feel free to ignore any of them which you don't feel useful.

Done! Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even better, I Wikilinked Province of New Jersey. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might be wrong here, but "cofounder" or "co-founder"?
A quick Google search tells me that both are acceptable, but that "co-founder" is more common in British English and "cofounder" more common in American. To stay consistent with the American English used in the rest of the article, I'll keep it as is. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in spring of 1823" — MOS:SEASON discourages use of seasons to refer to a particular time of year.
Thanks for pointing that out! I just revised per MOS:SEASON.
  • "unknown to modern readers" — both in the lead and in the 'Modern views' sub-section, how do we define a "modern reader"?
I rephrased in both places to "largely forgotten by the 20th and 21st centuries" since the cited sources were published in 1971 and 2012. That should be less ambiguous. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scholar Donald A. Ringe opined," — completely upto you, though I'd replace that comma (,) with a colon sign (:)
Funny you should bring this up. I was going to comment on your FA nomination that you use colons too much to precede quotes, but then I read through MOS:CONFORM and found that colons are preferred in the cases you were using them. It seems a colon is preferred here too, so I just switched that out. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats it from me. Thanks for your work on this article; perhaps on every John Neal related article/list. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to read through it and type out these comments. Do you feel they are addressed and do you support the nomination? Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I support this article for FA. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coord comment
  • RL0919, are you still intending to review the article? (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry for my too-typical tardiness. Comments below. --RL0919 (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from RL0919 edit

This is looking quite good at this stage, so I have only a few comments.

  • Regarding italics for the title of Neal's earlier novel, Logan, which you discussed with Aoba47 above: That exchange notwithstanding, titles of works are typically styled according to our house rules, not necessarily following the styling in a source. See MOS:CONFORMTITLE.
Done. Thanks for bringing this up again. Reading the MOS a little more myself, I see that MOS:CONFORM also tells me Logan should be italicized within the quotation. I appreciate that this change makes the article less confusing. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Themes section, "Neal portrays dueling as emasculating, rather than as an expression of masculinity" seems better to me than the reverse order used currently.
Agreed. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gather the novel has never been adapted as a play, movie, etc.? No adaptations are mentioned and I didn't find any, but the generic title makes it hard to search for so I wanted ask.
Not to my knowledge. And I know a lot about this topic. However, Cornelius Mathews suggested to Harry Watkins (actor) that Watkins turn Seventy-Six into a stage play for the 1776 centennial. Watkins and Neal exchanged a few letters about the idea in 1875, but Watkins apparently dropped the project. It doesn't seem like enough to justify an Adaptations section (especially because the plan never worked out) and the story doesn't seem to fit well elsewhere, so I left it out. Let me know if you have further thoughts on that. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not required, but I wonder if any additional images could be provided? There are numerous free images related to events mentioned in the plot summary, and one of them (Sully's The Passage of the Delaware) is even mentioned in the Reception section.
That's a great point. I just added 3. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me; good work! --RL0919 (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RL0919: Thanks for reading it through and adding these comments. Do you support the nomination? Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The updates look good. To perhaps spare another separate image review, let me say that the three images you added all appear to be appropriately licensed and attributed on Commons. (I updated one license tag there to reflect that it was a US publication.) Regarding the potential adaptation, you could potentially mention it in the publication history, but I don't think it is necessary. I write a lot of articles about old plays, so I am probably much more attuned to the question than most readers. Happy to offer my support. --RL0919 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nudge. I went ahead and added the failed play project. I think it fits in nicely as a prelude to Neal becoming intent on republication. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2021 (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/Seventy-Six_(novel)/archive1&oldid=1083591991"