Wikipedia:Peer review/Joseph Dennie/archive1

Joseph Dennie

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it may be close to GA or even FA quality, but am unfamiliar with those processes, and don't know which I should aim for. I created this article from a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biographies (I wasn't familiar with the subject), and I'm pleasantly surprised with how it's turned out.

Thanks, faithless (^speak) 07:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

This is in general a well-written article. I have a few prose and other comments which I will list at the end of the review. My chief impression, however, is that the article is too brief, that important and interesting information has been either omitted or passed over quickly. The following are examples of areas where I would expect to see more detail:-

• Why was he suspended from Harvard?
• The three years 1790 to 1793 are something of a lacuna; all we have is that he "had difficulty finding suitable work".
• "...appointed a reader for the Episcopal church..." yet we hear nothing further about this aspect of his life.
• "...he rarely appeared in open court". Was this because he had so few clients? If so, how was he making a living - was he doing other things?
• "His writing being enthusiastically received..." This is the first we hear of his writing - when did he start, and what was he writing about? Who was receiving it enthusiatically?
• "...was persuaded to start a literary journal". Who persuaded him?
• It would be interesting, also, to have an explanation/comment on the somewhat incongruous title The Farmers Weekly Museum for a literary journal (it doesn't seem to make sense even for an agricutural journal!)
• "Once in Philadelphia..." - need to establish why he was there.
• Do we have dates for his trial and acquittal?
• Surely, there must be some details of his trial available, e.g. the arguments and reasoning that led to his acquittal? This would make a most interesting section for the article.
• Another lacuna: what was Dennie doing during the last years of his life? The libel charge was 1803, the trial presumably soon afterwards. He died in 1812; that's a few years to fill.

To summarise, the writing itself is generally above GA standard, and I have seen worse at FAC. But the article is in my view too thin at the moment and needs expanding along the lines indicated. I have, too, a few general comments on the prose:-

• Early Life & career section:
  • Third sentence needs to begin "In 1767 Dennie was admitted..." (it's not clear who is meant by "he")
• Publishing career
  • "...to begin work on what would become The Lay Preacher, the first of which appeared in The Farmer's Weekly Museum" The phrase "what would become" is a bit confusing and could I think be dropped. I also think it should continue "the first instalment of which..."
  • "In the second paragraph: "Under Dennie's leadership..." rather than "his leadership"
  • You should identify Timothy Pickering, rather than requiring raders to use the link to find out who he was.
  • The pseudonym Oliver Oldschool should not be bolded (see WP:BOLD for uses of bolded characters)
  • (final paragraph): "It must be noted..." is editorialising, and needs to be rephrased.

I hope you find these comments helpful and that they give you some indications as to the article's future development. Brianboulton (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and words of encouragement, Brian. I actually made one of the corrections you suggested (Third sentence needs to begin "In 1767 Dennie was admitted..." (it's not clear who is meant by "he")) before your review was posted. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of material available on Dennie, so some details are a bit hazy (like many Federalists, he was largely forgotten after the collapse of the Federalist party). While the article is pretty short, he died at an early age, so there's only so much to cover. I originally thought GA might be the highest the article could get, but when I saw Elizabeth Needham on the Main Page, I thought maybe this one had a shot. I share most of your concerns, and will address those which I'm able to. Here are my point-by-point responses:

• His suspension from Harvard is one of those hazy details - I'll do a bit more research and see if I can pin down the reason, though it seems that it wasn't any single infraction, but rather a general disrespect shown to his professors. I'll see what I can do.
• I'm not sure what could be done to expound upon his religious life. He briefly flirted with joining the clergy, but decided against it. While he often wrote on religion, his actual career in the church was very short-lived.
• This could probably be expanded. It seems that he didn't make many appearances in court for two reasons: it wasn't his specialty as an attorney (he wasn't a litigator) and public speaking was not something at which he excelled.
• This could be expanded.
• This, too, could be expanded.
• I agree with you about the paper's name; I have rough plans to write articles for at least The Farmer's Weekly Museum and Port Folio, which would address this concern.
• I guess I made the assumption that readers would know that Philadelphia was the capital of the country at the time - this obviously needs to be corrected.
• I could probably expound upon the trial a bit.
• He was at Port Folio, I believe until 1808. After that there aren't many details about what he got up to. He continued contributing pieces to various papers, no doubt, but he doesn't seem to have held any positions. From what I gather, a combination of ill health and financial independence made holding a job unnecessary for him. I hate putting in any information without a specific source, so I'll do a bit more reading and see if I can come up with some specifics.

I'll make the corrections to the prose you suggest presently. Again, thanks for your review! faithless (^speak) 02:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)