Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American Writers/archive1

American Writers

Featured article candidates/American Writers/archive1

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

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

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

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]

Including both JSTOR URLs and JSTOR IDs is redundant. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 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

"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.
"in-person hostility". Why not "personal hostility" I would take in-person to mean with the participation of the person concerned.
" it was republished by the New European" Presumably soon afterwards and it would be helpful to say so.
"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.
"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.
"attention of his novels" I would say "attention to his novels"
"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.
"We cannot express sufficiently, our Indignation [sic] at this renegade's base attempt to assassinate the reputation of this country" Why sic?
There is excessive use of the word "likely". I suggest sometimes using other words such as "probably".
Linking John Neal and other people in the citations is overlinking. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7

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"

"The series was well received in the UK and exerted measurable influence over British critics" How do you measure influence?
"Blackwood and his editors likely figured out quickly they were dealing with an American" I am not fond of speculation in Wikipedia's voice.
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.
"a proportionality Richards said was "frequently grossly violated" I have no idea what the point is here.
"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.)
" 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.

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

Comments by Relativity

A marker for now. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 23:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]