Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men

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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:01, 5 July 2008 [1].

Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men[edit]

Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk)


This article is the first of many in a series on the works of Mary Shelley (I'm hoping for a featured topic - any volunteers?). It covers several sets of biographies that she wrote for Dionysius Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopaedia (Shelley wrote for an encyclopedia, too!). The organization of this article was extremely difficult, but I hope that the article makes the set of texts as clear as possible. For a discussion on whether or not the Cabinet Cyclopaedia should have its own article, see here. I would also like to thank the GA reviewer and the peer reviewers. Awadewit (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "The Romantic writer Mary Shelley wrote most of them." → "Most of them were written by..." perhaps? Especially since they are discussed in the preceding sentences.

Gary King (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look fine, links all check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I took part in the peer review and found the article, the likes of which I'm quite sure won't be found anywhere else, excellent. The topic is awkward in the extreme because of the partial, asymmetrical, and quasi-anonymous nature of these volumes, so I commend Awadewit for her feat of organisation. Comprehensive and fully referenced. qp10qp (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The only comments I have relate to links, otherwise the article is well sourced, written and explained. A very enjoyable article with a lot to recommend it.

  • Does the Cabinet Cyclopedia not have it's own article? That seems a little unusual, I'd be interested in reading in more detail about how it was put together and more precisely what articles it consisted of.
OK, that seems to explain it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reverend Dr. Dionysius Lardner, a science lecturer at London University," - which London university is meant? University College, London perhaps? The University of London (where the link goes to) is a modern union of major educational institutions in London rather than a single entity.
  • Hmm. I just copied that from a source. I'll have to check that out. Awadewit (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My source says "London University", which opened for instruction in 1828. According to University College London, they were established in 1826. What do you think? Is this the right one? Awadewit (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly can't give you a definitive answer, but it probably is UCL, I've seen this construction before when referring to it. However, one of the other major London universities, King's, opened in 1829, which hazes things a little. All the others seem too small or too late to be in consideration. I think at this stage the best thing to do is actually to delink it since at the moment we can't be sure exactly which university is referred to, although I'll defer to your judgement on this issue.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delinked. Awadewit (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with the Mary Shelley FAC, I'd be interested in reading articles on other people involved who aren't linked (some, like David Brewer, as writers and some as subjects, such as a number of the Italians for example), what are the chances of seeing these articles in future? (not actionable, just curious)
  • I've redlinked Brewster because he has an entry in the DNB. Someone familiar with Italian literature would need to decide the others. Awadewit (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tasso goes to a disambiguation page and I wasn't sure which one was meant (probably Torquato but I didn't want to guess).

Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support—A few issues I spotted:
    • "An estimated four thousand copies of the first edition of the early volumes were printed, but the print run would probably have fallen to 2,500 since the sales did not pick up after 1835." The "would have" made me expect "... had the sales not picked up". Meaning unclear.
      • This sentence reflects the source's speculation about what happened - the source doesn't know that the print run fell to 2,500, but the source does know that the sales did not pick up after 1835. How can I make this clearer? Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "twelve", "nineteenth". Well, I'd be happier with figures above nine, and so would MOS. But it's no deal breaker.
      • I have changed all of these, except for the centuries. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "They demonstrate her knowledge of multiple languages and historical research covering several centuries"—"Multiple" is not right here—either "many", "several" or "numerous", or give the number demonstrated here.
    • To avoid another "also", consider turning this: "She was also influenced by the biographical style of her father, William Godwin." into "The biographical style of her father, William Godwin, was a significant influence on her own style", or something like it?
    • Comma after "emerge".
    • Is it in BrEng? "practised" when a verb.
      • I forgot to change the article to BE - I've done what I can and asked Qp10qp to give it a once over. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check tenses: "Shelley was particularly interested in tying private, domestic history to public, political history.[47] She emphasizes ...". Past and present might both be used if logical, but avoid switching if it jolts the reader. Unsure, here.
      • I believe that this is acceptable because the first sentence is about Shelley, the dead person, so it is in the past, while the rest of the paragraph is about the text, which continues to live, so that is in the present. The "literary present" is tricky sometimes. Do you think this sentence should be in the "literary present"? Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Put "only" as late in a clause as possible: "which only had a print run of several hundred copies"—only had a print run and not silk screenings or public readings: no, "which had a print run of only 700 copies". Hate the spelling-out of large numbers.
      • Moved "only"; have continued to spell out hundred since it is not a specific number (not 700, "several hundred"). Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is "copyright" linked? There are a lot of links in that bit. The reader of this article should know what "plagiarism" means.
      • Considering this is an article that refers to the history of these concepts, I think the links can be useful. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In AmEng and BrEng, although is considered more formal.
    • Clumsy word order: "She also, while living in Harrow, refused to go"

Well, I looked at the middle bit there. I think someone else should do the honours and perform a polishing on the text. Needs to be at a high standard for such an important literary figure. I love the topic. Well done indeed. TONY (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have asked Scartol, Jbmurray, and Ruhrfisch, but Scartol and Jbmurray are both out of town for a week or two. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as GA Reviewer. Already mentioned this at the Peer Review, and this is not a criticism just something I found quite interesting - that the analysis/reception normally present as a separate subsection in other Wikipedia articles on literary works is in this article instead worked into the various topical subsections seamlessly, which is really neat and different. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - period GrahamColmTalk 22:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I read this article a few days ago and made some minor amendments. Unlike TONY, I find the recent removal of "also"s a minor hindrance to continuity in some places; the removal of spelled-out numbers arbitrary and, while perhaps fine in a science article, hardly preferred in a humanities article; and the tense example mentioned is not jarring, as Awadewit explained above. Having yet another editor go through the text is hardly productive in light of the review the article has already had, and the couple of million other articles that could use the improvement. (Instead of making FAC a shrubbery delivery service, I, for example, just changed a few things as I read the article. Much simpler, though not as attention-grabbing. The main editor can revert as he or she sees fit.) Isolation booth (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2008 (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/Lives_of_the_Most_Eminent_Literary_and_Scientific_Men&oldid=1138465878"