Talk:Rachel Dyer

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Z1720 (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Rachel Dyer portrays sexual frustration as a cause of the Salem witch trials? Source: Page 301 of this published dissertation says: "Later in the novel [Rachel Dyer], when George Burroughs is condemned to death on the false testimony of a woman whose love he rejected, sexual frustration and jealousy become openly destructive forces, which critics have duly noted. But the ground for this development is already laid in this early chapter, when the sexual awakening of Bridget Pope is directly linked to the outbreak of witchcraft."
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Zeit (album)
  • Comment: Thanks in advance for reviewing! Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Created by Dugan Murphy (talk). Self-nominated at 01:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC).

• Article is new, long enough, hook is properly cited and there are no copyvio concerns. My only comment is the plot summary appears to be over 1,000 words, whereas the general suggested length says "400 to 700 words are usually sufficient for a full-length work". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Good point about the plot length. I just read through WP:PLOTSUM and MOS:PLOT, which gave me ideas of what to retain and what to modify about the plot summary. I'll get to trimming and ping when I'm done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Plot summary is trimmed. Anything else before this nomination can proceed? Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

No, that was the only issue, so this is now good. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dugan Murphy and Ritchie333: howdy! I think this hook falls afoul of the in-universe hook rule, since it's about a theme in the book; is there a real-world hook that can be used? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: I don't see how it does. Do I need to add a couple words to make it more clear that Rachel Dyer is a novel and not a person? Like,

• ALT1 ... that the 1828 novel Rachel Dyer portrays sexual frustration as a cause of the Salem witch trials?

hmmm—not quite. My issue is that the hook concerns a theme of the book, without really demonstrating any real-world impacts or causes of that theme. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'll give up on modifying the original hook. How about this new one?

• ALT2 ... that Rachel Dyer (1828) is the first bound novel about the Salem witch trials? Source: Page 82 of this book says: "While Rachel Dyer is not—as claimed by Leisy—the first American novel to treat witchcraft in New England, it is the first hardcover novel to center on the Salem events. The only predecessor is the anonymous Salem, an Eastern Tale which had run serialy in 1820 in a New York journal, but distribution was small and influence smaller." Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dugan Murphy: ooh, I quite like that :) it's the first American bound novel about it, is it not? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Cool. You could insert the word "American" into the hook, but it's not necessary. No non-Americans precede John Neal in this regard. Would you say this nomination is ready to proceed? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

ALT2a: ... that Rachel Dyer became the first American bound novel about the Salem witch trials in 1828?

yep! I've cleaned it up a bit in this ALT2a, but we're good to go. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

ALT2a promoted to Prep 5. Z1720 (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rachel Dyer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 02:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Looking forward to reading it - looks interesting! —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Ganesha811. Thank you very much for reviewing this article! I've responded to all your comments so far, but it looks like you have more reviewing to do. I'll look forward to more comments from you soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This article now passes GA. Congrats to you and to anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As is usual, I will go through and make any nitpicks I have myself to save us both time, but on first inspection the prose looks good. Hold until my edits complete. Generally good prose; minor issues addressed. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	It's not required, but you could add the book's full text (in a public domain edition) to Wikisource and then add links to the full text there to the infobox and later in the article using {{Wikisource}}. I've never taken on a Wikisource transcription project before, but I might in the future. It would be great to have the full text on there. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC) Agreed. If you have the time at some point, it would be a great benefit to the reader. In any case, pass for this review.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Why is the introduction from Watts and Carlson listed separately from the whole thing? Because they actually wrote it as opposed to edited it? Precisely. John Neal and Nineteenth Century American Literature and Culture is a collection of works by a variety of scholars, edited by Watts & Carlson. The only part they wrote together is the introduction. Splitting up the source listings in this way was the consensus that came out of the FAC review for John Neal (writer), so I replicated it here. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC) Other than that, all sources are reliable, almost all academic. Pass, no other issues.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, tweaked some wording in prose review to make clear where it is the opinion of a referenced source, not of Wikipedia.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing detected by Earwig, but given mostly inaccessible academic sources that doesn't say much. However, my review of the articles I was able to gain access to did not show any copyright violations. Pass on AGF and spot check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Not able to find anything else of significance to add in sources or elsewhere. Good coverage of a popularly obscure subject that has nevertheless had plenty of academic attention.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Detailed but not unnecessarily so. Any extremely minor issues can be dealt with in the prose review. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues with neutrality detected.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, stable and no unresolved issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	For File:TheLegendofSalem-Burroughs.jpg I don't see why we can guarantee that we're more than 100 years from the author's death. It's likely, sure, but not certain. On the other hand, it was certainly published before 1927 so PD-US-expired is sufficient. Good point! License updated. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC) File:John Neal by Sarah Miriam Peale, c. 1823, oil on canvas - Portland Museum of Art - Portland, Maine - DSC04059.jpg was painted in 1823 by someone who died in 1885 but was uploaded by someone who listed it as their "Own Work." This cannot be accurate. Please fix the Commons metadata. This is not really an artistic photograph of art with independent copyright, it falls under Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs and Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. Done! Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC) Pass, issues resolved.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Generally the images and captions are well-chosen, but the connection to Whitman feels a little thin to justify the image of him under "Unpublished Preface". If there are any appropriate images for American literary nationalism in general, that would be ideal, but if not the section can just be un-illustrated. Good point. I removed the image. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC) Pass, issue resolved.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thoughts on "Native American" vs "American Indian"

Recently changed the term "American Indian" to the more up-to-date term of "Native American". Was this the best decision? It feels more inclusive and generally better but American Indian is also a popular term. Thoughts? Lachielmao (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, Lachielmao. The Native American folks I know variably use "Indigenous", "Indian", and "Native" to describe themselves and tell me they hear these terms variably used by other folks within this identity group, depending on generational difference and personal preference. In the lead section, I changed it to "Indigenous American" to better match the terminology used later in the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I appreciate the clarification, want to make sure its as good as possible :) Lachielmao (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)