Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Neal (writer)/archive2

< 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) 10 December 2020 [1].

John Neal (writer) edit

Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A child laborer cheating backwoods customers on the waterfront of a bustling New England city and later smuggling contraband blankets during the War of 1812 grew up to be a productive, athletic, outspoken, and quarrelsome lawyer with remarkable influence on 19th-century literature, art, and feminism. His is a truly unique story. I addressed every issue raised in this article's first FA nomination, but it got archived for lack of any support or opposition. After the first nomination was closed I made considerable changes to the article for clarity, flow, and comprehensiveness, so I'm curious to hear from reviewers. I now bring it forth once again. Thank you in advance for taking the time to review the article. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass edit

Images are either so old that they are in the public domain, or else released under an appropriate free license (t · c) buidhe 00:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
  • The "Firsts" section includes noteworthy accomplishments but it would be better to cover them in prose, in the relevant section (i.e. when discussing the rights of women speech, mention that Neal was one of the first to advocate women's rights, in section on art criticism mention that he was a pioneer, etc.). Otherwise it comes across as WP:TRIVIA (t · c) buidhe 00:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, especially after perusing WP:TRIVIA. All of the firsts are already included in prose elsewhere in the article, so I deleted this section. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{sfnm|Sears||1p=113|Fleischman 1983||2p=145}} is causing a ref error because it is not connected to the sources in the bibliography (t · c) buidhe 00:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed! Thank you for finding that. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aza24 edit

  • Marking my place, will get to this in the next week or so. Some initial drive by comments:
  • I would link diction and colloquialism, especially if he was so important to their use
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are quite a few duplinks – you may want to install this script to easily identify them
Thank you for pointing this out. I have removed duplinks except in cases called for by WP:Manual of Style/Linking#Repeated links. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your citations are inconsistent, Fleischmann 1983 and Neal 1869 have years in the citations but Lease and Lowell do not for example (thankfully this can be quickly fixed by going to "advanced" near the top of the source editor screen, and then clicking on the magnifying glass on the far right, and doing search for "{{sfn|Hawthorne|" "replace with "{{sfn|Lease|1973|}}" although it may be more tedious for bundled refs...) now that I'm looking closer it looks like you're putting the author and year in the same sfn instead of {{sfnm|Pattee 1937b||1p=22|Lease||2p=70}} really it should be {{sfnm|Pattee|1y=1937b|1p=22|Lease|2y=1972|2p=70}} Aza24 (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to do here, so I need a little more help if you can afford it. I had been following the citation format you recommend until I found that citations like the one you picked out causes errors when written as you wrote it out. It seems the problem may be in having two works by one author in the same year. What I could do is change each citation like "{{sfn|Lease|p=1}}" into "{{sfn|Lease 1973|p=1}}". Would that meet FA standards? I've combed through Template:Sfn and Template:Sfnm and can't find any solutions there. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mirokado suggested I break out all the sfnm citations into multiple sfn citations in the "{{sfn|Lease|1972|p=1}}" style. This would unfortunately create pileups of 2 citations in 69 places, 3 citations in 14 places, and 4 citations in 1 place, but it would allow me to be consistent in the author-year appearance of the citations. Any thoughts? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a common issue so no worries. The easiest and standard solution is to create an "a" and "b" year, so like "{{sfn|Lease|1973a|p=1}}" and "{{sfn|Lease|1973b|p=1}}". This should solve the issue if I understand it correctly? Aza24 (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that hasn't solved the problem. As you can see in the example you copied and pasted into your original comment above, one of the sources in that sfnm citation already has a year letter (Pattee 1937b). All of my sources have a ref= parameter that matches the citation, which is the way I've found to work around the problem of including year letters in sfnm. For authors who have only 1 work in my sources list, I use just their last name as the ref parameter, as in "Lease." For authors who have more than one work in the sources list, I use "last name year" as the ref parameter, as in "Fleischmann 1983." For authors who have multiple works in the same year, I use letters, as in "Pattee 1937b," or for magazines, "Neal December 1824." I like to think it is consistently inconsistent, which to me is consistent. Plus it is the only way I've been able to get all sfnm citations to link to my sources. If you still think I should change it, what do you recommend? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I found the issues and have fixed them accordingly, let me know if I messed up anywhere... Aza24 (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am amazed. Thank you so much for not only figuring out the problem I kept experiencing but for going through the article and making the complete update yourself. I really appreciate it. When I checked, every citation still links to the appropriate source. Let me know if you see other issues with this article. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(stalking, if I may) Yes, excellent work, Aza24. I have made a further edit to use the simpler sfnm syntax for concatenations of multiple single-author+year callouts. --Mirokado (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid! I just checked all the sfnm citations and they all still link to their sources appropriately. Thanks for simplifying the code, Mirokado! --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: Do you have any more comments to share? It looks like the sfn/sfnm issue is resolved. I appreciate you bringing that up. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I believe it is and thanks Mirokado for spotting that simplification. I see below this review has received much attention and rather than nitpick on the prose I think I can help more by doing a formal source review. I'll do spotchecks as well since this is your first FA. My schedule has finally cleared up so I'll be able to do both in the next few hours. Best - Aza24 (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Doing shortly - Aza24 (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks mostly good formatting wise, two main issues
  • ISBNs should be consistent, ISBN 13s are prefferable (they begin with a 978) and should either have all dashes or none have dashes (with is preferable). You can convert ISBN 10s (ones that do not begin with "978") to ISBNs 13s with the converter; the converter does the dashes to, though if you need to convert ISBN 13s to ISBN 13s with dashes you can just convert them to ISBN 10 and back again.
I like consistency. I just converted all ISBN10s to ISBN13s and removed the dashes. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Locations are inconsistent, sometimes you have "City, State" and other times "City, [abbreviation of state]" should standardize to one of them.
I like consistency. I spelled out all state names, though I left Washington, DC as-is since it is so seldom referred to as Washington, District of Columbia. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fiorelli has an OCLC here
Good point! Added. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliabillity looks good Aza24 (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for combing through the sources! --Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks - Pass edit

Doing shortly - Aza24 (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • 306 is good but if you look at the google book there is actually more than one page 29 so perhaps this should be better clarified in the reference
The link brings up multiple publications that are all packaged together as one Google book. Two of those publications are in my sources list and both link the same Google book. I just added a postscript parameter to both listings that I think clarifies this. What do you think? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that seems like a reasonable approach. Aza24 (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was the first American to establish a public gymnasium in the US" having trouble verifying this; note f says he was the second so why is this listed as "first" in the lead?
I just reworded note F for clarity. That note summarizes citation 7. Citation 7 is 4 pages showing that all the gyms in the US preceding Neal's were either established by Germans and/or not open to the public. Hence my wording both in the lead and in the biography section that Neal was the first American to open a public gymnasium in the US. I think the rewording I just did should make that more clear. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, well in any case it looks better now I think
  • 81, 184, 293 are good
  • I want to check more but many of the books don't have urls, would you be able to email me scans or copies of:
    • Lease 1972, p. 159.
    • Fleischmann 1983, p. 152.
    • Sears 1978, p. 93.

? (note, I may have to email you back first before it lets you send scans/pdfs/images) - Best Aza24 (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have copies of Lease 1972, Fleischmann 1983, and Sears 1978, as well as a scanner, at home, so I'd be happy to send that to you. Let me know how to do that. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to Preferences: User Settings, under "Email options" you can allow other users to email you. After this I can send you an email and you can respond with scans of the pages. Best - Aza24 (talk) 07:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Send me an email when you get a chance and I'll respond with PDFs. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lease 1972, p. 159 (ref 95): b & c are good
  • Lease 1972, p. 159 (ref 95): a – not seeing "from the late 1820s through the 1830s"
You're right. I think this is the result of earlier trimming. I just looked back through the three sources cited in the first two sentences of that paragraph, then reworded them and rearranged the three citations to match the rearrangement of claims. I'll look at your other comments below in a little bit. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lease 1972, p. 159 (ref 95): d – eh is a little weird for lack of mentioning the actual books but the implication is there so it's OK
  • Fleischmann 1983, p. 152 (ref 232): a, b, c are good
  • Fleischmann 1983, p. 152 (ref 233): is good
  • Sears 1978, p. 93 (ref 96): a & b – not convinced this page covers an assertion that his "tales were pivotal in shaping the relatively new short story genre"
Agreed. After looking back at Sears 1978 p. 93 while fixing the issue you mentioned above with "from the late 1820s through the 1830s," I reworded the sentences that use refs 96a and 96b. I think those parts of the article are more accurate now. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sears 1978, p. 93 (ref 96): is good Aza24 (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing this spot check! The article is more accurate now. Let me know if you find anything else or need me to send you any more scanned pages. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now, pass for spot checks. Aza24 (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eddie891 edit

Will take a look as the week marches forward. drive-by first:

My interpretation of WP:LEDECITE tells me that I should retain citations only for "material...likely to be challenged," which I am interpreting to include only the superlatives, so I have made that edit. What do you think about that interpretation? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's cited in the body, citations aren't needed, but it doesn't technically hurt to have them. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", John Neal is the first author to use "son-of-a-bitch" in a work of fiction" interesting, but you only mention it twice in the body, and once as a quote. Does it merit a mention in the lede?
As a superlative illustration of Neal's pioneer role in colloquialism that also illustrates his nontraditional brand, I think it belongs in the lede. Thoughts? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's fine Eddie891 Talk Work 02:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • standardize between US and U.S.
The only uses of U.S. I see are in a quote and a book title, so I consider the use of US the standardized. Is there anything I'm missing? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More in-depth stuff to come. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a quick look! I look forward to more comments. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891 any additional comments? (t · c) buidhe 03:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, hopefully coming tomorrow. I'm not in the right mindset to review prose at the moment, though you will see me editing. I'll get to this as soon as I can. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saving the lede for last
  • You can link Portland, Maine on the first mention in the body
Don't mind if I do! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • of ""clear intellect, and no little self-reliance and independence of will"" i'd recommend "a woman described by Elizabeth Oakes Smith as having "..."" or something like that
Sure! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to financial constraints," left because he couldn't afford school or to supplement their income, or both?
Good point! I think my rewording makes that more clear. What do you think? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "passing off counterfeit money" i'd link
Sure! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "magazine's second-most prolific – albeit unpaid" second most prolific unpaid contributor, or just the second most prolific?
Good point! I think my rewording makes that more clear. What do you think? I'll look at more of your comments later. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • o Neal "cast about for something better to do—something, at least, that would pay better; and, after considering the matter for ten minutes or so, determined to try my hand at a novel." I was disoriented when the quote went to "my hand" because I had no idea he was being quoted until that point. That's something I think could be handled better.
I think Neal's characteristically wandering and experimental style is to blame here. I trimmed the quote to make the statement more direct. Do you think the typical reader would have an easier time reading that sentence now? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seventy American novels had been published" what defines an 'American' novel?
Fair. I think my rewording of this sentence clears that up. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and according to him, the catalyst was a dinner party with an English friend who quoted Sydney Smith's 1820 then-notorious remark, "in the four quarters of the globe, who reads an American book?"" It's still unclear to me where he went to until the end of the paragraph, for a reader (at least like me) it would be better to have that upfront in the para.
I see what you're saying. What I'm trying to get across is that the consensus among scholars is that the Pinkney affair and other tribulations put Neal in a state where he was emotionally ready for relocation and just needed something to nudge him to anywhere in particular. Neal's own recollection doesn't put much weight on the forces driving him from Baltimore, but he and the scholars agree that the dinner party gave him the idea to go to London. I think the rewording I just made clears that up without going into undue detail. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I appreciate the comments! --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your changes look good to me
  • "when William Blackwood asked Neal to become a regular contributor" do we have a date?
We do! I just wove that in there. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just did. Thanks for the recommendation! --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " but the back-and-forth over manuscript " maybe "a back-and-forth over manuscript", because there's not been a mention of it yet, but that's really a cosmetic change, no big deal either way
I like that change, so I just made it. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Neal was set adrift in London once again with no source of income" date? Not sure 'once again' is needed, but no big deal if you are wedded to it
Date added. Instead of removing "once again" I removed "set adrift" since the thing that happened again was being without income, not being set adrift. I think this sentence is clearer and more informative after these changes. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yet having failed to achieve international fame with the new great American novel" I think this could be clarified a bit, maybe "Yet having failed to achieve international fame and write a new great American novel" to clarify that none of his books yet were "the great new American novel", not sure that's the best phrasing though.
I get what you're saying. What do you think of the rewording I just made? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Residents posted broadsides" how, exactly would they post "the side of a ship, the battery of cannon on one side of a warship"?
Ha! I'm talking about Broadside (printing). Wikilink fixed. Thank you for finding that. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and uplift new literary voices" maybe "promote" instead of 'uplift'? I think it sounds more encyclopedic
I went for "encourage" instead to reflect not only the promotion to readers but the encouragement he offered new writers through direct correspondence and published praise. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • looking better
  • "an honorary masters degree" might be worth a link to Masters degree, not really sure*
Sure! I didn't know what one was until I was 22, so if I'm representative at all, there should be more people out there like younger me. Done. I wikilinked honorary degree while I was at it. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • :after receiving inheritances in 1832 and 1836 that dramatically reduced his need to rely on writing as a source of income: worth mentioning from who?
Why not? I added "from two paternal uncles." --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! I Wikilinked both boxing and fencing while I was at it. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • did he do anything during the Civil War?
None of the scholarship I've read mentions anything about Neal and the Civil War but a historically challenged public statement from Neal about General Neal Dow's capture and an anecdote about Neal getting angry at a local Confederate sympathizer at a barber shop. Neither fit the focus of this article, I think. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and are ranked with those of" by who?
Fleischmann 1983 (pp. 144-145) says, "Neal reached his highest literary achievement in roughly a dozen short stories, which critics have ranked with the productions of Hawthorne, Poe, and Melville." Lang 1962 (p. 207) says, "The editor seriously believes that "Otter-Bag" is as good as Kipling (whatever that may mean to those who have their fingers on the feeble pulse of critical judgment), and that of "David Whicher" is even better than "Otter-Bag." He knows no short stories written in America before these two which are equal to them, with the exception of Irving's "Rip Van Winkle" and "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow." So the article's current wording mimics the Fleischmann quote but adds Kipling given the Lang quote. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thereby guaranteeing the existence of an American national literature by ensuring its economic viability" can we really attribute the insurance of "an American national literature" to solely Neal himself? I'd be curious to see what the source says here, if it isn't too much trouble.
What I mean to say, and what the source says, is that this was his intention. I reworded that to make it more clear. Let me know what you think. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice
  • "As an American literary nationalist, he called for "faithful representations of native character"" for this article, I've thrown together a pitiful stub at American literary nationalism that you may care to link here (also a stub that you might be able to improve? A mention (maybe a paragraph) of Neal could probably be added there?)
Thank you so much for starting American literary nationalism! This has been on my to-do list because a good article on this topic could do a lot to summarize much of what Neal was pushing, especially earlier in his literary career, and the context within which he was operating. I will certainly add what I can to improve that article when I get a chance. I Added Wikilinks to the article in the lead and in the body.
Agreed. Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a total number of short stories he wrote?
The closest to a total number I've seen by a scholar is the average of one per year 1828–1846 figure. In published bibliographies of Neal's works, his short stories are always grouped with sketches and/or essays, so it's never super clear exactly how many of his works are considered short stories. Thus I am reluctant to count them and put a number on it myself. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Inspired by The Spy" maybe "inspired by Cooper's novel The Spy" to make the connection clearer?
That makes sense. Added "Cooper's." --Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Neal is the first American art critic" would it be better as "was the first"?
Sure! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his immediate geographic sphere was in the 1820s" I'm a little unsure what is trying to be conveyed here
The sentence is a little clumsy. The "geographic sphere" phrase refers to his patronage and guidance to local Portland artists, but since that is discussed three paragraphs later, I decided to just cut that part out and shorten the sentence in question. It should be easier to read now. --23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Neal is also notable in this period for his attempt to raise the status" so was he unique in this?
Yes! I reworded this sentence. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reynolds's approach" might be worth clarifying what the approach was to?
Agreed! Added "to art criticism." --Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an unsourced sentence in the poetry section?
Good catch! I just added a citation for the bibliography from which I pulled those titles. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ditto for 'drama'?
Another good catch! Citation added here. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and wrote to his friend that it" you should clarify who is being written to, I think
Fair. Done! --Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most of the new writers he covered" what does 'covered' mean here? Also, was it him or the periodical he edited?
Gotcha. Reworded. Also broke up that paragraph. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Neal is America's first women's rights lecturer" maybe "was"?
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " He supported female writers and organizers, affirmed intellectual equality between men and women, fought coverture, and demanded suffrage, equal pay, and better education for women." unsourced?"
My thinking is that everything in this sentence is elaborated upon in subsequent cited sentences in this section. Should I repeat a sample of those citations here or do you think it is ok to leave as it stands? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's a bit of assumed knowledge about the women's rights struggle that I at least don't have. for instance, "crucial in bringing the field back into the mainstream" implies that it was mainstream than wasn't then was again after him-- is there somewhere you can link or clarify somewhow?
I see two issues here. One, "mainstream" is probably not the best choice, so I swapped that for "published discourse." Two, there's the context about the lull in published feminist discourse because of personal attacks leveled against Wollstonecraft and others. It went sort of underground into letters for a while until ushered back by Neal and others. I think the other changes I made to that sentence satisfy this question in a reader's mind without going into undue detail. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But he reached the peak of his influence" ?
Sure! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • per MOS:ELLIPSIS: "Wikipedia's style for an ellipsis is three unspaced dots"
I've replaced all instances of "word.... Word" with "word{{nbsp}}... Word." I also replaced all instances of "word...word" with "word{{nbsp}}... word." I think I am following MOS:ELLIPSIS correctly now. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At a time when "native American" nativist term referring" Is there a missing word
Two words are missing! Added. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "" forth goes General Jackson—or general somebody else" -> "General [Andrew] Jackson"?
Fair. Done. I think I would prefer "General Jackson," but that Jackson's article is Wikilinked earlier in this one, so I don't want to overdo the Wikilinking. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In his childhood Neal adopted personal convictions against intemperate drinking that he maintained throughout his life," I think this could be phrased somewhat better but can't think of a way right now-- any ideas, perhaps "adopted personal convictions" could be expressed a bit more succinctly?
I split this sentence into two and reworded a little so that I think it's less clumsy. Let me know if you think it needs more work. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Totally! Didn't know this article existed. Decided to link directly to Moral_suasion#Temperance movement. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A really fascinating article, It's clear you've put a lot of effort into it. I think that's just about anything from me, though I may have a few follow up comments. As an aside, I think you should file a WP:REQMOVE to move this article to John Neal, because I think he's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the John Neal's, but that should happen after the FAC is closed. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think there's just one questionable thing in my latest round of replies above that could use one more follow-up from you about a sentence lacking citation. Thanks for bringing up WP:REQMOVEing the article. This article was at John Neal for most of its history but got moved to John Neal (writer) (a year or two ago?). I imagine someone made this decision because the breadth and quality of this one lagged for so long and it wasn't linked from many places for a long time, while over the years lots of other John Neal articles (mostly British soccer/football players) were created with similar primary-topic-indicating stats. In the last few months, this article has gained more indicators of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (most traffic, greatest number of articles linking it, etc.) But perhaps more importantly, this John Neal seems to me to be the one with the most lasting historical significance given the impact and breadth of his work and his significance in both the US and UK. So yes, I think I'll take up a move request after this nomination is closed! --Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better to me, I'm fine with no citation if it's sourced later. Happy to Support on prose, now. There are things I wouldn't do were I writing this article, but it works, I think, as it stands— and that's part of the beauty of Wikipedia, that people of all different backgrounds can work together. FN #288 doesn't point anywhere, just so you know-- that should be fixed. Cheesr, Eddie891 Talk Work 16:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing that! I just added that citation. Fixed now. And thank you for the thorough prose review. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado edit

I hope to have a look this weekend. Just to get started:

  • Rights of American Indians: please resolve the dab [[General Jackson|Andrew Jackson]]

--Mirokado (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thank you for finding this. I accidentally swapped the two phrases on either side of the pipe. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Childhood and early employment
    • "At seventeen years old ...": this seems clumsy. "At seventeen years of age ..." for example.
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Family and civic leadership
    • "... Neal became less active ...reduced Neal's reliance ...": no confusion of subject here, "his" would be OK for the second occurrence.
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we add a sentence or so about his "book-length religious tract, One Word More"? Doctrine, motivation?
Since nothing else is mentioned of Neal's religion aside from his Quaker upbringing, I agree that this context is needed, so I just added that. Let me know what you think. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is good coverage of the evolution of his own religious faith. If it is also possible to add a phrase about the message or motivation of the book itself, that would also be good. --Mirokado (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just added a little more about the book itself. Let me know what you think. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is OK now, thank you. Perhaps we can add "One Word More (1854) Full text" to the Selected Works section under Other works? It is an example of a completely different subject area from the rest. --Mirokado (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Scholars tend to disregard the work, but I like your idea that including it in that section expands the reader's understanding of the breadth of his interests as a writer. That's why I included Portland Illustrated, which scholars also tend to ignore, though I am partial because I am a Portland native and it's the first of his books I read. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, fine now. --Mirokado (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Neal died on June 20, 1876 and ...": I think that sentence reads better with the full name: "John Neal died ...".
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Building a career in Baltimore
    • Is it possible to add a phrase about the Delphian Club, in the absence of its own article?
I could do that. I agree that since it doesn't have an article of its own, the club should get a little more context here. I added something; let me know what you think. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine. Thank you. --Mirokado (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Novels
    • Capitalise "The" in the title the New Englanders?
The "the" in Brother Jonathan′s title is not capitalized on the book's title page or in the academic bibliographies, so I think I should stick with the way it is now. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is OK, the whole title including alternative is italicised as one, I missed that. --Mirokado (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Seventy-Six is considered one of Neal's most readable novels to a modern audience" early in the section and "Rachel Dyer: a North American Story (1828) is widely considered ..., most readable for a modern audience": Neither of these are wrong, but when reading the second, I had to go back over the paragraph to check whether I had understood the first correctly. Stylistically, this is a repetition which we should try to avoid by rephrasing. In any case "for a modern audience" is probably better, so the first occurrence should be changed.
I totally see what you're saying here. Upon reflection, I think the first occurrence isn't that important, so I just cut it, which solves the problem. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Art criticism and patronage
    • "favoring landscapes over history painting and focusing more on trades painting.": "trades painting" is not a term of art I am familiar with, neither does it appear in a simple google search as a term in its own right. It is reasonable to retain this if it appears in the reference. I think this is an aspect of genre painting so I would suggest linking to that: [[genre painting|trades painting]].
I see how "trades painting" doesn't really stand well on its own as a term, so I replaced it with "sign painting and applied arts," which pretty well encompasses what I meant by the term. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is much clearer, thank you. "I the interested reader" am left wondering what sort of things he was actually reviewing during that latter stage, so a phrase-worth of extra detail would do no harm. --Mirokado (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! I added a phrase here that I think may satisfy this curiosity about Neal's taste for trades painting. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is much better, thank you. The sentences have become rather long. I will comment further on this later. --Mirokado (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just broke up the long sentence about trades painting and reworded the previous one a little. Let me know if you think this area needs more work. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still not happy here, I'm afraid. I should emphasise that I don't quite believe the current content but do not know enough to be sure how to improve it.

  • Timing: "... but less the middle of the decade" is probably missing "by", but what I have been able to see in Orestano suggests that mentioning the late 1820s may be more appropriate: several mentions of 1828 and "by the late 1820s landscape and even still life were being mentioned by Neal. In his manner of doing so, Neal seems now to be capable to discuss and challenge ... Reynolds." (p. 134). This is partly a question of nuance, or the beginning and end of a process, so I may have missed something (the source is not an easy read). Correction or clarification and perhaps extra source references are needed.
You're right about my typo. I'll get that as I re-write this section again for the other reasons we are discussing here. What I interpreted as a mid-20s shift was Orestano's mention (pp. 132-133) of Neal's Blackwood's articles over 1824 and 1825. But Orestano spends many more pages on Neal's essays in 1828 and 1829, as you correctly point out. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Genres: The mention of "signs, chairs, furniture decoration" in Orestano (p. 133) is referring to the background of Chester Harding, a portrait painter Neal praises. The mention on p. 141 relates similarly to the experiences of landscape painter Charles Codman. It is clear from that, that Neal appreciated sign painting and so on, but this is in the context of his enthusiasm for landscapes. On Orestano p. 139 there is the "bitter" quote from 1829 criticising portrait paintings. I don't think we get the right idea if we list landscapes, portraits, sign painting, and applied arts all together without any differentiation. I'm seeing a change in enthusiasm from portraits to landscapes and an awareness of the importance of other genres. --Mirokado (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate you looking into Orestano's piece yourself. Your comments have prompted me to re-read it myself. This world of art criticism history is on the edge of my focus area and understanding here, so I really appreciate the extra pair of eyes on this section. After the re-read I agree that I was misinterpreting Orestano's mention of "signs, chairs, furniture decoration." Really, Neal is special in the late 1820s for giving so much airtime to portraits (qualified by the "bitter" quote you mentioned and what Orestano called a "eulogy of portrature" on page 141), landscapes, and engravers. That's how I'm reading it. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the current version of this section? Aside from the timing and genres issues you mentioned, I reordered two of the paragraphs and reworded a couple other things in that section in the hopes of flow improvement. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is now much better and flows well. Mentioning engravings is a good improvement. Thank you. --Mirokado (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph beginning "Neal's approach to art criticism" seems incomplete without a mention of his opinion of portrait painting since he becomes concerned about the honesty of the artist anxious to please the customer rather than the art itself. It seems that he expressed his desire for "unadulterated truth" particularly clearly when talking about portraits. --Mirokado (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just added an extra sentence that speaks to the gap you just described. Because the two mentions of Reynolds were so far apart at that point, I broke out his second mention into an extra paragraph. Let me know if you have more thoughts on this section. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very well constructed insertion, avoiding disrupting the narrative or adding undue weight. I changed "wikt:prerogatives" to "priorities". Thank you for your patience during what became a long series of comments! --Mirokado (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your word replacement and I appreciate it. This section of the article is more accurate, comprehensive, and readable thanks to your diligence. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Style
    • "of his American predecessors/contemporaries": this is bad style :) . Please fix by saying " and " or whatever instead of "/".
I agree. I think "contemporaries" applies well here on its own, so I just removed "predecessors." --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "By contrast, he felt that "to succeed..., I must be unlike all that have gone before me" and issue "another Declaration of Independence, in the great Republic of Letters"[148] by exploiting distinctly American ...": This sentence conflates the quotes with how he realised his intention. Please split, for example "... in the great Republic of Letters".[148] He did this by exploiting ...".
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More later. --Mirokado (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments! The article is better for it. Looking forward to more. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I have copyedited, including using {{"'}} and {{'"}} for typographic spacing of nested quotes, and:

Thanks for the {{"'}}s. First time I've seen that and I like how it makes the article easier to read. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Art criticism and patronage
    • "... though he didn't receive this recognition ...": "did not" is preferable for an encyclopedia article.
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drama and theatrical criticism
    • "but he never achieved this goal": "... that goal" would be better for something well in the past.
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feminism
    • Missing close of quotation, probably after "... I went to work."
Good eye! Corrected. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He cofounded the ... and co-founded ...". One or the other!
Again, good eye. Corrected --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Militia tax
    • please find a suitable wikilink for this or add a brief explanation.
When I looked I couldn't find a good matching Wikilink for the Militia tax, but it is referred to as a poll tax, so I added that link and spelled it out the rest of the way. Let me know what you think. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine, thank you. I think you could repeat the link for militia here, since the other link is along way away and here it is the main focus of the section. --Mirokado (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the Feminism section, I am very pleased indeed that I started reviewing this article on the day that Kamala Harris was projected to be the first woman Vice-President Elect of the United States! As you quote Neal saying: "I tell you there is no hope for woman, till she has a hand in making the law". I've now got down to Banruptcy law. --Mirokado (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. These comments have been so helpful, so I look forward to a few more about the last bit of the article. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No further requests for the remaining sections. A good choice of quote box in the Scattered genius section. I will comment about the citation handling and read through the whole article again a bit later. --Mirokado (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I love that preface and I think it goes well in the reflective Legacy section. I appreciate you taking more time to consider the citations and to give it another read-through. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about sfn etc to come. Everything else mentioned above here is now OK from my point of view. and I will read through the article again a bit later. --Mirokado (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sfn and friends are OK now after Aza24's update. While looking at those, I noticed that citation details for (now) Wells & Carson 2012a were repeated for each chapter cited. One way of improving that is as done in another featured article, Carl Nielsen. It is much easier to show by doing than specify in detail, so I did it. You are welcome to revert or change further if you wish. There may be other similar cases. And while doing that I noticed:

I like this change! To be consistent, I applied the same change to the 2018 DiMercurio book. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That handles those citation dates better too. --Mirokado (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chapter title for Watts 2012 does not include the chapter number, as for the other citations.
Oops! I just added that. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are various citations in which the |editor2-* parameters appear before the |editor1-* parameters in the source. Even though the resulting display is still correct, I would change that to avoid confusion. --Mirokado (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mirokado: Since it looks like all the concerns you raised have been addressed, do you support this nomination or do you want to leave your comments as just comments? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading through a second time, I will post again in an hour or so. --Mirokado (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead: "for over fifty years he supported female writers and organizers": did he also support female painters? "writers" here is rather specific. Two female painters are mentioned later, one he courted, the other he sat for.
I haven't seen any evidence of Neal focusing any of his work on female artists, whereas, whereas Fleischmann (1983, p 145) makes a point of showing how his literary criticism in The Yankee disproportionately supported women. So I think that sentence in the lead is appropriate as written on this point. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is OK, thanks for the confirmation. --Mirokado (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neal claimed his lifelong struggle with a short temper and violent tendencies originated in public school": perhaps "in the public school" here, since we have just mentioned the particular public school he attended.
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two years later he took over as editor for the last issue.": This sounds ominous! Did he know it was going to be the last issue?
The article used to include a longer version of this story, but I trimmed it down during the first FAN. The story is essentially that Watkins, the editor, handed off editorship to Neal before leaving on the army tour described in his article, assuring Neal all he had to do was polish off the copy. Neal was dismayed to find he had to write most of it himself and that the magazine was also apparently on its last legs for many reasons, so Neal successfully released that issue, but was unable to keep it running any further. It's really something I ought to add to The Portico, but I think is too much detail here. So I just changed the wording to "he took over as editor for what ended up being the last issue." Do you think that sufficiently avoids the ominous tone? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is OK now. It would be good if you can update The Portico with that background when you have time. --Mirokado (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. There are a few things from my research on Neal that I could add to expand that article beyond stub status. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pierpont's financial success with The Airs of Palestine": "with his poem ...", since the context of the paragraph is novels.
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if he was present to negotiate.": subjunctive is better here: "if he were present to negotiate."
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He offered lessons in boxing and fencing in his law office.": So much more satisfying than the modern tactic of last resort: "challenge the law; if that doesn't work, challenge your opponent; if that doesn't work, bang on the table."
Agreed. Makes you wonder how much his law and athletics practices overlapped. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... would remain so for the following twenty years." Perhaps interesting to say what supplanted it? I've no idea.
The full quote is "Not until Cooper's Littlepage Trilogy (1845-1846) did the literature of the United States see a unified work of fiction remotely as complex, ambitious, and demanding as John Neal's expansive Brother Jonathan." There is no Littlepage Manuscripts, though there are articles for the first two of the three novels in that trilogy, but not the third. So I decided that naming the trilogy would not satisfactorily enrich the claim about Brother Jonathan, though I am second-guessing that now, of course. What do you think? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do need something here, but I agree that our current coverage of the Littlepage Manuscripts does not justify a mention. This can be fixed later during the course of normal editing. --Mirokado (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and changed it to "Brother Jonathan: or, the New Englanders was the most 'complex, ambitious, and demanding' American novel until Cooper's Littlepage Manuscripts trilogy twenty years later." I think the way I had it worded before just raises the question of what work 20 years later the article was referring to, so I think naming it is worthwhile even though the trilogy is not well covered yet by Wikipedia. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Being a Mainer, I didn't think of it. Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many scholars conclude that nation's most defining authors of the mid-nineteenth-century American renaissance earned ...": Can we omit "nation's"? This construction would need "... conclude that that nation's ..." and it would be better in any case to avoid the forward reference to "that nation" which seems redundant. Thus "Many scholars conclude that most defining authors of the mid-nineteenth-century American renaissance earned ...".
Agreed! Word deleted. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finished the second read though. All the above are quite minor, I look forward to supporting once they are dealt with one way or another. --Mirokado (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for reading it through again. Let me know your thoughts on the two questions I posed above. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a well written article about a relatively unknown American author with an astonishingly wide range of interests. --Mirokado (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the coordinators: I think this article would be an excellent candidate for TFA on inauguration day (January 20, 2021), considering his early promotion of womens' rights and the inauguration of America's first female vice-president. The quote from Neal again: "I tell you there is no hope for woman, till she has a hand in making the law" --Mirokado (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • "public gym" Why gym rather than gymnasium?
Good question. I originally used gymnasium throughout because that's the term used at the time and felt more appropriate here for an old-school Turnen facility. But because gymnasium can refer to many different things and whereas the article for what I'm talking about is under gym, I decided later to use the latter, though now that I'm looking at it, I realize that I have one image caption still using gymnasium. Writing this out now, I'm feeling inclined again to switch back to gymnasium and [[gym]]nasium. What are your thoughts? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Neal's business failure had left him without enough "money to take a letter from the post-office,"[33]' It might be worth footnoting that in that era, recipients of letters were responsible for postage.
Agreed! I just added a footnote that I think makes this clarification. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neal was able to pay his expenses while completing his apprenticeship and independently studying law." Somewhere, the term reading law should be used or piped.
I didn't know this article existed! Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I just added the Wikilinked phrase in place of "apprenticed with a lawyer." --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention that he argued cases before the Supreme Court. Is there no more to be said about that? Like which cases, at the very least and their citations. Plus any known reaction from the justices.
Thank you for bringing this up! Looking further into it, I see that he was admitted to practice in the Supreme Court Feb 1823 and was involved in only one Supreme Court case, which he left to Charles F. Mayer and David Hoffman before he left for England. The case is Chirac v. Reinicker, which seems pretty marginal and doesn't have its own article, though it is redlinked from List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 27. And that is all to say that the current language isn't accurate, so I just changed it. Let me know what you think. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would add the citation, 24 U.S. (11 Wheat.) 280 (1826) after the case name and a comma. Did he argue it? You still say he did.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the scrutiny here since law is a bit outside my wheelhouse and Neal's law career is obviously overshadowed in the scholarship by his literary and activist careers. The scholarship says he was paid a retainer as one of five counsel on the case but that "little appears to have been done" on it before he left Baltimore. This tells me I should nix the language about the case and focus instead on his more clear status as having been admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court as the accomplishment worth mentioning in this sentence. Let me know if you have further thoughts on this. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth mentioning, or it might not. It's very common today for a lawyer to be a member of the Supreme Court bar. I am, and I've never submitted a document or argued a case there. Thirty years ago it cost fifty bucks, and it's a nice certificate. Don't know how it was in 1823, I'm giving you this to show it can sound like a bigger deal than it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did I mention that I appreciate your lawyer's perspective here? I can find no evidence to suggest that being a member of the Supreme Court bar in 1823 was a bigger deal than now, except for Neal's indignation that the Cumberland Bar in Maine suggested in 1827 that they would block his membership though he was a "Counsellor of the Supreme-Court of the United States for several years." Given that he earned admission precisely 3 years after joining the state bar, which I understand is the requirement to this day, I am inclined to believe what you suggest that this is not worth mentioning after all. I just deleted that part of the sentence in question. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see they now charge $200!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use Quaker unlinked and then later link Society of Friends.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:DUPLINK, I decided to link Quaker on first appearance and then leave it unlinked in subsequent appearances. I decided to keep Society of Friends linked even though it goes to the same place because SOF is a different phrase that many who are vaguely familiar with Quakers may not understand. Do you have thoughts on that? --Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the next year and a half, Neal made his living writing for Blackwood's." Citation needed.
Good call. After looking up where I got that impression, I decided to reword that language to stick a little closer to the claims made in those sources. I added citations to match. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sent adrift" I think you mean "set adrift".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely! Thank you for noticing. I just fixed that. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I added a footnote at the term's first occurrence. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Up to Activism, will handle that and the remainder either later today or tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I'm looking forward to more comments. I appreciate you taking the time. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I read through the remainder and made some minor edits. Excellent work. I'm sorry to say I had never heard of Neal.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim edit

Having just completed an FAC on another writer, I thought I’d take a look at this. It’s certainly comprehensive, but a few nitpicks.

  • I think we discourage refs in lead, since the facts are to be found in the main text. Are yours all necessary there?
Eddie891 raised a similar question (above) and what I said was that my interpretation of WP:LEDECITE tells me that I should retain citations only for "material...likely to be challenged." I judged the likely challengeable material to include only the historical superlatives. But given Eddie891's response to that, plus yours, I think I'll go ahead and remove them all. Every claim in the lead is cited in the body. Funny thing is, I intentionally omitted lead citations until I added them in response to a request in the peer review previous to this article's first FAN. Gone now! --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps consider a short gloss for coverture, it seems a pity to have to follow the link to realise its significance,
Sure! It's anything but a household word. I added a short phrase following two of the 5 uses of the word in the article. Let me know if you think more is needed. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's for sure on my plate. But first I'm occupied with preparing a new list article for John Neal's bibliography. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • itinerant penmanship instructor, watercolor instructor— avoid repeat of "instructor"
Sure! I replaced the second instance with "teacher." --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • contraband —link?
Sure! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • eleven new languages —perhaps lose "new", the languages aren't new, even if he has just learnt them
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You tend to follow the old convention of treating England as synonymous with the United Kingdom, which looks increasingly archaic. For example, when you write as derivative of their English predecessors... advance feminist issues in the United States and England... into published discourse in England and the US, are you specifically excluding Scotland, Ireland and Wales? Please consider where England/English could advantageously be replaced by UK/British.
You got me. I blame it on my reading of Neal's 19th-century works. I went through and reassessed every use of "England" and "English," changing as necessary. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Virginian, Georgian, Scottish, Penobscot Indian—perhaps link to Scottish English, to avoid confusion with Gaelic?
Agreed! Done. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really need to have the state included in Portland, Maine so many times? No other Portland is mentioned, so confusion seems unlikely
Good question. Being a native Portlander myself, I have gotten in the habit of adding the state name whenever I'm talking to someone not from or physically here because, since Neal's time, Oregon's Portland has come to overshadow Maine's so much in the national consciousness. I went through the article with your comment in mind and deleted ", Maine" in a few places, but I think only instances in which ", Maine" is used earlier in the same section. Let me know if you have more thoughts on this. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scholar Fred Lewis Pattee... Scholar Alexander Cowie and others. — this looks odd to me. It's treated as if it's a title or qualification, but we aren't actually told what their relevant expertise is.
I've struggled with this issue a bit as I improve this article. At some point these names stood without any explanation of why their opinion should carry any weight, which seemed problematic to me, especially since so few of them are Wikilinkable. So I added "literary historian," but one of the cited authors told me in a phone call that's not the right phrase for them. So I just replaced "scholar" when used in a title-like way with "American literature scholar." I think that fixes the issue you raise here. Let me know if you have more thoughts on it. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for taking the time to read through the article and make comments! --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Rachel Dyer bit was just a suggestion, and I refrained from throwing Portland Harbour into the Maine/Oregon mix. All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gog the Mild! This being my first successful nomination, I appreciate knowing how the bot works. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2020 (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/John_Neal_(writer)/archive2&oldid=993509659"