Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Covent-Garden Journal/archive1
- 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 Karanacs 16:29, 13 September 2009 [1].
The Covent-Garden Journal edit
- Nominator(s): —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC) and Ottava Rima (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it's of appropriate length, provides necessary and concise information on the topic, is well-researched and -referenced, and is of a generally high quality. Thanks. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added my name per AD's comments on my talk page. If there are any concerns about sources or if someone wants access to the sources, I will try and process that quickly. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support: An engrossing, comprehensive article on an interesting corner of literary history. The prose is not quite there, yet, but I believe it can quite quickly be brought up to standard. Sources look good. Here are my detailed comments:-
- Lead
- "...under the pseudonym of" – "of" is unnecessary
- Fixed.
- Questionable use of quote marks: ..."war" on the "armies" of Grub Street. In the main text "the armies of Grub Street" is all within quotes; I suggest you use the same form here, and probably drop the quotes round "war".
- Fixed.
- "...the letter, initially attributed to a 'Humphrey Meanwell', was in fact written by Fielding operating under a pseudonym." The last four words are intuitive and could be omitted.
- Fixed.
- "...under the pseudonym of" – "of" is unnecessary
- Background
- Opening phrase jars: "a" followed immediately by "the". I know "The" is part of the journal's title, but I don't think the "a" is necessary.
- Fixed.
- "Published pseudonymously..." Again, we can infer pseudonymous from the previous text, and the word can be omitted.
- Fixed.
- Third paragraph: some work needed here.
- You say Fielding began "plotting his next course of literary work". That reads as rather stilted - is "course of" necessary?
- Fixed,
- To link with what follows in the paragraph, you need to say somewhere that he decided that this next literary work would take the form of a journal. Otherwise, when you say "he gave it the title The Covent-Garden Journal", it is not clear what "it" refers to.
- Fixed.
- It also says: "In alluding to his past publication...". The sentence should not start with "In". Also, from what has been said, it wasn't "his" publication, merely something he gave a hand to. I suggest "the earlier" replaces "his past". Thus: "Alluding to the earlier publication,..." etc
- Fixed.
- Could you be a bit more precise than "...because of Amelia."?
- My sources don't really specify, I think. I assume it would have been stock standard production affairs. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe say "because of work related to the publication of Amelia? Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My sources don't really specify, I think. I assume it would have been stock standard production affairs. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the Duke's journal of the same name, did Fielding's journal begin at No. 2, or did he begin again at No 1?
- Remember that Fielding never admitted to participating in the hoax (as far as I know), so I don't think he would have regarded it in issuing the Journal. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You say Fielding began "plotting his next course of literary work". That reads as rather stilted - is "course of" necessary?
- Opening phrase jars: "a" followed immediately by "the". I know "The" is part of the journal's title, but I don't think the "a" is necessary.
- Content
- "Fielding injected a certain degree of wit or "liveliness" not seen in his previous publications" - does the source say the "not seen..." bit?
- I don't have access to that source. Perhaps Ottava Rima will know. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankfully, google has a copy of this one also (I have physical copies of all of them, but this is convenient for others to check) - p. 47 says "More aggressively than he had done in his earlier periodicals, Fielding here makes wit (or liveliness, or urbanity) a distinguishing, thus unifying...". The "not seen" is connected to "a certain degree" and a paraphrase of "more aggressively than he had done..." to the end of the sentence. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have access to that source. Perhaps Ottava Rima will know. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The structure of the sentence beginning "Exceptions included..." is far too complicated, with long subclauses and an immense quotation. And while I think of it..."Exceptions included" sounds a bit like something Sam Goldwyn might have said. So I suggest "Exceptions were...", then reconstruct the material in a slightly more digestible form.
- Still pondering that. Would it be remiss to remove the quotation? It would be a shame... —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about this?
- Still pondering that. Would it be remiss to remove the quotation? It would be a shame... —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fielding injected a certain degree of wit or "liveliness" not seen in his previous publications" - does the source say the "not seen..." bit?
Exceptions were those in numbers 42, 50 and 58. No. 42 mocked the Country Tories by imagining how an Ancient Greek or Roman would react to party politics: "...convey [him] to a Hunting-Match, or Horse Race, or any other Meeting of Patriots. Will he not immediately conclude from all the Roaring and Ranting, the Hallowing and the Hazzaing, the Gaming and Drinking, [...] that he is actually present at the Orgia of Bacchus, or the Celebration of some such Festival?". Number 50 blamed the growth of the London mob on poverty laws, while number 58 targeted the "Independent Electors of Westminster"
- That would retain the whole quote, but I believe the quote would be equally forceful if it began at "Will he not...". Brianboulton (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That reads well. Thanks. I've inserted it, but changed "while" to "and"; the link between the two clauses seems additive, not contrastive. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "In his literary reviews, Fielding often wrote with a biased hand." This, and similar judgements such as "Fielding's reviews were not always partisan", and "Fielding had a noted tendency to be prejudiced toward certain authors", need to be attributed, otherwise they read as POV.
- No access to that source either.
- The source. It covers multiple pages, so you will have to look around. Saying that a work is opinion based is not controversial, and they are already attributed. This wasn't a newspaper but series of editorials that were printed as a satirical journal. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure the source says what you say it says. However, when you say that Fielding often wrote with a biased hand, gave immoderate praise, or had noted tendencies to be prejudiced in certain directions, whose opinions are these? Although the comments are cited, we need to be told specifically whose opinions/judgements these are. Thus the paragraph should be introduced: "According to the Battestins' analysis..." or some such. Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They aren't POV or controversial. They do not need to be directly quoted. Based on your rational, saying someone wrote an opinion column would need to be attributed directly to a critic. It is not an "According to Battestins" as there is no critical involvement of opinion. It is a -fact-. The journals were not news, they were not objective, nor is there any possibility of claiming they were anything but parody and opinion pieces. Thus, there is no way to claim that the above characterization is even close to being controversial enough to warrant such statements. Find -one- source that claims the journal is objective and neutral. Unless you do, you have no grounds to claim it needs to be directly attributed, especially when it is a common statement in -all- works on Fielding dealing with the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the delay on picking this up. OK, I think you are arguing that Fielding's unquestioned status as a polemicist means that his writing was naturally biased, immoderate and prejudiced, and that these terms do not require attribution as they are self-evident, not a matter of opinion. I am half-convinced. If no other reviewer picks up on this I won't press the point, but part of me is uncomfortable with not knowing whose words these descriptive phrases are. Brianboulton (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want, the language can be toned down. The term "prejudice" tends to have a negative connotation in the US with racial undertones, so that word could easily be swapped for another (prejudice just means choosy or selective, or in favour of something). Immoderate shouldn't have such a connotation, as it means that he went out of his way to support his friends, i.e. he wrote puff pieces and rather admittedly (most journals and reviews of the day contained puff pieces and little objectivity). Here are some other sources: this says that there was no political bias, but also "he was not always polite in his wit, or restrained in his observations... assumed, also, the right of censorship over his contemporaries-a right to ridicule and criticise them.." This source has quite a bit about his views - "he endorses Richardson by way of censoring Rabelais and Aristophanes". This is Fielding's attack on Smollett. As you can see, it is an attack piece (quite literally, as it has a lot about military and conflict in it). Another describing the opinionated aspect - "Much like Steele, Fielding had declared himself a moral censor and regularly held forth on the reigning vices and follies in his periodical writing." There are more, but it is hard to find the info available on google books for others to verify. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done some more rewording for the flow. It might be more toned-down. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As no one else has picked up on this, I'm not pressing it. Brianboulton (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done some more rewording for the flow. It might be more toned-down. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want, the language can be toned down. The term "prejudice" tends to have a negative connotation in the US with racial undertones, so that word could easily be swapped for another (prejudice just means choosy or selective, or in favour of something). Immoderate shouldn't have such a connotation, as it means that he went out of his way to support his friends, i.e. he wrote puff pieces and rather admittedly (most journals and reviews of the day contained puff pieces and little objectivity). Here are some other sources: this says that there was no political bias, but also "he was not always polite in his wit, or restrained in his observations... assumed, also, the right of censorship over his contemporaries-a right to ridicule and criticise them.." This source has quite a bit about his views - "he endorses Richardson by way of censoring Rabelais and Aristophanes". This is Fielding's attack on Smollett. As you can see, it is an attack piece (quite literally, as it has a lot about military and conflict in it). Another describing the opinionated aspect - "Much like Steele, Fielding had declared himself a moral censor and regularly held forth on the reigning vices and follies in his periodical writing." There are more, but it is hard to find the info available on google books for others to verify. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the delay on picking this up. OK, I think you are arguing that Fielding's unquestioned status as a polemicist means that his writing was naturally biased, immoderate and prejudiced, and that these terms do not require attribution as they are self-evident, not a matter of opinion. I am half-convinced. If no other reviewer picks up on this I won't press the point, but part of me is uncomfortable with not knowing whose words these descriptive phrases are. Brianboulton (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They aren't POV or controversial. They do not need to be directly quoted. Based on your rational, saying someone wrote an opinion column would need to be attributed directly to a critic. It is not an "According to Battestins" as there is no critical involvement of opinion. It is a -fact-. The journals were not news, they were not objective, nor is there any possibility of claiming they were anything but parody and opinion pieces. Thus, there is no way to claim that the above characterization is even close to being controversial enough to warrant such statements. Find -one- source that claims the journal is objective and neutral. Unless you do, you have no grounds to claim it needs to be directly attributed, especially when it is a common statement in -all- works on Fielding dealing with the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure the source says what you say it says. However, when you say that Fielding often wrote with a biased hand, gave immoderate praise, or had noted tendencies to be prejudiced in certain directions, whose opinions are these? Although the comments are cited, we need to be told specifically whose opinions/judgements these are. Thus the paragraph should be introduced: "According to the Battestins' analysis..." or some such. Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The source. It covers multiple pages, so you will have to look around. Saying that a work is opinion based is not controversial, and they are already attributed. This wasn't a newspaper but series of editorials that were printed as a satirical journal. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No access to that source either.
- "In his literary reviews, Fielding often wrote with a biased hand." This, and similar judgements such as "Fielding's reviews were not always partisan", and "Fielding had a noted tendency to be prejudiced toward certain authors", need to be attributed, otherwise they read as POV.
- Paper war
- Delete article from section title
- Done. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The first four numbers of The Journal are of particular note because they featured an account of the "Paper War." The words "are of particular note because they" should be deleted as editorial comment and therefore POV
- Fixed.
- "with writers" better than "with the writers"
- Fixed.
- "...for the sake of generating sales" is wordy. Why not "to generate sales"?
- Fixed.
- "Fielding challenged the armies of Grub Street". Was this a challenge on a specific issue? Otherwise the word "confront" might be a better choice.
- Fixed.
- (Second paragraph) The words "In this way" are redundant
- Fixed.
- "especial" in this usage is OK but archaic; "special" is preferable.
- I think "special" is less fitting, myself. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The last sentence of the section requires a citation.
- Delete article from section title
- Meanwell controversy: isn't "controversy" rather over-egging it? (controversy: dispute, argument or debate, esp. one concerning a matter about which there is strong disagreement. Collins English Dictionary) Whats a good word for a "storm in a teacup"?
- Would "Affair" be more fitting? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good choice. Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would "Affair" be more fitting? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- End of publication
- Unnecessarily wordy: "Fielding himself had fallen into poor health" Perhaps "Fielding's health was poor,..."
- Fixed.
- Several references to The Journal. I believe this should be "the Journal". For instance, if a paper was called The London Advertiser you might refer to it as the Advertiser, but not as The Advertiser.
- Fixed.
- Unnecessarily wordy: "Fielding himself had fallen into poor health" Perhaps "Fielding's health was poor,..."
- General
- I think the whole text could do with a punctuation audit. I spotted a few cases of possible over-use of commas.
- ...Where? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have to go back and look for specific examples - it was more an impression I got, but punctuation styles can vary. Let's leave it, unless another reviewer picks up on it. Brianboulton (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Where? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images need alt text.
- Added for all of them. Might need someone to check File:Fielding_and_Hill.jpg's description: I just based it on my own inference. Ottava? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; that alt text looks good to me (including File:Fielding and Hill.jpg). One image included via a template still lacked alt text; I added some for that, which you might also want to check. Eubulides (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added for all of them. Might need someone to check File:Fielding_and_Hill.jpg's description: I just based it on my own inference. Ottava? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the whole text could do with a punctuation audit. I spotted a few cases of possible over-use of commas.
Altogether, engaging and good. - User:Brianboulton (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. I'll try to work on the few outstanding issues over the next days. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am happy with the responses to my queries, and have upgraded my comments to "support". Brianboulton (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your support. The attention to detail definitely helped (even when we argued over some of it :) ). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text is done; thanks. For more on the why images need alt text, please see WP:ALT and the "alt text" entry in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—'tis very good. I've taken the liberty of enlarging the images. MoS advice on this is now clearer—they tend to be rather detailed. Please adjust if you don't like them. Tony (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support. To be frank, all the images now seem quite overbearing. Could you direct me to the MoS advice? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree - the images (apart from Smollett) overwhelm the text. They could be increased a little from their original sizes, but not I think to this extent. Brianboulton (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Later) The enlarged images cause squeezing of text, which breaches MOS Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We could simply list a "click to enlarge" as a compromise between sizing if people would like. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support. To be frank, all the images now seem quite overbearing. Could you direct me to the MoS advice? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can confirm no copyright issues with any of the images on this page. Stifle (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Does File:Fielding and Hill.jpg have a source?Dabomb87 (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Added in the sourcing for the version found in Battestin and Battestin, even though the quality is different (his version is much more crisp and glossy than my copy was). It is enough to verify PD Old. If someone wants to get a better version, the Battestin and Battestin version seems to be a good source. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
, providing you can inline cite "Though the true author of the pamphlet remains uncertain, it was believed at the time to be Fielding's work".Ironholds (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I turned the period into a semi-colon to make it more apparent that the two sentences are connected and part of the same source. It is better than having a redundant citation or beating the reviewer over the head until he admits defeat. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.