Talk:Jane Austen/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Pronunciation

I don't think I've heard the pronunciation [ɔːstən]. Is that American English? To my knowledge, Austen is a rare spelling of Austin [ɔstin]. There was actually a British TV series "Lost in Austen"; the name has the pun that "Austen" rhymes with "lost in". Here's pronunciation by Emma Sayings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-r3zb6ALeQ - clear enough? Piechjo (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Was also wondering about this... does seem to get both of the vowels wrong. Any reliable sources on pronunciation though (esp. from 200 years ago)? If not, would probably be best to remove. ‑‑Yodin^T 18:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I searched further online and found several audio files. It seems the British pronunciation is [ɔstin] while Americans say [ɔ:stin] or [ɑːstin], but I didnt' find any [-ən] endings. To me it seems there's modern consensus of how to pronounce the name, and learners of English should find it in Wikipedia. How about we just change it, and if someone brings contrary evidence, it's their burden of proof..? Piechjo (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Ok, sounds good! ‑‑Yodin^T 23:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a Wikipedia article on Cot-caught merger. Both [ɔːstɪn] and [ɒstɪn] (in terms of symbols used on Wikipedia) are found as British pronunciations. In American pronunciation, [ɪ] would often become [ə] and the vowel of the first syllable would lower/unround (but this would not be written according to Wikipedia conventions).Churchh (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 19:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 19:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tim riley: With appreciation for someone taking on such a long article. The initial comments made are of a useful and thoughtful review. For practical reasons, your opening comments about the lede, which are on target, I plan to return to last in order of edits and possibly do a substantial rewrite after all the new edits are brought in. Otherwise, I have taken the last day or two to answer your preliminary inquiries below and bring most of them into the article. Looking forward to your "more soonest". Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments

I have greatly enjoyed reading this article, and many parts of it are well up to GA standard. It consists chiefly of an excellent biography, with a shorter section on how Austen has been viewed during and after her lifetime, and details of a few adaptations. It has very little literary analysis of her works, but that is acceptable at GAN – the criteria do not require an article to be comprehensive. The main obstacle to promotion to GA is the lead section, which falls short of the required standard: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. A lead should summarise all the important material of the main text, which the present lead could, at a pinch, just about be said to do. But there is a second requirement for a lead – it must not contain material that isn't in the main text, and here is the problem: the lead is full of information and comment not substantiated in the body of the article. It is a pretty good rule of thumb that a lead should not need to contain citations, because all the statements in it are developed and cited in the main text. These points in the lead do not come up in the main text to any important degree:

• Austen's literary realism
• Her works contain biting irony and social commentary
• Her plots are acclaimed
• Austen is part of the transition to 19th-century literary realism
• Her plots, are fundamentally comic
• Her plots highlight the dependence of women on marriage

I don't quarrel with any of these points, but they cannot be mentioned in the lead unless they are developed in the main text.

Statements that need citations

• Austen's writings were historically written during the period of high British Idealism and high British Romanticism.

• Refined sentence and added links. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• In 1788, her portrait may have been commissioned by her great uncle, Francis Austen. And in my view this statement, fairly pointless on its own, should either have its significance explained (the disputed authenticity of the portrait) or be dropped.

• The most recent scholar in 2015, in the book titled Jane Austen's Kent, has endorsed it as authentic after the 2012 controversy. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• The period since World War II has seen more scholarship on Austen using a diversity of critical approaches, including feminist theory, and perhaps most controversially, postcolonial theory. *However, the continuing disconnection between the popular appreciation of Austen, particularly by modern Janeites, and the academic appreciation of Austen has widened considerably.

• Changing wording to identify three major scholarly anthologies about Austen and her work not around before WWII. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• In January of 2016 a film version of Austen's early epistolary novel Lady Susan directed by Whit Stillman premiered at the Sundance Film Festival starring Kate Beckinsale and Chloe Sevigny under the borrowed title of another one of Austen's early novels Love & Friendship.

• Have added one of the film reviews here from one of the premieres with link. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Uncited statements that (IMO) should be removed

• The sentimental relationship between Jane and Tom is at the centre of the 2007 biographical film Becoming Jane.
• The three films were also produced and distributed on DVD for home video use.
• The whole of the uncited “Popular culture” section.

• Yes, all three of these items have been archived or elided. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate links, which should be removed

• Francis William (Frank)
• Cassandra Elizabeth
• Steventon
• [sic]
• Bath
• Southampton
• Sense and Sensibility
• Pride and Prejudice
• typhus
• Sanditon
• Prince Regent
• Henry Fielding
• Samuel Richardson
• Janeite
• epistolary novel
• Lady Susan

• Removed all dup links per list, though I could not find the dup links for Francis William or for Richardson. The "sic" is retained next to "Love and Freindship" since this misspelling is well-known in Austen circles. If I missed any others then you may list them again or edit accordingly. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I have some wholly optional tweaks that I may put forward for your consideration, but let us get the above points attended to first. I'll put the review on hold for a week to give you time to work on them. Tim riley talk 21:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking in after a few days

The article is looking better, but the lead still discusses things not mentioned in the main text. "Literary realism" for instance, and "her plots are fundamentally comic" (there is nothing in the text about comedy or humour) and "her plots highlight the dependence of women on marriage to secure social standing". There are also some statements in the main text without citations: the romantic poets being quoted in JN's novels; Henry's marriage; "The period since WWII..."; the first para of the 21st century section. Tim riley talk 07:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Are we close to resolving the question of the lead? I'll need to close the review one way or the other quite soon. Tim riley talk 18:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Update version of lede

Jane Austen (/ˈdʒeɪn ˈɒstɪn/; 16 December 1775 – 18 July 1817) was an English novelist known principally for her five major novels which interpret, critique and comment upon the novels of sensibility of the end of the 18th century. Her most highly praised novel during her own lifetime was Pride and Prejudice which was her second published novel. Her plots often reflect upon the dependence of women on marriage in the pursuit of secure social standing and economic security.

Austen's main novels are rarely out of print today though they were first published anonymously and brought her little personal fame with only a few glancing reviews during her lifetime. A significant transition in her posthumous reputation as an author occurred in 1869, fifty-two years after her death, when her nephew published A Memoir of Jane Austen which effectively introduced her to a wider public and reading audience. Austen's most successful novel during her own lifetime was Pride and Prejudice which went through two editions during her own lifetime. Her third published novel was Mansfield Park which was largely overlooked by the professional reviewers though it was a great success with the public still within her lifetime.

All five of her major novels were published for the first time between 1811 and 1818. From 1811 until 1816, with the premiere publication of Sense and Sensibility (1811), Pride and Prejudice (1813), Mansfield Park (1814) and Emma (1815), she achieved success as a published writer. She wrote two additional novels Northanger Abbey and Persuasion, both published posthumously in 1818, and began another one, which was eventually titled Sanditon, but died before completing it.

During the twentieth and twenty-first centuries Austen's celebrated books have inspired a large number of critical essays as well as books of critical essays establishing her place as a prominent British author of international fame. Her books are often used to inspire the other cultural arts as well with numerous film productions of her novels starting as early as the 1940s with Laurence Olivier's production to new productions in the 21st century starring such leading actresses as Kiera Knightly, Kate Beckinsale and Chloe Savigny.

The article is looking better, but the lead still discusses things not mentioned in the main text. "Literary realism" for instance,

Literary realism as a term is currently linked to the Wikipedia article on this subject. The previous version referred to "realism" by itself which seemed less informative. With the link as specified, then readers can simply see the linked article for the definition of the term. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

and "her plots are fundamentally comic" (there is nothing in the text about comedy or humour)

The wording could be adapted here to refer to the novels being described as being studies in the comedy-of-manners genre. "Comedy" here is not to denote anything more that the sense of Comedia as used since classical literature, and not tragedy. The language could be adapted to "comedy of manners" novels if this is preferred for readers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

and "her plots highlight the dependence of women on marriage to secure social standing".

Women in pursuit of a fortunate marriage is a recurrent theme in much of Austen. This phrase is often celebrated with the famous quote from the start of her most famous novel that it is well known that a man with a large fortune can be expected to want to search for a good wife. Possibly the quote from the novel in the article would clarify this literary trope in Austen. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There are also some statements in the main text without citations: the romantic poets being quoted in JN's novels; Henry's marriage; "The period since WWII...";

Two citations have been added and the text shortened based on your previous comment. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

the first para of the 21st century section.

There are two citations added for that new first paragraph there. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Also noting that I am archiving the short line about the disputed portrait as it more likely belongs on the art portrait page and not in this biography. The new updated rewrite lede sans cites now appears which has not been updated since 2013. Your added comments have been well targeted. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Closing comments

Good. I think we're there. The lead and its relationship to the main text will now pass muster. I'd advise removing the WP:PEACOCK term "celebrated" from the last paragraph of the lead, and rephrasing the mention of Olivier to avoid giving the impression that he produced a Jane Austen film rather than starring in it. The biography is excellent; the illustrations are all duly licensed (and very good); the sourcing is wide and evidently authoritative. With the addition of a substantial analysis of the works this could well be a candidate for Featured Article in due course, but as it stands it meets the GA criteria, in my judgement, and I am pleased to promote it. Speaking as someone who has loved Austen's novels for nearly fifty years, I send warm congratulations to everyone who has contributed to this pleasing article. – Tim riley talk 14:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Spelling Correction

The spelling of Keira Knightley is wrong on this page (end of fourth paragraph).

Fixed. Rothorpe (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Rothorpe: Possibly you noticed the nice comment at the end made by the reviewer at the GA nom which I think included reference to your help edits. Perhaps you get to put a GA star on your Talk page now. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks, I'll have a look. Rothorpe (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The article's lead

The lead of this article was apparently changed during the GA review. I've looked at this, and with all due respect I think the reviewer went about things completely the wrong way, asking that key points like Austen's social commentary and literary realism be removed, rather than insisting that they be covered in the article body (as indeed they should be). It's baffling that after the changes he concludes "The lead and its relationship to the main text will now pass muster", when the new lead completely neglects the article's section on Jane's life. It is not representative of the main text, it is only an overview of the "Reception" part of the article. I suggest that the previous lead be reinstated, as it was far more informative (both of her life and writing style) and better written. Any information that isn't covered in the article can then be added with a "Themes" section, which would greatly enhance the article. --80.43.205.25 (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Pride and Prejudice is mentioned four times in the lead, once in each of the four paragraphs. Contrast that with one mention only on 28 March. Rothorpe (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Worse - it's actually five. Do you support my suggestion? --80.43.187.189 (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The fifth is actually Pride & Prejudice, so I discounted it. But yes, please do revert. Rothorpe (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Which revert are you supporting. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I was comparing it with the previous lead mentioned by the IP above. Rothorpe (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Tim Riley's comments at assessment were quite extensive stating:

These points in the lead do not come up in the main text to any important degree:

• Austen's literary realism
• Her works contain biting irony and social commentary
• Her plots are acclaimed
• Austen is part of the transition to 19th-century literary realism
• Her plots, are fundamentally comic
• Her plots highlight the dependence of women on marriage (facsimile of Tim Riley comments on lede from assessment)

Does it make sense to consider some option since Tim Riley's comments were extensive about the old version. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Enhancement of article to include a Novels section

It was suggested at GA assessment that a Novels section be added to the article. It is posted here on the Talk page for any editors who would like to participate in trying to improve Wikipedia by expanding the article as suggested during GA assessment. I am in general agreement with the assessing editor's comments and am placing the enhancement as a separate section directly below this one, while I am requesting to make comments, critiques, and suggestions in this section for possible discussion. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The very first sentence is not good, even when the missing word is added. Now:"F. R. Leavis's and Ian Watt's did much to establish Austen as being among the leading British novelists coming after Henry Fielding and Samuel Richardson, and leading up to Charles Dickens.[1] ". Better: "Though Austen's novels had always been extremely popular, they had been rather looked down on by academics of English literature, until a reassessment by F. R. Leavis, Ian Watt and others in the mid-20th century placed Austen as a serious and foremost figure in the development of the English novel, coming between Henry Fielding and Samuel Richardson, and before Charles Dickens.[1]" Or something. I expect the source will support that. Whether we need this point here, rather than in the critical section, I'm not sure. There are some other problems, but I think it would be ok to add these and allow normal the improvement process to follow for a while. One might add bits about the relative popularity, which should be easy to source and seems fairly constant as: P&P, E, P, then the others some way behind. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

More words in your version though it reads nicely and is added now. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments on the new section: Novels

Hi; per my comments here, I have a few comments on the new addition:

Introductory preface comments

• "coincidentally co-published with Persuasion after Austen's death" What's coincidental about it?

The dates of the authorship of the two separate and distinct novels has now been added. The authorship of each of the novels was separated by over a decade. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• "is sometimes added to her list of leading novels even though it was written at a time" I'd like to see a source for this claim

Northanger Abbey was written over a decade before Persuasion. All four of Austen's other main novels were written between the completion of Northager Abbey and Persuasion. The dates of authorship of the two novels are very different. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Sense and Sensibility

• "Adam Stevenson's "Life and Love" (1785)" Google's throwing up very little about this; I'm surprised, if it was an influence on Austen, that I can't find more about it. Anyway, why quote marks and not italics?

There is added material on Sense and Sensibility in the new Themes section below. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• "a relationship that was not meant to be" Is this a little colloquial?

Changing wording to: "Adam Stevenson's autobiographical essay titled "Life and Love" (1785), in which Stevenson had written about himself and an unfortuitous relationship...". Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could open the discussion of each of the novels with a one-line plot summary? "Sense and Sensibility is a comedic romance novel following the affairs of two sisters as they [whatever]", perhaps? For example, I note that you mention Willoughby and Brandon without really introducing them.

The size of this section has increased the size of the article by twenty percent, and the addition of a new section now on Themes has increased it yet another twenty percent. Perhaps a selective indication of which novels would benefit from a short summary would be useful, if you believe the summary for S&S would benefit from including one. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Pride and Prejudice

• Could you provide a link to our article on Holford? I'm assuming it's Margaret Holford or possibly Margaret Holford (the elder)?

It is the elder Holford, and she was the author of three novels Fanny, Selima, and First Impressions. It is the last one in this list which shares the same title as the one Jane Austen used for the first version of P&P. The article for her at Wikipedia is only a stub or start article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• The Pride and Prejudice section seems to have a bit more background on the novel and a bit less by way of analysis. Not necessarily a problem, but it doesn't help with the concern about the lack of literary theory in the article.

There is now a new "Themes" section added in the article now and some of this material is covered there. Elizabeth Bennet is a favourite character among many literary scholars who have studied this novel and there is ample published material if needed here. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Mansfield Park

• "difficult to sympathise with" Do you mean empathise? Also, ending with a preposition is sometimes described as something to avoid.

Wording adjusted and the sentence now closes with the words "privations of her childhood." Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• "But Tomalin reflects the ambivalence that many readers feel towards Fanny" Is this OR? Or do you have a source that says she is here reflecting ambivalence and/or a source that says that many readers are ambivalent?

Some would have reservations on the reading of Tomalin's words though the article's comments here do not contain WP:OR but are Tomalin's material. Tomalin states: "More is made of Fanny Price's faith, which gives her the courage to resist what she thinks is wrong; it also makes her intolerant of sinners, whom she is ready to cast aside." Readers agree or disagree with this reading, and both opinions are reflected in the research literature. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Austen's historical time-frame put her at the center of much of the debate concerning slavery in her own time" Slightly clumsy

Now specifying the time-frame as "time-frame during the Regency period" and shortening the end of the sentence. Better to specify the time frame. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Said was relentless in his attacks against Austen" Hyperbole/editoralising

Mansfield Park is the most controversial of Austen's novel following her addition of the slave trade material. The late Edward Said was outspoken in his opinions on controversial matters and had a strong reputation for defending his colleagues and taking public stands against literary opponents. Said may have taken his position from his thought that Austen could have been more outspoken against the slave trade. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• (I like the stuff on the slave trade. That's fascinating, and exactly the kind of literary criticism I want to see in an article of this sort!)

(As your background is in philosophy from your User page, it seems that you are drawn to Austen's most controversial novel. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC))

• "This is a great departure from Austen's other novels, in which the quest for marriage and financial security are often important themes in the stories." This is the kind of thing I want to hear more about- themes in Austen's work as a whole.

A new "Themes" section has been added for your comment-critique-update review. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Emma

• "in contrast, are bleak. In contrast" Repetition

Repetition is removed. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Where's your source for all the stuff in the Emma section, by the way? You can't source a load of analysis to the novel itself- that's paradigmatic original research.

The Emma material has been expanded somewhat in the new Themes section below. I shall revisit the prefatory material in the Oxford publication cited and possibly supplement the citation. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Her fancy for Frank Churchill represents more of a longing for a little drama in her life than a longing for romantic love." Tone?

Adjusting sentence to specify her affections more accurately. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Persuasion

@Josh Milburn: There is now a sentence added in the Persuasion section to specify the 4-vol format of the premiere printing of this novel. The publication together with Northanger Abbey is almost as if someone were to look at Shakespeare and decide that one of his early plays like Romeo&Juliet should have been co-printed with one of his late plays like The Tempest. A publication of these two Shakespeare plays together to the exclusion of any other of Shakespeare's plays would look odd. I have referred to this type of co-publication as "coincidental" co-publishing in this Austen article, though other phrasing may be possible. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Northanger Abbey

• "As for Northanger Abbey, published at the same time, it was probably her brother Henry who chose that title as well." This is clumsy and doesn't belong where you've put it. I think the first half of the paragraph needs to be reworked; there's the issue of the title, but also the issue of the theme. They're related, of course, but you run them together, I feel. (As above, make sure all your analysis is sourced.)

My rewrite addition was to include the information of the relative dates of authorship for the two separate novels. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• You seem to shift citation styles in the Persuasion section. Also, you lean quite strongly on one particular theorist; even if she is particularly noted for her work on Persuasion, there are surely others.

There is much to that. Admirers of Persuasion appear to be more in number that those who support Northanger Abbey. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• "coincidentally co-printed" Again- what's coincidental about it?

The relative dates of publication have been added to make it easier to identify their different years of authorship by Austen. Printing them together when their authorship was separated by over a decade was not something Austen herself ever indicated. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• Again, in Northanger Abbey, there seems to be a lot of unsourced analysis.

The two authorities on this section of the Novels are the main biography (Tomalin) on Austen referenced there and the linked article there discussing the relative position of Persuasion and Northanger Abbey. I have added the dates of the respective years of authorship for the two novels. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this section quite plugs the hole that was raised at GAC and FAC. In particular, the unsourced/undersourced analysis and the lack of discussion of overall themes seems to be problematic for FAC purposes. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you are stating that it is necessary for the article to have a "Themes" section if it is to be further improved for the assessments you refer to above. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe; that or "Literary analysis" or similar. The featured article on Honoré de Balzac, for example, has (what appears to be from a quick glance) a detailed analysis under the title of "writing style", while our articles on Kafka and Joyce incorporate this kind of analysis elsewhere. I'm not convinced that there's necessarily a right way to do this, it's just important to ensure that it is done, I would say. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree - the lack of "literary analysis" was one of Tim Riley's first comments at the start. Certainly this would be a necessity for FAC. In some ways, since Austen's novels have a lot of similarities, it should be relatively straightforward here. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Josh Milburn and Johnbod: The new Themes section has been added for comment-critique-review in the sections below. They'll likely affect the way that the items in the list of Josh Milburn's comments above are answered, which I have formatted by title and answering them may take two to three days. Some preliminary responses are added in the above comments. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Enhancement of article to include a Themes section

The comments of Josh and Johnbod in the section above have been persuasive. A new Themes section is place directly below this section for the comment-critique-update of interested readers and editors. It may take me another day or two to catch up with the other requests Josh has made on a separate section though I'll try to get to them over the next few days. Interested editors are asked to place their comments in this section here concerning the Themes section which is included directly below this section. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the same person who commented during the FAC. I've been busy and forgot to return to this. Firstly, Fountains, thank you for attempting to make these improvements but I'm still concerned. I'm also not sure why you're posting huge swathes of article text here; we can have the discussion without them. Anyway, getting to the point, I have to be honest: practically none of the stuff you have placed in the newly formed "Themes" section actually discusses the themes of Austen's work; sorry but I'm wondering if you understand what the word means. All it contains is more and more information about her growing legacy, broken into historical periods, even though we already have this in the huge "Reception" section. There is already a whole, high-quality article to help you with this: Styles and themes of Jane Austen. See how it is broken down into subjects, not time periods? That's how it should be here, though just with one condensed section, and a paragraph for each topic. Ideally you would then also do a section on "Writing style". As for the "Novels" section you added - it's very long, and I'm not even sure it's beneficial in this form. There may be some interesting new information about the writing process of each book, but that would be better placed in the main biography section. We don't need to add 300 words about each book though because they all have their own article. I've never seen a system like this on an author article (that I can recall). It's far more important that we have dedicated style and themes sections. Please look at these excellent literary biographies for examples: Ernest Hemingway, Kurt Vonnegut, Honoré de Balzac, Emily Dickinson, Evelyn Waugh. As for the lead, I see this still hasn't been changed so I am going to go ahead myself. It is far better at summarising Austen life and work. All you need to do is make sure everything therein is written about and sourced in the article, which it will be as long as there's a proper "Writing style" and "Themes" section. --80.43.182.105 (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not able to edit the article as an unregistered user. I had an account in the past but I prefer not to use it anymore. Please, I urge one of the editors watching this page to restore the previous lead (as it was at the start of 2016). Rothorpe, above, agreed with me that it is worth doing, so I hope that he/she sees this and makes the change. The article can then be built around it. --80.43.182.105 (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Tim Riley's comments at assessment regarding the old lead section were quite extensive stating:

These points in the lead do not come up in the main text to any important degree:

• Austen's literary realism
• Her works contain biting irony and social commentary
• Her plots are acclaimed
• Austen is part of the transition to 19th-century literary realism
• Her plots, are fundamentally comic
• Her plots highlight the dependence of women on marriage (facsimile of Tim Riley comments on lede from assessment)

Does it make sense to consider some option since Tim Riley's comments were extensive about the old version, with similar comments from User:Johnbod and User:Josh Milburn. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence

You're doing great work, Fountains-of-Paris! But I was taken aback to see that the article's first sentence states categorically that Austen is "known principally for her five major novels which interpret, critique and comment upon the novels of sensibility of the British landed gentry at the end of the 18th century". My italics. Is it a mistake..? She has some commentary on the novels of sensibility, sure, but IMO it's only Northanger Abbey that comments notably on a genre and that's on the Gothic novel, not the novel of sensibility. (And the commentary on the Gothic novel is more of a joke, really — Northanger Abbey is mainly a love story.) Should the lead really imply that the central theme of Austen's novels is commentary on other novels? I don't think that's true, and it's not in the body of the article either. A search for the phrase "novels of sensibility" finds solely the comment that Love and Freindship mocked popular novels of sensibility. So it did, but that's a very marginal thing. ("Novel of sensibility" gets no hits at all.) And you could say that Sense and Sensibility mocks the cult of sensibility, but the novels? I hesitate to change it myself, since it's been there for some time and many people have edited the article without protesting about it. Still, I think it must be a mistake, and it should surely be changed. Something like "her five major novels which interpret, critique and comment upon the life of the British landed gentry at the end of the 18th century"? Bishonen | talk 17:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Your version is shorter and more to the point, and it is now included. My own similar thoughts to your own are that her literary place chronologically following Richardson and Fielding is important. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments on the "themes" section [JM]

• The historical approach is a little surprising to me; I'm certainly not an expert in literary criticism/literary theory, but (thinking aloud, now) I wonder if it has more of a story-telling quality than an analysis quality. The rise and fall of her favour among literary "elites" on the one hand and the general public on the other is certainly interesting, but it's not really about her themes.

There seems to be something in the wording of this where your reference to 'historical approach' was primarily intended to be more of a chronology of the literary critics and literary theorist who analysed Austen writings with each passing generation following the end of her life. By encountering the chronology of criticism and analysis it is hoped that readers can have a starting point for selecting for themselves which chronological entry point is of most interest to them for their subsequent reading. Its more of a chronology of the different thematic studies of her writings than an historical approach. An article giving a simple outline of several themes in Austen can be found in the article for Styles and Themes in Jane Austen. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Another general comment: Long paragraphs can make for tricky reading.

Your paragraph division points are well targeted as you have placed them in the article and are all being retained now. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Following the years of the disposition of her estate, by 1821 a second period of the literary analysis and criticism of her writings was initiated which lasted for nearly fifty years between 1821-1870. This was followed by several decades of scholarship concerning Austen following the international reception of her novels which were being translated into multiple foreign languages during the 19th century. The Modern era of scholarship and analysis of her literary themes began at about 1930 and continues to the present day in defending her as being among the most accomplished British authors of international fame." Sources?

The sources for each of these sentences is given in each one of the subsections directly below those summary opening sentences which you just quoted. If might be nice to copy some of these to this introductory preface for convenience of readers even though do appear in the main subsections directly below it. Either way sounds like it works for the article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• "the longest and most thoughtful of these reviews" Which reviews?

It might be nice to include some of these citations again for this sentence. Maybe one or two cites re-added would work well for clarity. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

A full-length seated watercolour sketch of Jane Austen by her sister Cassandra (c. 1804) made to accompany a separate portrait she made of her sister.

• "Readers of the Memoir were presented with the myth of the amateur novelist who wrote masterpieces: the Memoir fixed in the public mind a sentimental picture of Austen as a quiet, middle-aged maiden aunt and reassured them that her work was suitable for a respectable Victorian family. James Edward Austen-Leigh had a portrait of Jane Austen painted, based on the earlier watercolour, softening her image and making her presentable to the Victorian public.[132] The engraving by Bentley which formed the frontispiece of Memoir is based on the idealised image." Do we have this image? It'd be nice to include it, perhaps?

When Tim Riley did the original assessment he felt rather strongly that secondary materials should not be included in the article. The main original portrait of Jane Austen is generally accepted as being the one done by her sister which is already included in the article. Drawings and portraits made of Austen after her death, as Tim had point out, are often criticised for inaccuracy and were not included in the article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

An aesthetically altered portrait of Austen engraved by Richard Bentley (1870) appeared in her nephew's biography Memoir nearly 50 years after her death.

You could include it but add a critical note in the caption; especially if it's in that section. Given that the portrait is explicitly mentioned, it could (just a suggestion!) be a valuable addition to the article. 16:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Here are two images which might offer a choice if useful. One of them is a companion full length portrait done during Austen's lifetime by her sister. The other is the "prettified" or "air-brush" version of the portrait done some fifty years after her death. Any preferences for include or exclude? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Among the most astute of these critics were Richard Simpson, Margaret Oliphant, and Leslie Stephen." What's your source for this? There are a few other examples of claims like this; I'm sure you do have a source, but it reads like OR.

It might be nice to add some of the citations or anthologies which include these critics of Austen for the convenience of readers since they are recurrent names in Austen literary studies. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps, but we need a source to say that these were the most astute. That kind of editorialising would be comfortably into OR territory without one. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure its worth preserving "astute" and changing to "notable" for now. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Do you really need the "main articles" links in every subsection?

The preference is either to include them in each of the subsections or to leave them all in one place at the start of the main section title. Either approach seems to work and as long as the same approach is used for the other sections as well. Either approach is fine. Which approach to the section links would readers prefer to see. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Is "The Modern era" really an appropriate title? Austen is a modern author, surely? You refer to "the start of the Modern era in the early twentieth century"; are we using "Modern" in a way I'm not familiar with?

It is tricky since the use of the technical reference to "Modern" is different in literary studies than it is in philosophy. For literary studies Strindberg and Chekhov are seen as the start of early modernism in drama, while James Joyce is often credited as writing the first modern novel. Austen's place historically seems nearly identical with the Romantic poets of high British Romanticism and her novels are often referred to as being in the tradition of British Romanticism. I am changing the title of the section to "Modern period" for consistency with the other subsection titles in the article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• The last sentence of the first paragraph of the modern era section is a bit tricky.

It is my plan to reword this for added clarity. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Related, I think, to my first point: You really don't have much contemporary analysis. You finish by talking about Nabokov when there are literally whole journals devoted to Austen. What are the key currents of today's Austen scholarship?

The two principle discussions already in the article are the Nabokov section and the Edward Said section dealing with colonialism and minority issues in another section of the article. It might be possible to re-group these together into a separate section if it would be preferable to do this. There is already a separate article for Jane Austen in Contemporary Society, and added comments on contemporary research trends in Jane Austen studies might be better included in that already existing article if they are not already covered there. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Hope this is helpful. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Josh Milburn: The comments you've made here were both useful and well-directed, and it may take me another few days to attend to some of the more detailed requests. If there are any points of emphasis you might like to add then I'll look back here for further comment/critique/ananlysis for commentary. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Request to Edit

Hey hi howdy. I'm requesting to edit so I can hold true to my word on copyediting it, as requested by Fountains-of-Paris. I'm doing this for GOCE, so I have a smidge of credibility there.

ɯɐɔ (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Most of the editors have been placing their proposed edits on the Talk page here first for added comments. Possibly you could mention which of the Austen novels have made her of interest to you. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

This article has been re-listed on GOCE as the previous editor appears to be on Wikibreak and is not signing-in for over a week. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)