Talk:Lord Fitzhenry

Did you know nomination

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

The result was: promoted by SonOfYoutubers talk 16:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Elizabeth Gunning published Lord Fitzhenry so she could be paid twice after she wrote more than required by her contract? Source: "she makes a point of saying that before she began work she "agreed with [her] publisher" that he would accept and publish a four-volume work. Finding that the volumes are long, she cuts out a subplot to reserve for future publication, prudently deciding that whatever her hardships, "Lord Fitzhenry, in two volumes, will produce me at least one sort of comfort”— that is, income from two novels instead of one." The Fictional Identities of Elizabeth Gunning
  • ALT1: ... that Lord Fitzhenry features an example of eighteenth-century "banal Shakespeare", quoting Hamlet in a non-tragic way? Source: "‘So Common-Hackneyed in the Eyes of Men’: Banal Shakespeare and the Eighteenth-Century Novel"
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Helical strake

Created by LEvalyn (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 15 past nominations.

~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC).

• It's a pleasure to review another gem from LEvalyn. It's a new and comprehensive article. The sourcing is excellent; I especially like the citations to the 18th-century reviews because sources that old are commonly derided as outdated, yet make perfect sense in this context. I see no close paraphrasing problems. I think it would be splendid if the article about Gunning were expanded and nominated within this hook. It has currently got only 460 characters of prose. While I think that a double hook featuring a woman and her work would do very well, this is by no means required for the hook to pass as is. Surtsicna (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@LEvalyn and Surtsicna: I agree that an expansion of the Elizabeth Gunning article would be desirable, whether or not it is not nominated within this hook. I have added an ODNB reference, which has not been used so far. However the official character count is 528, so a fivefold expansion would be 2,640 characters. TSventon (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't considered a double hook, but you're both very right that Gunning's article is ripe for expansion! Thank you TSventon for adding the ODNB. I came across several sources on Gunning while researching the book so I think there will be plenty to expand 5x. Let's put this on hold for maybe a week, and Surtsicna, I will ping you again when Gunning's article is also ready! Thank you very much for the kind words and the push :) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@TSventon and Surtsicna: I finished the 5x expansion of Elizabeth Gunning (writer)! In the process I found a hilarious caricature of her-- does this cropped version "read" well enough at DYK size to be worth trying to write a new hook around it, without Lord Fitzhenry...? It shows Gunning losing control of a cannon firing forged love letters, indicating that her scheme to pressure an aristocrat into marriage has backfired. It may be too visually dense to "read" properly at a small size, in which case I'll stick with the Lord Fitzhenry hooks I've already proposed and do a double hook. On my way to do a second QPQ now. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

For my second QPQ, I've reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Juan Bascuñán. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

LEvalyn! When I suggested that you add the Gunning article to the nomination, I did not expect that it would lead to this delight. While I love double hooks (and that was my original idea), I think that the article about Gunning can produce far more attention-grabbing hooks related to the pamphlet war even without the image. I should note, however, that the cannon image is indeed hilarious and legible and would look amazing on the Main Page. One might wonder whether it is right to focus on a woman writer's marriage schemes instead of her work, but the original Lord Fitzhenry hook names her anyway. How about you propose a new hook or two and then we decide? Surtsicna (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad you think the image "reads" well enough! Let's actually proceed with this just as a Lord Fitzhenry DYK, and shortly I will do a double hook about Gunning and her first novel, currently in progress at Draft:The Packet (novel). I'm thinking of a hook like "DYK that... Elizabeth Gunning (caricature pictured) was the subject of a pamphlet war about a faked engagement, and used her notoriety to market her first novel?" I just need to bring in the relevant secondary material for The Packet. Thanks as always for your push to write more! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I was not sure if you'd remember that I had the same bright idea at Template:Did you know nominations/A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy, but now I see that was this year! I think you made the best decision here. Hopefully I'll get to review the double hook too. I see it's up there already. Surtsicna (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

WPHP as a source

Hi Theleekycauldron, I noticed that you removed the Women's Print History Project as unreliable here. I appreciate your work polishing this article, but that cut surprised me -- can you explain why you think the source is unreliable? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@LEvalyn: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I just moved WPHP and cut the Corvey Novels Project? I cut that one because it looks like it was just an undergraduate project from one class, without the fact-checking or peer-review I'd expect from a reliable source (especially scholarship). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh! Gotcha, that makes a lot more sense. The Corvey Novels Project is a reasonably established, grant-funded project (explained here), so I understood that to be an essay by a graduate student prepared under the supervision of a PI... which I considered a borderline but plausible place to start for 21stC commentary. But then I found so many better sources that the article has grown beyond it, and the removal makes sense. Thanks for explaining and thanks again for improving the article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review

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

---

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

Nominator: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 22:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Frzzl (talk · contribs) 12:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Levalyn! I'd love to review this article - it looks to be in good shape already, so this should be smooth :D  Frzzl  talk; contribs  12:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review! I think I've addressed all of your comments, and just have a few follow-up thoughts:

• I tried out a re-order of the plot summary, but I'm not sure if it's really an improvement; because the events of The Packet overlap with volume 2 of Lord Fitzhenry, I'm worried it's confusing to summarize them out of order. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the new version.
• Regarding the volume citations in the synopsis, I think they're useful in case someone wants to look up a particular scene (especially since they each link to a different 'book' in the Internet Archive), so I prefer to keep them.
• And finally, I added some more background in the "Composition and publication" section -- great idea! -- but I'm still chewing on the idea of the broader context of women's writing at the time. I have a source that gives an overview of novels of the period, which I could cite for the information that women wrote the majority of new novels and most novels were anonymous. It may also note that sentimental fiction like Gunning's was the most popular. But I worry a little bit about synth/OR since I know it doesn't actually talk about Gunning herself. Thoughts?

~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Fantastic! I'll leave the order of the plot to your judgement, and no issues with the citations; The new paragraph on Gunning looks great, and I think your concerns are valid - that's on me, it might end up a bit unfocussed. On that note, a great article, and am pleased to be able to pass it!  Frzzl  talk; contribs  20:17, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually, will just note that it would be good to add the page to a few more categories, but this isn't required for GA status.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  20:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): The article is clear and concise, written in a formal but easily readable style, and follows the MOS well. The plot is written from an external POV, so no issues here! The use of footnotes is a nice touch. Given how it's laid out in the lede, I think it would be better to have the info about the plot in The Packet to be put first. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): } c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): I have checked sources 6, 9, and 12. One small problem - the page numbers for source 6 should be 673-674, but this is obviously minor. Have checked the article through Earwig - only similarities are properly quoted so no probs there. All sources are reliable - primary sources are used properly. I'm not sure about the use of references in the plot section - I'm not convinced pointing to the volume is necessary since normally no references are used at all in synopses. If you think they are useful, I'm not fussed, but they don't really need to be there. I don't think there is anything worth talking about when it comes to OR. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): I think it would be nice to have some more context to the work, perhaps in the Composition section. Who is Gunning? What's going on in the literary world and women's writing at this point in time? I think it would be helpful for a non-specialist to have a better idea of the relevance and importance of this book. This could probably be copied over from Gunning's article, and a picture of her wouldn't hurt. Just noting that I had a look around for sources and couldn't find anything not already used here. No issues with source reliability. - F It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: - no smear campaigns against Mrs Gunning found here! It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: naturally (!) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Only image in the article at the moment is the public domain cover. I added a caption to the infobox.
Overall: Pass/Fail: Just a couple of really small things to check. Apart from that, a high quality article! :D  Frzzl  talk; contribs  13:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
· · ·

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