Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jane Austen/archive1

< 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2016 [1].

Jane Austen

edit
Nominator(s): Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the British novelist Jane Austen which has been brought up to date and appears ready for nomination. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's fantastic to see an article on such an important writer here at FAC, but I have an initial comment: I note that Tim said in his recent GA review that "[w]ith the addition of a substantial analysis of the works this could well be a candidate for Featured Article in due course". It seems that nothing particularly substantial has been added since the article's promotion to GA status; I'm incline to agree with Tim (from just a glance at the article) that this is lacking and would be necessary to take the article to FA status. Is this perhaps a little premature? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Riley did a strong review of the article and did mention this as a possiblity. I'm not sure that he read the sibling FA article on the Reception history of Jane Austen which covers much of that material already. The policy for FA Biography pages appears to have moved away from including "Main Works" sections when the individual works for the author are already linked in the article, for example, in the FA for Anton Chekhov. Also, we already have sibling pages for each of her novels as well which are not stubs or starts, and which are linked as the associated "main articles" for each of the books (they are currently "B"-class and "C"-class articles for the most part, for example, Mansfield Park). Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, if you haven't met her, Ruby2010 has written a number of featured articles on film adaptations of Austen's work, and so may be someone to get in touch with about this article. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, two of the film versions (including the nice Knightley Pride and Prejudice film) are at FA peer review status and they are both linked in the 21-century section of this article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from jimknut
It was certainly 1940 and it is currently mentioned in the Twentieth century section towards the end of the article. Adding a link to it in the lede should be nice. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Ruby2010

Firstly, I'd like to thank Fountains-of-Paris for taking this article on – Austen's article has always intimidated me, especially after seeing the great work that the late Wadewitz put into it! This is not an easy thing to tackle. That said, I agree with J Milburn that the nomination is premature (thanks for the ping, Josh). I haven't had a chance to give a full read to the article yet, but some problems in the lead stand out to me (enough where I think an entire lead rewrite may be in order – I've provided some suggestions below). Also, the Bibliography section contains many articles sources that are not being used in the article (but perhaps could be if you had access to them?).

The are actually two versions of the Lede available now. Tim Riley requested that the previous one (which seems to parallel your requests) be deleted and replaced by this new one. For the moment, I will mark in your corrections listed below into the current Lede though we always have the other version there if it is needed. The items in the Bibliography can be trimmed as needed if they are un-needed or redundant citations, or kept as "See also" items if preferred. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just looked at the GA review. I think Tim meant that those areas in the article need to be added/expanded (not removed from the lead entirely). He did a good job listing various topics that absolutely need to be covered (her literary realism, irony and social commentary, etc.). Ruby 2010/2013 15:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • First mention of Pride and Prejudice needs link
Now linked. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...known principally for her five major novels which interpret, critique and comment upon the novels of sensibility of the end of the 18th century." I find this sentence unclear and a bit vague. Shouldn't an introductory sentence mention the genre of her novels? Or that her novels were social commentaries on her era? Those are what she is known for, not her "critique and comment upon the [18th century] novels of sensibility" (though I think that should still be included somewhere, but perhaps not in the lead).
The genre may be correctly identified as "novels of sensibility of the British landed aristocracy at the end of the 18th century." This has been placed in to the Lede now. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I think that sentence makes even less sense now. I like this sentence from the original lead: "...was an English novelist whose works of romantic fiction, set among the landed gentry, earned her a place as one of the most widely read writers in English literature. Her realism, biting irony and social commentary as well as her acclaimed plots have gained her historical importance among scholars and critics." It's an excellent summary and displays her significance in a clear way. Ruby 2010/2013 15:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why skip so abruptly from P&P to Mansfield Park? And actually, I feel the second and third paragraphs should be swapped, or perhaps even merged. Start with her first novel's immediate impact and reception, then work your way forward from there (with P&P's success, Mansfield's Park's comparative lack of popularity, etc.). Then discuss events since her death (her nephew's memoirs, current printings, etc).
P&P is Austen's magnum opus and is usually taken as a point of entry before getting into the more general discussion of her writings. If your wording was meant to say "first published novel" then that would be Sense and Sensibility. P&P was first drafted under the title First Impressions by Austen in an early form ten years before S&S became the first published novel released to the public. P&P is the usual starting point for discussing Austen because it was her most popular novel during her lifetime. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would start chronologically (as I see the original lead did). So begin with S&S, since that was her first published work. Ruby 2010/2013 15:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the twentieth and twenty-first centuries Austen's writings have inspired a large number of critical essays as well as books of critical essays and anthologies..." --> "During the twentieth and twenty-first centuries Austen's writings have inspired a large number of critical essays and anthologies..."
Your wording is now in the Lede. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her books are often used to inspire the other cultural arts..." Remove "the". And I'm unclear what you mean here. I think that whole sentence may need a rewrite. Mention her specific areas of impact: the fact she's credited with helping inspire the Regency romance literary genre, increasing interest in her era, etc (this may be another failing of the article as a whole; there's no impact/legacy section like you see with other literary FAs such as George Bernard Shaw and Shakespeare).
There is already an FA sibling article titled Reception history of Jane Austen which covers much of what you mention in your question here. I do have a concern not to duplicate in the Bio article here what is already covered in the FA sibling article on the Reception history (just linked) which is of fairly high quality. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and I am altering the text to refer to the films in which they appear in the same format as the mention of Olivier in P&P. Your further comments on the main body of the article would be appreciated since your comments on the Lede are being well targeted. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, suggest withdrawing. I've mentioned a few areas for improvement with the body (creating sections on her legacy/influence, style/themes, and either using or moving the unused sources in the Bibliography section). That may take a while, which is why I think this nomination should be withdrawn (that way you won't feel rushed while editing). I'm sorry if the feedback here has seemed critical so far, but that's usually how FA works ("It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.") We all want the same thing: an excellent article that clearly summarizes her life. I can tell you feel passionately about this subject, so don't be discouraged! Going forward, I recommend reading similar featured articles in order to gain ideas (this article also contains some good advice). Please feel free to ping me or post on my talkpage if you'd like any additional feedback. Best, Ruby 2010/2013 15:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but this isn't what a Featured Article on Jane Austen should look like. There's no section at all covering her themes or writing style, both of which are crucial to an understanding of her work. There's also no Legacy section, and I don't see all the "reception" stuff as a replacement for that. There should be a more general summary of her legacy and impact. I only read the lead all the way through, but that flagged up problems. The sentence "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" is very clunky. Novels comment upon the novels? And on that note, the word novel/novelist appears five times in the first two sentences alone. It appears another five times in the next two paragraphs. The lead has repetition, mentioning twice that P&P was the most acclaimed novel of her lifetime, and generally just talking about her reception and publication history. It doesn't actually talk about her life at all - the lead tells me nothing about her childhood, for instance. This previous version of the lead was much better. Even ignoring the prose, however, the lack of analytical coverage is enough for me to oppose. Thanks for working on the article, I hope you'll continue to do so, but it shouldn't become Featured in this state. --80.43.205.25 (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I'll be archiving this shortly based on comments above, so that work can be done away from the pressure of the FAC process; per Ruby's suggestions, one fairly recent novelist FA that includes a style and themes section is Ian Fleming, and there may be others I can't recall right now. After work has been done, you can re-nominate here after a minimum of two weeks has passed, per FAC instructions (a Peer Review might be in order to review changes first). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I also suggest Ernest Hemingway and Maya Angelou as excellent examples of writer articles that could help build this one. Good luck to the nominator. --80.43.205.25 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2016 (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/Jane_Austen/archive1&oldid=1079393903"