Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Analytical Review/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review | Analytical Review
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer review/Analytical Review)

Analytical Review

edit

This article on an eighteenth-century journal is already GA. I had originally thought there wasn't enough material to allow it to become FA, but I discovered some more and now I think it can. Therefore, I would appreciate comments that will help this article along in its preparation for FAC. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 07:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by BillDeanCarter

edit

This is actually a very lively read. I could see Robert Bolt adapting the article into a play, similar to his A Man for All Seasons just because of the tragic ending of its publisher. It's also amazing you could find out this much about a periodical from several centuries ago. This is definitely FA material. I have a few comments below which may or may not be useful.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lede could be improved to briefly summarize the sections about the political leanings and the Anti-Jacobin Review.
  • Joseph Johnson, co-founder of the Analytical Review, by William Sharp (after Moses Haughton) Perhaps the caption should explain what kind of portrait of Johnson this is, considering Sharp was a line-engraver. Out of interest, what is meant by (after Moses Haughton)?
  • Now reads: Engraving by William Sharp after a painting by Moses Haughton of Joseph Johnson, co-founder of the Analytical Review - it is hard to work all of those prepositional phrases in - do you have a better formulation? Awadewit | talk 19:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first was Dissenting theologian, clergyman, and scientist Joseph Priestley's Theological Repository (1770–73; 1784–88). Maybe rephrase this as "The first was the Theological Repository, created by the __ Joseph Priestley, for the purposes of..."
  • WillowW has already spotted this problem, I think: The first was the Theological Repository (published 1770–73; 1784–88), whose driving force was Dissenting theologian, clergyman, and scientist Joseph Priestley. Awadewit | talk 19:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This periodical ceased just before the death of its proprietor. Is ceased a common truncation for ceased publication?
  • Both Henry Fuseli and Mary Wollstonecraft reviewed their own books for the journal, for example. Did this go unnoticed at the time or did it cause some criticism of the Analytical Review? I know the Anti-Jacobin Review criticized them on other matters from your article.
  • Yet, they recognized the ultimate futility of such a project. This is interesting. Could you illustrate how they came to recognize the ultimate futility of "preserving the knowledge of the past and the present for the future"?
  • Unusually for its time, the Analytical Review brought... sp. should be "Unusual for its time"?
  • During Johnson's during his trial for publishing a pamphlet by Gilbert Wakefield, they wrote: sp. mistake

Out of personal interest, was the Anti-Jacobin anything more than an archnemesis looking back now, given history? I was amused by this section, recalling the feud between The Voice and the NYPress in the 90s. The Anti-Jacobin also came off as angry the way a Wikipedian can get when they detect POV in an article.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

edit
  • I'd like to see something in the lead about the importance of the AR in literary history. I gather from the body of the article that this is one of the more important literary periodicals of its day; perhaps the most important? Can it be regarded merely as part of the Republic of Letters, or did it mark a new departure in radicalism, in print at least? I think much of this information can be gleaned from the body, but a sentence or two in the lead would be useful, perhaps at the end, where a summarizing statement about the magazine's importance, influence and legacy would fit naturally.
  • It is always hard to say what the most important journal was, but this was probably not it. In the eighteenth century, The Spectator (1711) would probably win that award. I don't think that the AR was a "new departure in radicalism", either - at least not new enough to make a big hullabaloo about in the lead. I want to be careful not to oversell the AR. It was important, but it was not the only periodical of its day. I have reorganized the lead a bit to make the journal's political threat clearer which may help to make its importance clearer, but I am wary of overstating the journal's significance. There are very few sources on this journal, so I feel that I need to be careful about making overblown claims. Awadewit | talk 04:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The additional phrase "Perhaps most importantly" is the sort of thing I was looking for -- I wasn't looking necessarily for an assertion that it was significant, just a statement of what its significance was. I think this is enough. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linking travel literature but not belles lettres seems odd; of that list, only "belles lettres" might need elucidation for the average reader. I'd link it and unlink travel literature.
Seems reasonable. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This periodical ceased publication just before the death of its proprietor. "This periodical…" is a little clunky. I'd suggest we only need to know about Maty's death if it's related to the cessation of publication -- e.g. he was ill and had to cease publication before he died because of his illness. If the source doesn't say, I'd drop the sentence completely; if it does say, I'd restructure the sentence to start with the information instead.
OK. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a vacuum waiting to be filled by the demise of the Theological Repository and the New Review. I don't think this means what you want it to: surely you mean that the demise of the TR and NR left a vacuum, which was waiting to be filled? Actually I'd cut that last clause; vacuums are always waiting to be filled. Or am I missing your meaning?
  • Now reads: The demise of the Theological Repository and the New Review left a vacuum and the arrival in London of the author Thomas Christie, who was dedicated to starting a new periodical that would replace and perhaps even improve upon these forerunners, was the primary impetus in the creation of the Analytical Review. Awadewit | talk 05:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might eliminate one use of "forerunner"; it's a highly visible word and you use it three times (counting the section title) in a fairly short space.
OK. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First para of "Founding and ideals"; the Roper cite gives us a definite "was the primary impetus", but the Tyson cite weakens this to "probably resulted in". Is there a distinction here? I'd guess the message is that Christie's arrival is agreed to be the key event, but the way in which the decision was taken to found the AR is only "probably" identified. If so, it might be easier to phrase this clearly by integrating both comments and citing both sources at the end of the paragraph (clarifying in the footnote what comes from which source, if necessary).
  • Johnson and Christie shared many of the same friends, such as Priestley, and their combined interest in beginning such a journal probably resulted in the foundation of the Review. - The "probably" is supposed to apply to the statement about their combined interest - how can I make that clearer? Awadewit | talk 05:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had to stop and think about this for a minute. Initially I was going to suggest a rewrite such as "…and it was probably their combined interest…", but something about that sounds odd. It could be read as "The probable reason they started the journal is because they were all interested in starting such a journal", which doesn't sound very informative. I'm sorry if I'm being dense here, but I don't quite see what the Tyson quote adds. Please feel free to ignore my comment here if you're confident it conveys what it should. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed the "probably" - I'm probably (!) being overcareful here and the point is not really important anyway. Awadewit | talk 15:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's probably good enough. :o) Mike Christie (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criticism of Gibbon is a nice quote; can it be cited back to the original AR issue, via the source that quotes it?
  • It would actually be much harder for anyone who wanted to check this quotation to get a copy of the Analytical Review than for them to get a copy of the book I cited it from. I think it is best to cite from the book. (The Analytical Review is only available in its original form in rare books libraries or on microfilm at research libraries.) Awadewit | talk 05:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I tend to like to add cites back to the primary sources in addition to the secondary ones, using a cite of the form "cite A, quoted in cite B", but you're right that it really wouldn't add much value for most readers here. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I can find the original, I'll do this. Awadewit | talk 15:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Awadewit | talk 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • seeming collusion: I'm not sure of your point. Why would collusion occur if the full names of reviewers were used? Because the authors would then know who the reviewers were and could contact them in order to collude? Is literary society at that date small enough that this would be expected? The examples you give (Fuseli and Wollstonecraft) don't seem to fit with that explanation; and in fact those examples seem to illustrate the perils of anonymity, rather than the existence of collusion.
  • Yes, the community was that small - everybody knew everybody and was friends/enemies with everybody. I agree that the example doesn't work well. Now explained better: It was also meant to prevent any unethical puffing, or false advertising, of friends' or one's own books, but this also occurred: both Henry Fuseli and Mary Wollstonecraft reviewed their own books for the journal, for example. Awadewit | talk 05:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the sources say that's what it was meant to prevent, then OK, but I don't see how it was supposed to do that. Why wouldn't anonymity make the unethical puffing much more likely to happen (as it did happen)? Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymity was supposed to represent objectivity - that it did not work like that in practice is clear. However, the theory was mixing reviewers' names with writers' names would taint the project. It is a different idea of how anonymity operates. Awadewit | talk 15:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking this since I now understand it and there's nothing inaccurate in the article. If you think other readers might fail to understand, perhaps some additional explanation of the point in the article would be useful. Mike Christie (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet, they recognized the ultimate futility of such a project. I agree with BillDeanCarter's comment, above, that this sentence piques the reader's interest. It's a pity it can't be expanded, but I think it should stay, even so. However, anything else you can find on this would be very interesting. A separate point: I don't like to see a sentence start with "Yet" followed by a comma, but perhaps this is an American usage.
OK. You'd think I'd know American usage by now, but sometimes I think that living on both sides of the Atlantic has just confused me as to what usage belongs on which side. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also emphasized the emerging middle-class Protestant work ethic, specifically tying it to scientific knowledge. Sorry if I'm being slow here, but I don't follow this. I think "tying" is not the right verb here, or at least I'm having trouble with it. Do you mean "specifically asserting that it was a natural consequence of an interest in scientific knowledge"? The subsequent quote seems to imply that reading. "Tying" doesn't give a direction or mechanism for causality, and I think you need to be clear here.
  • Perhaps "tying" is a lit crit word. How about: It also emphasized the emerging middle-class Protestant work ethic, associating it with scientific knowledge. - There is no cause-effect link - there is only an associative link - if you have one, you have the other. Awadewit | talk 05:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was how I read "tying", so I don't think it's a lit-crit usage -- I just was unsure that that was the intention. I think I would prefer "associating". Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • several luminaries, such as: the poet William Cowper: I think that colon should go.
It's the use of "such as" with the colon which I think is wrong. Take a look at [1] which gives that as an example -- I've no idea how authoritative that source is; I just wanted to link to an example showing I'm not on out on my own on this one. I would drop the colon myself, but I think you could legitimately keep it and drop "such as". Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Awadewit | talk 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Therefore, circulation numbers…:"Therefore" is a bit clunky to my ear. Perhaps "Hence", and cut out the comma?
OK. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beginning with its third issue, Mary Wollstonecraft was the key editor for dramas, romances, and novels for the Analytical Review. A couple of things I would suggest here. First, I'd use a verb of change such as "became" rather than "was". Second, I think "its" is rather distracting, since the referent is deferred right to the end of the sentence. Can the AR be named at the start of the sentence instead, or another rephrasing be found?
Much better. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence beginning Wollstonecraft wrote excoriating reviews is a little long, and you might consider breaking it at the colon. The embedded quote in the second half is also somewhat hard to parse; I assume that this is Myers quoting Wollstonecraft. The elisions within both inner and outer quotes make this a rather disrupting sentence to read. Not sure what can be done here, but if you can simplify the presentation (perhaps by eliding less?) that would be nice.
  • New version: Wollstonecraft wrote excoriating reviews, criticizing the passive novelistic heroines of the time and praising, for example, the "wise and resilient" Mrs. Stafford of Charlotte Smith’s autobiographical novel Emmeline (1788). Wollstonecraft "singles out...the knowledgeable mother figure who has felt and thought deeply", a character who resembles the women she described in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman as having "power...over themselves".[7] She derides the "derivative, prescriptive, imitative, and affected" and celebrates "natural, innovative, imaginative, and real, true feeling".[8] Awadewit | talk 05:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rephrasing is a definite improvement. I'm having second thoughts about splitting the sentence: you now have four sentences in a row starting "Wollstonecraft…", "Wollstonecraft…", "She…", "She…"; the repetitive form is a little wearying on the ear. It's difficult to restructure because the nature of the sentences is consecutive reporting of what Wollstonecraft wrote. I'll think some more about this and post any bright ideas I get. One possibility: is there some introductory phrase that could be used in the second or perhaps third sentence, such as "According to Myers"? Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that as well, but couldn't come up with a solution at the time. It will come to us. Awadewit | talk 15:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Striking; it's good enough, and as you say a solution will occur to one of us. Mike Christie (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have improved this. Awadewit | talk 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The extensive coverage of Wollstonecraft in the "Organization and Reviewers" section is interesting, but I feel obliged to ask if this accurately reflects the amount of scholarship on the various reviewers. Pardon me for checking, but I know Wollstonecraft is someone you know a great deal about and so would have an easy time finding sources for. Of the list of reviewers, I'd have said Cowper was the best-known, with Wollstonecraft probably second, yet there's little about Cowper in the article. So can you confirm that this does reflect the relative weight of the sources?
  • As far as I know, more information is available on Wollstonecraft than the other reviewers. I've even had trouble finding out who the other reviewers were. I keep adding information as I find it, but it is usually only a line or two. I agree that this disproportionate weight to Wollstonecraft is not ideal and I keep trying to rectify it, but so far I have had very little success. Awadewit | talk 05:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, then; if it reflects what you've found then there's no problem. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have time for tonight; more when I can. Let me know if these comments are useful. Mike Christie (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the second half:

  • The list of works at the start of the "Content" section should have an "and" between "Military Operations on the Coromandel Coast" and "Poetry and Musuic of the Italian Opera".
To my ear that doesn't excuse it, but let's leave it and we'll see if anyone else objects. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My French is weak, but I think it should be "Révolution", with an acute accent.
In the book I copied the title from, there is no accent. Awadewit | talk 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The journal also laid provocative facts before the public in order to provoke them to think and, if necessary, to take action—it claimed not to champion one viewpoint over another. Can you avoid using both "provocative" and "provoke" so close together? I also think the dash does not work well as a conjunction here; I think its intended meaning is something like "although", and perhaps the final clause can be parenthetical, since your subsequent examples only exemplify the laying of provocative facts, not the failure to champion any particular viewpoint.
  • Fixed "provoke" situation - changed to "promote".
  • Changed dash to "although".
  • Did not make the final clause parenthetical, as the next paragraph explains the political viewpoint of the journal. These opening sentences are meant to be a sort of summary of the section. Awadewit | talk 05:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistent with Joseph Johnson's attitudes: this sounds wrong to me. You could make "consistent" adverbial in form, though "consistently" is an ugly way to start the sentence; or you could reconstruct the phrasing to say something like "The Analytical Review tended towards a "moderate radicalism", which was consistent with Joseph Johnson's attitudes; this meant that it opposed the Pitt administration and celebrated the general values of Paine's Rights of Man."
I'm not enough of a formal grammarian to be able to explicitly detail what sounds wrong to me here. Perhaps the problem is that this is a dangling clause? My reading of examples of dangling modifiers doesn't seem to quite fit this case, so I hesitate to accuse you of such a sin. Let's just leave it that I don't like the way it sounds, and wait and see if anyone else comments. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • reiterated the protections -- I don't think one can reiterate a protection; probably should be "reiterated a defence of the protections". What is the first iteration that this repeats, though?
I think that does the trick. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christie attempted to assuage these fears in his advertisement: I think this should be "an advertisement" unless you can more precisely identify the advertisement in question (which might be interesting to do in any case -- e.g. where was this advertisement placed?).
  • The sources say "the advertisement". Oftentimes, an early advertisement was released for new projects in the eighteenth century. It would not have been placed in any particular publication - it would have been a free-floating piece of paper - posted up around town, handed out, etc. Awadewit | talk 05:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that clears it up. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, Johnson chose as his theological reviewer, not a Dissenter: I'd suggest cutting the comma after "reviewer".
I'll take your word for it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking back over the article, I've just realized that there are no dates for issues of the magazine. The "Founding" section doesn't give dates for Christie's arrival in London, or the discussions with Christie (if any dates are known), or the first issue. I think the lead is the only place you say that 1788 was when the magazine began. The first issue date at least should be in the body of the article.
  • We don't know the exact date of Christie's arrival in London. I'm not sure I have access to the issue information. It is not in any of the sources I have read and I'm not sure I have access to the AR itself (I don't right now - that would have to wait until I returned to my university). Awadewit | talk 05:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the issue information would be worth adding when you get back. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added to the "Founding and ideals" section. Awadewit | talk 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "frequently review the Monthly, criticise the Critical, and analyse the Analytical Reviews" [sic] [emphasis in original]: a copy-editing question: should "[sic]" be inside the quotes? It applies only to "Analytical Reviews", not the whole quote. And I think you can use parentheses rather than square brackets for "emphasis in the original", given that it doesn't have to be within the quotes.
OK. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sincere attitude seems to have largely prevailed in practice. Given the statement that "contemporaries perceived a bias", and particularly given the existence and the attitude of the Anti-Jacobin Review, this is a remarkable assertion. Can you just confirm that it is supported by a consensus of the secondary sources?
If the sources agree on this (and 3-4 is enough) then there's no problem. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After Johnson was convicted of seditious libel and before he was sentenced: can we have dates for each event?
  • some of his best editors: should be "two of his best editors", unless you are referring to others in addition to Wollstonecraft and Christie.
  • Can you expand the caption to the advertisement for the New Series to note that it's an advertisement? It's apparent that it is from reading it, but the caption actually misleads the reader a little bit right now. Personally I'd like to see you note where the advertisement was published. That applies to the original prospectus, and to the advertisement mentioned earlier where Johnson defends the Review's neutrality, too, but I don't know if others would find that interesting.

That's everything I can see. Overall the article is well-structured and clearly written. I found it fascinating; thanks for the opportunity to review this. Mike Christie (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're too kind.
  • Expanded caption for the Analytical Review (New Series).
I'd assumed it was an advertisement because of the phrase "On the 1st of March will be published", but if you say it's the title page that settles that. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Title pages sometimes doubled as advertisements in the eighteenth century - it lowered printing costs. Awadewit | talk 15:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. I would have done it myself but I wasn't sure if it was appropriate on the peer review pages, where after all there are no "opposes" to strike. Mike Christie (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Analytical_Review/archive1&oldid=864125526"