The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2023 [1].

Brother Jonathan (novel)[edit]

Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A gargantuan novel of 1,325 pages that required three separate volumes in publication, possibly bigger than any other well into the 20th century. A major financial loss for a shrewd Scottish businessman. A tragically lost opportunity for the author to *finally* overtake James Fenimore Cooper as America's top novelist. Brother Jonathan is a lot of things, but its not good, if only because it is just too many of those things at once: super realistic but also fantastically Gothic? Where John Neal's contemporaneous American readers took offense, British critics saw promise and modern scholars see sparkling gems far advanced for 1825, mired as they are in a thick and confused mess of a plot.

Come take a look for yourself! Should this nomination be approved, it will be my sixth — eighth if you include my featured lists — article I have drafted from scratch on topics surrounding the life of eccentric and influential critic and writer, John Neal. Thank you very much in advance, should you take the time to look this one over and write out some comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • I think you wait too long in the second sentence to tell the reader what Brother Jonathan is.
Agreed. That is now fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Walter loves Edith and feels jealous of her relationship with Jonathan. Jonathan" generally we don't use names back to back if we can avoid it, I believe.
Fix. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Following Jonathan's departure from Gingertown, " This is, I assume, the setting in Connecticut. I might introduce it by referring in the previous paragraph to Gingertown, Connecticut, not merely Connecticut.
Good catch! Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "in his rural Connecticut town" This is, I assume, Gingertown. I might omit this phrase. It can be mentioned that either Gingertown or the Harwood house are rural.
I changed "Connecticut town" to "surroundings". The community being rural is relevant to his restlessness, so I want to leave that word in there. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Bald Eagle saves him and brings his unconscious friend to the Harwood home. Edith encounters him and they express love for each other and become engaged." Who, in the second paragraph is "him"?
Swapped "him" for "Walter". Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "He briefly encounters Nathan Hale en route to a New York tavern where Walter meets many upstanding urbanites." This makes it sound like Nathan is also going to the tavern, and it is unclear if that's so.
Reworded to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • " Walter travels to Portland, Maine, " not Maine yet.
Fair. Changed to District of Maine. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "literally explosive" I'd cut the "literally". The reader gets it, it's the obvious thing to say, and you're pulling your punches if you'd dilute it.
Agreed. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Also like his earlier novels, the male protagonist demonstrates guilt after committing sexual crimes" What sexual crime? Fornication? Perhaps greater explanation is needed.
Agreed. I added a little more to both the plot summary and to this part of the Themes section to make it clear we're talking about Walter seducing Emma. "Crime" has been downgraded to "misdeed". Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Blackwood allowed him to be less cautious in revising the original manuscript" maybe "Blackwood allowed him to publish something closer to the original manuscript".
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's it. Very interesting although I won't be reading it!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wehwalt: I don't blame you! Thank you very much for taking the time to read through this article and to write out your comments. Would you say that this nomination is now worthy of your support? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

Will post some comments here later. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead:
  • Para 1: "who saw full development via this novel to become the US national emblem" - Do you mean something like "who became the US national emblem as a result of this novel"? The current wording is a bit unclear (in particular, development of what?)
Reworded. Let me know if you think it's still unclear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 1: "Period critics reacted poorly to these aspects of the book." - Just the sexual content, or the mixed-race characters too?
Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 2: "Brother Jonathan's early and thorough use of realism in depicting American culture and speech is superlative for the period" - Similarly, superlative in what way?
Reworded to remove "superlative". Let me know if you think the new version is still unclear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 3: "Written while Neal was crossing the Atlantic from Baltimore in early 1824" - I'd link Baltimore, as it may not be as well known outside the US (unlike something like DC or NYC).
Right. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for these initial comments. They are addressed. Looking forward to comments on the rest of the article! Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I forgot about this nomination; sorry about that. Additional comments forthcoming in the next day or two. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Plot:
  • Para 1: "The novel begins one year before the Battles of Lexington and Concord" - To be more clear, the storyline begins one year before these battles. (When were these battles anyway?)
Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 1: "Jonathan implicates Abraham in a murder that occurred near Abraham's church. Jonathan draws attention away from Abraham by implicating himself, but he lets Abraham know that he believes Abraham to be fully culpable for the crime. Jonathan is driven away from the community." - It feels awkward to have three sentences in a row beginning with "Jonathan".
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 2: "Walter becomes restless in his rural surroundings. His father will not let him leave for New York City. Walter grew up spending time in the forest among Indigenous people, particularly his friend Bald Eagle. When Walter gets caught in a spring flood, Bald Eagle saves him and brings him home. Edith and Walter become engaged." - In my opinion, some of the sentences could probably be combined, as they are quite short. In particular, the first two sentences feel somewhat choppy because of how short they are; maybe something like "Walter becomes restless in his rural surroundings, and his father will not let him leave for New York City"?
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 4: "Walter meets a young man named Harry Flemming, who recently met Edith. " - Do you mean to say that Flemming recently met Edith?
Yes. Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 4: "Walter ends the engagement and develops relationships with other women: Mrs. P. and Olive Montgomery." - I'd either cut "other women" altogether, rephrase this to "two other women: Mrs. P. and Olive Montgomery.", or (if there were more than two women) "other women, including Mrs. P. and Olive Montgomery".
I chose the second option. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 6: "Walter finds a note written by Abraham explaining that Walter is not actually Abraham's son. Walter's father is a man named Warwick Savage, whom Abraham murdered upon discovering Warwick's sexual affair with his wife." - Maybe condense this to something like "Walter finds a note written by Abraham explaining that Walter's father is not Abraham but, rather, a man named Warwick Savage, whom Abraham murdered upon discovering Warwick's sexual affair with his wife"?
Replacement accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 7: "The colonel looks like Jonathan, which bothers Walter. Walter learns from Indigenous friends and from a letter from Edith that Warwick is actually Jonathan and that he has sinister reasons for joining the army." - If Walter's feeling of being bothered comes right before Walter's discovery that the colonel is Jonathan, I'd consider combining these sentences.
Combined. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 8: "She makes a contradictory statement regarding whether or not Walter should marry Edith, then she dies." - I would change "whether or not" to just "whether" and change the last part to "then dies" for concision.
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 9: "Walter learns that Jonathan and Benedict Arnold are traitors together" - Minor point, but did he learn that they are traitors who are working together, or just that both of them were traitors?
Together. Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Background:
  • Para 1: "Writing in 1958, scholar Lillie Deming Loshe considered it the longest work of early American fiction and possibly longer than any other since." - Regarding "considered it the longest work of early American fiction", was there any dispute over whether this was the longest work of early American fiction? In this sentence, I get the sense that there is uncertainty over whether any other book would be considered longer.
I don't know how disputed titles like "longest work of early American fiction" or "longest American fiction work until at least 1958" are. Page numbers are mathematically comparable, but word count is a better determinant. Because Brother Jonathan has never been digitized, an accurate word count is not at hand. Until someone comes up with a word count for this novel, I think those two claims ought to be attributed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 1: "There are no other works of American fiction comparable in scope, length, and complexity until the Littlepage Manuscripts trilogy by James Fenimore Cooper twenty years later." - The previous and next sentences are both past tense, so I'd also change this to past tense. Also, 20 years after Loshe's review, or 20 years after Brother Jonathan was published?
Modified to past tense and Littlepage publication dates added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 2: "In 1823, he was at a dinner party with an English friend who quoted Sydney Smith's 1820 then-notorious remark, "in the four quarters of the globe, who reads an American book?" - The phrase "Smith's 1820 then-notorious remark" seems awkward to me. I can't pinpoint why, but I feel that "Smith's then-notorious 1820 remark" would flow a lot better.
Recommendation accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 2: "Less than a month later on December 15, 1823, he left Baltimore on a UK-bound ship" - I wonder why this sentence gives an exact date, whereas the previous sentence (presumably talking about a party in November) only gives the year.
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 2: "The working title was The Yankee" - I'd add a comma after this because, similar to the examples given in WP:CINS, this clause can theoretically stand alone as a sentence.
Added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 3: "His financial situation was becoming desperate[22] when William Blackwood of Edinburgh asked Neal in April to become a regular contributor to Blackwood's Magazine.[23]" - Do we know how dire his financial situation was? Additionally, I'd say "when, in April, William Blackwood of Edinburgh asked Neal to...", putting "April" next to "when".
I haven't found any additional detail on his economic situation at that moment. The source I cite says "His situation was desperate when on April 20, William Blackwood responded." "April" is moved.
  • Para 4: I know Neal was the one who wrote to Blackwood, but "He sent him the manuscript" is a bit awkward.
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 4: "Based on feedback from both Blackwood and his associate David Macbeth Moir, Neal revised the novel and submitted a second draft in March 1825. Based on that draft, Blackwood agreed to publish, but requested one more round of revisions, to which Neal agreed" - Likewise, two consecutive sentences beginning with "Based on" also feels awkward.
I removed the second "based on". Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 5: "Only 500 copies sold before Blackwood deemed the venture a failure and the two men's relationship broke down" - Do we know when the breakdown happened? In addition, "the two men's" is somewhat redundant since it is already implied that only Blackwood and Neal were involved.
"Two men's" reworded. Timeline added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On a related note, did the book become more popular later? The last paragraph of the Background section addresses only how many copies were sold before Blackwood and Neal broke off their partnership, but it never mentions anything about later sales, if they even happened.
Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the additional comments! I should be able to address these by November 21. Feel free to add more before then if you have them. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Epicgenius: I believe all your comments so far are addressed. There are two that did not prompt me to make a change to the article: your comments about Loshe's claim and about Neal being desperate in April 1824. Let me know if you think either issue warrants more discussion. Otherwise, what other comments do you have? Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re "There are two that did not prompt me to make a change to the article: your comments about Loshe's claim and about Neal being desperate in April 1824.", no problem - I understand that some changes may not be possible due to a lack of reliable sources. I'll look at the "Themes" section now (I was planning to do this earlier today). – Epicgenius (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Themes:
  • In general, I would suggest adding a few subheaders for readability. From what I'm understanding:
    • Para 1 is about Neal's efforts to portray Americans,
    • Para 2 is about Brother Jonathan as an emblem/allegory,
    • Para 3 is about Walter's coming of age as an allegory,
    • Para 4 is about allegorical representations of egalitarianism,
    • Para 5 is about cultural diversity,
    • Para 6 is about racial aspects/tensions, and
    • Para 7 is about sexual aspects/relations. Am I correct in that regard?
I just added four subheaders. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 1: "anglophile world" - Just to double-check, did you deliberately write "anglophile" (English-loving), or did you mean "anglophone" (English-speaking)?
Thank you for asking! Anglophone is really what I meant. I swapped it out. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 1: "Many American readers resented the portrayals and reacted poorly in print and in person upon Neal's return to the US." - Incidentally, that would have been quite an interesting reaction. Do the sources mention the nature of the reaction (e.g. protests, boycotts, angry letters)?
Yes, but I removed this sentence to avoid repetition and added this requested detail in the part of the "Depiction of Americans" section that also discusses it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 2: "Though initially considered to personify just the New England states, Neal advocated for Americans to accept Brother Jonathan as a representation for the entire country" - There is a dangling modifier here. Presumably it was Brother Jonathan, not Neal, who was initially considered to personify just the New England states. May I suggest "Though Brother Jonathan was initially..."?
Recommendation accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 3: "about the protagonist Walter Harwood" - You already mentioned that Walter was the protagonist in the previous paragraph.
Walter's name deleted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 3: "This exemplifies Neal's belief that people are their truest selves when at home" - Might be good to mention who says that, since otherwise it seems like we're saying this in wikivoice (rather than a single author making this observation).
On second thought, the idea in this sentence is poorly connected to the previous one, so I deleted it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 4: "The stage coach that transported him to New York also exemplifies this natural American republicanism" - Similar to the above, you may want to mention who said this.
Attribution added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 5: "he is an unclear entity who may be one of two different men" - I would say that "may be one of two different men" makes the phrase "he is an unclear entity" redundant.
Redundancy removed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 6: "But unlike the mass death scene at the end of Neal's earlier novel Logan" - I don't recommend starting the sentence with "but", as it feels a little choppy.
Swapped for "However,". Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 6: "This may be interpreted as Neal's take" - It may also be good to say who interprets the ending of Brother Jonathan that way.
Attributed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 7: "The story explores the consequences of those actions for both men and women." - Any specific examples of said consequences? It's OK if you don't have any.
Nope. Both cited sources are pretty vague on this point. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 7: I noticed that the last half of this paragraph is mostly quotes. Per MOS:QUOTE, it may be advisable to summarize some of the quotes. For example, you could summarize the Blackwood quote by saying something like "he disapproved of the seductive images and predicted that the vast majority of readers would not read it as a result".
Two quotes replaced with narrative summary. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thank you for these! I believe all your comments above are addressed. What other comments do you have? Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for resolving these issues so quickly Dugan Murphy. This article looks to be in pretty good shape so far, though I will probably have my final comments up by Thursday. Epicgenius (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Epicgenius: Just checking in since Thursday came and went and you didn't post any new comments. Yours is the only comment thread on this nomination that is still active. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dugan Murphy, sorry about that, I completely forgot about commenting here on Thursday due to the Thanksgiving holiday. I'm leaning toward supporting the FAC, since my remaining concerns are all minor, but will have my final comments shortly. Epicgenius (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Style:
  • Para 1: "Walter's dialogue in the first volume may be the earliest attempt in American literature to use a child's natural speech patterns to express a wide range of emotion." - The "may be" part is according to Martin, right?
Yup. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 1: "Literature scholar and biographer Benjamin Lease" and "the compilers of the Dictionary of American English" - Are these two the same?
Nope. Lease pointed out in his 1972 book that the people who put together the dictionary earlier that century had referenced three of Neal's novels. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Contemporary critique:
  • "as did readers in general, who largely ignored it" - Two things. I assume these readers are in the UK because you say that US critics took little notice; is that correct? Also, do you know if they ignored the novel because it was puzzling?
I realize I'm repeating here the thing about American readers ignoring the book because the previous sentence is supposed to be about readers in both countries. The source for your pulled quote (Sears 1978, pp. 73–74) says "No wonder that the reading public did not know what to make of the sprawling, brawling work, and ended by ignoring it." This seems to indicate that readers ignored it because it was puzzling, but I think it would be safer to stick to the point that they ignored it. I've reworded the last two sentences of this paragraph with all this in mind. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Depiction of Americans:
  • Para 1: "Among American readers and critics aware of Brother Jonathan" - I would probably change this to "Among the American readers and critics who were aware of Brother Jonathan" to clarify that, while most American critics and readers didn't take notice of the novel, those who did were angered by it.
Suggestion taken. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 1: "In contrast, Sumner Lincoln Fairfield of the New York Literary Gazette specifically praised the novel as a "great success"" - Out of curiosity, do we need this word? "Specifically" in this context could be a little ambiguous, as it could be modifying either Fairfield, the praise, or the novel, so maybe this can be cut.
"Specifically" is deleted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 2: "On the other hand, Jeremy Bentham, according to John Bowring, assailed the novel as "the most execrable stuff that ever fell from mortal pen."" - I'd rephrase this to something like "On the other hand, John Bowring claimed that Jeremy Bentham assailed the novel as "the most execrable stuff that ever fell from mortal pen."", since this claim is refuted by Neal in the next sentence.
Suggestion taken. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sexual content:
  • No issues.
Excessive but powerful:
  • Para 1: "The New Monthly Magazine ... The Monthly Review" - I presume these are both British? (Sorry, I'm just nitpicking at this point, as the article is pretty well written.)
Yes. Language added to that effect. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 1: "The British Critic focused on what that critic" - Are you referring to the British Critic's critic?
Yes. I reworded to make that clear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 2: "full or vigour and originality" - Full of vigour and originality, I assume, because the sentence would not make much sense otherwise.
Good catch! Typo fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Para 2: "Moir praised: 'It is extremely powerful...'" - Usually, "praised" is a transitive verb, so you'd say something like "Moir praised the novel as 'extremely powerful...'"
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Modern views:
  • "Twenty-first-century readers are generally unaware of Brother Jonathan" - Is there anything available about 20th century views? You mention some reviews from the 20th century in the following sections.
My source for this statement is Richter in 2009 saying Brother Jonathan is "virtually unknown today". Per MOS:DATED, I chose the wording you quoted here. None of the 20th-century scholars I read said anything similar about readers in that century, even though clearly the novel has been obscure almost since it was published. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough, that makes sense. If the 20th-century scholars don't say anything about readers in that century, it wouldn't do us any good to basically add original research about that. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Realism:
  • No issues.
Complexity:
  • Para 1: "The plot was "brilliant yet exasperating" according to biographer Donald A. Sears.[2] Morgan used the term "overstuffed".[116]" - Similarly to the previous sentence about Richards and Fleischmann, I'd suggest just combining these two sentences.
Combined.
That's all I have. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thanks for reading through the rest of the article! I have responded to all your comments. Do you feel any of them warrant further discussion? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope. I will support this FAC now. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eddie891[edit]

A la Epic. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reasonable question. I re-read that section of the novel and some scholarly analysis of it and clarified accordingly. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
She's the daughter of the Quaker hosts. I reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Attributed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Come to think of it, this sentence doesn't really say anything that doesn't come up later in the "Depiction of Americans" section. I added an extra sentence down there to satisfy your curiosity. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The cited Pethers source says "...Neal increasingly begins to manifest through what we may call a vocalization (rather than a narration) of national diversity. In this respect, ... Neal's mature works of the 1820s ... contain within themselves multiple and contesting dialects which advance the project of transcending the Revolutionary era's political nationalism. Inverting the national motto of E pluribus unum to allow for sundry forms of cultural affiliation, the polyvocality of Brother Jonathan (1825) and Rachel Dyer simply reiterates the ideological intention of Neal's semiautobiographical novels in a different key." The cited Richter source says "Under the ironic title of Brother Jonathan, the diverse linguistic styles subvert the fiction of a unified, national whole." So it looks like neither claim predominance of the national unity idea, but just that Neal challenged it. Thus, I edited "his generation's predominant" to "the". Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Looks like this article didn't exist when I was first drafting this section! It is now linked. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first two were already linked because Seventy-Six was attributed to "the author of Logan". I can't find a reliable source saying this, but I think there were so few books published in the UK by Americans about the US, and Neal's style is so distinct, I guess this critic felt safe attributing Brother Jonathan to the same author. So I think the most I could add here is that those other two novels were already connected by the title page of Seventy-six. (But since you mentioned it, the "four years later" line was in reference to Seventy-six's 1823 publication, so I just changed it to in 1827".) Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm re-reading your comment here, the original British review, and my summary of it. Here's the original 1827 review: "If we except Brown ... and the unknown author of Logan, Seventy-Six (which contained some most vivid sketches of scenes during the American war,) and Brother Jonathan, three of about as extraordinary works as ever appeared–full of faults, but still full of power; if we except these, there is no rival near Mr. Cooper’s throne." I think changing "positioning Neal" to "positioning the author" is warranted and speaks to your concern, because the critic didn't mention Neal by name. I just made that change. The article doesn't say that the review positioned Neal. It says the reviewer felt that the three books together positioned their author (who happened to be Neal). The question remains why the critic felt comfortable attributing all three novels to the same author. Regardless, he did attribute all three to the same author. That is clearly factual. What are your thoughts here? Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems a perfectly logical solution, thanks for your diligence! Eddie891 Talk Work 12:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just added a couple of examples in the "Complexity" section. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about this this sentence in the "Themes" section? "The emblem had been developing for decades as a minor self-referential device in American literature, but saw full development in this novel into the personification of American national character." Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm just having a bit of trouble parsing the transition from Brother Jonathan, a book that seems to not have been particularly popular to a broader conceptualization of Brother Jonathan as an emblem. Does the sourcing consider Neal's argument to have influenced popular perception? Eddie891 Talk Work 03:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source isn't explicit about connecting the novel to popular opinion. I think it's more about looking at the emblem's development through a historic lens. As such, I removed that language from the lead. Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I swapped society for nation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I changed the sentence in the lead section to omit mention of contemporaneous literature. Conversely, in the "Style" section, I added another scholar's opinion to support Martin's on this topic. Given this rewording, your last question in this bullet point is now moot. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right. I've reworded this sentence in the lead. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a first round, really interesting article you've got. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the compliment and for the comments! I am still working on them. The only one so far that may warrant more discussion is the comment about Neal's anonymity. What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eddie891: And now I feel your comments are fully addressed. Thank you again for developing this list and typing it out. Do you think your comments about Neal's anonymity and Brother Jonathan as an emblem (or any of your other comments) need further discussion? Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the prompt responses. Not sure yet about authorship. I have a response about Brother Jonathan above, shortly. Eddie891 Talk Work 03:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eddie891: Thank you for the additional responses. I think the issue about Brother Jonathan the personification/emblem is now resolved. I also added another response to the anonymity thread. Let me know if that needs more discussion. Dugan Murphy (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Happy to support now. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review by Vat[edit]

I don't think I can commit to a comprehensive look at the entire article, but I can do images :)

Image review is, as you might expect, a pass. All images are PD by virtue of age (and pd-text for the title page additionally), and have been properly prepared for FAC by addressing all complex nuances. Alt text is present and usable. I'll take the opportunity to note, though, that adding the "upright" parameter with no number unintuitively sets it to "upright=0.75" rather than the expected default of 1 -- some images might be worth double-checking to see if they're displaying as intended (a couple of the landscapes look small). Vaticidalprophet 15:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for helping! I appreciate the tip about the upright parameter. I just looked at the MOS and it says that using that parameter without a number is deprecated, so I removed it from the two portraits. I increased the size of the three landscape images on your suggestion. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Fair. Done! Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good catch! Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh my gosh, I know. It turns out 1,324 pages doesn't fit easily into the 700-word max recommended by MOS:PLOTLENGTH. I just trimmed it from 1,078 words to 877. At this point, it is little more than plainly-stated, basic plot points, so I'm stopping there under the plea that this famously long novel with a famously too-complicated plot deserves special permission to exceed the recommended plot summary word limit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. Rephrased. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changed "debauchery" to "riotous behavior" for lack of sexual escapades. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changed to "a large proportion". Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I need to step away from the computer for a bit, but will look at the remaining comments in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accepted! Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I only have one dash use in the regular prose, which is spaced, so I made it an en dash. All the other dash uses (aside from number ranges) are in quoted text, I standardized the quotes with fully or partially spaced dashes to en dashes and the fully unspaced ones to em dashes. I also noticed an inconsistent use of en vs em dashes in number ranges, so I changed those all to en dashes per MOS:RANGE.
No good reason. I moved Background to follow the plot summary. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Precisely! Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hear what you're saying. I combined two and reversed the sequence of another. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overall the article is in excellent shape; these are minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thank you for the compliment and for taking the time to read through the article and write out comments. I believe I have addressed them all. Would you say this nomination is now worthy of your support? Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All the fixes look good except for the dashes. Per MOS:CONFORM we regularize dash use in quotes. You have many dashes in quoted material -- e.g. "Walter and Edith were happy: and Warwick Savage – alias, Jonathan Peters – alias, Robert Evans – he, though not happy, was no longer bad, or foolish" which uses spaced en dashes. You have unspaced em dashes in "not because of their being worse—but because of their being better" and the Connecticut farmer's speech, and the quote box showing phonetic stuttering is a mixture. There are others. There's an exception in CONFORM: "provided that doing so will not change or obscure meaning or intent of the text". I think you might argue that the quotes of the farmer and the drunk are important to show as Neal had them, but is it clear whether he had em or en dashes, or that it would make a difference? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was not thinking about MOS:CONFORM! Thank you for bringing that in. I standardized to the standard of spaced en dashes per MOS:DASH, with the only exception being the semi-spaced en dashes in the quote box and the unspaced em dashes in the farmer dialogue. As you suggested, I see the purpose of including those text quotes as demonstrating Neal's unique experiments in punctuation. I think they need to reflect the original text in order to not "obscure meaning or intent of the text". It's valuable to demonstrate how Neal's use of dashes was irregular. That means that the only em dashes left in the article are in the farmer quote. The only en dashes not fully spaced are in the quote box. @Mike Christie: What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the argument is justified, but judging from this, which seems to be a first edition, the drunk quotes should be spaced em dashes. I couldn't find the other quote but I'd guess you can; worth checking if we're going to argue that the exact typography is important. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha! You know, now I'm thinking that the drunk quote is my transcription of somebody else's transcription instead of the original text. The farmer quote certainly is. Here's the original. Based on this fresh look at the original publication, I just standardized those two quotes to spaced en dashes like the rest of the article. Now adherence to MOS:CONFORM is complete! Thank you for keeping on this and helping me figure it out. @Mike Christie: Anything else? Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I think everything looks good now; glad we ran that one to ground. Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by TompaDompa[edit]

I am partway through compiling my comments on this article. I will update this once I'm done. TompaDompa (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

General comments
Lead
Sure! Changed to contemporary. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changed to colloquialisms. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point. Added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Plot
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tory is the term used in the novel and it was common in revolutionary America, but I agree that British Loyalist would likely enhance clarity for all anglophones. Term is swapped. I'll look at your other comments in a little bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes! Name added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. Added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Background
Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course I'm referring here to the lesser known infant novelist. But really, good point. I moved the parenthetical. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point. Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Themes
Linked. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see! Changed to "naivety". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Walter's name added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're really good at picking up on these almost-the-right-words. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair. Richter is now attributed in both sentences. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Colloquialisms it is. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"In" added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Style
I guess plural is more appropriate given that Neal stresses polyvocality in so many of his works. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pluralized. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changed to "from". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Accent marks" removed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changed to "came". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Period critique
Sure. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changed "is" to "was". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant the latter, but anticipating others experiencing the difficulty you did, I added "what" to change it to the former. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Word swapped. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Readers" is a fitting substitute. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changed to "characterization of Americans". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Modern views

Ping Dugan Murphy. TompaDompa (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TompaDompa: Thank you for applying your fine-tooth clarity comb to this article! I believe all your comments are addressed and the article is better as a result. The only ones I believe may warrant further discussion are your comments on the NYC skyline, scare quotes, coming-of-age, and prodigious. What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TompaDompa: I addressed your new comments, so I believe the only standing comments that may need more discussion are the ones about coming of age and the use of "prodigious". What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dugan Murphy: Those are indeed the only remaining issues that need to be addressed, apart from a couple of comments that I have just added. See above for my responses to those specific issues and the handful of new ones. TompaDompa (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TompaDompa: Great. I believe I have resolved all the new and old issues you have raised. As long as you think my replacement for "partly" is appropriate. Tell me your thoughts. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dugan Murphy: We're certainly getting there. I spotted one new issue and replied to another. TompaDompa (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TompaDompa: I made a couple more tweaks and issued a couple more responses. I think we may be done here. How do you like the last sentence of the lead? Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good. TompaDompa (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cautious support. I have not checked the sourcing and am not sufficiently familiar with the topic to be able to tell whether the article is well-researched, comprehensive, and neutral, but it looks good. TompaDompa (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review[edit]

...working... ——Serial 19:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I can see that some reviewers could have been put off by the amount of black ink thrown up; but it's worse than it looks. That in the cites section are solely due to the use of =N, quote; the comma delineates two items. There's nothing wrong with noting who one's source is quoting, by the way—a good reading of WP:V. But, tbh, I'd go either further or back; if you are going to specify a quoted source, why not the page number as well? After all, the Literary Gazette—fn93, for example—was a weekly publication at its height, so if the reader wants to confirm your quote, they appear to have no small search ahead of them. And precision would not seem to be furthered by a pageless source being not only pageless, but only 'ostensibly' so (fn96). I suggest keeping it simple. I see several works from (random cut-off date for modern scholarship) pre-1970, but they are not overly used, and the most commonly used are modern works. In any case, there's undoubtedly little wrong with the University of Wisconsin or The New England Quarterly. It's a pretty niche topic, and a search of several databases suggests that nothing that should be used here has been overlooked. Couple of other points.

Regarding citation 93 and others like it: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Could you rephrase? If you're saying that I should find what page in what issue of The Literary Gazette is being quoted by Cairns, I don't see why that is necessary. I'm not citing The Literary Gazette. I'm citing Cairns. I'm just making clear that the quote is not Cairns's words, though I got the quote from Cairns. Let me know if you think this should be discussed further. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As long as yours is a high-quality and independent reliable source, we don't need to know who they cite. You cite what you read; you only need to cite who they cite when you read the second thing through the first. See WP:SAYWHERE: 'follows the practice in academic writing of citing sources directly only if you have read the source yourself. If your knowledge of the source is secondhand—that is, if you have read Jones (2010), who cited Smith (2009), and you want to use what Smith (2009) said—make clear that your knowledge of Smith is based on your reading of Jones'.
Ok. I removed all the references within inline citations to who is being quoted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure! I literally copied how it was written on the title page. I deleted that part. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I understand what you're saying here, then the source listings for chapters in Watts & Carlson and DiMercurio don't need a title parameter. Unfortunately, when I delete those title parameters, those source listings render with an error message. I've left them as-is for now. But if what you're saying is that I should delete the listings for these two books, then see my response to your last comment. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed! Responded there. ——Serial 15:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merlob, Pethers, Sivils, Richter, and Schumacher are all book chapters. Each of these source listings include a link at the end to refer to the full book listing. It is designed that way to avoid repeating the same information over and over again in the chapter listings. This is the format settled upon during the FAC review for John Neal (writer) three years ago, which also cites chapters in the same two books. So I've been following that precedent ever since. Do you feel strongly about this format choice? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As book chapters, they need to be cited within the context of who they are published. See WP:HOWCITE, which basically shows that everything you've got in your chapter cites should be augmented with what you have for the rest of the book. Yes, this might result in the same book being cited several times. This is good, as the reader needs to know where the material is to find on each occasion. And using the full book citation on its own makes it appear as you're using the whole book, which you're not.
Ok. DiMercurio and Watts & Carlson are removed from the source list and their publication information is added to the relevant chapters. That means that I changed all the Richter 2009 inline citations to Richter 2018 to keep them linked to the proper source listing. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
——Serial 20:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Thank you for reviewing my sources! I responded to your comments about handling chapters vs books and attributing quotes. Do you think either point needs more discussion? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, Dugan Murphy, and apologies for the delay getting back to you. I hope I have clarified my queries while emphasizing the importance of following an English Wikipedia content guideline, WP:REF, in this case, an extension of policy, WP:V. ——Serial 15:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: I believe all your comments are fully addressed. Thank you for helping me improve the article! Would you say that this article has passed your review? Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, thank you Dugan Murphy for providing me with a really interesting read. You've clearly put a lot of work into the topic. Congratulations  :) and yes, "consistency being key", etc., @WP:FAC coordinators: I'm happy to pass the source review. Cheers, ——Serial 19:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More