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 User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008 [1].

---

Reception history of Jane Austen[edit]

Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk) and Simmaren (talk)

In our slow and steady efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Jane Austen, we bring you a history of how Austen's works have been received and how the fan culture surrounding Austen has developed. Simmaren and Awadewit have been working on this article for over a year and believe that it now meets the FA criteria. They would like to thank everyone who has helped shape this article, but most especially Maria, who researched and wrote the "Adaptations" section. This article has undergone a rigorous peer review by Markus Poessel, Scartol, Moni3, and Brianboulton; it has been copyedited several different times, lastly by Jbmurray; it has been checked against the MOS by Epbr123; and it has been BE-ified by Roger Davies. Awadewit (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Simmaren (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Does Image:Greer Garson in Pride and Prejudice.JPG need a Fair use rationale as a screenshot? Otherwise, images check out ok. I haven't read it since I peer reviewed it. I think it has changed some since I saw it last. --Moni3 (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not believe it does need a FUR - see the licensing information links and the license tag. Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That brings up an interesting question that may either require further research on that image, or taking this discussion completely off this page. I had to remove screenshots from To Kill a Mockingbird because I could not prove that copyright had not been renewed, and even if it had not been renewed, could not prove that it was in the public domain. I called the US Copyright Office for verification. Do you need to prove in the license information tag that this film in particular is in the public domain? Or, by the links, are all trailers from 1923 to 1977 available to use? --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that these trailers (and only the trailers) are available. We could solicit a certain Commons editor's advice, however. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For my own edification perhaps we should ask him. Striking concern unless Elcobbola indicates otherwise. --Moni3 (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trailers are derivative works, not purely original works. Thus they would be affected by the copyright status of the film itself. Kaldari (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this and let me know what you think. It is my understanding that this trailer is indeed in the PD. Awadewit (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my note to Elcobbola. --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't think about the fact that the trailers are typically published before the movie is. Kaldari (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Review... Kaldari (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "With the growing professionalisation of university English departments in the first half of the twentieth century, criticism of Austen became progressively more esoteric and, as a result, appreciation of Austen branched in several directions. In the late twentieth century, for example, fans founded Jane Austen societies and clubs to celebrate the author, her time, and her works;" In the first sentence "appreciation of Austen" is presented in the context of academic criticism. The phrase is then parlayed into discussion of Jane Austen fan clubs. This switching of contexts was unexpected (for me at least), as I was expecting the "example" to be from an academic context as well. This could be remedied by removing the clause "for example" which strongly ties the two sentences together (perhaps too strongly), or by adding more transitional wording between the two sentences to broaden the context.

• Transitional wording added: criticism of Austen became progressively more esoteric and, as a result, appreciation of Austen splintered into distinctive high culture and popular culture trends; "for example" removed. Awadewit (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "...fans founded Jane Austen societies and clubs to celebrate the author, her time, and her works; consequently, "Janeite" increasingly became a term of opprobrium." Why would celebrating Austen, her time, and her works lead to "Janeite" becoming a term of opprobrium? The connection here isn't clear.

• New version: In the late twentieth century, fans founded Jane Austen societies and clubs to celebrate the author, her time, and her works; consequently, scholars often disparagingly referred to fans as "Janeites". Awadewit (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "opprobrium" and "ensconced" are a bit academic. Can these be rephrased?

• How about a change from (a) "firmly ensconced" to "widely accepted" and (b) "opprobrium" to "contempt" or "disparagement" ? Simmaren (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've incorporated "disparage" above. See what you think. Awadewit (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - although there was some phrasing that made me smirk or laugh, I don't see any problems. I wonder if there were any reviews in America or Europe of any of her work early on, but that doesn't seem too necessary. I think Lewes's picture is a negative (he needs to shave better), but I've never liked him much, so I am biased. By the way, did Fanny Burney ever say anything about the works? Elizabeth Gaskell? Mary Elizabeth Braddon? Juliet Barker's The Brontes provides a detailed account of Charlotte's view of Jane. I didn't know if the source you used really went into it. Barker says (p. 548) "While Charlotte realized, as Lewes did not, that Jane Austen's style and tone were the absolute antithesis of her own, she nevertheless also recognized his criticism of her tendency to melodrama and her 'untrue' pictures of high society. It was, after all, what many of the reviewers had found fault with and Smith Williams himself advised her to avoid. Thanking him for his literary advice, Charlotte told Smith Williams that she kept his letters and referred 'not unfrequently' to them." In 1850, she purchased Sense and Sensibility and (pp. 634-635) "Writing a few weeks later when she had read Jane Austen's Emma, she anatomized the vast gulf that lay between their different styles of writing. (quote - She does her business of delineating the surface of the lives of genteel English people curiously well; there is a Chinese fidelity, a miniature delicacy in the painting: she ruffles her reader by nothing vehement, disturbs him by nothing profound: the Passions are perfectly unknown to her... Her business is not half so much with the human heart as with the human eyes <eyes>, mouth, hands and feet; what sees keenly, speaks aptly, moves flexibly, it suits her to study, but what throbs fast and full, though hidden, what the blood rushes through, <what> what is the unseen seat of Life and the sentient target of death - this Miss Austen ignores... Jane Austen was a complete and most sensible lady, but a very incomplete, and rather insensible (not senseless) woman, ]if/ this is heresy - I cannot help it)" (quoting from her letter CB to WSW, 12 April 1850). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There are lots of interesting comments from nineteenth-century writers in particular on Austen. What we decided to include were the ones repeated most often in the articles and books we read. Scott's "Big wow-wow" quote, for example, is repeated everywhere. If you are interested in every scrap ever said about Austen, you should read the Southam collection of reviews. Two volumes of material, which includes everything CB said about Austen and much more. Quite the read. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as semi-collaborator, although the credit is all Awadewit and Simmaren's. This is quite a fine article, but my opinion of Miss Jane still coincides with that of Twain: "I often want to criticize Jane Austen, but her books madden me so that I can't conceal my frenzy from the reader; and therefore I have to stop every time I begin. Every time I read Pride and Prejudice, I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone." :) María (habla conmigo) 21:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Will it become obligatory for every reviewer to include the quote they wished we had cited? :) Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently, as long as they support the page. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, mine was the best: succinct, earnest, violent. I consider this meme concluded. Back to critiquing, everyone! María (habla conmigo) 21:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This FAC can become the source for the "Quotations of and about Jane Austen" page we have occasionally considered as a sub-page. ;) Simmaren (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for an article that I have been watching for a long time. Here we see the paradigm of how FAs should be built, and I advise all editors who aspire to bringing an article to FA status to analyse this article's history. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – with a quibble! "The 1972 adaptation of Emma was the first to be produced by BBC Television". It wasn't. This gives details of BBC P&P adaptations in 1952, 1958 and 1967, Persuasionin 1960-61 and Sense and Sensibility in 1971. And this gives details of an ancient BBC adaptation of P&P, in 1938! Sorry to be a bore with these details, which I think I hinted at in the peer review, but can the above reference to the 1972 Emma please be revised? Otherwise, a joy and a pleasure to read. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that is the first adaptation of Emma. Awadewit (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but the paragraph is about TV adaptations of Jane Austen novels, not about TV adaptations of Emma. The impression is given that the BBC started doing these adaptations in the 1970s, which is not the case. I'm not suggesting that these earlier productions be listed individually, but surely it is worth a brief mention, as part of the reception history, that the BBC made its first Austen attempt in 1938, when TV had scarcely been invented, and continued to produce versions at regular intervals during the 1960s and 1970s, even if they weren't very good ones? Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll have to check with Maria to see if the sources mention these earlier TV adaptations to any great degree. I know that she reworded this part of the article in response to your concern at the peer review, but perhaps it is still not clear enough. Awadewit (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources that I used only vaguely refer to early adaptations in comparison to the newer, post-1970 ones; basically they are dismissed as being not very faithful to their sources, historically inaccurate, and dull -- completely opposite of what came about with the heritage drama movement. Rather than give the impression that these early adaptations by the BBC are as notable (or as important to Austen scholarship) as the newer ones, I've just reworded the Emma sentence to read: "The 1972 BBC adaptation of Emma, for example, took great care to be historically accurate, but..." Is this better? María (habla conmigo) 00:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that is better, because the implication that the 1972 Emma was the first BBC Austen adaptation is no longer there (incidentally, BBC did Emma in 1948 and 1960). I'm not pressing beyond this, but I'm just wondering, in a general way, whether there is a point to be made that the Austen phenomenon might have occurred sooner if the earlier TV productions had aspired to the standards and fidelity of the later ones. Do the sources say or imply anything along these lines? In this respect, Jane Austen on Film and Television: A Critical Study of the Adaptations (MacFarland, 2002) might be useful. Brianboulton (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't recall reading exactly that sentiment, but several critics (including Troost) made the point that the BBC productions became more successful when combining textual/historical accuracy with the appeal of a visually appealing, flashy Hollywood film. The 70s ended up being a clear starting point in this regard. I don't have access to the MacFarland book from my library (and ILL would take too long for this FAC, I fear, especially with a holiday coming up), but perhaps someone else does? María (habla conmigo) 13:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The book (by Sue Parrill, McFarland is the publisher) is on the shelf(at the moment) at the University of Chicago library, to which I have access. I can undertake to retrieve it this weekend and take a look if that would be helpful. Simmaren (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Much of this book is available online at Google Books as well. I read this book a few years ago and I remember being unimpressed by it. How about we at least mention in the article that there were TV adaptations before the 1970s, but that they didn't have near the popular nor the critical acclaim that the later ones did? Awadewit (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be fine - could be done very briefly, I'm sure. Brianboulton (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As long as it doesn't make "between 1900 and 1975, more than sixty radio, television, film, and stage productions of Austen's various works were produced" at the end of the first paragraph in the section repetitive, sure thing. María (habla conmigo) 17:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria, what would be the best source for this? I'm scanning mine and they all focus on the annus mirabilis of 1995. Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Brian, the more I look into this, the more difficult it becomes. I have several books here on Austen and film (both television and movies) and none of them discuss the pre-1970 television adaptations at all. They all give about once or two sentences to those adaptations. The essays in these books focus on the 1940 P&P, the post-1970s TV adaptations, or the sudden explosion of Austen adaptations of the 1990s. The most I can do is add a phrase explicitly stating that these were not the first TV adaptations. I can't source much more than that at this point. It would take a lot of digging and these pre-1970 TV adaptations are clearly not at the center of Austen adaptation studies. (Note: I can't even source the general statement I suggested above, which is more of a synthesis of a bunch of material. I can't point to a single page on which that statement appears.) Awadewit (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The impression that the 1972 Emma was the first BBC Austen adaptation has been removed from the text, and that was my prime concern. If there is no worthwhile source saying anything about the earlier adaptations, perhaps we should leave it at that? I've looked at the text, and it might be hard to fit in your phrase saying that earlier adaptations existed, without disturbing the flow. Please consider the point resolved, without further expenditure of time. Brianboulton (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support no quote, just a support. Yomangani^talk 00:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. It's a thorough and interesting article and I learned a boatload, but I feel it needs some auditing for us pop culture-bred morons :) (Further comments moved to talk, [2] 03:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC) ) -- Changed to Neutral. Awa and co. have addressed most of my concerns, but I am still unsure about statements presented as straightforward facts which may be misunderstood and accessibility. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4) In the lead, I feel the referencing is spotty; either ref it all or don't. I don't see how "become one of the best-known and widely read novelists in the English language.[1]" is any less controversial or wanting of a citation than the quote "but it was not until the 1940s that Austen was firmly ensconced in academia as a "great English novelist"" for example.
  • 5) "scholars often disparagingly referred to fans as "Janeites"." There are instances where it seems like a little too much effort has been put into "historicizing" the content; do scholars no longer refer to fans as "Janeites"?
  • 8) "the way women depend on" is this meant to be present? As it's talking about the time of her writing I think it would be better as past (even though, of course, many of the same constraints women face have changed little).
  • 9) I feel some of the quotes could be audited; for example, I have no clue what "They were full of it at Althrop" means, so wikilinks, editing, or parentheticals or brackets or whatnot would aid me. I'll point others out as I seem them.
  • 13) "sixpenny series" is that the equivalent of a pulp edition or something nicer? I don't have a clue one way or another.
  • 15) "Several important early works, glimmers of brilliant Austen scholarship, paved the way. " ok that sounds downright peacockian. To your deference
  • 16) It's a bit offputting that the 1930's section begins by talking about the 1940's and then jumps back to the 1910's.
  • 20) I'll admit it might not be that important of a mention, but the most recent Austen bit I can think of was PBS broadcasting "the complete Jane Austen" as part of Masterpiece Theatre-as far as I know new productions of most of the works and then the 1995 P&P. (according to the site it was a first for US television, so it might merit a mention.)[3] editor deference
  • There are a few other minor grammar issues, such as overuse of commas, but I'm not going to make you hunt for them and will do a light copyedit when the more important (to me, anyway) issues are taken care of. They are but nitpicks.

Like I said, it's a well-written bit, I just think it could use some edits to make it more friendly to readers who aren't grad students specializing in english period literature :) If you could reply below in a block rather than in between my comments, it would help me understand what is being done and makes discussion easier to follow. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Could you number your comments so that they are easier to refer back to, since you don't want us to break up your comments? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to David:

• 4) I have removed all refs in the lead except the ref to "one of the best-known and widely read novelists in the English language". This statement is much more controversial than anything else in the article and is not cited anywhere else in the article. Awadewit (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 5) I think historicizing the context is important, as the entire point of this article is that the reception of Austen and her works has changed over time. With regards to your point about scholars and Janeites, actually, there is much less of snobbishness among scholars now than there used to be. Two of the leading modern Austen scholars, for example, actively study Janeites and popular culture (Claudia Johnson and Deidre Lynch). The question for me in this article is always: have we explained the historical well? Perhaps you could point to areas where you were confused? Awadewit (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 8) This is written in the literary present. Since it is discussing her plots, we used the present tense. Awadewit (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 9) I removed the Altrop reference. Let me know what other quotations were confusing. Awadewit (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 13) I've linked sixpenny to wiktionary and described the edition as "cheap". Does that help? Awadewit (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 15) It may sound peacockian, but the sources really do sound this praiseworthy. Awadewit (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 16) Reworded: Several important early works—glimmers of brilliant Austen scholarship—paved the way for Austen to become solidly entrenched within the academy. Awadewit (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 20) We have included adaptations that Austen scholars have written about and that are demonstrably important. Since there are so many, we cannot mention every one. I'm sure you understand. See the burgeoning list at Jane Austen in popular culture that we hope to organize some day. Perhaps you could add this one there? Awadewit (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to convey my issues with the article more clearly-maybe inline comments would help. As regards 1), the thing is anyone outside of literature or media analysis has no idea what "reception studies" are, and so "reception history" isn't exactly the most helpful description for us uninitiated. I don't really have an issue with it being the title as much because I hate verbose titles more than anything, but I think the lead could still be structured to be more newb-friendly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think comments on the talk page would be better, since there are so many people involved here. Awadewit (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think sandy said "no" to talk page comments last I checked, but I could be misconstruing her inscrutable ways again :) In regards to 5), my issue wasn't with having context (I like history, I like context too, looking back my choice of words was bad) but more with what I see as sort of making recent and current comments and analyses sound like they were written awhile ago- the whole "latter 20th/early 21st" bit. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were supposed to move long discussion to the talk page? Awadewit (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I'll go ask Aunt Sandy :P Also in re: to 17), if it's that general, than just paraphrase rather than quoting. It's just bothersome to read a quote with no attribution (whether it's contestable or not), because then I have to hunt for who made the statement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: Can I just say that I much prefer threading? I have to have two tabs open in order to follow all of these comments now, otherwise I would be scrolling like crazy.) Awadewit (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I understand, but with a long list it turns into a wall of text which I have to sift through to find out what's been done and what needs to be addressed. Sandy said it's up to you if you want to put this on talk, so I leave formatting up to you.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we are not going to thread, can you find some sort of orderly way to arrange your responses, then? Right now, I have to hunt for them. Perhaps you could create a list in response to our list ("Responses to Awadewit and Simmaren", maybe)? Awadewit (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to lose internet on the train, but if we use the talk I'll have more leeway in formatting so we can do it inline if you want. I'll try to start on it tonight (EST). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If by inline comments, you mean hidden comments in the article, I would much rather not. It is easier to have a discussion on a talk page. If by inline you mean, threading, I am all for that. :) Awadewit (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied responses to the FAC talk page - I thought you were going to transfer new concerns to the article talk page. Oh well. Awadewit (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it seems to me that Twain's comments on Austen are not really explained... it gives a pithy quote but not his criticism of Austen. Is more ommitted becuase it would unbalance the article? gren グレン 07:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Twain quote is intended to illustrate and perhaps sharpen the preceding sentences in the paragraph, which summarize Austen's reception in the United States and which provide the context for it. In the sources, the debate between Howells and Twain is frequently mentioned, and Twain's dislike of Austen is almost always described. We thought about including a good quote from Howells, and there are a couple of pungent quotes from Twain that would have served the purpose, but this is the one that best fit within our constraints of size and scope. Unfortunately, quite a bit of "good stuff" had to be left on the cutting room floor. Simmaren (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of Twain's quotes, actually, are pithy rather than explanatory. That's his style. Thus we explained in the article that "Twain used Austen to argue against the Anglophile tradition in America". Awadewit (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I did a peer review for this piece, and I enjoyed it thoroughly. I suppose I'm one of the English major people described above, so perhaps it's best for others to parse its readability for layfolk. However, I've never been a Janeite, and nevertheless I found it very engaging and accessible. Another quality article from Awadewit and Simmaren and Maria, meeting – in many cases surpassing – the FA criteria. Scartol • Tok 18:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.