Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Augustan drama
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Augustan drama
I hereby nominate this marvellous article for Featured Article status, as I believe it exemplifies what a featured article really should be. An informative, well-written, well-researched article, it provides an excellent overview of plays of England in the early 18th century with a good choice of images to accompany the text. It is well-organised and well-laid out; it is about the right length, in my view, and is perfectly comprehensive and accurate. I thus have no reservations in nominating this article. --NicholasTurnbull 21:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- Won't vote, as I wrote it, but I will say that the article's thesis and purpose is not the same as Augustan literature, and I worked for 2 months to try to ensure that it was an independent article in spirit and letter and in no way a subpage. Geogre 02:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- The article ought to be categorized. —thames 00:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- I have added it to Category:English literature, which is the category inhabited by Augustan literature. I can't find any other category that seems applicable, though I encourage others to look. Jwrosenzweig 01:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- A only slightly hesitant Support. Geogre, as usual, does a phenomenal and thorough job. I would personally like to see a little more use of sub-sectioning (the section on Spectacle, in particular, is big enough to make me feel overwhelmed without a little more guidance from subsection titles), but that may be a personal preference, and certainly, I think, should not stand as an obstacle to this being promoted to FA status. Jwrosenzweig 01:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. I agree. It's one of my typical faults to make readers run a marathon just because I see the subject as unified. I have attempted to subdivide the "re-emergence of satirical drama" into a first generation/second generation split (they are different generations, but I don't discuss that, explicitly, in the article). I'll attempt to do the same for "Spectacle." It is rather vast, and I'm now attempting to create a Spectacle article, as well as articles for some of the little-known plays (such as Chrononhotonthologos) to take the narrative pressure off the section. I have created subdivisions now to separate the pantomime and opera "spectacles." Geogre 03:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- You're certainly welcome, Geogre! And thanks for the sectioning--they helped me make better, more fluid sense of that section. I hereby withdraw any hesitancy in my support for this being featured. :-) Jwrosenzweig 10:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. I agree. It's one of my typical faults to make readers run a marathon just because I see the subject as unified. I have attempted to subdivide the "re-emergence of satirical drama" into a first generation/second generation split (they are different generations, but I don't discuss that, explicitly, in the article). I'll attempt to do the same for "Spectacle." It is rather vast, and I'm now attempting to create a Spectacle article, as well as articles for some of the little-known plays (such as Chrononhotonthologos) to take the narrative pressure off the section. I have created subdivisions now to separate the pantomime and opera "spectacles." Geogre 03:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Neutral for now. Not objecting because my issue is a bit vague. I find the prose of the article a bit leaden, and also in places a bit redundant. I made a few small edits myself, trying to tighten it, but I'm not taking this on. If at a later time someone feels they have addressed this, let me know and I may support. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)- Understandably, you can't tell me what's "leaden," as that's affective and not demonstrable, but you can tell me what's redundant. Needless to say, I think my prose style is pretty good, but, as you say, you're not objecting, and de gustibus non disputandum est. I do wish, though, you could show me redundancies, since I've been fairly careful and written from top to bottom more than once (i.e. not section by section, which is where redundancies usually creep in). I appreciate the copy edit you've done. Geogre 11:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Y'know, I've looked again and the latter sections are stronger than the early ones that I copy edited. I'm changing my vote to support. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Another excellent literary article from Geogre. --Alabamaboy 18:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Support—comprehensive, scholarly, fascinating. This is an extremely under-researched and under-discussed area. Wikipedia now has great coverage of it, in contrast to the EB, and don't even talk to me about the rest of the web. Bishonen | talk 12:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
