Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Analytical Review

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 01:51, 21 January 2008.

[edit] Analytical Review

Peer review by BillDeanCarter and Mike Christie

Check external links

I hope I will be forgiven for having two FAC nominations running simultaneously, but I believe that I can handle the workload and since the two articles are related, I felt that perhaps reviewers who read the Joseph Johnson (publisher) article might be interested in reading this article as well, which is about a journal he published. I initially thought there would not be enough material to write an FA-level article on this journal, but I believe I have ferreted out enough to make a comprehensive article. To forestall a question I know will be asked - there is indeed more information on Mary Wollstonecraft's role as a reviewer than on the other reviewers. WillowW started this article as a lovely gesture of friendship towards me and I have expanded it; we have worked together in the spirit of Johnson's own journal. It was sort of wikipedia-like itself. :) Awadewit | talk 08:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I was impressed with this at peer review and I think Awadewit has done a fine job at cleaning up the nitpicks I found at PR. I just have one punctuation question:
  • It was, what scholar Nathaniel Teich called, -- shouldn't that be either "It was what" or "It was, as"? Or recast it?
    • It was, what scholar Nathaniel Teich called, "the most important radical review adopting the encyclopedic format for the attempted universal coverage of published works" - I believe this is correct because the "main sentence" is "It was...the most important radical review...". To distinguish the main sentence from the subordinate clause, I have added the commas. I believe we would use "as" if there were an "it" at the end of the clause. Would it sound better this way: It was, according to scholar Nathaniel Teich, "the most important radical review..."? Awadewit | talk 21:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That would sound better, to my ears at least. Mike Christie (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed. Awadewit | talk 22:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work, as usual. Mike Christie (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose—Problems in the writing. Here are random samples from the lead. Please don't fix just these.

• Our readers shouldn't have to hit the link to "Republic of Letters" to find out what on earth the context is. Please note the MOS rule on capitalisation.

• "Republic of Letters" is adequately explained in the article itself and the most authoritative book on the topic, Goodman's Republic of Letters, capitalizes Republic of Letters. I checked this myself because I had originally had the phrase in lowercase and someone asked about it. Awadewit | talk 11:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• What your so-called authoritative book says is irrelevant; WP has its own style, and that is to use lower case for titles. See MOS. The item may well be explained further down, but it's irritating to our readers to be faced with a major, defining element that they are not familiar with. Bad writing. Tony (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is not poor writing - not everything can be fully explained in the lead. What were these radical political ideas published in the periodical? What was the French revolution? None of that is explained either. We have to draw lines. The lines are appropriate. Also, Wikipedia relies on scholars - scholars capitalize "Republic of Letters". Let's not dismiss their work so cavalierly, shall we? Awadewit | talk 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the MOS says: Proper names of institutions (for example, the University of Sydney, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, George Brown College) are proper nouns and require capitalization. As I understand it, the Republic of Letters is a conceptual institution, which has been formalized in the public imagination over time, like The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster – only serious. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Therefore, I consider the current capitalization correct. And while I don't think it's a case of "bad writing" (I can show you some bad writing if you want to visit my classroom, heh), I would support the inclusion of a short phrase explaining the RoL in the lead. – Scartol • Tok 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would rather remove it than explain it, actually. If you notice, there are only two sentences about this specific topic in the entire article itself. I added this phrase only because I thought it was helpful to one set of readers. Trying to explain the RoL in a phrase is near impossible and it is not worth the space in the lead. Awadewit | talk 04:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • So remove it. The article to which the link leads does little to disabuse the reader as to what exactly is meant by the term in this context. In fact, it provides no fewer than FIVE shades of meaning:

1. Republic of Letters is a phrase describing the phenomenon of increased correspondence in the form of letters exchanged between the influential philosophers and other thinkers during the Age of Enlightenment.
2. It is commonly used to denote a notion of an imaginary space where free thinking people could exchange ideas.
3. The Republic of Letters began as a network of private correspondence and ...
4. evolved into the more complex and institutionalised system of newspapers and academic journals.
5. An Internet-related definition that is clearly not the meaning.

• • • • • So why don't you disabuse us as to what our readers are expected to make of it. This is scholastic pretentiousness at its worst. And while we're talking of pretentiousness, the third sentence in the article starts "Perhaps most importantly,..."; this is an inappropriate tone for a supposedly objective, NPOV text. Specifically, don't allow the writer's opinion of relative importance ("perhaps, [in my opinion]") to intrude, and don't waste our time with a phrase that is equivocal and seems to cast the preceding opening as less important. Tony (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I will wait for consensus on the RoL. Awadewit | talk 11:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I am less inclined to remove the "perhaps less importantly" because a peer reviewer specifically asked for something like this (to make the AR's role clearer) and because we have a source later in the article that states The journal was, according to scholar Nathaniel Teich, "the most important radical review adopting the encyclopedic format for the attempted universal coverage of published works". - Again, let us see what others think. Awadewit | talk 11:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Stalling and deflecting won't change anything, and you show a complete misunderstanding of the role of a lead: it needs to stand by itself. Whether things are explained later has no bearing on the need to be plain and clear. This continued refusal to engage with the review process is one reason the article has not improved, and is still not sufficiently well-written to satisfay Criterion 1a. But I suspect that this is all a personalised strategy on your part. Tony (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• My desktop dict. says of gadfly—a figurative an annoying person, esp. one who provokes others into action by criticism. Should we all have to look it up? The AR wasn't a person, either.

• According to the OED, this is "With allusion to "gad" and can refer to things. I didn't think this was such a strange word - no need to be snippy about it. Shall I use one of your favorite phrases? "Don't we all know the English language"? Awadewit | talk 11:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't care what it's in allusion to, it's too abstruse for the non-specialist reader. My first dictionary didn't confirm that it's the right word; you may have a dictionary that does, but it's beside the point—gad and gadfly are unusual words that our readers can't be expected to know. More explicit wording is required. Tony (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, but people figure out words mostly by the context within which they are used, which is how the OED is pulled together as well I believe. I like being exposed to words like gadfly even though I admit I don't know the word. You can always link to wiktionary.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 14:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm responsible for "gadfly", unfortunately; I can defend it only by saying that, in my present circle of friends and even among my fellow working-students at the horse-farm, everyone knows what it means. If you've read Socrates' Apology, the word plays a big role there, too. If you'd like to replace it, that's fine, although you may have difficulty finding a better substitute. Willow (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• There is nothing wrong with teaching people words. This one can be seen to be used as either definition 4 in the OED or metaphorically. This is not a problem. It is a lovely word and I see no reason to dumb down our vocabulary for this article. The wikitionary link will help readers. Awadewit | talk 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

But there is something wrong with scholastic pretention. Rather than stooping to "teach" our readers new words, it would be preferable to write in plain, familiar (and correct) English throughout. Tony (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard of it. And I don't even work on a horse-farm. qp10qp (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously this is a bit of grey area; many of my high-school students would consider words like "nemesis" and "reactionary" to be scholastic pretension – but surely none of us would want those stricken from the lead, right? I suppose the question is: For what grade level should Wikipedia aim? Journalists, I once heard, write for a audience with a fourth-grade reading level; hopefully we all agree that we should aim higher. I always quote the rap group Channel Live to my students: "I reveal the truth so I'm somethin' like a revelator / if it's over your head, get your [butt] on the elevator!"

I wasn't familiar with the concept of the gadfly before I read this article, but then clicking my way to new concepts is actually one of the things I love most about Wikipedia; it may be that explaining things in the page too much might be a form of spoiling the reader. Or maybe not. As always, a balance must be reached; I'd put "gadfly" on the "let the reader explore" side of the ying-yang. – Scartol • Tok 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• "While the journal had relatively low circulation numbers for its day, it still influenced popular opinion"—I think there are two separate redundant words.

• I don't see the redundant words - if you mean "relatively" and "still", removing them changes the meaning of the sentence. Awadewit | talk 11:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• No they don't. They should be removed unless you can say exactly how they add to the sentence. I can't see that this is the case. Tony (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• While the journal had low circulation numbers for its day, it influenced popular opinion means something different from While the journal had relatively low circulation numbers for its day, it still influenced popular opinion. I don't think I need to explain the difference. Awadewit | talk 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• While I agree that "relatively" and "for its day" are nearly identical, I can see a shade of meaning which distinguishes them. The numbers are presumably relative to something other than historical era, yes? The inclusion of "still" strikes me as completely different and necessary, insofar as most readers (I believe) share the assumption that publications with small distribution numbers don't have much influence. (Compare Z Magazine to Newsweek.) Therefore a contrasting adverb is useful here. – Scartol • Tok 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• London—do we really need a blue splotch for this little-known location? "Eighteenth century"—linking that is over the top; please delink or show why it's useful to the reader, as required by MOS.

• I am really tired of all this back and forth with the MOS. Half of the time reviewers insist these be linked and half the time they don't. I am taking them out for you. However, please be aware that other people are just as insistent that they be added, so calling them "splotches" is not very helpful to editors such as myself who do try hard to adhere to the MOS. Awadewit | talk 11:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Let me know when this happens and I, and others, will explain the issue. Tony (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I confess, I'm in favor of linking them once. Wikipedia is for everyone, not merely well-educated Anglo-Americans who might not need to follow links. A young Masai or someone in Ulan Bator may indeed have little idea of what London's really like; similarly, many people may have only the vaguest conception of the 18th century, and may wish to learn more. Linking does no harm and may do some good, don't you agree? In my opinion, we should not be parochial when writing articles, as we have seen from my own "gadfly" example above. Willow (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have relinked both. I have often thought that linking "eighteenth century", in particular, is helpful because it is clear to me from teaching eighteenth-century literature that college students, at least, have no real notion of eighteenth-century history. Awadewit | talk 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't even realize (because I'm a fool, probably) there were pages on each century until recently; Place names obviously must be judiciously linked (we dropped a number of them in Emma Goldman – on Awadewit's advice, I might add – because there were too many other links (which, in my opinion, isn't the case here)). I feel that such links are generally useful because they make access to additional relevant context much easier. – Scartol • Tok 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Organized into separate departments, each with its own reviewing head,"—Unsure of the best location for "reviewing". What is a "reviewing head"?

• One who heads a reviewing department. Fairly clear, I think. Awadewit | talk 11:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reviewing what? If you're referring to "the writing of reviews", stretching that to naming the departments "reviewing departments" run by "reviewing heads" is misleading. I don't want to have to seek clarification in the lead. Tony (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• You're acting as if the reader hasn't read the rest of the lead. The first sentence is Part of the Republic of Letters, it was a gadfly publication, which offered readers summaries and analyses of the many new publications issued at the end of the eighteenth century and the rest of the sentence you are quoting is Organized into separate departments, each with its own reviewing head, the Analytical Review focused on politics, philosophy, natural history, and literature. It is not so unclear as you say. Awadewit | talk 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• While it's not a standard phrase so far as I know, I think it's a fairly intuitive one. Would it be more clear to say: "...each with its own editor in charge of reviewing [list of most common review targets]"? I'm big into that compromise stuff whenever possible. (And I've often found that suggestions for alternatives are very useful to me when someone reviews my writing.) – Scartol • Tok 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• This has already been changed on Simmaren's advice - apparently it sounded like 1950s SF. Awadewit | talk 04:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• "To promote a disinterested air, its reviewers were anonymous, signing their work with pseudonymous initials. Nevertheless, the journal recruited several prominent writers, such as the poet William Cowper, the moralist William Enfield, the physician John Aikin, and the polemicist Mary Wollstonecraft." There's a conflict between anonymity vs named, and ?little-known vs prominent. Problem of logic.

• Perhaps you should read the rest of the article, where all of this becomes clearer. For example, Mary Wollstonecraft used the initials "M", "W", and "T" but no one knew they were her's. Also, these writers were prominent, but readers did not always know that. Again, only so much can be explained in the lead, but I feel this is clear. Awadewit | talk 11:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, I don't want to have to read the rest of the article to understand the lead. That is basic. The lead is meant to be a smooth introduction to the rest of the article, around the other way. This is the result of a basic misunderstanding of the function of the lead: certainly it is not to confuse or beg questions or require a dictionary or recourse to linked articles. If you can't mention something in the lead without briefly glossing it so that it's all understandable as a stand-alone piece, take out that point. Tony (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• To gain a fresh perspective on this sentence, I read the lead to several people off-wiki to see if they understood this point - people more critical of logic than you - and they did, so I am comfortable with this. Awadewit | talk 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• In my mind, there's a connection between the ability of a journal to attract renowned editors and the probability of promoting the editors. Thus, while I stumbled a bit on this sentence my first time through, it made sense when I thought about it, and I feel that it's logically coherent as is. – Scartol • Tok 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• "The Analytical Review suspended publication in December 1798 after the deaths of Christie and Wollstonecraft in 1796 and 1797, respectively; the conviction of Johnson for seditious libel in 1798; and the retirement of other contributing editors."—Why is "respectively" used? Can the semicolons be changed to commas? Tony (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Respectively" is used to highlight when Christie and Wollstonecraft died and semicolons are used since the clauses are so long. This is a style choice. Awadewit | talk 11:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, do not use "respectively" to highlight. It is specifically to link A with C and B with D in a clause. Take it OUT. The clauses are not at all long (they're not clauses, actually, but merely nominal groups in a list). Semicolons are unnecessarily bold boundaries and do not help the reader.

• I believe that Awadewit meant to say "clarify" instead of "highlight". The word "respectively" clarifies that Christie (A) died in 1796 (C) and Wollstonecraft (B) died in 1797 (D). I'm also guilty for using the semicolons, since I believed them to be helpful for the reader to parse the list of factors contributing to AR's demise. However, I've just now re-worded it to eliminate "respectively" and to render the semicolons into commas. Hoping that this is helpful and an improvement, Willow (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is a difference of style. I believe that this does help the reader, but I see Willow has changed it, anyway. Awadewit | talk 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• If this is a representative list of the problems with the article, I am frankly unimpressed. Furthermore, I have no way of fixing what you view as the problems because I cannot read your mind. Please take the time to read the article carefully and point out the problems or even fix some of them yourself. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 11:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'll read the article as I please without being told by you what to do. I can see that we're going to have continuous bickering over this. Fine ... Tony (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you know very well that you shouldn't be reviewing an article until you have read all of it. As for being told what to do, it seems to me that you have been barking out orders yourself. As always, some of your points are valid; but your aggressive tone is producing reactance. A friendlier approach would be more effective, I'm sure. qp10qp (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Tony take a step back and consider that this is a volunteer project. Awadewit and Willow didn't have to write this article and it is already amongst Wikipedia's best content. This should be a helpful review to try and improve the article.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm really very disappointed in how this perfectly good article has been dismissed because of minor MOS issues based mostly on personal taste. There comes a point when such things are merely subjective. I see no reason why some of the points highlighted above are crucial or even stand in the way of this article becoming featured. The catty behavior is also quite unnecessary and goes against the underlying reason why people list their articles here: to seek helpful and thoughtful feedback so as to improve the article to its full potential. María (habla conmigo) 15:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Allow me to judge for myself the quality of the content without being brow-beaten by your view; I happen to disagree. Whether this is voluntary or paid is totally irrelevant; a gold star is being sought for substandard work. I've pointed out a number of significant problems just in the lead, to have almost all spurned for no good reason—at least none that has been stated. I don't waste my time here analysing text to have my efforts rebutted, presumably for the sake of doing so by a contrarion and defensive nominator. Nor do I take kindly to the "fix it yourself" line that has been taken just above. So now we're in a position of continuous conflict during this process. I certainly won't be helping to improve the text, but I will be criticising—every day. At the moment, I'm waiting for the contrarion's reasons thus far. Tony (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Let me appeal to everyone to be serene and to focus on improving the article for everyone's benefit. To be sure, it is wise and efficient to be forthright in one's criticisms, and everyone has a right to their opinion, but we should focus on the material points of improvement, not immaterial labels ("contrarian") or dismissive comments ("unimpressed"). We should master ourselves before trying to master one other, no? ;) It may indeed require long patient discussion among ourselves to reach consensus, but we should make that time; I hold out hope that every concern can be addressed with a sweet, tranquil tone and inexorable logic. :) Willow (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Tony, I see no reason for you to adopt the hostile attitude that you have since the beginning of the FAC. I am always willing to work with people to improve articles, but your attitude makes it very difficult to do so. You have now announced that you are going to be "criticising" the article every day and you "won't be helping to improve the text". Please try to work with us to improve the article. Also, I might point out that your imperious tone and somewhat hysterical "strong oppose" do not help your case. If you seriously believe that this article should not become an FA because of the problems with its prose, you are not going to convince anyone else of that with your rhetoric. Awadewit | talk 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So you assert. My hostility was not from "the beginning of the FAC", but started after your first, belligerent response. Tony (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• "I certainly won't be helping to improve the text, but I will be criticising—every day." Tony, my 16 year old on his worst days manages to be more mature than this. By coming into this FAR with elbows flying, you've made Tony1 the issue instead of the quality of the article. I'm sure you can contribute significantly to this article if you calm down, provide a detailed critique and engage in reasoned discussion and rational argument. Awadewit has done this for me in the past and we're still "speaking." :) Simmaren (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And you call your accusation civil? Why don't you mind your own business? Tony (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Without trying to sound sycophantic, I echo the earlier calls for civility on all sides. Statements like "What your so-called authoritative book says is irrelevant" strike me as more appropriate to a FARK flame war than a Wikipedia review. As an English teacher, I believe positive feedback must be mixed with constructive criticism; neither alone is sufficient to help writing improve. </rant> – Scartol • Tok 22:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. After reading the article in full, I believe it is well written, comprehensive and holds up to the rest of Awadewit's canon. The only question I have is in regards to the meaty paragraph on Wollstonecraft's contributions to AR. Was she the most notable or prolific contributor? I understand the importance of her work, but I'm not sure if her colleagues are given their due weight in the article -- unless, of course, she was more notable and/or prolific in comparison. Just a minor quibble. :) María (habla conmigo) 15:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, MW was not the most notable contributor. She may have been the most prolific contributor, but I cannot verify that fact. It just happens to be that the most scholarship is written about her role as a reviewer. I would have written more about the other reviewers if I could have found it. If it is out there, it is buried deep in obscurity. Awadewit | talk 20:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• I added a sentence explaining that there is more scholarship on MW to the last paragraph of the "Organization and reviewers" section. Awadewit | talk 23:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• That definitely helps explain things, thanks! María (habla conmigo) 23:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Thorough, well-written, neutral, stylistically smooth, and filled with good images. What more can I say? (Well, apart from the small things I've fixed while reading and some others I might splash up on the talk page but which – as pathetically minor issues of punctuation and wording – don't have much of a place here.) – Scartol • Tok 22:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Is there any more on Christie's role? He pops up to found it (for reasons unknown), organises it a little and then dies. Also, I'd personally find it interesting to have something on the attempts to identify the contributors by their "initials" and how they were confirmed. Did the reviewers admit to reviewing but not reveal their pseudonyms? Did some reveal the letters they used after publication was suspended? Are they identified by their writing styles? Are there any unidentified reviewers? Yomangani^talk 01:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Christie was in France during the early part of the French revolution (some weird business dealings). However, it is hard to get a handle on precisely why he went there from the sources I read - was it only for business, for example? Many British radicals went to be a part of the revolution. Christie died abroad (I forget where at the moment). If he seems largely absent, I think that is because he was. I sometimes wonder if he sent JJ material to publish, but I have no evidence for that.

• Mary Wollstonecraft, on whom I have the most information, has been identified only through her initials and her writing style. That is, taking together evidence such as "M" and "W" and what scholars identify as her style (although that is a lot more nebulous that you might think), a list of probable reviews has been created (although this list is disputed). "T" was added later, using her style. There is a lot of detail on this in the Wollstonecraft articles that I did not include in the article because I thought the average reader would not be interested in it - it is pretty dry stuff and requires something of a detailed knowledge of MW's other works.

• There are probably unidentified reviewers, but I didn't see any discussion of them. When scholars discuss the AR, they either discuss it in terms of the known reviewers or in terms of the text of the reviews themselves and ignore the authors.

• I'm sorry that I can't give you more satisfactory answers than these. It is only recently that scholarship has even been done on eighteenth-century periodicals and there is not much material to work with. This is one reason I was hesitant to bring this article to FAC at all. Awadewit | talk 03:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about this. Despite you and Tony hacking chunks off each other up above (and you could both give that a rest), there's not much wrong with the writing. No matter how shiny it is we can always polish, but I'm more concerned with criterion 1(b). Is it comprehensive? The answers you've given to my questions suggest that there is more that could be added to the article. Just placing Christie in France helps, and we don't seem to be any closer to knowing how the reviewers apart from MW have been identified, despite which they are confidently listed as contributors (you don't have to give the boring details, but a brief explanation would, for me at least, make the article more interesting). It's a more engaging read than Johnson but it doesn't feel comprehensive at the moment. Perhaps that is partly because there aren't the sources; I've had articles where all we know is not a lot - I've even taken one of them through FAC because I knew it was as comprehensive as it could with the available sources. If you can tell me that's the case here, I'll support. Yomangani^talk 12:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have added the information about Christie in the "Organization and reviewers" section. Would you like me to add more about how MW was identified? Unfortunately, I do not know how the other reviewers were identified - my sources do not say. I clearly cannot say that I have read everything on the AR, but I have read everything that I could find and that the reference librarians at my university could find on the topic. Unfortunately, not much is known about the day-to-day workings of this journal. That is as far as I can go. Awadewit | talk 18:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support I can't expect you to read books that you don't know exist, that really would be unreasonable. You might put a word or two on the identification of MW ("identified only through her initials and her writing style") as that also gives us a clue as to how the others may have been identified, but it doesn't require anything more detailed. Yomangani^talk 18:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Added. Awadewit | talk 18:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. The article is well-organized and generally well-written, is heavily footnoted to reliable sources, and uses good images. It is interesting. The article ties in nicely with the recent series of articles on Mary Wollstonecraft, Joseph Priestly, and Anna Laetitia Barbauld on which Awadewit has been working. It is written at an appropriate level of detail, provides excellent context and background information, and includes interesting tidbits (for example, that the theological reviewer was an ordained Catholic priest). I've left a number of detailed comments and questions on the article "Talk" page to which responses have been made. Simmaren (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• I do of course support but I have a couple of questions.
• Her reviews, of which there are over 200 and which have been identified by her initials and her writing style, are probably signed by the initials "M", "W", or "T" and are generally characterized by their concern for women's issues. - First we seem to know have positively identified her by her initials but next we only maybe know what the initials are. Isn't that somewhat of a contradiction?

• This is an artifact of the hurried FAC revision process. What do you think of: Her reviews, of which there are probably over 200 and which have been identified using her initials and writing style, are more than likely signed by the letters "M", "W", or "T" and are generally characterized by their concern for women's issues. I'm not sure this is much better. Awadewit | talk 00:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree it's probably not much better because it still has the same inherent problem of identified vs. more than likely. I don't really have an opinion on which is better, or a new suggestion, so I will trust you to make the right decision.--Peter Andersen (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think the better solution is to break it up into two sentences. New version: Scholars have speculated that her reviews are signed by the letters "M", "W", or "T", corresponding roughly to her initials, in large part because they have identified her writing style in these pieces. Her reviews, which number over 200, are generally characterized by their concern for women's issues. Awadewit | talk 07:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Is anything known about who the typical reader was? Was it only read by a small group of people interested in politics and literature or was it read by a diverse group (of most likely the upper echelons) of society? Also was it only published in London or all over Britain?

• I could speculate for you personally about readership based on my own knowledge of the period, but I have no sources to offer that could serve as the basis for information for the article. The journal was published in London and like most journals was probably circulated via provincial libraries, but I can't point to a source that says that was definitely the case. Sorry. Eighteenth-century periodical research is quite frustrating, I'm afraid. Awadewit | talk 00:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

--Peter Andersen (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support Well written, extensively sourced, nicely illustrated, and meets all of the FAC criteria in my opinion. Having read the current version of the article and the entire FAC discussion above, I miss "gadfly". I think it interesting that an article which is partly about how anonymous reviewers were identified by their writing style is itself being forced to remove such delightful words and phrases in the name of style. To my thinking, prose that "is engaging, even brilliant" (see 1a) allows or even calls for such interesting words and phrases, and stretches the reader's knowledge a bit in the process. Your mileage may vary. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I was sorry to see it go as well, but I didn't want to start the whole war up again by adding it back. Awadewit | talk 20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support The article has improved since I last read it in peer review. I see that the part about the Analytical Review's participation in the encyclopedic movement of the eighteenth century has been elaborated upon. I have a question: Is this article a unique compilation of information on the Analytical Review? I've noticed over time how a lot of Wikipedia's featured articles are actually important original works despite their use of reliable sources, just because they do very well and comprehensively what hasn't been done very well and comprehensively before in one place, which is a tribute to the FAC process.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• It's hard to say how unique this article is, because most of the sources I drew on discuss the Analytical Review in a much wider context. For example, Keen discusses it in the context of 1790s literature (I think you would really like his book, by the way). In many ways, those books are better, because you get a broader picture of the period and its literature; however, Keen has 200 pages and we have just a few kB to work with. Yet, this page brings together a lot of disparate details, if that is what you mean. I don't think that any of the sources I looked at contain all of the details mentioned in this article. Awadewit | talk 20:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.