Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Articles by John Neal/archive1

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Articles by John Neal

Articles by John Neal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/Articles by John Neal/archive1

Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "This list of articles by American writer John Neal (1793–1876) is part of the larger John Neal bibliography" - articles should not start with meta statements along the lines of "This article...." Try "The bibliography of American writer John Neal included many articles"

Thank you for bringing this up. I was wondering about this when I wrote it. I just rewrote those first couple of sentences. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to repeat his full name in para 2, just use his surname

Agreed! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would merge the last two paragraphs as they are both very short

Agreed! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I will look at the list itself later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. I'll address your later comments soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the list (as far as 1825)

• Some of the values in the date column don't sort correctly. December 1816 sorts before October 1816, December 1817 before September 1817, 1819 is just all over the place, etc.
• "A criticism Lord Byron's Manfred" - missing the word "of"
• "Alleges that John Taylor's identification of Junius as Sir Philip Francis to be false" - bit of a grammar issue here
• "An exploration of what is an isn't original" - missing the d on "and"
• "An exploration of how women are unlike, but not inferior, to men" => "An exploration of how women are unlike, but not inferior to, men"
• More to come :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed all the issues raised in the above 6 comments. The date column used to use only Template:Sort, but during Wikipedia:Peer review/John Neal bibliography/archive1, a reviewer convinced me to introduce Template:Date table sorting here and there in that list to simplify the code. I then applied those changes to this list. I see that the consequence was the sorting issue you raised, which I believe is fully fixed now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be one you missed - September 19, 1818 still sorts before all the other dates in that year...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding that! Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments on the list

• "early impressions of England over late 1823 through early 1824" => "early impressions of England from late 1823 through early 1824"
• "High praise for Edgar Allan Poe's work for the Southern Literary Messenger, his short story "Bon-Bon," and his poem "The Coliseum;" - missing closing quote mark on The Coliseum
• "A call for better construction and operation practices for Steamships " - steamships is not a proper noun so shouldn't have a capital S
• "Asks why Brother Jonathan isn't" => "Asks why Brother Jonathan is not"
• "ships seized by the Napoleonic France" => "ships seized by Napoleonic France"
• "written to accompany an accompanying engraving" - any way to avoid that repetition?
• "Support's the claims in his June 9, 1855 submission" - supports should not have an apostrophe
• Same on the next row
• ""which was nothing more nor less than a clever piece of advertising" - no closing quote mark anywhere
• "based on notes from his stay in London over forty years earlier;[338] published in 2 installments" => "two installments"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I just fixed all the comments raised in this section. Thank you for reading through this list and finding all these issues! Would you say that you now support this nomination? Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments Support from Sdkb

• As an art critic Neal was the first in the US is a little awkward phrasing. Maybe just Neal was the first art critic in the US? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Rephrased! Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Compared to Neal's comparative lesser success in creative works, "his critical judgments have held. Where he condemned, time has almost without exception condemned also." The quotes in the lead, particularly this one, are not attributed, which seems to go against
  WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thank you for bringing this up. I removed a few quotes and attributed the remaining ones, so I think this issue is resolved. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any reason that the first three external links have wikilinks to relevant pages but that University of Pennsylvania is not similarly linked? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! Wikilink added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Lastly, I don't personally have any notability objections, but given that this is a subtopic page of the bibliography article, which itself is a subtopic page of Neal's main article, I think it might be helpful to hear your argument for why this topic meets
  WP:LISTN. Having the case for notability discussed on record here can be a bit of a bulwark or at least a point of reference for anyone considering proposing an upmerge in the future. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thank you for bringing this up. Certainly this list and the

WP:SPINOUT) while keeping the larger list intact in this separate list. And I think that pretty well summarizes my thinking on this! Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Sounds reasonable to me! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, this looks very solid; best of luck with the rest of the review! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: Thank you for looking this over and bringing up these issues. With all of them addressed, do you support this nomination? Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reviewed the list body, but I just did a source formatting review as well, and your command there is really impeccable! The only thing at all I was able to find was that there's a little bit of inconsistency in whether you link works/publishers: e.g. Harvard University is linked but Bucknell University Press is not. I personally really like to link works/publishers, as it allows readers to go check out what we have to say about them and verify their reliability, but for the purposes of FLC, all that matters is that you choose either linking or unlinking and be consistent. Once that's resolved, I'll be happy to support on the lead, the source formatting, and the overall article formatting. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea. I just added Wikilinks for all publishers with Wiki articles. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on the lead, the source formatting, and the overall article formatting, as I have reviewed those areas and all of my comments have been addressed. I'll leave it to others to review the notes column and other portions of the body (as Chris is doing above) and to do spot checks on sources. Overall, this is another great entry in Dugan's excellent work to make our coverage of Neal among the most comprehensive of any biography on Wikipedia. For transparency, I should note that Dugan and I know each other off-wiki. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass

• The only image (
  Assuming good faith on that. So, Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thanks for taking the time to do an image review! I just added a link to the image source info to where the original 1856 publication is hosted on Internet Archive. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh

Perhaps, unfortunately, as this nomination is from the stone-age,sorry! I'll try to take a look very soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "reflect the author's broad interests" — I'd replace 'the author's' by 'Neal's'

I like it. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Compared to Neal's comparative lesser" — repetition, I think

Ha! Now that you say so, I feel silly having written that. Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "As an early and outspoken theatre critic, he envisioned a future for American drama that was only partially realized sixty years later." — I am a little sceptical about this one. How can we very surely say that Neal really envisioned/though that? Perhaps, "wrote" or "spoke" would be better.

I see what you're saying. I changed "envisioned" for "drafted". Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hallowell, Maine as a" — missing
  MOS:GEOCOMMA

Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "A criticism of William Shakespeare" — that is something unique!

That is it; great work with the table! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Thank you for taking the time to read through the list and write out these comments. Do you feel they've been addressed? Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. Happy to support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

Source formatting review has already been passed. Just few very minor points:

• Ref#131: "p. 190–192" — should be pp.

Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref#270: "p. 1050–1051" — should be pp.

Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "New York, New York" — I think it should be "New York City, New York"

Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to give a pass on source reliability as well. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Thank you for looking through all these citations and for checking on the sources! I really appreciate your interest after a lull in activity on this nomination. Are there any other edits required to pass this source review? Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say pass for entire source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, lets (finally) get this closed! Promoting. --PresN 02:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot
  goes through.