Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:21, 12 April 2008

The Drapier's Letters

{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The_Drapier%27s_Letters/}}{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Featured article review/The_Drapier%27s_Letters/}}

• Self-nominator: All sources are academic and from scholars who are highly regarded in the field of Swift studies. There is only one picture, because there were no illustrations provided with the original. Very little isn't directly cited. The article deals primarily with the work at hand. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the lead

• The lead does not provide adequate context for "Swift was able to inspire the popular sentiment against Wood and his patent" Who is Wood? Patent for what? Why would Swift want to inspire people against it?Addressed
• "immortalizes" is a WP:PEACOCK word
• Does the "Smith, Sophie. Dean Swift" source support the claim of "most important of Swift's "Irish tracts"" TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Addressed

1. The picture along with the lead sure provides such context, and context is part of the article, not part of a lead. Hence why there are "background" sections of articles. Also, the first paragraph verifies and provides adequate context to negate your criticism that there is no context. 2. Immortalizes is completely appropriate for such an article, especially seeing as how poems, books, and statues were made in honor of Swift's contributions to Irish independence. 3. and yes, Sophie Smith does those things. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And RedPen - immortalizes means to "make immortal", i.e. Ireland is turned into a goddess. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1)There is no context for who 'Wood' is (he is not even provided with a first name)or what his 'patent' is or what the 'patent' has to do with Swift writing this document. Any 'background' included in the lead needs to make sense to the reader - and this doesn't. Addressed

2)per PEACOCK: "Examples include describing people as "important" or "among the greatest" in their field without explaining why. Peacock terms often reflect unqualified opinion, and usually do not help establish the significance of an article. They should be especially avoided in the lead section." "The first example simply tells the reader that the Brazilian economy is important. The second example shows the reader that it is. Show, don't tell." You have provided only original reasearch that "The 1735 Works of Jonathan Swift, collected and edited by George Faulkner, immortalizes the praise and thanks issued by the Irish people through allegory upon its title page." TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Rewrote the intro to make it clear who the patent belonged to. 2. Peacock does not apply to the word "immortalizes" nor are you using the sense of the word properly. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying Wood.

PEACOCK is perfectly applicable. The sentance in the lead makes a claim of 'immortalization' - which you stated is supported by the fact that "poems, books, and statues were made in honor of Swift's contributions to Irish independence" - however, per "Show, don't tell" the fact of the of the poems books and statues should be mentioned - not the interpretation that those artificats have 'immortalized' Swift.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the sentence states "Works of Jonathan Swift, collected and edited by George Faulkner, immortalizes". This is in relation to the title page, i.e. turning the moment into divine experience. This is clear. This is concise. And the illustration to the side is the picture in which Faulkner immortalized the actual event. Your use of "peacock" shows that you do not understand how the word is used as a verb, nor does it pertain to this article. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is the frontise piece illustration in 'Collected Works' as you state here or the poems and statues you state above, the word 'immortalizes' is a PEACOCK word that, if used, needs to be from a direct quote of a Reliable Source who has made that analysis, not a Misplaced Pages editor. (see WP:SYN.) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you strike your comment until you learn the difference between adjectives (what Peacock is about) and verbs (what Peacock is not about) and that synthesis is not about describing actions, but on positions. Please do not try to Wikilawyer and throw around terms that you do not understand their proper meanings. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Un-indent: I am completely serious. Peacock words deal with adjectives to make the word noun the adjective modifies to seem grandier than it actually is. This is a verb, and when you turn something into an allegorical goddess, the appropriate verb is "immortalize". See here. If you feel that such is inappropriate, the second use verifies the first and the aptness to describing such: "be or provide a memorial to a person or an event". The event is, as captioned, Ireland bestowing favor to Swift. The Horace quote plays off of this, i.e. "monument" and "brass". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1) "Peacock words deal with adjectives" Where in WP:PEACOCK to you see that PEACOCK is limited to adjectives?

2) "As the caption states" is WP editors' work, (other than the latin which makes no claims of Ireland being a goddess). Without reliable source providing the analysis that the woman in the illustration is a) a goddess, b) Ireland c) handing a paper that symbolizes thanks and priase - you have SYN. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The caption is to the picture itself on the picture itself. Furthermore, your claims are argumentative and not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages nor do they show respect to this process. If you want to challenge the background and basis of the picture, I suggest you challenge Wikicommons over it. Now, for Peacock. Here is standard English: "Examples include describing people". Notice the word "describing". "Describing" words are adjectives, see here. Furthermore, verbs are not "unqualified opinion". Now, if you still have problem with this, I can take you through the list and cite from the dictionary how each word is used as an adjective. Furthermore, your idea of the word as a Peacock term does not represent a consensus, thus, your use here is inappropriate. I suggest you reread what the Feature Articles review is about and stop following me across various pages and edits. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages editor, wikicommons editor, image uploder - it doesnt matter - none are qualified as reliable sources to make analysis. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I inserted a ref to an article that states it is Ireland thanking him in the picture. If you do not understand how a physical manifestation of a country would be deemed a "goddess" in terms of "allegory", then that cannot be helped. Now, "immortalizes" is a proper term for making a painting about a subject and also for turning the praise into an image about divinity. However, you are being extremely argumentative at this point. Feature article requests do not deal with captions of pictures that are taken from Wikicommons. So, if you have a problem, go there. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Much of the article is missing citations in a few key places at ends of paragraphs, making it seem like there is some WP:OR violations present. Also, the References subsection should be broken apart into "Notes" and then "References" per WP:LAYOUT, it will make it much easier to go back and forth and check sources. Cirt (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no "notes" used, so that is N/A. Fixed citations. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that part looks good as far as citations. I still think that, as per WP:LAYOUT, the article should have two separate sections for the "Notes", first, and then the "References". Cirt (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, are you specifically referring to: 'Ehrenpreis challenges Ferguson's characterization of Swift as not actually caring about an investigation on p. 305' as belonging in a seperate 'Notes' section? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, lacking discussion/analysis - The article seems to be missing something at the end - some sort of Reception or Legacy section where secondary sources analyze the impact of these works on later writings. The article seems to be merely descriptive, a historical accounting listing events in a chronological factual manner. Writing is fine, just that it'd be nice to have some more commentary/analysis/discussion of the "The Drapier's Letters" by secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There is also a bit of awkward wording throughout, and generalizations where there should be attribution. Examples: "Some say...", "Others say...", "Many critics said..." - Instead, directly attribute who said what in those sentences, instead of speaking in these generalized terms. Cirt (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be a little difficult to have reception or legacy at the end, since each of the 7 letters were issued separately, and their immediate impact/history of events is mentioned in their individual sections. There needs to be a Wood's Halfpence controversy page in order to discuss the accounts of the whole issue, which the Drapier's Letters were only one piece. Swift was honored for his writing, but, if you know Irish history, he didn't accomplish much. And on the vagueness of the critics, those citations refer to the trend opinion in Swift research, so its a critical consensus, unless it says "some critics" then it is talking about a particular view not held by all. They aren't opinions held by the critic cited, but they are opinions acknowledged and argued about the whole critical community held in those works. It would be disrespectful to attribute something to, say, Ehrenpreis, when he acknowledges the idea coming from others. I hope that makes sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added a publication section and a reception section. Does that adequately cover your concerns? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• the Sophie Smith Dean Swift ref (current ref 3) is lacking a page number and publisher information
• What is the Letters to Ford ref? Is it the Prose Works one? Or another one?
• Current ref 24 (the "Swift, William Wood, ...) is lacking publication date, and is Treadwell the author? If so, probably should be formatted to put the author first like the other references
• Current ref 25 (Drapier's Letters ed. Herbert Davis) is lacking publisher information
• Current ref 29 is lacking a page number
• Current ref 33 History of St Patrick's Cathedral is lacking publisher information and date. Probably should be formated to put the author first like the other references
• Current ref 46 Life of Jonathan Swift vol. ii by Sir Henry Craik is lacking publisher information and date of publication. Probably should format to put the author first like the other references
• Current ref 50 is an ibid. Per WP:Cite we don't use ibid because when another editor comes along and edits, it's very easy for the footnote to be moved around and no longer apply to the correct footnote.Same for current ref 65.
• Current ref 54 (Henry Downs letter) is lacking publisher information for the volume of collected letters
• Current ref 70 is lacking a page number

Fixed for the most part, working on ibids now. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed ibids. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Something borked. Take a look at it right now? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the tags needed to have an "s". Misplaced Pages is finicky. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This article isn't ready yet, in my view. A couple of brief comments...
  • I completely agree that the use of "immortalizes" in the lead is inappropriate.
  • There's much contradiction and inconsistency. Rather importantly, this includes whether or not the government in question is English or British.
  • Rather too much NPOV. E.g. (though I've changed this) the article stated that Swift "makes clear" that the Irish deserve independence.
  • It needs a thorough copy-edit for grammar and typos. Again, I've done a bit of this.
  • Often I find the prose simply unclear.
  • An example: "Banners and signs was put up recognizing Swift as the Drapier and images, such as the Drapier comparing his campaign to David fighting against Goliath, became a popular theme to express their approval." OK, the grammar mistake (was for were) can be fixed easily enough, though again this is far from the only example. But the sense is also unclear. Are these images in which the draper himself compares his campaign to David vs. Goliath, or are they simply images that do them comparing themselves? The grammar seems to suggest the former, but it's unclear and (to me) unlikely. Likewise "images ... became a popular theme to express their approval." How can images become a theme? And to whom does "their" refer? This sentence is all over the place, and unfortunately it's not the only one.
  • And the previous sentence: "Although the original printing of the Drapier's Letters resulted in the arrest of Harding and a bounty placed upon the Drapier's head, his place among the Irish citizenry was deemed heroic." Whose place? I presume you mean the Drapier's, but the grammar is ambiguous, as the pronoun could equally refer to Harding. Also better to have "Harding's arrest" rather than "the arrest of Harding." And how can a "place" be "heroic"? Plus "deemed" is an awkward word, when there are plenty of commoner ones available.
  • Or earlier: "The letter's purpose was to challenge Ireland's parliament to investigate the matter which everyone already knew what the basis was." Again, I've tried to copy-edit (and already made a couple of changes to this sentence), but have little idea what the last half of the sentence is supposed to mean.
  • Another (I'd changed this, but it got changed back): "The Drapier's Letters is the collective name for a series of seven pamphlets written by Dean Jonathan Swift..." It seems to me obvious that "Drapier's Letters" should take the plural. It would also seem much simpler to say "The Drapier's Letters are a series of seven pamphlets written by Dean Jonathan Swift..." I don't see what's gained by saying that this is a "collective name."
  • And one more example, pretty much at random: "During this time, Lord Carteret, one of two British Secretaries of States, pushed Walpole into defending the Wood's patent while simultaneously attempting to destroy the patent in order to remove his rival. Thus, while Carteret appeared to the English as a defender of the Patent and as if he sought to remove the Irish dissent, especially by finding the "Drapier", he was really furthering his anti-Walpole agenda and aiding in the cause of Ireland."
    • "During this time." Vague. Which time? No time period has previously been specified, except for the "1722" at the section outset.
    • Confusion between "British" and "English"
    • "Secretaries of States" should be "Secretaries of State"
    • "the Wood's patent" would be better as "Wood's patent"
    • What's meant by "destroy the patent"?
    • Who is "his rival"? Walpole? The other Secretary of State? (NB is the implication that there are only two British Secretaries of State? Surely not.) Presumably the former given the following sentence, but here it is not clear.
    • What exactly is described in either the defence or the destruction is completely opaque.
    • As is what's meant by "and as if he sought to remove the Irish dissent."
    • Again, I tried to copy-edit this sentence, only to get reverted and to have abuse on my talk page for my trouble. Basta!
• I'm sorry that the above is not very detailed. I'll try to get back to this later. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Actually, I see that my attempts to copy-edit the article are simply being reverted, and the editor in question has decided to be uncivil on my talk page. So I'll simply !vote oppose. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The above user has added completely inaccurate information and has complained about grammar while adding in ungrammatical changes. The above user also does not follow standard grammatical rules.

1. "I completely agree that the use of "immortalizes" in the lead is inappropriate." Except that immortalizes is an appropriate verb which means to make a memorial of and also to turn something into a divine stature, which the title page has done both.

2. "the article stated that Swift "makes clear"" This is not "POV", because this statement means "Swift states it over and over", which is what the word "makes clear" means in such a situation.

3. "Rather importantly, this includes whether or not the government in question is English or British." The government of Walpole is English. The government of King George, as King of Scotland and Ireland in addition to England is British. This is how history operates.

4. "It needs a thorough copy-edit for grammar and typos. " The above user, in "copy-editing" has put in many ungrammatical sentences and has restated sentences to make them historical inaccurate.

5. " Are these images in which the draper himself compares" Images literally means "images". They are created images, which, as proper English grammar rules suggest, "became a popular theme". How can images become themes? This is completely obvious, since people use various images of themes for their books and always have.

6. "And to whom does "their" refer? " Clearly "Irish citizenry", which standard grammar rules would suggest.

7. "It seems to me obvious that "Drapier's Letters" should take the plural." Titles of books do not take the plural, unless you are referring to multiple books.

Ottava Rima (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)