Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:10, 18 January 2007

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date Template:V0.5

Reader notes and caveats:

1. Please note that this article is part of an ambitious project related to English literature. That article contains brief summaries of each of the classic literary periods, a structure mirrored in most university classrooms and older encyclopedia, and this project is attempting to have a full length article on each "period" of English literature. This article is the first to be completed, but Augustan literature is underway all but finished now.
2. Also, please note that the article is an overview of two generations of literature and seeks to include all of the figures who affected the development of literature during this period. Some of the figures have left very few traces behind, and yet we know that they affected the other authors. Therefore, there are going to be redlinked names at this time. This cannot be helped by the present authors. If no one has yet had much to say about the career of Elkannah Settle, that does not change the fact that his plays goaded Dryden to make more lavish productions or that Alexander Pope would see him as the perfect example of a subordinated and tamed poet in The Dunciad in 1727. As a fact or event, Elkannah Settle is fully explained here. As a person, he is not. It would be intellectually dishonest to not refer to him because there is no Misplaced Pages article on him, and it would be useless for those with only knowledge of his effects on Restoration literature to write a biographical article composed only of that. Geogre 16:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of the rollback

I would like to explain why I thought it worth leaving the year links in. First, I understand why some think they're low yield. I think they can be very low yield, too, but there are several reasons why I think they should stay, here:

1. As an overview article, this article is supposed to spot trends and sketch movements. Therefore, all links to more precise information are additive. In the case of an article that is bounded by a year or two, linking dates is probably of zero yield. On the other hand, any article that attempts to talk about time in a big chunk should profit from links to years.
2. Although folks have been extremely slow to do it, the year links are supposed to give people overviews of everything that happened in that year. Some years have more information, some less. However, the Restoration and Augustan years are fair. I would like for readers to be able to spot a coincidence I didn't discuss by surveying a year and come back to fix this article, if needed. E.g. if I am linking to 1749, and I'm talking about a play, I hope that a reader might notice Pamela being published in the same year. It might mean something. Thus, we should hope for more information and not determine in advance that there is no use in the link.
3. It's practice. Unfortunately, it's how things are done in other articles, and so we kind of need to follow through and not try to rewrite custom now.

I know that a "rollback" is brusque, so I apologize for that, but I wanted to explain why I put the links back in. Geogre 21:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lead picture

Bishonen has solved the problem very well. The current lead painting is exactly what we need. There aren't any awed courtiers or scrofula patients being cured by his touch, but that's sure a regal Charles II up there now. Thanks ever and again, Bishonen. Geogre 00:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Center?

"...homogeneous styles of literature that center on..."

Why does an article about English restoration literature not use the British spelling of centre? 210.237.151.1 00:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Presumably it was written by a North American. Feel free to change it, the only rule on this is that spelling conventions should be consistent across an article. Vranak

Indeed. It's very hard to be consistent across an article, if one goes away from one's own learning. I can spell "British," if I choose, but I'm sure I'd slip up and forget that British linguists proposed every one of Noah Webster's orthographical reforms...until he made them... and then decided that they were all vulgar. I suggest that the same would be true of a person who is accustomed to British spellings and wanted to change things. It's best to realize that we can all read each others' spellings and go about our business. Geogre 21:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A literature that can see

There are two sentences in the introduction that begin, "It saw...". Surely we can find a better idiom than this pretentious rubbish? It is fine in articles that do not have "compelling prose", for we expect much less, but in a featured article it is dreadful. Rintrah 04:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your input is appreciated. The rheotrical device is known as parallelism. Still, I'm sorry you couldn't perceive it, but your horror is not very moving. Geogre 21:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No numbered citations!!!

An FA and a main page article and not following numbered citations conventions!?! How come? Shushruth 07:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts also. Just when you think you have Misplaced Pages figured out, everything you know gets turned 180. Quadzilla99 08:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Incredible!!!!! 203.101.61.10 11:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as a work is referenced, I don't think it matters whether it sports inline citations or not; here we have a list of references and indications at various points within the text of the sources of information. The article aims well; lets not be too sullen about it.

On the other hand, specific citations would make it easier to assess the article's terms of reference. For example, you wouldn't know from this article that there are two schools of thought on whether George Farquhar counts as a Restoration dramatist or not. In my opinion, having seen Restoration plays from The Man of Mode to The Beaux's Stratagem and The Recruiting Officer, Farquhar represents the apotheosis of the form. I assume that the references used here regard him as a post-Restoration playwright. For me, Restoration drama ends in 1707.

It's a fine article, though, and surely shouldn't be knocked for having its shirt buttons foppishly undone. Quite clearly, the buttons are all there. qp10qp 12:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It was promoted to FA status in June 2005 and it is being displayed now because I suspect it is about to be reviewed. It has no chance of surviving without inline citations.--Grahamec 13:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, we'll see about that. It's on the main page because Raul put it there. No one has moved to review it, and, if it is reviewed, I can promise a strong response from several hands. When "near unanimous positive reviews" for Half Life 2 doesn't provoke the FAR fanatics but a heavily referenced work does, I'm not very concerned. Numbered citations are not a requirement for featured articles.

As for Farquhar, I do regard him as a Restoration dramatist, but we were doomed to having gaps no matter what we did. I'm not sure I see him as an apotheosis of the form, though. For me, that's Congreve, who wrote the distilled, perfected, quintessence of the form, but Farquhar's plays are Restoration plays written after the Restoration period, just as Congreve's were. Bishonen, who wrote the drama section, wanted to concentrate narrowly on the Restoration and its immediate stagings. What I see in Congreve and Farquhar is two dramatists who were going to become strong commercial players but who were not part of the courtly response or anti-courtly reaction to Charles. Geogre 21:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:REF only demands that articles be referenced and footnotes are not mandatory unless one is quoting a source.--MONGO 22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Main Page vandalism

This article is still badly messed up in both subtle and obvious ways. Someone please check the long-term diffs and do some cleanup; I have to go. Melchoir 20:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Another good reason for semi-locking all Main Page articles. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Offbreak

Can anyone explain what this is? It's throughout the article, deleting text. --TresRoque 20:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It's simple, childish vandalism. I have just finished removing it. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)