Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samuel Johnson's early life

Samuel Johnson's early life

Nominator(s): Ottava Rima (talk)

• Featured article candidates/Samuel Johnson's early life

I am nominating this for featured article because Raul listed the Samuel Johnson page as the Featured Article of the Day back in January and Johnson needs a FA article for his 300th birthday coming up 9 September 2009. This page was originally part of the main Johnson page but was split to make room for information on themes, works, criticism, etc, that some FAC reviewers wanted (as it met the size range before FAC). That FAC was supported by over 30 people in the end.

The sections moved were written by myself with the original guidance and copyediting of Malleus Fatuorum‎. I would list him as a co-nom, but he knows that regardless of his actual participation in this directly, that he will get credit for the many months of work that he put into the page as a whole and these sections. Since his and mine original work (and over a dozen copyeditors), I added two new sections ("Parents" and "Early works") along with a few sentences to expand on a few issues that seemed that they could use a little more. I also added 4 more images since then to fill in any gaps. I also had an additional 6 more copyeditors look through the page for any problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Support – issues resolved.--Patton^t/c 13:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Concerns from Patton123

• After attending Pembroke College, Oxford for a year, before Johnson was forced to leave due to lack of funds.—(Lede, second paragraph) I think this would parse better as "Johnson attended Pembroke College, Oxford for a year but was forced to leave due to lack of funds".
• Although Johnson began his career as a minor Grub Street hack writer, he would eventually make lasting contributions to English literature as a poet, essayist, moralist, novelist, literary critic, biographer, editor and lexicographer.—(Lede, third paragraph) Take out the "although" at the start and put in "though" after the first comma.
• At the age of 29 Michael Johnson had planned to marry a local woman named Mary Neild, but she had broken off the engagement.—(Parents, second paragraph) order so it reads "Michael Johnson had planned to marry a local woman at the age of 29..."
• During the previous June, Johnson, while working as a tutor for Thomas Whitby's children, applied for the position of headmaster at Solihull School.—(Edial Hall, first paragraph) move "Johnson" to after "Thomas Whitby's children,"

Technical review:

• The article has two disambiguation links: editor and infectious (Do they really need to be linked at all?).
• Images all good.
• Referencing is awesome, though I think it would be better to use {{reflist|colwidth=30em}} rather than {{reflist|2}} . That adjusts the reference columns based on resolution, with only one column for 800x600 screens, and 3+ for 1440x900+.

That's all. It's a brilliant article, great work! I really liked the quote boxes :-)--Patton^t/c 19:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I try to avoid wikilinking unless it is to proper names. I don't remember when those came in but I removed them. I changed some of the wording. I think the first problem was from a merged sentence. I removed some more wikilinks that seemed excessive. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. Collapsing and supporting.--Patton^t/c 19:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Tech. Review

Dabs and external links (checker tools)

• ..are up to speed

Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)

• The following ref is duplicated (wikicode pasted below), and appears as such in the ref section. Use a ref name instead

• {{Harvnb|Demaria|1994|pp=5–6}}--₮RUCӨ 21:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It appears that there was a formatting error. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

...is found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 21:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Fowler&fowler

I'm an sorry to be this blunt this early in an FAC review, but the prose has far too many issues of grammar, usage, clarity and logic to be worthy of an FA. Here are some examples from the first lead paragraph. I want to stress though that every paragraph in the article has similar problems.

• (Sentence 3) "His early years were dominated by his eagerness to learn, the various experiences with his family members, his eventual attempt at college, and finally trying to settle down into a career."
  • (Grammar) The parallel structure in the sentence is very faulty. (Exercise)
  • (Usage) Which of the meanings of "dominate" applies here? (a. To control, govern, or rule by superior authority or power. b. To exert a supreme, guiding influence on or over c. To enjoy a commanding, controlling position in d. To overlook from a height)
  • (Clarity) What does it mean to say, "his early years were dominated by his various experiences with his family members?" How is that much different from "his early years were dominated by his various experiences of his early years?"
  • (Logic) How can "early years" be dominated by an "eventual attempt at college?"
• (Sentence 4) "After attending Pembroke College, Oxford for a year, Johnson was forced to leave due to lack of funds."
  • (Clarity) Lack of whose funds? In any case, lack of funds is not the cause. Do you mean "non-payment of fees?"
• (Sentence 3) "He tried to work as a teacher, but he was unable to find a long lasting position."
  • Was he unable to find such a position or was he unable to make a position last long (since he apparently "tried to work")? In the former case, you want to say "he was unable to find a long-term position;" in the latter, you want to say "he was unable to last long in any teaching job."

The article needs a very careful copy-edit. My own sense is that such a copy-edit cannot be undertaken in the time frame available for an FAC. The article should be withdrawn, worked on, and re-submitted. We owe at least that much to Johnson. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As per this page, the bulk of the article has been copyedited by over two dozen people. As per the comments above, there is no real grammatical issues. If this user continues in his way, I will take him immediately to WP:ANI for a point violation. As such, I will not acknowledge this user's presence within this FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Note - the lead, the first section, and last section (the "new" sections) have been copy edited by over seven people. Notice how he is unable to come up with a true grammatical issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless Fowler has been disruptive in the past, you seem to have taken exception to a difference of stylistic opinion. I came across this while browsing Wikipedia but I wanted to point out you have a grammatical issue in the sentence where you say there is no real grammatical issues. Sorry, couldn't resist. Mobile Writes (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I think that all of the points raised by Fowler&fowler have been addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Post2 by Fowler&fowler—Question for Sandy Georgia or Awadewit

What is a point violation? What have I violated in my statement above that is worthy of AN/I time? I am happy to point out prose issues in pretty much every sentence of the article. I have tried to be polite in my post above. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't point out any prose issues. You used incorrect terms. You even questioned what "dominate" means when a native English speaker understands what a dominate part of a life is, and you even claimed that you would find tons of problems within the best FA right now, which this was a part of and whose prose (the vast majority) was passed by over 2 dozen people before it was placed on its own page to make room for others. Those who passed it included some of our top copyeditors. This all comes after -you- threatened to find "errors". You coming to this FAC almost immediately, combined with the threat, and combined with your false oppose is enough to warrant that you are here only for disruption and should be banned from FAC. WP:POINT if you want to know what a point violation is. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Post3 by Fowler&fowler—Further comments on syntax and diction in remainder of "Parents" section

I am working with this version of the FAC page. I have already commented on Sentences 1 through 4 in this section (on the FAC talk page). Here are most of the remaining sentences in that section.

• (Sentence 5):"William was the first Johnson to move to Lichfield, and died shortly after the move."
  • One refers to "the move" (i.e. the act of relocation) if some details of the relocation have been provided. So, for example, we can say, "On June 19, William Johnson moved from the village of Cranleigh in Strattfordshire to the nearby town of Lichfield; he, however, expired shortly after the move." When no such details are provided, one says, "... and died shortly after moving there."
  • What do we mean by the "first Johnson?" Had no person with last name "Johnson" moved to Lichfield? If the latter is intended, then is there a citation for this? Or do we really mean, William was the first person in his family (or extended family) to move from rural Strattfordshire to Lichfield? In other words (especially in an encyclopedia), we should be saying: "William was the first person in his (extended) family to move to Lichfield and died short after moving there."

• (Sentence 5)"Michael Johnson, after leaving his apprenticeship at 24, followed in his father's footsteps and became a book seller on Sadler Street, Lichfield."
  • Wasn't being an apprentice to a bookseller already a case of following in his father's footsteps?

• (Sentence 7):"At the age of 29, Michael Johnson was engaged to be married to a local woman, Mary Neild, but she cancelled the engagement."
  • "was" is incorrect when you are describing a time period such as the "age of 29." It should be "At the age of 29 Michael Johnson became engaged to be married to a Lichfield woman, Mary Neild, who, however, later canceled the engagement."

• (Sentence 8): "Twenty years later, in 1706, he married Sarah Ford. She came from a middle-class milling and farming family ..."
  • "Middle-class" is not an expression that either was used at that time or is generally applied to that time. Its first occurrence is 1745 and it is generally not applied to the UK before the conclusion of the Napoleonic wars (1815).
  • "... and was twelve years his junior, daughter of Cornelius Ford." has faulty syntax. Simpler to say, "Twenty years later, in 1706, he married Sarah Ford, who was twelve years his junior and daughter of a local miller and farmer, Cornelius Ford."

• (Sentence 9): "Although both families had money, Samuel Johnson often claimed that he grew up in poverty."
  • "Both families" here is vague (since the two people mentioned are the two women he became engaged to);
  • Similarly, "had money" is vague as well (i.e. in an encyclopedia). Better to say, "Although neither of his parents' families was considered poor by the standards of the day, Samuel Johnson often claimed (that) he grew up in poverty."

• (Sentence 10): "It is uncertain what happened between the marriage of his parents and Samuel's birth three years later to provoke a decline in the family's fortunes, but Michael Johnson quickly became overwhelmed with debt from which he was never able to recover."
  • The (grammatical) subject of the sentence changes from Samuel J. in the first half to Michael J. in the second.

No, the grammatical subject of the sentence is the mysterious happening. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This has already been addressed below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "marriage of his parents" Although most people will understand what is meant, it is more correct to say, "wedding of his parents"

No, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, Marriage: The action, or an act of marrying; the ceremony by which two people are made husband and wife Marriage is the best word in this context. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have the March 2009 draft edition of the OED right here. "Marriage" for "wedding" is archaic, Scottish or South Asian usage; not standard English usage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Archaic? Get a better dictionary. Gay marriage is used quite frequently. Marriage is a legal definition. Wedding is not. This is just more evidence that you should be a primary English speaker before criticizing English usage. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "provoke" usually means something more deliberate (i.e. to excite or stir up, to incite, to spur on); it can be used to mean "give rise to" or "prompt," but that use is usually restricted to physical phenomena. (An example is, "A streptococcus was indicated as the trigger that provokes acute rheumatic fever.") Best to say, "..., Samuel's birth to cause a reversal of family fortune ..."

No, again from the OED, Provoke; to give rise to Graham Colm ^Talk 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I am quoting from the OED (the complete one, that is.) The usage "give rise to" is restricted to natural phenomena as I have already observed.

Comment good writing is writing that is understood, better writing has colour, feeling and nuance. I am often accused of being a notorious nit-picker, but really the comments from Fowler&Fowler would be used by H. W. Fowler, were he still alive, as examples of constipated prose that fails to keep up with modern English usage. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid Fowler actually would use your first sentence to illustrate failure of logic, and urge you to change your second independent clause to "better writing also has ...." Clearly better writing needs to be understood as well. That is only the most obvious problem in that sentence. Besides there are nine sentences that I objected to above. You haven't said anything about them. If you honestly think that user:Ottava Rima's broken prose has color, feeling, and nuance, why don't you give me a few minutes and I'll give you some more examples from another section of the article. (It will be in F&f post4.) Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note after reading Fowler's third set of comments, I can't see one concern that isn't already contradicted because the passage is either part of standard speech or common sense. Thus, I will be ignoring the concerns as they lack merit. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just to give an example - "'Middle-class' is not an expression that either was used at that time or is generally applied to that time." This is quite untrue. The above user has probably never read a book by either a Marxist or New Historical bent critic, let alone the thousands of others who aren't in either field. Lane makes it very clear that they were middle-class and even states "middle-class". These, and other such comments, show a lack of understanding how biographies work, how criticism works, and show a disregard for what he is actually reviewing. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

True, I haven't read these critics, but I have read some Marx and some history. Note that we are saying "She came from a middle-class milling and farming family ..." and referring the period before 1706. Here are a few references:

1)Template:Harvard reference Quote from book: "What was the English Middle Class? The provincial middle class took shape during the turbulent decades of late-eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries."

2)Template:Harvard reference Quote:"The term middle classes began to be used more frequently in social and political debate. So too were working class and classes."

3) OED First use of expression, "Middle class" 1745 J. BRADSHAW Scheme to prevent running Irish Wools to France "The lower and middle Class of their People appear'd at that time, well dress'd in ..."

4)Daniel Defoe, writing after the time we are referring to, distinguished six classes: "1. The great, who live profusely, 2. The rich, who live plentifully, 3. The middle sort, who live well., 4. The working trades, who labour hard, but feel no want, 5. The country people, farmers etc., who fare indifferently, 6. The poor, who fare hard." In which class would Defoe put a bookseller or miller/farmer? Doesn't seem to be the "middle sort."

5)Finally Marx and Engels, themselves, usually reserve the term "middle-class" for the industrial age. However, they sometimes do use "manufacturing middle classes" to describe the mercantile guilds of early capitalism. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• For an example that Fowler doesn't understand grammar - "The (grammatical) subject of the sentence changes from Samuel J. in the first half to Michael J. in the second." Actually, the subject of the sentence is "It" and part of "what happened" or just "happened". This is something -very- obvious and the fact that he believed that Johnson was the subject of the first clause shows that he does not understand what a "subject" actually is. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

True, I made a mistake, but pointing it out doesn't make your sentence any less ambiguous. The two sentences are: "... Samuel Johnson often claimed that he grew up in poverty. It is uncertain what happened between the marriage of his parents and Samuel's birth three years later to provoke a decline in the family's fortunes, but Michael Johnson quickly became overwhelmed with debt from which he was never able to recover." What do we mean by "his?" If we are using "his" to refer to Samuel Johnson already mentioned in the previous sentence, then why are we saying "Samuel's birth" next and not "his birth?" In other words, it is much less ambiguous if we say, "... Samuel Johnson often claimed that he grew up in poverty. It is uncertain what happened between the wedding of his parents and his own birth three years later to cause a reversal of family fortune, but his father quickly became overwhelmed with irreversible debt." Note too that you've responded to only one or two points; there are several others. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Middle class simply means "skilled working class" - merchants, skilled laborers, lawyers, etc. It comes from a source. The basic definition is standard English knowledge. The source only verifies its legitimacy of use. The first should have kept you from claiming that it was inappropriate, and the second verifying that. I don't need to respond to -any- of your points because they are all equally absurd. "your sentence any less ambiguous" It really does. "It" is right at the beginning. There is no hidden subject. The first sentence states that there was an event, the second sentence states a response to that event. This is obvious from context. Are you even a native English speaker? I highly suspect that you are not, especially with your interest in Indian articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What does interest in the history of early-modern- and colonial India have anything to do with not being a native English speaker? There are many people in the former group: Christopher Bayly, Eric Stokes, Judith Brown, Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Barbara Metcalf, Muzaffar Alam, ..., are just a few. Some are native English speakers and some are likely not, but all write superb English prose. Besides South Asia itself has many native (or near-native) English speakers, a direct result of over 200 years of British rule. The novels of Salman Rushdie and Arundhati Roy are but two examples of the burgeoning corpus of Indian English literature. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You've used incorrect terminology for grammar, switched things around, made staunch claims about what is proper when there is no strict rule, and your strong interest in Indian articles and terminology suggests that you speak Hindi or some related language. Now, we all know that grammar in England is different than Grammar in the United States. It is even more so between Indian grammar and the rest because of the influence of native languages. It would explain why you are so adamant about things that are incorrect or not important. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler Post4 (Examples of poor prose from Early Works section)

• Sentence 11: "More importantly, the work helped to mould Johnson into a biographical career; it was included in his later Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets series."
  • Wrong word: "mould Johnson" One can't mould (or mold AmE) a person into a career. The work launches the person into a career. —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:

I believe you mean "career" with one "r", and no "or" about it. This is a British page and deals only with British spelling and usage. Mould is proper because it is the act of setting within a physical mould. Launch isn't even close to appropriate, especially if you have read the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

... but a search for "mould * into a career" (* is the generic blank) among authors of books turns up quite empty.  :( This is not the case for the expression "launched * into a career". Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Google books has nothing to do with standard diction nor is it acceptable means to find out what standard diction is. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, you can mould/mold an avocation into a vocation (or career), but you can't mould a person into a career. If you don't like Google Books, which search only among the published authors in the English language, why don't we search in Google Scholar or even the plain old Google web? ... but a search among all scholars for the expression "mould * into a career" too turns up quite emptly.  :( ... but a search among all 1 billion English speaking denizens of the planet only three use the expression "mould * into a career". Of these three, two are talking about moulding a hobby or research into a career (as I have already alluded to above); the third, who does talk about moulding a person into a career, is none other than Mr. Ottava Rima, ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't even have logic. People can be moulded into anything. You have no ability to prove that wrong, so you substitute that by putting up a bunch of empty words. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Ambiguous usage: The expression, "biographical career," means many things in the English language (here is an example from the Cambridge Companion to Goethe, where "biographical career" means personal life), however, it is only rarely used to mean, "career as a biographer." In an encyclopedia, it is best to avoid ambiguity. It is at once clearer and correct to say, "The work helped launch Johnson's career as a biographer; ..." —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:

Then you haven't had enough experience with English language usage. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

... but the Google search for the "biographical career" of some eminent biographers turns up quite empty. :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again, google search is not an acceptable tool for finding "standard diction" or diction patterns.

• Sentence 12: "It was successful in its partial analysis of Savage's poetry and in portraying insights into Savage's personality, but for all of its literary achievements it did not bring immediate fame or income to Johnson or to Cave; it did though provide Johnson with a welcome small income at an opportune time in his life."
  • What does "portraying insights into Savage's personality" mean? Was he portraying insights? Do you mean "providing insights?" —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:

Nope. The work is a portrayal and if you bother to do research you would see how it portrays insights. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

..., but no author in the English language seems to be using the expression "portraying insights into".  :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Google books doesn't contain anything even close to claim "no author" anything. The fact that you relied on it for a third time is only indicative of the general problems with your responses as a whole. Now, I will call you a liar. Why? Because of this. A result of the phrase "portraying insights". Next time, don't try to selectively search and hide from the real results. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, weren't we talking about the expression "portraying insights into?" I can certainly say, "The author has been portraying insights associated with the School of Cacophony as those of a demoralized fringe." This is more or less what the sole (i.e. one, unitary, or single) link in your "this" is saying ...  :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the phrase is "portraying insights". If you knew anything about grammar, you know that -into- is part of a different phrase. However, your constant abuse of grammar rules and of the English language suggests that you don't care. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• • You say at first, it did not bring "immediate ... income," but then add "it did provide Johnson with a welcome small income ..." If he received a small income, then he received an income. Period. There is a logical flaw in this sentence. —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:

Key word "immediate". Also, you ignored that it is "fame and income" and that the small income came "at an opportune time in his life". Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

..., but no author in the English language seems to be using the expression "welcome small income".  :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet you searched on a phrase that you didn't complain about. Odd how you do that. The fact that you would even suggest that someone else would have to use the phrase is absurd. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me for pointing out that you made one more boo boo in that sentence. Please accept my apologies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No "boo boo"s exist. Its just you dodging from being wrong by throwing out more empty language to distract from your own flaws. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sentence 13: *"Johnson early works and early life have been neglected topics within Johnson scholarship."
  • "early works and early life" is in the wrong order. I've never seen this expression before and neither has Google. Replace with 'early life and writings." Don't need to repeat "early" either. —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:

No. Works takes priority over life. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

..., but none of the other 1 billion English-speaking denizens of the planet have used the expression "early works and early life".  :( Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No one said "It was the best of times" along with "It was the worst of times" before Dickens, and yet he managed to say it. Come up with a real argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Repetition of Johnson. Why do we need "Johnson scholarship?" Replace entire sentence with, "Johnson's early life and writings have been neglected by scholars." It is understood that we are talking about topics. —This is part of a comment by Fowler&fowler (of 02:33, 24 March 2009), which was interrupted by the following:

No. Scholars and Johnson scholars are two different things. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Typo: Replace first "Johnson" with "Johnson's."

I don't have more time right now, but I have taken a quick look through the section. Each and every sentence is either chock-full of errors or plain old clumsy. That is unacceptable in a Featured Article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

PS The evidence mounts that no author of books written in the English language seems to be using Mr. Rima's mellifluence-free expressions. Could Mr. Rima be guilty of practicing "original cacophony?" Do we want OC on the Wikipedia main page? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh no! Not using English in a way that follows rules but might not be duplicated in google books! Heaven forbid! The fact that you were upset at "early works" being joined with an "and" to "early life" is troubling in the very list. You can't provide one book to verify that such is improper. The fact that you said "no one" says the phrase without searching through the over 800 results to see if it comes up only verifies that you are putting forth a sham argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh no no Mr Rima! There are indeed no authors of books written in the English language who use your exact expression, "early works and early life," (see top of the link); the 800 links you allude to are to authors who use the expressions "early life" and "early works" separately somewhere in their book. What's the big deal in that? I suggest that you not carry on this discussion in order to just have the last word. You make yourself look less and less credible. However, since I don't believe that you will actually stop, let me state that this is my final reply to your increasingly random musings. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

See, here's exactly why your complaint and any complaint here on Wikipedia by you are pure nonsense. You don't understand that "and" connects two groups of words. "Early works" is a proper set of words. "Early life" is a proper set of words. Any set of words following this pattern is grammatically correct, just like I can say jungle gyms and kookaburras without it appearing anywhere else. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps I am showing my ignorance here, but what does "Michael was the first bookseller of "reputation"..." from the Parents section mean? Is is that he was the first bookseller or repute, the first reputable bookseller, or is it something fancy that I am too ignorant to know?  :) Otherwise the article looks good - I'll have another look at it more closely later Fritzpoll (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The line it is based on Lane's (the source) phrase "the first Johnson of note in the little town" (p. 11), "a respected book-seller" (p. 10) and later "Michael Johnson may not have been the first bookseller ever to trade in Lichfield, but he was the first to achieve respect and reputation" (p. 13). The quote is used to denote Lane's word but also the general sense that it is subjective and not objective. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but feel there's a better way to handle this sentence, but it is so trivial in what seems otherwise to be a high-quality article Fritzpoll (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Support - issue resolved. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - have you considered using this book? Apparently, Bate is a little outdated by now, and we should be reflecting the latest scholarship, right? - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter Martin was used in part on the main Johnson page, but he offers no new details. He also admits his debt to Bate. The only difference between the two is in Martin's interpretation of a few people who Johnson knew or on some of Johnson's writing. Neither apply to this page but he is a good source for all of the other pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a side note - read the bottom of the review: "Martin's response to his subject's actual work is neither lively nor personal: few people will be tempted to have a go at Johnson's admittedly forbidding writings after reading these blandly potted accounts of them. The adroit marshalling of evidence doesn't always make for vivid narrative, and the need to cram in everything that Boswell didn't know eats into the space left over for colour and anecdote." Bate's work has been praised for a very long time, has received multiple awards, and he is a much more famous critic than Martin. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Having cleared that up, and having reviewed the article, it appears to meet all the criteria, so I support the nomination. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose pending clarification. EDIT: Struck. Steve ^{T • C} I'm sure it's just a case of providing an extra cite somewhere along the line, but do any of the sources used in the fourth paragraph of the Childhood section directly link Johnson's early ailments—and his "difficult" birth—with the severity of his TS? The paragraph uses non-Johnson-related medical sources to give contextual information about the disorder and state that such childhood events can influence its severity, alongside completely separate Johnson-specific sources that detail his "difficult and dangerous" birth and his childhood illnesses. Neither the Johnson sources or the non-Johnson medical sources seem to categorically make the link, yet how the section is presented does infer such, and this could be seen as synthesising facts from both sets of sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly supported by one alone. Steve ^{T • C} 01:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Three biographies that went into the section state Tourette Syndrome, apply medical analysis, and draw conclusions. If necessary, I can provide scans of these pages, as the issue came up during the Samuel Johnson FAC. The Pearce source is by a well known research of Tourette Syndrome and also wrote a paper on Johnson's case. More information on what is said on that can be found at Samuel Johnson's health#Tourette syndrome]] to verify what is stated there (it contains more details and direct quotes to show that it isn't synthesis). But yes, Johnson's case has come up in at least three major biographies (that I have, and a fourth according to an article in the NY Times of a new one but one I refuse to buy because it is uncritical), a handful of newspaper articles, and a few medical journal articles. Many of the sources used were either directly talking about Johnson or used by those directly talking about Johnson. I hope that explains the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don’t doubt the sources state exactly what the section says they do. The problem comes with the presentation. The paragraph begins with Johnson's initial exhibiting of the tics that characterised his TS. It then provides context with information about how TS develops in childhood. This is OK to a point, as TS "follows a fairly reliable course in terms of the age of onset and the history of the severity of symptoms". However, the paragraph then goes on to state that "environmental, infectious, or psychosocial factors and [complications in labour]... can influence the severity of the disorder." This is cited to sources that do not appear to discuss Johnson specifically; they're speaking about TS in general terms, and there is therefore no guarantee that the sources are relevant to how Johnson's TS developed—none of the Johnson-specific sources are used at this point. Because the rest of the section does detail Johnson's troubled childhood (illnesses, environment, difficult birth), it implies a link that I'm not sure has been made by the Johnson sources. If any of them do make the link, then we should too, instead of leaving it a vague implication. Steve ^{T • C} 16:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

If the off topic sources are used by other sources used, then off topic sources are perfectly acceptable for context. Let me make it more clear - biographer says "Johnson had tics which probably did this" followed by a footnote. The footnote refers to page __ of book ___ which shows that. Quoting from that study the pertinent section is not synthesis. Synthesis is creating a -new- argument and only a -new- argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

And please provide where the links aren't made, because they are rather clear on who says what. I need to figure out which lines you are having problems with. The link above to the Pearce quote alone verifies that Pearce contains the basis for all of the information regardless of what the other sources say, so I don't really see how anything could be deemed synthesis. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I know I'm sometimes less than clear. You should have seen my original reply before I trimmed it down: thrice as long and containing several unnecessary digressions. I'll boil it down:

• I don't have a problem with any individual fact used in the section; it's all well-cited.
• Pearce details Johnson's childhood ailments.
• Two non-Johnson sources say how childhood ailments can (not "do") influence the severity of TS.
• Neither those or Pearce say Johnson's childhood ailments influenced the severity of his TS.
• The section implies such an influence.

If you're saying that Pearce also explicitly links Johnson's childhood ailments with the severity of his TS, then that's great and I'll happily strike my oppose if it's made clearer in the section. Steve ^{T • C} 08:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree the post hoc diagnoses of individuals who existed, in this case centuries, before the diagnoses was invented are extremely questionable and for the most part unethical by anyone in the profession. Well marshalled references specifically justifying the diagnosis in this case are needed by credible sources, that is, sources in the field competent to make a post hoc diagnosis. Otherwise, editors could be assigning diagnostic labels to historical figures right and left. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • To be clear, this is not the basis of my particular oppose; Johnson's posthumous diagnosis of having TS seems to be well-established both in this article and the parent article. Steve ^{T • C} 08:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
    • If this is true, then certain aspects of his behavior, and relationships between his behavior and other known contributing factors to TS can be reasonably hypothesized, as one could to with anyone with the diagnosis, I think. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Indeed, but we shouldn't be the ones hypothesising; others are free to, and we're free to cite them. But that's as far as it should go. In the article, there is an implication that the severity of Johnson's TS was influenced by his childhood ailments. This should come from at least one reliable source, such as Pearce. At present it doesn't; Pearce is used to cite the ailments, while other sources that don't mention Johnson are used to cite that such ailments can (not unequivocally do) influence the severity. Neither makes the link between the two, so nor should we. Steve ^{T • C} 14:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
        • I just rechecked and most of the sources such as Pearce cover both. Regardless, here are the biographies so you can see the raw information. I'm tired and I don't feel like dealing with this issue. Therefore, I wont. You have the raw information. If you think its a problem, then, well, I will state that the sources are clear on the matter and that there is no synthesis. The closing FA director/assistant director can decide which side they agree with. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Thanks, posting those is above and beyond (though we should perhaps blank that page when we're done). I promise to read those in the next few hours. Steve ^{T • C} 19:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
            • I find the hypothesizing and speculating posted on the page link above less than convincing. Especially causing unease is this statement: "This gap in the explanation of Johnson's behaviour has been readily filled by psychoanalytic account." But I will stay out of it and let others decide. A literature article is not science anyway. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
              • • Wiltshire is published by Cambridge, Demaria published by Oxford, and Martin by Harvard. The medical texts that they refer to plus Pearce and some others are published in well known medical journals. The "tics and gesticulations" form a large portion of Boswell's biography along with large chunks of the Thraliana (Hester Thrale's account of Johnson) and some of the other biographies (and in many letters and small accounts of various times). There is also a painting showing one set of gesticulations. Russell Brain, 1st Baron Brain started off much of the medical diagnosis of Johnson and applied psychological causes and the rest. This was followed by Walter Jackson Bate, an early biographytrained in psychoanalysis and a major scholar in the field, who originally associated the tics with some psychological stress before they really figured out how TS operates (the major medical works follow his biography, which is where Wiltshire, Demaria, and Martin fill in). I can count at least 25 sources discussing his Tics and at least 20 discussing them as TS. Even the NY Times discussed it ("Ungainly, scrofulous and afflicted with Tourette’s syndrome, Johnson provided the same easy target for schoolboys that he later would for caricaturists."). Convincing or not, it has been discussed by major scholars in biographical, literary, and medical fields and has no differing view-point except to the degrees of how Johnson may have been seen by others (with little difference there, just more or less application). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
                  • Good publishing houses can publish speculative science. When the information published defies the current state of knowledge on the subject, it does not matter who published it. The New York Times is not a reliable source for medical information. An article written by a professor of English is not a reliable source on whether Johnson had TS. From your sources: If Johnson's own statement that his 'unease' began in his twentieth year is accepted as including, though not necessarily comprehending, these symptoms, then this would make the onset of the disorder extraordinarily, perhaps uniquely, late. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
                    • Mattisse, please provide a source that states that Johnson does not have TS or that it would not affect him in these ways. These sources are -summarizing- medical research and studies on Johnson. If you think they are fringe (and well known fringe must still be stated), take it to the Fringe noticeboard. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• I said I was not going to make an issue of it, and I am not going to contest anything. I am merely pointing out some generalities, that a publishing house does not guarantee the relevance of information to an article etc. etc. Those things I pointed out are true and should not be used in arguments to refute. Also, as you know, the author is required to produce sources for contested information, not the opposite. The editor who questions is not required to prove a negative. And, as far as I know, these sources are summarizing studies and opinions, not "medical research" into Johnson's physical status. Medical research is published in reputable medical journals, and per WP:MEDRS should be recent, preferably not from the last century.—Mattisse (Talk) 23:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

←Ottava, you seem to have been under the impression that I'm questioning the posthumous diagnosis of TS, how Johnson's TS manifested in childhood, or both. I'm really not. The only sentence I had issue with was, "Studies suggest that non-genetic, environmental, infectious, or psychosocial factors and perinatal events, such as obstetric complications—while not causing Tourette's—can influence the severity of the disorder." This is fine in isolation, but—coupled with the surrounding statements from completely separate sources that Johnson suffered from various childhood illnesses—implied a cause and effect that was not supported by the citations as presented. If I haven't been clear on that, I apologise. There was no need to spend two hours transcribing various sources, though the effort to resolve the issue is appreciated. All that the article really required was a citation that unequivocally placed a cause and effect between Johnson's childhood physical illnesses and the initial manifesting of his TS; this would bridge the gap between the two and rid the section of the appearance of synthesis. Thankfully, that is provided by Martin, Samuel Johnson: A Biography 2008. p. 94 - referring to Johnson's bout of scrofula, "As a result of physical illness he began to show signs of the 'tics and gesticulations' that stayed with him for the rest of his life." If this is included and the surrounding text altered to more accurately accommodate what it says, that should be enough to address my concern. On a related note, I agree with comments made elsewhere that some of the fine detail about TS is not strictly necessary. In particular, the two sentences featuring OCD seem a little out of place. Perhaps the paragraph could read:

During this time, Johnson started to exhibit the tics that influenced how people viewed him in his later years; these formed the basis for his posthumous diagnosis of Tourette syndrome (TS). TS develops in childhood; it follows a fairly reliable course in terms of the age of onset and the history of the severity of symptoms. Tics may appear up to the age of eighteen, but the most typical age of onset is from five to seven. Johnson's tics and gesticulations first manifested as a result of his childhood scrofula; studies suggest that environmental and infectious factors—while not causing Tourette's—can affect the severity of the disorder. Pearce describes that Johnson's mother had a "very difficult and dangerous labour", and that Johnson had many illnesses throughout his life, "suffered from bouts of melancholy, crushing guilt, habitual insomnia, and he endured a morbid fear of loneliness and of dying", and was "disturbed by scruples of infidelity" from the age of 10.

But this is a suggestion only; the important words are "as a result" or something equally definitive. I stand by registering the oppose because the source was needed here at this article; a reader should not be expected to look through other Wikipedia articles on Johnson to find it. Another suggestion I'd make is to move Pearce's description of Johnson's "difficult and dangerous labour" to the first paragraph of the section; it seems to fit better there. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 21:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Struck oppose per this change. Good luck. Steve ^{T • C} 00:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Support This is a well-researched and engaging article. It is well-written and poetic even in places. This is the standard of Wikipedia humanities FAs that I love to see. If only I could make my virus articles such a joy to read. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Excellent job, well-deserving of FA...Modernist (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia should have a special category for "lackadaisical and indifferent masquerading as passionate support" (LIMPS). Imagine that luminous age when all you will need is: "LIMPS Modernist"! Imagine too the economy, that soul of wit, which, when summed over millions of Wikipedians, might yet save our planet from its excesses. Not to mention that brave new world teeming with FAs, all written in the wondrous experimental prose of "Samuel Johnson's early life" (especially the "Parents" and "Early Works" sections); so what if a few curmudgeons like F&f are calling it broken English. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Struck per Ceoil's request. My apologies to Modernist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Flowler, you so out of order here; I know you are fustrated, but this is unfair. I suggest you strike or better remove you comment and apologise to Modernist, who is just caught in crossfire. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've certainly seen my share of sickly articles on FAC review, articles whose authors have the expectation that the FAC reviewers are "de facto peer reviewers" and will help fix the article on the spot. However, I've never seen a sickly article whose author blatantly insults reviewers. True, I made fun of Modernist above, but what really is the point of a one-line support vote? How does it help anyone? I mean, why even bother?

If any one of user:Malleus Fatuorum (listed as an almost-coauthor), user:Karanacs, and user:Tony1 are prepared to state that the prose in the two sections ("Parents" and "Early works") does meet the standards required of an FA, I will forever hold my peace. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)