Jump to content

Talk:Jonathan Elliot (publisher)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jonathan Elliot (publisher)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 22:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Elli (talk · contribs) 00:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Initial comments

[edit]

I'll review this soon. Nothing immediate I can see that would justify a quickfail. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, you should probably histmerge this with Jonathan Elliot (historian) (you'll need to get an admin for that). Elli (talk | contribs) 00:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

[edit]
  • He enlisted within the United States Army upon his return, although likely did not see combat due to a lack of major campaigns during his period of service. I don't think the sources state this strongly enough? Would prefer something like upon his return, with the intent of serving in the War of 1812, though it is unclear whether he saw combat.
    • That's a better phrasing, added. Ty! - G

News publications

[edit]
  • First sentence is a comma splice (or I guess could be read as otherwise? but in any case is awkward).
    • Fixed. - G
  • I'd go with phrasing like heavily championed Georgia senator William H. Crawford's campaign for the Democratic-Republican nomination in the 1816 United States presidential election (also link the Democratic-Republican party)
    • Good idea, fixed. - G

History publications

[edit]
  • Is Debates notable? In any case, I'd flesh out your description a bit more here -- also, the relevant part of Powell is more than just p689 so you should check the page range on that.
  • In general I think this section could probably be expanded to a few paragraphs.

Personal life and death

[edit]
  • Not sure if the names of some of his kids are noteworthy, assuming they aren't notable in any way?
    • Fair point. -G
  • Maybe try to dig up the obituaries cited here, or other newspapers from the time, to see if there's any more details on him? Though yeah I'd imagine they'd be pretty sparse.
    • Added a little bit of info from his only obituary. - G

Images

[edit]

Lead

[edit]
  • Lead should probably be split into two paragraphs. I'd mention a bit more about the impact of his publications here.
    • Done. -G
  • Infobox should estimate his age at death (using {{Death date and age}}).
    • Fixed! - G

Overall

[edit]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 23:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by Generalissima (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 36 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Short enough, I guess interesting to an American audience (although I, as an Englishman, haven't heard of either of them), and sourced... to [6], the third of the references for that sentence, although I'm not quite sure how you get ACLS from Johnson, Allen; Malone, Dumas, eds. (1931). Dictionary of American Biography. Vol. 6. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Full review needed.--Launchballer 20:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was written by the American Council of Learned Societies. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article should make that clear.--Launchballer 21:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair's fair, fixed. 21:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Full review needed.--Launchballer 21:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I shall review this. Please be patient, though, as there is currently very slow broadband in my village, and I may be temporarily cut off. Storye book (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Thank you for this jolly good article - written in beautiful, elegant English, worthy of Henry James, I might say.

  • The ALT0 hook would be fine if it made clear who the victim of the insult is - otherwise it's just one one random bloke insulting another random bloke. Could you please insert his trade in front of his name, e.g. "newspaperman Jonathan Elliot" or whatever? Newspapermen get challenged all the time for being brave challengers of the status quo, or just mouthy - which is what makes them interesting. And there is nothing wrong with the words "penurious" and "venal" - they are jolly good insults (try them on your mum next time she wants to borrow your allowance back cos she's skint). It would weaken the hook to rephrase them - this is not Simple Wikipedia.
  • Hook fact is borne out, next to the fact in the article, by the online Dictionary of National Biography.

When this issue is resolved, this would be good to go, with either hook. Storye book (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Storye book: Thank you for your kind words! I'm a little bit confused, do you think the ALT1 needs further expansion? Since I think that's ultimately the stronger hook here. If an internationalisation is needed, we can just rephrase it to President John Quincy Adams. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all. I am cheering on ALT0 for its witty insult, and I am suggesting that we further identify Eliot (as the article's subject, and the subject of the insult) as a newspaperman in ALT0. I am not interested in improving ALT1 further, though you are welcome to do so if you wish. I don't think we need to further identify Adams, because it would distract from our hero Eliot. Just my opinion. Storye book (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that a typo, or do you really mean ALT1? ALT1 is by far the weaker hook, because "denounced" is boring, whereas "penurious and venal" is very funny and very sad, and reflects on the speaker, rather than on the victim of the insult. "Penurious" as commonly used in those days, meant being in the habit of having no money whatsoever, due to stupidity, laziness, bad luck, gullibility to fraudsters and all the rest of it: basically a loser. "Venal" as used in that era tended to mean constantly having one's mind on money, being greedy for money, and acting in a money-grasping manner. The combination of those words could of course be directed at a feckless and greedy person, but was more commonly directed at the poor and the starving, i.e. those who were not a financial success, and consequently were not the epitome of the American Dream. But the combination could also imply a suspicion of miserliness and corruption, i.e. pretending to be poor and asking too-high prices or demanding large bribes. So the insult "penurious and venal" could also be used by someone who grudged paying their bills, i.e. they were actually penurious and venal themselves, haha. Either way, like most insults, it reflects badly on the speaker, and not really on the victim.
  • So: (a) If you still insist on ALT1, I shall defer to your opinion as the nomintor, and I'll give the green tick - but with misgivings. Or: (b) If the above is a typo, and you really want ALT0, then please put some kind of indication of trade before Eliot's name in ALT0 and I'll give the green tick with a choice of either hook for the promoter. Storye book (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonathan_Elliot_(publisher)&oldid=1222263152"