Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Georgette Heyer

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:06, 23 June 2008 [1].

---

Georgette Heyer

Self-nomination. This is the first article I've nominated that has nothing to do with the U.S. state of Texas, and the first discussing an author. Georgette Heyer was a popular author through much of the 20th century, but she was extremely publicity-shy and never gave an interview. Because she wrote genre fiction (primarily romance novels), her work was not often thoroughly reviewed. I've consulted the only biography of her that have been written as well as a compilation of articles and reviews of her works as a whole. I've not had a lot of luck finding good sources beyond those. The article is currently GA (reviewed by Wassupwestcoast) and has been reviewed and copyedited by Scartol. Karanacs (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support wonderful article. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues — Bellhalla (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Some minor comments:

• In the lead there's no explanation of what her magnum opus was. Also, why is it in quotes here, and in the image caption later?
• Wikilink for heart attack?
• The year is somewhat redundant for her marriage date, since it was mentioned in the previous sentence.
• Are At Work and In my Old World Garden capitalized in the source?
• Use "upright" in portrait-orientation images rather than hard-coded sizes.
• Perhaps some alternation in the image placement? All are on the right currently.
• "London season" is wikilinked within a quote, which should be avoided per MoS
• Encyclopædia Britannica should be in italics as the title of a work
• The nested parentheses in the last image caption are unsightly. Can the caption be recast?

— Bellhalla (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, especially the excellent suggestion about "upright" for the images (I did not know that existed). I've made changes to the article in response to your comments. For the things I couldn't change:

• "magnum opus" was in quotes because that was how she referred to the work. I did add more information about the work itself
• The funky capitalization in the quotation follows Heyer's original writings.
• I couldn't find another way to incorporate London season into the prose other than the quotation. I suspect many people are unfamiliar with the term and wanted to give them the wikilink anyway.

Karanacs (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I figured the "magnum opus" and the capitalization were per the sources. The London season link is fine if there's not a better way. — Bellhalla (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

ACK! My poor eyes...I can't look ;) Karanacs (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC) For those not from Texas, Belhalla has used the color of my school's arch enemy.

• Support Looks good Gary King (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Good article (mediocre pun not intended). --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 03:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Sources look good, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Support What a wonderful article! A thorough explanation of a writer who has not received much attention from my scholarly fellows but who has been quite popular. This article is well-researched, comprehensive, and well-written. The reader understands who Georgette Heyer was and what kind of a writer she was.

• Shouldn't the lead image be on the left since she is looking right per WP:MOS#Images?
• The first alleged plagiarist published a new novel in 1974 - This is slightly confusing.
• When I removed a sentence, I messed up your notes - sorry! Note 2 now reads as invalid.
• Is the "List of works" complete or should it be labeled a "Selected list of works"?

What an enjoyable read! Thanks Karanacs! Awadewit (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• I took a closer look at WP:MOS#Images, and it does say Start an article with a right-aligned lead image. If you think it is an issue I can take the picture out of the infobox and put it later in the article.
• I rearranged the section on the alleged plagiarism, so now all of the information about the first author is in one paragraph. This is a bit out of chronological order but makes more sense (I hope).
• I have fixed the reference. (Thank you for your bit of copyediting.)
• I believe the list of works is complete. Karanacs (talk) 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• As usual, the MOS is squishy! It really depends what is more important to you - placement of images so that the eyes don't wander off the page really bugs me, so I prioritize that rule. Other people prioritize the "right-aligned image for lead" rule, but you see how they can come into conflict. Moving the image to the left would also get rid of the unsightly infobox. :) Do whatever you think is best. Awadewit (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Tentative support. Prose seems quite good, but ...

• Linking needs a full audit. Overlinked: mining, heart attack, liability, among quite a few others (I see "romance novels" repeat-linked); "sign posts" is a trivial link, but "costumes" is piped to a period-specific link, which is valuable. "Snuff boxes" is piped to "Decorative boxes"—unsure that this is helpful and not misleading. I'd just delink it. You might also consider rendering Paris, France as just "Paris", since who would assume it wasn't that Paris, and if a reader needs to hit a link to discover where the hell Paris is, they should be shot and buried. There are valuable links: let's not dilute them and splash ugly bright-blue everywhere without good reason.
• "She was named for her father"—odd expression. TONY (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the linking issues. I've done an audit of the links and removed quite a few, including many I realized were double or triple linked. Of the ones you specifically mentioned, I removed sign posts but left the link to snuff boxes. It actually goes to Decorative_boxes#Snuff_box, which describes exactly what Heyer was researching. I'm also leaving Paris linked (I could mean Paris, Texas, you know ;)), because the other cities mentioned in the article are linked as well. Thanks for the review! Karanacs (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments I caught a handful of copyedit issues. A few others:

• Suggest linking limited liability company.
• You seem to waver on the issue of serial commas. I couldn't determine whether you meant to use them or not, but you've not been consistent.
• Two images (the Duke of Wellington and the Lancaster coat of arms) - break the subsequent section headers for me. I don't expect everything to be optimized for widescreen, but it looks like each of those images could be moved up a paragraph to avoid this.
• Is there a reason some of the novels are listed out of chronological order in the Romance list?

Thanks for an interesting read - I certainly never would have heard of her otherwise. Maralia (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Maralia, I've made some adjustments to the images. Can you please see if that has fixed the problems you saw? I've also reordered the chronology on the books, and I've audited for commas - I think I've caught most of the issues. Karanacs (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from Dr pda:
  • If the image as mentioned above is a problem, you could always flip it so Georgette is facing the other way :)
  • Macedonia (in the first para) and Jacobites (Marriage, fourth para) link to disambiguation pages
  • Heyer refused to file a lawsuit against the suspected literary thieves - This makes it sound as though there was only one occasion (a single lawsuit), and also that Heyer did not take (or want to take) any action against them, when the Imitators section describes otherwise.
  • Her brother is first referred to as George Boris, but later only as Boris. Would it be worthwhile inserting (known as Boris) after the first occurrence?
  • they were engaged (Marriage, first para). Sounds like someone else engaged them. Became engaged perhaps?
  • Why did Heyer assume financial responsibility for her brothers? Was her mother not still alive?
  • October 1825. Should be 1925
  • The article says the Regency lasted from 1810 to 1820, but British Regency says 1811 to 1820
  • Two sentences later Her Regencies were inspired... sounds a little strange, since we've just had Regency used in the literal sense. Regency as a noun to mean Regency romance also seems a little colloquial to me.
  • her first novel of historical fiction, meaning it gave a fictionalized account of the life of a real person. Historical fiction is not necessarily just a fictionalised biography (of a single person). Also meaning it gave sounds a little too 'dumbed-down', for lack of a better phrase.
  • Also, is -ize US or UK English? (I can never remember) The article consistently uses -ize, though it is about a British subject.
  • so to alleviate Rougier's difficult commute - this sounds like the commute was intrinsically difficult (which is the opposite of what we are told two paragraphs earlier), rather than the result of the Blitz
  • The caption following the coat of arms should identify the arms as being those of John of Lancaster. The caption for the picture of Wellington should possibly have (pictured) too.
  • Richard and Flint raised her two sons... the mixture of first name and surname is a little awkward
  • The 1974 edition ... included ... does not mention - tenses should be consistent. Also, is she in the later editions of the Britannica?
  • Ref 26 doesn't end in a period, ref 37 should be pp, ref 73 should use an ndash since the pages are consecutive, ditto in ref 81
  • The ISBN for Hodge, and the two books in Further reading are hyphenated, but all the rest are not
  • Saraland, AL, for the publication location for Fahnestock-Thomas, but Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for Regis. A minor point perhaps, but using the abbreviation for the state would make them consistent, especially since many of the other references are in Fahnestock-Thomas. Also Philadelphia is linked but Saraland isn't.
• Apart from these, which are all minor points, it's a very nice article. Dr pda (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I am impressed with the level of detail! I believe I've fixed all of the issues with the following exceptions:

• Why did Heyer assume financial responsibility for her brothers? Was her mother not still alive? - Her mother, like most women of the day, did not work. My assumption from reading the sources was that as Heyer was the only one actually making money at the time of her father's death she just kept doing so. I didn't think that worked into the article well and left it out. Do you think it really needs to be there?
• -ize can be used for British spelling, although -ise is more common.
• The online version of the Britannica does not have an article on Heyer. I'm unsure how to source an omission (the one named in the article was mentioned in another source) like that.

Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good now. Re the Britannica I was more thinking that if she was now included it would be worth a mention, but as you say it's hard to prove a negative. (I notice she gets a passing mention under Novel in the online version now.) Re financial responsiblity I think the reason that stood out was because it struck me as unusual for a woman to do so. Also did Heyer then take financial responsibility for her mother as well, if she wasn't earning (though I suppose she could have had some sort of investment/inheritance)?

One other point which I forgot to raise last time: In the second-to-last paragraph of Financial problems it says that Heyer fired her accountants in 1966 and decided to end Heron Enterprises, but the next paragraph begins with her new accountants urging her to abandon the company. When did she decide to end it? Dr pda (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.