Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rambles in Germany and Italy/archive1

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 SandyGeorgia 22:53, 30 January 2010 [1].

Rambles in Germany and Italy[edit]

Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Rambles in Germany and Italy/archive1

This article is about a riveting (really!) political travel narrative by Mary Shelley. As usual, I look forward to the polish that the FA process will apply to it. Awadewit (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I peer reviewed this in late 2009 and thought it very ready for FAC then. All of my comments there have been addressed, and I am glad to see the map has been considerably upgraded too. My only quibble is in the alt text Left-looking half-length painted portrait of a slightly pregnant woman in a white dress - I am not sure a woman can be "slightly pregnant" - perhaps "in the early stages of pregnancy" would work better? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful peer review and your support now. Isn't EyeSerene's map wonderful? I thought it worth waiting for that. My cartographical skills are not what they could be. Changed alt text as suggested. Awadewit (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I wanted to say that I have looked at all the images and they all have free licenses and are clearly sourced. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text looks good (thanks), except that the alt text for File:Shelley rambles map.svg does not convey to the visually impaired reader the gist of the map; please see WP:ALT#Maps. I suggest something that says the 1840 trip went from Hastings to Paris, then a great loop east to Coblenz and Frankfurt, south to Milan, west to Lyons, and then back home through Paris, and that the 1842–1843 trip went from Southampton east to Berlin, then south through Prague, Venice, and Rome to Naples. Also, there are several phrases to avoid such as "color photograph of" (particularly the phrase "black-and-white" that's describing an oil painting in colors!), but that's far less important. Eubulides (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the route is described in some detail in the article (see the "Travelling and writing" section), I left that out of the alt text per the instructions at WP:ALT, but I will add it in later today since you think it will help. I tend to write alt text for the sight-impaired and for those viewing Wikipedia without images (such as those reading the articles on a mobile phone in the developing world), so I don't think that indicating colors and media are as irrelevant as others do. Also, I tend to think it is important to indicate the variety of media in the article, but this is simply a difference of opinion. (I'm not sure why you are opposed to the black-and-white description - the image we have is not in color, even if the original was.) Awadewit (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map has new alt text. Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that looks good, and resolves the major issue. (We'll just have to agree to disagree about the words to avoid.) Eubulides (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several opportunities for named refs here. Since I can't imagine you overlooking them, are you against them? • Ling.Nut 09:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am, actually. I find that combined references easily break during the editing process and it is yet another hurdle that new users have to overcome that doesn't really add anything to the article, so I tend to leave them out. If someone wants to add them, I won't revert, but I tend not to add them myself. Awadewit (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, beautifully written and detailed. I can scarcely find any fault with it. I did not find any problems with the images that Eubulides missed; concur that the alt text for the map should concisely describe the routes depicted. --Andy Walsh (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support - I will work on the alt text for the map later today. Awadewit (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map has new alt text. Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support~~Comment~~: Almost worth supporting just for the wonderful map - congratulations for that. ~~I am reading through, and have a few prose niggles from the lead~~: Minor issues follow, all now resolved or in progress. Excellent article.

"In order to assist him financially,..." First two words unnecessary.
"by intervention" jars slighly; "through the", or "with the", perhaps?
The sentence "In so doing, she challenges the early nineteenth-century convention that it was improper for women to write about politics, following in the tradition of Lady Morgan and Mary Wollstonecraft, her mother." To remove the slight ambiguity which suggests that Mary Wollstonecroft might be Lady Morgan's mother I suggest you amend to "her mother, Mary Wollstonecroft, and Lady Morgan".

One other thing: the whole Risorgimento section is covered with citation [3], which turns out to be a triple citation to two authors and three books. Why not subdivide, so that it is apparent which parts of the section are attributable to which sources?

More to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this is the perfect example of a combined ref - this is background information and the bulk of the summary comes from one source. A couple of details come from other others, but to make that totally clear would take about 10 more notes, which would seriously decrease readability for no real gain, since this paragraph is simply context for the topic of the article. Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to simply change sentences like the ones you listed above. If you don't feel comfortable doing so, I'll just wait until you list them all and do them all together, if that's ok. Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Later): I'm not completely convinced by your defence of the citing for the Risorgimento section. It seems that the convenience of the reader is being somewhat overlooked for appearance's sake. But I won't press the point. While reading through I have done as you suggest and made several minor copyedits. I also have a few questions/comments:-

No information is given on the mode of travel for the first journey. For the second journey there is eventually a mention of "railway, carriage and boat", but it's way down the article. Could this information be given earlier?
1842-44 section: Who was Robert Leslie Ellis? Also, the fourth paragraph of this section is not really within the topic of this article, Shelley's book, and could be substantially shortened.
Description of text, Part II: why is the long quote formatted differently from the blockquote format used earlier and later?
History of the travel narrative: I can't work out what the second part of this sentence means: "All aristocratic gentlemen took similar trips and visited similar sites, often devoted to developing an appreciation of Britain from abroad."
Italian politics: "They connected nationalism to their enemy—Napoleonic France." Perhaps, since we're in the 1840s, this should read "historic" enemy. Likewise I found, later in the paragraph, the phrase "supporting Napoleon" a bit anachronistic.
Memory and healing: Could a date be added for History of a Six Weeks' Tour?

These are in general very minor matters and I hope to be supporting soon. Brianboulton (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedits - they are much appreciated.

Do you think the information about mode of travel should go in the "Traveling and writing" section or the "Description of text" section?

Personally, I'd put it in as early as possible. As I tried to visualise the Shelley party on their travels I kept thinking: did they walk (as "rambles" implies)? Did they, like the Mozarts, go by horse and carriage? Were the trains running? - etc. It came as a relief when I saw "railway, carriage and boat", and could have done with this knowledge sooner.

Added. Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found an entry for "Robert Leslie Ellis" in the DNB, but I don't for sure is this is the same person. His bio doesn't say anything about going to Europe at this time and the Shelley materials don't say anything about him.

If you're not sure that the DNB man is your man, you could do an Ealdgyth and say "who was possibly...[whatever the DNB says}". Or you could just add "whose identity is unknown" or similar. Leaving it as it is makes it seem as if we should know who he was.

I'm just not sure this is the best route - the Shelley sources aren't uncertain in this manner. I'm wondering if they assume we will think it is the famous Ellis. I just don't want to insert an uncertainty (e.g. "unknown identity") where there isn't one. Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Gatteschi material is within the scope of the article, as she wrote the book to help him and the subsequent disaster was partially a result of writing the book. For Shelley, this book was largely about her political views on Italy, of which this incident was a key part. I generally don't like to divorce the book from the history of its composition and publication. However, I am, of course, open to suggestions to shorten it while still retaining the general gist of the paragraph. What would you suggest cutting exactly?

I do understand Gatteschi's relevance, it's just that I found the level of detail in this paragraph distracting. I will give thought to how it might be reduced.

The blockquote in Part II is next to an image - without that formatting, the quote would be flush against the image and not indented.

Ah, these technical niceties!

"often devoted to developing an appreciation of Britain from abroad". Men who took the Grand Tour were supposed to appreciate Britain from a different perspective than those living in Britain - they were supposed to look at it from a more cosmopolitan perspective - does that make sense?

If you replaced "often devoted to" with "with the intention of", and said "as seen from abroad", the meaning would be clear.

Done. Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to fix anachronism.

Fine now.

Added date the first time the text is mentioned.

Fine now

Thanks for you careful attention! Awadewit (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm switching to support, since the outstanding issues are easily fixable, when you are ready. Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support - see the above fixes. Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Would you object to me adding an infobox? The Ministry (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would. Infoboxes on book articles tend to repeat information found in the lead, making them redundant. Also, they add a lot of extra code at the top of the article, which discourages new users from editing. I hope you don't mind that I've restored the photograph to the lead image. Since it is in color, it is much more eye-catching than the title page. Readers will be more attracted to colorful page (sad, but true). If the title page were more exciting, I would fully endorse putting it at the top of the article. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could go either way on the Infobox thing.. but for The Illusional Ministry, here's a rule to live by through thick and thin: Arts and Lit people Hate Infoboxes.. There you go. For free, even. :-) • Ling.Nut 02:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I don't hate infoboxes per se. I think they are really useful in articles about planets and chemical elements, for example, but books just can't be easily and usefully categorized the same way. Awadewit (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for dragging us off-topic.• Ling.Nut 02:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full Support

I read this article in one of its incarnations last summer, relating to my work on German unification. I thought then it was a fantastic article, and would have supported it at the time. Now, it is even better: fantastic map, lovely, lyrical prose with a wonderful cadence. No distractions (i.e. info boxes ;) )and all around it is a fantastic article. Awedewit dealt then with my quibbles about the article, and since then she has made it even better. Not passing this would be shooting ourselves in the foot. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind comments and support! Awadewit (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support - I wish we had more literature articles of this standard. The Ministry (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and the compliment! Awadewit (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support for 1a.

Overlinking: I've cleansed it. Catholic was linked countless times; so was "Italy", etc., and pilgrimmage. These are dictionary words, and in most cases have more specific links in the text, anyway. "Italian language" is piped with "Tuscan Italian"—so Tuscan Italian became the modern Italian language, I guess. "Sublime" pipes "Sublime (philosophy)". Is her use of "sublime" in this sense? I wonder whether the word should be in quotes (if it's hers). It was linked three times, as though to hammer home a point.

I've restored some the links you removed. For example, picturesque, sentimentality, and Sublime (philosophy), are all links to literary terms that had a specific meaning during the 18th and 19th centuries that readers will probably not be familiar with. I see, for example, that you were unsure of her use of "sublime" - that is precisely why it was linked. Shelley is using sublime in the philosophical sense - she is following in the Burkean tradition (see his A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful). Many writers during the 18th century and early 19th century use this word, so it is not necessary to quote it, in my opinion, as it is not extra special to Shelley. The reason I linked it so many times is because it has such a specific meaning, however I have just linked it once now. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the spacing of the ellipsis points.

Thank you. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the large white space beneath the Corregio is unavoidable. Tony (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other option is to have the quote flush against the image. Awadewit (talk) 02:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support - any time to read dissertation chapters? ;) Awadewit (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note I will be in the hospital for the next three days. I am unsure if I will have internet access. Awadewit (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back from the hospital. Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to delegates: The outstanding points per my review, above, are not in my view substantial enough to delay the article's promotion, if a consensus exists. They can easily be settled afterwards. Brianboulton (talk) 11:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I peer-reviewed this in ~~December~~ November and said, "This beautifully written article was a great pleasure to read and will sail through FAC, I am certain." I haven't changed my mind. Finetooth (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and kind words, my friendly comb! :) Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I glanced at the article when it was first nominated and found it to be impressive. Now, with a full reading, I see a well developed and nicely written piece about an often overlooked author. Happy to support. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Truthkeeper! It's wonderful how much attention this article is getting! Imagine what will happen when I finally get around to writing up Frankenstein! Awadewit (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit, why do you dislike named refs? They would really shorten the notes (pls check my punc addition in the infobox). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see response above. I don't think short notes are better than easier to edit notes. I've removed the period you added to the caption - there is no period in the original. Awadewit (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks ... I saw one really messy quote in there (punctuation), but it was an exact quote, so don't see how to demessify it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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