Yes, your eyes do not deceive you: yet another Jane Austen production, this time conceived by an American, written by its main star (an English woman), and directed by a native of Taiwan. This one, generally considered to be one of the top three best Austen adaptations of all time, has been a labor of love for over two years now. Currently a GA, I finally believe that it has reached the level of an FA. It has been helped along by a copy-edit and peer review, and I've also learned lessons from my last successful FA, Pride & Prejudice. Hopefully this one's not too far away – thank you all in advance for your comments! Ruby2010/2013 02:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that this was clearly a very well-prepared candidate but has failed to get any comments, so here is a review. =) It's a great film, and this is a really great article. I'm finding it a pleasure to read through: the prose is lively and engaging, everything flows very well, it is thoroughly researched, and amazingly comprehensive (while not feeling bloated). To be honest I could probably support in its current state, but I've managed to come up with a pretty long list of comments anyway (maybe they could be moved to the talk page?). They are suggestions for improvement, but if you disagree with any of them just let me know. I also made a few copy-edits as I read through: feel free to revert any you aren't keen on.
Good point; I've added some more content from the themes section. Ruby2010/2013 05:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I've read it and it seems excellent, but I'll come back up give comments when I've read the whole article to check it gives appropriate coverage.
Update: Yep, excellent. My only comment is that there's not much mention of the "Themes and analysis" stuff (which I found pretty interesting). It could fit in quite easily with the start of para 3, ie "Thompson's screenplay made changes to the novel in an effort to make it more relatable to modern audiences..." and slip in a bit more there, along with the wealth stuff (you could probably phrase it better than that though, I just wrote it quickly without much thought). I won't insist on this though, the lead is a great introduction to the film and summary of the article.
Perfectly summarises the film.
Conception and adaptation
I don't think the brief plot summary is needed here (we've just had the plot, after all)
The quote from Doran on why she loves the book might be nice in a quotebox?
I see your point, but I'd like to avoid burdening the article with too many alternative images/quotebox, if possible (a quotebox there would mess with the alignment of Thompson's image below). Ruby2010/2013 05:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
"The producer spent ten years looking for a suitable screenwriter" - This is confusing, because we've just been told that Doran suggested the film in 1989 (which doesn't give her ten years before the film comes out). I presume that she was already a producer and already making plans for the film before her appointment at Mirage, but it needs clarifying.
Yes, she had wanted to make the film long before her hire at Mirage. I tweaked the sentence to say Prior to her hire at Mirage, the producer had spent years looking for a suitable screenwriter... -- I took out the "ten" because I'm not sure of the exact timeline and don't want to get it wrong. Let me know if it still needs work. Ruby2010/2013 23:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
"A week after Thompson and Doran wrapped production on Mirage's 1991 film Dead Again" - Would be nice to state outright that they were already working together, ie, "Thompson and Doran were already working together on Mirage's 1991 film Dead Again; a week after its completion, the producer selected Thompson..."
Good suggestion; done Ruby2010/2013 05:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
"her draft received some critical feedback for the way it presented Willoughby and Edward." - From who?
I predicted this would be an issue! It is from her production diaries; if I recall she was rather vague about who gave the feedback. I will see if I can get my hands on the book again and check what she said. Ruby2010/2013 23:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
"Doran later recalled that people noted it didn't really "start until Willoughby arrives," with Edward side-lined as "backstory"." Slightly clumsy phrasing, and I'm not keen on putting such simple comments in quotations. Suggest paraphrasing ("backstory" can surely stay without quotes). Also, get rid of that contraction!
Hopefully it looks better now! :) Ruby2010/2013 23:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
"Thompson believed that Austen was just as comprehensible in a different century, "You don't think people are still concerned with marriage, money, romance, finding a partner? Jane Austen is a genius who appeals to any generation." - Her quote could be cut; I think the first part of the sentence is sufficient.
"she felt that Lee's involvement prevented the film from becoming "just some little English movie" that appealed only to "audiences in Devon" instead of to "the whole world."" - More over-quoting. The last parts could easilly be paraphrased.
Is there any way the section heading could also indicate at the hiring of Lee (since there's a fair bit of info on that here, which doesn't really come under either "conception" or "adaptation".) Or it could even have its own subsection?
She is an English professor and Austen scholar Ruby2010/2013 03:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Personally I'm not sure what "fashion plates" are? If it's an obvious term and I'm just being a dunce then leave it, but it may be worth using a different term (or is there a suitable article we could link to?)
That was the term the source used and I've found an article about them, which is now wikilinked to in the S&S article. Good suggestion, as I'm sure many readers would also be unfamiliar with them (I know I was). Ruby2010/2013
It might just be me, but I found the stuff about Brandon's wedding costume a bit unnecessary.
"After Willoughby publicly rejects Marianne, he returns to a more lavishly furnished room, a symbol of the wealth she has lost access to." - Not really sure of the relevance of this comment?
I've tweaked the sentence a bit; let me know if that helped or if you think it should still be scrapped. Ruby2010/2013 05:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
"where Winslet and Jones shot the first scene of the production together reading about Barton Cottage" - Bit clumsy; suggest something like (if I'm understanding it correctly) "..shot the first scene of the production: when their characters read about Barton Cottage."
Tweaked per your suggestion. Ruby2010/2013 03:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
"Thompson also experienced intense back pain on the final days of filming and was treated with acupuncture and Indocid." - Probably not notable enough to mention.
Agreed, removed (she discussed the substantial pain in a few pages of her production diaries, and I thought it was worth a mention, but in hindsight probably not). Ruby2010/2013 05:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm gonna take a break there - I'll try and finish up later today. --Lobo(talk) 11:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your thorough comments! I read them briefly earlier today during some downtime and largely agree with them. Funnily enough, I was going to review your Julianne Moore article but ran out of time before I went on holiday for the weekend. I will respond to your comments and review your FAC, hopefully tomorrow. Ruby2010/2013 03:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey! I really wanted to finish this today but I'm afraid I won't be able to. Sorry to leave it hanging, I'll try and make sure it's done tomorrow. Changes so far look good! --Lobo(talk) 18:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
No worries! I believe I have now replied to all of your suggestions. I have followed most of them, but there are a few I need to double check on (I don't have immediate access to Thompson's production diaries). Ruby2010/2013 03:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay picking up where I left off...
"..has been described as a "restricted compass ... of emotion" .." - Attribute the quote.
The comments from Lee on the songs - I'm guessing they are covered by the following reference, but I'd recommend duplicated the ref right after the quote, just so it's absolutely clear where it comes from.
"The character of Brandon also sustains alterations; Thompson's screenplay has his storyline directly mirroring Willoughby's..." - I'm guessing this was to help us understand why Marianne is able to fall in love with him? If so, that's worth mentioning outright.
Oops, missed this one. I've added something to this effect, which is sourced from Stovel (2011); it now says "The character of Brandon also sustains alterations; to gradually show viewers why Brandon is worthy of Marianne's love, Thompson's screenplay has his storyline directly mirroring Willoughby's..."Ruby2010/2013 05:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Marketing and release
"To gain the greatest benefit of the publicity surrounding Academy Award nominees, the film's release was timed to coincide with "Oscar season." Sense and Sensibility's release saw several brief increases both when the nominees were announced and during the time of the ceremony in late March." - Hmm this is all a bit problematic to me. Firstly, it should say "potential nominees", because the nominees aren't announced until late January. Secondly, it currently sounds like they released the film in Oscar season to benefit from the publicity afforded to other nominees (or potential nominees), whereas I'm sure they released it at that time to try and get some nominations themselves! And then they did get nominated, so its a bit strange not to mention that when talking about the increase in distribution. I do think you probably meant to communicate this already but it's not all that clear: basically, you want to say that they released the film in Oscar season to increase their chance at getting nominations (and because a lot of attention is paid to films in this time), and because they knew that if the film was still in cinemas when it was nominated (and when the ceremony took place), that would get them more viewers. It might also be worth mentioning that this is pretty standard procedure for Oscar-hunting films (just simply, ie, "In line with the typical marketing procedure for a film seeing award nominations...")
Hmmm... I see your point about the "potential" nominees and mentioning its nominations, and have edited the article accordingly. Concerning the timing of the release, they saw the film as a potential Oscar contender and planned its release accordingly. (pages 155 & 157 from Higson (2011) explain). Having inputted the first two changes, hopefully the article does a better job conveying this. :) Ruby2010/2013 03:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
"..and it has landed on more than one hundred top-ten lists." This implies "top ten of all time" lists, whereas I'm sure the source is saying top-ten of the year (the whole paragraph is very much talking about 1995). I've tweaked it to say this.
Phew, done! Despite this huge list of comments I am honestly very impressed with the article. Congrats Ruby, you should feel very pleased with yourself. :) --Lobo(talk) 19:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. This deserves to be a featured article. One of my comments (under themes) has been missed (accidentally, I'm sure) and you may not have seen that I updated my "Lead" comments, but I'm still happy to support at this point. I do think it would be nice to add a little bit of the "analysis" content to the lead, since I found it interesting, but it's up to you. Also, it occurred to me that there isn't a "Home media" section. But I notice that there is one in your Pride & Prejudice FA, which makes me think there's probably reason this article doesn't have one? I won't make a hoo-haa about it since it's not essential information (as far as I'm concerned), but I just thought I'd mention it anyway. --Lobo(talk) 20:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you again for giving such a thorough review and for your support! I actually dislike home media sections and try to avoid writing them if possible, as I don't think they add much to a film article. If you like though, I can write up a quick paragraph (mainly that the VHS was released in 1996 and the DVD came out in 1999, with special features). Otherwise I think all of your other comments have been addressed. Ruby2010/2013 05:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
File:Sense_and_Sensibility_Thompson_dress.jpg: what is the copyright status of the costume design itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm... I'm not really sure (probably Columbia Pictures). If it's too much of an issue I can remove it (perhaps in favor of a screenshot depicting more of the characters, as I did in the Pride & Prejudice article?) Ruby2010/2013 05:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
If the status is unclear and can't be clarified, that would probably be a safer route. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I've removed it. Thanks, Ruby2010/2013 18:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
This looks a well-constructed and nicely presented article, much in the style of the same nominator's featured Pride & Prejudice (2005 film). Unfortunately, I have some online access issues over the next few days, which means my review comments may be slow in coming. May I request that the delegates don't close this until I've had the chance to complete a review? Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Later: OK, I still have to look at the later sections, from "Music" onwards, but most of my comments are here. I have made minor changes to the text as I went along, rather than make this list longer. My original impression that this is a good-quality film article has been generally confirmed, and with only a small amount of work it will be ready for promotion. Here are my individual points to date:
General prose issue: over-use of "due to". I have fixed most of these.
I see that there are three "due to"s left; do you think I should tweak them further? Ruby2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
"Lee approached filming from different perspectives than his cast and crew, resulting in culture shock before the actors grew to trust Lee's instincts." Isn't "culture shock" rather overstating the case? The cast and crew obviously had to adjust to Lee's approach, and some may have experienced difficulties with this, but "culture shock" is a pretty severe way of putting this. The cod psychology in the linked article is not helpful, either. All in all, I am not convinced that this issue of adjustment is important enough to be mentioned in the lead. I see in the main text this has been described as "slight cultural shock", which is more acceptable, and reinforces my point that this was not a big deal.
"Slight culture shock" is how Thompson described it in her production diaries and it seems important enough to leave in the article. I agree that it probably isn't needed for the lead, however. I've removed it. Ruby2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
"instead of another..." is explained later, but is slightly distracting here.
I've edited it to She chose to adapt this particular Austen work because ...Ruby2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
"Thompson spent five years writing and revising the screenplay..." – four years mentioned in the lead.
Thanks for catching that; there was a slight discrepancy in the sourcing that led me to change it from four to five, but I forgot the lead. Fixed now. Ruby2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
"Some of the criticism, Doran later recalled, held that it did not really beginning until Willoughby's arrival". Something wrong here, probably "beginning → begin", but even that does not clarify what "it" is.
Changed to Some of the criticism, Doran later recalled, held that the story did not really begin until Willoughby's arrival, with Edward side-lined as backstory. Ruby2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
In what sense was Amanda Root "the fifth actor"? You have just named five in the previous sentence.
Have changed to "sixth"; Thompson mentioned that Lee hired five of the actors in her production diaries (without mentioning Root), and I learned in a later source that this grouping included her. My error for forgetting to adjust the number. Thanks, Ruby2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
"Wise and Thompson met on the set and later married." Unnecessary trivia, unrelated to the subject, unencyclopedic – OK for a movie magazine article.
"Brandon's "flattering" costumes help appeal him to the audience". In the lead I changed this use of the "appeal" verb; you cannot "appeal" someone to an audience. You could say: "help his appeal to the audience".
Have changed it per your recommendation. Ruby2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I think WP practice is that dollars are assumed to be US unless otherwise stated.
Thanks, have removed "US". Ruby2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
What is a "cross-over" hit?
Higson (2011) writes that "...what the American companies were increasingly interested in was those films that managed to cross over from the specialised or art-house market into the multiplexes." (Essentially, a film that appeals to multiple types of audiences; he gives Harry Potter as another example). I've hopefully clarified this a bit more in the article. Ruby2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Consistency is needed in how numbers greater than 10 are represented. In the "Locations" section, for example, we have "fifty=eight", "sixty-five" and "50". There are similar inconsistencies elsewhere.
I believe I've edited all but those in the Marketing and Release section; what is the standard on large numbers like $721,341? Ruby2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Nevermind, I've read WP:ORDINAL and see that large numbers like that are fine. Ruby2010/2013 19:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
General point: Quote boxes can have more presentational impact with a lightly-coloured background (I'll do this for you if you like)
I've made them slightly yellow; how do they look now? Ruby2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll be back soon with the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for reviewing, Brian! Your comments were truly helpful; hopefully I've gotten them all. Ruby2010/2013 19:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
My further comments
"Stifled" is not a musical term. I imagine that it is Doyle's own description of what he wrote, but it is unclear what he meant. Since a fuller description of the music follows, I would drop this term.
The formulation "has been noted" invariably raises the question "by whom?"
I've now attributed this to Louise Flavin, a noted Austen scholar. Thanks, Ruby2010/2013 04:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
"Audience members are meant to view self-restrained Elinor as the person in need of reform, rather than her impassioned sister." Whose opinion is being given here?
Also Flavin here; I've added a semicolon to make this a bit more clear. Ruby2010/2013 04:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
"Tracing its origin to the BBC's unsuccessful 1986 Austen adaptation Northanger Abbey..." The "it" in this sentence is presumably "fusion adaptation", but the sentence goes on to talk about the characteristics of Lee's production, which rather confuses the issue. To clarify the position I would rearrange the sentence: "Linda Troost discussed the "fusion adaptation" – a mixture of Hollywood style with the British heritage film genre, designed to appeal to a wide range of viewers – which originated with the BBC's unsuccessful 1986 Austen adaptation Northanger Abbey. Troost noted that..." etc
"it opened in eleventh place" – eleventh place in what rankings?
I'm not sure what is unclear here; it opened in eleventh place in the box office (behind ten other films)? Perhaps I'm missing something? Ruby2010/2013 04:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
You need to specify that it opened in eleventh place in terms of box office takings. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I've inputted your wording ("in terms of box office takings"). Thanks, Ruby2010/2013 17:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The Pride and Prejudice to which you refer was a TV series. not a film. It was broadcast by the BBC in September/October 1995; it was not "released" as the text suggests. The wording should reflect this.
I've changed to "broadcast". Ruby2010/2013 04:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
"Because the entire production cycle had consistently emphasised it as being "bigger" than a normal British period drama literary film, distributors avoided labelling it as 'just another English period film.'" Is it conceivable that distributors would, in any conceivable circumstances, have labelling their film in such dismissive terms? I suggest you look at this sentence again.
I'd prefer to see the Daily Mail described as a "populist newspaper" rather than a "media outlet".
"...a sum that was considered a commercial success". The sum reflected the success – it was not itself the success. Also, I don't like the "that was considered" formulation; why not "a sum that reflected the film's commercial success"?
"Walter conveys sour bitchiness..." As you haven't mentioned Harriet Walter since the "Casting" section long ago, I'd quite forgotten who "Walter" was. Suggest add a parenthetical [Harriet] into the quote.
"Between 1995 and 1996, six Austen adaptations were ultimately released onto film or television". There is no time "between" 1995 and 1996, and the word "ultimately" is superfluous. Thus: "In 1995 and 1996, six Austen adaptations were released onto film or television". However, I have some difficulty in identifying them all. There was an Emma film with Gwynneth Paltrow in 1996, and a TV Emma that same year. That makes five – unless you are counting Clueless, which is stretching it a bit!
Yes (alas), the source (Parrill) does include Clueless, in addition to the two productions of Emma (film and television), Persuasion, Sense and Sensibility, and Pride and Prejudice. Ruby2010/2013 04:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Further to that, you later say: "As the mid-1990s included four Austen adaptations..."
My mistake; I meant that four Austen novels had been adapted. I've edited this accordingly. Ruby2010/2013 04:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's correct to say that "Davies also cast actors closer to the ages in the source material", or indeed to refer to "Davies' production". He was the screenwriter, not the producer or director.
True, but Davies has the most name recognition (and consequently was featured in more news articles about the production than the director (John Alexander) or the producer (Anne Pivcevic). I've removed the second and third mentions of Davies, however, and tried to make it a bit less about him. Ruby2010/2013 04:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
And that is about it. I will end with one gripe about the "Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility" navbox at the foot of the article. What information does this give, relevant to the film, that is not included in the article? It gives the names of certain spin-off films and novels, but these are nothing whatever to do with this film. So what is the justification for keeping the box?
Sorry to end on a grumpy note. The article is in pretty good shape, and I am confident it will soon be promoted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I didn't think you were acting grumpy at all, merely very perceptive! :) About the navbox, I think it is useful for containing quick and easy links, especially for those unable or unwilling to read the full article. Of course, I'm not that attached to it and would be willing to remove it if you're set against it. Otherwise, I believe I have now addressed all of your concerns. Thanks very much (again) for reviewing! Ruby2010/2013 04:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
If you remove the navbox it is 99 percent certain that someone will re-add it. I have removed one item from the template ("chaperone") – though some idiot will probably add that back, too. The box is a ragbag of links to do with the novel, some to do with the film. I can't see how it improves anyone's knowlege of the film, but it is hidden, so we may as well leave it. Good work in responding positively to all these points. Well worth an FA.
As I prophesied, someone has indeed added the chaperone back. Not worth bothering about, though. Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose some are attached to it. My (minor) objection to its addition would only be because the chaperone article is in such bad shape. Perhaps I'll make it a future project of mine... Ruby2010/2013 05:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Support: A fine article offering an excellent account of this important film. All review issues patiently and conscientiously resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that someone will eventually re-add the navbox, though it is better than it used to be (all of the novels and adaptations used to be on one central template, which was rather large and unwieldy).
Thanks very much for the support! The article is definitely better off due to your comments. Ruby2010/2013 17:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
OpposeSupport Almost every part of this article is excellent, except for the "Themes and analysis" section. The article is well-written and well-organized and every other section is thorough and well-researched. I greatly enjoyed reading the article and learned much about the film. However, the "Themes and analysis" section needs some expansion. I would suggest subheaders such as "Money" or "Gender", for example. There is quite a bit of information earlier in the article about how Thompson tried to write about family dynamics and economics that should be in the "Themes" section. Also, much of the themes section is written from the perspective of what is or is not taken from the novel. The last paragraph of the section, which gets into the meat of the themes of the actual film, needs to be dramatically expanded. Many of those sentences would be hard for the average reader to understand and using a few more sources to flesh out these ideas would make this a far better article. I see no reason why, after this section has been revised, I would not support this article. Wadewitz (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for weighing in. I knew going in that there was a lot of literature analyzing this film, and I had to be selective about what I chose to include. I understand your concern however, and will get to bolstering up the section tomorrow. Ruby2010/2013 23:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm still adding in small tweaks, but how does it look now? I've moved some of the content from the "conception and adaptation" section, and have bolstered/added in some other views on the film's theme of class. The gender section is a bit smaller, but I'm wary of bloating it further, as the analysis section is already rather large. Thoughts? Ruby2010/2013 05:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is much better. I think one way to improve it would be to remove the names of the books where the material was published as readers don't really care about that info. You might also think about renaming the section because it isn't all "Scholarly analysis" and also you could draw on some reviews to discuss the satire in the film, which would allow you to expand the gender section and address the style and tone of the film, two topics not really covered in much depth in the article. Wadewitz (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for reviewing and supporting. I've edited the section header and removed the names of the scholarly works, per your recommendations. I've also added a bit more on gender to the section, though oddly I've had difficulty finding much on Thompson's translation of Austen's sense of irony or the film's style. One would think this would be a prominent topic for scholars/writers. I'll try looking in a few more available sources. Ruby2010/2013 05:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Note for delegates, this article currently has three supports but is in need of a source review. Thanks, Ruby2010/2013 19:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
This is not a full review, but I will say that the lead appears fully correct, the images are used correctly, the article seems very thorough, and every important statement is sourced.
Some of the books in the Bibliography have page numbers specified, while others do not. (In any case, the exact pages for each reference are given in the references section.) Is there a reason some have pages and others don't?
I believe I've fixed up the bibliography for consistency. The edited books (with multiple authors) have the pages of their specific chapter; the books without page numbers simply means the author wrote everything in said book. Hopefully this is made a bit more clear in the article. Ruby2010/2013 02:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, okay! That makes perfect sense. The bibliography is now consistent in this (but see one late addition, below). – Quadell(talk) 13:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Most of the links to online versions of book text are appropriate and helpful. But both times that Pucci and Thompsons "Jane Austen and Co" is referenced (once for a chapter by Dobie and once for a chapter by Thompson), the link given is to the same less-than-helpful snippet view. Shouldn't the link, if given, be specific for the reference? The same is true for both listings for chapters of Arp et. al's "The Philosophy of Ang Lee."
I've done a complete overhaul of the URLs; they now either link to the cited chapter in an edited book or link to the main description page within Google Books. None of them lead to snippet reviews on my computer, so perhaps that is just yours? Ruby2010/2013 02:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Spotchecks I checked references 1, 13, 29, 87, 101, 129, 136, and 153. In every case, the statement was fully supported by the source, and in no case was there any hint of plagiarism. However reference 152 (Michael Dwyer in the Irish Times) is a dead link.
The Dwyer link is not showing up as dead in mine; it's possible that this is a Highbeam issue. I know they were having technical difficulties earlier today. Ruby2010/2013 02:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I see it now too. It must have been "dead" for only a brief time yesterday. – Quadell(talk) 13:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Late addition: It looks to me like the page numbers are wrong for Pidduck's chapter of The Postcolonial Jane Austen. I'm seeing the chapter from page 123 to somewhere around 147.
You're absolutely right, good catch. Not sure what happened there but it's now been fixed to pp=123–146. Thanks, Ruby2010/2013 17:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Other than that, everything looks good. – Quadell(talk) 20:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
All source issues have been fixed. – Quadell(talk) 18:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks very much for reviewing, Quadell! Let me know if there are any other issues. Ruby2010/2013 02:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Support. After carefully reviewing the entire article, I've decided to formally review it. I find it to be thorough, complete, and well-organized. The prose is very good, and the MOS is followed throughout. I see no reason it shouldn't be featured. – Quadell(talk) 18:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)