Wikipedia:Peer review/Mr. Dooley/archive1

Mr. Dooley

I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd be grateful or feedback before the FAC. Thanks, Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

A few minor comments

• Lead
  • picture caption – it might be as well to indicate in the caption that Dooley is the one on the right
  • "full name Martin J. Dooley" – one knows about Harry S. Truman, but even so, can a name with only a middle initial normally be described as a full name?

It is possible Mr. Dooley's middle name is J. but I doubt that would have gotten by the priest in Roscommon. Adjusted.

• • "proper English" (here and in footnote a) – a touch of value-judgement there, possibly? Perhaps "regular" or "standard"?
• Genesis
  • "barkeep" – a word new to me; it occurs four times. For the benefit of those outside the US you might consider making it "barkeeper" or similar, recognisable in all varieties of English.
• Local man of wisdom (1893–98)
  • "He is suspicious or hostile towards men" – "suspicious towards" seems not quite right; I'd be inclined to add "of" after suspicious"
  • "The fictional Malachi Hennessy, more typical of Bridgeport than McKenna as a laborer with a large family (McKenna was a bachelor), became his replacement" – I got in a tangle with this and needed a couple of goes at it. Perhaps something like, "He was replaced by the fictional Malachi Hennessy, who, as a laborer with a large family, was more typical of Bridgeport than the bachelor McKenna."
• Mr. Dooley in peace (1898–1900)
  • From the context it appears at first sight that the Journal refers to a British publication. It might be clearer if you called it the Chicago Journal here, repetition notwithstanding.
• Slow decline, apparent ending and brief resurrection
  • "Suggested critic Gilbert Seldes of Dooley" – rather an unexpected word order. Something like "Critic Gilbert Seldes suggested of Dooley" might flow more smoothly.
  • "and did not write any more Dooley pieces prior to his death in 1936" – implying, some might feel, that he wrote more pieces after his death.
• Language and technique
  • Not sure we need the duplicate links to Upton Sinclair and The Jungle, though I don't greatly object to them.
• Legacy and remembrance
  • "brought him fame and money, neither of which were enough" – "were" should be "was".
  • "In 1938, The New Republic" – an inconsistency in capitalising, italicizing and piping the definite article in the titles of journals. We have The New Republic here, but the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Times etc earlier.

I assume our articles on the periodicals are correct and follow them, as I have here.

• • "targets that Dooley might skewer" – does one skewer targets?

That's my meagre gleaning of quibbles. I pondered your novel decision to rephrase and part-Anglicise the quotes in your text, printing the ipsissima verba in the notes; the more I pondered the more I thought it wise, and helpful to the reader. I shouldn't be surprised if someone carped about it at FAC, though; if so I'll be glad to rally to its defence. A delightful and hugely readable article. – Tim riley talk 14:22, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thoughtful review. I gave the question you mention some thought and did not come up with a better way. There's no way to put much of the dialect into the text without great risk of sending the reader fleeing.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

At first reading I thought, "Hold on! What's all this?", but the more I read the more I agreed with your editorial decision, and I'll be glad to carry a spear in its defence. After all, we are required by the MoS to translate other languages into English for WP articles, and where exactly does the boundary come between the Queen's (or President's) English and variants of it so variant as to be effectively a foreign tongue, incomprehensible to ordinary English speakers like thee and me? Tim riley talk 13:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)