Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Drapier's Letters/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 not promoted 01:10, 15 April 2008.

---

The Drapier's Letters

• Self-nominator: All sources are academic and from scholars who are highly regarded in the field of Swift studies. There is only one picture, because there were no illustrations provided with the original. Very little isn't directly cited. The article deals primarily with the work at hand. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the lead

• The lead does not provide adequate context for "Swift was able to inspire the popular sentiment against Wood and his patent" Who is Wood? Patent for what? Why would Swift want to inspire people against it?Addressed
• "immortalizes" is a WP:PEACOCK word
• Does the "Smith, Sophie. Dean Swift" source support the claim of "most important of Swift's "Irish tracts"" TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Addressed

1. The picture along with the lead sure provides such context, and context is part of the article, not part of a lead. Hence why there are "background" sections of articles. Also, the first paragraph verifies and provides adequate context to negate your criticism that there is no context. 2. Immortalizes is completely appropriate for such an article, especially seeing as how poems, books, and statues were made in honor of Swift's contributions to Irish independence. 3. and yes, Sophie Smith does those things. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And RedPen - immortalizes means to "make immortal", i.e. Ireland is turned into a goddess. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1)There is no context for who 'Wood' is (he is not even provided with a first name)or what his 'patent' is or what the 'patent' has to do with Swift writing this document. Any 'background' included in the lead needs to make sense to the reader - and this doesn't. Addressed

2)per PEACOCK: "Examples include describing people as "important" or "among the greatest" in their field without explaining why. Peacock terms often reflect unqualified opinion, and usually do not help establish the significance of an article. They should be especially avoided in the lead section." "The first example simply tells the reader that the Brazilian economy is important. The second example shows the reader that it is. Show, don't tell." You have provided only original reasearch that "The 1735 Works of Jonathan Swift, collected and edited by George Faulkner, immortalizes the praise and thanks issued by the Irish people through allegory upon its title page." TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Rewrote the intro to make it clear who the patent belonged to. 2. Peacock does not apply to the word "immortalizes" nor are you using the sense of the word properly. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying Wood.

PEACOCK is perfectly applicable. The sentance in the lead makes a claim of 'immortalization' - which you stated is supported by the fact that "poems, books, and statues were made in honor of Swift's contributions to Irish independence" - however, per "Show, don't tell" the fact of the of the poems books and statues should be mentioned - not the interpretation that those artificats have 'immortalized' Swift.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the sentence states "Works of Jonathan Swift, collected and edited by George Faulkner, immortalizes". This is in relation to the title page, i.e. turning the moment into divine experience. This is clear. This is concise. And the illustration to the side is the picture in which Faulkner immortalized the actual event. Your use of "peacock" shows that you do not understand how the word is used as a verb, nor does it pertain to this article. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is the frontise piece illustration in 'Collected Works' as you state here or the poems and statues you state above, the word 'immortalizes' is a PEACOCK word that, if used, needs to be from a direct quote of a Reliable Source who has made that analysis, not a Wikipedia editor. (see WP:SYN.) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you strike your comment until you learn the difference between adjectives (what Peacock is about) and verbs (what Peacock is not about) and that synthesis is not about describing actions, but on positions. Please do not try to Wikilawyer and throw around terms that you do not understand their proper meanings. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Un-indent: I am completely serious. Peacock words deal with adjectives to make the word noun the adjective modifies to seem grandier than it actually is. This is a verb, and when you turn something into an allegorical goddess, the appropriate verb is "immortalize". See here. If you feel that such is inappropriate, the second use verifies the first and the aptness to describing such: "be or provide a memorial to a person or an event". The event is, as captioned, Ireland bestowing favor to Swift. The Horace quote plays off of this, i.e. "monument" and "brass". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

1) "Peacock words deal with adjectives" Where in WP:PEACOCK to you see that PEACOCK is limited to adjectives?

2) "As the caption states" is WP editors' work, (other than the latin which makes no claims of Ireland being a goddess). Without reliable source providing the analysis that the woman in the illustration is a) a goddess, b) Ireland c) handing a paper that symbolizes thanks and priase - you have SYN. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The caption is to the picture itself on the picture itself. Furthermore, your claims are argumentative and not in the spirit of Wikipedia nor do they show respect to this process. If you want to challenge the background and basis of the picture, I suggest you challenge Wikicommons over it. Now, for Peacock. Here is standard English: "Examples include describing people". Notice the word "describing". "Describing" words are adjectives, see here. Furthermore, verbs are not "unqualified opinion". Now, if you still have problem with this, I can take you through the list and cite from the dictionary how each word is used as an adjective. Furthermore, your idea of the word as a Peacock term does not represent a consensus, thus, your use here is inappropriate. I suggest you reread what the Feature Articles review is about and stop following me across various pages and edits. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor, wikicommons editor, image uploder - it doesnt matter - none are qualified as reliable sources to make analysis. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I inserted a ref to an article that states it is Ireland thanking him in the picture. If you do not understand how a physical manifestation of a country would be deemed a "goddess" in terms of "allegory", then that cannot be helped. Now, "immortalizes" is a proper term for making a painting about a subject and also for turning the praise into an image about divinity. However, you are being extremely argumentative at this point. Feature article requests do not deal with captions of pictures that are taken from Wikicommons. So, if you have a problem, go there. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Much of the article is missing citations in a few key places at ends of paragraphs, making it seem like there is some WP:OR violations present. Also, the References subsection should be broken apart into "Notes" and then "References" per WP:LAYOUT, it will make it much easier to go back and forth and check sources. Cirt (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no "notes" used, so that is N/A. Fixed citations. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that part looks good as far as citations. I still think that, as per WP:LAYOUT, the article should have two separate sections for the "Notes", first, and then the "References". Cirt (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, are you specifically referring to: 'Ehrenpreis challenges Ferguson's characterization of Swift as not actually caring about an investigation on p. 305' as belonging in a seperate 'Notes' section? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, lacking discussion/analysis - The article seems to be missing something at the end - some sort of Reception or Legacy section where secondary sources analyze the impact of these works on later writings. The article seems to be merely descriptive, a historical accounting listing events in a chronological factual manner. Writing is fine, just that it'd be nice to have some more commentary/analysis/discussion of the "The Drapier's Letters" by secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There is also a bit of awkward wording throughout, and generalizations where there should be attribution. Examples: "Some say...", "Others say...", "Many critics said..." - Instead, directly attribute who said what in those sentences, instead of speaking in these generalized terms. Cirt (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be a little difficult to have reception or legacy at the end, since each of the 7 letters were issued separately, and their immediate impact/history of events is mentioned in their individual sections. There needs to be a Wood's Halfpence controversy page in order to discuss the accounts of the whole issue, which the Drapier's Letters were only one piece. Swift was honored for his writing, but, if you know Irish history, he didn't accomplish much. And on the vagueness of the critics, those citations refer to the trend opinion in Swift research, so its a critical consensus, unless it says "some critics" then it is talking about a particular view not held by all. They aren't opinions held by the critic cited, but they are opinions acknowledged and argued about the whole critical community held in those works. It would be disrespectful to attribute something to, say, Ehrenpreis, when he acknowledges the idea coming from others. I hope that makes sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added a publication section and a reception section. Does that adequately cover your concerns? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 20:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• the Sophie Smith Dean Swift ref (current ref 3) is lacking a page number and publisher information
• What is the Letters to Ford ref? Is it the Prose Works one? Or another one?
• Current ref 24 (the "Swift, William Wood, ...) is lacking publication date, and is Treadwell the author? If so, probably should be formatted to put the author first like the other references
• Current ref 25 (Drapier's Letters ed. Herbert Davis) is lacking publisher information
• Current ref 29 is lacking a page number
• Current ref 33 History of St Patrick's Cathedral is lacking publisher information and date. Probably should be formated to put the author first like the other references
• Current ref 46 Life of Jonathan Swift vol. ii by Sir Henry Craik is lacking publisher information and date of publication. Probably should format to put the author first like the other references
• Current ref 50 is an ibid. Per WP:Cite we don't use ibid because when another editor comes along and edits, it's very easy for the footnote to be moved around and no longer apply to the correct footnote.Same for current ref 65.
• Current ref 54 (Henry Downs letter) is lacking publisher information for the volume of collected letters
• Current ref 70 is lacking a page number

Fixed for the most part, working on ibids now. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed ibids. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Something borked. Take a look at it right now? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

One of the tags needed to have an "s". Wikipedia is finicky. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Links were fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This article isn't ready yet, in my view. A couple of brief comments...
  • I completely agree that the use of "immortalizes" in the lead is inappropriate.
  • There's much contradiction and inconsistency. Rather importantly, this includes whether or not the government in question is English or British.
  • Rather too much NPOV. E.g. (though I've changed this) the article stated that Swift "makes clear" that the Irish deserve independence.
  • It needs a thorough copy-edit for grammar and typos. Again, I've done a bit of this.
  • Often I find the prose simply unclear.
  • An example: "Banners and signs was put up recognizing Swift as the Drapier and images, such as the Drapier comparing his campaign to David fighting against Goliath, became a popular theme to express their approval." OK, the grammar mistake (was for were) can be fixed easily enough, though again this is far from the only example. But the sense is also unclear. Are these images in which the draper himself compares his campaign to David vs. Goliath, or are they simply images that do them comparing themselves? The grammar seems to suggest the former, but it's unclear and (to me) unlikely. Likewise "images ... became a popular theme to express their approval." How can images become a theme? And to whom does "their" refer? This sentence is all over the place, and unfortunately it's not the only one.
  • And the previous sentence: "Although the original printing of the Drapier's Letters resulted in the arrest of Harding and a bounty placed upon the Drapier's head, his place among the Irish citizenry was deemed heroic." Whose place? I presume you mean the Drapier's, but the grammar is ambiguous, as the pronoun could equally refer to Harding. Also better to have "Harding's arrest" rather than "the arrest of Harding." And how can a "place" be "heroic"? Plus "deemed" is an awkward word, when there are plenty of commoner ones available.
  • Or earlier: "The letter's purpose was to challenge Ireland's parliament to investigate the matter which everyone already knew what the basis was." Again, I've tried to copy-edit (and already made a couple of changes to this sentence), but have little idea what the last half of the sentence is supposed to mean.
  • Another (I'd changed this, but it got changed back): "The Drapier's Letters is the collective name for a series of seven pamphlets written by Dean Jonathan Swift..." It seems to me obvious that "Drapier's Letters" should take the plural. It would also seem much simpler to say "The Drapier's Letters are a series of seven pamphlets written by Dean Jonathan Swift..." I don't see what's gained by saying that this is a "collective name."
  • And one more example, pretty much at random: "During this time, Lord Carteret, one of two British Secretaries of States, pushed Walpole into defending the Wood's patent while simultaneously attempting to destroy the patent in order to remove his rival. Thus, while Carteret appeared to the English as a defender of the Patent and as if he sought to remove the Irish dissent, especially by finding the "Drapier", he was really furthering his anti-Walpole agenda and aiding in the cause of Ireland."
    • "During this time." Vague. Which time? No time period has previously been specified, except for the "1722" at the section outset.
    • Confusion between "British" and "English"
    • "Secretaries of States" should be "Secretaries of State"
    • "the Wood's patent" would be better as "Wood's patent"
    • What's meant by "destroy[ing] the patent"?
    • Who is "his rival"? Walpole? The other Secretary of State? (NB is the implication that there are only two British Secretaries of State? Surely not.) Presumably the former given the following sentence, but here it is not clear.
    • What exactly is described in either the defence or the destruction is completely opaque.
    • As is what's meant by "and as if he sought to remove the [why "the"?] Irish dissent."
    • Again, I tried to copy-edit this sentence, only to get reverted and to have abuse on my talk page for my trouble. Basta!
• I'm sorry that the above is not very detailed. I'll try to get back to this later. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Actually, I see that my attempts to copy-edit the article are simply being reverted, and the editor in question has decided to be uncivil on my talk page. So I'll simply !vote oppose. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The above user has added completely inaccurate information and has complained about grammar while adding in ungrammatical changes. The above user also does not follow standard grammatical rules.

1. "I completely agree that the use of "immortalizes" in the lead is inappropriate." Except that immortalizes is an appropriate verb which means to make a memorial of and also to turn something into a divine stature, which the title page has done both.

• "Immortalizes" means "makes immortal." You may be looking for the word "memorializes." As for the notion that the engraving has turned these letters into "a divine stature"... At best that desperately unclear; at worst it's POV. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

here the term means the same, but when using divinities, immortalizes is always more appropriate. Furthermore, POV? Ireland the goddess is there along with cherubs bringing down laurels from Heaven, and that is not "point of view". It is a representation that was chosen by the artist. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

2. "the article stated that Swift "makes clear"" This is not "POV", because this statement means "Swift states it over and over", which is what the word "makes clear" means in such a situation.

• You may be looking for the word "repeats" or perhaps "reiterates." This is different from "makes clear." As this exchange perhaps shows, one can state something over and over without it necessarily becoming clear. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Makes clear is proper, concise, and is a verb. here The only one who has a problem with it seems to be you. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

3. "Rather importantly, this includes whether or not the government in question is English or British." The government of Walpole is English. The government of King George, as King of Scotland and Ireland in addition to England is British. This is how history operates.

• What?! Walpole's government is King George's. (Hence, the secretaries of state, of whom Walpole is one, are British.) This is how British politics operates. NB don't forget Wales. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. You just rewrote history. Ireland and Scotland are Kingdoms. Their Kings were George I. Walpole was not a secretary of state. He was the "Prime Minister" (before the title actually existed) of England. Not Britain. There is a large and significant difference, because Ireland and England both had independent parliaments. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

4. "It needs a thorough copy-edit for grammar and typos. " The above user, in "copy-editing" has put in many ungrammatical sentences and has restated sentences to make them historical inaccurate.

• I've tried to provide some examples of the grammatical and typographical mistakes above. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And I have pointed out how many of your edits were adding more typos and grammatical mistakes on your talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

5. " Are these images in which the draper himself compares" Images literally means "images". They are created images, which, as proper English grammar rules suggest, "became a popular theme". How can images become themes? This is completely obvious, since people use various images of themes for their books and always have.

• A new inconsistency: are these images that become themes, or images of themes (as you've just stated). --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made it clear beyond all doubt. However, your understanding shows much to be wanted in regards to understanding the relationship between "image" and "theme" in writing. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

6. "And to whom does "their" refer? " Clearly "Irish citizenry", which standard grammar rules would suggest.

• As I've suggested, it's not clear.

Then you are not following standard English grammar that would have the sentence refer back to the last noun. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

7. "It seems to me obvious that "Drapier's Letters" should take the plural." Titles of books do not take the plural, unless you are referring to multiple books.

• What is the book in this case? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Its called, surprise, Drapier's Letters. Please see the ref note on Herbert Davis's edition. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I won't go on. I do, however, suggest that you take well-intentioned advice, rather than rejecting it all tout court. My suggested changes may be imperfect (I wouldn't claim otherwise), but they point to issues that you should address. Indeed, I'd advise that it's a good rule of thumb that someone nominating an article at FAC should address each comment that arises, and change the text accordingly, even if he or she believes that the commenter is mistaken. For each such comment indicates a failure of communication somewhere, and these should be eliminated as far as possible for an article to deserve FA status. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you follow WP:AGF, especially seeing as how I have taken the advice from others and made corrections to the article. However, many of your suggestions are not suggestions, but errors that would destroy the historical integrity of the article. Instead of asking, you went through and outright changed items that were inappropriate. You also put forth things like "(NB is the implication that there are only two British Secretaries of State? Surely not.)" when the context of the sentence reads that he was one of two secretaries of state at the time. Yes, there were two when he was secretary of state. This is found on his biography page. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, you may wish to read the note at the bottom of every submission page: "Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ...by others, do not submit it. " When you ask for comments about about an article's FA potential, attacking everyone who comments is not a great way to gain a reputation as a Civil wikipedian. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose This article has the potential to be an FA, but the writing needs some work - it needs to be copy edited and some sections need to be revised for clarity.

The article needs to be copy edited for grammar, typos, etc.:

• According to WP:ENGVAR, this article should be in British English.

(The rule does not speak of such there. Perhaps its a change in piping? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

"An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation". Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems with this - its Ireland, not England, and its Ireland before it was a nation. Therefore, it has no ties to any "English-speaking nation" per se. Also, most of the criticism comes from America, and Swift studies are jointly shared between the US, England, and Ireland. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify for me: are you actually attempting to argue that an article about Irish political controversy with England should use American English? I fail to see the tie of the topic to America that would support such reasoning. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Its a historical article. 2. The English then is not the English of England now, and this was before spelling standardization. 3. Most of the sources are written in "American" English. 4. The nationality of the country would demand that it would be written in Irish English, if you want to follow the true letter of the MoS ruling, which would be absurd 3 in regard to the sources. I don't know if you have read Hiberno English, but a lot of the page would become illegible. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand all of these arguments - I have made most of them myself. What I am going to tell you is that it is a lost cause. See, for example, the bloodbath here. This is a losing battle - people will change this article to BE if you do not. People will post angry messages. I advise you to give up the battle now - it is not the most important one. I won't push this one, but others will, as you can see. Awadewit (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Method of Style demands that if the national identity be chosen, which is Hiberno English. However, this does not require a national identity. You have two choices - American (since it was the original language of the article and predominantly how it was edited as) or Hiberno. British is not one of the options. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• The letters emphasize the constitutional independence of the Irish Nation; since this subject was politically sensitive, Swift wrote under the pseudonym M. B. Drapier - Why is "nation" capitalized?

(Not sure, especially seeing as how it was a "kingdom" and not a "nation". Changed. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

• Although the letters were condemned by the Irish Government in line with orders from the English Government,[2] Swift was able to inspire the popular sentiment against Wood and his patent. - Why is "government" capitalized? (There is also an incorrect "the" in front of "popular sentiment").

(Removed all improper capitalization for the word "government". Now, for "the", it is proper because "the" refers to a specific, singular "popular sentiment", instead of a generalized, unspecific "popular sentiment". This is in accord with standard "definite article" English grammatical rules. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

"popular sentiment" here is general and should not have a "the" - this is incorrect. Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(Popular sentiment is not general. Its very specific to the anti-Wood's sentiment. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

• The 1735 Works of Jonathan Swift, collected and edited by George Faulkner, immortalizes the praise and thanks issued by the Irish people through allegory upon its title page. (pictured) - "issued" doesn't seem like the right word, does it?; "pictured" is unnecessary and discouraged somewhere in the MOS

("pictured" was added by "TheRedPen" and I dare not remove it in order to not seem as if I am edit warring. "issued" is the verb expressing the action of the goddess "Ireland" in the picture, issuing forth the praise in paper form Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

Addressed - I think this is better anyways.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is that "issued" is not usually used together with the idea of "giving thanks and praise" - it is confusing to readers - better words might be "given" or "exhibited". Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

How about: The title page of 1735 Works of Jonathan Swift, [collected and edited by George Faulkner <-is this necessary if Faulkner isnt notable?], features/contains an allegorical illustration of the Irish people giving/exhititing/bequeathing Swift their thanks and praise.

(Faulkner and his edition is notable to the publication of the works, see The Drapier's Letters#Publication. Rewrote sentence to make it clear as to why its important. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

• Above all, the Drapier's Letters are the reason why Swift is seen as a hero to many Irish people, because was one of the earliest writers to defy England's control over the Irish nation. - missing "he"

(Fixed Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

• In 1722, hardware manufacturer William Wood was granted a patent to produce copper coinage to the value of £108,000 for use in Ireland - missing link on pound sign

(added Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

• the leadership of Ireland started requested help in leading the people to challenge the authority of the coin - error in verb tense - should be "requesting"

(Fixed Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

• During this time, Lord Carteret, one of two British Secretaries of States, pushed Walpole into defending the Wood's patent while simultaneously attempting to destroy the patent in order to remove Walpole as his rival to the king's favor. - should be "Secretaries of State"; unnecessary "the" in front of "Wood"; should be "in the king's favor"

(Change. Bonus - corrected verb tense disagreement of "pushed" and "attempting" Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

• Thus, Carteret appeared to the English as a defender of the Patent and as if he sought to remove the Irish dissent (especially by finding the "Drapier") while he was really furthering his anti-Walpole agenda and aiding in the cause of Ireland. - confusing wording; "patent" should not be capitalized

(Rewrote Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

• There are also some POV and vague statements throughout the article. Examples:

• The Drapier's Letters are the most important of Swift's "Irish tracts", and are Swift's most important work after Gulliver's Travels, A Tale of a Tub, and A Modest Proposal. - These kinds of statements are hard to support and sound like POV.

(Yes, it is a POV, but held by the reference cited and verified by later critics. If a critic disagrees with that arrangement and is provided, then a disagreeing statement can be issued after. NPOV requires to provide as much POV as held on each side. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

If it is cited in the reference, could a footnote be added after that sentence to make that clear? Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(I don't see why this is necessary, since it is directly cited by the page for this claim, which follows standard verifiability guidelines for such statements. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

• Paragraph two of "Pamphleteering" is a little vague - some details would flesh out the precise claims being made there.

(Reworded, try now. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

Better, but could still be more precise. For example, "religiously devout" could be supplemented by a short phrase describing in which religion. Ireland is known for its religious strife, so this is particularly important to know. Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(The religion of the Drapier is never made clear by the Drapier, therefore, it would be impossible to make claims as to what denomination he would be devout to. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

• Many critics have compared the language and rhetoric style of the first letter to a Hebrew prophet or to a Evangelical preacher who is warning the masses of the threat to their very soul. - These are two different styles - examples or more detail explaining the comparison would assist the uninformed reader.

(Note - Ehrenpreis and Ferguson conflate the two together, so perhaps they were not that different to the 18th century perspective. Ehrenpreis particularly focuses on Swift's emphasis on the "danger" to the "soul" in making the comparison. Wikilinks added to specific pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

Wikilinks are not enough - if critics conflate them, I suppose we have to as well, but that doesn't mean we can't explain what they mean by their conflation. Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(That would be an OR violation, since it goes beyond what the critics have stated. Ottava Rima (talk))

• There are many Anglican overtones in this combination, and duty to God is combined with duty to one's God and country. - Clarifying what the Anglican overtones are would help here.

(Pretty much all of the ones listed on the Wikipedia page. Wikilinked to it in order to stop any confusion. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

Wikilinking is not enough - besides, Anglican theology changed over time - what parts of it are we referring to here? Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(Actually, Anglican theory didn't change that much in Swift's time. It was very generic and very mainstream. He also made it clear that the actual changes in policy would not matter, because reliance on the religion was more important than actually understanding the nuances of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

• In the second letter, the Drapier walks a careful line between openly indicting the King; through the language that is used to describe Wood, there is a constant reference to the King's authority and power, and a constitutional argument is made over the ultimate authority of the Monarch in comparison to the coin, which is unnecessary compared to the politically petty amount of Wood's power. - wordy sentence that lacks clarity - how is authority and power described? the constitutional argument is not entirely clear, etc.

(Rewrote Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

This is still unclear - it needs to be expanded and explained in more detail. Assume you are reader unfamiliar with these topics and try to imagine understanding this. This section needs to fill in more of the "gaps in the reasoning" for such a reader. Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(This cannot be fixed with the Drapier's writings, since Molyneux's work needs to be explained for such a thing to happen. What you are asking for would be importing in far more detail on "the King's perogative" than what the Drapier uses, and it would go off topic. The Drapier calls the people to action and guarantees that they are protected. He doesn't necessarily explain the law about it, and goes on to say quite often that he isn't experienced with the law. A page devoted to the controversy could explain what you want, but the Drapier's Letters is not devoted to the controversy, but merely to a set of writings by Jonathan Swift. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

These issues could be resolved with the assistance of a careful copy editor. I would be more than happy to help out since the eighteenth century is dear to my heart. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Made changes and corrections. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, these are just examples and many more exist throughout the article. However, I would be happy to go through the article and copy edit it and offer suggestions for improvement on the article's talk page. Let me know if you would like any such assistance. Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not really worthwhile to debate each of these individual points unless the editor is willing to undertake a more general copy edit of the article. If s/he is willing to do so, I am willing to debate each of these points in great detail as well as a great many more. As many people at FAC know and as Ottava Rima can discover from looking at my userpage, I am dedicated to improving Wikipedia's quality coverage of eighteenth-century topics. However, unless we can agree that a more general copy edit needs to take place, I don't really see a reason to go on debating these specific examples of a more general problem. Awadewit (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't own the page. This is Wikipedia; everyone is free to edit. Awadewit, your query is rather moot. There is no restriction keeping you from editing a page, and WP:BOLD encourages you to do such. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I am now copy editing this article. I have also left comments on the talk page in the process. Awadewit (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have also added some questions about the sources on the talk page - there might be some issues there. Awadewit (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about the sources, how they are being used, and whether the article "accurately represents the relevant body of published knowledge" - please see Talk:The Drapier's Letters#Questions on sources for my concerns. Awadewit (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made every effort to improve this article. I spent a long time copy editing it, listing questions that arose from that copy editing on the article's talk page, and evaluating the sources that the article is based on. Unfortunately, the discussion with the primary contributor is not progressing anywhere. Anyone who wants to help bring this article up to FAC standards can see my efforts at the article's talk page. Awadewit (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you implying that I haven't made any of the changes? Or are you implying that I am responsible for editing a page? There are criteria for FAC. Being perfect is not part of it. Being complete is not part of it. Also, I am not responsible for the page any more than you are. Please remember that. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that as the nominator you are responsible for responding to the comments here, per the FAC directions: "Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly." Awadewit (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it says "expected" and not must. I only "must" be familiar with the topic. Now, if you want to say where I haven't made an effort at addressing objections, you would be blatantly wrong, as I have made many of the suggested changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose—1a, until the prose is polished properly. Here are eeny-meeny-miney examples from the start.

• Lead: no hyphen after "-ly"—see MOS.
• Why US spelling in what is clearly a British-related article?
• Why is "England" linked at all on the English WP? (And it's not the first occurrence of the root of the word, anyway.) "Ireland" is linked in the lead and in the caption ... Why?
• We could do with another comma in such a large sentence, after "prosecuted": "One of these, Proposal for the Universal use of Irish Manufacture (1720) had so inflamed the English authorities that the printer was prosecuted although the pamphlet had done little more than recommend that the Irish use what they made rather than exporting it to England." The article needs an audit for missing commas—another is probably required after "first of the pamphlets".
• "Swift's choice in adopting this pseudonym was twofold: it provided him an ..."—Nope, his reasons were twofold. Why not just plain "Swift had two reasons for ..."?
• "... the Drapier through the Drapier's ... the Drapier's ...".
• " It was this lack of arrest and the unity of the Irish people behind the "Drapier" that aided in Walpole withdrawing the patent"—Ungainly, in fact, ungrammatical at the end. "lack of foresight", yes, but "lack of arrest"? "that aided in W withdrawing ..."? Why "in"? Grammatically you need "W's withdrawing of the patent". Bombsite, this.

Please let me know when you've had fresh eyes go through it finely to iron out the glitches. The whole text. TONY (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC) PS Am I in for rudeness on my talk page too? I'd have thought a reviewer's assistance would occasion thanks, not reversion; if you had issues with the edits, collaboration was in order. TONY (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Its not British. Ireland was not part of Britain at the time. If it is to follow a language, it would have to follow Hiberno English. I am not rewriting all of the "to be" of the thread in regards to the complex rules of Hiberno English, and the original language of the article was in American English, as follows most of the scholarship collected on the matter. 2. England is different from Great Britain or Britain. The difference is necessary for historical accuracy. 3. Reasons were not two fold. His choice was, since his choice provided two benefits. His reasons provided no benefits and were not divided. 4. Your critique of the use of "the Drapier" multiple times becomes silly when applying standard nominalization rules of the English language. When dealing with alter egos, an addition of "his" would leave the sentences beyond comprehension. 5. Please keep your smug comments out of this section. Such comments do not belong FaC's. Furthermore, most editing comments don't belong here but on the talk page of the topic. You are mostly supposed to limit your comments to support, oppose, or what conditions you would change your mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is nothing at FAC that says comments must be limited. Copyediting concerns can surely be posted here on the FAC page. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 16:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Standard talk page rules. Talk pages are the place to discuss issues with a page. It would be pointless to have duplicates. This is a support or an oppose area, and unnecessary discussion clutters. Furthermore, he made a statement which does not belong on Wikipedia discussion pages, since this is not a message board system and the responses are supposed to be on topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Article looks much better now, thanks for addressing my above comments. Cirt (talk) 06:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - prose is below the mark;

• Could you shorten the first sentence? Its way too long; maybe a full-stop after "Swift". Is "Dean" needed when first addressing Swift? I think calling him "Irish poet Jonathan Swift" might be better for those who do not know Swift is. That "Dean" (a term I have never heard used before for a religious title) even confused me for a bit into thinking that it was his first name.
• Although the letters were condemned by the Irish government, in line with orders from the English government, Swift inspired popular sentiment against Wood and his patent, which forced the patent to be withdrawn; he was later honored for this service to the people of Ireland." - a tad ambiguous; were the letters condemned by the Irish in line with English orders, or did Swift inspire popular sentiment in line with the English orders? A long sentence again, cut it after "his patent".
• What are "Irish tracts" and why are they in quotes? There isn't even a handy wikilink to come to my rescue.
• Is it Drapier's Letters or Drapier Letters? I see both in the lead.
• "Since this subject was politically sensitive, Swift wrote under the pseudonym M. B. Drapier." - I don't understand how one (political sensitivity) implies the other (the need for a pseudonym)? Not at first glance, anyway.
• Why the British spellings? Do the Irish use American spellings now? If not, British English is how we should go shouldn't we?
• patent, mint, coinage - common English words don't need to be linked.
• "are a primary reason" - is that used frequently? "are the primary reason" or "are an important reason" might be better.
• "to the value of £108,000" --> "worth £108,000"?
• "though not technically as legal tender." --> I do not understand.
• "one of two British Secretaries of State" --> needs a "the"
• "However, ?he? privately attempted to destroy the patent" - ambiguous; 3 people are mentioned in the previous sentence.
• "and aiding in the Irish".

Please get a copy-editor to run through the entire text. indopug (talk) 12:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

A few direct responses 1. Dean is needed, because he held the Dean, which meant that he help run St. Patrick's Cathedral, which was the religious center of Dublin. A lot of the histories call him Dean, but few people realize today that Swift was a religious man. I reworked the opening to establish the importance.

2. The "Swift's Irish tracts" needs to be made. Its just a way to describe the essays and pamphlets produced by Swift while in Ireland and not to his Sermons or his books. I agree that it may be confusing until the wikilink is made.

3. According to Wikipedia, the ethnic English would be Hiberno English. To switch over would require a massive redo of the verb "to be" along with a few other verbs. "British" English is a modern idea and would not be culturally fitting, and MOS says that its mostly a suggestion unless it deals with modern importance.

4. A lot of words have been linked that don't necessarily need it, but I don't want to edit war over some of them, so I try to leave the wikilinking alone.

5. The legal issue is brought up later, and I removed it from the earlier paragraph to avoid confusing

6. The page has gone through many copyedits by many wikipedians.

7. Changes requested have been made here Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose – bad-written. MOJSKA 666 - Leave a message here 14:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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