Talk:Letters from an American Farmer/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 20:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh thank you. Sometimes when I edit obscure medieval lyric tradition articles (two of my previous GANs) I wonder whether anyone notices my work! Glad you like it. Also, just to say, your goal of reviewing a GAN a day during 2013 is really admirable, and I hope you manage to keep it up. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments
On first glance, this article gives a good overview of the Letters and their significance. It's well-researched and well-sourced, and reflects an impressive amount of hard work. I've got some small concerns below, and a bigger one (next subsection).


 * " Often regarded as the first work of American literature" -- does this have a source? The claim in the body of the article is somewhat different.
 * Re-worded. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "the Letters has exerted a wide-ranging and powerful influence over subsequent texts and authors in that group." -- this, too, appears to lack a source or discussion, save a mention of Thomas Paine. (Though there is a bit of discussion of its influence on the English.)
 * Re-worded, but also seeking out explicit citations. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "Man and his environment" -- It's probably best to use gender-neutral language for the subheader and the parts of this section written in "Wikipedia's voice", though for any part summarizing Crevecoeur's views, the "man" part is fine.
 * Agreed, and changed. Although not fully happy with the change either, so may come back to it. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "the work is recognised as being one of the first in the canon of American literature" -- I'm a bit wary of this claim, too, since American literature goes back for more than a hundred years before the Letters to figures like Michael Wigglesworth. Is this definition limiting itself to only works after independence was formally declared?
 * I agree with you, however that's the claim made by several sources and lacking any sources that critique it, or inserting my own opinion, it's not something I can change. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * " Thomas Philbrick has termed a "complex artistry"." -- the Philbrick quotation appears to need citation.
 * Cited. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Potential areas for expansion
One early concern I have in looking at this article is that it's quite short (7Kb readable prose). In a way, this leaves me torn. Part of me admires the article's economy, which is far preferable to the usual mass of indiscriminate detail you find on Wikipedia. But I also feel like there's a lot of criticism out there that could be used to expand this one. I've made some suggestions below, but I in no way expect you to act on all of these (or even any of them)--full comprehensiveness is not a requirement for GA. Still, I wonder if you'd be amenable to a bit more expansion--adding a few more critical views, the political context mentioned by Saar, influences, etc.

You're more familiar with the sources than I, though, so let me know what you think.


 * Dennis Moore discusses influences on the collection including John Dickinson's "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania" and Voltaire’s 1733 "Letters concerning the English Nation". (MOORE, DENNIS. Early American Literature, Mar2011, Vol. 46 Issue 1, p157-164, 8p.) Eric D. Lamore mentions Virgil as an important influence.(Lamore, Eric D.. Atenea, jun2009, Vol. 29 Issue 1, p113-134, 22p.) I don't know the work well enough to judge the merits of these arguments, but influences seem like a topic worth mentioning generally.
 * Looking just at the bibliography already there, Saar puts it in the context of (Crevecoeur's) contemporary Whig politics, and Winston has a nice read of the book as prefiguring the move from Utopia to chaos in the works of authors like Melville or Hawthorne.
 * Winston also has a good quotation from marketing for the work on his first page that might perhaps be included.
 * The biography Philbrick, Thomas. St. John de Crèvecœur. Boston: Twayne, 1970. has two chapters on the letters and their creation, apparently, though I don't have access to it.
 * Jeff Osborne has an interesting read of the Letters as moving from an idealized view of human nature to a dark one to critique the idea of a social compact itself.(Early American Literature, Vol. 42, No. 3 (2007), pp. 529-553)
 * The discussion of the work's genre could be expanded into a full paragraph; what features do these critics focus on in giving it the labels romance, novel, epistolary, etc.? -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The brevity was a worry I had before I took the article to GAN, but as you say since full comprehensiveness is not a requirement I thought I would just go for it. But that's not to say I don't have a number of areas in which to potentially expand it; I appreciate your suggestions for expansion as well, they will certainly come in handy. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I gave this some more thought today, and I don't know that any "main aspects" are really left out, despite the concerns I noted above. It doesn't seem that there's anything commonly mentioned in discussions of LAF that's not covered in the article, and at least some of the criticism is touched on. I think I'm satisfied that it meets the broadness criterion. I'll give the article as a whole another pass tomorrow to see what's left, if anything, before this gets promoted. Thanks for your quick and thoughtful responses. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Second readthrough
Okay, I gave this a more careful read, and it's clearly ripe for promotion. A few minor points and then I'll start the checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth mentioning in the lead that the letters are from a fictional persona; it would be easy to mistake it for a more standard travelogue here. Or perhaps, more accurately, mention that the work appeared in two editions, one featuring a fictional persona, and one not.
 * I've amended the wording to make it clearer. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I changed some spellings from UK to US standard. It occurred to me partway that Crevecoeur was arguably a British citizen for a time, too, during the colonial era, but he seems most identified as an American (or Frenchman). I have no objections if you want to revert me on this, though.
 * Nope that's fine per WP:TIES, I might stick a template on AE in the talk page to confirm actually. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not necessary to pass as GA, but "has been said to exhibit a "model of decline"" -- is it possible to identify who specifically says this?
 * It was in the reference at the end of the statement, which is my fault for forgetting to place these things specifically where they're actually needed! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was unclear; what I meant to suggest was rephrasing to avoid the passive voice and say "Literary critic Sarah X called it a 'model of decline'", or some such. But like I said, not an issue for the GA review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "The popularity of the book led to a second edition being called for" -- was the second edition only "called for" or actually printed? If the latter, this might be shortened to just "a second edition only a year later". -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Manning uses this wording, and it's ambiguous certainly. Will confirm and come back. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd still suggest clarifying this if possible, but one mildly ambiguous statement is no reason for me to hold up GA status. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review, appreciate the detail and the many suggestions you've made! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)