Talk:Ludwig Ferdinand Huber/GA1

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

Reviewer: Scope creep (talk · contribs) 23:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Review
Hi That is me started the review. I've added this wee template to show how it is progressing.  scope_creep Talk  23:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Copyvio seems to be ok.  scope_creep Talk  23:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The main source is Jordan's book (as the only monograph about Huber), and I have not consciously paraphrased it closely. —Kusma (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Lede

 * He was born in Paris as son of the Bavarian-born.. Doesn't sound right. Possibly, Born in Paris, he was the son of or Born in Paris, Huber was the son...
 * Changed. ✅
 * Nothing on the French wife, what did she did. Any information on her?
 * We don't know much, and I say so in the main text. Do you think this needs repeating in the lede?
 * If there was information on the lady, it would ideal mentioning it. There was a note at WIR looking to balance the inherent bias that was identified by usually explaining what the father did but not the mother. I try to add salient details in both, if they are available, but as they aren't, its fine.✅
 * In the early 1780s Comma?
 * Happy to oblige. (I'm overly fond of commas, so sometimes I overcompensate).✅
 * who was engaged to Minna Stock, and with her older sister Dora Stock Doesn't sound right. Perhaps something like.. "the jurist Christian Gottfried Körner, his fiance Minna Stock and her older sister Dora Stock, whom he later promised to marry.
 * Changed.
 * Reads better for a modern appetite. ✅
 * I noticed there is a quite a change of locales during this life. Would it be normal to add the countries in the lede?
 * This is a question of modern countries versus countries at the time, which are complicated. Neuchatel, for example, was in the County of Neuchatel, and Mainz was in the Electorate of Mainz. I was afraid that the details here might confuse more than clarify.
 * Yes that is fine. I think it is better and it reads better. I had a look an Italian yesterday in 1600's and it had 9-11 seperate kingdoms, so it is understandable. ✅
 * In the third paragraph, he is returning to Germany. He never seemed to have left.
 * Neuchâtel I don't know where that is. So I think he is moving but its not clearly explained.
 * Added a comment that it is now in Switzerland
 * That is better. ✅
 * Elector of Bavaria Can that be linked?
 * Linked to the country. I see no evidence that it was a particularly personal favour.
 * That is better as well. ✅

Family background

 * had arrived Superfluous had?
 * I thought the tenses flow better like that?
 * Six and a half. ✅
 * his parents probably were married his parents were probably married. I assume a note be needed here, to explain why the sources are varying?
 * Removed the "probably" and added "ca" to the date. Sources are varying more on the number of children (I think it is unclear whether there were six children including LFH or six children before LFH, but the precise number seems not so relevant).
 * Its not critical and it reads much better, as long as its close to the sources as possible.✅


 * seen around Is the figure not exact? So its not definite, so you had to put the "seen'' in.
 * I changed it a little, and used "about" instead of "around". Sources vary but could just be interpreting the same primary statement differently.
 * Seen around sounds like slang. It a lot better.✅


 * Johann Georg Wille You give an explanation stating he was a "German-born artist and engraver" but you provide the same explanations of why they are known, for example at: "Georg Forster and his wife Therese" in the lede. Would be normal what they did, for example "The German naturalist Georg Forster and his wife, the French author Therese" It doesn't flow wrong but only if it is slightly inconsistant.
 * I've tried to give introductions; I've added one to GF in the lede. His nationality is the usual mess ("German"? "Prussian"?) so I prefer not to touch it. Therese wasn't French (born in Göttingen, daughter of Christian Gottlob Heyne), but they did speak French a lot, especially after they moved to Neuchatel/Bole.
 * Looking at it a second time, you do classify quite a few of people, poet, writer and so on. What about the historian and diplomat Christian Ludwig von Hagedorn and the writer Christian Felix Weiße?


 * The father had no reliable source of income in Paris, and when the position of a teacher of French at the University of Leipzig became available in 1766, he was happy to accept an offer that had been mediated by Christian Ludwig von Hagedorn and Christian Felix Weiße, and the family left for Leipzig on 15 September 1766 5 clauses. I think it probably needs split.
 * Split.
 * Much better. ✅


 * bilingual in "in both" or is it implied?
 * I think it is implied.


 * he was financially never well off "he was never financially well off"
 * Reordered
 * Money problems. That fine. ✅


 * Huber's mother also offered "also" I don't think this is needed. It does need something though, for example "to make ends meet" or something else suitable of the period.
 * Removed the "also". I don't think this was to make ends meet as such; more in order to have interesting company at dinner without spending too much money on it. I hope the next sentence helps to explain this.
 * That is a lot better. Your explaining what they're doing and why, instead of implying which was tied to the financially well off clause.✅


 * Huber later Sound a bit odd. Possibly "When he was older, Huber"?
 * Changed the "later" to "never" ✅


 * the mostly French books That makes no sense. They were mostly in French or Most of them were French books? I'm not sure how to rephrase it.
 * Most of them were French. Clarified, I hope.
 * Much, much better. ✅


 * trained Is that right word? Did he have tutors?
 * It is "knowledgeable" now.


 * Ancient Greek and Classical Antiquity These should be linked.
 * Done. ✅


 * Translating from English, he adapted Colley Cibber's comedy Love Makes a Man into German; it was played in Leipzig in 1783 without much success by the theatre company of Pasquale Bondini [it] and Joseph Seconda and then printed in Berlin in 1784 Split this please. Too many clauses. Translations, then adaptions, then playing by companies then printed. They are logically related but too far apart.
 * Split. I had tried to contrast translating from French (not so impressive since he was bilingual already) with translating from English (another language), but apparently that didn't work so well. ✅

 scope_creep Talk  22:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done this section. —Kusma (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Friendship with Körner and Schiller

 * In 1784 comma
 * Added. ✅
 * His friendship to Schiller "with Schiller"
 * Done. In 1784 ✅
 * and sometimes met with his sponsor to learn to move in a court atmosphere Seems to be a spare bit no meaning?
 * Well, I'm trying to say that he mostly hung out with Schiller and had a good time, but every now and then did talk to this nobleman (with the hope of eventually getting a job) to make his parents happy.
 * I understand it now. Didn't before. It flow easier. ✅
 * watercolours "watercolours painted"
 * Added, and "texts" -> "texts written" in parallel.
 * Makes sense to balance it out like that. ✅
 * In Schiller's magazine Thalia, Huber published an essay in 1786 on the topic of greatness Possibly swap it around. Huber is the subject.
 * That would move Schiller near the end; as he starts the next sentence I'd prefer to keep as is.
 * A rationale reason is present, which is fine. ✅

Diplomat in Mainz

 * Huber travelled via Leipzig, where he visited his parents, Weimar, where he saw Schiller, and Frankfurt, where he met Goethe's mother Katharina Elisabeth Goethe It is very terse.
 * Expanded a bit. Terseness is my thing, for better or worse.
 * Its much better. ✅


 * At first, they had not the best impression of Huber, whose habit of using extensive quotations while speaking they found irritating Doesn't sound right. Something like "At first, they did not have the best impression of Huber, whose whose habit of using extensive quotations while speaking, irritated them"
 * Reformulated.
 * speaking irritated them Can you change it to "speaking that irritated them"


 * fact "fact written"
 * Added. ✅

French occupation of Mainz and resignation from service

 * Is it worth linking French revolutionary army
 * Sure is! ✅


 * I see Neuchâtel is already linked.
 * Linked once in the lede and once in the body now.
 * Thats fine. ✅


 * In the meantime, Forster had left Mainz for Paris in March 1793 to petition for the accession of the newly founded Republic of Mainz to the First French Republic, and Mainz had come under siege by Prussian and Austrian troops and capitulated on 23 July 1793, making it impossible for Forster to return to Mainz. Very long?
 * Split.

Exile in Switzerland

 * edited Klio, a journal founded by Paul Usteri What type of journal for interest sake?
 * Politics/History. Mainly French revolution if I understand correctly.✅


 * represent represents
 * Fixed. ✅


 * literary criticism Can you link it either here, or in the Lede. Most people don't know what it is.
 * Linked in both places. ✅

Journalist in Germany
This is fine. Really well written.

 scope_creep Talk  00:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Can we please go through each of these in turn, perhaps tommorrow night.    scope_creep Talk  00:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the detailed review, I'll try to answer later today unless real life gets in the way. —Kusma (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Scope creep, I think it's ready for another look. I've followed most of your suggestions but not all. —Kusma (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a suggestion and one "that" to add. The suggestion is to possibly add the qualifiers, "historian and diplomat Christian Ludwig von Hagedorn and the writer Christian Felix Weiße" and put "that" in "while speaking, irritated them" -> "while speaking that irritated them".    scope_creep Talk  18:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Scope creep, added. The "that" seemed to require a little more in the sentence, though: do you think it is better now? —Kusma (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, most definently. It sounds better when you read it. I see you haven't add the qualifiers to Hagedorn, which is OK I guess. The section is completed.   scope_creep Talk  19:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have used "the art historian and diplomat" for Hagedorn. —Kusma (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, cool. That looks better. The prose is definitely completed now. The ref layout is perfect. I plan to check some of the references as I think it is contingent on myself to check at least of them to see how you interpreted them, perhaps more for historical research on my part than anything else. I may learn something. The images are tagged correctly. Captions are ok. I tried to find Johannes Schreiber, but couldn't identify him. Perhaps a minor artist. The article is neutral and stable and free from original research. Regarding "broadness", I noticed to the article had a bibliograpgy or works sections which has been removed. I noticed the German article has a list of work. Any reason for removing specifically? I usually put in a bib or works section (as its known the the US) as I know from personal experience that researcher's like to take the full cite from the article from that type of section.  scope_creep Talk  20:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The old Works section was terrible (basically a corrupted copy of the last line of 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Huber, Ludwig Ferdinand plus the works of Sabine Jordan). Jordan's book has an extensive bibliography, which is too detailed for the article. I haven't got a great solution, so I left it out. I'll think about whether there is some middle ground solution. —Kusma (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * And I couldn't find anything about Johannes Schreiber either. The miniature is apparently still owned by the Greyerz family, descendents of Therese Huber's daughter with Georg Forster, Claire. At least that's what the notes in the edition of Therese Huber's letters say. —Kusma (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, if there was huge list, I would try and find those entries which are particularly well reviewed, i.e. his most important. For historical articles of this type, you would expect to see a bib section of that type, for example the Friedrich Schiller has one. I always put them in. I don't know what bearing it has on the review itself, re: broadness category, I don't think it is specific to this.   scope_creep Talk  22:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Scope creep, I've looked through the bibliography section in Jordan's book and have listed only the original plays and the collections, omitting the translations. And linked to their Google Books scans. Not totally sure about section title and formatting yet, happy to hear suggestions. —Kusma (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a good start. I an trying find a suitable example, one that contains a mix of the persons work and other reviewed work. I'll continue it tommorrow.   scope_creep Talk  22:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you have updated the new bib section, which looks better. I had a look for a good example and an old article Harald Poelchau came up, another editor had updated it including the bib. There was a small one there. It gives you an idea of what it should look like. Folk will add to as time goes out. I've checked several refs. I couldn't read that German gothic font script, too hard going. Looking at broadness, it covers the core of the life events detailed in the NDB and wikisource references quite closely. It is well written in that aspect.    scope_creep Talk  23:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of "Literature"/"Further reading" sections unless I really have something to recommend that I haven't used as a source. (In the German Wikipedia, it is very common to see articles accumulating large "Literature" sections but with no commentary at all whether any of them were used as sources and whether any of them are useful). All the literature I recommend is listed is sources. —Kusma (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is fine. I think the German and French wikipedias tend are more academically orientated and you see a lot of that. You made a pretty decent attempt and its looks good. We can close this.   scope_creep Talk  08:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Original Research

 * I don't think they're is OR.   scope_creep Talk  23:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Broadness
I read the Wikisource last night and thought I found sections on the quality of his writing, but reading it a second time this morning, it seems to be much less detailed. It would have been mentioned in much more detail at the time if it was available in 1811. I was hoping to see a small section or a couple of sentences on the quality of this writing.  scope_creep Talk  09:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There are already a few places where his writing is praised (Schiller talking about Das heimliche Gericht and the piece about the Justine review). I could dig out a little bit from Jordan's book about the quality of the translations (Forster and de Charriere both found Huber to be far too literal; Jordan also shows a snippet translated from the French where Huber's translation loses most of the overt sexual meaning of the French text). I'm not sure I should go into too much detail there, though. Perhaps you were thinking about the NDB text ? There's also this review of Jordan's book by Thomas P. Saine (a Forster and Goethe expert) that is very dismissive of Huber. I could try to turn these two plus Jordan's book into a "Reception and legacy" section but I'd be happier if I had some more recent sources. (It is more fashionable to study Therese Huber than her second husband at the moment). —Kusma (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I found something in Jordan's book about Das heimliche Gericht not being too well written, will add this when I get around to it. —Kusma (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Scope creep: I've added quite a bit, see this diff. Please let me know if this breaks the prose or anything else. —Kusma (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Will do. I was going to do this tommorrow as I'm knacked, but I'm really impressed how quick you managed to pull that paragraph together. Much more than I was expecting and a perfect addition. Ideal.  scope_creep Talk  23:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Great bit of work on that para, reading it for a second time.   scope_creep Talk  11:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

MOS
Quick look and quick finish tommorrow.  scope_creep Talk  23:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything that immediately stands out. I wouldn't really expect to see much anyway. Its a fine article and well written. That is the done.   scope_creep Talk  11:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)