Talk:Samuel Johnson/Archive 3

note to main author(s)
There are a couple of non-sentences in "Later Career" (the only section I've looked at so far):
 * "On 8 June 1756, Proposals for Printing, by Subscription, the Dramatick Works of William Shakespeare, which explained his claim that editions of Shakespeare were edited incorrectly and needed to be correct."
 * "However, the constant pleasure does not lead to satisfaction, and Rasselas escapes, with the help of a philosopher named Imlac, explores the world to witness how all aspects of society and life in the outside world are filled with suffering."

Also, FWIW, I didn't understand this phrase: "[Rasselas] appeared in many works of fiction through characters reading the book, ..." Whiskeydog (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Made changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Also, this sentence doesn't really parse: The poem is an imitation of Juvenal's Satire X and seeks to be "the antidote to vain human wishes is non-vain spiritual wishes" Whiskeydog (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Johnson was "more than a well-known writer and scholar"... whose quote? Whiskeydog (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Check the changes here. Note that the ref was from Cambridge Companion, a source which, contrary to popular belief, was used in various locations throughout the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Unstruck from Awadewit

 * There are many places in the article where the use of quotation marks is confusing.
 * The items with the quotes shouldn't be there anymore, as they are on the early life. Even Palin used "airquotes" last night, so I still disagree with Awadewit on the issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I left a note to Awadewit. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think that there are some ambiguous quotations, but I don't have the time or inclination to make a list of them now. It is my understanding that none of them are scare quotes or airquotes (a la Palin) but that they are all quotations from sources. Their provenance is not always clear, however. Awadewit (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll work back through the entire article tomorrow or the next day and work on those; with travel, I just haven't had time to plow through the whole thing again. Thanks again!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Unstruck from Shoemaker's Holiday
Shoemaker's Holiday mentions Francis Barber; other than that, he disagrees on summary style or is repeating Awadewit's oppose or wants this article to fit a certain mold. Malleus, can you tease anything actionable out of his early commentary? On the Francis Barber issue, echoed by DGG, is that being addressed in the new daughter article? Later on, Shoemaker's Holiday raises some specific issues:


 * I may have misunderstood, or even be looking in the wrong place, but my interpretation of Shoemaker's Holiday's early commentary was that he wanted the article to fit the formulaic 18-century author style, and either didn't like or didn't understand the summary style used. So I think you've covered all of the actionable points. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder what formula that would be, considering there isn't one on Wikipedia yet. Awadewit (talk) 03:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Other
I can't decipher that Moni3's concerns have been addressed; even if we don't know or have answers, other readers may have similar questions, so some resolution of her questions is needed. Still outstanding:
 * From Moni3 on FAC:


 * Now I'm totally confused. If his wife is well off, why is he so poor?
 * I can't decipher that we have satisfactorily answered this query; if you want to gain Moni's support, it would be helpful to resolve the query, even if sources don't provide an answer. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How does Johnson resolve his impoverished past with his comment that if Americans wanted representation they should purchase an estate in England? Surely this logic was as misguided in 1775 as it is today, or am I simply an unfortunate obdurate helpless American?
 * Ditto above here. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems more of a personal reflection than a problem with the text. Ottava Rima(talk) 19:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not returning earlier, and thank you for the reminder. I'm reading the 3rd 4th and 5th paragraphs in Early career. OR commented on my talk page that Johnson married Tetty, but when he left her, her money would only support herself in a manner in which she was accustomed. The confusion comes from the marriage (after a courtship where Tetty supported provided Johnson with substantial savings), no explanation that Johnson might support himself during the marriage, then his being penniless. I've read this section 4 times now, just to make sure I haven't missed it. And I don't think I have. During the initial reading, I was quite confused about the courtship, a jump back to the previous June, then going to London. I completely lost track of time and it was more significant than the content. I'll watch the article. --Moni3 (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The jump is to the previous month to say that he was rejected, only because it would seem weird in the middle of the marriage paragraph. Also, try this and see if it helps. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeh, that did it. --Moni3 (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I still need resolution for everything left uncapped. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think all the actionable ones are taken care of. The rest are either unactionable, or personal opinion that may or may not change. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We still need to put a polite resolution of each on the FAC. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Could we simply put a canned message on individual's pages that says: Please look at Samuel Johnson once again and see if it has met your standards for the Featured Article class. If there are any outstanding problems, could you please direct them to Talk:Samuel Johnson so we can quickly correct them. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking as the person who has to read through these things :-) That's backwards; Raul has to read it as well.  First, give an answer to the remaining issues (put something here and I'll "translate"); then invite revisits (I'll be glad to do that, too, or you could ask Malleus).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is an example of the "objectivity" of the FAC process. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm beat. First, Ottava launched this FAC just when I had exhausting, bone-breaking travel (that was no vacation), and then Malleus launched a road war on my talk page, so I have to hide from my own talk page :-) You two are too mean to me!  Now that Moni3 is watching, will wait for those issues to be sorted.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well... um... I can make the health and the early life pages almost FA worthy and force you to take two more FA stars eventually on topics dealing with TS. :P You could have your own featured list - "Sandy, Johnson, and TS". It would be nice. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And how interested do you think I am in that? If I ever got a break, Colin and I would go back to our year-old plan of bringing History of Tourette syndrome to status (now there's some fascinating literature there, just waiting to be added to the internet), and then all the TS daughter articles.  Where did you get the idea I was interested in old, dead British guys who wrote books?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The challenge
Friends and colleagues, the issue raised about a summarizing sentence or two for the lead needs to be addressed, and I have yet to catch up from my travel. Actually, I'm swamped. It's well past the middle of the day here, and I have 11 critical pending items on my "To do" note pad, in addition to reviewing FAC. I can't craft sentences for the lead today; it requires full concentration.

We lost a condition unknown during his lifetime, which is there to explain why his contemporaries had no context for his behavior. Awadewit suggested that "we add a bit more to the lead so that the health, character, and legacy sections are better represented as a whole and ... could be more seamlessly integrated".

We really need to do this to better set the context for Johnson the man. Can we get some ideas on here? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead use to be four paragraphs but that was cut. I don't know how legacy could be summed up, as I don't have any examples. Health mostly talks about TS, as thats his biggest health issue. Character? There isn't really one thing to say about his character that could really summarize. If anyone can think of anything, feel free. I can't. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the "a condition unknown during his lifetime" was lost as part of the collateral damage caused during an effort to reduce what was seen as overlinking. So I've restored it, but without its previous wikilink. I'll see if I can come up with anything else to address this challenge. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think doing this will benefit the article; I just don't have a clear mind to focus on it right now. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added two or three sentences to the lead. I'm not sure there's much more that can be done, or at least much more that I can do anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference section
Is there any reason why the last item in the list isn't in alphabetical order?  almost - instinct 11:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I'm on dialup and it doesn't load to the bottom of the page when its a standard Wiki page, so I never notice. Fix if you can. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it says "see also" and sometimes "main article:". Is there a reason for this or is it just an inconsistency? Btw, I think the way subsiduary articles are spun off like this throughout has been very well done.  almost - instinct 15:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:LAYOUT, WP:SS, and .  Main is used for summaries of articles, another template is used when they are just further info.  When the text here is not summary style, then main shouldn't be sued (but many articles mistakenly do so).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the compliment. I am sure that many of the hard workers here and on the other pages (such as Lexo) will appreciate your words. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnson Template
I wanted to note that this is a discussion about the template at Template talk:Samuel Johnson. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Playfulness of Dictionary definitions
User:Marskell suggests in the FAC that there should be some reference to the playfulness of some Dictionary definitions. Apart from the famous definition of oats ("a grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people"), the following would be worth mentioning:


 * lexicographer: "a writer of dictionaries; a harmless drudge that busies himself in tracing the original, and detailing the signification of words"


 * network: "any thing reticulated, or decussated, at equal distances, with interstices between the intersections"  --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this go on the page about the Dictionary? We could create a style section there for such a thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Anachronisms and ambiguities
It's an impressive article, but when I got into reading it some phrases struck me as anachronistic or ambiguous. So far I've noticed the following in the #Early life and education section – I've not had time yet to read further, could someone try looking over the article for similar problems, and make appropriate changes. Thanks for all the evident hard work,. . dave souza, talk 11:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "his family was no longer able to maintain the lifestyle it had previously enjoyed." – suggest "his family was no longer able to live in the style to which it had been accustomed."
 * "There he bonded with Cornelius Ford" – they bonded in the 18th century? Suggest "There he became a close friend of Cornelius Ford" (probably best to avoid Darwin's phrase that he "was intimate with" : )
 * "His condition would not change until Sarah Johnson's cousin" – "condition" suggests illness, but presumably means poverty, so why not "Their poverty lasted until Sarah Johnson's cousin" or "They remained in poverty until..."
 * "The poem later appeared in Miscellany of Poems (1731), edited by John Husbands, a Pembroke tutor, and was the earliest surviving publication of any of Johnson's writings." – surely it is the "earliest surviving publication", perhaps better put as "edited by a Pembroke tutor named John Husbands, and is the earliest of Johnson's published writings which still survives." Needs some thought.
 * Just a small note - I prefer "was, is, and will hopefully remain to be" when dealing with statements of being. :) Not really. I made the changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Boswell references

 * As I mentioned on the FAC page, this sentence in the lead is repetitive: He is also the subject of one of the most celebrated biographies in English, James Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson, described as "the most famous single work of biographical art in the whole of literature". I would suggest relegating the final clause (described ... literature) in its entirety to a footnote.  The lead is no place for verbiage & repetition.


 * The first mention of Boswell in the article proper (ie after the lead) comes in the early life section: In 1776, he returned to Pembroke with Boswell and toured the school with his previous tutor Adams.  This (proleptic) reference should be wikilinked, since readers cannot be assumed to know who Boswell is at this stage.  A further unlinked reference occurs in the Dictionary section: The Vanity of Human Wishes, was written with such "extraordinary speed" that Boswell claimed Johnson "might have been perpetually a poet".  Indeed it isn't until Johnson's later career that we finally meet Boswell & see him properly linked.  --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ndsg, we have multiple reviewers at FAC practically insisting that peacockery be added to the lead, so we added more. If we move that to a footnote, they may complain again.  Can you suggest an alternate solution, that will satisfy everyone?  Open to ideas, but we have conflicting requests, as everyone wants something wrt Johnson, and the requests are often competing.  Boswell is linked on first occurence, in the lead, so I'm confused about your second point??  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, to deal with the second point first: I thought that a wikilink was supposed to be provided for the first reference in each section—particularly when, as here, the sections are quite long. Readers wanting to know about the Dictionary might well skip straight to that section; so why not help them, rather than forcing them to right back to the lead to identify Boswell?
 * As for the peacockery ... Well, how about this:
 * His enduring fame is also due in no small measure to James Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson, described as "the most famous single work of biographical art in the whole of literature".
 * Maybe slightly verbose, but seems to flow in the context. Note that I've removed the helpful information that SJ is the subject of the Life of SJ! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I made a change before I saw your recommendation. My change can be found here. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks: a great improvement. I still think some of those early Boswell references should be wikilinked, though. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, sounds reasonable; I've not had time to catch up here today (crazy watchlist day), would you mind linking those yourself? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Also some references to Hester Thrale. If I've overlinked, feel free to remove some of them. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought you were going to add a couple; six links could open the article to charges of Wp:OVERLINKing (and there is actually no guideline that terms need be linked in every section. Not a big deal unless someone complains.  But the sentence added to Legacy was uncited, and seemed like WP:TRIVIA, so I removed it ... perhaps discuss here first?  Uncited text will surely sink a FAC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was about to raise the very same point about overlinking that SandyG has just done. The rule I have always followed is that terms, whether or not they've already been linked in the lead, should be linked on their first occurrence in the body of the article. Not on their first occurrence in each section of the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)OK, I accept that I may have overlinked poor old Boswell.

As for the Private Eye material, it probably could be cited (I certainly recall reading the column); but it probably isn't worth the effort. (I should have noticed that the reference I linked to in Jonathan Miller was uncited.)  In fact, I've just checked that you can see snippets of the column by searching for "private eye" and "dr. jonathan" in Google Books: so it isn't pure trivia. Since there are references in this FAC article to the Times and Punch parodies of SJ's style, it certainly wouldn't be out of place to refer to Private Eye as well. I leave this to the other editors to decide. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
Can anyone else cite to a better source, fix the spelling, and decide if this is needed? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)