Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Augustan literature/archive1

Augustan literature
Self-nom, from the team that brought you Restoration literature, but only moreso. Augustan prose, Augustan poetry, and Augustan drama are also new, but I promise not to nominate each of the sub-articles for FA. Geogre 4 July 2005 01:37 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent article. There is an issue with the lead, though. Basically, in the 2nd paragraph of the lead the sentences become too dense and confusing from trying to add in so much info. Leads should provide an overview and be accessible (as the first paragraph of your lead is). I believe that, aside from the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph, the entire second paragraph of the lead should be moved to its own section in the main body of the article (under the section, perhaps, Nomenclature or Naming of the Period). I'd replace this section in the lead with a summary of some of the authors and main literary events of the period. --Alabamaboy 4 July 2005 14:23 (UTC)
 * Absolutely true. That "why it's called Augustan" thing is a mess.  I meant to try to give precise chronological anchors for the period, but I ended up on a detour through "critics are lazy, and no one knows what they mean when they use this term because...."  I was deviled by that section from the start, and I will take out the trusty machette and give it a once over in a few hours.  I plan to compress the "why" and move it down and give a new, shiny, and better 2nd par. for the lead.  Geogre 5 July 2005 02:02 (UTC)
 * Done now. I tried to come up with a 2nd par that was like the 2nd par of Restoration literature:  something that would give a sense of what was accomplished during the period.  Not many specifics in it, but specifics would have probably been too numerous.  See what you think about it now. Geogre 5 July 2005 13:53 (UTC)
 * The lead now works perfectly. Great work. --Alabamaboy 5 July 2005 17:11 (UTC)


 * Support: wonderful article that synthesizes a vast amount of material. Also a hub article for the whole period. PRiis 4 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)
 * Support: This is truly excellent article proving once again what a amazing tool Geogre's pen is, especially  when coupled with the pruning shears of Bishonen.  I suspect this may be one of the most comprehensive essays on the subject freely available on the internet.  Certainly one of Wikipedia's landmark articles which, like The Cantos gives the entire project its justified credence. Giano | talk 4 July 2005 21:34 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Giano, and just to clarify: don't worry, loyal Geogre fans, I didn't prune anything away, just summarized a couple of mighty sections and snipped them off into subarticles. Edward Scissorhands/Bishonen | talk 5 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)


 * Support. Beautiful work, and I have nothing to add but praise. -- Rbellin|Talk 5 July 2005 00:26 (UTC)
 * Support. A fine piece of work; a lot of good, informative prose. Phil s 5 July 2005 10:40 (UTC)
 * Wholehearted support, with an added plea not to hold back in nominating the sub-articles. (If you don't, I might just do it myself). OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 5, 2005 17:03 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks.  Well, I only promised that I wouldn't nominate the subarticles.  I am rather proud of the Augustan prose article, and the Augustan poetry isn't bad (about 5 tons more could go in, of course).  Augustan drama does explain the ramifications of the Act and gives a fuller picture of why "there was no drama in the Augustan period" than anything I've read (print or online, but I'm emphatically not a drama person), but that one's kind of short.  (My goal in all of these was to overpower the anemic Britanica print articles and to put more stuff in one nexus than I had found anywhere except for Donald Greene.)  Geogre 6 July 2005 02:35 (UTC)

*Object. It covers the content very well, it seems, but the prose reads like it was written for 1911 Britannica, and some sentences read as if they are a definite opinion of the author about the topic, as opposed to receiving an NPOV treatment - perhaps some of these statements could be attributed. Ambi 9 July 2005 03:09 (UTC) Points taken. Objection withdrawn. Ambi 14:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ambi, that's my writing style! I'm sorry that it sounds 1911, but that is how I write (academic).  As for the POV, I need some examples.  There is a thesis that is supported by examples, but that's what it is, not Original Research.  If there were no thesis, then an overview would be impossible.  One has to shape such a massive topic, to pick out threads and trends.  It's simply useless otherwise to attempt to survey 50-80 years of very active literature.  I can certainly cite anything definitive that needs citation, but I need to know some specifics.  Geogre 9 July 2005 11:52 (UTC)
 * Also, if we like, we can easily compare to the 1911. The 1911 didn't like the Augustan Age, as it was still being informed by Macaulay's History ("The Whig History").  Therefore, it pronounces Swift insane, Pope misguided, and Johnson reactionary, while it praises Addison as a voice of reason.  I actually would like to have this compared to the current Britanica, as well, as it was a goal of mine to take their lunch money, as it were.  I tried to cite everything substantial, particularly when talking about causes (which are controversial), but examples are just examples.  Geogre 01:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. You did it again. Keep them coming! &mdash; mark &#9998; 21:41, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I think that's about it for me. It tied in every 18th c. article I've written since being on Wikipedia, and I can't think of anything else I'm an expert expert on, unless we need articles on sloth. Geogre 20:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. of course. Filiocht | Talk 10:27, July 11, 2005 (UTC)