Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell


 * 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:05, 4 April 2009.

Jonathan Strange &amp; Mr Norrell

 * Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My first article on a contemporary book - of course, that book is about the early nineteenth century and written in the style of that time (I just couldn't bring myself to leave Jane Austen et. al. entirely). A note on the lengthy plot summary - the novel is 800 pages long and the length of the plot summary is in line with others (see here for a lengthy comparison with other FA plot summaries). Thanks to my peer reviewers for their detailed and helpful suggestions and to for advising me on the use of sources here. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - my concerns with the sourcing are mentioned there on the link. I'm on the fence about http://www.sfsite.com and http://www.contemporarywriters.com/awards/?&skip=500, and will leave them to other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I am one of the aforethanked peer reviewers, and as I said during that process, this is a great article. Thorough research and engaging prose. It's been an interesting experience to see Awadewit — with all of her extensive training in JSTOR and primary sources from centuries ago — wrangle with newspaper reviews and online commentary. I think, especially given the relative dearth of resources available for this article, that the SFSite and CW references are fine. Scartol  •  Tok  12:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. I, too, had the honor of peer reviewing this exceptional article.  I haven't read the book yet, but after reading this article, I intend to do so very soon.  Awadewit has done a good job with the limited and often weak sources available.  It's difficult to write a high-quality article with only "contemporary" sources, but she has risen to the challenge.  I think this article is a good model of how to create a featured article with limited resources. --Christine (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not sure I understand the citation "Clarke, "Praise for Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell"." Is that part of the foreword of the novel? If so, maybe the novel title should be in the citation to reduce confusion. I would also encourage the use of the novel title in the other Clarke citations, as it's likely at some point in the distant future that Clarke might write something else about this novel that might then get cited in the article. In other words, it would help future-proof the citations. Although this isn't so much of an issue for your usual articles, I think it's an important consideration for a modern work whose article may still evolve as more is written about the work. Kaldari (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea - done. Awadewit (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Image query Image:Jonathan strange and mr norrell cover.jpg may not reach the threshold of originality, could this be licenced as free? Fasach Nua (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Uncertain about that. Is the raven/crow silhouette an original drawing or a stock item (readily found on sites that offer royalty-free graphics)?  Jappalang (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know for sure. I used the non-free license because I wasn't totally sure. Awadewit (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont know if free is licencing is possible, I think it is borderline. It could upload it to commons, and see if it is deleted it or not? WP unfortunetly doesnt have a forum for this question, commons are where the experts are Fasach Nua (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's try that. Awadewit (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded it to Commons and started a thread here. Awadewit (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently it is subject to copyright. I have now put the Commons image up for deletion. The image in the article is still the fair use version, so the Wikipedia article is stable. Awadewit (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am content with the images as they are, I would prefer free images, but clearly that is not possible, and will not oppose if the image is deleted Fasach Nua (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review: all "free" images are verifiably so; non-free images are used appropriately and covered by proper rationales. Jappalang (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Technical Review -- Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS script), and the disambiguation and external links all check out up to standards.--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   15:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: I had a long session with this at peer review and have left myself nothing to say here. A quality article in every respect, a dead cert for TFA some time soon. Brianboulton (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support with suggestions 1) "Christopher Hampton, who adapted the Academy Award-winning screenplay for Dangerous Liaisons" reads oddly to me (I expect the object of "adapt" to be affected, not effected). Would something along the lines of "whose adaptation of Les Liaisons Dangereuses had won an Academy Award" be better? (now dealt with). 2) I miss Norrell's removal of magician status from the gentleman magicians at the beginning of the plot summary. N p holmes (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I've changed the sentence regarding Hampton. Awadewit (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) There are two reasons I chose not include that part of the plot: 1) We would have to explain that Segundus was exempted from that contract, thus necessitating a digression on a rather minor plot points. 2) Most of these magicians (with the exception of Honeyfoot and Segundus) do not return later in the novel, so I felt that explaining their circumstances was not vital. While the event does show Norrell's desire to keep magic for himself, I tried to show this later when I explained that he took on Strange as a pupil but refused to teach him all he, Norrell, knew. What are your thoughts on this? Awadewit (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But the plot summary doesn't mention anything that would necessitate mentioning that Segundus was exempted. It feels thematically important somehow (the opposite of the democratisation of magic at the end); but maybe themes don't matter in a plot summary, and I see that Clarke has given you difficulties enough there with her "gentleman with thistledown hair". N p holmes (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Segundus is a major character in the novel because he doesn't sign the contract, though. Thus, in mentioning the contract, we would have to mention Segundus's decision. I agree that it would be nice to mention this point to emphasize the "elite" vs. "democratic" strains in the novel, but the plot summary section is generally more about the events of the novel than the themes. I was hoping that the "Themes" section would be a supplement to the "Plot" section, rather than a repetition of it. My greatest worry regarding the plot summary is that someone who has not read the book will not be able to follow it. Awadewit (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Pending Support - I think this is a fine and engaging article, especially given the difficulties in tracking down sources. I do have a few questions and comments, mostly just small things. Regarding plot questions, especially, I realise we don't want the summary section to become too weighed down with detail, so if some of these suggestions seem unnecessary, feel free to say so. :) My apologies if these points were already discussed at the peer review - I haven't had a chance to read through it yet.


 * Plot vol. I. "...Mr Norrell, who moves to London to revive practical English magic." This is indeed his stated goal, but I'm not sure it brings across his controlling nature adequately. He's not really interested in sharing his knowledge, and he works to suppress knowledge and discourage would-be magicians. Can we add some mention of this aspect of his personality?
 * Do you think adding a sentence about his library and his desire to keep all books of magic to himself would be good? Perhaps this could be added somewhere at the beginning of the "Vol. 1" section? Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that would work fine. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Now reads: The group is stunned to learn of a "practising magician", Mr Gilbert Norrell, who owns a large collection of "books of magic"; he has spent years purchasing these books in order to keep them out of the hands of others. Awadewit (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I combined the clauses into a single sentence (feel free to revert if you feel it doesn't work), but I'm satisfied on this point. :) Kafka Liz (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "...rarely speaking and verging on incoherence when she does." I think this possibly needs a touch of clarification. As worded it sounds as though she's speaking gobbledegook or is incapable of completing her sentences.
 * I had a very hard time writing his part. What happens, of course, is that she tells one story when she means to tell another, which appears as non-sequiturs as to the other characters. Could you suggest a rewording? Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What about "Emma (now Lady Pole) lapses into lassitude. She rarely speaks, and her attempts to communicate her situation are confounded by magic."? I can try to word this more specifically, but it conveys the fact that she's under a spell that prevents her from communicating. Maybe that's all we need here? It's not the easiest thing to sum up accurately, I'm finding. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me - I've altered the article. It is quite difficult to explain concisely, isn't? Awadewit (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You know it. I came up with at least half a dozen short and not-so-short explanations, and they all sounded terrible. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Plot vol. III. "Eternal Night" - I think there should be a brief explanation as what precisely this entails.
 * I've described it as an "an eerie darkness that engulfs him and follows him wherever he goes". Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That works. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "In England, there is a magical renaissance." Why?
 * Do you think I should say "In England, there is a magical renaissance, as John Uskglass returns, unbeknownst to the characters in the novel."? Hm. The thing is that this renaissance confuses Strange and Norrell - do you think we should explicitly explain it in the plot summary? Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to be overly explicit, but we should make some explanation, even if it's brief. What about something along the lines of "In England, the return of John Uskglass sparks a magical Renaissance; Strange and Norrell fail to grasp its significance, despite their knowledge of magic."


 * "Strange and Norrell remain bound together..." Why? How and when did this happen?
 * I've rewritten the ending: Strange asks Norrell to help him undo Arabella's enchantment by summoning John Uskglass. Although they initially believe that they have succeeded, they later come to believe that their contact with John Uskglass was accidental; as a result of their magics, Strange and Norrell remain bound together—they cannot leave the "Eternal Night" or each other. They do succeed in sending Arabella to Padua, where Flora is waiting for her. After the spells of the gentleman with thistle-down hair are broken, Stephen becomes the king of the Faerie domain, Lost-Hope. Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we need to clarify how Norrell wound up in the darkness in the first place. Otherwise, I think we're done. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Genre. "To create this effect, the novel includes many references..." Is there a way to avoid the repetition of the phrase "such as" in this sentence?
 * Done. Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Historical otherness. "...like Lady Pole, Stephen is silenced." Might it be worth pointing out that both characters are silenced in the same way literally as well as metaphorically?
 * I added Both "suffer under a silencing spell that mimics gaps in the historical record". Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Overall, a solid article. Excellent work. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've struck a couple of the completed items above; still working over a couple of the others. There are a couple of passages I'd like to reread to refresh my memory, and I seem to have left the book in my desk at work. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Support. Marvellous to see such a thorough article on a recent novel. Awadewit has grappled valiantly and fastidiously (she will not go beyond her sources, even though she could probably write a better review of the book than most of the reviewers she cites) with the task of compiling an accurate article from the news information available to her. All kudos. I made my comments at the Peer Review, and the article has improved since then. The only thing I would suggest, reading the additions, is that "George Rowlandson" should probably be Thomas Rowlandson. qp10qp (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I know! Unfortunately, the source actually has "George Rowlandson"! Am I allowed to correct that? Pretty please? Awadewit (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think so, because if the source already spoke of "important nineteenth-century illustrators", there is your get out (because there is no important nineteenth-century illustrator called George Rowlandson). You could cover this in a note. It looks to me like it must be a typing error, on the heels of "George Cruikshank", so perhaps Clute would thank you. qp10qp (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - I'm so relieved! Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Question In the peer review you say "this article is so bad". Why then should it be featured? --Peter Andersen (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles can only be as good as their sources. The sources for this article are terrible. Book reviewers do not take the time to carefully analyze the novel, I'm afraid; they only offer facile conclusions. However, as of this time, there is only one academic article on Jonathan Strange. The question has repeatedly been raised at FAC whether we should promote articles when the sources themselves do not make for a good article. The answer has always been "yes". I offer this article as yet another test case of whether we should question that answer. Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.