Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Man in the Moone/archive1


 * 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 10:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC).

The Man in the Moone

 * Nominator(s): Drmies (talk), John O&#39;London (talk), Eric Corbett (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Drmies and I started work on this article about one of the earliest works of British science fiction so long ago that I can hardly remember why we embarked on it. I'm glad we did though, because I think that together, with the help of John O'London, we've produced one of the best, if not the best, encyclopedic accounts of this rather short but surprisingly influential book you're likely to find anywhere. I hope you agree. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This actually started as a little DYK present for MF, following on a remark he made while we were working on the green children. Then it became a monster. Let me add that I'm an academic writer by profession and do not mind tweakage for more encyclopedic diction and syntax. However. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a super article. I'd like to see instances of "aforementioned", "additionally" and "however" reduced to a minimum or eliminated before I could support on prose. May be more comments to come, that's just on a first pass. --John (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've given those "however"s a good spanking. See what you think now. Malleus Fatuorum 11:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Much better, thank you. I'll have a proper look tonight or tomorrow. --John (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources and images - spotchecks not done
 * Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
 * File:Godwin_man_in_the_moone.jpg: if they author died more than 100 years ago, we can just assume he died more than 70 years ago - +100 is fine on its own
 * FN14, 52, 53: page formatting
 * FN15: page?
 * Ranges should use endashes (not hyphens or emdashes)
 * Be consistent in how ranges are abbreviated
 * Be sure to identify foreign-language sources
 * Be consistent in whether you include locations for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I got all those except for the page numbers for FN15, which I don't immediately have access to, and flagging the language on a couple of the sources. As I wouldn't feel confident in distinguishing between Dutch and Flemish I'll leave that for Drmies to sort out. Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we've got all those now. Malleus Fatuorum 12:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't tell you how much I hate that "rule" of "no periods for incomplete sentences". Bleh. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim Excellent article, just a few quibbles  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  15:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Spelling includes both AE and BE, should be consistently the latter, especially since you have both "favor" and "favour"
 * I think we're consistent Br English now. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Two of "Further reading" need language fields
 * Done. Malleus Fatuorum 12:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Lunar speculation—why is lunar capped here?
 * Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * posthumously, Jesuit, circumnavigation, Tenerife, Calvinist, genealogy —link?
 * I've added links for Calvinism and Tenerife; Jesuit was already linked. Not sure we need links for posthumously, circumnavigation or genealogy though. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sidereus Nuncius, Somnium sive opus posthumum de astronomia lunaris, De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas—Give a translation?
 * Done. Malleus Fatuorum 13:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1630s also saw the publication —also seems redundant
 * Agreed, removed. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Peking —is this version rather than Beijing a conscious choice?
 * Not really, changed to Beijing. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Lunar Christianity—again, why caps
 * Because "Lunar" is the name Godwin gives to the inhabitants of the Moon, therefore it's a proper noun here. I'll read through again to make sure we've been consistent in using "lunar" when we're talking about the Moon and "Lunar" when we're talking about the people. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * gansa—does the book actually say they are swans? It looks like the Indo-European root for "goose" (I don't have access to the OED, which presumably clarifies)
 * They're definitely called swans in the book. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, swans--and Jim, the OED definition is actually in the article. :) Drmies (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Lunar inhabitants.— why caps?
 * Changed to "lunar inhabitants". Malleus Fatuorum 17:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Lunar" struck me as odd as well with a capital once or twice, but I chose consistency. I'm not married to capitalization. Thanks MF. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I added language parameters to the "Further reading". Personally, I wouldn't red-link journals, but then I wouldn't blue-link either, just a style thing. I had a quick look to see if I could spot anything else, but all looks good, changed to support above  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  15:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That linking is my doing, no doubt, for reasons which have as much to do with the journals and their (future) articles as with this specific article. I'm a big fan of redlinks when appropriate, and I think (or I like to think) that I didn't add them for non-notable publications. Malleus's mileage may vary. Or can vary. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've got no problem with the red links. I simply thought they were a reminder to you to get your arse in gear and write the linked articles. Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Drmies (talk)

Parrot of Doom comments. I've worked with Malleus on several articles but have had no input on this one, indeed this review will be the first time I've read it. Due to restraints on my time, I will review only the text; citations et al I leave to others.


 * Support' Parrot of Doom 13:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "Initially considered an early work of Godwin's" - minor thing but this sentence made me check who Godwin is, despite him having been mentioned in the previous sentence. Can you not just write "Initially considered to be one of his early works"?
 * Good idea, changed as per your suggestion. Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are lots of citations in the lead section, are most of them necessary?
 * I've removed all but two, which I think we do need. Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Godwin proposes that the dark spots on the Moon are seas, one of many similarities between The Man in the Moone and Kepler's Somnium sive opus posthumum de astronomia lunaris of 1634" - this sentence, from the lead, is almost identical to a sentence in the first paragraph of "Scientific advances and lunar speculation". Is it possible to reword to avoid a sense of deja vu?
 * PoD, that is possible, but Malleus, do you mind if I leave this kind of copyedit to you? You're much better at it than I am. (This is probably a redundancy I created when I reorganized content and created a new section.) Drmies (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem, I've had a go at rewording the lead. Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "lunatic church" - is there any connection between this phrase and the old lunacy/lunar connection?
 * Undobtedly, as the term lunatic for someone who's insane had been in use since the 13th century. But I think we ought to leave that connection for the reader to infer. Malleus Fatuorum 13:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Who or what are/were Grant McColley and William Poole?
 * I've added a parenthetical note explaining that McColley is "a historian of early Modern English literature". I'm not sure that Poole needs to be similarly introduced though, as he's clearly described as the author of the 2009 edition of The Man in the Moone. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Dating evidence" - there's quite a lot of valuable information in this section but I wonder, would a small preface make it more readable for the casual observer? Something about how the dating evidence is found in historical authors, clerics, old texts, etc?  Also, some of the authors are only given names, while others - "based on a manuscript by Matteo Ricci, the founder of the Jesuit mission in Beijing in 1601" - are given titles.  I'm no historian, so I had to click to see who was what.  Later in the article, other writers and historical figures are given titles, so perhaps there's a little bit of inconsistency there.
 * Who was Kathleen Tillotson?
 * She was professor of English at Bedford College London, and a noted Victorian scholar, particularly of Dickens; I'm a bit surprised there isn't an article on her. For our purposes I've added a description of her as a literary critic, which she also was. Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Lawton's 1931 article mentions a copy" - Lawton's full name and title is missing, and also the title or purpose of his article.
 * It was another review article. I've changed the beginning of the sentence to " H. W. Lawton's review published six years earlier ...". Malleus Fatuorum 14:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "The printer of the first edition is identified on the title page as John Norton" - to which copy does this refer - McColley's, Lawton's or Poole's?
 * None of the above, it refers to the first edition of Godwin's The Man in the Moone. I've hopefully clarified that now. Malleus Fatuorum 14:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "The partial revision of the manuscript " - same question as above
 * "and so do the many translations based on Baudoin" - would it be appropriate to substitute "it" for "Baudoin"?
 * I think so, done. Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Eventually he comes to rely on a species of bird he describes a some kind of wild swan" - typo?
 * A typo indeed, now fixed. I'd blame it on Drmies, but as I wrote most of the plot summary I might not get away with that. Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "When Gonsales first encounters the Lunars" - I can probably guess who they are, but the plot section doesn't mention him meeting "Lunars", only "inhabitants".
 * I think that's fixed now? Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it an omission that we only learn of Godwin's protestantism half way through the article? In fact, the article doesn't exactly make it clear what his religion was.
 * Good point. I've added to the lead that Godwin was a bishop in the Church of England. Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, but nowhere else in the article does it state that Godwin was a CofE Bishop... Parrot of Doom 22:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I've elaborated on that in the Religion section. Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Works for me. I was just concerned that some people might not know about English religious history. Parrot of Doom 22:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "discussion on the plurality of worlds had begun to favour the possibility of other inhabited worlds" - repetition of worlds
 * I've changed the last occurrence to "the possibility of extraterrestrial life". Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Who are P Cornelius and H. Neville Davies?
 * Some foreign language titles are translated, whereas others (De Magnete,  L'Autre Monde: où les États et Empires de la Lune for instance), are not.
 * FWIW, I asked above for some of the less transparent titles to be translated. I can see that leads to a bit of inconsistency, but De Magnete is pretty obvious, and I would have thought  L'Autre Monde: où les États et Empires de la Lune was accessible enough  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  18:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Who and what is Knowlson?
 * "The Man in the Moone became a popular source for "often extravagantly staged comic drama and opera".[59] These" - I'm nit-picking but is drama and opera singular, or plural?
 * I've merged those two sentences to avoid any potential clash with "These". Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Gonsales's gansas have also left their mark." - that might be better written as "Gonsales's load-carrying birds" or similar.
 * Done. Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't think of much that's possibly missing from this article, although truth be told, I found some sections, particularly those discussing other, similar works, to be slightly impenetrable. But the above criticisms aside, I'd definitely support this. Parrot of Doom 17:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Support: I've read this a couple of times now, and aside from a few minor points listed below, can find very little to fault. It is well-written, clear and interesting. The points below do not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we need a touch more about the plot in the lead? It seems a bit light on that aspect.
 * Good point. I've added a paragraph giving a precis of the plot. Malleus Fatuorum 11:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "During his life, he was known as a churchman and a historian": I wonder if we need to say that he is a churchman? As he was a bishop, I'd imagine that was pretty clear.
 * I don't think we do need to say that he was a churchman, no, so I've removed it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "The influence particularly of Nicolaus Copernicus led to what was called the "new astronomy"": I imagine the intention here is to say "the influence (particularly of Copernicus) led to new astronomy", but it does not quite say this, and "the influence … led" does not quite make sense. Should it be something like "These influences and particularly those of Nicholas Copernicus, led to…"? I'm not sure if I'm making sense, but there is something slightly off in this section.
 * I wonder if Astronomia nova bears any relation to this? Parrot of Doom 20:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "while poets including Edmund Spenser were proposing that other worlds": Could this just be "proposed" instead of "were proposing"?
 * Changed to "proposed". Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "it had been considered that Godwin wrote The Man in the Moone relatively early in his life": To me, "it had been considered" is a little cumbersome; I'd prefer "it was thought", but not a big deal.
 * I'm fine with that, changed. Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder is the dating section a little long? It is almost as long as the plot section, and seems to labour the point that he wrote it later than originally thought. But not a big issue for me.
 * It's two big fat paragraphs, that's true. One reason for its length is that it was a pretty big deal, at least until it got settled. Another is that the grounds for dating the text involve some pretty big things--other texts, borrowings, and the growth of scientific knowledge--and they can't just be mentioned but have to be contextualized. As such, it also serves to introduce some of those scientific and historical issues, like the Chinese Jesuit mission and the relationship to Burke. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, as one of the nominators(!), I've been so busy watching the ongoing edits, I've only just spotted something that dates back to April 2011 under "Dating evidence" - "it was thought that Godwin wrote The Man in the Moone relatively early in his life, perhaps during his time at Christ College from 1578 to 1584". Now I may have been at "the other place" myself, but I'm pretty sure it's never "Christ College" in Oxford. Under "Background and contexts" he's more correctly described as "a student of Christ Church, Oxford" with a wikilink (and the link reminds us that "'Students of Christ Church' [note capital "S"] are not students, but rather the equivalent of the fellows of the other colleges" - does this need explanation?). - John O&#39;London (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "resulting in the Martin Marprelate controversy": Is it worth saving the reader a click or two by explaining this in the text? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence to explain briefly who Martin Marprelate was. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe you're right, I've changed that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry--my fault. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 *  Reference nitpicks  by Sasata (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All good now, thanks. Sasata (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "one of which also a lunar travel narrative" I assume there's a word missing?
 * Indeed, fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 11:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no--appositive and all. "is" makes the phrase an independent clause, necessitating different punctuation before and after. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * the subscription required template isn't required after JSTOR links; this is typically given if the title is linked (i.e., via the "url="parameter) and the reader might be expecting to find the full document when the link is clicked through. Also, it is redundant to give both the doi and the JSTOR link, as the doi leads to the JSTOR page.
 * Fixed by only providing JSTOR links. Malleus Fatuorum 11:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ref#20 (McColley) is missing a year, and the title is in sentence case, unlike most others in title case. Not sure what the first number in "4 17 (4)" represents.
 * Year added and case changed. The initial "4" represents the series number; I've altered that slightly to "s4" to make that clearer. Malleus Fatuorum 11:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * page ranges are not given consistently: compare pp. 23–24 with pp. 153–4.
 * The page numbering is consistent in that only page numbers ≥ 100 are abbreviated. Malleus Fatuorum 11:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Frederiks & Branden (1888–1891)" -> (1888–91) per MOS:YEAR?
 * Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 11:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * does Bennett 1983 not have a JSTOR link? How about Dziubinskyj 2003 and Sharpe 2011?
 * Bennett and Dziubinsky are, and I've links for those, Sharp isn't. Malleus Fatuorum 12:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * does the title of Hutton 1983 really not have a possessive apostrophe in "Godwins"?
 * It doesn't, no. Malleus Fatuorum 11:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * should the hyphen in the title of Frederiks (1888–1891) be an endash ("der Noord - en Zuidnederlandsche letterkunde")?
 * It should indeed, fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 11:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I have to change that back as well: the hyphen indicates elision ("Noordnederlandsche en Zuidnederlandsche letterkund") and "belongs" to the adjective.


 * Godwin 1768 has the title in sentence case
 * Case changed for consistency. Malleus Fatuorum 11:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your commens and, Malleus, for your quick edits. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Pls go through dup links with the checker and see what you really need, if any.
 * I think I got rid of all those we don't really need. Eric   Corbett  02:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd expect the last sentence of English editions and translations to be cited.
 * re "I'd expect the last sentence of English editions and translations to be cited." - just move the Poole and Buisman citations (notes 27 and 28) to the end of the sentence. John O&#39;London (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the logic is exactly the same as it is for the plot section, in which the book itself is the source, so I don't think that sentence needs to be cited. Eric   Corbett  01:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There may be an argument there but if the remainder of the editions and translations section is cited, it seems logical to be able to cite this -- especially if, as John indicates, refs 27/28 in fact cover it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For the sake of a quiet life I've moved those two citations to the end of the sentence. Eric   Corbett  02:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.