Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Yankee/archive1

The Yankee

 * Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

For only lasting two years, two centuries ago, under two different names, and for being published in what is today considered a small city and edited by what is today considered a largely unknown historic figure, The Yankee is a magazine that still comes up in histories of American art, literature, drama, and feminism. It's how Whittier, Poe, and Hawthorne got their start and how editor John Neal announced his prophetic cultural predictions. I figured the topic could use an article, so I wrote one and then took it through a peer review and GAN. I'm thinking that after resolving a few comments in this forum, it'll be even better, and deserving of featured status. If you can take the time to read through the article and leave your comments here, I would very much appreciate the help. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Image review
 * Why use an image in title in the infobox? Especially when the image directly below is topped with the same title?
 * Good question. Maybe the image doesn't add anything that plain text does not. I just switched it out for the latter. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * If it is kept, File:The_Yankee_Title_January_1_1828.jpg is likely not sufficiently original to have warranted copyright protection
 * Gone. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * File:John_Neal_by_Sarah_Miriam_Peale,_c._1823,_oil_on_canvas_-_Portland_Museum_of_Art_-_Portland,_Maine_-_DSC04059.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't found any information on when or where this painting was first put on public display or reproduced. Does that affect the image's status regarding the image policy for a photograph of a painting on public display that was originally produced 199 years ago by someone who has been dead 137 years? Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It would impact what tagging is most appropriate. What's the earliest publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah. This page on the Portland Museum of Art website says that the portrait was a gift from a private collection and that the accession number is 2013.13. As I understand it, this means that the painting was gifted in 2013, which is likely the time it was put on display at this museum. So if we can't confirm the portrait being on public display any earlier, I guess 2013 is when we can consider it to have been published. Thanks for your help with this. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, so likely PD-US-unpublished would apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Never seen that tag before. I just swapped it out. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I just added this image of Sarah Josepha Hale to the article per Aoba47's suggestion. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Two of the three source links here are dead, and same question as above re: publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Image removed. I added it per discussion below, but now I'm not sure it's appropriate.

Sorry to continue complicating this image review, but I just replaced File:Market Square Portland Maine 1874.png with File:Portland, Maine City Hall 1830s.jpg because it focuses more on the building in question and depicts a time period closer to the events in question. I hope I picked the right tag. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like the book from which that was taken has an "all rights reserved" notice from the City of Portland. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for figuring that out. I just replaced it with the city hall image that was there before. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Any other image issues? Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into these images, including the ones I brought in after nominating the article. Did the article pass your image review, or are there still issues to address? Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, all good. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Kavyansh
Will take a look soon. Note: I reviewed it for GA. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "When John Neal returned to his native Portland, Maine," — I'd mention who Neal was, as: "When American author John Neal returned to his native Portland, Maine," or any other way you find better.
 * Makes sense. I'd like to say "writer, critic, lawyer, and activist John Neal", but I think I should stick to one vocation, so I added simply "writer". His nationality is indicated later in the sentence. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "Residents also engaged with Neal in verbally and physically violent exchanges in the streets" — we have both 'engaged' and 'exchanges', which mostly means the same. Is there a way to avoid this repetition?
 * Good point. Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "Neal established The Yankee at the start of 1828" — Do we know in which month? If not, I feel that "early 1928" would be less wordy.
 * The first issue is dated January 1, 1828, so it really was "at the start". I've expanded this sentence into two, adding that date. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "Due to its high proportion of Neal's own work, Neal's unique" — repetition of "Neal's"
 * Good catch! Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "(later associate justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court)" — if we mention this, shouldn't we also mention that James Brooks later served as a representative from New York?
 * Sure! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "(later associate justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court)" v. "(later Chief Justice of Maine)" — why is 'Chief Justice' capitalised?
 * Good find! Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "Edgar Allan Poe, John Greenleaf Whittier, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow all received" — two things: (1) Poe and Whittier are already mentioned before. Is it necessary to write their full name again? (2) I might be wrong, but shouldn't there be a comma after 'Henry Wadsworth Longfellow'?
 * I just removed first names for Poe and Whittier, but the comma seems unnecessary to me and I couldn't find anything in the MOS saying one way or another, so I'm going to leave it without adding a comma. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Is 'Feminism' separate from 'Political, social, and civic issues'?
 * I gave "Feminism" its own section separate from "Political, social, and civic issues" because there seemed to be enough content to do so. And even though feminism is a social issue, it doesn't feel right to make it the only level-3 subsection beneath "Political, social, and civic issues". Let me know if you have more thoughts on that. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Works for me. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "  "Rights of Women" (March 5, 1829) includes  " — try to avoid starting a sentence by a quote.
 * Ok. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Note [b] needs a citation.
 * Good point. Added a dictionary citation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "pp. 69–70, 69–70, 76–77, 84–85, 92–93, 100–101, 109, 117–118" — '69–70' is repeated twice.
 * Good catch! Fixed. It turns out I am responsible for that exact same typo in two other FLC/FAC-reviewed articles, but you're the first person to spot it. I just fixed it in those two other articles as well. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

That is it. Great work, as always! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for spending even more time on this article. I think everything you brought up is now addressed. Let me know if anything above deserves more discussion. Otherwise, let me know if you support the nomination. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I definitely support this article for promotion as a featured article. And of-course, thanks for your work on this article, perhaps every other John Neal related article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47
I am leaving this as a placeholder. Unfortunately, I will not have time to post a review until the weekend so apologies for that. I am looking forward to reading the article as I find the topic to be interesting. I do have one small comment. I am not sure if the John Neal image fits in the "Feminism" sub-section. It would seem appropriate for the "Background" section where Neal is first discussed. I would put this image of Sarah Josepha Hale as it would make more sense to have an image of a woman in this sub-section and Hale is discussed here as one of the female editors promoted by The Yankee. Please ping me if I have not posted a review by this time next week. Aoba47 (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks in advance for the review! I agree that Neal's portrait is probably better suited for the "Background" section, so I moved it. I went ahead and added Hale's to the "Feminism" section, because why not, but it's worth noting that this section is all about Neal's writing on feminist topics. As editor, he critiqued and published works by women (covered in the "Literary criticism" section), but I haven't seen anything explicitly feminist in The Yankee written by a woman. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. If the Hale portrait does not fit with the section, feel free to remove it. I was primarily suggesting it as I did not want to talk about removing an image from a sub-section without offering a potential substitute. I would trust your judgement on this as you know the subject best. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for talking it through. I did end up removing Hale's portrait, in part because of the image review above, but I'm keeping Neal's portrait where it is. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * American art is linked in the lead, but I do not think it is linked in the article. I'd link it in the article to be consistent with the lead. I have the same comment for American literature.
 * Good point. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Would it be beneficial to have a link to the theater in the United States article when American theatre is mentioned?
 * I don't see why not! Added in the lead and body. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The caption for the File:Market Square Portland Maine 1874.png image should have a period since it is a full sentence.
 * Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I have a question about this part, and is approximately equal to $11,783 in present terms. Wouldn't the phrase "in present terms" be discouraged as this will change in the future? I think it would be better to specify the year or find a way to avoid the above phrasing.
 * Thanks for bringing this up. I thought that by using Template:Inflation, the phrase "in present terms" was acceptable. I've edited this footnote to match the usage recommendations on that template's page. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I hope that my comments are helpful. The article is in great shape, and I really do not have that much for my review. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support the FAC for promotion. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely helpful. I appreciate you taking the time to read through the article and find these items. Let me know if you now support the nomination. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the responses. I support the FAC for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.


 * " Unique at the time for independent journalism, Neal used creative control of the magazine ..." Can I suggest that this may flow a little easier as 'The Yankee was unique at the time for its independent journalism. Neal used creative control of the magazine ...'?
 * Like like it! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "Many new, predominantly female writers and editors". Should there be a comma after "female"?
 * Sure. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "who are still familiar to modern readers." Delete "still".
 * Yes! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "Background": Perhaps a sentence or two covering what Neal did prior to 1827. (I assume he is not related to Athena.)
 * Seems reasonable. Added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "his unique editorial choices". In a literal sense, surely any editorial selection is unique. Is there not a better word.
 * Agreed. Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "The Yankee's greatest impact was uplifting new authors". How does one uplift an author? Is that a thing?
 * Swapped for "encouraging". Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "influenced the younger writer's style". Younger than whom? Do you mean 'young'?
 * Good catch. Changed to "young". Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "for saying the same thing". Actually the same thing?
 * Good point. Reworded. I'll work on your other comments in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * MOS:QUOTE states "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". You have a lot of quotes in this, including three big block quotes. I can just about - maybe, I'll reread - grit my teeth over the in text quotes - which you do use well, and this is on a cultural publication - and most of the first block quote. But is there an overwhelming reason why the MoS should not be adhered to re the block quotes in "Political, social, and civic issues" and "Feminism" and they be rewritten in Wikipedia editors' own words? Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate.
 * Having gone through a few peer reviews, GANs, and FACs over the last year and a half, I think it's safe to say that this comment touches on what may be my most persistent weakness as a Wiki editor. Looking at the three block quotes with MOS:QUOTE in mind, I'm now thinking that the first, while really fun, is totally extraneous, so I cut it. The second I replaced with a prose summary. As you mentioned, this is an article about a cultural publication, which I think should give it a little more leeway on the MOS:QUOTE standard, so I'm hoping that removing two-thirds of the block quotes is sufficient. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "which he offered in "Woman" (March 26, 1828), is female solidarity". "is" → 'was'.
 * Sure. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it is still quote-heavy. (I say this as someone keen on quotations myself. Only this week I had a run in with a FAC coordinator over this, but they were quibbling over my using quotations totalling five words!) But it is a cultural publication and you have certainly cut them a lot, so ok.


 * I notice that we are not told what the title of the publication/article aludes to.
 * Fair point. I added something to the "New England" section. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * ""Her magnitude, her resources etc". Is "her" Maine or New England?
 * I see how that's not clear. Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "In contrast to most American regionalist works later in the century that sentimentally posed rural traditions in conflict with America's urbanization, The Yankee presented the country's regions as "future-oriented spaces whose identities would—and should—remain elusive"." I feel that this sentence is working too hard. It is very difficult to read.
 * Ha! I agree. It's still a little heady, but now in two sentences and minus one quotation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "The first volume of The Yankee". Could it be clearly stated what constitutes a "volume".
 * Ah. I changed "(1828)" to "(January 1 – December 24, 1828)" to make that clear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Neat.

Actually, that's all I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fantastic finds! So many opportunities for greater clarity I didn't notice. Thank you. Let me know if you think any of these issues need more attention or if you support the nomination. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Lovely stuff. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from SchreiberBike
I'm new to the featured articles process, so rather than suggest changes here, I copy edited the article myself. The nominator corrected my misunderstanding of MOS:RANGE and made a few other changes. I now feel that the article meets the criteria to be a featured article. Thank you, SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 21:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth - pass

 * What makes the following "high quality reliable sources":
 * Barnes, Albert F. (1984). Greater Portland Celebration 350?
 * I guess I can do better. I used this reference in two places for essentially the same claim. I just replaced with the 1979 article by William Barry (the most highly regarded scholar of Portland, Maine history, from what I can tell). Changing out the citation necessitated changing the wording a little bit to match Barry's claim. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "and continued with Neal's claim in The Yankee that Garrison was fired from his editorial position for attacking Neal in the paper" is sourced to an arguably primary source - Garrison, Wendell Phillips; Garrison, Francis Jackson (1885). William Lloyd Garrison, 1805-1879: The Story of His Life Told by His Children. What makes the stories told to Garrison's children a high quality reliable source? This feels more like we need a secondary source here.
 * Fair enough. Citation replaced with the 1933 Richards dissertation, which details the same story. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're not historians, so when possible, we're always better off using secondary sources, rather than primary ones. Historians get the joys of dealing with primary sources.... not us. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Likewise - Neal, John (1869). Wandering Recollections of a Somewhat Busy Life likewise is a primary source - we should be relying on secondary sources for this information - historians who can weigh the weight to give to Neal's memoirs and how much they can be believed.
 * Fair. I removed all references to this source, including the article's only remaining footnote, which I guess was superfluous anyway. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Richards, Irving T. (1933). The Life and Works of John Neal (PhD). Cambridge, Massachusetts - I'm unclear what the "(PhD)" is meant to impart here?
 * One of the parameters of Template:Cite thesis is "type" and the top example given uses "PhD" in this way, so I copied that. But it looks like there's a "degree" parameter that renders as "PhD thesis" instead, so I swapped that out to be more clear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I checked Sears, Donald A. (1978). John Neal on WorldCat and it's held by over 400 library, including many university and college libraries so even though I'm not familiar with the publisher, I'm willing to assume it's high quality due to it being held by universities.
 * I'd say so. David A. Sears was a Harvard-educated historian and literature scholar with plenty of other books and articles in scholarly journals. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
 * Rad. Never heard of Earwig's tool. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Otherwise everything looks good. Note that I will be claiming points from this review for the wikicup. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your review! Do you feel that all your comments are addressed? Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It all looks good now. Unwatching, and good luck! Ealdgyth (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

(t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)