Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of works by Georgette Heyer/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 20:36, 1 March 2015.

List of works by Georgette Heyer

 * Nominator(s):  Ruby  2010/  2013  00:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is close to meeting the FL criteria. This list details the works by the British author Georgette Heyer (an article which is already a FA). I feel this list would complement the main article nicely.

Thanks in advance to all reviewers! I will work on reviewing some other nominations on this page promptly.  Ruby  2010/  2013  00:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Adding a quick note that I am unsure if the main image is permitted or not. If it is, I know that I will likely need to update the image page to reflect this new usage, but think that I will need a little guidance in what to do first. Thanks,  Ruby  2010/  2013  00:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I asked over here about the main image []. It's what I surmised, an image of the author would be "decorative" on this list so not fair use hence needs to be removed. You've already got plenty of images later. Also, could you please add alt text for the images for accessibility? Otherwise, I support this list. Good job. Cowlibob (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing, and for supporting! I have removed the lead image per everyone's advice and added alt text to the remaining images. Thanks again,  Ruby  2010/  2013  02:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from BlueMoonset
I'm acquainted with Heyer's work. I'm glad to see this list, but it still needs a fair amount of work before I can support it for Featured List status. —BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (and 04:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC))
 * The combination of Georgian and Regency strikes me as artificial and somewhat misleading. The Georgians tailed off shortly after the Regencies began, and I frankly think that, since she is best known for her Regency novels, these two should be separate categories.
 * There is talk about the 1920s and 1930s, but nothing to characterize the subsequent decades. That's a serious omission.
 * "A prolific novelist, beginning in 1932 Heyer typically released one romance and one thriller each year." This makes it sound like she continued this forever, when it was for only eight years. World War II started, she missed a year, did two more, and then nothing for almost a decade until her final two in the early 1950s. She wrote for nearly two decades after those final two mysteries. Also, "thriller" and "detective fiction" are rather different genres; the article needs to be consistent about this.
 * The Short Story table uses three different formats for the titles; quoted roman is the standard for short stories. If The Bulldog and the Beast should indeed be in italics, then it's not a short story, but a longer length.
 * I'd like to suggest that her second Georgian, The Transformation of Philip Jettan, be made to break between the two titles so the table isn't so impossibly wide.
 * "As one of the pioneers of the Regency genre": this is a problematic sentence, because it implies that there were others, and the Regency period novel in the comedy of manners form was her creation alone.
 * Definitely some great suggestions! I completely agree about better articulating the timeline of her novels, and will get to addressing this and your other comments soon. ("Bulldog and the Beast" should not be in italics -- I think I accidentally introduced them when adding a new sort template the other day). Will report back here once I've worked on enacting your suggestions.  Ruby  2010/  2013  02:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done some more work on the lead, so let me know what you think. This included attempting to finesse out her timeline a bit more, and also implementing your other stylistic concerns.  Ruby  2010/  2013  04:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ruby2010/2013, I did a bit of work on the third paragraph, because I thought there needed to be a bit more emphasis on the Regency, and the fact that after 1953, every novel she published was a Regency. I didn't come up with appropriate source citations for the new text, though I imagine I could find something in my copy of Jane Aiken Hodge's The Private World of Georgette Heyer if you don't have a source readily available.
 * It might be appropriate to note that her husband was her collaborator on detective novels, and provided the plots for them (Hodge, p. 40). In the final paragraph, I removed the Austen sentence: my feeling is that it was a bit vague ("have been compared to the works of Jane Austen" could mean almost anything), and the whole didn't strike me as adequately reflecting what the source was saying. I don't think the list suffers from its absence, and I think the previous sentence works better as a summation.
 * I should say now that I will not be able to support this nomination so long as the Georgians and Regencies are lumped together, which was my first point above, and remains unaddressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Understood. I plan to spend some more time this weekend on your suggestions, and will reply here again once I think the lead is worth looking at again. I don't have access to The Private World of Georgette Heyer, so I would most definitely be much appreciated if you could add anything useful from that source (such as a succinct opinion on her Regencies since, as you say, more emphasis may be needed there)? Thanks!  Ruby  2010/  2013  03:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi BlueMoonset, I have completed an overhaul of the lead and would appreciate you giving it a second look. The Georgian and Regency novels have now been separated out in the lead, hopefully in a clear way. (I will separate them out in the actual list tomorrow - just getting a bit late today). I have also added a bit on Austen back into the lead - let me know what you think. Thanks!  Ruby  2010/  2013  04:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ruby2010/2013, you've done some great work, and I've just made what I hope you will feel are some minor emendations and corrections to the article. I'm on the verge of supporting, but the sole thing that is keeping me from doing so is the caption to the Brontë image: it makes a claim about the contents of the Brontë essay that is not mentioned elsewhere, so I think you need to provide a source citation for that caption. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a third party source that analyzed Heyer's essay on the Bronte sisters, so I've edited the caption to be more neutral. Thanks again for all your comments!  Ruby  2010/  2013  04:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: Brontë caption now fits the title of the essay in question. I should probably mention that according to Hodge, Heyer apparently wrote other articles—there's one alluded to in 1929 for the Sphere, about rhinos, from when she was in Africa with her husband, who was then a mining engineer. Also, a number of her novels were serialized in Women's Journal, including The Foundling. I don't think either of these are sufficiently germane to affect this review. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... how interesting! I had thought my copy of Georgette Heyer: A Critical Retrospective included all of her published essays. I don't have access to Hodge's book, but please feel welcome to add any additional essays if you come across them. (And thanks again for the support!) The serialization aspect would probably push the lead too long but I appreciate you mentioning it.  Ruby  2010/  2013  04:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS
Seems fine from a first glance, comments to come within a few days..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, here's my review.....


 * "Georgette Heyer (1902–1974) was a British historical romance and detective fiction novelist"..... let's be more specific, she was English
 * Changed to English.  Ruby  2010/  2013  03:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Heyer married later that year" belongs in her main article rather than here
 * I modeled this list after List of works by E. W. Hornung, which does include personal details about the subject. I don't really see a reason why this type of personal detail should be removed, but I'm willing to be persuaded.  Ruby  2010/  2013  03:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "Her travels with her husband"..... George Ronald Rougier should be mentioned by name
 * Have added Rougier's name.  Ruby  2010/  2013  03:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "The author had an ambition for many years" → "She had aspired for many years"
 * Reworded.  Ruby  2010/  2013  03:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "particularly in Heyer's use of wit, setting, and marriage as a plot driver"..... not sure if "use of wit" is neutral
 * Another editor also had an issue with the sentence and removed it.  Ruby  2010/  2013  03:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This shouldn't take long to fix up. Snuggums (talk / edits</b>) 03:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing! I believe I have finished replying to your concerns. Let me know if there is anything else!  Ruby  2010/  2013  03:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome :), I now support <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 03:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Another Believer

 * Comment: Looks good overall, thought I do find the numerous appearances of both "worldcat.org" and "WorldCat" redundant. Is the website necessary to include more than the first time? Also, this is not required to pass FLC, but I think the list would look better if columns widths aligned as you scrolled down the page. Perhaps columns widths could be set? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for commenting! I have forced the table widths to be consistent, and simplified the Worldcat citations. Let me know if there is anything else!  Ruby  2010/  2013  06:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, the columns do not align down the page as I had hoped, but I now see that not all tables have the same number of columns, and this consistency is not required for FL status. I did notice something wrong for The Nonesuch entry. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Another Believer, the final table has one extra column which throws it off from the others a bit. How necessary do you find the column on "format"? It's really there to differentiate the short story collection from the others, but I'm not sure this is needed? Thoughts?  Ruby  2010/  2013  03:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't find the Format column necessary. I also notice that tables include a Year column, but some tables include full dates and not just years. Is Date a more appropriate column title? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Another Believer, thank you again for commenting! (Sorry for lag in reply). I have converted year to date, and removed the remaining format column. Please let me know if there is anything else!  Ruby  2010/  2013  04:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Espresso Addict

 * The tables seem complete and well referenced; there's even one work in there I didn't know about! I think the lead might need more work for Featured List status. It's very hard to summarise all of Heyer's oeuvre in a short space but issues not dealt with that leaped at me whilst skimming the online sources include:
 * The move from melodrama to comedy of manners, which is highlighted in several of the sources.
 * Unconventionality & self-determination particularly of her later heroines; several sources discuss their being essentially modern heroines placed in impeccable Regency backdrops.
 * The division into classes of Regency/Georgian romance vs [serious] historical fiction is muddied by serious romances like An Infamous Army and A Civil Contract. Also many of the early romances have detective/thriller plots. I think the "Historical novels" label should read "Other historical novels".
 * Mention critically panned in her lifetime. AS Byatt leading the modern critical response.
 * Continued popularity (eg Arrow reissues, library borrowings).
 * Suppression of the early contemporary novels.
 * Modern perceived difference from other Regency romance writers based on perceived historical accuracy.
 * Debt to Austen.

PS Ping me if you want me to respond; I have intermittent internet access at the moment. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm ambivalent over the suggestion to split the historical romances into Georgians vs Regencies; they are usually just lumped together as romances as distinct from her non-romance-focused historical novels & her detective fiction. It might be better to include a column stating which time period these novels are set; colour coding might be a possibility. This would need to be referenced to secondary materials. There are several fansites that give dates for all the novels but I don't know how easy it would be to source respectably. I know Hodge gives some of the dates but does she do all?
 * Seconding the suggestion to mention that Rougier did her detective plotting for her. This seems well attested.
 * The first sentence seems clumsy and omits the other genres that she wrote in. What about Georgette Heyer (1902–1974) was an English author particularly known for her historical romance novels. ?
 * A minor issue, but you repeatedly use "stories" when you mean predominantly novel-length works; as Heyer also wrote short stories this is confusing. Perhaps "works" would be better?
 * Alright, Espresso Addict, I have completed an overhaul of the lead section. While I did not incorporate all of your suggestions due to space limitations, I believe I have employed most of them. Could you take another look and let me know what you think? Let me know if anything in the lead needs to be worded differently -- in particular, the language on her historical detail and Austen's influence may need tweaking. Thanks!  Ruby  2010/  2013  04:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is much improved! I'll make some minor tweaks to the lead's wording but I'm prepared to add my support. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the support! Your comments were very helpful.  Ruby   2010/  2013  03:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
Support. A fine piece of work. Thorough, well laid out and impeccably sourced. Three minor points on the prose of the introductory section:
 * The second sentence is more than fifty words long, and could do with breaking up.
 * Done (by another editor, I think Blue).  Ruby  2010/  2013  03:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * "The first, Regency Buck, was published in 1935 as a best-seller" – "published as a best seller" looks rather odd. It was published and then became a best seller, surely?
 * Same, done (by another editor, I think Blue).  Ruby  2010/  2013  03:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There are two "howevers" in the lead, both of which weaken the prose and would be better dispensed with, I suggest.  Tim riley  talk    11:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Both "howevers" have been removed. Thanks very much for your support!  Ruby  2010/  2013  03:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG
Support I think it is a very well-written list. It has a professional standards of writing. Although I feel the lead is a bit long, it is quite engaging and introduces the subject very well. The list is comprehensive and the table is formatted properly. You have used images wherever necessary, have not crowded the list with overuse of images and last but not the it is stable and I have not seen any edit war in the recent timing. Well done Ruby! -- FrankBoy (Buzz) 18:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree the lead is a bit long but I cannot think what to exclude - editors here have offered their feedback on what ought to be included, and I agreed with their suggestions. Anyways, I very much appreciate your support.  Ruby  2010/  2013  03:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, no, I'm not asking you to trim or exclude the points. As said before, it introduces the subject very well and it's just a feeling of mine. -- FrankBoy (Buzz) 11:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * – SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.