Wikipedia:Peer review/George Griffith/archive1

George Griffith


I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to WP:Featured article status. I have done that for a couple articles before, but never for a biography, so I figured it would be a good idea to solicit feedback here first. The article was nominated for deletion earlier this year and after much work just promoted to WP:Good article status.

Any and all feedback would be appreciated, be it about copyediting, content, structure, or something else.

Thanks, TompaDompa (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
That's everything. Looks very good; I would expect this to get through FAC without much trouble. Would you be willing to take a look at Argosy (magazine) for me? I just put it up for peer review yesterday with an eye to FAC; I don't normally do a PR before FAC but this is a little different from my usual nominations and I thought it would be helpful to get other eyes on it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Among these were an 1894 publicity stunt circumnavigating the world in 65 days": suggest "Among these were an 1894 publicity stunt in which he circumnavigated the world in 65 days".
 * Done. TompaDompa (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Griffith's career declined in the latter part of the 1890s, in part due to being surpassed by H. G. Wells as the favourite science fiction writer of both Pearson and the reading public." As written this says Griffiths' career was surpassed by Wells, rather than by Wells' career.  That could be fixed by restructuring, but I also think this isn't really supported by what's in the body.  The body of the article says Wells became the leading writer but doesn't mention Wells when talking about Griffiths' decline.
 * Tweaked. TompaDompa (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest promoting the hidden comment about The Lake of Gold to a note, if you have a good source for it -- presumably philsp.com has it. I have a similar comment about The Lake of Gold in the article I'm currently working on, Argosy (magazine), so I'll take a look too.  I see you also mention this at the end of the "Breakthrough" subsection so if you agree the note should probably go there too.  I see Moskowitz qualifies it as "a magazine edited and published in the United States", which might be good wording to use.
 * Managed to find the source that brought up the US edition of Pearson's Magazine only to dismiss it in this context, so I turned it into an explanatory footnote as suggested. TompaDompa (talk) 17:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That looks good. I copied your note and used it myself for Argosy; I attributed it to the current rev of Griffith. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems the "Griffith" of "Griffith-Jones" is not derived from either parent. Do we know where it comes from?
 * Not that I've been able to find, no. TompaDompa (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "and promptly quit that line of work in favour of pursuing a career in writing": suggest "but promptly quit" since (I assume) it was not because, but in spite of, the completion of his qualifications in teaching that he became a writer.
 * One might think that, but Moskowitz writes "He taught at Bolton at least through 1887, passing his College of Preceptors Examination in that year, flinging it in the face of the school board, and quitting teaching forever." and Stableford writes "The perverse streak in Griffith's character is amply demonstrated by the fact that when he had finally obtained the last of his teaching diplomas in 1887 he promptly quit the profession", so it really seems like it was a "to hell with it" kind of deal. TompaDompa (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we know which paper he worked for in 1888?
 * I haven't been able to find this information, no. TompaDompa (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "and the staff discussed internally who could try their hand at a future-war serial, to which Griffith volunteered": a bit awkward. How about "and when the staff discussed who among them might try their hand at a future-war serial, Griffith volunteered".
 * Done. TompaDompa (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "it was printed in at least eleven editions": do we know over what time period this applies? Without that it's much less meaningful.
 * Unfortunately, no. Moskowitz writes "By early September, the sixth edition had been sold out, and no one has ever ascertained how many editions and printings the book eventually went into, though advertisements announcing the eleventh of the hardcover did appear." TompaDompa (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Any idea what The Pelican refers to? I can't find any sources that talk about a magazine of that name.
 * Presumably a British magazine, since Ellis writes "The Angel of the Revolution, brought out by Tower Publishing, became the best-selling 'future war' book of the century. 'A novel of exceptional brilliancy and power' hailed Reynolds News; 'A second Jules Verne said The Pelican; 'As a work of imagination it takes high rank' said the Belfast News Letter." I have likewise been unable to find further details about it. TompaDompa (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Searching the British Library online finds some candidates, but nothing more is needed for this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Large portions of the South American continent was undergoing political turmoil at the time": should be "were", not "was", but since the note tells us there were four, it might be clearer to make it "Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela were each undergoing political turmoil at the time".
 * Changed it to "were". I don't want to specify inline what the source does not (Moskowitz writes "Having entered South America with a series of revolutions going on, it was his opinion that virtually all of the uprisings seemed to be a battle for the right to steal. The victors became the new oppressors until the next revolution."); the explanatory footnote is something of an educated guess on my part. I could remove the footnote on the grounds that it goes beyond what the source says, but I think it is a net positive as it provides context that readers are fairly likely to be at least curious about. TompaDompa (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "and Griffith covered the various revolutionaries": in the lead we say he covered the movements, rather than just the revolutionary leaders.
 * I don't think "revolutionary" necessarily means revolutionary leader—my thesaurus lists "rebel", "insurgent", and "resistance fighter" as synonyms—but I changed it to "revolutionary factions" just in case. TompaDompa (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would suggest removing the Wikidata links as useless (and confusing) to almost all readers, but it's not forbidden by anything.
 * Agree to disagree, as we have before. TompaDompa (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "and whom Griffith had previously recommended": should be "and to whom" unless I'm not parsing this correctly.
 * Changed. I might say "recommend someone something" rather than "recommend something to someone" (in the same way "give someone something" and "give something to someone" are interchangeable), but I gather that this might not be considered standard in all varieties of English? TompaDompa (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "had been a major hit": "hit" might be a bit informal. Perhaps "a great success", or "very successful"?  Similarly "middling commercial success" might be better as "moderate success".
 * Changed both. TompaDompa (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "supplanted Griffith as the best-selling and most acclaimed science fiction writer by the public": suggest "supplanted Griffith as the best-selling science fiction writer, and the one most acclaimed by the public".
 * Done. TompaDompa (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Pearson published the full story under Griffith's original title in 1901": does this refer to publication in book form?
 * Yes. Clarified. TompaDompa (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "The Lake of Gold, where the discovery of the titular reservoir results in the US conquering Europe": I summarized the plot in Argosy (magazine) as "a group of Britons and Americans use the riches from a lake of gold in Patagonia to enforce peace across Europe", basing that on the SFE3 entry and Strange Horizons. I see you're using both sources plus one other in your description, but they sound like different novels at the moment.  Do you think yours is accurate, perhaps by reference to the source I didn't use?  I haven't read the novel.
 * I haven't read The Lake of Gold either. Reading the sources again, including the entry in E. F. Bleiler's Science-Fiction: The Early Years, I think it was a mistake on my part to describe the conquering force as "the US" (they don't appear to be acting on behalf of the government), but otherwise it seems fine. Moskowitz writes of "a syndicate which forces peace on Europe through an advanced fleet of airships and submarines" and The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction says "a group of American industrialists [...] must mount an Invasion of Europe". I changed it to "a US syndicate". TompaDompa (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "The World Masters, where the US similarly establishes dominance by what The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction describes as a disintegrator ray": I think you could shorten this to "The World Masters, where the US similarly establishes dominance using a disintegrator ray" -- it's not like there are academic debates of what qualifies as disintegrator ray, and you do have a link.
 * I think I'll keep this to avoid giving the impression that the term "disintegrator ray" comes from Griffith himself. TompaDompa (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "The serial format has also been noted as detrimental to the quality of several of his works, where being written piece-by-piece to meet tight deadlines and provide cliffhangers resulted in uneven pacing, poor structure, and unsatisfying resolutions." Suggest "The serial format has also been noted as detrimental to the quality of several of his works: they were written piece-by-piece to meet tight deadlines and provide cliffhangers, which resulted in uneven pacing, poor structure, and unsatisfying resolutions."
 * That is indeed much better. Changed it. TompaDompa (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Stephensen-Payne lists "To the Rescue" as a short story, not a novel, and says it was published in book form in 1903 -- see here and here. It would have been in The Battle and the Breeze in 1902, according to the second of those pages.
 * Hm. Harris-Fain lists it as a book. On the other hand, Locke says "Sons of the Empire series" and further comments "No data available" (I am unfortunately limited to snippets from Locke, not having had any luck getting the entire bibliography from WP:RX). I don't know if philsp.com is a reliable source (I'm guessing no, much as with isfdb.org), but this seems to bear the details out. Very well, I removed it. TompaDompa (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Stephensen-Payne is a professional bibliographer, as was Contento, the other main author. The site is highly praised by SFE3, and I've had no trouble getting it accepted at FAC. The ISFDB is crowd-sourced, but philsp.com is not.  I just sent both him and SFE3 a correction for the Argosy editorial succession, as it happens, and neither one has made the change yet.  It probably will come up more for the articles I write than for you, but philsp.com is very much worth keeping in your research resources list; it has a ton of bibliographic data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Responded to most of your comments; I'll get back to you on The Lake of Gold once I have taken a closer look at the sources.I'll try to find the time to take a look at Argosy (magazine), but I am unfortunately spread a bit thin at the moment between different things on Wikipedia and off, and I don't want to make any promises I might not be able to keep. TompaDompa (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Responded to the last few comments. TompaDompa (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * All looks good; I look forward to seeing this at FAC when you get a chance. No worries in looking at Argosy; if you get time that's great but I certainly understand about being busy off-wiki. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Query from Z1720
It has been over a month since the last comment here. Can this PR be closed, or are you still hoping for more comments? Z1720 (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose it can be closed and the article move on to WP:FAC. TompaDompa (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)