Wikipedia:Peer review/The Hardy Boys/archive1

===The Hardy Boys===


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it recently passed GA with a number of helpful comments, and I would like to continue improving the article. Eventually, I would like to try to get this article to FA status, as I did with Nancy Drew; I think they would make a nice pair. I would be grateful for any and all suggestions.

Many thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 03:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/The Hardy Boys/archive1.
 * Oh, one other thing - there was a discussion on my talk page about userboxes. The other editor and I agreed not to use one for now, as the info is given in a couple of templates at the bottom of the page, but I promised I would ask about it and see what others think. So, thanks in advance for any input. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a most interesting and well-supported article, and it's generally well-written. I enjoyed it, and I learned a lot from it that I never knew before. As I read, I noted issues related to prose flow or the Manual of Style. I've listed them below, and most should not be difficult to address. Although I'm fond of infoboxes in general, I was not bothered by the lack of one here. One of the image licenses is incomplete, and more images would be nice.

Lead
 * "The characters were created by Edward Stratemeyer, the founder of the Stratemeyer Syndicate, a book-packaging firm, and have been written by a number of different ghostwriters over the years." - Suggestion: add the word "books" to the sentence; i.e., "...and the books have been written by... " Also, "a number of" is vague. If the actual number is unknown, deleting "a number of different" and "over the years" might be a reasonable solution. Or perhaps "written by many different ghostwriters over the years"?
 * Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Hardy Boys books sell over a million copies a year, with several additional volumes being published each year... " - The "with plus -ing" construction is ungrammatical. Suggestion: "Hardy Boys books sell more than a million copies a year. Several additional volumes are published annually, and the boys' adventures have been translated into more than 25 languages."
 * Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a question, below, about the grammatical rule you're citing - I'm unaware of this rule, having seen this contruction in many Victorian novels, and would like to know the name of it. Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this construction is ungrammatical. It is used in many recent scholarly publications. For example:
 * "argues that history and myth are closely aligned, with history being in some ways another form of myth" The uncertain sciences, Yale University Press, 1998, p. 278.
 * "In this light, Mill sees the various social sciences as related to one another in a particular way, with psychology being the most basic...." Rereading power and freedom in J.S. Mill, University of Toronto Press, 2000, p. 49.
 * "Here I concentrate on two major domains of experience — work and art, with literature being my major instance of the latter." Ivy and industry: business and the making of the American university, 1880-1980, Duke University Press, 2003, p. 4.
 * "... gradually demoted to its current functions, with literature being the most ardent case of a dissident self-referentiality (Foucault)— such elaborations .." The age of the world target: self-referentiality in war, theory, and comparative work, Duke University Press, 2006, p. 16.
 * Ricardiana (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a fair question and not a particularly easy one for me to answer. When writing, I depend on what I've absorbed through osmosis, I suppose, and I rarely think about grammar rules. Looking at the four examples you've cited, I see that they are all essentially the same. They all glue phrases together with "with plus being". A similar and simpler sentence is "They owned dogs, with four dogs being old." The problem here is that "with" is a preposition, and it needs a noun or pronoun for its object. "Four dogs being old" is not a noun or a pronoun. A verb form called a gerund is a noun, so it's OK to write "I like being", but the "being" in "four dogs being old" does not seem to me to be a gerund. It behaves in this construction like an adjective. Thus, "with" in these constructions has no object, and it is therefore not a preposition. If it is not a preposition, and if, at the same time it must be a preposition, it is not a real word when used in this way. All of the four authors you have cited have made the same mistake, IMHO. However, I am not a reliable source, and I will try to find one that supports what I'm asserting. Finetooth (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, in "with four dogs being old" of course "old" is neither a noun nor a pronoun, but the cited examples are different. For instance, "with literature being the most ardent case" is not "case" a noun? ~ In any case, thank you for your courteous response. I'm certainly no reliable source, either, and I would very much appreciate any source you can dig up. (As a side-note, I'm excited that an article on the Hardy Boys is leading to an investigation of the finer points of grammar!) Best, Ricardiana (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't let go of this partly because I pounce on the "with plus -ing" constructions each time I notice them. I want to be sure I'm not giving bad advice. After searching in a lot of places and finding no direct comment one way or the other, I found a good explanation and a lot of examples and grammar exercises at User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises. I believe that what Tony1 says supports my view that the four examples you've culled from scholarly articles are examples of bad writing. By the way, which Victorian novelists do you mean? Please tell me it wasn't Dickens, Trollope, or Thackeray. Perhaps it was Bulwer-Lyyton. Finetooth (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony cites no sources for his opinion. I'm not impressed by that. Your explanation above was incorrect because you were discussing a sentence with a verb rather than the actual examples I gave. I say that the editorial staffs of Yale and Oxford, as well as the other unis, are not wrong and certainly not to be dismissed too quickly. I have sources; neither you nor Tony do. I'm sorry that you're perturbed that you've said so often that a usage is wrong, but I am just not convinced. ~ Nice crack about Bulwer-Lytton by the way, but I've actually never slogged through one of his novels. So it likely is Dickens or Trollope I'm thinking of. I'll see if I can scout up an example - but if I do it won't be recent, of course, so I don't know how useful that will be. And it will only be in addition to examples from recent, scholarly sources, from three countries, I might add - much better back-up than another Wikipedian's opinion.Ricardiana (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The line about the novelists was a bit of a tease. You are absolutely right in saying that Tony1 is not the reliable source I was hoping to find. I'm still trying to find one, but so far I haven't. On the other hand, your four examples, while interesting, don't amount to a reliable guideline. I'm not sure what the editors at Yale and Oxford would say if asked directly about these particular sentences. What I'd really like to find is something in Strunk and White or something similar that addresses this question directly. If I find reliable confirmation of my view or yours, I promise to let you know. Finetooth (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, Strunk & White or something on those lines would be ideal. I've tried looking online and in some books I have; no luck so far. Perhaps Tony1 will help us out. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I've found something! It goes against me, sort of. My new Chicago Manual of Style calls the construction "slovenly". Ouch! That's not, however, the same as ungrammatical, and they give no explanation for why they dislike it, except that it's "slovenly". -Their example, too, is rather wordy; getting rid of wordiness is always good, and their example (it's upstairs, but I'm feeling lazy, but it's something like "They all went to the beach with me being left to wash the dishes") can certainly be shortened by re-casting. However, I'm not sure I'm going to save any words by changing the particular sentences in this article. But - it is a source! I only wish it gave an explanation. ~ For now, I guess I'll change these sentences and continue the quest for a discussion of whys and wherefores. I do appreciate your graciousness - if you find any other sources, please let me know. Ricardiana (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A little more - my husband has come up with an explanation (that agrees with you, not me) - he doesn't want to get sucked in to Wikipedia, but I thought you might be interested and so I'll post his idea. I mentioned the CMS example to him and asked what he thought they were going for by calling the construction "slovenly"; we tried to test it out with the sentence "The boys are portrayed as in their early 20s, with Frank being a reporter". Here's what he came up with, for what it's worth (he demands to be quoted): "The preposition 'with' demands a noun in the objective case to follow it. However, in this construction, the noun that occupies the objective position, is in the nominative case because it is itself the subject of the clause 'Frank being a reporter'. The problem, in other words, is that if you use the 'with + subordinate clause' construction, you end up in a situation where one word must be in both the nominative and objective cases in order to satisfy the demands of the two roles it's called upon to play. Since that is logically impossible, the construction is ungrammatical. Test for yourself - which pronoun should replace 'Frank' - 'he', or 'him'?" I say - and he concedes - that all this comes from superimposing Latin grammar on a different kind of language. This is why I love Mandarin... but that's beside the point. Anyway, for what it's worth, there's an (unofficial) explanation. Ricardiana (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for both of these latest notes. I had looked in the 14th edition of the CMS without finding anything relevant, but I might have missed what you found, or the editions might not be identical. My CMS mentions Perrin's Reference Handbook of Grammar and Usage, which I thought I might try if I can find a copy. I have no grammar books in my personal library, but one good one might come in handy. Finetooth (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have the 15th edition - it's on page 193 there. I do also have an array of grammar books, but I couldn't find anything in either of them. I don't have Perrin's, though. Ricardiana (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "The Hardy Boys have been featured in five television shows, a number of computer games, and a variety of merchandise." - To avoid the vague "a number of" and "a variety of", you might re-cast as "The Hardy Boys have been featured in computer games and five television shows and used to promote merchandise." It might also help if you named a couple of specific kinds of merchandise.
 * Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Critics have offered a number of explanations for the characters' longevity, suggesting variously... " - Here's another vague "a number of". Perhaps the sentence could be truncated to "Critics have offered explanations for the characters' longevity, including... ".
 * Changed to "many", as suggested above with "many different ghostwriters." Ricardiana (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Characters
 * "In the older stories, the Hardy Boys' cases often are linked to the confidential cases their detective father is currently working on." - Delete "currently"?
 * Deleted. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "In the current series, Undercover Brothers, the Hardys are members of an organization... " - The word current is tricky because ambiguous. Suggestion: "In the Undercover Brothers series that began in 2005, the Hardys... ".
 * Could you explain what's ambiguous here? Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try. In a few years, there may be a new series called "Return of the Hardy Boys" or some such thing. If so, that series will be "current" at that moment, and this one will no longer be current. Unless someone updates the article, "current" will then be inaccurate. Finetooth (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, in that case, I don't see an ambiguity so much as a ... what's the word? ... something liable to change. I do plan on keeping the article up-to-date, but perhaps it's best to change to the wording you suggested. I'll do that now. Ricardiana (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:MOSQUOTE suggest using blockquotes only for quotations occupying four or more lines on computer screens. The blockquote in this section uses only three lines on my screen.
 * Unblocked. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "The Hardys also travel freely within the United States in a variety of vehicles, including their own motorcycles, motor boat, iceboat, and airplane[14] as well as their own car." - Delete "in a variety of vehicles including their own"? Add "by" so the sentence reads "... United States by motorcycle, motor boat, iceboat... "?
 * Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ghostwriters
 * "Beginning in 1934, Harriet Stratemeyer Adams began contributing plot outlines... " - You might mention in this sentence that she was Edward's daughter. Ditto for Edna a couple of sentences earlier in this section. Thinking about this made me wonder what their mother's name was and whether she was part of the syndicate.
 * Added mention of daughterhood. ~ Re Mrs Stratemeyer, I don't know her name offhand; Edward Stratemeyer was very much a believer that a woman's place was in the home only and his daughters were only allowed to be involved in the business during his lifetime by taking work home and doing it in the family living room - they were not allowed into the office buildings. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "A number of other writers wrote the manuscripts." - I think you could delete this sentence and simply start this paragraph with "Leslie McFarlane wrote most of the earlier volumes."
 * OK. Ricardiana (talk)


 * "Lawrence and Buranelli continued to write a number of titles... " - Delete "a number of"?
 * Deleted. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Legal disputes
 * citing "'breach of contract, copyright infringement, and unfair competition'" - Shouldn't this be set off by just one set of quotation marks rather than single quotes inside of double quotes?
 * No, not according to MLA style. However, I'll change it. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Evolution of characters
 * "The Hardy Boys have gone through a number of permutations over the years." - Delete "a number of"?
 * Changed to "many". See above re "many". Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

1927–1959
 * "an attitude apparently justified when the police whom they have repeatedly helped throw them into jail on slim evidence" - I thought it would help here to set off in commas the phrase "whom they have repeatedly helped". Otherwise, this might seem to mean that they helped the police throw them, the Hardy boys, into jail.
 * Agreed. Commas added. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "The books' attitudes towards non-white characters are a matter of some disagreement." - Delete "some"?
 * Very well - deleted. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The blockquote in this section puzzled me because of its layout. Perhaps it would help to start the quote by saying: "Vilnoff, for example, the villain in the The Sinister Sign-Post (1936), is 'swarthy' and 'a foreigner', notes critic Steve Burgess." Then start the blockquote with "We sense his untrustworthy... ".
 * Agreed. Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

1979–2005
 * " 'lines like "Joe! Hand me the Uzi!" are not out of character.' " - The direct quote should either start with a capital letter or an ellipsis, I think. Something else to smooth the prose flow might be needed. Maybe something like "According to Alan Duman, "Lines like 'Joe! Hand me the Uzi!"are not out of character".
 * Well, how the MLA style guide says to do it. I can change it, if you still think it should be changed. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As in all matters, you should use your best judgment. I don't have the same standing as the MLA. :-) Finetooth (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Film and television
 * "As yet, a Hardy Boys film has not been released... " - Perhaps "As of 2009, a Hardy Boys film had not been released... "?
 * OK. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Television appearances
 * "To appeal to the show's audience, the Hardy Boys were portrayed as younger than in the books, seeming to be eleven or twelve years old." - Since you are using digits elsewhere in the article for numbers bigger than nine, should these be "11 or 12 years" rather than "eleven or twelve years"?
 * Yes, you're absolutely right. I missed that - thanks. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "As a result, the Syndicate approved an hour-long pilot for a new Hardy Boys television show." - Wikilink pilot?
 * Sure. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "A real group of professional musicians was assembled and performed all the songs on the series... " - Delete "was assembled and"?
 * Deleted. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "During the second season, the series format changed to focus more on the Hardy Boys, with Nancy Drew appearing mostly in crossover episodes with the brothers... " - Another "with plus - ing". Suggestion: "During the second season, the series format changed to focus more on the Hardy Boys, while Nancy Drew appeared mostly in crossover episodes with the brothers... ".
 * Can you please tell me the grammatical rule this construction violates? I have seen it many times in Victorian novels. It may be old-fashioned, but my understanding is that it's perfectly grammatical. I changed the first scuh construction you pointed out, because that sentence just wasn't very good, but I would like to know the rule before changing this one or the one below. Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "The characters were portrayed as in their early twenties, with Frank working as a reporter and Joe still in college." - Another "with plus -ing". Also, "early 20s" rather than "early twenties"?
 * Question as above - changed numbers. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Computer games
 * "Her Interactive has announced that they will partner with Sega to release their own... " - "It" and "its" rather than "they" and "their"?
 * Ah, I seem to fallen into British usage here. I guess American usage makes more sense for an article on the very-American Hardy Boys - although I must say I strongly prefer the British way here. Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Merchandising
 * "The Hardy Boys have appeared on a variety of merchandise over the years, many tied to television adaptations." - Suggestion: "The Hardy Boys have been used to sell a variety of merchandise over the years, much of it tied to television adaptations." Then start the next sentence with "They" rather than repeating "The Hardy Boys"?
 * OK, sounds good. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "and lunch boxes; two LPs... " - Expand LPs to "LP albums" and wikilink?
 * Wikilink charm bracelet?
 * Done. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the "Computer games" and "Merchandising" sections are so short, I'd suggest merging them under a single head, possibly "Computer games and general merchandise".
 * OK, sounds good. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Cultural impact
 * "and the books now sell over a million copies a year... " - "and as of 2008 the books were selling more than a million copies a year"?
 * OK. Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "A number of critics have tried to explain the reasons for the characters' longevity." - Delete "a number of"?
 * Well, I could change "a number of" to "many" again, but it wouldn't change the meaning, and totting up the exact number of critics would be pedantic. I think I'll leave this one. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The "during one group picnic" blockquote occupies only three lines on my screen and should probably be a regular in-text quote.
 * OK. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "The boys do, however, in earlier volumes, have a number of particular male friends... " - Delete "a number of"?
 * As above. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Images
 * Image:Stratemeyerposing.jpg has a license problem in that the source link is circular. Fact checkers need to be able to check the image in its source context, which the JPEG by itself does not reveal.
 * I changed the URL. The information about the picture isn't given on the source web page; I got the info about the picture from Mark Connelly's new book on the Hardy Boys. I hope that's all right. Ricardiana (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The "Stratemeyer posing" image extends across a section break on my screen. A solution would be to move it down into the much larger "Ghostwriters" subsection so that its wholly contained within a single section.
 * Moved down. Ricardiana (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * More images, perhaps mug shots of some of the ghostwriters or actors, would be good if you can find free-use versions.
 * I've looked, both online and in all the books/articles etc., and can't seem to find any. I agree, more would be nice. Ricardiana (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope these comments prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, Finetooth, for your helpful comments. I'm glad you enjoyed the article, too. I'll be working on your comments over the next few days - and I will try to peer review an article, too, which is something I've been trying to do regularly. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Jonyungk comments: This is a very well written article that is also a tremendous amount of fun to read&mdash;it is definitely a project close to its author's heart, with a joy that comes through infectiously. This will be very imporant for readers like myself, who did not read the Hardy Boys books nor have previously been interested. Nevertheless, there are issues which, though relatively minor in overall importance, stil detract from the overall effort.
 * Creation of characters
 * Ghostwriters
 * "All royalties went to the Syndicate, and all correspondence with the publisher was handled through a Stratemeyer Syndicate office, and the Syndicate was able to enlist the cooperation of libraries in hiding the ghostwriters' names.[23]" This sentence sounds a little wiry, with one "and" too many; furthermore, I'm having a problem seeing how the royalties connect with how the authors' names were handled. Suggestion: either make royalties a separate (short) sentence or use a semi-colon instead of a comma and the first "and."
 * You're absolutely right about the "and"s - it looks dreadful now that I look at it. Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "McFarlane was regarded highly enough by the Syndicate that he was frequently given advances of $25 or $50,[25] and McFarlane was later paid $85 for each Hardy Boys book when other Syndicate ghostwriters were receiving only $75 for their productions.[26]" The second "McFarlane" seems unnecessary and awkward. Also, when did the fee for writing Hardy Boys books go down to $75?
 * Right again - got rid of second "McFarlane". Added info. Ricardiana (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Many authors worked on the revised volumes, writing new manuscripts and, in some cases, plot outlines, and editing the books." This sentence sounds a little jumbled. What about something like, "Many authors worked on the revised books, writing new manuscripts; some of them also wrote plot outlines and edited the books"?
 * OK; changed. Ricardiana (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Legal Dusputes
 * The second paragraph seems underdocumented. Even if the same footnote applies, it should appear more than at the end of the paragraph.
 * I don't have the Johnson book anymore (inter-library loan), but I've added more citations, to Rehak's recent book. Ricardiana (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Evolution of characters
 * 1927–1959
 * "In general, the world of these early volumes is a '[dark] and ... divided place",[42] reflecting McFarlane's relative "lack [of] sympathy with the American power structure.'"[43] I know you explain this later in the paragraph, but it would be nice to learn more before the McFarlane quote because I'm already ashing myself "How is it a dark and divided place?" It took me three readings to see thata you talk about it when you mention the boys' cynicism toward human nature. This could be my misreading the paragraph, but if it isn't, readers shouldn't have to work this hard.
 * I re-arranged the paragraph; I hope it's clearer now. Ricardiana (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1959–1979
 * A minor point, but why did it take Grosset & Dunlap 11 years (from 1948 to 1959) to respond to parents' concerns about racial stereotypes? Were the books strong enough moneymakers to ignore the point for that long? The answer is not given but would be nice to know.
 * Well, no source says directly, so anything I could say would fall under the heading of original research. The answer, though, I think is that yes, these books were tremendous money-makers. Also, it may be the letters were few at first and snowballed later on. Ricardiana (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "The books were also aimed at an increasingly younger audience[68] with shorter attention spans.[69]" This seems like it should come up earlier in the paragraph (perhaps the second sentence?) as it was an important reason for the revisions.
 * Well, I put them in this order because that's how all the sources do it; the racial stereotypes are discussed as the primary reason, and the streamlining as a secondary reason. Personally, I think it may have been the other way around ... but again, that's my opinion and I can't put it in the article.Ricardiana (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Even villains no longer smoked or drank ..." Maybe my mis-read, but how is this "more respectful of law and authority"? Seems an awkward fit with the rest of the paragraph as it is a moral rather than a legal issue.
 * Hmm; the source, Kismaric & Heiferman I believe, gave that as an example of being respectful of law and authority - the idea being, I think, that the books are so respectful that they hesitate to portray anyone breaking the law - beyond what's absolutely necessary in a mystery plot. I agree, it's not really on-point ~ but then that's what the source says. Suggestions? Ricardiana (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Jonyungk (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, Jonyungk, for your helpful comments. I'm happy you enjoyed the article. Ricardiana (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment Sorry if this has been brought up before, but if the Hardy Boys are being referred to as characters, then shouldn't the opening be de-italicized? Dabomb87 (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Dabomb87 - no, this hasn't been brought up before; I'll change it. Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see here for more on the "with plus noun plus -ing" issue. Ricardiana, your husband's argument about clash of grammatical role: "It is I" or "It am I"? Or "It is me" (fine by most people). And "The manager, who[m] the authorities had publicly castigated for allowing the accounts to languish, was up against a fractious board." I think the trad. grammarians call this a clash resulting from a parenthetical phrase, and go for "who" rather than "whom".

The relationship between the two components of your example "The boys are portrayed as in their early 20s, with Frank being a reporter" is unclear without a larger context. Is it that Frank is one of the boys, and he was portrayed as being in his early 20s and being a reporter? If it's that option, better to make the additive relationship (rather than causal or contrastive) clear: "The boys are portrayed as in their early 20s, and among them Frank as being a reporter as well" ... or something like that (hard without that context). I think the use of "with" as a connector is usually problem because of this failure to define the relationship between the meanings it connects, rather than a strict allocation of case (often difficult itself). It's the way we learn a synthetic language such as Latin, but rebounded on English from the 15th century onwards, IMO. However, I might keep your husband's argument in reserve! Tony  (talk)  08:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Tony - yes, my husband is a big fan of trad. grammar and of Latin, which is why I'm not convinced by his argument. Still, it's interesting. As to the quotation from the article, I did not give the whole quotation; the actual sentence is a bit longer. My response to your comments is, first, given on your talk page; second, I think that the meaning of the sentence in question was clear in context. In the absence of case-endings, context becomes important, and for a sentence to be clear in context but not necessarily clear out of context is not, in my view, an argument against that sentence's grammaticality, but rather a reflection of way that context shapes meaning in a language like English. Ricardiana (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Closing Many thanks to Finetooth and Jonyungk for their thoughtful comments. I will be nominating the article for FA soon, but whether it passes or fails FA it is a much better article for their help. So, thanks again. Ricardiana (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)