Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Samuel Johnson

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 User:Raul654 22:48, 7 October 2008 [1].

---

Samuel Johnson

Nominator(s): Ottava Rima (talk), User:Malleus Fatuorum (talk) and User:SandyGeorgia (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it use to look like this. After 700 edits, and an addition of citations from many major scholarly sources on the subject, an extensive peer review, and constant reviewing on the talk page with full scale MoS check, plus a full scale image and ref check, I think it may be FA standards. If not, well ... User:Malleus Fatuorum and User:SandyGeorgia performed over 400 quality edits in the push to FA status, examining every minute detail with punctuation, grammar, language and MoS. They are the main reason why this is not simply a GA, and why I feel confident that this is FA quality. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary of declarations on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment During a conversation with his biographer, Johnson became infuriated at the suggestion that Berkeley's idealism could not be refuted. In his anger, Johnson powerfully stomped a nearby stone and proclaimed of Berkeley's theory, "I refute it thus!"[200]

Presumably this interpretation of Johnson's emotions is based on a misunderstanding of the word alacrity? 86.44.27.122 (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was based on the language in a contemporary biography, but I think that reference was dropped when reffing to Boswell directly. Regardless, I reworked the paragraph, as it was too long for something explained in the quote box. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following sources reliable?
  • http://www.samueljohnson.com/index.html? (Why not quote it directly?) It's probably a marginal source, but it kinda stands out in the otherwise excellent sources used!

Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is only hosting the primary source and nothing else. It was just nice to link to an online version. If you want, I can replace it with a hard copy and page numbers. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a courtesy link; in this case, it's probably better to cite the hardcopy, and add that link to External links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the links and put in books. I thought it would be best to use biographers who string those line together as to avoid any possible "OR" claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Good compromise, that site works REALLY well as an external link. Perfect for it. And let me compliment again on the excellent quality of the sourcing! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This gave me an opportunity to buy three biographies that I didn't have and really forced me to spread out in order to accommodate a few people that were wondering why ___ was relied on while ____ was not. I think, out of the original list of random biographies grouped at the bottom of the page, there were only 4 works not chosen (but no major biographer was left out, and all other writers were given prominence on individual article pages that related). Johnson has a huge amount of criticism, and I think every single piece will make it in some form on Wikipedia after I am done. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on images

• Image:Dictionary2.jpg and Image:Dictionary3.jpg - Could you add the complete publication information to the source field? I would, but the image resolution isn't high enough.
• Any images that are in the PD could be moved to Commons. It would be nice to share these images with other projects.

I look forward to reading and reviewing this article! Awadewit (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Added the printing information. I think Elcobbola might be able to help with the Commons. I tend to stick to Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I will see what I can do about copying them over in a week or so, after I return from my vacation. Awadewit (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Elcobbola is working on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

File Upload Bot is my hero. I moved all but one (Image:Pembroke_Lodge.jpg - the bot, apparently, doesn't move previous versions and we'd want the original, uncropped version; I'm too lazy to do it manually at the moment). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I moved the uncropped version to the Commons. Do we care about the cropped version? It doesn't appear that much was cropped. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue of overly dense citations was discussed here. Now capped for FAC readability. Whiskeydog (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• (comment) I commend the nominator for the effort put into this article, but the level of citation in this article is excessive. I oppose the nomination on the grounds that the over-citation is a hindrance to reading and suggests that wikipedia is a sentence-paraphrasing service. (Any critical reader without a background in wikipedia's politics would be very confused by the amount of attribution; the article would have her believe that "Johnson was born in the family home above his father's bookshop, near Market Square in Lichfield, across from St. Mary's Church" is a point of contention. It's like putting a question mark in the reader's mind after each sentence.) Specifically, you do not need to cite commonly attainable elements of biography, yet essentially every sentence in Biography has a citation. I am not opposing to make a point, and if this objection is felt baseless, that's fine. However, I will note that the article does not follow one of the core policies of wikipedia, attribution—while the policy clearly notes what we consider worthy of citation, no discretion in attribution is apparent here. Whiskeydog (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• I should also add that if the consensus of editors is that removing citations would make the article worse, then don't (but admit that you've adopted an a priori position). I have not written the above in the "do this to get me to support" sense. It's an opinion, and one that is I think supported by the policies of wikipedia, regardless of how far citation is carried as a matter of practice. Certainly I won't be commenting further unless others feel the position is warranted, and specifics become worth discussing. Whiskeydog (talk) 03:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that this objection is actionable. The WP citation policy sets a minimum standard of what should be cited, not a maximum. There are advantages to a heavily cited article:

• Allows the reader to find the source for the information so they can read more information about that particular tidbit.
• Ensures that there is no confusion on what a particular citation covers. If a controversial fact is embedded in a paragraph, we don't want to confuse readers into thinking that the whole paragraph comes from that source, when it might only be relevant to the controverisal fact
• Makes verifiability a whole lot easier. Anyone can add any information to the article; with the sources clearly noted for every piece of information it is much easier to see if someone is adding unsourced information, fake information, or is twisting the source to say something completely different.

Karanacs (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to add - I don't consider any information on an individual who has been dead for 200 years as "common knowledge". Such assumptions would have Washington chop down cherry trees and other confused tidbits thrown in. I believe that dates and locations before 1900 always need a citation. These are the things most easily confused. This is just my thoughts on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering there is a mythology surrounding Johnson, it is particularly important to separate fact from fiction. Having extensive citations allows readers to verify these distinctions for themselves and increases Wikipedia's legitimacy as reference source. Awadewit (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Going with that theme - FAs never really needed to be cited. Then ten cites were enough. Then twenty or so were enough. What if this progresses to the point that in the year 2120, Wikipedia would require at least 240 citations? Well, we are in luck. Always thinking about the future. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

OK then. I don't get it, and every time I make another effort to "get", or comment on, the way wikipedia works now, it's clear that there are just entirely different mental sets involved. So, there is no point in me participating in FAC—I refuse to sanction the idea that this death by a thousand citations is a good thing. We've got people who complain that every tiny MoS "violation" affects readability, but no one seems to mind a footnote-stop cutting every sentence off from every other. Karanacs' arguments I've seen before in many places, and I find them entirely hypothetical, conjuring a reader who interacts with the article in a way that I highly doubt is realistic. Those who agree with my position don't come here, and so the self-selection continues. Anyway, over and out. Whiskeydog (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people agree with your mentality, Whiskeydog. There is an old tradition of it. It would probably be easy to have a version of such pages that is "clean" that someone could click on and would be the same text without any of the citations. Who knows. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling it an "old tradition" is a classic device of rhetoric (I don't know which 'un). Now, how about I introduce a new measure of citation density? Samuel Johnson actually has 378 footnotes, over 10,519 words=0.036 citations/word. If the average sentence is 17 words (17-sentence), we have 0.61 citations/17-sentence. Let's compare that to the recent FA Tulip mania, surely an article whose abstract humanities overlay requires good citation. With 73 footnotes and 3545 words, it has 0.35 citations/17-sentence. I am proposing a limit of 0.40 citations per 17-sentence. Please add this to the featured article criteria forthwith—See?—all I had to do was please the quants. Now it's actionable, dude. Whiskeydog (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the comparison made above does not reflect the academic reality, nor deal with comprehensiveness. Furthermore, his numbers are clearly off, as they have no regard to material that needs to be cited, nor does it acknowledge that some sentences run over multiple lines while sharing the same citation in order pages, which this does not have such instances. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear whether this is a general comment about FAs, or a specific criticism of this article. If the former, then the issue would propbably be better raised on the talk page. If the latter, can you provide some examples of spurious citations Whiskeydog? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Whiskeydog was specific enough that his point can be applied to this candidacy, and to be fair he did make disclaimers. Ironically though, the second next cmt kind of underpins his argument about self selection, but also reinforces Malleus words "would propbably be better raised on the talk page" : It the treatment of titles is a small point, fix or put a note on talk; if it is substantial enough to posit as a deal breaker on FAC and is followed by five or six posts; well then we might as well all go home. I suggest this broad conversation is taken else where, either to this FACs talk, or better, the FAC talk. Ceoil ^sláinte 15:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I left "facetious" in the edit comment for my last comment; I'm sorry that still wasn't enough. (Neither my sense of style nor humour translates here well enough, and the last place I should therefore hang out is FAC.) Good luck with the nomination! For the tallying, I've struck the oppose and put 'comment'. Oh, and thanks SandyGeorgia for the citation reduction; definite improvement! Whiskeydog (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt, Whiskeydog! Tony1 did a small bit of copyediting (finding little to change) and Ottava Rima reduced some of the citation.[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Working on coalescing and combining refs from the same page range, saving these versions for posterity:

• Version initially viewed by Whiskeydog: [3]
• Version after Ottava Rima removed duplicate citations: [4]
• Version after I finished coalescing refs: [5] (diff)
• Diff from fully-cited version to current: [6]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support—Well done indeed. Tony (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Capped comments, ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: MOS:BETTER advises against honorifics; there are several instances of "Dr" and "Mrs" that might best be dispensed (if not used within a quote, obviously). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

  The only instances of "Dr Johnson" are in quotes (he was/is often referred to as Dr Johnson); I'll leave Mrs Thrale to Ottava. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't a clue on what to do about that - there is the Henry and Hester, which could have the repeated first names. Other uses: 1) "Mrs Harriotts", it sounded silly having Harriotts, as it could have been mistaken as the plural, but this could be dropped. 2) "a young woman, Miss Morris," I don't know her first name and Wain/Bate lists her as "Miss". 3) "Miss Frances Reynolds" to note the feminine reading of the name. 4) "Rev. Strahan" George Strahan. 5) "Dr Warren" Thomas Warren. 6) "Dr John Paradise" John Paradise. 7) "Dr Delap" John Delap. 8) "Dr Samuel Swynfen" Samuel Swynfen. 9) "Dr Christopher Nugent" Christopher Nugent. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the MoS page that seems to discuss it in-depth. If someone could help make heads or tales of this, I would be much obliged. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. If you think removing the honorifics will cause confusion to the reader, go ahead and leave them in. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Dr Johnson, that MoS page states: "In the cases of certain historic persons, an honorific is so commonly attached to their names that it should be included." That would be the case for Johnson. With the Thrales, we have the two of them (him and her). With Frances, again, it's because Frances could be a him, etc. There are a few cases where we need to WP:IAR here, similar to the Reagan and Clinton articles, where it was difficult to distinguish him and her and consensus was to ignore naming conventions. I'm not sure, though, why we need the honorifics on Strahan, Warren, Paradise, or Delap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed excessive titles, rewrote a section, and hopefully there is no problem. When a title mattered, I just put the job behind the name. The MoS seems to say that if two people of the same name are in the same sentence, to use the full for the first name, and then the first name for the next, but that seems rather confusion. I don't know. I put possible changes up. Others can respond on what they think. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Diff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Involved support - I was so excited to see the improvement in this article that I copyedited it last month and again just before the FAC nomination. Fine work, and certainly meets FAC standards. Maralia (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

However, you were only ranked 5th. :D Thanks for all the work. I don't care if this page makes FA or not, I just like strong, critical pages. The FA thing is just a nod for Sandy. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - well done, surely this is a worthy FA. Dincher (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Capped comments, Awadewit (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I am very sorry to have to oppose this article, but it is far from comprehensive. It has an excellent and thorough description of Johnson's life but only a cursory discussion of Johnson's works and no discussion of his influence on other authors. A reader coming to this page will not leave it understanding what kind of a writer Johnson was. Considering Johnson is notable for being an author, this is a serious omission.

• The first part of the "character sketch" section should be deleted - it is a just a list.
• The "Depression" section should be broken up and inserted into the article where appropriate.

• I find the TS section out of all proportion to the article. I would put most of this information in a footnote. The article should indeed have a paragraph on this posthumous diagnosis, but hardly an entire section. SJ is famous for being an author, not for being ill, however, the space devoted in this article to his depression and his TS makes it seem like he is more famous for being ill than for being a writer.
• There is no discussion of SJ's artistic legacy - how did his writing affect other authors? He was a huge influence on 18th-century literature and the scope of that influence is not explained in this article at all. (Johnson's influence on novel-writing in the second-half of the 18th-century was enormous, for example.)

• I think more on this could be added, but I think this section is much improved. Awadewit (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• There are many places in the article where IDs have been left out that would help a reader unfamiliar with the 18th century. Here are three examples, but a review of the entire article is necessary:

• Explaining the title years later, he told his friend Joshua Reynolds - Explain to the reader who Reynolds is.
• Samuel Richardson, enjoying the essays greatly, questioned the publisher as to who wrote the works; only he and a few of Johnson's friends were told of Johnson's authorship - Explain to the reader who Richardson is.
• However, Johnson slowed on the work as the months passed, and he told Charles Burney in December 1757 that it would take him until the following March to complete it. - Explain to the reader who Burney is.

• There are many places in the article where the use of quotation marks is confusing. Here are some examples, but the entire article needs to be reviewed for this problem:

• Michael was the first bookseller of "reputation" in the community, having opened a parchment factory which produced book bindings - Why is "reputation" in quotation marks? It is unclear whether this is an actual quotation or whether these are scare quotes.
• When Johnson turned four, he was sent to a nearby "school" on Dam Street, where "Dame" Anne Oliver, the proprietor, gave lessons to young children in the living-room of a cottage. - Why are "school" and "Dame" in quotation marks?
• However, John Taylor, his friend, dismissed this "praise" because Johnson's father had already published the translation before Johnson sent a copy to Pope - Why is "praise" in quotation marks?

• Ottava has done more work on these; this should be addressed now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a long list of prose copyedits. If the editors would like to go through them, I will put them on the article talk page. For me, the primary problem with the article is that it does not describe Johnson's works in any detail or his literary legacy. For models, see other recent biographies of authors that have become FAs: Emily Dickinson, Honoré de Balzac, and Edgar Allan Poe. Awadewit (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

1. "only a cursory discussion of Johnson's works" You are under a mistaken impression that "comprehensive" means something that is not covered by "summary style". Please see Wikipedia:Summary style. 2. "no discussion of his influence on other authors" There is nothing in a biography that would demand such, and Wikipedia policy has always put such in the other pages, with a link back. Its not a two way street, as the redundancy is frowned upon. 3. "Considering Johnson is notable for being an author" You are quite mistaken. 4. "it is a just a list." Your definition of "a list" does not match either the Wikipedia definition nor the dictionary. 5. "be broken up and inserted into the article where appropriate" Except that it is a general overview based on a long history of psycho analysis and not part of biographical history. This was clear from reading the section. 5. "I find the TS section out of all proportion to the article." Then I would suggest you read WP:WEIGHT which would require it to be of such a significant size. 6. "There is no discussion of SJ's artistic legacy - how did his writing affect other authors? " This is a biography page, not a works page. If a work affected someone else, then that work is discussed. A writer is not a work, and a work is not a writer, and the two are separated on Wikipedia. 6. "Explain to the reader who Reynolds is." Joshua Reynolds is his friend in that context, and thats all that is necessary in that context. This is already mentioned in the article. 7. "Explain to the reader who Richardson is." Except that it doesn't matter, and would be adding in unnecessary and redundant text. MoS explains what the "wikilinks" are for here. 8. "Explain to the reader who Burney is" Same as above. 9. "Why is "reputation" in quotation marks? " All subjective terminology would be in quotes, but this is from a source, so it wouldn't matter. 10. "Why are "school" and "Dame" in quotation marks?" Because it wasn't an actual school and she wasn't an actual dame. 11. " Why is "praise" in quotation marks?" Because its a quote.

I would suggest you read up on the MoS and clear up your confusion about "comprehensive". You made this same mistake during the Tolkien review. MoS is clear on what links are there for: "Internal links add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia by allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles." Ottava Rima (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• 1. "Comprehensive" means "neglects no major facts or details" and "accurately represent[s] the relevant body of published knowledge" (see WP:FA?). This article does not do that, considering there is so much scholarship on Johnson that focuses on his works and a large portion of Johnson's importance relates to him as an author. I am arguing that the general reader does not get a good picture of Johnson the author from this article - they do not really know what he wrote about or how he wrote. I understand very well what comprehensiveness means. Links are for deepening understanding, not acquiring it in the first place. Awadewit (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• 2. Influence on other authors is a key part of Johnson's legacy and all of the recent author biography FAs have had this. There is no Wikipedia policy that discusses this topic. It has simply become common practice because it makes sense to include this crucial topic in the biography.
• 3. SJ is probably the most important English author of the 18th century. He is indeed notable for being an author. That this idea is not conveyed in the article is really scandalous. Let us not be silly here.
• 4. It is a prose list.
• 5. The section contains elements that would make much more sense in the chronological history, as they are told in date order. Besides, SJ didn't exist in a static depressive state, as the section makes clear, so it would make more sense to tell the story of his depressive episodes within the biography itself.
• 6-8. You need to explain who these 18th-century figures are so that it is clear what having a friend like Reynolds means. You cannot assume the reader understands this. This goes for all of these examples.
• 9-11. Why it is necessary to quote individual words? It is very confusing and suggests scare quotes. Awadewit (talk) 06:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

1. "neglects no major facts or details", see "summary style" and "wikilinks" above to show that it is not "neglected". We have these for a reason. Each major work is mentioned, and all given lines according to their weight. Everything else goes onto the subpages, as per MoS and WP:WEIGHT. 2. Prove the influence. You can't. There is a difference from respect and influence. The only possible thing that could have "influenced" anyone, would be his biographies, which are already given a significant portion of the page. 3. "SJ is probably the most important English author of the 18th century" I guess Pope and Swift can pack up their bags and go home, because they no longer matter. Poor Fielding and Richardson, you no longer matter. Wordsworth, your style was interesting, but obviously wasn't good enough. Good bye you Federalists, your contributions don't matter, just like you Signers. 4. Still need to rely on an actual definition of a list. 5. WP:WEIGHT - you cannot apply later diagnosis upon a history. That would also violation WP:OR. Can you find a concern that isn't in direct opposition of Wikipedia guidelines or policies? 6. See the Wikilinks entry of MoS above to show that I don't. 9. "Why it is necessary to quote individual words?" Are you serious? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made my arguments known. People can take them or leave them. Awadewit (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have had change my statement to "strong oppose" because the discussion below has revealed the editor is utterly resistant to changing the article to include a discussion of Johnson's works or his legacy which he could easily research in works of literary criticism. His claim that Johnson was not an influential author is false (anyone on Wikipedia can check the Jane Austen article for one example of an author Johnson influenced) and anyone with access to the MLA database can see the long list of articles and books that connect Johnson to multiple literary traditions. The fact that the Wikipedia article on Johnson is inferior to the Britannica article, which is written by Robert Folkenflik, a world-famous expert on Johnson, is of course to be expected. However, we could certainly do better by including a discussion of Johnson's works and his legacy. I would like to point out that Folkenflik himself reads the Wikipedia article on Johnson frequently and has commented about its quality on a listserv that I belong to of 18th-century professors. Wouldn't it be nice if the next time he looked at it, it was beyond reproach? Awadewit (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reread the article because I know that substantial changes have been made. I am impressed with expansion with the "Legacy" section, however, I am still opposing because I feel that the article's coverage of Johnson's works, particularly their themes and style, is insufficient and the use of quotations is confusing:

• I'm happy to see that more information has been added on the works. However, I still do not feel that this information is well-integrated yet. For example, Rasselas is happily now no longer just described as a philosophical novella: The Idler did not take up all of Johnson's time, and he was able to publish his philosophical novella Rasselas on 19 April 1759. The "little story book", as Johnson described it, describes the life of Prince Rasselas and Nekayah, his sister, who are kept in a place called the Happy Valley. The Happy Valley in the land Abyssinia was a place in which there were no problems and any desire was quickly satisfied. However, the constant pleasure does not lead to satisfaction, and Rasselas escapes, with the help of a philosopher named Imlac, explores the world to witness how all aspects of society and life in the outside world are filled with suffering. They return to Abyssinia, but do not wish to return to state of constantly fulfilled pleasures found in the Happy Valley.[136] Rasselas was written in one week to pay for his mother's funeral, and to settle her debts; it became so popular that there was a new English edition of the work almost every year. It appeared in many works of fiction through characters reading the book, such as Charlotte Brontë 's Jane Eyre, Elizabeth Gaskell's Cranford and Nathaniel Hawthorne's The House of the Seven Gables. Its fame was not limited to English-speaking nations, and Rasselas was immediately translated into five different languages (French, Dutch, German, Russian and Italian), and later into another nine.[137] - The plot, themes, and publication history of every work cannot be described. It takes a lot of time to figure out what to discuss and what to leave out about the works. This article has a lot of details right now that would be hard for the general reader to stitch together into a coherent narrative. I believe that this article can be absolutely wonderful, but I think it still needs some more careful pruning and perhaps slight reorganization. Just adding these details doesn't quite cut it. We have to make sure that general readers come away with a sense of Johnson the man and Johnson the writer. Right now, the details are just clouding the general picture.
• There needs to be broader discussion of the themes of Johnson's works, either in a separate section or in a coherent way that the general reader can understand in the biography. In the "character sketch" section, the article states that "Johnson's Christian morality permeated his works", however, the reader would not necessarily know this from the descriptions of the works and the statement ends there, not offering an explanation.
• There needs to be a broader discussion of the style of Johnson's writing - what kind of a poet was he, for example? What poetic genres did he write in? How did he write as a critic? Was he acerbic, compassionate, etc.? We need to give readers an idea of his language.
• Confusing quotations:

• There are still isolated words in quotations that are confusing. For example: When Johnson turned four, he was sent to a nearby "school" on Dam Street, where "Dame" Anne Oliver, the proprietor, gave lessons to young children in the living-room of a cottage. Johnson especially enjoyed his time with Dame Oliver, later remembering her fondly, and when he reached the age of six, he was sent to a retired shoemaker to continue his education. - Why are common words like "school" and "Dame" in quotation marks? If these words are important to quote, why is "Dame" not quoted later? This tendency to overquote and not make it clear who is speaking occurs throughout the article. Rarely are these quotations cited - the reader does not know from whom the quotations are coming.

• Ottava has done some work on this, should be addressed now. All text has always been cited, although we did substantially reduce the citation density at the request of other reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• The interviewers were surprised that "a School-boy should know Macrobius", and he was accepted immediately - Here is an example of why it is important to know who said the quotation - is this a twentieth-century biographer's description or a direct quote from the interviewers? The reader is not entirely sure.

• No longer in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• This first love was not to last, and Johnson later claimed to Boswell, "She was the first woman with whom I was in love. It dropped out of my head imperceptibly, but she and I shall always have a kindness for each other." - Is this a quotation from Boswell's biography that is quoted in a twentieth-century Johnson biography? If so, the note should read "Qtd. in..." - There are numerous examples of this problem. Awadewit (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• No longer in the article, AFAICT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

1) "school" and "Dame" are in quotes because they are in quotes in every biography on Johnson. It wasn't an actual school. She wasn't an actual Dame. These were the names given to them by others. It is common to put such things in quote. 2) "Rarely are these quotations cited" All quotes are cited. "is this a twentieth-century biographer's description or a direct quote from the interviewers" This would not matter, because this is a fact of a situation and not dialogue. Only dialogue or opinion needs to have direct citations, and this is per MLA and Chicago method standards. The reader is easily able to determine where the quote came from because of the reference at the end. Anything else would be redundant and unnecessary per both methods detailed. 3) "If so, the note should read" Or not, because it is not necessary per standard convention. 4) "There needs to be a broader discussion of the style of Johnson's writing - what kind of a poet was he, for example?" The use of the term "imitation" and other such words are already there to describe these. If you think they are inadequate, then it really can't be helped. 5) "There needs to be broader discussion of the themes of Johnson's works" Utterly impossible. Not even Donald Greene who had his whole career to discuss such things was capable of doing so. Not only is there not a unifying theme between his tens of thousands of writings, that if you did attempt to even talk about more than one or two individual works at a time, you'd fill books. His politics is discussed. His religion is discussed. You ask for what does not have a basis. Why isn't Shakespeare's themes there? He only wrote a handful of plays! Johnson wrote for 60 years, having regular news paper columns, diary entries, speeches, books, prefaces, etc etc. Each different. Each varying. And yet Shakespeare is an FA without such. Your standards do not match. 6) "The plot, themes, and publication history of every work cannot be described." And yet you asked for it. With these contradictions, I believe that your oppose has no grounds. Therefore, you will not be given any further responses from me until you sort out your own thoughts and apply actual FA standards based on actual comparable FAs. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1) The quotes are unclear to readers. Awadewit (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

2) I gave examples of quotations that have unclear sources - it is important to know if a quotation comes from an eighteenth-century source or a twentieth-century source or the reader will be misled.

4-6) It is not utterly impossible to discuss the themes of an author's multiplicity of works. See, for example, Balzac. The problem with this article is that it is overwhelmed by details, as I have tried to illustrate, and the lay reader cannot understand the kind of writer Johnson was. Other reviewers agree with this assessment. To be clear, at no time did I ask you to add a plot summary, publication history, and theme description of every work. There are many ways to describe the works of an author in an article. I am pointing out that, so far, the integration and coverage of that topic is not up to FA standards. Considering all of the other recent author biographies that have become FAs have had significant discussions of the author's works in some way, this article is not comparable. (And please do not compare this article to William Shakespeare, which has sections on "Plays", "Poems", and "Style", just the kinds of sections that this article is lacking.) Awadewit (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1) "he quotes are unclear to readers." Then I would wonder at their ability to read English. Sorry, but this is a very old and very standard convention. People even use "air quotes" while speaking. We have a "simple English" Wikipedia for those who may not understand these standard conventions. Every major biographer uses them. 2) You gave examples, but that does not mean you are correct. Once again, standard English conventions do not support you. 4-6) I'm sorry, but you couldn't even talk about Proserpine in context of others who were cited as being compared to Shelley's version, so your objection is absolutely absurd. Shakespeare is the only acceptible comparasion to Johnson. Shakespeare is the only one even close to Johnson in mass. Shakespeare does not have what you want, therefore, what you want does not qualify under FA standards. Don't like it? Try to put Shakespeare up for an FAR review with your objection, if you truly believe what you are claiming. Otherwise, your objections are pure nonsense, as I have already demonstrated above. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

And Awadewit, for you to have an objection under 1b, you have to prove that there is a detail missing, then you have to prove that it qualifies under "major". You have done none of this. You can't even put forth specifics. Therefore, you cannot even begin to claim that your oppose is actionable. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• On the point about the quotes - I am trying to point out where the article fails to communicate to readers. If you do not want to improve the article, so be it. Continuing to discuss this matter is apparently fruitless.
  • Should be addressed now; please let us know if you see other instances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• You misunderstood my point about William Shakespeare. If Samuel Johnson had as much discussion of Johnson's works as the Shakespeare article does about Shakespeare's works, I would have no trouble supporting it. I reiterate my point - please note that the Shakespeare article has extensive sections on Shakespeare's plays, poems, and style. The Samuel Johnson article does not have any such sections or their equivalent.
• You wrote on my talk page "you are still treating him [Samuel Johnson] as an author, when he was a in fact a scholar". As far as I know, Johnson scholarship does not support this distinction. Samuel Johnson was a writer - he wrote in many genres. Those works were influential and need to be talked about. He is taught in literature classes. Scholars in English departments have made careers studying him. The introduction to the Cambridge Companion on Samuel Johnson calls him "a great English writer" (2) and describes him and his influence this way: "The attention he has received is the mark of many things: it is a sign that his personality continues to fascinate, that his works continue to speak to the experience of modern people, and that he and his works represent a complex cultural authority that provide some readers with deep,intelligent instances of moral, social, and literary insight, while symbolizing for others the worst excesses of absolutist and ethnocentric rationalism prodcued by the Enlightenment." (1) Notice the emphasis on both his person and his works. I do not understand how your claim regarding Johnson can be reconciled with this summary statement, which accurately reflects the scholarship of this entire volume.
• The Cambridge Companion to Samuel Johnson discusses Samuel Johnson's styles and themes in a broad fashion, something you have claimed is impossible. In fact, the introduction states that this is the entire purpose of the work: "the essays are designed to approach single works and general themes in Johnson's thinking from a number of different yet complementary persepctives" (2). I will give sample quotes from Howard Weinbrot's essay entitled "Johnson's poetry" to illustrate how this is possible and some ideas that are missing from the article:

• Helpful summary of poetic genres: "Samuel Johnson's preeminence rests upon the extraordinary intellectual and moral achievements within his prose. That truth universally acknowledged nonetheless admits a complementary truth - Johnson is a great prose writer in part because he is a great poet. Johnson wrote poetry throughout his life....He wrote a blank-verse tragedy, translations, adaptations of classical poems, satires, love poems, poems warning of the dangers of love, elegies, epitaphs, comic parodies, serious prayers, odes, sonnets, meditations on his inner psychological and spiritual being, and in the nature of things, poems that combined several of these genres." (34)
• Theme: "The intimate relationship between the general and the particular, the author and the reader, informs much of Johnsons's literary theory and poetic practice" (35)
• Style: "Johnson also uses questions pleasurably to involve us in his poem and in our own education" (35)
• Style and theme: "Johnson's poems frequently exhort us to examine, look, mark, observe, remark, see, survey, and then apply the fruits of discovery to our actual lives." (36) - "Johnson figuratively embodies his empiricism" (36)
• Theme: One aspect of Johnson's inner and outer empirical world was its Christianity that so improved classical pagansim" (36-37)
• Style and theme: Johnson's poems "often engage readers in their own education and encourage response and partnership with a humane, experienced guide. He urges toward a specific moral end while also recognizing variations in the path we may choose to take." (37)

Using works like the Cambridge Companion helps us write articles for the lay person because Johnson scholars, who have spent years introducing Johnson to lay audiences, have already done so. As you can see, these kinds of statements would give general readers a much better idea of what kind of poet Johnson was than the fragmented, overly detailed information currently in the article. In addition, they would provide an overview of the kind of poet Johnson was. However this is just a beginning. The Cambridge Companion has essays on several topics that would be helpful, such as Johnson's essays, his conversation, important themes such as Christianity and imperialism, etc. Awadewit (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

1) "I am trying to point out where the article fails to communicate to readers" And it is a common English feature, so you would have to not understand basic English to get it. It comes up in news papers every day. It comes up in books. It comes up in coversation. Its a standard English convention. 2) "had as much discussion of Johnson's works" Johnson's actually has more discussion than what Shakespeare's page does. It also has a lot more history, because we actually have biographies of Johnson and know who he was. 3) "Johnson scholarship does not support this distinction. Samuel Johnson was a writer - he wrote in many genres" Then once again, you have proved your ignorance. Being a writer is not being an author. Writing news stories, essays, and other prose works is not the same as a major poet or a major novelist. 4) "he Cambridge Companion to Samuel Johnson discusses Samuel Johnson's styles and themes" Before you start making stuff up, please realize that I actually own this work and used it in the biography. Chapter one "Extraordinary ordinary: the life of Samuel Johnson" biography. Chapter two "Johnson and the arts of conversation" biography. Chapter three "Johnson's poetry" which does not say much beyond what is already in the page. Chapter four "Johnson, the essay, and The Rambler, a 14 page chapter which talks about his newspaper career, which has already been discussed in the page. Chapter five "Johnson and the condition of women" biography. Chapter six, "Johnson's Dictionary" part biography, part talking about the origins of the Dictionary which is covered in the page. Chapter seven, "Johnson's politics" part biography and covers what is already discussed in the page. Chapter eight "Johnson and imperialism" is the same as seven. Chapter nine, "The skepticism of Rasselas" does not cover anything beyond what is already discussed and is mostly biography. Chapter ten, "Shakespeare: Johnson's poet of nature" covered in the page. Chapter eleven, "Life and literature in Johnson's Lives of the Poets" already covered in the page. Chapter twelve, "Johnson's Christian thought", already covered in the page. Chapter thirteen, "From China to Peru": Johnson in the traveled world" biography. Chapter fourteen, "Letters about nothing": Johnsona nd epistolar writing" biography.

So far, all you did was prove that most of the essays on Johnson deal with his biography. Furthermore, your quotes are not objective, but opinions thrown out without any proof and cannot be used in a biography. Now, if you have any real arguments, please provide them. The fact that you didn't even acknowledge that the Cambridge Companion is used is utterly disturbing to say the least because it reveals that you didn't even bother to look at the article, which negates any claims you may have to object. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, Awadewit, having a 10 page essay in the Cambridge Companion does not mean that it falls under weight. There are three other books that collect essays on Johnson, and there are plenty more works on his biography. You still haven't been able to acknowledge WP:WEIGHT, which clearly says "and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". Also, your statement above seems not to acknowledge that there is a big section on his philosophy of poetry which goes into his two major poems. That reinforces the fact that you haven't actually bothered to read the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Johnson scholarship does not support this distinction. Samuel Johnson was a writer - he wrote in many genres" Then once again, you have proved your ignorance. Being a writer is not being an author. Writing news stories, essays, and other prose works is not the same as a major poet or a major novelist. - This distinction is not supported by the scholarship. There is no distinction between "writer" and "author" in literary criticism. There was in the 1950s, but we are no longer in the 1950s. You are insisting upon imposing your theoretical views of literary criticism onto the article. This is a departure from WP:NPOV, which states that we have to represent all major views in the article. Clearly, that Johnson is a major English writer in many genres is an important view of scholars, found throughout Johnson scholarship.
• Before you start making stuff up, please realize that I actually own this work and used it in the biography. - These personal attacks do not become you. I used the CC because I saw it in the "References" and thought you would have easy access to it, because the essays are written by important scholars in the field and represent a diversity of opinion. The book therefore is not just the opinion of one scholar, but a collection of the most important voices in Johnson scholarship. Do not cavalierly dismiss it under WP:WEIGHT, especially when you have used it yourself.
• You have apparently misunderstood my argument. You list many things that are covered in the article. Mentioning them is not enough. I gave the example of poetry, where the general statements regarding Johnson's style and themes were missing from the article, but could easily be added. Rather than try to the improve the article so that it is easier to follow, however, you chose to dispute every single thing I said.
• Furthermore, your quotes are not objective, but opinions thrown out without any proof and cannot be used in a biography. - These are quotations from scholars - we use literary critics' arguments in articles about writers.

Throughout this review, I have only offered suggestions to improve the article. At this point, however, I no longer feel like subjecting myself to the personal attacks that I am constantly undergoing here. If the article changes again, I will be happy to review it again. As of this point, I am unwatching this page. Awadewit (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• A great read! Excellently written! Therefore, I support but I have to stress something I think Awadewit already mentioned. The "legacy" section treats the posthumous works about Johnson, but not his real (artistic) legacy, namely his influence on the next generations of writers. And I think this is a serious flaw that should be taken care of.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Legacy has been rewritten. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And what do you suggest? There is nothing even close to establish his influence. Did someone write a similar dictionary? No. Are there any notable influences within Johnson criticism? No. See, thats the key. The "influenced" has to be notable to Johnson. There isn't a direct influence. No one followed his poems. No one followed Rabelais. Find a notable work that can be said to follow Johnson. The Romantics did their own thing. The Modernists did theirs. Johnson was know as a character. He was known for his biography. All of the criticism out there focuses on this. WP:WEIGHT demands that it is the focus of the article. If you can find a legitimate author who relied on one of Johnson's works to write another important work, please provide proof. Otherwise, stop speculating. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There are entire books written on Johnson's influence - I found them in the MLA database last night. See Reception history of Jane Austen for one example of Johnson's influence. Awadewit (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but reception history is not the biography page of Jane Austen, and thus you contradict yourself. Furthermore, WP:WEIGHT would not have such a section. This is a biography. The pertinent sections where his life caused works has been cited to those of significant sources. Furthermore, Jane Austen is a novelist, so you are comparing apples to oranges. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And if someone may think that she has a point that Johnson influenced Austen, there is no such critical claim found. There are only comparisons, which are not influences, nor do they have weight. Even her own page says "Bradley emphasised Austen's ties to Samuel Johnson, arguing that she was a moralist as well as humourist", but doesn't have a real influence. They are connected only through analogy, and analogy is not critical. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, you have your own section. Don't hijack what others say. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(I believe I am allowed to comment anywhere on the FAC.) Here is Johnson on the Jane Austen page. I am not comparing apples to oranges - you asked for a writer who was influenced by Johnson. I gave you one that is cited here on Wikipedia. There are many more, of course. Writers of all stripes were influenced by Johnson because he was so influential. Awadewit (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Support for a beautifully written, comprehensive encyclopaedic article. It is a difficult task to write about Johnson without it turning into a book—such was his life and influence. What the editors have achieved here is awesome; one of, if not the best encyclopaedia articles about him. The FA process is about presenting our best work to the world and setting the paradigm for content, style and quality to less-experienced editors. This is the best FAC I have seen this year. My congratulations go to all editors involved. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I am sure that the many editors will greatly appreciate those kind words. A lot of people have been putting in a lot of effort and its nice for it to be recognized.Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Question for all reviewers - To achieve consensus on this point, I would like to know whether the community believes that an author article should discuss the author's works in some depth (e.g. Balzac and Mary Shelley) or if mentioning each one in a few lines is enough (e.g. Samuel Johnson). I have argued above that the Johnson style is too cursory since authors are notable for their writings and Ottava Rima has argued that readers can read other articles and this style is WP:SS). Please weigh in on this important issue. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Should this be on the talk page and not here? Graham Colm ^Talk 14:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Considering it is a point of dispute in this FAC, I believe we should talk about here (it is the main reason I am opposing). Awadewit (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you done making a point? Does this disruption have a purpose? London has three lines devoted to it. The Dictionary has a whole section. The Rambler a paragraph. Vanity has 3 lines and Irene has 5. His Shakespeare and his Lives have multiple lines and paragraphs. The Idler has a paragraph as with his The Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides. His political pamphlets are given two paragraphs between them all. Every major work has a section devoted to them as per their WP:WEIGHT. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm no literary scholar, but I think Awadewit has a fair point. I'm in no position to judge whether Johnson's literary works had influence or (apart from the dictionary) were any good. It does strike me that most of the publications are noted in the context of Johnson's life and we learn about the publiciation from an external POV (did it make money, when did he write it, it was translated, etc). We learn very little about the literary work itself. For example, Rasselas is described as a "philosophical novella" but we learn nothing more about its contents. Such things could be written without reading the poems or opening the books. I'm not saying the editors or sources haven't done this, but they might as well not have is the point. We learn a lot about Johnson's character and life, but next to nothing about the literary works themselves.

The "Legacy" section isn't what I would regard as such, for an author: a list of biographies is followed by an "in pop culture" paragraph. If Awadewit is right, and that Johnson's literary works have influenced future writers, then this is the place for that to be covered. The influence of his dictionary on the English language certain deserves mention. Colin°^Talk 17:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Plot summaries and similar things were reduced based on a few editorial requests during the peer review. It was determined then that there was significant redundancies and that it would take far too much to explain the plots. By the way, Awadewit isn't right about him "influencing" future writers, as he wasn't a fiction writer or regarded as such. He was a scholar and a "character". And those biographies were some of the most celebrated works of the 18th century, so I wouldn't dismiss them so easily. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Just because Johnson wasn't primarily known as a fiction writer doesn't mean he didn't influence fiction writers (that is fallacious reasoning). Besides, it was Johnson's moral essays that influenced novelists. Johnson also influenced other essayists and poets. His influence was profound. I urge all those that have access to the online Encyclopedia Britannica to compare Wikipedia's article to theirs. Unfortunately, at the moment, theirs is superior because it explains the kind of writer Johnson was (comparing the section on Rasselas is particularly illuminating). If anyone would like me to send them a copy of the EB article, I will. Just email me. Awadewit (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Prove it. You only have statements in which people compared the two. This does not mean that one influenced the other. And if you think Britannica's is superior, then why not stick to reading that one. They are allowed Original Research. They are allowed baseless conjecture. They are allowed to do whatever they want about weight. And they don't have to rely on sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Austen scholars have indeed said that Johnson was an influence on Austen. The citations are there for you to follow if you do not believe me. I am offering Britannica as a comparison because we often do that, to check the quality of our articles, since EB is written by actual scholars. I'm not sure what you think is baseless conjecture in that article or why you think the Britannica doesn't rely on solid scholarship, but I'm not sure others will agree with you. EB is usually viewed a relatively decent tertiary source. Awadewit (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Austen scholars" - you still haven't proven this. As I pointed out, the closest thing was not actual evidence. Furthermore, you haven't actually provided real citations. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

They are in the article. Read the article and check the citations in the footnotes yourself. Or, you can see all the notes we have amassed on Austen here. They contain statements such as Austen "developed her mastery of balance from Pope, wisdom and playfulness from Johnson, gendered power-struggle and immediacy of representation from Richardson, relation of books to life from Lennox, pathos and domesticity from Cowper, grotesque from Burney" (203) from Isobel Grundy in the Cambridge Companion (there are many more). This is tiring. Here are some citations from Johnson's influence and legacy. I have only done the briefest survey of the MLA database (and only books) as there are thousands of Johnson entries, and here are three different books on Johnson's importance, dealing with three different areas:

• Philip Smallwood, Johnson's Critical Presence: Image, History, Judgment
• Nicholas Hudson, Samuel Johnson and the Making of Modern England
• John Needham, The Completest Mode: I. A. Richards and the Continuity of English Literary Criticism

I am not going to do extensive research for this FAC because I don't have the time at the moment since I am on vacation. Awadewit (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If you did any research, you would realize that those books don't provide what you think they provide. They discuss Johnson and his works, but not people influenced by Johnson's works. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

For those wondering - Needham's book is ignored by Donald Greene, who, in 1989, talked about the major contributions to the area of Johnson's studies. Regardless, Needham talks about Johnson in the 18th century. Hudson's work does the same (a quick view at Amazon demonstrates this: "this volume will give you a better appreciation of the author of The Rambler, Rasselas, and Lives of the Poets, by presenting, not 'the Age of Johnson,' but 'Johnson within his Age.'" Albion, Paul Monod ). Note the word "within". The other, Smallwood's work, is a side by side analysis, but does not demonstrate influence, only context. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

But context is important and these books demonstrate the influence that Johnson had on his society. This is exhausting, OR. There are countless articles and books that demonstrate Johnson influenced other writers in addition to the entire society. This point is not made in the article. You know it and I know it. Do not try to claim that scholars haven't made this point when entire books have been written about it. Awadewit (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I recommend you read WP:WEIGHT carefully and then reread Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Wikilink#Internal links for why that action cannot be done. Weight must follow the predominant thought by the predominant scholarship, and be given proportion based on the predominant scholarship. In an article on his biography, the stress is placed on his biography. Not for speculation. No section to say "here is what the rest of England looked like in comparison" or anything else. Those works can serve as primers to students needing to learn context. But they are not scholarly works that analysis Johnson's actual connection in a way that deserves more prominence in this biography. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I definately agree with Awadewit: any author at FAC, save perhaps quite recent ones, should cover literary criticism and the author's artistic legacy, based on the scholarly literature. This article does not cite a single source of either type. Biographies are only one type of work that should be used in such an article, nor should the article be weighted based on biographies. The scholarly literature on the author should also be summarised. Biographies provide details about the person's life. Different books and articles analyse the writings and legacy. The more you scream that to even look at such articles would violate undue weight, the more you look completely ignorant of basic facts about academic scholarship. Particularly after Awadewit has pointed you towards books by name that you could use, which you dismissed out of hand as not being covered by biographies! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Johnson is not "any author", let alone an "author". Regardless, the page doesn't cite a single source dealing with Johnson's works? Are you serious? 1. Clingham, Greg (1997) - deals with Lives of the Poets, 2. Griffin, Dustin (2005) - deals with his political works, 3. Hitchings, Henry (2005) - deals with his dictionary, 4. Lynch, Jack (2003), - also a great essay on Johnson's dictionary, 5. Watkins, W. B. C. (1960), - an important comparative critical work, 6. Weinbrot, Howard D. (1997), - all about Johnson's poetry, 7. The many biographies are all written by literary experts in the field and all contain some critical analysis of works. Greene's work even includes a bibliographical analysis of the critical studies in Johnson from 1970-1989. I don't think you have actually read the page at this point based on what you just stated above. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Clingham is used to cite this: The work was finished in March 1781 and the whole collection was published in six volumes. As Johnson justified in the advertisement for the work, "my purpose was only to have allotted to every Poet an Advertisement, like those which we find in the French Miscellanies, containing a few dates and a general character. That is the only citation to Clingham. An entire book analysing the Lives to the Poets, and you don't cite a single biot of its analysis, only Johnson's stated intent.
• Griffin: This line was not, as widely believed, about patriotism in general, but the false use of the term "patriotism" by John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute (the patriot-minister) and his supporters. Johnson opposed "self-professed Patriots" in general, but valued what he considered "true" patriotism and This line was not, as widely believed, about patriotism in general, but the false use of the term "patriotism" by John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute (the patriot-minister) and his supporters. Johnson opposed "self-professed Patriots" in general, but valued what he considered "true" patriotism. Again, a pretty trivial usage.
• Hitchings: Used only for history of dictionaries:
  • On the morning of 18 June 1746, over breakfast at the Golden Anchor tavern in London, Johnson signed a contract with William Strahan and associates to produce an authoritative dictionary of the English language. The contract stated that Johnson was to be paid 1,500 guineas (£1,575), ... in instalments based on delivery of manuscript pages; all expenses relating to the project—ink, paper, assistants, etc.—were to be paid for by Johnson
  • Robert Cawdrey's Table Alphabeticall, published in 1604, was the first monolingual English dictionary. Again, you have an entire book on the subject, and ignore the content except to fit it into a solely biographical framework.
• Lynch: This is an INTRODUCTION to an edition of the Dictionary. It's used somewhat, (actually far out of proportion to the weight you should give an introduction to a mass-market edition of a book), but, again, no to little discussion of the dictionary itself occurs using it, only the history of its creation.
• Watkins: Not once used to discuss Johnson's works. It may well be an impoprtant comparative work. So why didn't you use it?
• Weinbrot: Used for one sentence that discusses a single poem: "The poem is an imitation of Juvenal's Satire X and seeks to be "the antidote to vain human wishes is non-vain spiritual wishes""

If you even read these works, then you should have actually used them in a significant way in the article. You cannot claim your sourcing is fine because you used major literary analyses if you don't actually use them to provide any literary analysis. Particularly, your claims that you used a major comparative work, Watkins, when you never actually use to cite any comparison whatsoever, is outright fraud on your behalf in your claims about the article.Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid excess markup, per WP:TALK guidelines. Will someone please remove the markup? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Got it. Sorry. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now read the Britannica article, thanks to Awadewit. I now oppose this FAC on the grounds of not being comprehensive and not giving due weight to the areas one would expect in a literary biography. [see below] On three areas (details of his life; description of his character; analysis of his works) this article is over-specific on the first, light on the second and virtually absent on the latter. For example:

• • His "Final moments" are covered with great precision as to which dates he was at which locations. The EB article mentions a stroke, his "dread at the prospect of death and judgment, for he feared damnation" and his "late conversion". Does one really need to know "He soon left for Islington to visit George Strahan"?
  • The article describes school director Hunter's brutality in an awkward way which leaves the reader wanting for more information. In contrast to the insipid "disatisfied with his education", EB says Hunter's regime "instilled such terror in the young boy" that years later he "trembled" when reminded of it. The EB uses the priceless quotation about Hunter, who "never taught a boy in his life—he whipped and they learned."
  • The section on the dictionary mostly covers everything but the dictionary. We get his life while writing it, plus mention of other works he wrote at the same time. In contrast the EB article tells us quite a lot about the dictionary itself.
  • I may have missed its mention here, but the EB says Johnson was tall and, latterly, huge and strong. Some physical description is warranted.
  • The EB describes him as "the foremost literary figure and the most formidable conversationalist of his time" neither of which are apparent from the article.
  • The EB says "Johnson is well remembered for his aphorisms, which contributed to his becoming, after Shakespeare, the most frequently quoted of English writers." Neither of these facts are mentioned here. This is surely a topic for his Legacy section!
  • The EB says "Johnson's criticism is, perhaps, the most significant part of his writings." I don't see anything on his literary criticism.
  • The EB goes on to say "As a critic and editor, through his Dictionary, his edition of Shakespeare, and his Lives of the Poets in particular, he helped invent what we now call "English Literature."" This bold statement is far stronger than the "he made lasting contributions to English literature" in our lead.
  • The EB gives merely one word each to his depression and his TS. I think that, or a footnote as Awadewit suggests, is too little. However, the TS section could spend less time detailing the various 20th century physicians who posthumously diagnosed Johnson. The section tries to prove the case in front of the reader, rather than describe and state the conclusions to which authoratative minds have agreed. The article says Johnson had "signs consistent with several diagnoses in the DSM" yet only gives us one: TS. The wording "It is not without interest that" should be avoided.
    • Colin, I can only respond on the TS section, as it's the only section I've worked on and represents the only sources I have access to. I've reworked the section a bit; please have a look. I combined and eliminated some wording as well as mention of specific physicians unless they are known to contemporary readers. The wording "It is not without interest that" is a direct quote from one of the reports; eliminating it will be awkward. I've tried to leave text that satisfies three needs: 1) to demonstrate that Johnson's posthumous diagnosis is as strong as it is precisely because of the writings of Boswell and others, 2) the need to contrast his diagnosis with other speculative and not well accepted posthumous diagnoses (such as Mozart), and 3) to provide the context for understanding his life, work and personality. If EB gives one word each to this, they clearly miss the mark in placing the work of Johnson in the context of contemporary understanding, and we should be aspiring to do a better job than EB has done. Please have a look, but I think that cutting any deeper will eliminate the context we provide that makes this article superior to EB and explains Johnson's life and work in the context of current understanding. We have the opportunity to write a much better article than EB: we should do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Further discussion of the Tourette issue on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You say (on this FAC discussion) "those biographies were some of the most celebrated works of the 18th century" yet this isn't clear to the reader. Wikilinking them doesn't give them "celebrated" status for every episode of Lost has an article on WP! It is possible to become so familiar with one's subject that one forgets what other people don't know.
  • Lastly, the EB covers his literary works in a way that gives the reader a real flavour of what sort of author this was and where his works fit within literature. All I get from this article are dates when and locations where he wrote.

The where and when stuff really doesn't help the general reader and should be trimmed to that which is necessary to build a picture of his life. Spend more time describing Johnson the character and more time on his literature itself, and the reader will come away with a better picture of the man. Colin°^Talk

1. "this FAC on the grounds of not being comprehensive and not giving due weight to the areas one would expect in a literary biography" Weight is based on criticism, not Genre. Please read WP:WEIGHT. 2. "Does one really need to know "He soon left for Islington to visit George Strahan"?" I'm sorry, you are favouring the vague and inaccurate Britannica account that doesn't give any real understanding of how he died why? 3. "EB says Hunter's regime" Wikipedia doesn't allow Original Research which adds "flavor", otherwise known as "falsities". 4. "The section on the dictionary mostly covers everything but the dictionary." Except that the first three paragraphs contradict this claim. 5. "Some physical description is warranted." Where? When? When did Johnson become tall? When did he become "robust"? Perhaps you are favouring one of the greatest flaws of Britannica. 6. "neither of which are apparent from the article." I guess you didn't read the "Character sketch" section which makes this clear. 7. "Neither of these facts are mentioned here." Wikipedia doesn't allow Original Research. Britannica does. 8. "The EB gives merely one word each to his depression and his TS. " More proof of why the Britannica fails as an encyclopedia. Every major biographer talked about his depression, and every major biography after 1985 talks about his TS. 9. "yet this isn't clear to the reader." Read the second sentence. 10. "Lastly, the EB covers his literary works" The Britannica is not Wikipedia, and has different standards. They ignore criticism to provide a general tool for a childish intellectual understanding. They aren't scholarly. Furthermore, the Britannica works pages completely differently, and if you prefer the Britannica's style, then why bother with Wikipedia? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Please don't tell me to read WP:WEIGHT. I'm quite familiar with it thank-you and I wasn't referring to it. A biography on a literary figure should spend some time discussing his literature. This article spends virtually none.

2. I didn't say I favoured the Britannica article. It's coverage of his death is slight. However, WPs is way too detailed yet somehow misses off aspects the EB found time to mention.

3. You are saying the "trembling" and/or quotation is false; that EB just made that up? You might be right. I can't argue that point.

4. No, apart from the last two sentences, the first three paragraphs tell me nothing about the dictionary. If you can't see this then I suggest you take a break and look at it with fresh eyes. The first paragraph is about the contract. The second and beginning of the third paragraph is about other dictionaries.

5. Eh? Are you telling me none of your sources tell you about physical aspects of the man? Are you saying EB is wrong and he was short and slender?

6. I had read the "Character sketch", thank you, and I've read it again. It says nothing about him being "the foremost literary figure and the most formidable conversationalist of his time". He loved his cats, apparently.

7. You are saying that EB's scholars are the only people to have mentioned Johnson's aphorisms!! Come on, even I've heard them. As for the 2nd-most-frequently-quoted statement, again, you are saying the EB just made that up? Perhaps they did; that's quite an allegation.

8. I agree with you that the EB article is too short on these aspects. I gave some practical suggestions on how the TS section could be more focussed IMO.

9. Ah, the second sentence in the lead. Which is supposed to be a summary of the body. So where does it say that in the body?

10. I've been around WP long enough to know the restrictions it imposes. It can be a handicap. But there are some serious holes in the coverage of Johnson's literary work that this article should fill. I don't prefer Britannica's style and don't subscribe to it. A scholarly work will have more detail than an encyclopaedia for the general reader, which is what WP is. I don't need to know what Johnson had for breakfast on the day he signed the contract for his dictionary. Colin°^Talk 23:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Colin, I would suggest you read the William Shakespeare page. You will notice that works like Richard III receive very little mention. 1. "I'm quite familiar with it thank-you and I wasn't referring to it." I was, and it contradicts your desire for certain pieces of information. 2. "I didn't say I favoured the Britannica article." Then don't mention it in an oppose. 4. "tell me nothing about the dictionary." So, the time table of how long he worked on it tells you nothing? And the comparative claims to show what he was working against? Or the fourth paragraph detailing how he had to retain assistants tells you nothing? Or do you mean it doesn't tell you whats inside of a dictionary, then I would point out that its a dictionary. 5. Unless you can provide when and where it matters, then it doesn't. He grew. He changed sizes. There are mentions of his scars. There are mentions of how people reacted to his mannerisms. That is scholarly. What you ask for is Britannica junk that is put in there to entertain children. 6. Because such claims are speculation and unverifiable. We discussed his communication skills and intelligence. The rest belongs in an opinion column. 7. "to have mentioned Johnson's aphorisms" To have lodged such outrageous and unscientific claims about them, yes. 8. They aren't very practical, as the section covers a lot of medicine in a very brief timespan, and would warrant an expansion based on WP:WEIGHT. 9. It doesn't have to be in the text at all as there is a significant coverage of Boswell within the work, which is what the line is about. 10. Mock as much as you want, but the signing the contract during breakfast is an important character detail and included in all of his major biographies. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm about done here as it is evident you are more interested in arguing that finding if even one of my points is worth pursuing. If the most you want to say about the dictionary (yes, the words on the page) is that "It's a dictionary, duh" then I really give up. I imagine all of Johnson's biographies mention his stature, yet you refuse to mention it because you think such comments are childish? Opinion of Johnson does deserve mention here, though in WP it needs to be attributed rather than directly stated like on EB. I'm afraid the reader really does need the help of others in working out whether he is considered the greatest/best/etc because few of us are so well read as to make that judgement ourselves. The claim about his quotability might be outrageous, but his aphorisms are well known and a reason he is well known to the population -- yet the word doesn't appear in the article. I'm glad the biography is now celebrated in the body text, despite what you wrote above. Finally, my "what he had for breakfast" point is gentle mocking but apt. There are lots of things that one would expect to find in "all of his major biographies". Those are books and this is an article.

Before anyone gets the wrong idea: I think this is generally an excellent article. It is well written (though the detail of his comings and goings really bogs the reader down at times) It is clear that those who have worked on this have done their research, are using high quality sources, and care passionately about the subject. Colin°^Talk 08:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've just seen the note on my talk page about changes made to the article by Ottava: "I trimmed out 3k worth of text and then added in 9.5k worth of text in terms of elaborations of plots/subjects of works, influence on contemporary works, more detailed explanation of biographies, added a section on his influence on criticism and response, and organizations/celebrations based around his character." I'll have a look later at these changes. Colin°^Talk 09:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I've re-read the article. Regarding the works, there is now some information in those places where there was none. The legacy section is also much improved. I would have preferred a little more about the dictionary (perhaps a definition or two and a brief comparison of his approach when compared to modern dictionaries) as it is his most noted work. Some of my other points remain unaddressed (for example, there is no mention of his stroke which is the subject of at least one medical paper). Since I'm no literary expert, and improvements have been made, I feel I should retract my oppose. Given the otherwise evident quality of the article, I now support it for FA status. Colin°^Talk 00:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I added this. It needs to be cleaned up, but it makes clear that this was a stroke. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Awadewit. When the editor who has raised two dozen other articles on related subjects to the featured level asserts that the candidate article lacks appropriate attention to the subject's work, we should take notice. She makes a very good argument regarding comprehensiveness: her objections are reasoned and specific. So opposing per criterion 1(c). Durova^Charge! 18:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please point out the "two dozen other articles". Thanks. Bate never brings them up. Greene never brings them up. Wain never brings them up. They are the main Johnson scholars. Striking because you can't do it, as actual critics never used Awadewit as a source, and thus would be OR. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I had written this: I'm referring to Awadewit's 24 featured article credits, which all relate to English literature from this period and slightly afterward. She knows her stuff and it very much looks like her suggestions would make the article more informative. Suggest you address these points through improvements to the article. Best wishes, After seeing that edit conflict, strongly suggest a change of approach. Straw man arguments and sarcasm aren't likely to improve anything. I don't take that kind of behavior personally, and I hope neither does Awadewit, but it's not constructive or suitable. Durova^Charge! 18:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You think that Sandy and Malleus would have let it go if it wasn't already comprehensive? Or the extensive Peer review? Or the people on this list don't have more experience than her? If you had a real objection, you would have made it. Instead, you are basing it off of favoritism, which the FA process is not about. Awadewit failed to produce any actual proof. None of the major biographers mention anything even close to what she says. I have 24 biographies on my desk right now. I have 5 book collections of articles, plus loose articles. You want to say the page is not comprehensive? Get some real proof instead of defending someone who is throwing out baseless accusations. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You attempt to reverse the burden of evidence and make a very serious allegation of misconduct. Please withdraw the claim, you are basing it off of favoritism. You cannot know what motivates me and that assertion is a violation of WP:AGF. Your response also insinuates that a positive peer review and SandyGeorgia's allowing a nomination onto FAC constitutes some expectation of promotion. Of course that doesn't always happen. Please, let's interact on a more productive and collegial level. I can be persuaded to change my opinion, but not by such tactics as this. Durova^Charge! 18:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If saying that one user's comments are more highly respected than others, thats the definition of favourtism. You stated it yourself. You also disrespected the countless editors who worked hard on this piece and have far more FAC experience. And the "burden of evidence" is not on me. You don't have to prove your innocence. If she thinks that there is something missing, she better find it and point it out. Otherwise, it cannot be added. Right now, the work covers every single major biographer and Johnson scholar. All it takes is a quick glance through the reference section to see that. "SandyGeorgia's allowing a nomination onto FAC" Also, its her nom. Its not her "allowing" it onto FAC. Its her putting in over 200 edits towards making this FA worthy and going through every single medical article she could to actually fill out a topic held by the majority of scholars, a topic which Awadewit said didn't belong. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, a second attempt to sway this opinion with the straw man fallacy is no more persuasive than the first try. It would be favoritism if my trust in Awadewit's opinion were unmerited. Her two dozen featured articles on closely related subjects are an objective measurement of her knowledge in this field. I know a bit about Johnson, and a bit more about Austen--enough to appreciate what she's saying, and her argument is well-reasoned and sensible. Your responses look hotheaded and are logically flawed. Now I'm not the sort to hold a grudge. So if you'll just give the material another pass and deepen the treatment of Johnson's works and influence, I'll be glad to change my vote. Other than that, to paraphrase Elizabeth Bennet said in Pride and Prejudice, 'Keep your breath to cool your porridge, unless you exhale to swell the article with (critical) song.' Durova^Charge! 19:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You already said "per Awadewit". As I have explained above, her point is non-actionable, and any said actions would violate both policy and guidelines. If you are unpersuaded or not, that doesn't matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems odd that you simultaneously accuse me of favoritism, and attempt to sway my opinion by a combative manner. If you really suppose both my ethics and logic are second-rate, wouldn't it be more practical to apply honey instead of vinegar? She raises a legitimate criterion 1c objection and substantiates it far better than most such objections get raised, and I simply am not satisfied by your rebuttal. If I were actually acting upon personal bias then your manner would entrench the opinion. As it is, I'm a bit puzzled and disappointed by your decision to undermine so much of your own hard work by refusing to make a few additional improvements that could earn this effort the recognition it almost deserves. That's your choice, though. Durova^Charge! 19:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I never attempted to sway. I pointed out that you favored Awadewit's response. It is clear that you did from your first line. I stated clearly above that your objection cannot be met, because Awadewit's objection cannot be met. It would go against policy and guideline, thus, I don't need to convince you. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Weak support. Criticism and influence has been expanded. Although still a bit on the low side per WP:UNDUE, and despite main contributor's comments that would justify a WP:NPOV objection due to concerns that existing scholarly criticism may have been underused. The explanations about posthumous diagnosis are satisfactory. And although I would have objected at the consensus that moved nearly all of Boswell to a subordinate article, I won't stand in the way on that basis after the fact. I still don't quite get the rationale for citing a sometimes unreliable source for facts within the article without also providing a summary within that same article about the reasonable limits of trustworthiness for that source. That leaves the quote boxes, and the explanations for quoting Boswell exclusively within those quote boxes are wholly unsatisfactory from a historian's perspective; shifting the rationale to illustration is no improvement. Disappointing as that is, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. FAC's approach to illustrative media is often unsatisfactory to those of us who contribute other types of featured content and it wouldn't be fair to single out this nomination from others on that basis. Durova^Charge! 00:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

neutral apologies for the flip-flop. Subsequent discussion at this FAC has deepened my concerns about NPOV. Durova^Charge! 22:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but NPOV requires Weight, and there has been no evidence to suggest that any of Awadewit's claims are even founded in scholarship, let alone be allowed under Weight. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, I strongly suggest you consult with your mentors about this FAC. I am not one of your mentors, so please allow what I intend as a face-saving disengagement, and please refrain from further jabs at the competence and diligence of one of Wikipedia's top three most prolific contributors of featured articles. Durova^Charge! 00:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not one of Ottava's mentors either, but I would strongly suggest that you moderate your language nevertheless. "Prolific" does not equate to "knowledgeable". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Durova, let me make this clear right now. Over 14 admins have contacted me during this FAC expressing their disatisfaction with you, especially with you coming in and using Awadewit's oppose without any basis. These admins remember that you have been in contact with Awadewit and know that you talk to her off line. This page has also gone through an extensive Peer Review and had the involvement of many people, including many admin who feel that your claims are not supportable. Furthermore, these admin all know that you and Shoemaker have a history together. Furthermore, your claims that Awadewit is "prolific" is frivelous, as you have exposed easily that the FAC system can be gamed. Your comments above, combined with your actions, are not becoming of an admin. I recommend that you strike your comments and step away. I have put up with you long enough, and played your game. At the very least, you owe myself, Malleus, and Sandy an apologize for disrupting this FAC. I am done with you, and this is the last response you will hear from me. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

By all means such people are welcome to contact me directly. None have. Durova^Charge! 01:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'd never heard of Samuel Johnson before, and having read the article I'm not sure why I should have. No doubt it's great for Samuel Johnson fans, who are already familiar with his life and work. Specifically it fails criteria 1a) "engaging prose" because reading the endlessly cited minutiae of someones life was very dull and 1b) being comprehensive, because I've no more idea about why this man was important at the end of the article than I had before I started it. Suggest the biography section is heavily edited with more emphasis placed on whatever it is this man actually did that made him notable. --Davémon (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Did you read the second sentence - "Johnson is the subject of one of the most celebrated biographies in English"? How about the beginning of the third paragraph - "After nine years of work, his A Dictionary of the English Language was published in 1755 and brought him popularity and success."? If reading someone's life was dull, why not skip out of the clearly marked "biography" section? "on whatever it is this man actually did that made him notable" so, the whole section devoted to his "Dictionary" does not exist? The paragraphs on his edition of Shakespeare I guess don't exist either? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
• Malleus has beefed up the lead. The current lead includes:

• Beginning as a Grub Street journalist, he made lasting contributions to English literature as a poet, essayist, moralist, novelist, literary critic, biographer, editor and lexicographer. Johnson has been described as "arguably the most distinguished man of letters in English history". He is also the subject of one of the most celebrated biographies in English, James Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson. ... After nine years of work, his A Dictionary of the English Language was published in 1755 and brought him popularity and success.

• With a subject like Johnson, it's necessary to avoid WP:PEACOCKery; I hope this satisfies Davemon's concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't appear that Davemon has revisited; I'll ping. [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the shout! I think others have pointed out that the issue is best addressed in the lede, so that's what I'll stick to. It has improved, but I think it could be even better. Surely the "Tourett Syndrome" reading/diagnosis of his biography is post-hoc to his fame/notability, and something of an aside rather than being fundamental to understanding the subject. OK so he wrote a dictionary and some journalism pieces but the article should show how these writings are significant to the world - just a few words ("a highly influential dictionary" or "ground-breaking journalism") which are then fleshed out and cited in the main body would be good. --Davémon (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I will leave it for Ottava to respond to the rest; I'm responsible for the Tourette syndrome text and accuracy. The TS is not an issue of his fame or notability, rather a matter of understanding his life, work, character, personality in context. The "Health" section, where the TS diagnosis is established, is later in the article, as putting it earlier wouldn't result in a logical flow. Mentioning it in the lead provides context for the other aspects of his life and personality as one reads through. It actually is fundamental to an understanding of Johnson, as contemporary knowledge of his TS puts the rest of his quirky and compulsive behaviors in context. If it's not mentioned in the lead, we'd have to somehow move the Health section up in the article, which would make less sense. Hope this helps explain, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this? Does it satisfy any concerns? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Having re-read the whole article, it might be a good start for an essay or a start of an academic paper for eng-lit, but as a general encyclopedia entry it fails. It over-emphasises trivial detail over significant facts, and for that reason, I still oppose this article becoming an FA. --Davémon (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. The article has now nailed it for me, the lede especially summarises the most significant information and explains why it is significant. Brilliant. Well done everyone. --Davémon (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Strong Oppose It doesn't really cover him as an author, beyond the dictionary, which gets trivial coverage as a work of literature, the section concentrating on the contracts and biographical aspects of the dictionary. Nor does it even discuss the importance of Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson at all. Boswell's Life is probably the most famous biography every written, and it is not discussed - quoted, but not discussed - at all. If this was moved to, say, Samuel Johnson's Life with another article started at Samuel Johnson's Works, with an article at Samuel Johnson summarising them and The Life of Samuel Johnson, and if the Legacy section was expanded enough that his importance became clear, then it would be an excellent featured article. But with the current scope, we have an article on an author that does not cover his works, and one that does not discuss the biography that cemented his fame. This cannot be considered comprehensive, and comprehensive is a key facet of a Featured article.

The long and short of this is that the coverage of what is covered is excellent, top rate even workable - but there are problems, for instance, when discussing Johnson's refutation of George Berkeley's ideas, you fail to say what those ideas are. However, an article on Samuel Johnson without discussion of his works or the effect of Boswell's biography on his legacy, and which also fails to discuss his own influence and legacy to any depth simply cannot be a featurable main article on the subject. If the scope was changed by making this a sub-article, then it would be fine, excellent even. But it cannot stand on its own with such glaring ommissions Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Struck oppose per this diff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You do know that Boswell's life is included within the text, right? And its a famous biography, but that fact doesn't make it notable to Johnson's page to analyze it. The named pages are for biographies. Your suggestion goes against MoS. Do you have any actionable changes that don't violate MoS or Wikipedia standards? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Boswell's Life is discussed in detail in its own article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's quoted, yes. But the Life of Johnson is probably one of the keys to Johnson's enduring legacy. I really don't see how you can get away without at least a paragraph or two discussing how it affected perception of Johnson. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if I kept in the original section, I discussed Boswell's life. And no, it wasn't the key to his enduring legacy. The work was mostly fictional, and has been since dismissed. See the works of Donald Greene for this, or better yet, read about it here where it belongs. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

...So, you're saying you don't have to discuss Boswell's life because of problems with it as a source, then use it constantly throughout the article. If there's strong scholarly debate about the accuracy of Boswell's Life, then it is vital to the article that it gets discussed, and the accuracy of our knowledge of Johnson's life is made explicit. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My comment above was to tell you the reality behind the source. Boswell's passages are contained in image boxes because they add "flavor", but do not provide as much truth. The passages that do describe actual events and not questioned have been used in the text itself. However, Boswell's work was just one of many, and has been replaced by other biographies that are included as references. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is not good enough. Indee,d in one place you've chamnged a quote from Boswell's Life from being referenced to Boswell to being referenced to Lane "This first love was not to last, and Johnson later claimed to Boswell, "She was the first woman with whom I was in love. It dropped out of my head imperceptibly, but she and I shall always have a kindness for each other.") By insisting you don't have to deal with the issues you are making the article far worse. Please stop. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Note - William Shakespeare's page, FA, limits Richard III to only a couple lines, with no actual description on it. Thus, there is no FA standard that says that works need to be devoted anything more than a few lines. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. William Shakespeare from section 2 to section 6 inclusive is discussing his works and him as an author. Samuel Johnson has a single short section discussing one of his works, his dictionary. If you're going to insist that everyone but you is wrong, and try to claim that because an article on a prolific author does not discuss every single one of his 40+ works in great detail (while spending about half a dozen pages discussing his works in general) that you have no need to discuss more than one of a different author's works in any detail - and even the section on the Dictionary never describes the Dictionary itself, its importance, or anything but how it was created - then we may as well close this now as not promoted, because there's no way in hell it ever will be. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Works. This biography contains just as much information about his works. The individual works receive little over one or two lines. thus, your point doesn't correspond to the appropriate models. "that you have no need to discuss more" Actually, all of his major works are discussed into the detail appropriate according to the Shakespeare page. And this - "never describes the Dictionary itself," - is absurd, because saying the word "dictionary" is enough to give someone 95% of the knowledge of what it is. Everything else is covered in the dictionary's page. Any more would be redundant and thus violate MoS. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You need, at a minimum, a section on literary criticism from Johnson's age to ours, and a section detailing the themes and style of his works. The legacy section also needs to actually detail HOW he influenced other authors, and detail how the Johnson school of criticism developed.

You clearly are interested primarily in the biography aspects, and are pretty competent at dealing with them. However, you don't seem to understand what literary criticism even means, thinking that a few words about the plot or argument of some of his works is the same thing as discussing his works. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but WEIGHT and size issues say otherwise. Shakespeare is a model and does not do as you say. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

...Okay, you are clearly either delusional or a troll, and there is no point talking to you further. The Article on Shakespeare is about half to two thirds on Shakespeare's work, legacy, and the like. I am not going to feed the trolls any further. Contact me on my talk page if someone actually interested in hearing what reviewers have to say wants to talk. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this personal attack unstruck after almost two weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy close as not promoted: Nominator obviously has no intent of listening to anything anyone says. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you may need to reread how FAC work. Its not done by consensus, nor do you say things like that. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If the people involved with the article are only going to use FAC to belittle reviewers and refuse to deal with any of the problems of the article, then the process is being abused, and this should be closed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please provide evidence to support that "any of the problems" were not dealt with as ones that could be dealt with were. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit has given you references to several books and articles on lierary criticism and Johnson's legacy. You attacked her for that, and screamed that your biographies are sufficient. You have also said profoundly stupid things, like claiming Johnson did not influence later authors, in the face of people trying to point you to scholarly articles and books that show otherwise. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose (biggest concerns addressed) Article reads like a giant eulogy, which I find annoying, being Scottish. ;) You;ve got a part like "Johnson attacked the claim that James Macpherson's Ossian poems were translations of ancient Scottish literature on the grounds that "in those times nothing had been written in the Earse language".[157] This claim brought swift reaction from Macpherson, who threatened Johnson with physical violence", distorting the correspondence as well as downplaying Johnson's rampant anti-Scottishness and anti-Gaelic sentiment; meanwhile the article ignores lesser moments for Johnson, like when he was fooled by William Lauder (a Scotchman) into proclaiming John Milton a fraud, before consequently being made to look ridiculous by John Douglas (another Scotchman ;) ). Not FA content, in terms of balance. Before being accused of bias myself (of which I freely admit), I would have opposed the article anyway based on the other concerns here. Article needs a content overhaul before being stamped FA. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Deacon, I would reread the article, because I already added far more detail from the works, which places it well above every other authorial biography and this as after people demanded more about the works and more about his legacy. As you can see, I removed 3k worth of text and then added 9k here, and am currently over the MoS word limit, so not much can be added. Also, the above about Johnson and Macpherson comes from many sources, so its not downplaying or anything. If you have another source with another version, please provide. However, Bate and Wain seem very much agreed that Macpherson threatened him, and that Johnson was correct. And anti-Scottishness and anti-Gaelic? It doesn't seem to be either from the accounts of his visit from my sources except for a handful of early quotes in which he made fun of Scotland (which are better suited on Wikiquote). If you can provide from sources to what you say, then I can easily add to the section (it is part of WikiProject Scottish Islands, so it does deserve to have more). Ottava Rima (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I appreciate with these FAC's you get stuck between rocks and hard places. Your compliance with a demand from one person oft leads to condemnation by another. Anyways ...

The "threat of violence" is attested only in Johnson's "response". You might want to read, Fiona Stafford's "Dr Johnson and the Ruffian: new evidence in the dispute between Samuel Johnson and James Macpherson". As the article has it, 'tis a pretty unbalanced way to represent the whole Johnson MacPherson dispute, which consisted mostly of ad hominem attacks on MacPherson and Gaelic culture on Johnson's part, rather than any literary insight, with some responses from MacPherson and his supporters. Despite being opinionated about the culture, Johnson learned no Gaelic, couldn't read the language, didn't understand the culture, and offered little critical insight into the Ossian matter (that role fell to other men with no obsequoius biographers). And as it happens (since you mentioned it), it has been shown by modern research that MacPherson did use older Gaelic sources, his crime was embellishing them not forging them.

As for being duped, in 1750 a guy called William Lauder published a pamphlet arguing that John Milton plagiarized his great works from older authors. Johnson, who hated Milton, got excited, added his voice of support and even attached himself to it by authoring the preface. For the details, see Chapter 9 of J. A. Farrer, Literary Forges (1907). James Clifford and Bertram Davis, modern writers about Johnson, use this episode to highlight Johnson's frequent literary incompetence.

My impression of sycophancy in this article may be down to my own prejudices. I could take your advice and read it again tomorrow ('tis well written for sure) and see if I was wrong, and if so, moderate or change my vote, but other users above have expressed valid concerns too. You do have my sympathies, as those concerns have very little to do with your efforts, just the relationship between your choices and peer expectation you didn't foresee. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I added indentations so my response will format, so I hope you don't mind. The article right now is trying to cover a very long life and a lot of works. I can add a line here or there, but we are way over the limit. I took out a lot of material to make a page devoted to his "portrait", or analysis of his character. He was known for occasional instances of outbursts that could be discussed further with anecdotes and analysis of the sections you have above. We should discuss working on a line or two even out any bias, and I welcome you on my talk page to discuss it further. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Rephrasing it as:

Johnson entered the dispute over the authenticy of James Macpherson's Ossian poems, claiming they could not have been translations of ancient Scottish literature on the grounds that "in those times nothing had been written in the Earse [i.e. Gaelic] language".[157] There were heated exchanges between the two, and according to one of Johnson's own letters, MacPherson threatened physical violence".

takes out a bit of the bias here. Noting that he is widely associated with anti-Scottishness and anti-Gaelic sentiments, while noting some scholars feel this exaggerated, I guess covers this to an acceptable level I guess and without undue weight or bias. The links I sent you are sufficient reference, though you'll find yourself even more well-covered if you search on google books "Samuel Johnson anti-Scottish" "Samuel Johnson anti-Gaelic", etc. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to your request on our talk pages for examples of euologizing, well, it permeates, though having read it again it isn't doesn't seem as bad, considering it is his biography. Still, the long (considering its importance) praise of his Pope poem and praise of him in his student life is for instance one of the other pieces I found unnecessarily euologistic. It's not biggie, sure you have reasons. You have de-POVed the MacPherson thing ... so after all that I feel I can withdraw my strong oppose at least. I'll abstain in fact, but won't be changing to support though as, not being a literature expert, the concerns above make me too unsure. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Pope thing was an important moment in Johnson's life, and the two instances of Johnson's involvement with Pope (who was considered the greatest literary figure at the time) contrast against each other. If there is anything other particulars, please mention them and I'll see what I can do. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• A a science nerd who has worked hard to get the facts straight in Francis Crick, I look at Samuel Johnson with envy. I know nothing about Samuel Johnson, but as a non-expert I found the article to be informative and easy to read. Thanks to the editors for all their hard work. Can I "hire" you to spruce up Francis Crick? --JWSurf (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Another major problem: Not all of the sources have the details. For instance, Reference 56 is "Warner 1802, p. 105" - the details for Warner's book aren't given. Ditto: Reverence 179 (Whiltshire 1991, p. 51). Also, the references are not all linked to the bibliography - consistency is needed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. All that is left is the occassional reflist error, which is not an issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Those two minor mistakes have been corrected; I'll be working later on the Tourette section, to incorporate new and even stronger sources uncovered in the discussion on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

They're easy to fix, but it's a major problem if they aren't: The reference becomes inherently uncheckable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One-two omissions is more than 200 citations do not constitute a "major problem"!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, no need to exaggerate about WP:V, unclickable doesn't mean unverifiable; the information was there, just a dead Harvnb link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• support:This is monumental undertaking to write a comprehensive article on an author. My feeling is that may be some sections are big enough that may be they can be broken into sub articles ?. Taprobanus (talk)

During the last couple weeks, I made a page for each of the literary works, and moved bits of information over and expanded, with the last being the The Plays of William Shakespeare page. There is a page devoted to biographies on him, with their individual pages, also. We just made a split off of the health section. There might be another or two later. Johnson could probably have his own WikiProject by the end. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• oppose support All concerns addressed - consider that the article is now as worthy of FA-status as any article I have read, and am incidentally concerned by the extent to which this talk page is turning into a fight. Lexo (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to oppose this article getting FA-status, because I have worked with its main nominator on other Johnson-related articles, and I have found him to be a generous and learned contributor, way more learned than me on the subject of this article. But I do not consider this a useful general article about Johnson. It is a potted and well-sourced biography, but not much else. It tells me that he is a notable subject, but does not demonstrate why he is so. There is too much trivial biographical detail. I can remember what it was like to know absolutely nothing about Johnson, and this article mostly tells me the story of his life - not why he is anything more than a figure on English literary history. Lexo (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Which subjects have not been discussed enough? He also lived to 80, and these are the most important moments of his life, which is very important, so you will have to be very specific here. Also, how does the section on London and his involvement with Pope not make it notable? How about how his Life of Richard Savage "remains one of the innovative works in the history of biography"? Or his Dictionary section? His meeting with the king? Descriptives about his Shakespeare edition from one of the most important Shakespeare scholars that praises Johnson's edition? His involvement with the Club? Works by those like Miss Lennox that defend him? The countless biographies listed written after his death? Some of the most known quotes like "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."? Multiple movies being made on his life? 8 major "societies" devoted to analysing his life? Praise from T. S. Eliot? Even just one of those above establishes him as a notable person, and if you can't see that he is notable, then I don't really know what to say. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The major problem here is the weighting. For instance, looking at just one of the things you mention:

On the evening of 7 April 1775, he made the famous statement, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."[142] This line was not, as widely believed, about patriotism in general, but the false use of the term "patriotism" by John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute (the patriot-minister) and his supporters. Johnson opposed "self-professed Patriots" in general, but valued what he considered "true" patriotism. - I believe this is the only quote discussed in any detail, but the only discussion of it is to criticise unnamed and hitherto unmentioned people for taking it out of context. If you want to cite it as a major source of notability, it is necessary to actually establish it's notable in the article text. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability only has to "be established" on a page devoted to the quote. All of those lines are cited. You say its a weight issue, without actually stating anything that is part of weight. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone was curious to see if the quote is widely known, just look here. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Another issue: Samuel Johnson made Francis Barber, originally a Jamaican slave, his heir, as well as educating him and so on. This is very surprising behaviour for someone from such a racist time. The article riefly mentions the event, but without any vividness, detail, or even treating the event as unusual. Indeed, the article consistently fails to establish the importance of significance of the events it describes. It badly needs a full copyedit and rewrite to turn it from a selection of facts into a vivid portrait. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnson didn't think the event was significant. Writers did not think the event was significant. Before you start throwing out lines like the above, actually get some proof. Otherwise, you are demanding original research and asking for things that aren't allowable on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Really. You're telling me not one biographer discusses Francis Barber in any detail. Strange that we have an article on him with extensive quotes from Boswell, and a bit of Hawkins too. Clearly they must be fabrications. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Barber was a servant. He is mentioned on five pages in Bates, many times in passing. He was not a notable part of his life, and there was nothing to do about "racism" when hiring him. There is a page on Francis Barber that contains information that is proper to the weight on his page. You really need to reread what WP:WEIGHT says. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." From WP:WEIGHT. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As determined by the Great Arbitrator (you), of course. However, weight isn't the issue here, it's that the facts are poorly chosen, the explanaitions of why the facts are relevant non-existant, and nothing is put in context. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets see - you lack any references. You lack any substance to prove your point. And then you arbitrarily take pot shots at the article. Not only do you lack an objectionable point, you don't even have basis beyond OR, which would violate Wikipedia standards. Weight is an issue here. Your attitude is an issue here. Your lack of having actual evidence is an issue here. Now either come up with real, reliable proof, or stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This FAC is beginning to remind me very much of the Roman Catholic Church's various attempts. Some want more biographical detail, some want less. Some want more about Johnson as an author, some want more about his legacy, some want less about his medical conditions, but very few seem to recognise the size constraint placed on wikipedia articles. I think that Ottava has bent over backwards to deal with the myriad of conflicting demands placed on this article, which in my view is fully deserving of FA status. This recent trend of holding certain types of articles to far higher standards than others does not bode well for the future of FA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand the sense of similarity, but it reminds me more of To Kill a Mockingbird, a literary article where everyone knows a bit and everyone has an opinion. One substantial difference between this FAC and the RCC is that sourcing here is solid, there are no ongoing MoS issues and constant cleanup and prose needs, and there are no significant POV allegations, stability and length issues as there were in the RCC FAC (the RCC FAC had concerns spanning 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2 and 4; the depth and breadth of concerns were substantial, and that is not the situation here). From the point of view of concerns expressed, the two FACs are quite different. I agree with your general concern, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right. The Roman Catholic Church was probably a poor comparison. I would call on those still opposing this article to be specific about which of the FA criteria they believe it fails. I believe that it fulfills all of them. In spades. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The main argument of those opposing is "comprehensiveness". Therefore, I wouldn't agree with Sandy that these concerns are not "substantial". They are! If they are correct or not is another issue to be judged. I personally believe that the article fulfils FA criteria, and I supported it, but I cannot call the concerns of a user like Awadewit presenting a series of arguments about the article's lack of comprehensiveness (exaggerating IMO but this is another issue) as not substantial.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't made myself clear, or I've been misunderstood. We were discussing this FAC in relation to the RCC FAC, where there were substantial (about a dozen) opposes across the full range of WP:WIAFA, including almost all points: 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2 and 4. That FAC had a breadth and depth of opposes. This FAC has several opposes centered around a difference of opinion on basically one issue, comprehensiveness, and differing opinions over how to employ summary style relative to 1b, "neglects no major facts or details". With Johnson, there are many major facts and details; different editors have different and contradictory input about what should be included and how summary style should be employed; some have failed to consider size limitations, but the opposes revolve around basically one concern, while many opposes focused on the full range of WIAFA in the RCC FAC. That was all I meant in the comparison. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

SJ's interaction with Barber was critically important when seen in the context of his politics as a noted early very strong opponent of slavery, and there are excellent quotes for the purpose available "Here's to the next insurrection of the negroes in the West Indies." and, with respct to the American revolutionary leaders, "Why is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of negroes?" and quite a few others, as wll as abundant secondary discussion. I think the article considerably underestimates the importance of Johnson's politics in general. But I don't consider that a question of NPOV, just of further work to be done. If the people trying to remove articles on fiction ever let up, I might even be able to write something. MF is quite correct about standards. For articles on academic subjects, its easier to be very critical, because that's what we are taught to do with such subjects and habitually do when discussing them. My view of SJ is different from that of OR in a number of respects, and the same for that of Durova. This isn't the sort of thing about which there is a real synthesis to be expected. But nonetheless this is a high quality article. DGG (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I :agree that his opinions on slavery, the American uprising, and his general political thoughts deserve to be mentioned on Wikipedia, but they cannot be given any respect in the format we have. It would need to have a page devoted to it, which I always intended to write (because there are many pamphlets not discussed). There are over 70 essays, along with 7 pamphlets, and some other items that give minor ideas and thoughts that would be hard to generalize. Greene, in his attempt, only 23 true pages on the topic and another 15 to general "journalism" while devoting half of his 19 page poet section to poetic theory, his biography section of 25 pages to theory, and 31 further pages on general literary criticism in a work used to summarize Johnson's works (or, as Greene says, to describe him in terms of being a man of letters). There would probably need a page devoted to his Anglican beliefs. And for the record - my experience with Johnson has been of him as a critic and him as a personality. He intersected with most of the poets of the 18th century, and these intersections have come up the most. I feel that the best that can be done to describe his politics on the general biography page is what is done currently: discussion of London's politics (2 lines), his view on the Seven Year's war (1 line), views in Rasselas (2 lines), politics with the pension (1 line), his later pamphlets (2 paragraphs), and his generalized views (2 paragraphs). Added together, it forms roughly one section on the topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Two daughter articles added, per summary style: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Main articles: Samuel Johnson's politics and Samuel Johnson's ethical views

Malleus, I agree that this page is horribly unwieldly and it is hard to tell what objections reviewers still hold. I've tried to strike mine out and note improvements as I have reread. Looking at the FAC, however, I'm not really sure that there is a lot of disagreement among the opposers - to me it looks like there are two major threads: 1) not enough discussion of the works; 2) too much biographical detail. If we could get all of the opposers to weigh in on this statement, that might help. If indeed, these are the only major two issues, I believe there is light at the end of the tunnel. Awadewit (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, except that I think the core problem is that a lot of the detail that is covered is not covered well. My point about the Francis Barber statementsd, for example, was that discussion about him was begun, but in a somewhat random location, and without taking enough time to make bringing up Barber interesting. This article very regularly reads like a collection of random bibliographic facts, and if it covered half as many facts, but covered them well, it would be much better article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, what really doesn't help is attacking the reviewers. Can this please stop before I'm forced to pull in the Mediation cabal or ANI into a FAC? Because this really is not on. I don't want to cause more drama, but I will not allow FAC to be turned into a farce by having an article promoted by means of attacking everyone who opposes until they give up, then declaring victory.

I did not want to uissue an ultimatum, however, if the featured article team cannot make Ottava rima show even the minimal level of civility towards the reviewers who disagree with him, one of whom, Awadewit, is a graduate student with a speciality in 18th century literature who he is treating as if she knows nothing and is a meddling ignoramus, then I will find someone who can. Because this is discredit to the entire FA process. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither ANI nor a mediation cabal has any place at FAC. Yes, Ottava's responses could have been better (but I have seen much worse from other nominators), and I have left him a message to that effect with suggestions on how to better phrase his responses. However, on this FAC reviewers have also contributed to escalating the conflict. I encourage all parties to this FAC to focus on the issues and stop posting any personal comments - either in support of or objection to any editor who has posted. Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Very well. allow me to state my objections to the article itself plainly, in an itemised list

1. The article reads more like a collection of random facts than a coherent work. Things are mentioned, but not elabourated on, leaving their importance unclear. Organisation is poor - for instance, Francis Barber is said to have visited Johnson as he lay dying long before who Barber is is mentioned.

   Addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

2. While some definite improvement has been made to the literary criticism, there's still gaps. Particularly, the dictionary's discussion is concerned almost entirely with the contractual history of its writing - discussion of the work itself is minimal. Not even one definition from the dictionary is quoted, nor is the dictionary's impact, nor the dictionary as literature discussed in any depth.

   I'm having a hard time understanding how a definition from a dictionary will add to the article. The dictionary discussion has been expanded, and additional detail will be included at A Dictionary of the English Language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

3. The literary criticism section is also cited almost entirely to one author, Greene. Is this [8] the Donald Greene work used to cite most of the section on Johnson's works? If so, it doesn't look like the references check out. If it isn't, can you clarify which book by Donald Greene it, in fact, is, and perhaps clarify, e.g. giving a subtitle as well as the title. Regardless, the section really could use a second major source.

   John Needham was added as a source to the newly titled "Critical theory" section, and the Donald Greene works are fully cited, including title. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

4. Historiography is not covered very well. Particularly, while there's a little discussion of Boswell's Life of Johnson, pulling it all into its own subsection of Legacy would make for better summary style, as it would then be clear that there's an important sub-article on the work. Also, a brief discussion of how modern scholars view the biographies that were published after his death would be useful.

   Detailed discussion of Boswell's biography was removed at the request of others. There is now a complete {{Samuel Johnson}} template of related articles, icluding Boswell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

5. The article lacks clear focus to many of its sections. For instance, this is the first paragraph of "Early career":

   There is little record of Johnson's life between the end of 1729 and 1731; he most likely lived with his parents when experiencing bouts of mental anguish.[38] Although it is not known when Johnson first displayed the signs of Tourette syndrome, we know that following this time he exhibited the various tics and gesticulations associated with the disorder.[39] To further complicate Johnson's life, his father was deeply in debt by 1731 and had lost much of his standing in Lichfield. An usher's position became available at Stourbridge Grammar School, but Johnson's lack of a degree saw him passed over, on 6 September 1731.[38] At about the same time, Johnson's father became ill; he developed an "inflammatory fever", which ended his life in December 1731.[40] Johnson tried to start a career and eventually found employment as undermaster at a school in Market Bosworth, Leicestershire. The school was run by Sir Wolstan Dixie, who allowed Johnson to teach even though he did not have a degree.[41] Although the arrangement may seem congenial, Johnson was treated as "a kind of domestick chaplain".[42] Still, Johnson found pleasure in teaching even though he thought it boring. By June 1732, he had returned home, and, after a fight with Dixie, quit the school.[43]

   This entire section appears to be an attempt to include every single fact known about this period of Johnson's life, however, it is not a particularly notable period of his life, and summary style would call for this to be spun off to a sub-article, and greatly compressed. For such a long article, it's hard to justify the extreme detail given in this section, when much of it has little to do with Johnson's notability.

   More aggressive use of summary style has now been employed, with text moved to daughter articles, making way for new text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

6. There's a lot of random interjections of facts. For instance, near the end of the section "A Dictionary of the English Language" - which is somewhat misnamed, as much of it is actually on other subjects such as The Rambler - we get this:

   ...Although the production's run had a rough start, Johnson received nearly £300 for the manuscript and the performances.[98]

   Johnson's wife died shortly after the final issue appeared. During his work on the dictionary, Johnson made many appeals for financial help in the form of subscriptions: patrons would get a copy of the first edition as soon as it was printed in compensation for their support during its compilation. The appeals ran until 1752.

   It seems simply bizarre to mention the death of Johnson's wife in the middle of an unrelated discussion, then never mention it again. Did his wife's death have no effect on Johnson whatsoever? That's the impression given.

   Rearranged: [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Support by Moni3: (comments given on article talk page) --Moni3 (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• None too excited to enter a fray, if my comments help at all that is the reason I am giving them. I enjoyed the biography. I found it sympathetic, well-written, and engaging. I was mostly unfamiliar with Johnson's work before reading the article and found him to be portrayed quite roundly and humanly.
• He was born at 4.00 on a Wednesday? Any particular reason for such detail? I see articles as being general yet comprehensive overviews of a subject's life, giving the reader the most important and influential portions of the life in question.

• Addressed (removed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Johnson first displayed the signs of Tourette syndrome, we know that following this time he exhibited: this royal "we" is not quite encyclopedic. I mean, I don't know what he exhibited, so I cannot be included in that pronoun. Was this structured in such a way to avoid the passive voice? I'm ok with the passive voice in this instance, otherwise it reads more like a familiar tone of authors speaking directly to readers instead of an encyclopedic authority. Similar point in the Legacy section with It was no wonder that immediately following Johnson's death in December 1784...

• Corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I get confused about the switching of times after he met Tetty, then was penniless, then brought her to London.

  Rearranged: [10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Now I'm totally confused. If his wife is well off, why is he so poor?
• Gosh, he wrote a dictionary that became influential in the English language. Should that be in the lead? I would think so.

• In the third para. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest for those in the Deaf community that the title for the school for the deaf be in capital letters, as it includes "dumb" (Edinburgh School for the Deaf and Dumb), or the word be changed to "mute".

  Since it's not the actual name of the school (proper noun), changed to "mute". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• How does Johnson resolve his impoverished past with his comment that if Americans wanted representation they should purchase an estate in England? Surely this logic was as misguided in 1775 as it is today, or am I simply an unfortunate obdurate helpless American?
• It is my limited understanding that Tourettes sufferers cannot control their tics, regardless of place or circumstance. The detail about his movements upon entering a house, therefore, sound more like Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Has anyone suggested this or a combination of the two? I see the quote with "obsessive compulsive" but that seems merely a description of the tics, rather than a posthumous diagnosis.

• Replied below, pls let me know if you think I should add more clarification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• At this time I don't feel I'm knowledgeable enough to comment on Johnson's literary works. I'd like to be able to read similar articles within the next day or so. --Moni3 (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

  It is my limited understanding that Tourettes sufferers cannot control their tics, regardless of place or circumstance. People with Tourette's don't usually consider themselves as "sufferers", rather individuals or people :-) For a full understanding of the semi-voluntary, temporarily suppressible nature of tics, please see tic or Tourette syndrome; yours is a common misunderstanding. Although the minority of people who have severe TS may have less ability to manage or suppress tics, most people with tics are quite able to "manage" the expression of their tics or control and suppress them to some degree for some amount of time (perfectly consistent with the descriptions of Johnson's TS). Posting from the plane (how cool is that); if you feel this needs more clarification within this article, I can do that when I get home, but I feel that might be going off-topic just to clear up a common misconception about tics and Tourette's that is already covered in their own articles. You can also see in the Tourette syndrome article that a subset of OCD (tic-related OCD, distinct from classic OCD) is thought by most researchers to be etiologically linked to Tourette's, so again, covering the TS/OCD connection in this article would amount to providing basic background detail about Tourette's, when the amount of space devoted to his Tourette's has already been criticized. If you feel we should again add back some info on his TS, I can work on that when I'm home, but that would be contrary to what other reviewers have already requested wrt minimizing the TS info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You like that? You like how I took the issue of Deaf people, and then cockblocked the Tourette's Syndrome folks? I'm awesome that way. Point taken. Imadork. --Moni3 (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

1) I didn't realize that the 4:00 PM comment was still there. Its quite comical now. Originally, I was going to put the time in which the doctor was rushed form, baptism, etc, since it all happened very quickly. "If his wife is well off, why is he so poor?" Its one of those mysteries of life. Perhaps they lost a lot of money from various things, or Johnson's lack of income caused problems. The same mystery happened to his father. If someone can figure this out, they are welcome to put it in the biography. I could never find the answer. :) 2) "Gosh, he wrote a dictionary that became influential in the English language. Should that be in the lead? I would think so." Isn't it? Paragraph three, I think. 3) "the title for the school for the deaf be in capital letters, as it includes "dumb" (Edinburgh School for the Deaf and Dumb), or the word be changed to "mute"." It wasn't a school's name, and I don't think a school was directly made after his advice. I could be wrong, but if there was one, the proper name should be put in its place, or introduced. 4) "How does Johnson resolve his impoverished past with his comment that if Americans wanted representation they should purchase an estate in England?" He died. Thats how. :P 5)

Support. My initial reaction was “you must be joking – where are all the references to the most important aspects of the man’s life" – such as his kind remarks about Iona Abbey and Flora MacDonald (which I note doesn't yet appear in the former article either...)?

However, I reluctantly accept that this article is not Samuel Johnson and Scotland and that the things that are of interest to me may have to be glossed over here. I can’t find significant fault with the text from a technical point of view and I realise we could spend all day arguing over the relative importance of the sections. Happily, prior to reading the article I knew very little about the man beyond his excursion to the Hebrides and less about literary theory. I am inclined to agree with some of the grumbles about the length of the early life section.

The Early life section has now been shortened, with more aggressive application of Summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are some comments. * I presume "threw more light on his authour" contains an archaic spelling rather than a typo

• Correct, see here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand the use of italics in the William Gerard Hamilton quotation

• Per WP:MOS#Italics, when the quoted text is in italics, we should also italicize. It's italicized in the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am uncomfortable that "Literary philosophy" uses a single authority as a reference.

  John Needham was added as a source to the newly titled "Critical theory" section. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

• "Johnson was willint to discuss Shakespeare's faults" has a typo

• Corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• "Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay" and "John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir" are nonsenses and if MOS supports such usage, it should be changed.

• Yes, those are the correct article names, apparently dictated by Wiki naming conventions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I too found the "dead wife" a little odd.

• Rearranged.[11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• There seem to be unnecessary spaces in refs #20, 23

• I can't find these. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, ha; thanks, Ben MacDui.[12] (Although the end result should be the same.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nae problem hen. (English: It was my pleasure ma'am.) Ben MacDui 07:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Refs 95, 207 aren't linked and 96 lacks a date and a link

• Fixed (silly Harvnbs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Refs 173 and 198 may be missing something

• Corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Murray and Pearce refs - I usually see (pdf) placed outside of the link, but its probably fine the way it is.

• Corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• " Leavis, FR" and " Watkins, W. B. C." - apparently inconsistent use of periods.

• Corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally, well done to Awadewit for persisting and attempting to summarise the unresolved issues. I understand that some stupid bot explodes if sub-sections are used in these discussions, but it's my view that they work for us and not the other way round. Anyone wishing to use one like "List of unresolved issues" here will get a round of applause from me (presumably it could be removed again at the end?) Ben MacDui 18:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out some of the minor citation issues; literary articles on Wiki apparently all use a citation method which is utterly foreign and nonsensical to the standard used on medical articles, so we've ended up with some slipups and text that can't be translated between articles without completely changing citation style. Now, putting on the FAC delegate hat, when reviewers refer to specific ref numbers, it's hard to track them down because often the article and ref numbers change before the next person can check them. I found some of the issues you refer to,[13] but wasn't able to find them all (for example, I can't find any missing spaces). There are two citations that need to be sorted by Ottava, who has the literary sources. It would be helpful if reviewers specified the exact citation rather than the citation number, as they often change in Wiki articles. Also, with respect to summarizing work remaining and speaking as the person who has the pleasure of reading these 100KB+ FACs, usually when a FAC grows too long, it's a good indication that reviewers have placed a lot of line-by-line commentary on the FAC that might be better summarized on the article talk page. Unless someone summarizes remaining issues to the article talk page before I get to it, I will do that on article talk tomorrow. Although I'm not aware of much work remaining; reviewers should be striking issues as they are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that more Scottish related information should be present somewhere on Wikipedia. I think that I could put it into his political views page, which I am slowly developing. If you have any bits of interest that you would like seen, place it on my talk page or on this page's talk page so I can work on it. 1) "contains an archaic spelling rather than a typo" Yes. 2) I didn't understand it either. I assume it was shouting or some emotional inflection that is hard to capture in words. 3) "uses a single authority as a reference" That authority, Donald Greene, is one of Johnson's bibliographers, biographers, and someone who has devoted his while life. Yeah, I could mix it up a bit, but a few of those quotes are actually Johnson's words or Johnson's writings that were not in an easy publication to quote, or were just unattributed by Greene. By the way, he was one of the main editors of Johnson's complete works (fifteen volumes). He worked with Bate 14 other scholars to put together a complete edited works, so hes a strong authority. It was hard to put him in anywhere else, and he devoted a book to the topic, so, yeah. Otherwise I would have to cite Bate even more. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind offer. He may have been a Scotophobe, but at least he took the trouble to visit the Gaeltacht and I think of him as a likeable rogue rather than perfidious Albion personified. I am told that "Late but Live" is wonderful. I have a few quotes dotted about the isles and if time permits I'll cut and paste a few. My favourite can be found at Ulva: "When the islanders were reproached with their ignorance or insensibility of the wonders of Staffa, they had not much to reply. They had indeed considered it little, because they had always seen it; and none but philosophers, nor they always, are struck with wonder otherwise than by novelty." Ben MacDui 07:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to note that I will add in some stuff from John Needham into the section, split it off onto its own page, and contain a little about Johnson's political philosophy and ethical philosophy. I would then rename the section philosophy, so it will have three literary philosophies, general moral philosophy and general politics. I need to go now, but tomorrow morning I will have something put together. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I found this an interesting and compelling article - perhaps more in-depth discussion of his work can be found at the Works of Dr. Johnson but until such time there's enough meat on the bone for me, the lay-reader to enjoy a general discussion of his life and works. Excellent stuff. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks Joopercoopers! There's a lot for Ottava cover (I'm only responsible for accuracy of the Tourette syndrome content, and Malleus is the expert copyeditor). Ottava has now built an entire template of Johnson-related articles at {{Samuel Johnson}} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  I've always hated that word "expert", but thanks from me too Joopercoopers. IMO Ottava has done, and is doing, a great job. I just hope it's going to prove to be enough to satisfy at least the majority of the gainsayers, as I think he deserves it and the article deserves it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support with two of the smallest of gripes. First, the section entitled "Final moments" covers two-and-a-half years! Isn't this extending the definition of "moments" somewhat? I'd suggest something like "Last years" may be more appropriate. Second, should "Health" be a subsection of "Character" - they seem to be independent aspects of the man? Notwithstanding these quibbles, this is a first-class article, fully deserving of its promotion which I trust to see soon. Brianboulton (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  Good points, Brian; thanks. Will see what Ottava wants to do with those two. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  I split the difference and changed it to "final years". If last years sounds better, replace it with that. I boosted "health" into a primary subheading instead of a secondary. If you think it is not appropriate, then I can change. However, I think the character sketch matches more of the personaly, where health matches more of the physicality, of the man. Does that seem appropriate? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Fine by me Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  Diff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I am happy to support this comprehensive, well-researched, and well-written article. I applaud the teamwork and effort that have gone into improving it over the two weeks, but I particularly want to congratulate Ottava Rima on a job well done. Thank you for writing an excellent article on this important man of letters from a century we are both clearly fascinated by. Awadewit (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I know that Christopher Smart is pretty important, but I didn't think it was that well written.... Thanks Awadewit. Sorry about the tension. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from Editorofthewiki
  • Character sketch
    • First off, is "Character sketch" an acceptable heading title? Why not something like "personality" or the like? --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • "Hogarth thought Johnson an "ideot, whom his relations had put under the care of Mr. Richardson"." Is this the actual quote, or is "ideot" a misspelling of idiot? If it is a misspelling, then obviously it should be corrected; if not, then you should add {{sic}} to it. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Major works
    • What is your definition of "major"? Can you list all of his works? Since this would possibly be too long, you could split it into something like Bibilography of Samuel Johnson. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 18:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Character sketch" title has been there since the beginning. I don't know who created it. I don't know what to call it. It mostly just deals with the type of character he was, or at least how people think of him. If you have a better suggestion for a title, vet it and see what people think. The word "ideot" is Hogarth's spelling. I would feel awkward putting a template about a quote. I don't know what is standard procedure for such. His major works right now have all of his published collections except for a few things that would be hard to add. Mostly, if it is mentioned in the Biography, it made it into the Major Works. There are more per Greene (such as some stray poems), but the section is mostly reserved for pages that would meet Wikipedia Notability. A bibliography page of Johnson would be nice, but unwieldy. There are over 15 volumes of his "complete works" by Yale, and this is with trimming. This does not include the various publications and various altered publications (different editions, different titles, etc). It will have to be something discussed and put on hold. If you have any suggestions, please place them on the talk page so we can remember. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I read the entire article, I made some minor wording changes to improve flow that you should feel free to revert if you prefer the previous wording. I found the article comprehensive and informative, a very nice one page view of Dr. Samuel Johnson. I liked the lead which I felt summarized the article very well. I liked the quotes that used the actual spelling - such as "ideot" and the like - the old English and old American quotes are full of these what we would call misspellings when compared to present day standards and it is refreshing to read them in their original form. Ben Franklin used the word "shew" instead of "show" - when we use actual quotes, we can more readily hear the person actually saying the quote. A bit of research proved that the sources were very good. I think the article is worthy of FA status. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 21:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Nancy. Many of your trimmings and rewordings were very insightful. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Potential wikilinks:
• English literature
• Walter Jackson Bate
• John Hawkesworth (book editor)
• Jacob Tonson
• Topham Beauclerk
• William Gerard Hamilton
• Yvor Winters
• F. R. Leavis
• Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Added some - the Tonson is the wrong one. It was his nephew's son of the same name. I will have to create a page when I can wrangle an 18th century printer's book from a rare book's librarian. I don't have 300 dollars to buy one myself. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support A thorough and valuable reference, well worth FA status. My only disappointment is that there is no quotation from Johnson's splendid letter to Lord Chesterfield: couldn't you add a short excerpt? --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Added. I think I chose the most powerful lines. What do you think? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Spot on. Thank you—and good luck. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Very impressive and comprehensive article about an important subject, together with the related articles that the nominators have been developing.--Grahame (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support; well written and well referenced. The above opposition does not concern me. Giggy (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. (Disclaimer: I gave input to Samuel Johnson #Health.) The article is a bit too long, but is clearly FA quality. I suggest cutting Samuel Johnson #Legacy first; do we really need those boring lists of Johnson societies and Johnson biographies? Also, one nit: the quote "is the finest gentleman I have ever seen" appears twice; surely once is enough. Eubulides (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed the double quote. Also cut the listing of societies. The biographies are important enough to deserve a line or so, as the ones listed are only the notable biographies of Johnson. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong support. I like it. I like it a lot. I have uploaded two of the public domain sources onto Wikisource, and two others that looked like they might be useful sources. SEE s:Author:Samuel_Johnson#Transcription_projects. e.g. s:Page:Johnsonian Miscellanies II.djvu/168 is Hoole describing Johnson's death as "the most awful sight" in print. A tour through the northern counties of England, and the borders of Scotland is mentioned in the articles list of references, but I cant see it being used in the article; has something been lost? The two volumes of that book are now available on Wikisource. Nice work Ottava. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazing eye. The Warner ref was used in the page until the beginning sections were cut and Samuel Johnson's early life was created. It comes up under [Early career] - "Richard Warner kept Johnson's account of the scene". Thanks. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

171 kbs! Wow! What a FAC! Isn't it time to close it as keep (don't count me again!) as it obviously deserves it?--Yannismarou (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Support. This is fantastic. I'll be eager to see the good Dr grace the main page of the Wiki talk shop. The writing is clinical—I enjoyed the absence of interjection that I have found in some of our older lit FAs. The desolation of 'Final years', for example, is allowed to speak for itself.

In an article so large I suppose it's perverse to suggest more is needed... The Preface to the Dictionary might deserve a bit of extra attention, such as his views on the role of language in shaping national identity. One thing that does need a sentence is the playfulness of some of the Dictionary entries (think "oats"). Marskell (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you leave a message on the talk page of the Dictionary page to remind me? I need to clean that up (in general) and expand it some more, and your comments would be helpful and much appreciated. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've suggested a few on the Talk page. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I read a section at random, and the prose was generally excellent. I took a look at the rest of the page, also, and I have no concerns about comprehensiveness. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support I read the entire article and what is there is FA quality, although I can be persuaded that it lacks something. Re the reactions to Awadewit's question to reviewers, and opposition to the FAC, I say Awadewit is entitled to both. In answer to Awadewit's question, I prefer that an article about an author stick to the author and summarize the author's works only to the extent necessary to explain the important points of the author's life. I am left with some questions about Samuel Johnson. Why did he have so many friends? Was it because of his mannerisms? Or despite them? Did he have friends because he was a celebrity, or was he a celebrity because he had friends? I doubt that an examination of his own works would answer those questions; I think his friend Boswell's works had a lot to do with it. I would prefer that the Major works list be in strict chronological order; the subcategories do nothing for me. I would rather see the categorical information in a note after each item as is done for the Messiah entry. --Una Smith (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  To balance this opinion I would like to proffer my own tuppence worth, and say that I like the works being listed within genre. This way we know what eg "London" is. In a single list a description would be required by half the items saying eg "Periodical" or "poem" or "pamphlet" etc etc. IMO that would be tiresome. Also, if any man can shew any just, citable source for the issue of how come Dr Johnson had lots of friends, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace almost-instinct 10:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  PS Support, with admiration[14]

  I would prefer a strict chronology because it shows more clearly the smaller works he was working on while incubating the larger ones, or vice versa. Or, categorize the major works without dates, and add a separate chronology that includes things such as his major trips, his various jobs, when he started working on something, etc. In effect, I have in mind two navigational aids instead of one that tries to do double duty. --Una Smith (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting. Such is the importance of this bio, I felt I needed to come back for another look. There was something that didn't sit right with me about the lead. Thinking it through:

• Johnson's specific works (at a minimum the Dictionary) need to be mentioned in the first three or four sentences. "... viewed as the preeminent British dictionary" tells us it was important, but I almost feel it should be more emphatic. Along with the major sources of vocab (Bible, Shakespeare, Milton), and the codification of orthography by the London printing presses, Johnson's dictionary is the most important influence on Modern English. The lead and body need to make that clear.
• In turn, TS needs to be shuffled to the end of the lead and it should be decoupled from the Boswell mention. Life of is mentioned in one sentence and TS in the next breath, suggesting that scholarship has elevated this aspect. Not so. The 'Health' section itself I find good and well balanced. I'm sure Sandy put all of her TLC into it.

  Actually, Colin and Eubulides get the credit for the final version, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This does (eek) amount to major surgery on the lead. My overall support doesn't change. Marskell (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

About the Dictionary - I know its important. You know its important. However, it is hard to track down a statement like that (or one written by a reliable scholar that can be trusted). If someone wants to put forth a proposal for the lead, feel free. I backed off from editing it (the lead) when a bunch of people starting having various suggestions and I could no longer keep up with who wanted what and where consensus was going. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I found some sources while browsing my local library online the other day, but I passed them over as they all seemed to verge on WP:PEACOCKery and I thought Ottava's sources to be superior. If we need to add some superlatives to the lead (which may also satisfy Davemon), I can search again, but I'd prefer we use Ottava's sources. Marskell: a question. The reason Boswell and TS are "coupled" is that it is precisely the strength of the evidence in the various writings about Johnson, including Boswell's detailed descriptions, that allow for the retrospective diagnosis. We can uncouple them if you think that best, but that is the issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I think if we try and rank the importance of the Dictionary, as I do above, we need a source. But if we simply write "...had a lasting impact on Modern English" it would clearly qualify as unlikely to be challenged.

We don't necessarily need to decouple. But between the sentence introducing Boswell and the TS sentence, we need a third sentence that describes the Life on its literary merits. Not doing so leaves a due weight issue in the very first paragraph. Marskell (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

ah, yes, I see; will leave the addition of that that clause or sentence to Ottava. I left some (rather useless) comments on talk here; Ottava likely has better sources for addressing these two issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I found this in Bate (p. 240) - "Johnson pushed aside his hesitations and started on his monumental Dictionary of the English Language. The finished work, nine years later, easily ranks as one of the greatest single achievements of scholarship, and probably the grreatest ever performed by one individual who labored under anything like the disadvantages in a comparable length of time." on Boswell's Life (p. xix) "Johnson's own conception of the 'uses' of biography changed the whole course of biography for the modern world. One by-product was the most famous single work of biographical art in the whole of literature, Boswell's Life of Johnson, and there were many other memoirs and biographies of a similar kind written on Johnson after his death." Ottava Rima (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Marskell's proposed changes to the lead. Re the importance of the dictionary, the article later says it was a best seller for a very long time. I think that information belongs in the lead. --Una Smith (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Already there, ala "The Dictionary brought Johnson popularity and success; until the completion of the Oxford English Dictionary, 150 years later, Johnson's was viewed as the preeminent British dictionary.[3]" Ottava Rima (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping for more. On reading again at the section about the dictionary, I don't see that it was a best seller at all. That was my own supposition. Isn't there any information about the size of the print runs? The number of copies sold? --Una Smith (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"At the time of Johnson's death in 1784, and thirty years after its first publication, there were about 6,000 copies of the complete English editions of the Dictionary in circulation, in addition to a few hundred copies of two limited Dublin issues of 177 and 1777. This is not a great number." (Hitchings, p.211) almost-instinct 08:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

But I see that information is already in A Dictionary of the English Language page almost-instinct 08:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

New content about the Dictionary and Life of Johnson was added, but Samuel Johnson is currently at 10,000 words and uses Summary style to cover the abundance of information about Johnson. Details about the Dictionary are at A Dictionary of the English Language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with it now. I might still prefer the Dictionary mention in the first paragraph, but on the whole I see no due weight issues in the lead anymore. Marskell (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the Dictionary is far more important than the Tourette syndrome business. In fact, I suggest moving the lead and body text about the latter to Retrospective diagnosis, and leaving here just a sentence about his mannerisms and post hoc diagnoses thereof. The relevant text necessarily goes into a lot of background information about the syndrome, and into the history of discussion of Johnson's mannerisms, and both topics strike me as tangents outside the scope of this article. --Una Smith (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not be in favour of such a reorganisation. This is the biography of a man who happened to be an author, not an author who happened to be a man. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think a simple question is this - how best do you understand an individual: is it through their work, or is it through the way in which they acted and reacted towards others? Every biography on Johnson (there are over 200 as of now) discusses his personality and that "persona" was dominated by his TS. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Looking again at the lead, I was struck by the unnecessary repetition in the sentence He is also the subject of one of the most celebrated biographies in English, James Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson, described as "the most famous single work of biographical art in the whole of literature". Shouldn't the words one of the most celebrated biographies in English simply be omitted? We know it's in English; and if it's the most celebrated in the whole of literature, it must also be the most celebrated in the subset that is English literature. (This in no way detracts from my support for the article.) --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See my further comments on the Talk page. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed the lead here. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• tl;dr but provisional Support ;) – looks good, but tripped over some irritating phrases so have raised that on the talk page and hope to give the whole article detailed appraisal soon. [just kidding about tl;dr, only pressure of time is delaying my settling down to read it carefully] . . dave souza, talk 11:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks, Dave; changes on talk addressed, pls have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Are "farreaching" and "preeminent" (in the lead) acceptable? I would expect hyphenation, and so would my in-line (inline?) spell checker. jimfbleak (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Preeminent and far-reaching. So, 50/50. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that an American dictionary? Samuel Johnson was English, so we should use English spellings. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

My OECD has far-reaching and pre-eminent, so I suggest that's what we go with. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone was wondering, Johnson's dictionary has preeminent and no "far-reaching" or "farreaching" in my edition. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support It appears to be FA standard to me, and meets all criteria. I am glad to see their is a hyphen now in pre-eminent! I think the page should be in conventional and accepted English - preeminent is not, no matter what Johnson's dictionary says. This spage has taken a lot of work and effort and seems to cover all aspects of Johnson's life well. Doubtless scholars will always argue over some aspects of his life and works, but that is no reason for it not to pass FA. Giano (talk) 10:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Has any FAC taken any longer than this to assess? (It's been more than a month...whoo!) Otherwise, support. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hello everyone: why is this nomination still here after nearly six week, is it? This is a bad precedent. FACs should be through and out more quickly, IMO, or shunted to a holding pen for improvement. This one, it seems from my reading of the article and of this nomination page, should be promoted. Tony (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not concerned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
• Raul can take as long as he wants, as long as this becomes an FA so it can be on the mainpage for Johnson's 300th birthday on 18 September 2009. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose per Awadewit. Are we really considering an apologia which contends that Johnson's relationship with Austen was not influence? Is there a time-machine to permit Austen to influence Johnson? Indeed, are we really considering arguments that FAC should not be based on consensus? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Awadewit is supporting this article. Are there any of the points she raised – which she presumably feels were satisfactorily dealt with – that you do not?--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed one point that wasn't big, but I meant to slide it in and forgot. I remedied it: here. It could be cleaned up a little. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I note the recent expansion. I do not consider it sufficient; and I do consider that the hysterical incivility with which Awadewit was treated should disqualify in any case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• For myself, the writing is not what I would wish for our front page:
  • Boswell's Life, along with other biographies, documented Johnson's behaviour and mannerisms in such detail that they have informed the posthumous diagnosis of Tourette syndrome (TS),[5] a condition unknown to 18th-century physicians. Informed? No; nor should this be the lead sentence in its paragraph.
  • in the nursing care of Joan Marklew Surely, even for those too mealy-mouthed to use wet-nurse, as Johnson would have done, there are clearer ways to express this, less suggestive of a 21st century hospice administrator?
  • Johnson could not bring himself to regard the poem as granting him any merit as a poet. Granting? Poems do not grant; this is the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug.
  • However, not all of his work was confined to The Rambler. Why the inversion? Why suggest, as this does, that Johnson was published by other periodicals? Johnson also published outside the Rambler would be an improvement, and is probably not best.
    • If this were a proper introduction to his work for others, it would not be immediately followed by the self-published Vanity of Human Wishes; in either case, it should be clearer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
      • By acknowledging that he published a work on his own, then you acknowledged that his works were published in areas beyond the Rambler and you therefore have no point. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Is Ottava Rima really taking the position that a paragraph should have a topic sentence which has nothing to do with its contents? If so, this requires extensive review and rewriting. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

These are four samples from a quick read. Doubtless many more lurk.. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • He did complete one poem, the first of his tutorial exercises, on which he spent comparable time, and which provoked surprise and applause. Comparable to what? Was his time unusually long, short, or average, and what was it? For that matter, what poem was it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    • To quickly dismiss: "I do not consider it sufficient" Read WP:WEIGHT then. "Informed? No;" Incorrect. "Surely, even for those too mealy-mouthed" Mere opinion. "Granting? Poems do not grant;" Incorrect. "Why suggest, as this does, that Johnson was published by other periodicals?" He was. "Was his time unusually long, short, or average, and what was it?" Just as arbitrary. "For that matter, what poem was it?" Its lost. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Thank you for confirming the allegations made by others on this page; if Ottava Rima continues to dismiss the reaction of other editors, which this page is intended to elicit, I would suggest that xe be removed. (I will not make fun of the abuse of "its"; I hope that at least is a typo.()[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] PMAnderson 19:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I would ask for you to stop your hostile manner and to respect that Awadewit has struck her previous oppose. Otherwise, your comment is severely misleading and disrespectful to her. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • If this is a lost work, the article should say so; there is no need to explain to me, but the reader has a right to have things clear. (If the evidence for this is Johnson's memory, half a century later, that should be said too, perhaps in a footnote.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
        • "If this is a lost work, the article should say so" please provide a reliable source confirming this claim. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Let me see. I asked for details on this supposed first poem of Johnson's yesterday; if I read the article, I would want them. Ottava Rima replied that it was lost, implying that we don't know. Fine, I accept that in good faith; and if it is lost, we should explain that to the reader too. Today OR demands citation for the same assertion, for which I am taking xer word. What has changed since yesterday? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Johnson's Anglicanism and conservatism are reflected in his early work. Really? Is Taxation no Tyranny early?
• Boswell held an opinion contradictory to two of these pamphlets. Why? Why not Boswell disagreed with two of them? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Saying something is found in early works does not preclude it from being found in later works. However, it shows how those early works are characterized. And a "contradictory opinion" means no compatibility, whereas a "disagreement" would allow for such. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Does not preclude; but there is a strong implication it is not found. What evidence do you have of so novel a claim as a change in Johnson's worldview? I shall tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so saying something exists in his early life is to say that it no longer exists in his later life, and that the person isn't that way? Please provide a reliable source to any kind of rhetorician, logician, or philosopher who has posited such a belief. I would expect that since you are so determined on it, that you will have one easily available, so I will give you a 12 hour deadline to produce such text. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The word's gone, the context is gone, both through OR's own edit, which has also materially tightened the text. What is OR complaining about?

Any submission to WP may expect merciless editing; it says so in the edit screen. That goes doubly for FAC; if editors think something is misleading, it has misled at least one reader, and should be reconsidered on that ground alone.

I will, however, make a last suggestion. If Ottava Rima stops defending every bit of xer prose, and goes and does something else for a little while, xe will probably come back to a better article; it may even have a star on it - and it will differ chiefly in recasting a few sentences; without a diff, it will be hard to tell which ones. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

+Support Sorry to be so late... back in the dark ages of yesteryear, I thought Awadewit had a point, that Johnson's influence needed some work. I am very happy to say that I join Awadewit in Supporting this article. Bearing in mind that no article of this importance can be all things to all people, and cannot ever be truly perfect, I think this represents a high standard of professional writing and an informative/insightful look into Johnson. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral - I'm sorry I took so loong to come back here, I decided to disengage for a while and see if it sorted itself out. It did! =) Consider my oppose above struck, and if you can find it in the wall of text, strike it yourself =) There are a few (very minor) points of grammar and style and that kind of thing that I think could probably make this just that tiny bit better: Lead:

• "Johnson was a devout and compassionate man..." - I'm not entirely comfortable with making unattributed value judgements. Can it be attributed in some way, even if rather generally, e.g. "Johnson was considered a devout and compassionate man"?
• "...he respected those of other denominations who demonstrated a commitment to Christ's teachings." - In the context of the time, this is significant - the mutual bad feelings and persecutions by Protestants of Catholics and vice versa pretty much define large parts of English history, after all - but I don't think its relevance is immediately apparent to those not familiar with the history of Christianity. Maybe leave it out of the lead, and just keep the discussion in the body, if that doesn't cause problems?
• "Towards the end of his life, he produced the massive and influential Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets, which includes biographies and evaluations of 17th- and 18th-century poets." - I know this is a manual of style thing, but it seems a little odd to switch between past and present tense in this way. Maybe it would be better to ignore all rules here and make the whole thing past tense.
• "Boswell's Life, along with other biographies, documented Johnson's behaviour and mannerisms in such detail that they have informed the posthumous diagnosis of Tourette syndrome (TS)..." - "have informed" seems a little awkward.

• "Have informed" is so medically precise for that sentence that I don't know how to change it; someone else may have an idea, but we already worked that over with Colin and Eubulides, so I'm not sure who else to ask. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Early life

• It might be good to say explicitly that kings were believed to be able to cure scrofula at the time, if the reader didn't know that, I would presume they'd be confused by the business with Queen Anne.
• I wouldn't abbreviate Tourette's syndrome to TS. It's slightly distracting. I'd save the abbreviation solely for the section on the disease.

• I didn't find a TS abbreviation in "Early life", but I did find and change one in "Early career". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • There's a TS in the lead.
  • The mention in early life includes Although TS caused problems in his private and public life, it lent Johnson "great verbal and vocal energy". If this is about Johnson's childhood, it should say so; if (as seems more likely), it's about the whole of Johnson's life, it should be moved to Health. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Ah, thanks; now I see the instance he was referring to. Both seem to be correct applications of definition of acronyms: in the lead, right after the term, and in early life, also right after the term. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Early career

• "Although the arrangement may seem congenial, Johnson was treated as "a kind of domestick chaplain"." - This sentence is actually rather confusing. What does "may seem congenial" mean, and is it bad to be treated as a domestic chaplain?
  • The answer is clear enough, but the article should state it; domestic chaplains in the seventeenth and early eighteenth century were treated as a sort of upper servant, not a gentleman. See any social history of the period, starting with Macaulay. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• "He managed to finish a section but ran into problems, and to complete the work he dictated directly to Hector, who took the copy to the printer and made any corrections." - It's not really clear what the connection is between the two halves of the sentence. Did he dictate to Hector because he was running out of time? Because he found it easier? Something else?
• "A Proposal was printed, but the project was halted by a lack of funds." - It's not clear what this is a proposal for.
• "Edial Hall was a large house with a pyramid-shaped roof and a unique design in which a back room served as the schoolroom and Johnson's family lived in the rest of the building." - If this is in one of the daughter articles, I'd cut this sentence to be better in line with summary style. It's not that important of information, or not obviously so. Or you could put it into the caption of the image, though I suppose some of the description is obvious from the image. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to stop there for the moment, but I will get back to this later on today or tomorrow. I think it just needs a tiny bit more polish to be great. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I made many of the changes per this. I didn't touch the "informed" part. I would leave the medical wording to Sandy to decide. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• We should not use medical wording; we are written in colloquial English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No. We have to be true to the source. We are not allowed to introduce OR, which would include "colloquial English" when describing something based on medical articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Copying a source's wording is not "being true to" the source; it is plagiarism. Perhaps even more seriously, it is a failure to understand, and communicate, what the source means. There are few things more harmful to the encyclopedia.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's get a grip here. Nothing has been plagiarized; I introduced the word "informed" to this contested statement back in July.[15]. I am not a medical expert, but use of the word in this context makes perfect sense to me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean? If I have to go find a medical dictionary to check this obscure sense, I will, and then substitute the definition as plain English; but if you understand it, you should be able to express it for the lay reader - as we are, after all, expected to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, but can you explain how it could be "plagarism" when the sentence is cited? And informed, according to dictionary.com is not "obscure", nor is it used in anything but the modern sense. I used the idea of being "informed" quite often. It means, after all, "To give or provide information.", so it serves as a "colloquial term" quite easily. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary.com defines plagiarism as "the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." Unauthorized and unacknowledged close imitation is plagiarism, as long as it does not have quotation marks. As a notable instance, Doris Kearns Goodwin did footnote the works whose prose she reproduced; the controversy is precisely that she failed to acknowledge the imitation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Ottava. "Informed" has no particular medical meaning, and was used quite colloquially. However, I've rewritten the offending sentence to avoid use of the word anyway. I'll let the (baseless and offensive) charge of plagiarism that has been laid against me rest for the moment. (Will this FAC never end?) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I will move it to the second sentence, since the subject of the paragraph is Johnson's appearance and manner; the modern diagnosis is secpndary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me just say plainly that my goal is to add a little final polish to the article in the last stage of FAC, all major problems having already been dealt with. Now that the FAC has become productive and polite, can we avoid a return to hostilities over my comments on two words, particularly one where I simply thought it inelegant, not actually confusing? =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to concur. My only advantage here is that I see the article as it now stands, freshly and apart from past controversies. It is not uniformly well-written; this article above all should be, for we are competing with Johnson and Boswell for the reader's attention. If I could identify more serious deficiencies, I would have. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I now doubt all major problems have been dealt with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I missed all the fun. I was going to consult others on a revision for the wording, but it seems resolved now. I'm sorry to see such concise, precise and perfect wording lost to satisfy FAC, but such is the Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, it's not something I have strong feelings on. If you honestly feel the original wording is better, I'm not going to oppose over it. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to worry about it either, but I did think the previous wording was just right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm afraid that beyond suggesting that the first two sentences of "A Dictionary of the English Language" get combined (They seem to duplicate information), further evaluation will have to be tomorrow. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've merged those two sentences, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Errors and omissions

As a result of these discussions of phrasing, I consulted the original sources cited for two of them. In both cases, I was surprised by what the source actually said; this is perhaps the worst thing an article can do.

• Although TS caused problems in his private and public life, it lent Johnson "great verbal and vocal energy". in the section on early life.
  • The name of the author cited is wrong: Robert DeMaria; and the volume before me is copyright and first published 1993, not 1994.
  • DeMaria says that Johnson's efforts to teach were almost certainly ruined by his physical appearance and his failure as a tutor was almost inevitable (with a reference to the contemporary expectation that a tutor would be above all a model of behaviour and deportment). This happily pressed Johnson towards the invisible occupation of authorship.
  • DeMaria also cites Oliver Sacks to the effect that TS occasionally lends its victims great verbal and vocal energy. Those who can harness this energy sometimes perform with superior strength and speed
  • He then goes on to speak of the "ideot" episode, which ends with Hogarth imagining that the ideot had been at that moment inspired, as a suggestion that Johnson was thus fortunate - but no more.
  • DeMaria's POV is clear: that any diagnosis of the dead is anachronistic and problematic; but that something like TS would explain much, and is certainly preferable to anachronistic Freudianism. We need not adopt his POV; but we certainly should not deny it while citing him.
• He did complete one poem, the first of his tutorial exercises, on which he spent comparable time, and which provoked surprise and applause.
  • Bate tells, loc. cit. of Johnson's first tutorial exercise, a Latin prose oration, which Johnson composed (two drafts and fair copy) on the morning it was to be submitted. (This may be mere carelessness; it immediately follows, in Bate, the story of Johnson's Latin poem, Somnium.)
  • He was expected to repeat it from memory, but failed to memorize it, so he improvised the oration on the spot.
  • Our authority for this is Mrs. Thrale's Life, repeating the story he had told her.
  • Her words are that this added "astonishment to the applause of all who knew how little was owing to study." [Italics added].

Neither of these is what our text said; I fixed one, and propose to fix the other. But I cannot now rely on any of this article to represent its sources correctly or completely; it is not the burden of a reviewer to check all hundred footnotes - I am, however, willing to check any one more that Ottava Rima may specify, if I have access to the source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read the talk page here, Pma. Demaria is one source only, and we covered the TS in great detail on the talk page here. Demaria cites Oliver Sacks for information you want to include, a dubious source at best for TS info, although perhaps applicable for some info which enjoys broad medical consensus (there are some points upon which he is in line with medical consensus, although he's generally not a recognized TS clinician and not well regarded by TS experts). We went over all of this in detail weeks ago. I realize this FAC has been open extraordinarily and unbearably long, but multiple editors who do know TS and who are up on current research and do know what kind of a source Sacks is discusses this in detail on the talk page of this FAC at least a month ago. You have introduced inaccurate text; please catch up on the talk page discussions. The posthumous diagnosis is based on much broader and more solid sourcing and enjoys widespread (to my knowledge, unanimity among published sources) consensus. Read the talk page, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the discussion. The nature of TS is not the omission that I find most serious, and I'm perfectly willing to compromise.

In order to omit DeMaria's reservations, we need at least a citation that TS sufferers normally have great verbal and vocal energy, rather than occasionally; which one of the many articles cited says that? More importantly, we need to cite it in Samuel Johnson; the reader should have sources before him, not in the talk page of a FAC. And we should mention that DeMaria's POV exists; he is a reliable source, and probably has more knowledge of Johnson's symptoms that the doctors do. (All this is the sort of thing that should go in footnotes.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No we don't. We don't need to digress in this article into an analysis of the problems with citing Oliver Sacks who is not a highly regarded clinician among his peers in TS research. You have introduced inaccurate text because you don't know the field and you don't know the sources and you want to introduce information that doesn't enjoy any medical consensus because you came across something that you think makes this text inaccurate. The TS info in this article is well discussed here on talk by two of the other three people on Wiki who know TS research almost as well as I do and who had full access to all sources. We don't introduce inaccurate text and then disclaim it in a footnote, particularly when it's a minor part of the overall bio. If it interests you so much, you can go over to the article about Johnson's health and delve into all the problems with using a person known for his bizarre literary medical interests, but Sacks doesn't belong here as a source. Please read the talk page. But I must thank everyone who deteriorated or questioned the TS text in this article for opening my eyes to content issues that occur at FAC when reviewers who are unfamiliar with the topic or the research introduce inaccurate text. This has given me greater faith in the content experts who actually write the articles. You are wrong and you have introduced in accurate text against consensus already developed here on talk, and there is no middle ground or compromise possible when it comes to including text that is simply wrong. And because of my level of the understanding of the TS research, and how wrong you are, that calls all other literary criticism of this article into question as well. By seeing the level of inaccuracies FAC reviewers tried to introduce to the TS portions of this article at FAC, I've gotten a good eye opening to the other second guessing of knowledgeable content experts that has gone on at FAC. Thanks: this experience will make me a better FAC delegate, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You propose to cite DeMaria for wording with which he expressly disagrees. He is not the best authority on the subject, and he is following Sacks, a populariser; therefore we may be entitled to do so. But we really do have to indicate that DeMaria does not say what we do, and what authority we cite to overrule him. That need not be difficult; but unless we do so, we are not being verifiable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Errors and omissions" This is wrong. There are no "omissions". There is summarization. Many of the details wishing to be add would not qualify for the page even if it had space that could be put in, as these are not notable details. These are also summarized sections of larger pages. There is also a serious weight issue. Your wanting additional information does not mean that the footnotes do not cite the information that actually exists. These footnotes have been checked by many other reviewers, and your comments above, as with your claims of plagarism, are highly misleading and improper. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

These "summaries" discussed the wrong work, in the wrong genre, and omitted both the point and the authority of the story about it. We are all of us careless; no doubt I have been; it is the point of FA to find and clean up these errors before they embarrass all of us. If Ottava Rima is not willing to be mercilessly edited, or is tired of it, xe is free to withdraw the nomination; isn't this why Sandy introduced a two-week limit, now long past? The article has plainly improved; take a rest, come back, and improve it again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I see very little evidence that any of the sources have been checked, and none for this one. Diff please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yesterday your accusation was plagiarism. Today's it's that none of the sources have been checked. These are exactly the kinds of deliberately abrasive remarks that put so many off coming to FAC. I've really had more than enough of this particular one, anyway, so I'm unwatching it. It's way past time somebody made a decision to close this one way or another, and I really couldn't care less which way it closes now, just that it closes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Many FACs do not check sources; for example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Red Cliffs, in which I was one of the lax ones. There's nothing inherently wrong with this; I would not have checked sources here had I not been curious how to word the passages better. I still see little evidence that reviewers have checked any; which ones have you consulted as co-nom? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• If you dare insinuate that I lied about a source or stole from a source one more time, I will drag you to ANI. Not only are such things a breach of Wikipedia policy, they are an attack on my standards as a scholar. They are uncalled for and outright false. I have already submitted to others scans of Demaria so they can see that you were wrong above. I am prepared to do such with Bate. You already violated Fringe source guidelines that are part of WP:WEIGHT by moving Demaria down and expanding. This is wrong. You changed Pembroke to Oxford, while ignoring that Pembroke is part of Oxford. Bate constantly refers to it as Pembroke, so this is intellectually dishonest, especially when you claim that I lied about the source. Furthermore, an Oration is NOT NOTABLE, especially when there is nothign on it, and no scholar studied it. Furthermore, you claim it is 90-96, when it is simply not on those page numbers. I will not tolerate someone calling me a liar and blatantly misattributing information to Bate like you just did. So stop it now. This is your only warning from me on this issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not say lie; I assert that what you said is not what Bate or DeMaria said, but I think this nothing more than carelessness. Bate tells three stories:

• Sliding in Christ-Church meadow
• The poem Somnium
• The oration.

We can include any of these, or none; none of them would be to leave the generalization without an example, which would be a shame; I have substituted the first, because I believe it best known. But the text to which you have repeatedly reverted confounds the last two, and is simply inaccurate.

As for the page numbers: Bate has a long section on Pembroke, which is of course a part of the University of Oxford. Bate does not even begin to discuss Johnson's college friendships until p. 96; now I review the passage, p. 100 would be more accurate as a citation for the assertion that Johnson had many college friends. Therefore, if the entire sentence is to be cited, we require a page range - or two footnotes. Feel free to divide the footnote if you see fit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comments show a misunderstanding of WP:WEIGHT and Summary Style. You are inserting in wrong information . You also act as if you don't understand what a "clause" is, nor that the first part of the clause doesn't need to be cited, as the citation only deals with the clause starting with the word "but". If you want to change text, go form a consensus. Otherwise, your edits are showing a disrespect to everyone involved, and your constant filling this page with your POV is getting out of hand. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't know either of those things; they are not true. A footnote can apply to a single clause - indeed, it can apply to a single word; the only footnote on a sentence, at the end, is, however, presumed to apply to the sentence. No semicolon can prevent the assertion that Johnson made friends at Oxford from needing a source; it is surprising for so unclubbable a man. Since Bate sources it, that should be noted. But feel free, again, to split the footnote into two if your scruples require it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you really expect me to cite that Johnson made friends to a source, I'm definitely going to have to take that to Geogre. He would love to see that. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't expect you to cite it; it's already cited. However, if it's notable, there's no reason not to cite it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A few points based on a quick review. (As for the above, WP:TLDR. My sincere apologies if this has already been mentioned), as it probably has.

1) The text states: Also, Johnson opposed the poetic language of his contemporary Thomas Gray. His greatest complaint was that obscure allusions found in works like Milton's Lycidas were overused; he preferred poetry that could be easily read and understood. While this is true as editors may recall from Johnson's Life of the Poets, he specifically singles out Gray's Elegy as possibly the finest poem in the English language. I cannot remember his precise words, but it is along those lines. Also, I am unsure that I would agree that his greatest problem with Gray was overuse of classical allusion. This can be quickly resolved by an excursus ad fontes.

2) The conflict over Ossian is too slight. This was part of Johnson's larger fight against what we would term today ethno-nationalism and I think more context ought to be provided in terms of how important the disproving of a Gaelic primitive style was in this context. Is this due to perhaps overreliance on Bates as a major source?

• • It is in part a response to a Scottish reviewer higher on the page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

3) While I appreciate that Vanity & Rasselas & the Rambler have their own articles, I feel that the discussion here is a bit too vapid, even in the context of a summarising review. The strongly moral dimension that Johnson promotes in these writings is almost totally absent; this speaks to Johnson as a person and is not of mere literary interest, so I wonder if a slightly more engaged discussion might be warranted.

4) There are some details of his life which might add some colour to the description of his personality, such as: a) Johnson was basically a drunk, or at least he was a heavy drinker and huge bon-vivant (as editors will recall from Boswell.) b) Every year he solemnly abjured further "self-abuse" which he admitted to indulging in frequently, but which he viewed as highly sinful. c) He liked to roll down hills; d) Johnson had a very pronounced Lichfield accent, as Boswell relates (Boswell, I believe, gives as an example, poonch for punch) and David Garrick was famous for imitating Johnson amongst his circle (Reynolds, Boswell, etc).

5) I think it might be nice to provide a box with some of his most famous witticisms: e.g., dog on hind legs; King is not a subject; ship as prison; high road to England, etc etc etc.... They are enduring for a reason and a good treatment of the subject would not go wrong to include a smattering.

• • See {{Wikiquote}}. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

6) The discussion of Francis Barber comes across as extraordinarily slight, especially given his role as Johnson's quasi-amanuensis, his importance to Johnson's household and his heir!

Generally, a fine article. Eusebeus (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Responses. 1) This was based on Greene's view of Johnson. The nuances should probably be described on the Johnson's literary criticism page. Johnson also praised Milton for many things, which doesn't come across in the Bio section, because most of the critics focus on what kind of technique Johnson is looking for rather than broad praise or emotive response (dry, instead of emotional, I guess you could say). 2) The nuances are trying to be worked out for the politics page, so, it would probably be best brought up there. 3) There isn't any room, and we are already over limits. Its hard to cram everything in at once, and the sections are balanced per weight/coverage in sources. 4) Johnson also went stone sober, so, some of the descriptives would need to be carefully discussed, especially because Boswell was only one of many and described Johnson quite differently than others. 5) I think Wikiquote has most of them. 6) Barber isn't that important in most of the sources, so weight leaned against him being given more detail than what exists. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• I now see that there has been some contention already about some of the issues I raise above. Two quick points. First, defending the rather vapid characterisation of Johnson's output by stating simply there isn't any room seems inadequate. Replacing a shitty sentence with a good one doesn't add weight, it adds intelligence. Second, Peter Fryer provides a good source for Francis Barber (in his important work Staying Power) and this can be rounded out with v. 2 of Lyell Reade's Gleanings, which is devoted in its entirety to Francis Barber. I see this was raised above and I am a bit bemused by the tone struck in objecting to adding further consideration. However, overall the article is adequate and I Support its promotion. Eusebeus (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I may have been a little confusing - the weight issue is based on how much is granted to Barber in Johnson's biographies, as opposed to info granted to Barber in Barber based works. I relied on 8 biographies, a few collections with biographical analysis, and many, many articles to try and find a balance about what biographical figures should be mentioned and where. Barber tends to be ignored, and its hard to put in a lot. It would be nice if Barber's life would be expanded on his page (which is desperately needed). Could you place those two notes on the Barber talk page? Also, if you see any "shitty" lines and know how to replace them with a better, please add a suggestion on the talk page. :) Also, I'm a stickler for page size, because a good 50% of the time I am on a very slow dialup connection, and I just can't load pages that are too long. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Why isn't this an FA already? There has oviously been a great deal of umming and ahhh-ing over this - but the article actually knocks spots off a great many of the FAs already in place.--Tufacave (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, that is largely correct - and is FA's major problem; the award is all too often worth the star its paper is printed on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The problem, Anderson, is that the longer the nom is held open the stonger the likely-hood that a persistant crank and near troll with an individual hatchet to grind against FAC in general will find it and use verbosity and obtuseness to hold it open in an drawnout but transparent attempt to sink the candidacy despite overwhealming consensus (above). I know that sound unlikely; but it happens. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Almost as unlikely as that a FAC reviewer would actually consider the content of an article and check the sources. FA could indeed be a punctuation review, and not care what an article says as long as it looks pretty and has the superficial appearance of plausibility; I would find this perfectly acceptable, if it did not claim more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

o you are the first editor to consider content and sources in this, what, 5 week review? And pretty? Maybe read the above and consider other openions before your own hubris, if you have that ability. I get the impression if you were pretty you wouldn't be here, being the way you are; riddled in ANI, RFC and other things I'm to dainty to mention in polite company. But You sunk your openion when you moved from the specific to the general: "that is largely correct" and revealed your motive. You are searching for holes, as is your habit, but it doesn't fool me for a second. Ceoil ^sláinte 03:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit considered content, but did not check the sources actually used; her critique had no need to, really, since she was considering relative weight. She was responded to with a ferocious, and plainly unwarranted, personal attack, now in the decent obscurity of a capped section. I do not see any statement that any reviewer has checked them, until I did (which was largely by chance). If I have missed something, please add a diff.

I congratulate you on your telepathy; but your results are backward: I would prefer FA did not so often promote ill-written, ill-researched embarrassments, like this, or Daniel Webster. I would fully support a system that did not flourish on superficial reviews. I am not, usually, so pessismistic as to believe these our best efforts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Backwards? When you say "embarrassment" I know you are not a serious person looking for the best article we can work on together; you are just a bitter and angry crank who only wants to shoot down the efforts of others. Best of luck with that; sure it will keep you warm 10-15 years from now. You support nothing and are utterly pessismistic. Nice. Ceoil ^sláinte

Pmanderson - I think Ceoil's words were too harsh. However, I think it reflects a level of being insulted, as there are many talented editors that have weighed in on this FAC and also participated in the crafting of this page, and your words can be construed as an offense against these. You don't mean to say that these editors are incompetent, embarrassing, unable to research, and their opinions mean nothing, do you? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No. The reviewers haven't checked sources, as all too often happens. FAC has improved this article, in the aspects it has considered; by and large, the sourcing hasn't been. The first is FA's justification for existence; the second is why this article should not be promoted. Instead, a substantial proportion of the 245 footnotes should be checked; at that point, we will know how bad it is. When the errors have been found and fixed, it can come back here; but it would be unreasonable to keep this FAC open that long. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

By "no", do you mean that you are saying that these editors are incompetent, embarrassing, unable to research, and their opinions mean nothing? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Then please do not use those words so that there wont be any confusion in the future over it. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I never said the reviewere were incompetent, embarassing or unable to research; I never said worth nothing; where the confusion may be, I leave as an exercise for the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"we will know how bad it is". Not exactly an open minded statement there, it seems you have not checked the sources, but are decided anyway.. At least we know where you are coming from and that you have already decided where you want to end. Not a very subtle approach for such an experienced editor. Ceoil ^sláinte 17:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The talk page indicates an openion of 2428/2/2. Really, really, this should be closed. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think your math may be off, its 28 now. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. Ceoil ^sláinte 04:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - after addressing the comments, this article satisfies all featured article criteria. It is sourced to solid, reliable sources, it's well written, the images are good, and it meets the other criteria. I do believe the literary criticism section is adequate, with how the section talks about this now (compared with when the page was originally nominated). Further details might belong in a subarticle. --Aude (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not read the discussion above. My comments are below. I will not revisit this page. I will not discuss my comments. I will not "!vote". I will not explain my reasons for not voting.

• "later physicians were able to reach a posthumous diagnosis" -> "posthumously diagnosed".

• This was beautifully worded before FAC, but others have changed it. I reinstated the superior wording that the article had pre-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I would prefer Pembroke College to be disambiguated as there are two.

• Malleus? I can't find this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm guessing this is referring to: "Samuel Swynfen, a physician and graduate of Pembroke College ...". There's a Pembroke College in both Oxford and Cambridge Universities. I'll try and find out which Swynfen attended. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• It was Oxford. Fixed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• "his posthumous diagnosis" -> "the posthumous diagnosis". He didn't diagnose himself after he died.

• Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• "in his education" -> "at his studies".

• Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Who is Jorden? He's introduced in the sentence "Jorden left Pembroke", which is unhelpful.

• Good question. Ottava? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Jorden is hJohnson's college tutor. More detail is on the early life page under college. This was slowly removed out by various users (including myself). Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• In early life it says he developed tics at age 7, then in early career it says between 1729 and 1731. This is a discrepancy, as well as an unnecessary repetition.

• Another example of wording that came in to the FAC medically accurate and correct and has been damaged during FAC. I have restored it to the pre-FAC wording, which should no longer be redundant as the tics of TS are exacerbated by other illnesses. His tics began at the typical age for tic onset (7) and were commented on later in life by many observers, when he also had other medical conditions. I hope I've cleared this up by restoring the wording we came in to FAC with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Who is Robert DeMaria? Text should specify an occupation/profession.

• Added Biographer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I wish to know why John Taylor refused to read the sermon at Tetty's funeral.

• I believe the world would like to know also. There is speculation but lots of disagreement. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Reynolds was not Johnson's only friend, but he was close to two others at the time: Bennet Langton and Arthur Murphy." -> "In addition to Reynolds, Johnson was close to Bennet Langton and Arthur Murphy."

• Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• The plot of Rasselas seems a little too long, unbalanced with the description of the contents of the other works.
• "In 1770 he" and "In 1774 he" (without commas) look odd in close proximity to "In 1771, his" (with a comma).

• I think that's OK as it is. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps William Dodd deserves a little more explanation? I would prefer not to have to click on the link.
• Why is the prayer for the Thrale family quoted in full?
• "stroke that was caused by poor circulation". Surely strokes are always caused by poor circulation? If this is meant to suggest that poor circulation was a chronic condition, then I recommend: "Johnson's poor circulation resulted in a stroke".

• Done, thanks DrK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• "Surgery was performed to relieve Johnson's gout," -> "He had surgery for gout"

• Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Should Islington be linked?

• Probably it should. Linked now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• "although this depiction is appealing.[206] Although Boswell, a Scotsman"; although, although.

• Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's too long, specifically in the health section, which can easily be shortened, especially considering that there is a daughter article duplicating the material.

• The health section has been substantially shortened; I'm not in favor of further cuts because of some of the misunderstanding and objections that were ironed out earlier in the FAC. I think we've now cut it to the most essential evidence and sources, that provide context for his life and behaviors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• "He had Tourette's syndrome" is insupportable. He was diagnosed with Tourette's syndrome by later writers. The diagnosis seems overplayed, as if the writers are desperate to prove their point by piling on more and more opinion. Compare the definite nature of the article with the more circumspect view of Pat Rogers: "The convulsions that marked his behaviour in adult life may have derived from congenital factors or from ... infant diseases; one theory is that his condition can be diagnosed as Tourette's syndrome." Also, compare with George III of the United Kingdom; yes, OK it is widely assumed that he had porphyria, but it is not certain; it takes six sentences to discuss it.

• Fixed, I hope. Again, came in to FAC cleaner, has deteriorated due to conflicting demands and editing from reviewers. Once again, I restored the wording we came in to FAC with. Contemporary TS researchers are more definitive about Johnson's TS than Rogers, supported by numerous and unanimous sources. Porphyria likely didn't influence George's entire life, work, behavior and bio to the extent TS/OCD did Johnson's; considering the accounts of Boswell, Thrale and others, I think the reduced size of the Health section is about right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• The final paragraph appears to descend into trivia, and is a poor way to end the article. DrKiernan (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just commenting on DrKiernan's comments: "I will not revisit this page. I will not discuss my comments. I will not "!vote". I will not explain my reasons for not voting." Then what is the point of making any comments? If you have problems you want addressed, then surely you should pop back and see if they have been? If you don't want to vote, then why bother making a comment in the first place? Your comments completely bamboozled me - and, if this was my FAC, they would also irritate me. This article is far superior to so many current FAs. I really can't undertanad all this delay in promoting it - or even re-starting the nomination again in a couple of weeks.--Tufacave (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't badger the commentors; there is nothing wrong with adding helpful comments without a declaration. In fact, DrK has identified several patches of text that have deteriorated because of previous FAC demands and now need repair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Also, a previous FAC reviewer went through and WP:OVERLINKed the article; thanks to DrK and Jbmurray for some delinking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Question. Is this FAC being held open to allow time for every single one of wikipedia's 7,989,534 editors to express an opinion on it? The article's quality has started to suffer because of this over-lengthy process (in my opinion), and a quality article is more important than a little bronze star. If this FAC is not closed soon then I for one would be in favour of withdrawing it, for fear of further damage. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• The article has deteriorated because of some FAC input, but DrK's comments are helpful. If the rate of deterioration continues, I'll remove my co-nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• DrK's remarks were indeed helpful, and I hope it didn't look as if my comment was directed at his remarks. It was not, although it was prompted by them in the sense that we're now entering a phase of repairing damage caused by earlier changes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'll leave the rest to Ottava and you, but I think another recent deterioration was the change in the Section heading from "Health" to "Posthumous diagnosis"; the Health section heading was introduced after lengthy debate with other reviewers and made sense. Then one FAC reviewer came along and changed it against consensus. The section deals with more than the posthumous diagnosis, and may be leading to comments (such as DrK's above) about the amount of space dedicated to TS; I suggest we go back to the consensus "Health" heading. Will the last one out turn off the lights (remove the sub-section on this page, so as not to muck up the FAC TOC?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Ottava Rima now insists that the posthumous diagnosis is the sole subject of the section. The title should match the subject; I wouldn't mind achieving this agreement the other way, by broadening the section, if that will make anyone happier. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Don't misconstrue my words, please. I was pointing out the difference of placement regarding Tourette Syndrome. The biography was acceptable for placing the ideas within his life's biography. It was not acceptable in a place between multiple medical doctors who were diagnosing Johnson later, especially when many of those had to be cut for size. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• • If the section is so narrow that the effect of Johnson's health on his career does not fit in it, it should have a narrower title, to indicate its actual contents. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Pmanderson, please give one good reason why a biographer should not have biographical details in the biography section and instead of placed in the middle of medically trained individuals discussing medical related matters? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Because this entire article is a biography; it should cover Johnson's health as part of that biography. There is a separate article on Johnson's medical conditions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• If you read Awadewit's argument, the entire page is not a biography. Only the "biography" sections are biography. The entire page is an encyclopedia page, which includes biography, critical review, legacy, and medical analysis of aspects of his life. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• But this is a digression; such a section, even if it exists, should have a title which corresponds to its contents. Health does not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Health corresponds to everything on Samuel Johnson's health page. Its a summary section and based on consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed it back to Health—a much more obvious choice. Marskell (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I said the copy issues were minor and not terribly important, and I meant it. FA doesn't stop editing, they can easily be worked on after promotion, if any remain, and this is easily a credit to FA as it stands. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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