Jump to content

Talk:The Token and Atlantic Souvenir

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 talk 00:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
5x expanded by Dugan Murphy (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 16 past nominations.

Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • This article, 5x expanded on 5 February, is new enough, long enough, well-sourced, and copyvio free. QPQ provided. Hook is interesting, in the article, sourced, and the source checks out. Good to go. Tenpop421 (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Token and Atlantic Souvenir/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Dugan Murphy (talk · contribs) 20:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 22:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I will take on this review! I typically prefer to make copyedits myself and only place comments here when I have questions, though of course as always you should feel free to change or discuss any edits you happen to disagree with. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my nomination! I'm away from computers and pretty busy for the coming week, but I bet I can address your comments on my phone in a reasonable amount of time anyway. I'll work my way down. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, thanks for your copy edits to the article. I can't believe I spelled blame with an I! Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thorough revisions! All my concerns have been addressed and I am happy to pass this GA.
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

[edit]
  • Can we replace original paintings in the lead with "original illustrations" or "engravings of original paintings"? For someone who isn't familiar with this kind of book, I think we want to avoid giving the false impression that someone literally painted onto the book's pages. (Books like that have existed!)~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see the potential for misunderstanding. I added "copies of". Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, I think the prose in the "art" section needs to be revisited to clarify to a novice that the books did not contain "original paintings" in the sense of non-reproduced paintings. I think moving the section about engravers to the start of the section would provide the needed clarification. Using the word "reproduction" or "copy" in key places would also help. It may also be valuable to state what you do mean by original, i.e., that they were commissioned for the gift book rather than pre-existing pieces.~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't move the paragraph about John Cheney, but I reworded the first couple of sentences of that section a little bit, then reworded the first sentence of the Cheney paragraph to be less repetitive. I think it should be clear now throughout the article that we're taking about engravings and not paint-on-page. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, your fixes made it much clearer -- thanks. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the list of artists Paintings by Alvan Fisher were featured the most, followed by John Gadsby Chapman... are all the subsequent artists named in order of their prevalence in the gift book? If not, it would be good to revise to avoid giving that implication, e.g., "Fisher was featured the most. Other painters include..." ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, they are ordered in prominence. The Lovejoy source gives a specific number of paintings per artist. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How handy of Lovejoy! This is all good, then. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thinking about breadth, the lack of a reception/legacy section feels a little conspicuous. I think the topic is actually covered are part of the "description" section (eg the statement The Token was "a major influence in American literature"..., which I moved because it was a confusing/off-topic way to start a section named "description") but it would benefit from being split out explicitly. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just created a Reception section by moving around some content and adding a little more that wasn't in the article before. Dugan Murphy (talk) 06:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is great! Thank you. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images are well-chosen, and all appropriately tagged as US public domain. Some of the captions could be a little more descriptive to spell out the link to The Token but they are sufficient as-is. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added a little more info to The Whirlwind. The infobox image and the inscription page look good to me. Pat Lyon at the Forge is mentioned in the body, so adding more to that caption doesn't seem necessary. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources are good RS. For my source check, I used a random number generator to pick cites 8, 15, 22, 28, and 33, as numbered in this diff.
    • Verified without close paraphrasing: 8, 22, and 33. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • For 15, I don't think WP:CALC fully supports how this source is used... Foxon tells us that the The Atlantic Souvenir started in 1828, and it tells us that The Token had fifteen annual issues, but it doesn't give us the details to tell us that The Atlantic Souvenir + the combined Token & Atlantic = seventeen. For this calculation, we'd need an additional source confirming how many years the solo Atlantic published. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added Lovejoy p. 346 to the citation for that sentence. It clarifies that The Atlantic Souvenir started in 1826 and that it merged with The Token starting in 1833. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, the Lovejoy is a helpful addition which addresses my sourcing concerns. As I look at it, I do feel like there is still a little bit of refinement that could be helpful. If we assume that no years were missed (an assumption the sources do seem to make), there were 7 volumes of the Atlantic, 5 volumes of the solo Token, and 10 volumes of the Token & Atlantic. And since the two serials existed simultaneously for 5 years, those 22 volumes appeared over a period of 17 years. I made some bold edits to the article to clarify volumes vs years. Since I am no longer concerned about the sourcing, though, I am happy to say this meets GA criteria and if you object to my addition we can refine it further through normal editing. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • For 28, strictly speaking, a forerunner in the use of psychotherapy as a theme in fiction is not the same as the first work of fiction to incorporate psychotherapy. I suggest a rephrase more like "a notable early depiction of psychotherapy". ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I just switched that citation for Lease, who is more confident than Sears in making that claim. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good; I can't quickly access that one but I am happy to AGF here. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earwig picks up the phrase Cheney was for a time employed exclusively which would be good to paraphrase/summarize less closely, though it's not copyvio since it's from a public-domain source. Everything else is fine. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded. I believe all comments are now addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stray question about years

[edit]

This is a minor question, but looking at the image of the inscription page made me curious: were the books typically dated with the following year? I once heard somewhere that a gift book published in, say, December 1831 would often have 1832 printed on it, for the same reason that one would give a planner or calendar of the upcoming year as a gift. But in other cases giftbooks were anthologies of a magazine's monthly releases from the preceding year, in which case they were not dated 'ahead'. If anybody has written about which case applies here, it might be nice to note/explain it. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're right that each volume was published in the fall of the year preceding the year printed on the title page. If I can find a reliable source to verify, I'll add that fact somewhere. Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Token_and_Atlantic_Souvenir&oldid=1276298392"