Talk:A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 02:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

• The article is clearly written, well cited, and summarizes the book's impact and reception well.

• I've done a very minor bit of copy-editing and fixed the Title Case of one book title.

• The article must be (and seems to have been) in British English, given its provenance; I fixed a solitary American spelling.

• It is good practice and would be helpful to gloss the people mentioned in the article, e.g. we could gloss William Holland as "the print seller and publisher William Holland"; similarly we might say "the author and critic Leslie Stephen". We can't assume that the reader has heard of everybody. There are multiple other instances.

• leaving the reader to speculate as to what might follow - isn't quite what happens in Sterne's aposipoesis; instead, the reader immediately infers sex/death and is basically always correct in filling in the asterisked or blanked phrase.

• Jolly as the discussion of the grabbing of the woman's "end" is, we don't really need it twice. I suggest we drop it from the plot summary and leave it in 'Style' where it is properly cited.
  • I believe I've addressed all the prose comments above-- thank you for your assistance with the copy-editing and British English! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Images

• All are on Commons and seem to be appropriately licensed, mainly PD by age.

• The quantity of images in the galleries is tending to excessive, and their placement in galleries at the end of the article is more or less deprecated: Wikipedia is not an image gallery. In the case of 'Poor Maria', we have 2 images in the 'Illustrations' section and then 11 more down below, which is getting a bit hard to justify. We certainly don't need two versions of Edward Edwards's illustration; and the two Joseph Wright images are a bit repetitive too. I suggest that all three galleries be moved into the text, and we select the best images as thumbnails (to include the 2 already up there) to go under the relevant paragraph. That means that we should have a paragraph about 'the captive in the Bastille' to justify the image gallery. I suggest that each gallery should contain no more images than can fit as thumbnails in one row, i.e. 4 or 5. Ideally each image makes a specific point which is echoed in the text, i.e. we could if challenged cite each image to demonstrate its relevance. If the text then explicitly calls out more than that number of images per paragraph, then ok we can have a few more.
  • Yes... alas... you're right. I put them in galleries as a way to mentally organize them as I kept finding so many available, but I will cut it all down. I consoled myself by adding them all to the Wikimedia Commons category and linking that. One question I'm undecided on: I'd really like to keep this illustration of the captive, which could go well in the "Potential for satire" section, but I also really like how the current image in that section 'speaks to' the Poor Maria image. Do you have a preference for this or the "Man of Feeling" image in "Potential for satire", or an idea for another place this image could go? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Do what you feel is most helpful to the reader here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources

• The article is largely well cited to appropriate sources.

• It would be helpful to the reader to add author-link= for the notable authors cited including Sterne and Ian Jack.
  • Done. I tried to check all the other authors and didn't see any with articles so it was just Sterne and Jack. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• I've fixed a couple of authors who were IN CAPS.
  • Thanks!~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• [7] - please add that the author is Katherine Turner, and the date 30 May 2011.
  • Done, thanks for the catch. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• [22] names the artists who created several of the illustrated editions. It would be well worth naming and linking them in the last para of 'Publication'.
  • Good idea, done. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• What makes [26] The Magpie a reliable source?
  • I was hoping The Magpie could squeak by as evidence that the object in question really exists, the way that auction catalogues can sometimes be cited... as the website of an antiques dealer, it's moderately more editorially-controlled than, say, an ebay listing (which is mostly what I could find). But it may be necessary to just cut the interesting detail that the vases were made through the 1960s; Wedgwood no longer maintains a proper archive or catalogue of their historical patterns, so this is the closest to an RS I could find. Let me know if you think it doesn't pass muster and I will bid it farewell. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes we use auctioneers as proof of existence and price. I guess this can serve in that way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• Additional spot-checks: [2], [10], [30] ok.

Summary

• There is very little wrong with this well-constructed article, barring a few details listed above. I look forward to seeing it as a GA soon.

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.