Talk:Ellen, Countess of Castle Howel/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) 07:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: ImaginesTigers (talk · contribs) 23:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi LEvalyn. I'll pick this one up, with the caveat that it will be towards the start of next week or possibly this weekend. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review! I'll work through your comments gradually over the next few days and ping you when I think they have all been addressed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

All right, ImaginesTigers, I think I've finally addressed all your comments! Thanks again for the review. Let me know if you have any other concerns/suggestions. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Prose

• I've split the summary up a bit
• We can remove the citations from the plot summary
  • I know they're not needed and usually I am pretty against including citations for plot summary, but since it's a long work I think there is some value in indicating which volume the events occur in. So I prefer to keep them, but I won't insist. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
    • All good with me. — ImaginesTigers (talk)
• where Ellen is embroiled in fashionable dissipation I think this needs to be plain English – I can't work out what it means
  • lmao I love finding these places where what's obvious to me is not obvious to others, truly the most useful part of a GA review... clarified. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
• From a reading comprehension point of view, would it be possible to provide each reason for Bennett's recent distress, provide additional details, then move onto the next one? The summary of distresses coming first, then moving sequentially to each one, is a little dizzying.
  • Revised -- let me know if it's not any better. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
    • Much improved!
• Mention that it was published in four-volume instalments in the lead? I think the lead could also benefit from being broken up into paragraphs
  • Lead revised. I don't want to give the mistaken impression that it was published in installments, though -- all four volumes were released at once. Let me know if any part of the article is misleading on that front. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
    • Understood – I didn't clock that.
• particularly associated with both women writers and women readers -> particularly associated with women readers and writers?
  • Done. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• The conclusion of the novel includes an ironic comment on its relationship to the Press's usual productions - Having a quick look at the source, I think mentioning that this comment is ironic is technically interpreting the text / OR. I find it flavourful, but I'm wondering if the quote (and the large quote in the footnote) are really necessary... That said, optional
  • Hm, I think I included the "ironic" bit because I worried that the quote out of context would give the opposite impression of what it meant in the original novel. I tried integrating a selection from the footnote into the prose instead to let Bennett do more out of the talking. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Checking source: Two Dublin editions were also released in 1794, followed by a reprint in London in 1805 and a French translation in Paris in 1822

• Confirmed

• Checking source: The French edition was translated by Auguste Defauconpret.

• Confirmed (the formatting in this catalogue is very ugly)

• Checking source: At its first publication, the novel was widely enjoyed by enthusiasts of sentimental fiction.

• Checking source: The Monthly Review used Ellen to criticise modern novels in general for "giving too much weight to the Passion of Love."

• Confirmed The following sentences are a good summary of the "review" – Victorian criticism, as always, is hilarious.

• Confirmed each source. Some follow up comments on it

• There's too many quotations here not to provide in-line attribution; briefly establish the author's academic background

• Done, I think. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• This dialect is key to characterizing Winifred -> The Welsh dialect characterises

• Done. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Some discrepancies with English variant – e.g., "rumours" and "characterizing" here)

• Those two spelling together are, alas, what consistent Canadian EngVar looks like :( I ran my EngVar tool to make it even more consistent. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Goodness, I had no idea! Understood. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Headings would be helpful to direct interest – Perhaps "Style" for paragraphs 1 and 3 and Themes for paragraph 2?

• Done, and great suggestion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Some discrepancies in periods and quotation marks across the article (e.g., sometimes it is ". and other times .")

• I'm actually following WP:LQ there, I believe-- the period is within the quotation marks when the quote is a full sentence and the end of the quote is the end of the sentence. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

You know, I actually do this. Can't believe I missed it when I'm always worried about others missing it for me. I only do full sentence quotes in Efn's, though. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• There is some tonal problems in the analysis section. There is an almost essayist tone to the earlier writing, as if providing its own arguments rather than replicating those of the scholars (These themes set up a pastoral city/country dichotomy which would ordinarily resolve with a clear moral in favour of the country, but Dearnley argues that the novel also undermines both themes). We can see this in some particular word choices like Moreover. I think the summary of Rydderch's analysis is good, but the main problem is Dearnley in paragraph 2 (Dearnley is fine in paragraph 3)

• Hm, I think see what you mean. There are a couple things going on... one, that first quote about the pastoral dichotomy is basically just me trying to fill in the context of how all novels treated this cliche theme. And, in some other parts I was trying to convey that both Dearnley and Rydderch say the same thing so there's a stronger consensus. I revisited the writing in this section to try to make those aims more effective.. if you see another good approach please feel free to revise too. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• Much more declarative to me now. I'm satisfied.

• Frank 1987 Confirmed

Images are appropriately licensed and tagged. Sad we don't have an authors for the Monthly or Critical Review pieces, but alas – outlets are still doing that today.

Additionally I've Confirmed Rydderch. Sourcing looks good, well paraphrased. Overall a solid article with some minor feedback. I did a quick Google search to see if there were any obvious sources neglected (zilch), but given the GA criterion is "broad" I'm satisfied with what's presented here and won't be investigating that any further — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

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.