Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Analytical Review

Analytical Review

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the TFAR nomination of the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new {{TFAR nom}} underneath.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 21, 2014 by Bencherlite^Talk 19:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The Analytical Review was a periodical established in London in 1788 by the publisher Joseph Johnson (pictured) and the writer Thomas Christie. Part of the Republic of Letters, it was a gadfly publication, which offered readers summaries and analyses of the many new publications issued at the end of the eighteenth century. The Analytical Review provided a forum for radical political and religious ideas. Although it aimed at impartiality, its articles were often critical of the British government and supportive of the French revolutionaries. While the journal had low circulation numbers for its day, it still influenced popular opinion and was feared by the conservative Pitt administration. Organized into separate departments, each with its own chief reviewer, the Analytical Review focused on politics, philosophy, natural history, and literature. To promote a disinterested air, its reviewers were anonymous, signing their work with pseudonymous initials. Nevertheless, the journal recruited several prominent writers, such as the poet William Cowper, the moralist William Enfield, the physician John Aikin, and the polemicist Mary Wollstonecraft. The Analytical Review suspended publication in December 1798. (Full article...)

• Most recent similar article(s): don't remember anything similar
• Main editors: Wadewitz
• Promoted: 2008
• Reasons for nomination: good title
• Support as nominator. Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting find! And an interesting read. I just checked the article History and compared the diff from date of FA promotion to the current version. It looks good. Every change the article has seen since then appears to be an improvement (i.e. adding proper template parameters, file alt tags, etc. A new paragraph was added near the end of the "Organization and reviewers" section. Two new entries and other improvements have been made to the Bibliography.) Well cited throughout. Maintained. Overall, a good choice for the Main page. Prhartcom (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support, most high quality and educational and encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)