Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Reception history of Jane Austen

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reception history of Jane Austen[edit]

This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

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/January 28, 2013 by BencherliteTalk 13:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Austen by her sister Cassandra
The reception history of Jane Austen follows a path from modest fame to wild popularity; her novels are both the subject of intense scholarly study and the centre of a diverse fan culture. Austen, the author of such works as Pride and Prejudice (1813) and Emma (1815), is one of the best-known and widely read novelists in the English language. During her lifetime, Austen's novels brought her little personal fame; like many women writers, she published anonymously. At the time they were published, her works were considered fashionable by members of high society but received few positive reviews. By the mid-19th century, her novels were admired by members of the literary elite, but it was not until the 1940s that Austen was widely accepted in academia as a "great English novelist". The second half of the 20th century saw a proliferation of scholarship exploring artistic, ideological and historical aspects of her works. As of the early 21st century, Austen fandom supports an industry of printed sequels and prequels as well as television and film adaptations, which started with the 1940 Pride and Prejudice and includes the 2004 Bollywood-style production Bride and Prejudice. (Full article...)

Was proposed before, but postponed for the 200th anniversary of Pride and Prejudice, I see 2 points for FA 2008, 6 points for the centennial (sort of), 2 for last literature more than 3 months ago (23 Oct), - blurb needs trimming, but better by the authors/experts --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I overlooked literature on 6 January, not really similar but, -2 points, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this was sort of broached before, but wouldn't Pride and Prejudice (1995 TV series) be a better fit? The novel probably owes more of its modern day popularity to this than anything else. Ruby 2010/2013 23:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said it the last time too but I feel that something directly related to Pride and Prejudice is a much better fit than a broader Austen article. GRAPPLE X 23:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Good article, suitable image, appropriate anniversary. I definitely think this is a better article for the date than any related to the TV series; and I don't think it's fair to credit the BBC series as being the main source of P&P's (or Austen's) contemporary popularity. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the former discussion:
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Strongly oppose. 28 Jan will be the 200th anniversary of the publication of Pride and Prejudice and every website in the world will be plastered in Austeniana—it's crazy to run Wikipedia's only Jane Austen FA now, leaving TFA on 28 Jan to be one of the generic hurricane-battleship-train station pieces of filler, just to help your apparent crusade to nominate here every single page listed at WP:Featured articles that haven't been on the main page. – iridescent 13:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, this isn't the only piece of Jane Austen material at FA. There's also a film adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, and a television adaption too, either of which would also be appropriate for the anniversary. GRAPPLE X 13:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit baffled as to why you seem to think that nominating articles for TFA is a bad thing? It spares Raul and Dabomb the extra work, and they're both quite busy at times. In fact, Gerda should be applauded for putting in extra work in this area. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why a movie or television series would be more appropriate on the book's 200th anniversary is ... baffling. Also, I'm not sure whether I should be insulted or proud that battleships are now in road/hurricane territory. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support (Unless anyone here knows of legal reasons to avoid running this.) Per Gerda and Grapple, it makes a lot more sense to run one of our Pride and Prejudice-themed FAs on the anniversary of the book's publication instead of saving this article for then. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It needs a bit of buffing-up, though; there are eight invalid ISBN in there, for example. :/ Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for three reasons: 1., per Iridescent; 2., because an 18th century female author (albeit children's author) was run recently, written by the same editor; 3., because the thought of running an Austen film for the anniversary when we have this is mind-boggling to be honest. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I respect your opinion, running Pride and Prejudice to celebrate the anniversary of Pride and Prejudice doesn't seem too "mind-boggling" to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand the desire to run something more "academic" for an anniversary like this, but the actual relevance of this one is hugely smaller than the two adaptations, which are specifically rather than generally related. For an analogue; I'd rather see, say, The Lion King, run on an anniversary related to Hamlet than see a different Shakespeare play just to stay "high brow" about it. In the end I'm not overly fussed, as I'm far from an Austen fan, but I think if we're keeping things for anniversaries this particular one might better serve an anniversary of Austen herself (given that it's soon the 200th anniversary of a book's release, I assume the 200th anniversary of her death will be within realistic reach?). GRAPPLE X 20:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is why points are helpful. How long since a piece about literature was run? A TV series? A film? A piece written by the same editor? How much weight does the anniversary carry? How much coverage does the piece have? Truthkeeper (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Iridescent and Truthkeeper. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggested a general theme that had no apparent date relevance for ANY DATE - and am quite surprised about the heated discussion ;) - if it's ANY date that can be the one of an anniversary if so wanted, of course, even if I personally don't see a strong connection. No points needed to find out what would be an acceptable date for most people, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all fairness I realize you had no idea that there was a date relevance looming in the near future. But since Iridescent pointed it out, we are now faced with the decision of running this choice on that date; the TV series; or the film. Each of these choices are candidates for the same date. How would you propose to choose which to run? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest to discuss it right here - and when we come to a conclusion as to when this should run we "park it" until then. I am open for any date, also for a move of the discussion in case the slot is needed for another nomination, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we're having a failure to communicate. There is clearly a date relevance looming less than four months from now as pointed out in Iridescent's post above. My question is quite clear: do we run all of the Austen/Pride and Prejudice material in the next four months, or do we spread it out? And how, without a point system, do we decide which of the three relevant pages to run on the anniversary? Personally I think things are quite fubar here at this point and I'll wander away again. (That might be an acronym you'll object to, and if so I apologize, but imo generally it is a good thing to impose order.) Truthkeeper (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The easiest solution seems to be to run this article on 28 January, what do you think about it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I think is irrelevant. I'm only a single voice. Mark Arsten and GrappleX have made arguments for other pages on that date, which though I might disagree, are convincing. What I do think is that one of two things should happen: either the FAC director or the delegate decides which of these three pages to run (or to run none of them); or that we use points to decide which of the three pages should run. Who knows maybe this page will have the fewest points and still be around in 5 years for the anniversary of Austen's death. At any rate I'm returning to my wikibreak - it was very relaxing. And I'm unwatching here again. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My view is that the film articles aren't as relevant as this one for a date relevance argument in less than four months. Run the film articles any time. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

end of former discussion --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Does anyone else have issues with (what seems to me) the awkward, ambiguous and possibly ungrammatical title of this article? Does it make more sense in USEng than it does to my BrEng ear? I'd take this to the article talk page, but if there's a chance it'll appear on Main Page before any consensus emerges, I wanted to flag it up here first. --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. I know a number of professional Oxbridge English academics, and they use 'reception' to describe this sort of study all the time. I have a book in my own library (somewhere) about the reception history of Aphra Behn. If I find it before this !vote wraps up, I'll see what exact terminology it uses and report back. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose in favour of the TV series. As the date is related to P&P, rather than Austen in general, I think the TV series would be better suited instead.  An optimist on the run! 12:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Been in TFA limbo for two years longer than the TV series, and the focus on literature rather than modern media is a nice change. Title is weird, but I don't see that as a barrier. Montanabw(talk) 16:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, agree with rationale as provided by Montanabw (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, obviously, per my original comment in the fiesta of sockpuppetry hatted above. – iridescent 14:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blurb reworded to get it down to c.1,200 characters, image changed to the one of her face. BencherliteTalk 22:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests/Reception_history_of_Jane_Austen&oldid=1089810111"