![]() | Restoration literature is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 18, 2007. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reader notes and caveats:
I would like to explain why I thought it worth leaving the year links in. First, I understand why some think they're low yield. I think they can be very low yield, too, but there are several reasons why I think they should stay, here:
I know that a "rollback" is brusque, so I apologize for that, but I wanted to explain why I put the links back in. Geogre 21:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Bishonen has solved the problem very well. The current lead painting is exactly what we need. There aren't any awed courtiers or scrofula patients being cured by his touch, but that's sure a regal Charles II up there now. Thanks ever and again, Bishonen. Geogre 00:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why does an article about English restoration literature not use the British spelling of centre? 210.237.151.1 00:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
There are two sentences in the introduction that begin, "It saw...". Surely we can find a better idiom than this pretentious rubbish? It is fine in articles that do not have "compelling prose", for we expect much less, but in a featured article it is dreadful. Rintrah 04:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
An FA and a main page article and not following numbered citations conventions!?! How come? Shushruth \ talk page \ contribs 07:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
As long as a work is referenced, I don't think it matters whether it sports inline citations or not; here we have a list of references and indications at various points within the text of the sources of information. The article aims well; lets not be too sullen about it.
On the other hand, specific citations would make it easier to assess the article's terms of reference. For example, you wouldn't know from this article that there are two schools of thought on whether George Farquhar counts as a Restoration dramatist or not. In my opinion, having seen Restoration plays from The Man of Mode to The Beaux's Stratagem and The Recruiting Officer, Farquhar represents the apotheosis of the form. I assume that the references used here regard him as a post-Restoration playwright. For me, Restoration drama ends in 1707.
It's a fine article, though, and surely shouldn't be knocked for having its shirt buttons foppishly undone. Quite clearly, the buttons are all there. qp10qp 12:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:REF only demands that articles be referenced and footnotes are not mandatory unless one is quoting a source.-- MONGO 22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is still badly messed up in both subtle and obvious ways. Someone please check the long-term diffs and do some cleanup; I have to go. Melchoir 20:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone explain what this is? It's throughout the article, deleting text. -- TresRoque 20:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The last item in this series seems jarring to me:
I don't wish to dispute the historical, even cultural significance of the founding of the stock market. But whereas news, the essay, and textual criticism are all literary developments, the stock market is considerably less so. I would end the sentence with "and the beginnings of textual criticism." Anyone agree with me? -- Rob C (Alarob) 17:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This graf could benefit from citations, such as the various bits on his biography ("He had no schooling at all and worked as a domestic servant, first as a footman and then, probably, in the pantry."), specific claims ("the poem sold out all editions"), and quotations of his poetry ("His poetry has "virgin" brides who, upon their wedding nights, have "the straight gate so wide/ It's been leapt by all mankind,"...). I'm assuming most of this can be found in Sloane (which I don't have) or primary sources; the Oxford dictionary article only verifies generalities, such as him working as a servant and learning to read/write, but has nothing on what kind of servant he was or whether he learned Latin. Anyone with Sloane willing to add the citations? Gzkn 15:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed a footnote to the online Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms for " Hudibrastic verse" as being redundant, since there was already a wikilink to a good article in a well-known online encyclopedia. Indon reverted me with the edit summary "It doesn't harm the article if the attribution is also given here, right?" and hasn't replied to my argument on his talkpage, which went like this (rather persuasive, if I do say so):
I don't mean to make a big deal out of one footnote, and I'll be happy to leave it there if somebody values it and says why, however briefly. But if nobody does, I think I'll just remove it again. Bishonen | talk 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
You folks must be joking! You would use Britanica to reference our article? This article corrects mistakes that Britanica makes. It is superior to them. Anything for a footnote, though, right? Geogre 22:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
As you probably know, the criteria for maintaining a FA status have risen. Wikipedia articles are intended to be improved upon over time. This article is in good shape, so bringing up to current standards should not be difficult. Here are some suggestions to upgrade the article:
Both the quantity and quality of the drama suffered when in 1682 the more successful Duke's Company ate the struggling King's Company, and the amalgamated United Company was formed. The production of new plays dropped off sharply in the 1680s, affected by both the monopoly and the political situation (see Decline of comedy below). The influence and the incomes of the actors dropped, too.[3] In the late 80s, predatory investors ("Adventurers") converged on the United Company, while management was taken over by the lawyer Christopher Rich. Rich attempted to finance a tangle of "farmed" shares and sleeping partners by slashing salaries and, dangerously, by abolishing the traditional perks of senior performers, who were stars with the clout to fight back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.98.19.91 ( talk) 11:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Restoration literature/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Hi I watched the film "the libertine" tonight and realised that though I am an expert on many periods of literature the 17th century was a black hole. I read this article to get me up to speed, and was a bit astonished to find that it was seen as a good example, since the few things I do know about that period were wrong, or, if that's not right, wrongly expressed. I'm in no way knowledgeable about this period but as someone with a little knowledge trying to know more it is way below the standard I would expect, or you are striving for. I'm not a contributor to wikipedia, I'm a reader, but I felt strongly about this. you can email me at adrian.slatcher@gmail.com if you want more details. |
Last edited at 00:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 04:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | Restoration literature is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 18, 2007. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reader notes and caveats:
I would like to explain why I thought it worth leaving the year links in. First, I understand why some think they're low yield. I think they can be very low yield, too, but there are several reasons why I think they should stay, here:
I know that a "rollback" is brusque, so I apologize for that, but I wanted to explain why I put the links back in. Geogre 21:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Bishonen has solved the problem very well. The current lead painting is exactly what we need. There aren't any awed courtiers or scrofula patients being cured by his touch, but that's sure a regal Charles II up there now. Thanks ever and again, Bishonen. Geogre 00:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why does an article about English restoration literature not use the British spelling of centre? 210.237.151.1 00:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
There are two sentences in the introduction that begin, "It saw...". Surely we can find a better idiom than this pretentious rubbish? It is fine in articles that do not have "compelling prose", for we expect much less, but in a featured article it is dreadful. Rintrah 04:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
An FA and a main page article and not following numbered citations conventions!?! How come? Shushruth \ talk page \ contribs 07:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
As long as a work is referenced, I don't think it matters whether it sports inline citations or not; here we have a list of references and indications at various points within the text of the sources of information. The article aims well; lets not be too sullen about it.
On the other hand, specific citations would make it easier to assess the article's terms of reference. For example, you wouldn't know from this article that there are two schools of thought on whether George Farquhar counts as a Restoration dramatist or not. In my opinion, having seen Restoration plays from The Man of Mode to The Beaux's Stratagem and The Recruiting Officer, Farquhar represents the apotheosis of the form. I assume that the references used here regard him as a post-Restoration playwright. For me, Restoration drama ends in 1707.
It's a fine article, though, and surely shouldn't be knocked for having its shirt buttons foppishly undone. Quite clearly, the buttons are all there. qp10qp 12:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:REF only demands that articles be referenced and footnotes are not mandatory unless one is quoting a source.-- MONGO 22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is still badly messed up in both subtle and obvious ways. Someone please check the long-term diffs and do some cleanup; I have to go. Melchoir 20:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone explain what this is? It's throughout the article, deleting text. -- TresRoque 20:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The last item in this series seems jarring to me:
I don't wish to dispute the historical, even cultural significance of the founding of the stock market. But whereas news, the essay, and textual criticism are all literary developments, the stock market is considerably less so. I would end the sentence with "and the beginnings of textual criticism." Anyone agree with me? -- Rob C (Alarob) 17:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
This graf could benefit from citations, such as the various bits on his biography ("He had no schooling at all and worked as a domestic servant, first as a footman and then, probably, in the pantry."), specific claims ("the poem sold out all editions"), and quotations of his poetry ("His poetry has "virgin" brides who, upon their wedding nights, have "the straight gate so wide/ It's been leapt by all mankind,"...). I'm assuming most of this can be found in Sloane (which I don't have) or primary sources; the Oxford dictionary article only verifies generalities, such as him working as a servant and learning to read/write, but has nothing on what kind of servant he was or whether he learned Latin. Anyone with Sloane willing to add the citations? Gzkn 15:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed a footnote to the online Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms for " Hudibrastic verse" as being redundant, since there was already a wikilink to a good article in a well-known online encyclopedia. Indon reverted me with the edit summary "It doesn't harm the article if the attribution is also given here, right?" and hasn't replied to my argument on his talkpage, which went like this (rather persuasive, if I do say so):
I don't mean to make a big deal out of one footnote, and I'll be happy to leave it there if somebody values it and says why, however briefly. But if nobody does, I think I'll just remove it again. Bishonen | talk 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC).
You folks must be joking! You would use Britanica to reference our article? This article corrects mistakes that Britanica makes. It is superior to them. Anything for a footnote, though, right? Geogre 22:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
As you probably know, the criteria for maintaining a FA status have risen. Wikipedia articles are intended to be improved upon over time. This article is in good shape, so bringing up to current standards should not be difficult. Here are some suggestions to upgrade the article:
Both the quantity and quality of the drama suffered when in 1682 the more successful Duke's Company ate the struggling King's Company, and the amalgamated United Company was formed. The production of new plays dropped off sharply in the 1680s, affected by both the monopoly and the political situation (see Decline of comedy below). The influence and the incomes of the actors dropped, too.[3] In the late 80s, predatory investors ("Adventurers") converged on the United Company, while management was taken over by the lawyer Christopher Rich. Rich attempted to finance a tangle of "farmed" shares and sleeping partners by slashing salaries and, dangerously, by abolishing the traditional perks of senior performers, who were stars with the clout to fight back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.98.19.91 ( talk) 11:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Restoration literature/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Hi I watched the film "the libertine" tonight and realised that though I am an expert on many periods of literature the 17th century was a black hole. I read this article to get me up to speed, and was a bit astonished to find that it was seen as a good example, since the few things I do know about that period were wrong, or, if that's not right, wrongly expressed. I'm in no way knowledgeable about this period but as someone with a little knowledge trying to know more it is way below the standard I would expect, or you are striving for. I'm not a contributor to wikipedia, I'm a reader, but I felt strongly about this. you can email me at adrian.slatcher@gmail.com if you want more details. |
Last edited at 00:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 04:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)