This article is about a literary society that shaped the cultural development of a rural region of Virginia (and later West Virginia) during the 19th century. This is the most comprehensive article in existence illustrating the society's activities and history. Any guidance and feedback that would allow me to further improve this article to FA status would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for taking the time to provide your comments and questions. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The nine men at the society's first meeting were Thomas Blair, David Gibson, James P. Jack, Samuel Kercheval, Jr., Nathaniel Kuykendall, Charles T. Magill, James M. Stephens, John Temple, and William C. Wodrow" — A small question: Isn't there any link to any of them?
I will be working on forthcoming articles for David Gibson (a member of the Virginia House of Delegates and builder of Sycamore Dale), Samuel Kercheval, Jr. (the son of noted historian Samuel Kercheval), and Nathaniel Kuykendall (affiliated with the Nathaniel and Isaac Kuykendall House). In the meantime, however, I've left them un-linked until their articles are completed, although I am not opposed to red-linking them if need be. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the remaining funds were to be used for the purchase of books for the library" — "the remaining funds were to be used in purchasing books for the library".
This is a much better reconstruction of the sentence for flow, and I have incorporated in this form. Thank you for the suggestion! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"According to historian Hu Maxwell, these men elected Kuykendall as chairman and Magill as secretary" and "The society's first elected officers were Charles T. Magill as president, William C. Wodrow as secretary, and John Temple as treasurer" — Just a clartification on who was secretary of the committee.
I've changed the sentence to read as: "According to historian Hu Maxwell, these men elected Kuykendall as chairman and Magill as secretary of a committee which was charged with the drafting of a constitution for the society." Magill was secretary of the constitutional committee, but following its organization, Wodrow was named the secretary of the society. Let me know if this needs to be made clearer in the prose. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The affirmative won the debate" — Can you clearly specify as to which side won it? Maybe try "The debate ended under the decision that a system of banking was advantageous."
Thank you for the suggestion! I've incorporated "The debate ended under the decision that a system of banking was advantageous" into the text. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ssven2, thank you for taking the time to provide your suggestions and guidance. I've responded to your first comment and I've incorporated your other suggestions. Please take another look and let me know if I need to address any further issues. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
File:Plutarch.gif needs a US PD tag
File:Confederate_Memorial_Romney_WV_2015_06_08_01.jpg: since the US does not have freedom of panorama, this needs a licensing tag for the work itself as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, thank you for engaging in an image review for this article. I've removed the periods from the image captions, and I've gone a step further by adding alt captions without periods as well. I've also added the "PD-US" template to the image of Plutarch and added the "FoP-US" template to the image of the Confederate Memorial. The memorial was completed in 1867, and is therefore not covered under the under United States copyright law (17 USC 120(a)), which states that architectural works completed after December 1, 1990 are protected. Thank you again for the image review, and please let me know if you find anything else that needs to be corrected or adjusted in the meantime. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FoP-US is an appropriate tag for architectural works like buildings - I think this particular work is much closer in character to a sculptural work, and thus a different tag would be more appropriate. Given the dates, probably the pre-1923 tag would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, as there is no "FoP-1923" template or license, I've kept the "FoP-US" and added "PD-1923." I couldn't find any other licenses or templates that would apply outside of those two. Please let me know if this works. If not, I will remove this image from the template until a resolution can be found. Thanks again for the image review! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't clear: FoP-US does not apply to this image and should not be used - PD-1923 is fine for the monument along with the licensing tag for the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, thank you again! I've removed FoP-US and have just left the original CC license with PD-1923. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work. No issues with Checklinks, great use of sources and the almost sole use of print sources (which I love). Prose and grammar is excellent, no run-ons or any other kind of problem. Nice use of current and historic photos as well.
There was one image that I moved from the "West Virginia Schools for the Deaf and Blind" section to the "Final years" section as it was squishing the text in the middle. This isn't a big issue, but I know some editors frown on squished text.
Other than that, you have done a great job. Well done. This article has my full support. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralhomer, thank you for taking the time to engage in a thorough review of this article and for relocating the image! Your suggestions and guidance are always appreciated! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
was a 19th-century literary society in existence from January 30, 1819, to February 15, 1886, in Romney, West Virginia. - Having the span stated twice in the same sentence is redundant.
Established in 1819 - You just said it existed from January 30, 1819, to February 15, 1886, so "In 1819" isn't necessary
religious, political, and social topics, and often violated its own constitution's rules banning religious and political subjects. - should probably rework to avoid having "political" and "religious" mentioned twice
The society's library began in 1819 with the acquisition of two books; by 1861, the society's library - repetition (The society's library ... the society's library)
Between 1869 and 1870, the society completed construction of Literary Hall, where it held meetings and reassembled its library. In 1870, - best to avoid repeating "1870"
Interest in the society waned during its final years, and its final meeting was held on February 15, 1886. - you mention date the society ended above — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Woodrich, thank you for the review of the lede. I've made the necessary modifications per all the above comments and suggestions. Thank you tremendously for the review. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are alot of "society"s in the lead.... better
it had grown to contain approximately 3,000 volumes, consisting of books on literature, science, history, and art. - 2 "book"s in this sentence. Could trim/rejig to, "it had grown to contain approximately 3,000 volumes on (subjects such as) literature, science, history, and art." (maybe even do without my addition either...)
..Romney community in the office of Dr. John Temple. - do we know what Temple was? A physician/pastor/etc. - be good to put in....
With its establishment in 1819, - redundant. (you've explained when it was founded just beforehand)
Cas Liber, thank you for taking the time to review this article. I've tried to remove some of the instances of "society" in the lede so please take a look and let me know if I need to remove a few more. I also modified the sentence on the library's volumes per your suggestion and removed "1819" per your fourth comment. I haven't been able to find evidence of Temple's profession, as most mentions of him in available sources just refer to him as "Dr." Should I just remove the prefix of "Dr."? Thank you again! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think I'd leave it in. I suspect he is a medico, and I think any extra information helps paint a picture/context. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, upon searching for "Dr. Temple" versus "John Temple," I was able to find a source confirming him as a reputable local physician in Romney. Let me know if this added detail to the end of the existing sentence works. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Any mention anywhere why it was going to have "Polemic" in the title?
The available sources do not mention the intention behind adding "Polemic" to the title, but I would assume that it was added since the society was also a debating society, in addition to being a literary one. Do you have any recommendations for how to state this assessment, without it being classified as "original research"? Or, should I just wiki-link "Polemic" to wiktionary? -- West Virginian (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd just leave it unlinked as we are unaware of what was meant - that's fine. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The society members that returned home to Romney were too war-weary and discouraged - I reckon we could lose "discouraged" - sits oddly there anyway.
Also done, and thank you again for the suggestion! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some trimming of redundancies and hope they look all in order.
I've reviewed your edits and rephrasings, and I find that they improve the article's flow, and make the sentences less cluttered than they were before. I'm very appreciative of your efforts! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overall a charming little article and is looking good on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber, thank you tremendously for your review, and for taking the time to engage in a copyedit as well. I appreciate your guidance and suggestions. Please let me know if you have any outstanding issues with the article, or suggestions, and thank you for the kind words. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose (as it is not an area I am familiar with). Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber, thank you tremendously for your review and for your support. Your guidance is always valued and appreciated. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to join the party so late, but I saw this while surfing the page, and thought it looked interesting. Not time, I'm afraid, for a full review, but here are a few suggestions on tightening up the lead prose:
At present, the words "literary society" occur three times in the opening line. The third mention is unnecessary; you could easily say: "The Romney Literary Society (also known as the Literary Society of Romney) existed from..." etc
"founded by nine prominent men in Romney" → "founded by nine prominent Romney men"
"with the purpose of" → "with the objectives of" (the nplural is importsnt here)
"The society debated an extensive range of subjects including scientific and social topics, and often violated its own constitution's rules banning religious and political subjects." Suggest rephrase: "The society debated an extensive range of scientific and social topics, often violating its own rules which banned religious and political subjects."
The words "on subjects such as literature, science, history, and art" are not really necessary – they are the subjects you's expect a literary society's library to contain.
The wording "commenced a movement to establish" is a bit clunky – why not e.g. "sought to establish"?
"In 1846, the society constructed a new building..." Delete "new" (tautologous)
"...and offered its former Romney Classical Institute campus to the state for the institution." Suggest rephrase: "and offered the school its former Romney Classical Institute campus."
Delete "their bid was successful – you've covered this with "The organization used its influence to secure..."
I believe that these tweaks will enhance the article's readability. I wish I had time for a more detailed review, but I do wish you sucess with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton, I've incorporated all your suggestions into the lede section. Please let me know if you have any additional suggestions for further improvement and readability. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should be that existed" not "in existence"
This has been modified per an above mentioned suggestion.
"Even though the its membership" remove the
Done!
Should be "a leading role"
Done!
Is there any material from "academic patronage" in the lead?
"academic patronage" is covered in the third paragraph of the lede.
Are there any files that could work in the first two sections?
Unfortunately not, but should I find any images of the men mentioned, I will include them in the future.
The establishment section is a bit underlinked--are there any more hyperlinks that you could add?
At the present, there are no articles for the individuals involved. In the future, when I have time, I do plan to write an article for David Gibson.
Why does it say "present-day West Virginia?" It wasn't already WV then?
West Virginia did not become a state until June 20, 1863 during the American Civil War. It was Virginia then.
"Resolved: That a representative should be governed by instructions from his constituents." Do we have any idea what this title means or what the debate was about?
The sources do not say, but I speculate that the debate was over whether representatives should vote based on their personal beliefs or the consensus of their constituents.
You use the phrase "debated the question" twice in one paragraph
Thank you for the catch; I've changed the second instance to "argued"
Do we have any numbers on this growth in membership?
Unfortunately, records are not extant or available to quantify this growth.
"On July 2, 1819, the balance of available funds…" How much was "sufficient funds"?
The references do not quantify the sufficient funds.
"The society's humble library" the word "humble" is slightly POV—"small library" would be better.
Done!
"By resolutions of the society, the use of the library was extended to the society's members" This part of the sentence is confusing—if it wasn't for use of the society before, what exactly was it used for?
Re-rendered this as "By resolutions of the society, the use of the library was for the society's members, and was further extended to "ministers of the gospel of all denominations gratis.""
"continued to grow in importance and influence" How?
The references stipulate this but do not go into specifics. I have ideas as to how but I wanted to avoid original research.
Considering that the next section is called "Revival", use a different word than "irreparable." :)
I've changed this to extensive.
This is slightly off topic, but seeing the name of Samuel Lightfoot Flournoy (the senior) in one of the sections, I thought of something you could do for the Samuel Lightfoot Flournoy (West Virginia lawyer) titling--change it to (born 1886), as this is the custom in many similarly named people with similar occupations.
Thank you for the suggestion! I've been toying with this possibility as well.
"This period of revival was short-lived" which period of revival? You just mentioned a probable hiatus for six years in the previous sentence.
I've changed the sentence to "The post-war period of revival" as the period of revival is the entire period after the war. The six years of records are missing, but there were activities during that time.
Back to the earlier point about files--some images of members might be nice.
As stated above, I hope to acquire images of some of the earlier members so that the intro paragraphs are not so sparse. Thank you for the suggestion!
@West Virginian: Just a few comments! I love this article, and it's very interesting. I wouldn't have any worries about it passing. Just a few comments, mostly prose tweaks, and then I can support. It's amazing that it's pretty much all offline sources! By the way, when you get a chance, could you look at my first ever FAC? I would really appreciate it. :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Johanna, thank you so incredibly much for your comprehensive and thoughtful review of this article. Unfortunately, the available sources at my disposal do not offer further elaboration or detail, but as I come across additional images and information, I will incorporate them into this article. Thank you again for this review, and for all your extraordinary contributions to Wikipedia! - -West Virginian (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinator note: Requested a source review at WT:FAC. Please let me know if there's been one I didn't see. --Laser brain(talk) 23:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). Nice work on the Legacy section, and good work with the sourcing and citation style used. I wonder if there are any descendants of the original society still around the area. — Cirt (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt, thank you so incredibly much for the review and for your kind words. There are many descendants of the original society's members in the region. As time allows, I will be writing articles for additional members, and notable descendants. Thanks again for taking the time to review. -- West Virginian (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sounds promising, you're most welcome! Good luck to you, — Cirt (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources are fine and the citation style seems to be in order. I fixed one problem of the named ref not matching up with the short cite. The only other issue is that you have Atkinson and Gibbens in the bibliography, but do not cite to it. I'd say either remove it or shift it to a "further reading" section. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coemgenus, thank you for engaging in the source review for the article; and thank you for fixing the short cite. I've removed Atkinson and Gibbens from the Bibliography, since I didn't end up sourcing content from that reference. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain(talk) 16:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
