Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harriet Arbuthnot

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

Harriet Arbuthnot

[edit]

The Giano featured article factory has taken this demurely-dressed country cousin of an article and, in a week, performed some alchemy to reinvent her as a perfectly formed lady of society, clad in diaphanous silks and gauzes.

She is one of the more notable of the Arbuthnot family, who have been making rather regular appearances at WP:AFD of late. A diarist in Georgian England, and a Tory political hostess, she has been decribed was the "closest woman friend" of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. I have given the article a brief copyedit, but I wish I had Giano's writing talent. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is she not written about much? Just curious if there is more information available to add, or if this article satisfies comprehensiveness - not knowing the subject I couldn't answer this. LuciferMorgan 22:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it is short for an FAC and the subject not the most notable. A great deal that has been written about her seems to be chiefly concerned with "did she or did'nt she sleep with Wellington" and draw no definite conclusions. As no-one knows the truth I don't see that having more of that subject here is encyclopedic - An encyclopedia enjoys the luxury of being slightly different to a biography that has to put a new sensational slant on Wellington in order to sell. I wanted this biography here to be about her but there is not much more to say without repetition - she wrote a diary, was Wellington's great friend and died young. Remember a few weeks ago she had a non-notable tag stuck on her [1]. Well I think I have proved notability, but even if this page passes FAC she will never be the most notable person on the encyclopedia, but if someone wants to know: Who was Mrs Arbithnot? This page will tell them the known facts, and that the unproven speculation is entirely that, unproven. Giano 06:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fair enough - I was just curious whether the article covered all aspects of its subject (1b) that's all. It isn't a question I would've asked if I was familiar with this person. I had a recent FA which was slightly shorter than this one (and wasn't the most notable either), but when an article meets comprehensiveness this doesn't apply. LuciferMorgan 09:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To amplify Giano's comments (he wrote this so he should know), I am not aware of a biography being published of her on her own, as opposed to her appearing as a bit-player in the biographies of others (principally Wellington, of course). She is more of a footnote in history than a main player. The references include a published Wellington biography (Longford), and a published account of the Arbuthnots' relationship with him (Smith). I would be surprised if any "major facts and details" (as WP:WIAFA 1(b) says) are not already included. If you are aware of any sources which could enhance this article, please let us know. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If these sources were out there, I think Giano would have a better chance finding them than me. I'm unaware of any sources, and am unfamiliar with the subject. Sounds like 1b is fine (anyone disagree feel free to comment). LuciferMorgan 11:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose I have looked over the article, and made some changes to reflect what the terms discussed were (including a link to her nationality and the country where this takes places, which are obligatory under the MoS guidelines). I must say part of the prose is overtly familiar, in contrast to what is expected from an encyclopedia article - they should either be turned into quotes (if that is what they were) and thus attibuted, or rephrased entirely. Examples include, from what I have seen:
  • Thus, with her country-loving parents, she and her brothers and sisters enjoyed a comfortable and reasonably affluent country childhood.
  • However, as the debate and wrangling over her dowry proved, money was tight.
  • When remarking in her diaries on other women who shared their affections with great men of the day, Arbuthnot displayed a biting wit and sarcasm.
  • Amongst those sampling the almost frenetic rounds of entertainment, in this Becky Sharpish environment, were the newly married Arbuthnots.
  • In fact, due to a bizarre series of events,...
  • Therefore it appears the presence of Arbuthnot protected the Duke from other female attention.

The editors must ask themselves: "who made these judgments"? Either quote someone making them or change to an impersonal tone. Dahn 10:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed my vote to support - all my previous objections have been addressed. All in all, a well-written article, clearly up to FA standards. Dahn 06:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and contributions, but "obligatory" under the MOS? Are you sure? It was a guideline last time I looked.
You seem to be objecting to logical deductions from the known facts. For example, it is clear that her mother had a strained financial situation, and her fiancé is even known to have complained about it. Money was tight.
Finally, you find the prose overtly (overly?) familiar; I find it warm and compelling. If you are going to require Giano to change his tone into something stony and impersonal, I will have to withdraw this nomination. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dahn: Some of these have been edited a bit, so it may be worth another look, if you have the time. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for correcting the ambiguous links that I had not spotted. I don't think there are any statements or conclusions that are not substantiated by the references nor do I think the tone of the prose is overtly familiar - I hope it is easily readable modern standard English. I try to immagine I am writing for a intelligent readership of 14 years old and above. Giano 12:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the beautifully chosen quotes make it for me and I see nothing wrong with the tone of the writing. One odd sentence that I can't make out: Her political observations are often biased as seen from her own viewpoint - either the second part of the sentence is redundant or I've just missed the point. Ref 17 seems out of place and is a near-duplicate of 13, a straggler from an earlier draft?. Yomanganitalk 17:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Yomangani - I've addressed your points I kept looking at that repetition and thinking I was having deja vu but could not see it for looking! Glad you like the quotes it was difficult to know which one's to choose, one of the ironies of life is that the waspish comments about people are always more fun to read than nice ones! Giano 18:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To elaborate on my earlier answer: there is nothing wrong with the quality of the prose, but, as I have said, there are several things I consider wrong in using an editor's evaluation of events for a fact. Expressions such as "bizarre", "Becky Sharpish", "almost frenetic", "biting wit", "country-loving parents", etc., as long as they are not quoted from someone using them, are best rephrased - otherwise, we have an intermediate writer giving us an assessment, making a deduction, comparing, and drawing his or her own conclusions. It is eloquent perhaps, but it borders on WP:OR. And if, incidentally, wikipedia does encourage "cold" writing instead of essays, the issue I raised was about attributing opinions about the facts (the only alternative to that is not reporting opinions at all). I will add that there are currently entire paragraphs without a single reference. Dahn 18:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had not noticed ALoan's comment about changes, so take my earlier comment in the light of that. I'll look over the article again. Dahn 18:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC) I'm afraid most of what I had objected to is still in the text. Dahn 18:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there we have the nub of the issue: to what extent should the writer of an encyclopedia article synthesise the existing materials to produce a coherent and engaging account? Clearly some editorial judgement is required in writing an encyclopedia article, otherwise we might as well just quote (or provide links to) the original materials for the reader to read for themselves. You seem to be suggesting that Giano has used the wrong sort of adjectives.
As for refereces, are you suggesting that Giano is making any of this up out of his own head? Or that any of it is not supported by the cited references? (And in relation to "paragraphs without a single reference", if we are counting footnotes as some sort of proxy for the quality of the referencing, I count one paragraph with no inline citations - the one in the middle summarising Charles Arbuthnot's life up to his marriage to Harriet.) -- ALoan (Talk) 19:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I am actually saying is that parts of the article can be voiced without metaphors and comparisons that were not produced by sources and quoted from them. Basically, the reader currently finds out that Giano considers some events bizarre, an atmosphere to be reminiscent of a certain novel (written AFAIK, when the subject of this article was dead), some parties to be almost frenetic, her prose to be biting etc. If I were to write about, say, Victor Hugo's prose and tell you that it is "wonderful" or "reminiscent of some other guy", the information would have to be and would be erased - if I want it in there, I would have to quote a source saying it; if not, I could rephrase to something neutral and, yes, cold.
You are right about the references - while I will not object to the paragraph remaining unsourced in this FAC, I will point out that, as Giano himself commented on another entry (btw, I thank him for his comments there), unsourced portions of text, as small as they me, can turn out to be huge problems. But do please address the other issue. Dahn 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I should have realised that the on-going discussion at "another place" (here presumably?) was relevant to this FAC.
(Gosh! A Napoleonic general! How exciting! I must read the article.) -- ALoan (Talk) 20:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was not related in any way other than me noticing this FAC while I was answering there, and Giano intervening there after I answered here. In fact, I feel a tad guilty that I am opposing this article while Giano is endorsing that one, but I really believe the problems I pointed here are real ones (just as I believe that the sentences in question can be easily rephrased - hopefully without losing their quality). Dahn 20:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't feel guilty valid points I can deal with - people who rejoice in saying pages are insufficiently referenced on FARC and then come here saying just the opposite! Such as is happening to your page.... perhaps I should keep my feelings to myself - but next year those same people will nominate your page for being insufficiently referenced - so you are in trouble basically for jumping the gun.
Anyway lets keep to the matter on hand here. Regarding your points.
  1. "bizarre": - I think it is a fair and natural adjective to describe a successful 19th century man marrying a woman he last saw ten years before as bizarre. One could have said "unusual" butthat would be to week a term.
  2. "Becky Sharpish": well that character and her exploits in France at that time (yes I know it was written later) exactly describe Paris at the time the Arbuthnot's were there. Anyone who has ever read that book (and quite few have) will immediately understand the scenario the Arbuthnots found themselves in.
  3. "almost frenetic": Well again that period in Paris was frenetic, we could lose the "almost" but that would give frenetic its literal meaning which again would be too strong.
  4. "country-loving parents": There is a reference in the page somewhere before that is mentioned confirming that her father was criticised for "preferring to spend his time in the country" so to say "country-loving" is a naturally drawn inference (anyhow I think someone has already changed that.
  5. "biting wit": Yes, I could concede on that one although describing one's rival for Wellington's attentions as a "femme gallante".... well anyway I'll change it - scathing I won't give on - describing a Duke as a "common swindler" is a pretty scathing comment. Giano 07:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NPOV: "Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts [...]. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority)."

Here are my suggestions:

  1. if it is that obviously bizarre that he had not seen his bride-to-be for 10 years, then the "bizarre" is not needed (I wouldn't, for example, need to write "bizarrely, X was born with fourteen arms and five legs"). I am not sure the adjective refers to that, though, because it stresses not that the situation was bizarre, but that the events were - meaning that the detail is superfluous here (the events are not discussed in this article, so establishing whether they were or not bizarre is of minimal importance). If Arbuthnot herself mentions the events, you could quote an adjective that is used by her in relation to them, if you feel like it. I would also like to add that, while marrying a person you hadn't seen for ten years was uncommon, it was not that uncommon (some of my ancestors married as young adults after only seeing each other as toddlers or not ever seeing each other - it is the logic of an arranged marriage, and arranged marriages were the norm in Europe back in the day).
  2. well, as exact as such adjectives may seem, they still are literary devices, not neutral reporting (I use "neutral" in the most neutral of its meanings). Just below that notion, you have the ample description of a scandal, and it is one which speaks for itself. Aside from that, there are several who will disagree that, in the history of Paris, the Restoration was especially animated (though it was certainly more so than Napoleon's day, and though it wasn't all Cossacks and White Terror). The description serves no purpose, and it is your own assessment (right or wrong as you may be in making it).
  3. as above (though this adjective is not that problematic - if you address all other issues but leave this one as is, I will change my vote).
  4. I still consider "country-loving" a superfluous belles-lettres interference between the facts and the reader, but, as per the previous point, I will remove this from among my objections.
  5. thanks Dahn 05:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK Becky has departed and most of the other points have been addressed. I will just point out though that Wellington'e marriage was not arranged - but all of that belongs on his page not this one so I won't digress on HA's page. I hope you now feel you can change to support. Giano 06:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you again. Dahn 06:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - good luck with Sébastiani. Giano 07:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support qp10qp 01:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Thank you, Giano, for rescuing this article from AfD (more "presentism" at work on wikipedia, I fear). I am very close to supporting this article. I have a few quibbles with language (not related to the intense discussion above which I do not want to enter into) and a few suggestions for expansion.

  • In the lead you suggest that her diary is only used for biographies, but then in the article you write that "However, her detailed description of the rivalry for power between the Tories and Liberals which took place between 1822 and 1830 is one of the most authoritative accounts of this struggle." - Perhaps the lead could be broadened to reflect the fact that her diary is used to describe politics and society as well as people?
addressed Giano 16:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The young Harriet Fane spent much of her childhood at the family home at Fulbeck Hall in Lincolnshire, which had been given to Thomas Fane by his father. Fulbeck Hall, sited high on the limestone hills above Grantham, was a not over-large modern mansion at the time of Arbuthnot's childhood, having been rebuilt following a fire in 1733. - the clauses just keep going here, don't they? could you revise?
addressed Giano 17:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thus, she and her brothers and sisters enjoyed a comfortable and reasonably affluent rural childhood. - I'm not sure that the "thus" follows from the sentence about the house.
addressed Giano 17:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain how the marriage settlement was resolved in the first paragraph of the "Marriage" section?
I'm not sure of the answer to that one, and can find no information. It may have to be put on hold. Giano 17:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Married to a politician, she was fascinated by politics and enjoyed success as a political hostess while exerting her energies to promote Tory causes. - might you mention what some of those Tory causes were for the reader not familiar with the intricacies of early nineteenth-century politics?
  • While Arbuthnot's impressions may have been less than candid, and her views of the Duchess's character and mothering skills not shared by some members of the establishment, including Wellington himself,[14] had Arbuthnot's own character been judged as less than respectable, an audience with the infant princess would not have been permitted. - This sentence can be made clearer - there are too many dependent clauses.
addressed Giano 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her political observations are often biased, clearly written from her own Tory viewpoint. - I would leave out the "biased" part and simply state that the diary is written from a Tory viewpoint.
addresed Giano 17:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thus it seems, most likely, that in addition to assisting Wellington with his social life, Arbuthnot also acted as his door-keeper. - perhaps a more precise word than "door-keeper" could be chosen
addressed Giano 17:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have addresed sveral of your pints above, the other will obviously take a little longer, I will endevour to do some research over the next couple of days. I don't want to have toom any quotes as I want the page to be about the person rather than her sayings. Giano 17:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to do a separate page on the diary? If not, it would really be nice to have more quotes here since that is what makes her "notable." Awadewit Talk 20:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for Dahn's objections, I believe it involves the difference between Anglo-Saxon encyclopaedias and those of continental Europe. In Germany, for instance, they think it superfluous for an encyclopaedia contributor to express his own opinion on the subject and present his own point of view. But a certain tinge of subjectivism is intergral to the British encyclopaedic tradition. The current edition of the Britannica has a large section "assessment" appended to every significant bio-article. The author is free to express his own view on the subject. I recall one Britannica article referring to Russian imperial administration as "unqualified fools". While an occasional descriptive epithet thrown into the text is most refreshing and welcome, Britannica "assessment" sections are sometimes really objectionable, and still nobody would impeach the Britannica as invalid on account of its excessive subjectivism. We should not become slaves to footnotes. We are not writing a monograph here. No other encyclopaedia employs a more complex system of referencing than our featured articles do. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's important to recognize that complete objectivity will never be possible. Every article will have some ideological leanings. Awadewit Talk 19:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Harriet_Arbuthnot&oldid=132861132"