This review is transcluded from Talk:Hubert de Sevrac/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 09:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is clearly written and properly structured. Its sections cover the main points of the book, its publication, and (very briefly) its contemporary reception.

• Maybe gloss Mary Robinson in the lead for general readers, e.g. "the celebrity actress and writer Mary Robinson."
  • Done.
• the French aristocrat: I take it all the characters are fictional? Might be best to say so, as novels can be based on real lives.
  • Done.
• marked the beginning of Robinson's decline in popularity as a novelist. This ought to be prefaced by saying that HdS was Robinson's fourth novel, or something of the sort.
  • Done.
• I'd have thought the article ought to be in British English given its provenance.
  • Yes... this is always a problem for me; I write in my native style, which is an idiosyncratic mix of Canadian and American and doesn't match any official Engvar style... I caught a criticized and an honor but let me know if you spotted other errors.
• the novel's use of Gothic horror is impressionistic, rather than graphically violent. - so, does it actually count as a "Gothic novel" or is it more on the borderline of that according to the scholars?
  • My understanding is that it's definitely Gothic, but it's specifically a Radcliffean gothic rather than something in the vein of The Monk. I added some more context on this.
• Close 2004 seems happy with the "Gothic" label, but describes Gothic as a "notorious genre" and "perceived of as morally ambiguous"; and Robinson's choice to use it as "a curious career move". More specifically Close writes that in HdS, Robinson is "imitating popular works that capitalize on the Gothic's promise of profit [by selling books]"; and further that the novel "revise[s] conventional Gothic discourse in order to reassign the significance of female sexuality to fictional characters and to Robinson herself." Close then analyses these themes in much more detail. All of this seems well worth discussing. It seems from what Close writes that few other 21st century reviewers have addressed the novel's themes (also worth mentioning), but I'd certainly consider splitting the 'Publication and reception' section into three subsections, publication, contemporary reception, and modern reception.
  • You're right, I was overlooking a lot from this source -- I've done some substantial expanding.
• The Dublin edition was printed by B. Smith, C. Browne, and H. Colbert, Dublin, 1797. I think worth stating in full. We should really have details of the French 1797 translation too.
  • Done.

• The lead image is fine.

• The English Beef cartoon has a CC-by-NC license from the Bodleian, which is not sufficient for Commons. Please relicense the file as {{PD-Art|PD-old-100}} and {{PD-1923}} or similar.
  • Done.

Spot-checks:

• [2] covers the politics of revolution and (proto)feminism as indicated.

• [3] and [4] are versions of the primary text.

• [6] gives short extracts of 18th century reviews. Verifies the claims made. It would certainly be nice to be able to make use of the original reviews in their entirety, but we clearly have "the main points" here for the GA criterion.

• [7] is verified, but the source (Close 2004) is much underused, as noted above.

• This is a fascinating glimpse into English attitudes to revolutionary France and feminism. A bit more detail is needed on the book's reception before we move to GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments! I think I've now addressed all of your concerns. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The new materials are excellent, filling the gaps I'd mentioned, but they belong in 3 sections, via. Background (near the top of the article), Publication, and Reception. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've boldly fixed the last point, passing it as GA now. If you have a moment for one of my articles, that'd be appreciated as always. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]