Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Augusta, Lady Gregory
Augusta, Lady Gregory[edit]
Mostly self nom. This was a stub a while back and I've been working away at expanding it. Some other users (notably Geogre) have corrected many of my errors. Would make a nice FA Abbey Theatre set with W.B. Yeats and J.M. Synge in the centenary year of the founding of the theatre. And potential for another woman on FA. Filiocht 13:56, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Support: Excellent and comprehensive short biography. I had never heard of her, would now like to know more. Giano 14:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support: I did some copy editing. Geogre 14:33, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- To potential reviewers to whom the name isn't ringing any bells, this is Lady Gregory, Yeats's angel and Mighty Big Wheel in the Irish literary renaissance. (Don't mean to insult anyone by implying that they don't know the name, but I know I'd certainly ask "Who's her when she's home" upon hearing it.) Geogre 05:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: should the article not be called Lady Gregory, as the more common name? Markalexander100 03:55, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- We don't seem to use titles related to knighthood in article titles, for some reason. Thus, Thomas Browne rather than Sir Thomas Browne; Agatha Christie rather than Dame Agatha Christie; and Isabella Augusta Gregory rather than Lady Gregory. -- Emsworth 14:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- There should really be an exception for people known exclusively by their titles. Augusta, Lady Gregory would be a much better place for this article. Proteus (Talk) 21:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I certainly would not mind Isabella Augusta, Lady Gregory or Augusta, Lady Gregory (this is the form used by the Encyclopedia Britannica). -- Emsworth 21:52, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- There should really be an exception for people known exclusively by their titles. Augusta, Lady Gregory would be a much better place for this article. Proteus (Talk) 21:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- No, Lady Gregory should be a redirect, as it is. See the link to rationale and specifics at your more common name reference: "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. The principal exception is in the case of naming royalty and people with titles."
- My understanding exactly. Anyone care to vote now that that's sorted? Filiocht 09:00, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Not quite sorted: that page gives this as a specific example: Courtesy titles (also referred to as an honorific prefix)² such as Lord or Lady differ from full titles because unlike full titles they are included as part of the personal name, often from birth. As such, they should be included in the article title if a person if universally recognised with it and their name is unrecognisable without it. For example, the nineteenth century British prime minister Lord John Russell was always known by that form of name, never simply John Russell. Using the latter form would produce a name that would be unrecognisable to anyone searching for a page on Russell. Similarly, Lady Gregory, the Irish playwright, is more recognisable to readers than Augusta Gregory. Markalexander100 01:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Simply "Lady Gregory" is definitely an insufficient title. Augusta, Lady Gregory is more appropriate. -- Emsworth 02:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I like this solution and am about to adopt it. Filiocht 08:34, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Simply "Lady Gregory" is definitely an insufficient title. Augusta, Lady Gregory is more appropriate. -- Emsworth 02:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Not quite sorted: that page gives this as a specific example: Courtesy titles (also referred to as an honorific prefix)² such as Lord or Lady differ from full titles because unlike full titles they are included as part of the personal name, often from birth. As such, they should be included in the article title if a person if universally recognised with it and their name is unrecognisable without it. For example, the nineteenth century British prime minister Lord John Russell was always known by that form of name, never simply John Russell. Using the latter form would produce a name that would be unrecognisable to anyone searching for a page on Russell. Similarly, Lady Gregory, the Irish playwright, is more recognisable to readers than Augusta Gregory. Markalexander100 01:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- My understanding exactly. Anyone care to vote now that that's sorted? Filiocht 09:00, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
- We don't seem to use titles related to knighthood in article titles, for some reason. Thus, Thomas Browne rather than Sir Thomas Browne; Agatha Christie rather than Dame Agatha Christie; and Isabella Augusta Gregory rather than Lady Gregory. -- Emsworth 14:27, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Regarding the name of the article: I would prefer Lady Gregory here as well (just take a look at "What links here" to see how many of the links are to Lady Gregory). Still, there are two conflicting "rules" here (best known name vs. using titles in names), so either one is really OK. Jeronimo 19:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support except two small things. The intro para's don't seem long enough or distinct enough to need to be separate, but simply linking them looks awkward because of the duplicated her, her. Could you expand that, or at least vary the second "her" in Her motto...? Also, the list of works seems like it would be better in a separate article. Especially for every work that is not going ot have prose written about it. - Taxman 20:23, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Is the intro better now? I would resist removing the list of works, which I always feel is vital info in an author biog. Moving it to a distinct article introduces a redundant click for the interested reader, IMHO. Filiocht 08:34, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Well the real issue was that it was just two sentences that has no need to be a distinct paragraph. Unless you think it needs expanding to stay two paragraphs, merge them together so they flow nicely. I know nothing about the subject, so I didn't want to mischaracterize anything by doing it myself. Come to think of it, the article covers very little about her works at all. Were they important or was she just important for her involvement in the revival? - Taxman 15:01, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Most of her books, apart from the diaries and some of her myth retellings, are out of print or available only in expensive academis editions, and her plays are never performed nowadays. But as a 'figure', she has an importance way beyond her quality as a writer. I'll expand the lead a bit more later. Filiocht 15:11, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Well that may help, but my point was that if she is not really known for her works, all of the ones that don't deserve individual mention really should be moved to a separate article. It doesn't take much if anything away from this article to link to a separate list. - Taxman 17:05, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Just for whatever it's worth, it has always been my impression that her works were important but aren't important. Her translations, in particular, were the first and were important in popularizing the materials. At the same time, other Irish scholars (and scholars of Irish) immediately got their hackles raised, and they struck back. Barely a generation after her work, other translations were available and preferrable, but she had a big effect. She got satirized so bitterly by Flann O'Brien (a serious Gaelic scholar) because she made naive mistakes. Her Anglo-Irish feelings also brought some hostility, I gather. Geogre 05:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- My own view, for what it's worth, is that any author biog should include as full a listing as possible of published works. It serves, amongst other things, as a snapshot of their development over time. Filiocht 12:53, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Just for whatever it's worth, it has always been my impression that her works were important but aren't important. Her translations, in particular, were the first and were important in popularizing the materials. At the same time, other Irish scholars (and scholars of Irish) immediately got their hackles raised, and they struck back. Barely a generation after her work, other translations were available and preferrable, but she had a big effect. She got satirized so bitterly by Flann O'Brien (a serious Gaelic scholar) because she made naive mistakes. Her Anglo-Irish feelings also brought some hostility, I gather. Geogre 05:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Well that may help, but my point was that if she is not really known for her works, all of the ones that don't deserve individual mention really should be moved to a separate article. It doesn't take much if anything away from this article to link to a separate list. - Taxman 17:05, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Most of her books, apart from the diaries and some of her myth retellings, are out of print or available only in expensive academis editions, and her plays are never performed nowadays. But as a 'figure', she has an importance way beyond her quality as a writer. I'll expand the lead a bit more later. Filiocht 15:11, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Well the real issue was that it was just two sentences that has no need to be a distinct paragraph. Unless you think it needs expanding to stay two paragraphs, merge them together so they flow nicely. I know nothing about the subject, so I didn't want to mischaracterize anything by doing it myself. Come to think of it, the article covers very little about her works at all. Were they important or was she just important for her involvement in the revival? - Taxman 15:01, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Is the intro better now? I would resist removing the list of works, which I always feel is vital info in an author biog. Moving it to a distinct article introduces a redundant click for the interested reader, IMHO. Filiocht 08:34, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Support: PRIIS 22:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)