# Talk:Martin Farquhar Tupper

The commonplace character of Tupper's reflections is indubitable, and his blank verse is only prose cut up into suitable lengths; but the Proverbial Philosophy was full of a perfectly genuine moral and religious feeling, and contained many apt and striking expressions. By these qualities it appealed to a large and uncritical section of the public.
Come on now, Tupper's 'poetry' sucks.  I have an original copy of the 13th edition of Proverbial Philosophy, and know what I'm talking about.  It's some of the most boring and pompous drivel that ever sold in the millions.  However, it is not for us to judge its quality, nor to claim that the public liked it because it was good.  (BTW, the last sentence quoted above is a non-sequitur; if the public were truly uncritical, they would not have been able to appreciate either the 'genuine moral and religious feeling' or the 'many apt and striking expressions' and would presumably only have bought it because everybody else from Queen Victoria down owned a copy.   Which they did, and which is probably a major reason why it sold so well.)  
The more significant and verifiable fact about Tupper is that he was massively popular in the Victorian period, probably bigger than Tennyson and Browning, and yet now he is almost forgotten, and what little critical writing about him exists is almost entirely negative.  He was the Robert James Waller, the Paolo Coelho, of his era.  That, at least, can be demonstrated by the near-total eclipse of his enormous fame after his death.  Lexo (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking back at this post, and speaking as a slightly older and considerably more experienced WP contributor and editor, all I can say is that this article demonstrates the folly of importing public-domain Britannica articles into a 21st century encyclopedia. Lexo (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking over it I came to exactly the same conclusions: that the text was wildly imbalanced (and more than a bit pompous itself) and thus it probably came from Britannica.  This kind of writing does not serve Wikipedia well.--Father Goose (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
By now, this article seems to be biased in the opposite direction: Tupper survives if at all as a second-rate, puffed up poet whose success was only possible in a literary market where "philistines" might be able to approve of his platitudes. Wow, that's harsh. Surely a more neutral medium can be found? Robofish (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Now, 2023, it's maybe too neutral or unclear. Perhaps Nina Baym's footnote on him in her section for Whitman in The Norton Anthology of American Literature, volume 3, sixth edition would give the proper tone:  once very popular, now seen as trite.Kdammers (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I've published an edit that's kept slices of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica but contextualised them a bit more as an indication of the extent to which the work fell out of favour, instead of quoting them outright as if they're NPOV. If expanded, it might belong better in the Legacy section. Very difficult to find secondary sources though. Garnet-Septagon (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The text says that his grandson  talked about him, with a parenthetical comment listing a remarkable list of achievements.  As I read the text, the achievements are those of the grandson, but my hunch is that they are of the man himself.  If they are of the grandson, then that man should be named and given a Wik article; if they are of the man himself, then that should be made clear. Kdammers (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree; almost all that paragraph is a list of the grandson's alleged achievements, which are irrelevant, and at most it just acts as an advertisement for the website. I'll move the website to External Links because they do have bits and pieces about Tupper in Albury, but I'll remove the paragraph. Garnet-Septagon (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Martin Farquhar Tupper/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 01:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

 
I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Sources are all reliable.  This is not a problem for GA, but just so you're aware: clicking on footnotes 70 & 85 doesn't take you to the right location in the source list, as it should.  Also, you have Murphy (1937) in the sources, but none of the footnotes appear to refer to it.  I can promote this to GA with those issues still present, but wanted to let you know as I thought you'd probably want to fix them anyway.
I'll do the spotchecks first.  Spotchecks are a GA requirement; I'll pick a few citations and check to see that the source correctly supports the citation.  Footnote numbers refer to this version.

FN 78 cites "An enthusiastic amateur archaeologist, Tupper had an interest in the legacy of the Anglo-Saxons; he arranged an event to mark the thousandth anniversary of the birth of Alfred the Great in the king's birthplace of Wantage".  The source covers most of this, but I don't see support for "an enthusiastic amateur archaeologist".
FN 67 cites "Towards the end of 1885 Tupper started to write an autobiography, which was published in May 1886 under the title My Life as an Author. His wife Isabella had died during its composition, in December 1885, from apoplexy, and he included a tribute to her in the work. It received fairly warm reviews, but never ran to a second edition, despite the author working on improvements and corrections after publication."  The source has "Towards the end of 1885 Tupper began to write an autobiography", which is a bit too close to the wording in the article, per WP:PARAPHRASE.  Can you reword it to avoid the close paraphrasing?
FN 11 cites "Despite making almost no money from his written works in North America due to the lack of international copyright at the time, Tupper recognised the potential of his enormous popularity on the other side of the Atlantic."  I don't see any mention in the source article of copyright, and I don't think this really supports "recognised the potential"; the source is a bit balder, simply saying he was popular and he went.
That clears up the copyright phrase.  Can you quote for me, or email me if it's easier, the text from Collins that supports "Tupper recognised the potential of his enormous popularity on the other side of the Atlantic"?  I don't have access to that source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
FN 24 cites "and this first official version appeared on 24 January 1838 entitled Proverbial Philosophy: A Book of Thoughts and Arguments, originally treated, by Martin Farquhar Tupper, Esq., M.A. at a price of 7s. It met with moderate success in Britain; a second edition was commissioned, to which Tupper added more material, and sold for 6s."  Verified.
FN 12 cites "While living here, Tupper attended St James' Chapel on Hampstead Road (now demolished)".  The source supports the demolition, but not that Tupper attended at that time.
I think what you've done is fine. You might want to also cite the ODNB article on Stebbing for that sentence -- Hudson doesn't actually name the chapel, so (though one doubts there were two in the Hampstead Road) it's safest to cite another source which specifically says that Stebbing was at St James. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Collins p182: "It has been estimated that in Tupper's lifetime about 250,000 copies of his work were sold in the United Kingdom, while 1.5 million copies were sold in the U.S. It became clear to Tupper that he would simply have to visit America personally, and so in 1851 he arranged a tour of the country."
There is an edition of this book on OpenLibrary (https://openlibrary.org/books/OL10492487M/Banvard's_Folly) but it's the 2001 edition whereas I have the 2002. I only realised this quite late, or I would have used the OL one because I'm sure they're very similar.
I've added a Stebbing DNB reference, his ministry at that chapel is mentioned. Thanks again! Garnet-Septagon (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to place the review on hold, and pause here to let you fix these.  The article can't be promoted to GA unless the spotcheck passes, so you might want to look through the article and check the other citations for source-to-text integrity and any close paraphrasing issues.  I can leave the nomination open if you like, and you can tell me when you're ready for me to take another look; or if you think it will take a while to check the citations, I can fail it and you can renominate whenever you're ready. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Mike Christie, I really appreciate your time looking at this.
I've corrected all the things you've listed: regarding FN 12, the source for the rest was FN 13 at the end of the following sentence. 12 does just cover the demolition. I've put 12 (now 15) inside the brackets to make that clearer, although I'm not certain if that's the best solution.
I've also combed through all the references to double-check integrity and page numbers, so the article should now be fine for another round of spot checks. Garnet-Septagon (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
OK, great. I'll take another look, either tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I've struck a couple above that were resolved; I have a suggestion on one, and for another I've requested the supporting text.  I'll spotcheck a couple more, probably tomorrow, then go on to read through the article in more detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
All the above issues are now fixed.  I'll do another couple of spotchecks next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
FN 4 cites "He would maintain a close friendship with Gladstone until the final years of his life."  Verified.
FN 46 cites "However, the eventual selection was Alfred, Lord Tennyson, partly due to Prince Albert's admiration of the poem In Memoriam A.H.H."  Verified.
FN 81 cites "In November 1886 Tupper suffered an illness of several days which robbed him of the ability to read and write. He remained in a fragile state for his remaining three years, being cared for by his children, never learning that during that period Albury House had been foreclosed by the Duke of Northumberland." Verified.
That takes care of the spotchecks.  I'll read through next and make notes on any issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 15:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)


### Comments from reading through
"and his wife Ellin Devis, the daughter of landscape painter Robert Marris": I would make this "and his wife Ellin Devis Marris", to avoid the reader wondering why Ellin did not have the same surname as her father.
"where he received a degree of BA in 1832": could be compressed to just "where he received a BA in 1832".
"From a young age Tupper had suffered from a severe stammer": I don't think you need the "had".
"and precipitated the eventual publication": it seems odd to use "precipitated" with "eventual"; I think of precipitating something as causing it to happen there and then.  Perhaps "and eventually precipitated the publication"?  Or a different approach: "An author and former editor of the literary magazine the Athenaeum, Stebbing encouragement of Tupper's writings eventually led to the publication of Proverbial Philosophy"?
"He continued to write poems for public events in order to demonstrate his capability: these marked occasions such as": suggest "to demonstrate his capability, marking occasions such as".
There's no source given for the last paragraph of "Middle years".
"Continually short of money, in 1880 was obliged to mortgage his longtime home of Albury House to the Duke of Northumberland and let it to tenants."  Earlier we said he had to let it from 1867.
Suggest linking quarto.
"the Volunteer Force, a movement which bolstered and led to the professionalisation of the army": this seems a very strong statement; it doesn't allow for any other significant forces in the army's professionalisation.  Does the source really support this, or should it be weakened to something like "helped lead to"?
"His ballads in the Globe captured a popular mood of outrage at the delay in relief for General Gordon at the Siege of Khartoum, and earned Gordon's appreciation."  This surprised me, since Gordon died in the siege and it seems unlikely that copies of the Globe were smuggled into Khartoum.  Looking at Hudson I think this is a misreading of the source; Gordon appreciated Tupper, but Hudson doesn't say he knew of these ballads.
"the ultimate challenge to the work's further longevity is that Proverbial Philosophy presents a style and viewpoint": I think this has to be "was that".  It's true that the book still presents the same style and viewpoint, but the challenge came in the past, so I think the verb has to go along.
"As it is so extrinsically linked to its own time": what does "extrinsically" add here?
There are quite a lot of quotes in the article, amounting to a noticeable fraction of the wordage.  There's no set limit (though see WP:OQ), and I am OK with promoting this to GA as it stands, but I think it would be worth looking through for ways to bring some of that material into the article's own language.  I think it would be necessary if you were to take this to WP:FAC next.  To give just one example, I think ""His disagreement with Tupper, who considered the States as a literary adjunct to England, underscores his desire to create a distinctly American poetry" doesn't need to be a quote, but could be satisfactorily paraphrased.
"although digital transcriptions and facsimiles can now be found": this is unsourced.
"Sir William Schwenk Gilbert alludes": not an issue for GA, but Gilbert is almost universally referred to as "W. S. Gilbert", and I think it would be less surprising to do that here.
"for his Archaeological attainments": any information about what these were?
I can't promote the article with the tag at the top of the "Works" section, but I suspect it's unnecessary.  If this is not intended to be a complete list, I'd retitle the section "Selected works" and remove the tag.  If it's intended to be a complete list, but you know it isn't, then that's an issue.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, those are all really great pieces of feedback, especially the catch of General Gordon. I've addressed them all, just some points:
- I've added a ref for the penultimate sentence of "Middle Years", but since the final sentence links to a different (sourced) section I didn't think that needed one.
- I appreciate the note on the number of quotations. I didn't see this article going on to be Featured level because I'm concerned that it's over-reliant on a small number of sources - it's obvious that even Collins and Thompson rely on Hudson, whose biography is comprehensive. Additionally, Tupper is now so obscure that I couldn't find proper analyses of his work or impact on culture, which would have been nice. But I know you're very experienced in this area, so any pointers for what else I'd need to do to get it to FA level would be much appreciated, even if it's just for my general knowledge.
- Tupper's interest in archaeology was going to be a section (hence the now-removed "enthusiastic amateur archaeologist" line), but I didn't think there was enough to say to justify it. I've added a couple of sentences to "Awards and Recognition" to contextualise it. Garnet-Septagon (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Your fixes look good.  The only remaining problem for GA is the two unsourced bits.  I take your point that in both cases the text points at the place the source can be found, but I think it would be better to add citations -- relying on text elsewhere in Wikipedia isn't a great idea, since another well-meaning editor may come along next year and make changes.  I think for the "digital transcriptions" bit I would just link to a couple of obvious places -- perhaps the Project Gutenberg link would be enough.  Don't link to Wiksource, though; it doesn't count as a reliable source.  For the "Middle years", I would steal a couple of cites from the later section that you link to.
As for FAC, there are abundant sources that show Tupper is notable, so I wouldn't worry about Hudson.  I think this article is an excellent candidate for FAC.  I'm not a subject matter expert, so I can't say whether another editor might find issues with the content, but it's well written and well structured and I think would probably get promoted.  You might take a look for recently featured articles on similar topics and ask the nominators if they'd mind taking a look at it.  You could also try peer review, but it's very hit or miss as to whether you get worthwhile (or any) responses there.
Are you planning to work on other articles and bring them to GA?  Are you interested in reviewing GAs, by any chance?  I wouldn't normally suggest reviewing to someone with only a couple of hundred edits, but your writing is better than that of most experienced editors, and we are always looking for more reviewers at GA.  And if you do take it to FAC, I'd encourage you to review there as well -- reviewing is a good way to build good will and it makes other editors more likely to review your nominations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I've added references for those two bits.
Your words of encouragement are much appreciated - if you think this a strong candidate then I might look at refining it as you've suggested and submitting it for FA status. After a bit of a break so I can come back with fresh eyes, at least; I don't have quite as much free time any more, and this article did become a bit of an obsession!
I considered reviewing a GA candidate when I submitted this one in order to give back, but I wanted some first-hand experience of the process first, which is why I'm really grateful for all your notes. Also, I don't know dos-and-don'ts like not to rely on citations in other parts of the article, so I'm not confident I would do a good enough job. However, perhaps it's the kind of thing where you just have to jump in and start, so I'll certainly keep it in mind! Garnet-Septagon (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The citations are fine now, so I'll pass this.  If you nominate anything else and don't quickly get a reviewer, let me know, and I'll pick it up if I have time.  And yes, jumping in would probably be fine; there are helpful pages linked for WP:GAN/I and there are only a few bits of the MoS relevant to GA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! To top it all off, I've submitted a DYK for this article: it's at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Martin_Farquhar_Tupper if you feel like reviewing it, but regardless, thanks again for all your help. Garnet-Septagon (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)