# Talk:Memoirs and Adventures of a Man of Quality

This review is transcluded from Talk:Memoirs and Adventures of a Man of Quality/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 22:59, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: RandFreeman (talk · contribs) 01:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC)


### Prose quality
1.  Passed. No issues with prose or clarity. Most of the article is well-written and all of it free of egregious grammatical errors, but the synopsis is unclear because it does not specify at which plot points each volume begins and ends. This renders the sentence "The final volume relates the story of Manon Lescaut" incongruous. You should divide the synopsis between volumes, either with subheadings or by introducing each volume with something along the lines of "In the {first/second/third} volume...".

The subsection "English translation" could be rewritten for clarity to something like (if you mean what I think you mean): The first volume was first translated and published in England in 1738, and the second volume in 1741, both by an anonymous translator. The preface to the first edition of the English translations included a note that "The Translator has taken the Liberty in several Instances to soften, but never to contradict the Author's Meaning" so that readers would not be alienated by the narrator's Catholicism and noble rank.
A revised edition of the translations was overseen by Edward Cave and contributed to by Samuel Johnson. Its preface stated that [the translation? the contents of the books?] "may suit every Man, whatever be his Religion or Quality." It was a commercial failure, and as late as 1753 Cave still possessed unsold copies. Other English translations in the eighteenth century include a 1741 edition printed in Dublin and translated by a Mr. Erskine, a 1747 edition published by John Nourse, and a 1770 edition published by Francis Newbery which re-used Cave's translation.
The Style section does not concern the style (how the prose is written, what literary devices are used) of the book so much as its format and scholarly opinions about its format. The section's contents could be moved, except for the sentences "The novel is narrated in the first person by the unnamed 'Man of Quality'" (which, having been stated elsewhere, should be deleted) and "A brief 'Note from the Editor' presents the novel as a found manuscript, claiming that the editor received the manuscript personally from the narrator, whose name is withheld to protect his privacy" (which could be integrated into the beginning of the synopsis), to the Analysis section.
2.  Passed. No instances of MOS violations that don't fall under another area of criticism. The fictional narrative is written about appropriately.


### Accuracy
1.  Passed.
2.  Passed.
3.  Passed.
4.  Passed.
Every citation matches what is stated in the text, from what I can tell, and no unreliable sources are cited. No copyvios, close paraphrasing or plagiarism.


### Thoroughness
1.  Passed. The coverage of Manon Lescaut at the end of the synopsis, even though it has its own article, is disproportionately scanty compared to that of the other volumes of Memoirs and Adventures. There should be a summary of Manon Lescaut so that it has as much coverage as every other volume. 
? Nitpick: Is there information available on the number of pages that the novel has that can be added to the infobox?
2.  Passed. There are no "tangents" that stuck out to me, and the synopsis , aside from the issue mentioned, is appropriately long.


### Neutral point of view
 Passed


### Stable
 Passed


### Illustrations
1.  Passed.
2.  Passed.


### Outcome and closing remarks
 Passed. The article is well-researched, well-referenced, well-written and thorough. Goes to show that good work makes a good article. Congratulations! RandFreeman (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)


### Comments
Thank you for your feedback! I started addressing the issues you've noted so far:
I organized the synopsis into volumes and expanded the summary of vol 7.
I revised the "English translation" section -- your proposed rewrite wasn't what I meant, but I hope the new version is clearer.
I think I disagree about the "style" section. All of the information is about the work's literary form: a first-person narrative, with classical unities, a found manuscript trope, and loosely-connected episodes rather than an overarching plot (specifically, loosely-collected failures, possibly shaped by the publication in installments). I think it all belongs together, and "style" is the conventional name for the section which gives interpretation about things other than "themes". It could be renamed to "form" or "structure", though, if that strikes you as better...? I just don't think it belongs in the same place as the current "analysis" material, which is fundamentally about the novel's content.
Let me know if you have additional concerns about any of those, or anything else that should be addressed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
As for point #3 I think that "Form" would be a better name for the section. RandFreeman (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)