Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Country Wife

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Country Wife[edit]

Self-nom, 17th-century-cruft. A literary classic that's been offending right-thinking people since 1675. Bishonen | Talk 23:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • A example of literary cruft at its finest; support. My only complaint is the repetition of the early quote dismissing The Country Girl in favor of The Country Wife; I would hope a replacement could be found for the second instance of it. Everyking 00:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, I'm keeping an eye out, but very, very little has been said about The Country Girl at all. Maybe I should just lose the quote in one of the places. Glad you like the cruft! :-) Bishonen | Talk 00:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm not sure I'd consider this "cruft"; it's just one more example of a work of art that suffered ignomnity due to changing tastes & shifting ethics. But the facts in the case are quite admirably set forth. -- llywrch 01:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: I have not contributed to this article, at least not a word of any contributions I ever made remains, as Bishonen has done a 100% rewrite. I think the anecdotes thing really is a bit of a tin can tied to the cat's tail, and I'd as soon see it gone (not that it isn't a good anecdote, but the article doesn't really admit of any anecdotes). Honestly, this article sets the bar very high for us other litgeeks. Geogre 03:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Geogre, you must have a cache issue, it is gone. Bishonen | Talk 03:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I see that. Comments amended. Geogre 15:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, great stuff. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:31, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Of course. mark 08:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent work. Though "The few modern critics who have read Garrick's version typically dismiss it as "sentimental and boring, where The Country Wife is astringent and provocative"." is used twice. RickK 07:52, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article, just the kind of stuff I'd really like to see on the Main Page. I especially like the inclusion of sections on the original actors and modern criticism. Tobyox 07:59, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, and more like it, please. Filiocht 08:24, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, I read this when it was discussed on the IRC channel. Definately worthy.  ALKIVAR 11:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Enjoyed reading the article. very comprehensive. kaal 21:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Fantastic article. I shall re-read the original with new eyes and understanding! Giano 21:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: Lucid, erudite stuff. --Theo (Talk) 00:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support jguk 21:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Ganymead 01:43, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) Too bad we don't have more people like you working on theatre entries!