297:
230:
239:), while the hook makes a certain one. DYK tends to prefer, as it is, a much more direct correspondence between hook and article than this. We could make the article more certain if justified, try a "has been considered" variant, or would you prefer a hook based around Loshe's thoughts it could still be the longest over a century later?
236:
Writing in 1958, scholar Lillie Deming Loshe considered it the longest work of early
American fiction and possibly longer than any other since. There are no other works of American fiction comparable in scope, length, and complexity until the Littlepage Manuscripts trilogy by James Fenimore Cooper
233:
New enough for DYK, and I won't bother you with the length. A truly fascinating article, by the looks of it already at FAC -- well-deserved, I think. My query is about whether the hook is exactly represented in it. The article's body makes an attributed statement
281:
93:
257:
Thank for reviewing my nomination! I see what you are saying about the difference in wording and I think it would be best to go the "has been considered" route. How about this alternate wording?
280:
And thank you for the compliments on the quality of the article! Since it looks like you have already read through it, would you be willing to leave some comments on its
329:
88:
216:
36:
188:
180:, published in London in 1825, enjoys the distinction of being the longest work in early American fiction, if not in all American fiction..."
17:
300:
Happy with ALT1. I can't guarantee FAC commentary -- haven't been great at keeping up with reviews lately -- but I'll see :)
44:
40:
306:
245:
143:
266:
161:
83:
173:
289:
208:
113:
301:
240:
118:
272:
167:
285:
204:
103:
211:). Self-nominated at 03:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom
212:
65:
220:
323:
98:
29:
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below.
296:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
229:
223:
this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
61:
123:
284:? The nomination is a little over a week old and still in need of reviews.
47:), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page.
275:
has been considered the longest work of early
American fiction?
217:
Template talk:Did you know nominations/Brother
Jonathan (novel)
196:: Thank you in advance for reviewing my literary nomination!
148:
108:
170:is the longest work of early American fiction?
8:
49:No further edits should be made to this page
71:
330:Passed DYK nominations from October 2023
189:Template:Did you know nominations/Nikova
178:Brother Jonathan, or the New-Englanders
74:
235:
7:
68: 12:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
24:
45:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Did you know
18:Template:Did you know nominations
295:
228:
292:) 20:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify this page.
1:
311:04:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
250:12:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
37:this nomination's talk page
346:
119:Find sources (notability)
94:Earwig's Copyvio Detector
135:Brother Jonathan (novel)
41:the article's talk page
282:current FAC nomination
109:A Simple Word Counter
89:Reviewer instructions
237:twenty years later.
172:Source: Page 93 of
114:Reviewers' template
224:
205:Dugan Murphy
181:
132:
131:
337:
299:
267:Brother Jonathan
232:
202:
171:
162:Brother Jonathan
72:
56:The result was:
34:
345:
344:
340:
339:
338:
336:
335:
334:
320:
319:
318:
155:
153:
149:Article history
137:
128:
104:Character count
69:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
343:
341:
333:
332:
322:
321:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
278:
277:
276:
252:
251:
213:will be logged
200:
199:
198:
197:
191:
152:
151:
146:
144:Back to T:TDYK
140:
138:
136:
133:
130:
129:
127:
126:
121:
116:
111:
106:
101:
96:
91:
86:
80:
77:
76:
54:
53:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
342:
331:
328:
327:
325:
310:
309:
305:
304:
298:
294:
293:
291:
287:
283:
279:
274:
270:
269:
268:
262:
259:
258:
256:
255:
254:
253:
249:
248:
244:
243:
238:
231:
227:
226:
225:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
195:
192:
190:
186:
183:
182:
179:
175:
169:
165:
164:
163:
157:
156:
150:
147:
145:
142:
141:
134:
125:
122:
120:
117:
115:
112:
110:
107:
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:
92:
90:
87:
85:
82:
81:
79:
78:
73:
70:
67:
63:
59:
52:
50:
46:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
307:
302:
286:Dugan Murphy
265:
264:
260:
246:
241:
201:
193:
184:
177:
160:
159:
57:
55:
48:
31:
28:
263:: ... that
219:; consider
203:Created by
124:Hook length
75:DYK toolbox
303:Vaticidal
273:John Neal
242:Vaticidal
174:this book
168:John Neal
158:... that
99:QPQ check
84:DYK check
324:Category
221:watching
185:Reviewed
58:promoted
308:prophet
247:prophet
207: (
194:Comment
176:says "
64:
62:97198
16:<
290:talk
261:ALT1
209:talk
66:talk
271:by
215:at
166:by
60:by
43:or
326::
187::
139:(
39:,
288:(
234:(
154:)
51:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
