Wikipedia:Peer review/Thoughts on the Education of Daughters/archive1

Thoughts on the Education of Daughters edit

This is a work on education by Mary Wollstonecraft. I am aiming to take it to FAC in the future (part of my Wollstonecraft "featured topic" endeavor). Any comments towards that end and with regards to accessibility would be much appreciated. Awadewit | talk 23:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4u1e's comments

MIght be useful to review the lead as a summary of the main article. At first glance there is some material in the lead that does not appear elsewhere.

I have added material on the popularity of the conduct book in the "Genre" section. Awadewit | talk 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What forced Wollstonecraft to close her school in the late 1780s? It may not have any relevance; I think it was just the use of the word 'forced' together with Wollstonecraft now being thought of as a feminist that made me wonder if there was anything to it.

Added "due to financial difficulties" (it didn't have anything to do with her views on women, as far as I know). Awadewit | talk 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first para of 'Structure and composition' seems to be more about Wollstonecraft's origins as a writer (first para) and a summary of the book (second para) than the composition of this specific book - I agree that this is relevant, but should it be under this heading? The summary of the book (second para) doesn't feel to me like a 'structure', but that may be my unfamiliarity with articles on books.

Kind of you to say "that may be my unfamiliarity" when really it was my poor organization. I have moved the material that briefly describes the book (the equivalent of the "plot summary") to the "Genre" section, although perhaps it should be in its own section ("Overview"?). I have moved the generalized comments about Wollstonecraft as an educator to the "Pedagogical theory" section and renamed the section "Biographical background". Let me know if you think these are improvements. Awadewit | talk 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I like the revised version. I think probably you are right to suggest that the 'plot summary' should be in a separate section, rather than being included with 'Genre'.4u1e 12:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separated. Awadewit | talk 01:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'liberal publisher' Joseph Johnson - would it be useful to have slightly more background on this man? How 'radical' was this book (i.e. how small 'l' liberal did Johnson have to be to publish it?) Are readers going to get liberal confused with Liberal? Have I got the two confused?

I have described Johnson as her friend and publisher now, skirting the "liberal" problem. His liberalism was not relevant to his publication of Thoughts, although it was relevant to his support of Wollstonecraft as a writer. Awadewit | talk 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Theater going' - US or UK English? The subject matter would suggest the latter, although no doubt someone will inform me that 'theater' was normal (or at least acceptable!) UK English in the 19th century ;-) (On further reading, I've spotted 'favorably' as well. Strictly speaking the article should be in UK English, which wouldn't really involve many changes.....)

I speak AE, so it is easier for me to write that way. Since I am (sadly) the sole editor of the page, I think it is easier to leave it as AE. That way the article won't constantly be in a state of dialectical flux. Awadewit | talk 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. One thought, though: I know Wikipedia articles are never 'finished', but since you are the sole editor, it is likely that once you get this to FA standard (as I'm sure you will) it will be pretty stable. You could fairly easily convert it to UK English at that point. In this case I think it's only a matter of spellings (or > our, ize > ise er > re), since you're writing in a formal style and idiom is not likely to be an issue. Happy to help if you wish to do this. 4u1e 09:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is very kind of you. Unfortunately, the articles I work on tend not to be "finished", even in a loose sense after FA. Since I am constantly researching the topics I have written articles on, I often find a better way to discuss something or a new article or book that should be included. Most of my projects are truly ongoing, especially since most of the people and texts I am writing about are so interconnected. I hope, as I learn more, to make those connections clearer. I would hate to bother you every time I made a major change to an article I was working on (I really only write about British events, people and texts). :) Awadewit | talk 09:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're in the ideal position to learn another language (i.e. UK English!) :). I tend to be sensitive to the varieties of English used in articles, (probably through continuously having to revert 'tire' to 'tyre'...), but it's your call. 4u1e 11:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little uncomfortable with the shifts in tense: I can see that Wollstonecraft's life should be in the past tense, while the 'aims' of the book (if a book can have aims :S) should be in present tense, since it still exists. However, phrases like "In her later works, Wollstonecraft repeatedly returns to the topics" feel to me as if they should be in the past tense, since we are talking about the woman, not the specific works. Again - this may be a convention for this kind of writing.

I have tried to standardize the verbs to the "biographical past" and the "literary present". Awadewit | talk 22:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really picky: "At the end of the 18th Century" (Beginning of the 'Genre' section) implies only the final decade or so to me. Since we're talking about the final quarter century, would "In the last quarter of the 18th century" be more accurate? Or some other wording?

That section now has specific dates and I have made other references more precise. Awadewit | talk 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"More recently, a few scholars have argued...." - It would be nice to know how much more recently. Is this a 1960s/70s phenomenon, as many will assume?

I have just deleted the unnecessary temporal reference. Awadewit | talk 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"These scholars therefore see..." It's not clear to me how one gets from seeing Wollstonecraft as a proto-feminist to seeing Thoughts drawing on several different literary traditions. The link may need to be expanded (Or I may just be missing the point! ;))

I have expanded this explanation. Let me know if it is clearer now. Awadewit | talk 04:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearer now. 4u1e 12:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under 'Education of women', the final sentence of the first para ("Unfortunately, by envisioning a masculine role for women, one that they could not actually perform in the public sphere, Wollstonecraft leaves women without much of a place in society") sounds like an authorial view. Whose view is it? Kelly's (in which case, could it be attributed?) Or is that the generally held view, in which case it should be re-worded. In any case, probably a good idea to lose the word 'Unfortunately' as it tends to set off those of us with our POV-meters turned up to 11.

I have replaced "unfortunately" with "however". Awadewit | talk 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but can you confirm that the view expressed is genuinely a consensus one? It just feels quite 'individual' to me. Sorry to be a pain! 4u1e 09:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked back in a few of my sources. Only Kelly makes the explicit connection to the professional man (as far as I can tell at this moment), although all of my sources emphasize how Wollstonecraft's view of femininity in Thoughts is limiting and confining to some degree or another. The question, I think, is whether this idea merits mention in the text as "belonging" to Kelly. Since it is only a comparison used to make the same larger point as other writers, I would tend not to think so. Your question, by the way, is one that I wrestle with for almost every sentence. Attributing everyone's idea to them can have deleterious consequences on an article because it will start to sound like "X says...Y argues in response...However, Z maintains..." I am struggling with precisely this problem at Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman, for example. It is the bane of literature articles. Awadewit | talk 10:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest perhaps re-writing the sentence as the more general version of the comment about the worldview being limiting and confining, then. Your call, obviously, but that sentence just has a strong 'feel' of an individual view, which may set the spider senses of other reviewers tingling. 4u1e 11:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although having read it again just now it doesn't seem like so much of a problem! That may just be increasing familiarity with the article though.... 4u1e 12:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I have done is attribute Kelly's quote in that sentence to him - that should cover the sentence. I have also added a phrase to the next sentence, making the "confining" bit clearer. Awadewit | talk 01:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works better for me! 4u1e 08:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next para: "Thoughts was insistent". Thoughts is usually referred to elsewhere in the article in the present tense ("Thoughts advocates...", "Thoughts follows..."). Why is it different here?

Fixed. Awadewit | talk 22:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the author or the work (I know, philistine....) but this seems quite comprehensive. A few thoughts on elements that might be added:

-Did the re-printed book have any influence in the 1970s (other than widening academic study of Wollstonecraft's work)? Given its content, it seems unlikely, but the influence of The Art of War in modern management seems pretty unlikely too!

As far as I know, the book had no modern impact beyond contributing to our knowledge about eighteenth-century British women writers and Mary Wollstonecraft. Awadewit | talk 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, then. 4u1e 09:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-I tend to get overly hung up on why and how things got started, and on that level I don't get much sense from this article of why Wollstonecraft wrote this book at that time. There is a hint in the lead ("Wollstonecraft took advantage of this burgeoning market to publish Thoughts") but nothing more. Was it such a deliberate, market led decision?

Yes, it would seem that she wrote for the market. I have tried to suggest this more clearly in the "Biographical background" section and in the "Reception" section. Awadewit | talk 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good - clearer now. 4u1e 08:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Is it normal in articles on books to give chapter headings? Might give another form of summary of the content.

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow what you mean. Would you clarify? Awadewit | talk 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! It was meant as a suggestion: Would it be useful to give a list of chapter headings? One possible advantage of doing so is that it might (depending on what the headings are) give the reader a different or supplementary view of the structure and content of the book. 4u1e 09:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather expand on the summary of Thoughts by adding another paragraph rather than by adding a list. Let me know if you think the current description of the text is too spare and I will augment it. Awadewit | talk 09:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It 'feels' sparse, but I haven't read the book. If the book really has a structure, this could be described further. Are themes and arguments developed in any particular way, or is it simply a set of chapter headings on different topics? 4u1e 12:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book is basically a set of loosely-linked chapters. However, I will add some more detail to this description so that the readers has a better idea of what it is exactly. Awadewit | talk 01:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you have done with this - I've got a clearer idea of what the book is now. 4u1e 18:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I don't have the sources, but I'm a little suspicious of the article's unanimity of view on Woolstonecraft. The only area in which different views are expressed is that of the book's radicalism. Are scholars really so in agreement on the books influences and themes?

I actually tried to present the consensus opinions, as that is how I interpret wikipedia's idea of "encyclopedic". The alternative views on the conduct book and the text's radicalness are there because they are important minority opinions. (There are only a handful of scholars who have written on this text, anyway. I am fearful of making disagreements between ten or fifteen people sound like different schools of thought. This is in contrast to the works of Jane Austen or John Locke, for example, whose texts have been interpreted by thousands of people.) Awadewit | talk 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - I just wondered if the consensus was so even. If everyone's generally in agreement (without blowing up minor differences to something they're not!) then I think your approach is right. 4u1e 09:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that's helpful. It's been an educational read! Please contact me if (when...) you find any of the above unclear. Cheers. ;-) 4u1e 15:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Your comments are helpful, indeed. Awadewit | talk 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One new comment: You've got a repetition of "The Angel in the House" in the second para of 'Genre'. 4u1e 12:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - one is the concept and one is the name of the poem (the concept was named after the poem). Awadewit | talk 01:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the second mention also says that the term has become a shorthand for the concept, virtually a repeat of the first mention. I think :S 4u1e 08:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revised. Awadewit | talk 15:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've addressed all the points I raised - good work and good luck with the FAC process! 4u1e 18:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated Peer Review edit

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 17:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

karanacs comments edit

I don't normally review articles about literary works, so I am not familiar with the wikipedia standards for those articles. I reviewed this primarily from the standpoint of a regular reader. Overall, I though the article was informative and well-written. I only found a few minor things to correct.

I would remove "However" from the 2nd sentence of Biographical background section

I need some sort of word there that demonstrates a contrast between her attempting to run the school and it failing. Do you think it would be better if I joined the first two sentences together with a "but"? Awadewit | talk 20:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need the sentence about Johnson helping her to find rooms in the city and becoming a close friend unless you mean to imply that the only reason he bought the rights to the book was to help her.

Johnson may very well have bought the rights only in order to help her out. Very few of Johnson's records are left and none from that period. Some of the scholarship on Wollstonecraft suggests that Johnson purchased several of her works out of charity, but none of them make a strong claim for that. Let me know what you think I should do. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't include external links in the body of the article. There is an external link to a poem. Instead, link to the wikipedia article for that poem, which already includes an external link to the gutenburg project

Changed. Awadewit | talk 20:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! Karanacs 14:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Awadewit | talk 20:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]