Talk:Brook Farm/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I will be reviewing your article Brook Farm for GA and posting comments below. It looks like a very interesting article, and please don't interpret my comments are criticisms. Glancing through it, I do not see major problems. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

My initial comments are the following:

• In the opening sentence, you should orient the reader by saying where this occurred, eg in in 1840s in the United States (or whatever). Transcendentalism is probably not going to be meaningful to many non US reader. If you moved Massachusetts into the first sentence, that would be ok too.

I did a lot of work in the lead based on your points (leads are not my strong suit) - take another look and let me know what you think! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• joint stock company - I'm not clear of the implications of this, or how Brook Farm differs from a Private company.

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Could you clarify? --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Nathaniel Hawthorne had been a founding member of Brook Farm" - Should be "Hawthorne was" as "had been" sounds like he was a founding member but at some point no longer was.

True! Fixed. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Brook Farm, as it would be called, based on the ideals of Transcendentalism; its founders believed that by pooling labor they could sustain the community and still have time for literary and scientific pursuits." - this first part is not a complete sentence so a semicolon is not correct punctuation.

Fixed. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• "The experiment meant to serve as an example..." - The experiment was meant to serve

Fixed this too! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Brook Farm was one of about 84 communal experiments active throughout the 1840s, though it was the first to be secular." Think you should say "one of 84", or "one of over 80", or even "one of approximately 84"

I agree with you, and went with the "approximately 84" suggestion. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• secular - wikilink at the very least

Good point. Done! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• As he said, "If wisely executed, it will be a light over this country and this age. If not the sunrise, it will be the morning star". - Here the punctuation needs to be inside the quotes, as it is part of his statement.

I'm not sure that's the complete quote... I have a feeling it continues from there. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• The section Beginnings is somewhat repetitious and out of sequence. eg

Ripley and his wife Sophia formed a joint stock company in 1841 along with 10 other initial investors.

The start-up community was made up of 10 investors;

The Ripleys chose to begin their experiment at a dairy farm - is this after the 10 initial investor?

They began raising money, including holding a meeting at Peabody's book shop to raise $10,000 for the farm's initial purchase - is this after the 10 initial investors?

I fixed the repetition, I think. And the sequence is correct: The investors came first, then the site was chosen, then the money was raised. It's a confusing sequence, but that's what it was. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Also, there is unnecessary use of passive voice, eg

Shares of the company were sold - who did the selling?

Margaret Fuller was invited to Brook - who did the inviting?

I fixed the first. Not sure how you might recommend clarifying the second: she was invited to the community by the community. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• One of the initial founders of Brook Farm was author Nathaniel Hawthorne. Hawthorne did not particularly agree with the ideals of the experiment, hoping only that it would help him raise enough money to begin his life with his wife-to-be Sophia Peabody. She considered moving there as well and even visited in May 1841, though Hawthorne sent her away. - Why did he send her away?
• You say in the lede that Hawthorne did not strongly believe in the community's ideals. However, in the article you only quote him: He wrote of his displeasure with the community: "even my Custom House experience was not such a thraldom and weariness; my mind and heart were freer.....Thank God, my soul is not utterly buried under a dung-heap." - I'm not clear where his disagreement is with the community's ideals, although after reading further down in the article, Fourier inspiration I can suspect.

Hawthorne definitely did not agree with the ideals, and never had any interest in them. He was not a Transcendentalist, for example. The quote is not meant to back that up, but just to show his displeasure. How can I make this clearer? --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Should not some of the material in Fourier inspiration come before the section above it? Some of it occurred before the Beginnings. It explains the philosophy behind the beginnings, which is helpful for understanding the material in Beginnings.

Not sure why. The Fourier stuff is a very distinct period in Brook Farm, separate from the Transcendental period. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Decline and dissolution - Is it the closer adherence to Fourier that inspired the restructuring? What causes such "retrenchments", or sacrifices"?

The restructuring was the Fourier adherence. I think the retrenchment part is clearer now too. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• "George Ripley, who had begun the experiment, made an unofficial break with Brook Farm in May 1846" - what is an "unofficial break"?

He wasn't there any more, but he still was a part owner - at least, that's my guess. I'll look into it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the info in Landscape and facilities seems like it should be part of the history of the community. The order of events is not clear. We get a devastating picture of retrenchments and sacrifices before we learn of more prosperous times such as: "As the community grew, it became necessary to add more buildings for lodgings and various activities. The first building constructed was "The Nest", where school lessons took place and where guests of the farm would stay. Mr. and Mrs. Ripley's house, later to be called the Eyrie, was built during the second year."

I'm not sure I agree about folding this info into the history. There was never a prosperous time in the history of Brook Farm; I didn't mean to imply that. In fact, the end of that section shows that the construction was another financial blow. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Since George Ripley seems to be the force behind this social experiment, perhaps you could include some information on the force of his personality, that he was able to convince others to participate.

I can look into it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• The quotes in the article are interesting in conveying the flavor of the times, but they do not explain much. I think the article would benefit from some clear explanation of events, personalities etc.

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Which quotes are you referring to? Which events or personalities should be explained? --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I look forward to further help in tweaking this article! --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec} Comments I am wondering about the structure of the article. Are you following a specified structure for that type of article? I ask, because it is a great story but the article structure snaps the continuity, so that it is only in retrospect that the reader can piece it together.

Because of the edit conflict, some of my comments above were lost. I will read through again, to answer your questions. The —Mattisse (Talk) 23:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Joint stock company question is regarding its use as a legal term, since it seems to be an Australian/UK legal entity, rather than American.

Regarding this, not sure where you got the idea it was Australian/UK only. The article here on Wikipedia does talk about those countries, but it clearly is not comprehensive. Brook Farm is always referred to as a "joint stock company". --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "always". You mean scholarly articles written today on Brook Farm refer to it as thus? Older articles, and even newer articles on a subject, often repeat information that is not necessary true if the article is not on a topic on which new information is frequently researched and published. Since it is a legal term, apparently of Australian/UK use, just wanted to check. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Err, okay... references to Brook Farm as a "joint stock company": Hankins, 34; Packer, 155; Felton, 124; Crowe, 142; Golemba, 84... all printed in the United States. See also this and this. I don't see how this is incorrect. Where did you get the idea that a joint stock company is only in the UK/Australia? Let me clear up the confusion: a joint stock company is a company which is jointly-owned by people who purchase stock in that company. Country is irrelevant. I don't believe this term is a controversial one to use in relation to Brook Farm. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Personalities - primarily George Ripley, since (I am guessing) it appears to be largely his energy behind the endevor. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict. Ripley was the founder, so he certainly played a big role. As far as structure or organization of the article, I'm not using any set model and, in fact, I re-worked it a couple times. I'm not sold that this is 100% the best way to go, so I'd welcome suggestions to improve! --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• The links http://www.nr.nps.gov/ and http://www.isi.org/journals/archive/issue.aspx?id=31672594-2837-4440-92eb-d77f73fe6aed don't go anywhere useful. I tried to search on http://www.nr.nps.gov/ but apparently didn't input correct info. The article is written as if the place still exists and you are describing it. It is a historical site? (I will think about the article structure more. I contains a lot of info in it.) So far, the lede is improved. Do you think it follows WP:LEAD? —Mattisse (Talk) 23:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the lead is an improvement; I'm sure it can go further. The site still exists as a registered historic landmark (or the like) but I'm not sure the "NPS refnum" (or whatever it was) is necessary. I'm sure a historic site nut will find something more relevant eventually. The other source seemed very irrelevant (regarding a mention of Brook Farm in a movie) and qualified as trivia so I removed it too. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think you should decide if this article is about the Brook Farm, the historical site or what is left of it, and evidence of what went on there, or whether it is about George Ripley and his movement, magazine etc.. Much of the info about Ripley is word for word from the article on him. In this article you could either expand on the social movement, what it entailed, and show how it related to the activities on the Brook Farm, its history, why people disagreed and left, why it failed etc. Or you could concentration on the activities at Brook Farm, how the work of women was different, when buildings were built etc. As it is, the article is not focused. What is your opinion on this? —Mattisse (Talk) 04:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you really get the impression this article is trying to be about a historical site?? Today, it's just acres of cemetery and one decrepit boarded-up building which is barely standing. I don't see how the article is going in that direction. The article is on Brook Farm and, as such, covers all of Brook Farm, from its founding by Ripley (if the articles sound similar it's because I wrote them both and the subject matter is quite intertwined), its history (including the journal it produced), its role as a (limited) social movement and its philosophies (i.e. role of women), its failure, and what happened to the property when it was over. This is all quite focused on Brook Farm, yet it still tries to be comprehensive. It was a movement, tied to a place, based on philosophies. Do you find the info on the historical site distracting? There's like a couple sentences on it, at max. --Midnightdreary (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• OK. That's why I asked. Perhaps if you set forth clearly in the lede what that article is covering, that will help you to focus. As it is, most of the article is not mentioned in the lede. I wish I knew more about the social movement behind Brook Farm. Nothing on Wikipedia really explains the social philosophy (that I can find). The dicttionary says Focaultism is about a rigid form of social organizations in phalanxes. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit baffled: Where do you feel the article strays? You might be confused in trying to find "the social movement behind Brook Farm"? Brook Farm is the movement. Perhaps the lead just needs a short paragraph explaining their philosophies; that seems to be the only major section not deeply represented in the lead. --Midnightdreary (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would help. Just concentration on Brook Farm, and the social movement as it pertains to the farm. I can tell (I think) that your real interest in this article is describing Brooks Farm! —Mattisse (Talk) 06:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I still feel the lede does not reflect the article. The lede presents a picture of a relatively uncomplicated community beginning, based on Transcendental ideals, that declined rapidly after the building burned down. The article says the decline began before the building burned, but does not explain why.
• "To save money, "retrenchments", or sacrifices, were called for, particularly at the dinner table.[30] Meat, coffee, tea, and butter were no longer offered, though it was agreed that a separate table with meat be allowed in December 1844." - this is a very dramatic few sentences that not only is not reflected in the lede, it is not reflected at all in the very large section Life at Brook Farm. How Brook Farm arrived in this state is not explained. (You say above that this was the situation before the building burned.)
• I see this article as having a split personality. There is the pastoral description of the farm under Life at Brook Farm and there is the complex philosophical/political issues discussed under History. These two large subjects do not seem to be integrated enough to be in the same article currently.
• The external links you have added give a very interesting and far more complex description, and less idealized, of the situation described in the Life at Brook Farm section. (However, the link Brook Farm at transcendentalists.com, provides several links to primary source accounts of Brook Farm - seems to mostly go to "page not found"s.) —Mattisse (Talk) 19:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You think that the fact that they saved money on meat should be in the lede? I think that might be a bit too small of a detail. I really don't know how to address the perceived "split personality"; it all seems fairly easy to follow for me. You might be missing that life, work, leisure, and philosophy were all one and the same at Brook Farm. If you don't agree, I'd respectfully request a second opinion. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No. That is not what I meant at all. I was using that as an example of the disjoint I experience between reading the lede and then the rest of the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help your perception. I don't feel this is actionable unless there is more specificity. As it stands, with some addition tweaks I just made, I feel the lead accurately follows WP:LEAD. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am struck by how the lede and the different sections vary. From the lede:

The community was never financially stable. By 1844, the Brook Farmers adopted a societal model based on the socialist concepts of Charles Fourier and began publishing The Harbinger as an unofficial journal promoting Fourierism. Following his vision, the community members began building an ambitious structure called the Phalanstery. When the uninsured building was destroyed in a fire, the community was financially devastated and never recovered.

Ok. So the community failed because the building burned down. Although "community was never financially stable", this is never explained in the article under Life at Brook Farm where the reader expects to learn the ins and outs of how this community actually functioned and what led to its downfall. Instead we get what sounds like an idealized view from a brochure. Examples:

• "Participants at Brook Farm were also shareholders and were promised five percent of the annual profits or free tuition for one student. In exchange for 300 days of work per year, they were granted free room and board.[1] Members performed whatever work most appealed to them and all, including women, were paid equal wages."
• "Every week everyone in the community would gather at The Hive for a dance of the young ladies of the community. They would wear wreaths of wild daisies on top of their heads, and each week a special wreath, bought from a florist, would be given to the best dressed girl."
• "The school was the most immediate (and at times the only) source of income for Brook Farm and attracted students as far away as Cuba and the Philippines.[14] Children under twelve were charged three-and-a-half dollars per week and, at first, boys over twelve were charged four dollars a week and girls were charged five; by August 1842, the rates were made identical, regardless of gender.[48] Adult education was also available in the evenings."
• "At Brook Farm, women had the opportunity to expand beyond their typical sphere of tasks and their labor was highly valued.[62] They did have tasks that were typical of other women at the time such as simple food preparation, and shared housekeeping. However, during the harvest time women were allowed to work in the fields and men even helped out with laundry during the cold weather. One of the best things for women at Brook Farm was that no single religion could impose its beliefs on the community. This kept women safe from the typical patriarchy associated with religion at the time. Women also played an important role in providing sources of income to the community. Many devoted time to making, as Brook Farmer Marianne Dwight described, "elegant and tasteful caps, capes, collars, undersleeves, etc., etc.," for sale at shops in Boston.[62] Women were allowed to go to school and because of the well known education of women at Brook Farm, many female writers and performers visited the farm. George Ripley’s wife Sophia, who had written an outspoken feminist essay for The Dial on "Woman" before moving to Brook Farm,[63] was very educated and was able to teach history and foreign languages at the farm."
• The reader gets only small hints of problems. Examples:
• Hawthorne, eventually elected treasurer of the community, did not enjoy his experience."
• Despite multiple sources of income, the community was in constant debt almost immediately after it began." (Why??)

• The only substantial remarks come under Criticism which is presented as the outside POV of those not actually living on the farm. For example, of Emerson's criticism the article says, "He also questioned the idealism of the community, particularly its optimism that all members would equally share responsibility and workload." However, you have already stated in Life at Brook Farm > Women at Brook Farm what the situation actually was. The material in the section Women at Brook Farm is not presented as a POV but reality. Also, reading the links under External links that you provide, I see what seems to be a much more balanced and realistic description that is at variance with the beautiful view presented under Life at the Farm. Reading the descriptions under External links, it becomes very plausible why they failed. Good reasons are given.

• In summary, this article is not balanced. It presents a historical section that appears relatively neutral. Then the large section about life on the farm is idealistic, out of Mary Poppins, but is not presented as such but as a description of farm life. The relative short section on Criticism is back to the more neutral tone of the History section. If you are unwilling to consider the problem that I see here, and evaluate it, then I can go ahead and fail it, you can contest it at GAR. Sorry, but that is my evaluation, whether or not you consider it "actionable". —Mattisse (Talk) 01:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

—Mattisse (Talk) 01:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Indications of its difficulties (financial and otherwise) are throughout the article: Under "Fourier inspiration", it mentions "the community was struggling to be self-sufficient" and some "were less enthusiastic and some left the commune altogether"; there's a whole section on "Decline and dissolution", which notes "Brook Farm began to decline rapidly after its restructuring", someone notes the atmosphere as "horrible", that sacrifices had to be made to make money, that the community was hit with a breakout of small pox... and then there's the fire and a debt of over $17,000; under "Landscape and facilities", it shows that construction projects were a financial drain; under "Work and finances", I added "Despite multiple sources of income, the community was in constant debt almost immediately after it began". It seems, to me, to pretty accurately convey all the problems. How many times can I say, "They didn't make money" without pinpointing a date? If "Life at Brook Farm" seems idealistic, remember that this is told from the POV of the Brook Farmers — and they were, after all, a bunch of hippies. That's why the Criticism section comes in to show other POVs.

Please don't outright fail this article. I have already asked you to request a second opinion. I would hope you would be willing to consider that option in good faith. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I am taking your criticism seriously. I have incorporated a more centralized discussion of their finances, appropriately under the "Work and finances" subsection. This might just clear things up; let me know if it does. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)
• Comment - Smallpox, losing money etc is part of the split personality. There are sections of the article that are fine (other than copy editing issues) and contain a realistic NPOV version, such as those examples you give. My objection is to the overly rosy section Life on the Farm (a large section in the article) when you give many specifics and where, as I said above, the reader expects to learn what happened on a day-to-day basis to explain how this experiment failed. Repeating that they were losing money over and over without saying why or how, when you are so specific about community members who "wear wreaths of wild daisies on top of their heads, and each week a special wreath, bought from a florist, would be given to the best dressed girl" is incongruous and POV. And the words, "Less enthusiastic" as a description of negative member attitudes does not seem like a euphemism to you? At this point, I have to question the impartiality of your sources for the Life on the Farm section.

• Failing is not the end of the world. You can immediately nominate it again at GAN. Or you can go to GAR (I would not recommend that as a fast route.) I am sorry. I have reviewed at least 20 to 30 articles in the past couple of months and only failed a very small proportion, and that usually because the editor went missing. But the sort of POV as is occurring in the Life at Brook Farm section, incongruous with the rest of the article, is impermissible. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• I will look at your changes and evaluate. I think overall the article is very interesting and would like to see you integrate it more so it can pass. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You still talk about failing. End of the world or not, I will again request that you ask for a second opinion before failing. I know you're not at that stage yet, but please consider this. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I said that I would hold off as long as you are willing to consider my comments. The second decision option does not work for me, as two times that has resulted in going to GAR, which went my way, but nonetheless I am unwilling to risk that time-wasting sinkhole again. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm still with ya and I'm doing what I can. Not sure what kind of negative info I can add to balance that Leisure subsection though. I think the article now does a pretty good job showing all the difficulties and woes the community suffered. Quick question: this is currently listed as a Philosophy GAC; would it be more sensible under Social sciences and society / Culture and society? The description says it is for "Cultural and social studies; Cultural phenomena, movements and subcultures; Cultural symbols and objects; Internet culture; Organizations, members and cultural events; Peoples and cultural groups." Brook Farm, I think, is more of a social movement than philosophical. --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not good at figuring out Wikipedia's thinking on these matters. Transcendentalism is in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spirituality, Charles Fourier is under Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy, but since you are describing a real world happening, I don't know. (Brook Farm is already claimed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planning). We could ask a higher authority, as I agree "Philosophy" doesn't quite cover it. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it doesn't matter unless you list it again and in that case probably another section than "Philosophy" would be better, for the sole reason that I've noticed that reviewers seem to shy away from that section. I agree that Social sciences and society / Culture and society seems more accurate. As far as the article is concerned, the categories you have chosen are good. When it passes, I will list it in a GA section with the edit summary "think it goes here but maybe I'm wrong". That edit summary always brings immediate attention to someone who changes it to a more appropriate section, if that is needed. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

• Under Life at Brook Farm > Work and finances, you say that "There were some occasional conflicts between different workers, partly because those who were educators believed themselves somewhat aristocratic." In another section, you state of Hawthorne: Later, he wrote to his wife-to-be Sophia Peabody, "labor is the curse of the world, and nobody can meddle with it without becoming proportionately brutified". Should not this go under Work and finances as it explains, perhaps what "somewhat aristocratic" means?

Not really. I think it explains more about Hawthorne's dissatisfaction; he definitely wasn't responding to the aristocratic mentality and putting it there would deceitfully imply that he was. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Somewhat" is one of those weasel words to be avoided.

Good call. I dropped that one. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Section heading should be short and not repeat the article title (as in Life at Brook Farm, Women at Brook Farm. etc. Leisure time can be simply Leisure. See MoS Section headings.

Mostly done. I'm torn on "Life at Brook Farm"... it seems odd to just name it "Life". "Life in the community"? "Life and community"? Advice is welcome. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Does After Brook Farm need to be a main heading? It contains so little information to be a main heading in the article.

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "After Brook Farm"... No, it doesn't need to be a main heading... but hopefully this section will expand as it nears FA quality. I actually did that by accident originally but it sort of makes sense. There are 150 years of history that were glossed over there so it has the potential to be a larger section, which might justify the heading. I think it's fine this way, unless you strongly disagree. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Responses

• Re heading: how about Community life or Commune life or Daily life, etc.?
• Re aristocrat and Hawthorne. It seems beyond worth stating that an aristocrat would not like doing daily manual labor on par with others. However, Hawthorne's statement does describe a very understandable reason why many might have disliked living there. Believing in the health and spiritual benefit of daily manual labor is quite different from actually having to do it to survive on a daily basis. The Transcendentalists were idealistic, and reality often did not measure up to their ideals. Thordeau's living in the woods at Walden Pond entailed going into town every morning. There is still not a very compelling account of why this "social experiment" failed. I would think the reality of why it did would be much more interesting than glossing over the reasons. The "indications" of why it failed should be portrayed under the "Life" section, unless the reasons it failed had nothing to do with the implementation of the experiment eg. hit by meteor or something. It did not fail for "social" reasons? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestions. I think I'll go with community life.

Placing Hawthorne's dissatisfaction next to the aristocratic complaint is, I believe, original research. I can't make that connection with reliable sources. Keep in mind that the only complaining participant was Hawthorne; the others loved it (as you might notice in the article). The community did not fail for its ideals, though some questioned the rigidity after its conversion to Fourierism. As the article is meant to convey, Brook Farm's failure was basically due to its economic/financial difficulties. If you ask my personal opinion, if about 50 more people joined the community, Brook Farm could have still been around by the turn of the century. So, no, Brook Farm did not fail for social or idealistic reasons. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Response

• It seems beyond worth stating that an aristocratic would not like living there. I think Queen Elizabeth would not either. I would advocate removing the aristocratic complaint as silly. Add some realistic ones. What were its economic/financial difficulties, other than the price of hay? Why could they not adjust and succeed as many farms did? I do not think it is realistic that everyone "loved" it, adhering to the schedule that you say was the case. It sounds like a description out of a children's book.

Beyond worth stating?? Either your basic understanding is incorrect or you're not paying attention. Not all of them were laborers. All participants chose their own work. Some were teachers, some shoe-makers, some journalists (hence the big discussion of The Harbinger... --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

O.K. Name the aristocrats there and describe their complaints. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My source did not name them specifically. Are you questioning my sources as not legitimate? It seems to pass WP:RS. Or are you suggesting that I'm making stuff up?? --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Other sources give different versions. For example, one of the links you gave at the end of the article said that women didn't have much "woman's work" to do because hardly any were married and there were almost no children, relatively little house work, etc. And that the population was relatively young. And there was something about the women being dissatisfied that there were not enough potential marriage partners. I would expect this article to address such issues also if it is going to get into an extended description of daily life and how wonderful and selfless it was.

You do know that this is a good article nominee, not a featured nominee? This is beyond the basic detail of a GA at this point. When it moves towards FA, I'll be sure to make it more detailed. There's even already a section for women at Brook Farm that I can expand. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You do know that I am volunteering for this? But no longer. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• You give no description of how decisions were made, what happened when people disagreed or misbehaved. What was the power structure there?

Read again, at least for decision-making. Misbehaving is an odd thing... these are adults, you know. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that must be why all the prisons, jails, courtrooms, fines, tickets etc. have disappeared from the world. If you think that adults never "misbehave", then you and I have a fundamentally different view of the world. If adults can do no wrong in your eyes, then I should not be reviewing this article. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You're looking for Brook Farmers to be criminals now. Why are you making that assumption? --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a way of ignoring and dodging issues and not responding to comments directly. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it seems dodgy. I'll respond more directly: I have not found any mention of how they dealt with people who misbehaved. I can keep looking but I know for sure that there was no courtroom or jail/prison on the site. But, I still don't know about the objection. You could have said, what did they do about when they were overrun by deer? That still makes an assumption (that they were overrun by deer). And, even if they were, if I haven't come across info on it, it implies it wasn't a major issue. I guess what I should have said was, "It didn't seem to be a major problem." In fact, there's a quote in there about how there was very little friction... --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• What happened after its conversion to Fourierism? Did daily life change? If so, how? Since this is one of your major tenets, I think this needs to be explained.

Uh, it's in there: "elaborate plans for specific structures and highly-organized roles of its members" ... "the new model was rigid and structured and different from the carefree aspects" --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what are "elaborate plans for specific structures and highly-organized roles of its members" ... "the new model was rigid and structured and different from the carefree aspects" -- what does this mean? In one description I read, it said that the original model of individuals only working when and how much they desired was dysfunctional as it turned out not many worked very much.

:*I am questioning your sources for the "Daily life" section They are not academic. One is described as an introductory high school textbook on the internet. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Which one? Your lack of specificity is not actionable. I didn't use textbooks, nor did I use different references for this particular section from the rest of the article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I will cross that out as I am no longer willing to spend any more time looking at sources for this article. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Book review from amazon.com:

• Hankins, Barry. The Second Great Awakening and the Transcendentalists. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2004. ISBN 0-313-31848-4. According to "Editorial Reviews" on [http://www.amazon.com/Awakening-Transcendentalists-Greenwood-Historic-1500-1900/dp/0313318484/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1229745087&sr=11-1 www.amazon.com]: "“The purpose of the Greenwood Guides is to introduce undergraduates and advances high school students to important and complex historical topics. This book briefly summarizes the events, ideas and influence of the Second Great Awakening and Transcendentalism, as well as the major schools in the historiography. While the history and historiography is simplified, the work succeeds in its purpose to summarize modern scholarship for beginning student. In addition to the main text, the book also offers biographies, an annotated bibliography, primary source readings, a glossary and an index, making it an excellent research tool for the undergraduate. Recommended for secondary school and university libraries.”–Religious Studies Review"

—Mattisse (Talk) 04:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Please, I'd love to hear this one. Help me out, man! It's probably used all over the article and if it's that bad, I need to go back to square one. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Get your attorney. Mine says "actionable" is legalese for not addressing the problem. I am going to fail this article, as this discussion is going no where. "Actionable" is what? You mean FAC "actionable"? Look, you have improved the article definitely but I am not willing to go on arguing with you. Go to GAR or renominate it at GAN. I have never had this problem before and I do not want to continue. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

"Actionable" means your criticism is not constructive; I can't address the problem if you don't give me all the information!!! --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. If you don't fail it, I'll just withdraw it. This is probably the second biggest Wiki-headache I've ever dealt with. Much more stressful than any FAC I've ever had. Some of your criticisms were I perceived to be, frankly, unreasonable, which is why I requested a second opinion such a long time ago. Thanks for taking the time, nonetheless. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS): Does not adhere to WP:LEAD. The lead does not proportionally represent the article. The article wanders in directions not accounted for in the lead. Also, there is an unreferenced blockquote.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):

b (focused): Article seems to lack a clear focus and to have split personality, seeming to be two articles in one.

There are sections describing the history and issues surrounding the founding of Brook Farm. Then there is a long section (currently titled Life at Brook Farm) on the farm that does not relate to the issues raised in the other sections. Rather, it seem to be a description of a place and its functioning at one point in time only, rather than over the history of the farm.

The editor has made some progress in addressing this disjoint, but is resistant to fully solving the problem. Also, sections such as Landscape and facilities would benefit from being combined with other sections to focus the article more clearly.

A decision needs to be made whether this is an article covering the history of the movement, or whether this is an article covering a "slice in time" of Brook Farm in operation, its landscape and facilities, etc. The article not address the current status although there is a current picture.

The article jumps around in time; there is not a clear time sequence.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Although most of the sections are neutral, an overly rosy picture is given of life on Brooks Farm.(Example: "Every week everyone in the community would gather at The Hive for a dance of the young ladies of the community. They would wear wreaths of wild daisies on top of their heads, and each week a special wreath, bought from a florist, would be given to the best dressed girl.") When asked for some concrete details about farm social organization, as that is the issue in such sections as History, for example, including how the farm dealt with misbehavior in its members, the editor answered: "Misbehaving is an odd thing... these are adults, you know." Thus, it seems that human nature and social organization is not being presented realistically.

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Part of this article is very good, and part seems to have been stuck in with a preset POV. Once the problems of organization and focus are addressed, and a more NPOV view achieved in the Life at Brook Farm section, this will be a fine article.

—Mattisse (Talk) 03:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)