Talk:Mary Clarke (letter writer)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Pi (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Mary Clarke raised eight children and managed an estate whilst corresponding by letter with philosopher John Locke? Source: page 238 of "Child Rearing in Theory and Practice: the letters of John Locke and Mary Clarke" - https://doi.org/10.1080/09612021003633994 -"For example, Locke suggested that a mother could easily teach her son Latin by reading to him in the Latin Bible for two hours a day. Clearly this was a utopian fantasy for any normal seventeenth-century housewife. It was even more so for one as harassed with multiple responsibilities as Mary Clarke, who was burdened with half a dozen children and a fair-sized country estate to manage on her own." and page 234 - "After three children who died in infancy, the Clarkes’ eldest surviving son, Edward, was born in 1681. Seven more offspring followed over the next two decades"
  • ALT1:... that Mary Clarke corresponded by letter with philosopher John Locke about the education of her son, describing him as a "Blockheaded boy"? Source: page 240 of "Child Rearing in Theory and Practice: the letters of John Locke and Mary Clarke" - https://doi.org/10.1080/09612021003633994 - "In 1688, trying to puzzle out what was going wrong with the process, Mary wrote to Locke of seven-year-old Edward, ‘I feare you thinke him forwarder then he is; he is a sort of downe right honest Blockheaded boy, and what he has in him is pretty hard to find out’."
  • ALT2:... that Mary Clarke corresponded with philosopher John Locke about the education of her son but did not follow the recommendation to read Latin to him for two hours every day? Source: page 238 of "Child Rearing in Theory and Practice: the letters of John Locke and Mary Clarke" - https://doi.org/10.1080/09612021003633994 - "For example, Locke suggested that a mother could easily teach her son Latin by reading to him in the Latin Bible for two hours a day. Clearly this was a utopian fantasy for any normal seventeenth-century housewife. It was even more so for one as harassed with multiple responsibilities as Mary Clarke, who was burdened with half a dozen children and a fair-sized country estate to manage on her own."

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Cecelia Goetz

Moved to mainspace by Mujinga (talk). Self-nominated at 15:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC).

• Nice! New article length is good. No broken links. No active disputes. I prefer ALT2 hook. -- Ahsoka Dillard (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mary Clarke (letter writer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll get to this in the next few days. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Great, I'm around next week, looking forward to your comments Mujinga (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Early life:
  • Any siblings? Do we have any guesses to her birth year even approximately, so we have some idea of how old she was when her grandmother died? I see the ODNB says she was probably born mid-late 1650s - this should be included.
    • No mention of siblings. I didn't like the "probably" of the ODNB but I'll add in 1650s Mujinga (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
    • To add, Bridget Clarke (no relation?) says "Mary Jepp was the only child and heiress of Samuel Jepp, who died aged about 30 in 1660 when Mary was probably about 4 years old." Mujinga (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • "When Baber died in 1672, Clarke inherited an annual income of £400" - the ODNB says that it was lands worth 400 pounds - which isn't quite the same, I don't think?
    • True, not sure what I was doing there! Changed Mujinga (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

    ah, Knights says "whose own income amounted to a legacy of £400 p.a." Mujinga (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Career:
  • "For a certain time, her husband was unwelcome in the countryside" this is very stilted - perhaps "After the Great Recoinage of 1696, Edward stayed away from the estate because the rural residents were upset about his <detail the involvement and why it made the rural folks upset>." this will also explicate why he had to stay away (which I'm sure helped increase the volume of letters? does any scholar bring that out - if so, it should be included also.)
    • Aw I was proud of that summary! But I agree it sounds antiquated and rather vague on a second reading :) Rephrased, thanks for the suggestions Mujinga (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • ODNB points out that Locke was also a cousin of some sorts as well as a family friend.
    • added Mujinga (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

    to add, Knights says "The origins of Clarke’s friendship with Locke are obscure. According to his tutor, Clarke made ‘laudable progress in learning’ at Oxford, where he behaved ‘very civilly towards all men’, but there is no evidence that he was taught by Locke or that he drew the latter’s attention by intellectual distinction. It was probably marriage to Mary Jepp that created the bond." Mujinga (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Also bring out the fact that Locke both attempted to marry her to someone he knew in 1673-74, and then arranged her marriage to Clarke.
    • done Mujinga (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • ODNB says "Their son Edward was born the following May; ten more children were born during the next two decades, of whom eight, four boys and four girls, survived to adulthood" - which conflicts with our article which has the first child dying young and Edward being born after 1676...
    • Hmm yes. The sources seem to be conflicting here, which is funny becuase Mendelson wrote them both
    • ODNB says: "Their son Edward was born the following May; ten more children were born during the next two decades, of whom eight, four boys and four girls, survived to adulthood" (and the husband's ODNB says "They had five sons and six daughters (born between 1676 and 1694), eight of whom survived infancy.")
    • Mendelson 2010 says: After three children who died in infancy, the Clarkes’ eldest surviving son, Edward, was born in 1681. Seven more offspring followed over the next two decades, including a daughter, Betty (Elizabeth, born 1682), who became Locke’s special favourite.
    • So 11 children total, three died in infancy. I've updated what the article says Mujinga (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't we have an article on Edward Clarke - he was an MP, after all. on Edward Clarke he's got a redlink to Edward Clarke (1650–1710) - at the very least we should link that.
    • linked, noting that ODNB gives his dates as 1649x51–1710 Mujinga (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• That's it for me. Neat little article!
• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I should be able to get to them in the next days Mujinga (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Ealdgyth I've replied on everything, I hope. Mujinga (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

That all looks good, passing this now! Ealdgyth (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)