Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 14:14, 17 September 2007.

Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman[edit]

This is another article in my series on the major works of Mary Wollstonecraft. It is about her last, unfinished novel. The article has had an excellent peer review. Awadewit | talk 08:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article is 'well written', 'neutral', and 'accurate', referenced when needed, of appropriate length, and images of appropriate tagging. Therefore, I think that this article passes the criteria for featured articles. -Lemonflash_{(do something)} 00:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Great article, I will support it as soon as the following has been addressed: "Focusing on the societal rather than the individual "wrongs of woman", Wollstonecraft's philosophical and gothic novel, which revolves around the story of a woman imprisoned in an insane asylum by her husband, criticizes the patriarchal institution of marriage in eighteenth-century Britain and the legal system that protected it." Calling the institution of marriage "patriarchal" is POV. The sentence should make clear that this is Wollstonecraft's view of things. And why not link patriarchal to patriarchy instead of a wiktionary entry? According to WP:MOSNUM: "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." Do you think the link to eighteenth century does this?--Carabinieri 04:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added "what she viewed as the patriarchal..."
I have linked to patriarchy - nice catch.
No, I don't think that the link to eighteenth century deepens understanding, but I have been told numerous times at FAC to link centuries in the lead. I'm honestly at a loss. That guideline seems particularly unclear, don't you think? I'll remove it for now, but I feel the presence of wikignomes just aching to link it again. :) Awadewit | talk 04:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If the century is re-linked, I don't think that's a big deal. Congratulations on the great article. Support.--Carabinieri 05:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, issues arising from the peer reviews have been addressed well. — BillC ^talk 00:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well written, extermely comprehensive article, previous issues addressed. Hello32020 17:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.