Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Wollstonecraft

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

Mary Wollstonecraft[edit]

This article has been rewritten from scratch (mostly by Awadewit). The article is comprehensive, stable, and well-written. The referencing is thorough. I believe it represents the best of what Wikipedia has to offer. It has already received Good Article status and gone through a Peer Review. It is listed as a Core Biography and has received an "A" rating from the Biography project (I performed the rating). Kaldari 19:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enthusiastic support. Oh, how I've been longing for the day to see a biography of one of the early pioneers of feminism be taken to FA quality! This is fine work on a subject that is long overdue for serious attention. However, I have one condition for my support, and that's a separation of notes and references to ensure a quick and easy overview of the sources that have actually been used. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Kaldari 19:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, a wholeheartedly exhilarated support. :-D / Peter ^Isotalo 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I promoted this to GA and have since had some minor involvement with this article, so I may not be completely neutral, but I believe it's ready. It's well-written, comprehensive, and thoroughly referenced. Shimeru 19:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT. Whoa...it's refreshing to see an FAC (the first I've seen) that is so thoroughly prepared and ready that I cannot even muster one negative thing to say. Bravo! —ExplorerCDT 20:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with ExplorerCDT. I'm impressed. Jay32183 22:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing work! Please check over the copy-edits I made. Gzkn 01:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As I wrote much of the page, I feel that it would be unethical for me to vote. But because I feel that some discussion on the vote should take place, I would like to throw some ideas out there. I agreed with the other editors to send this because they seemed to think it was ready and I am new to the whole FA process, but to me the biography section lacks narrative flow and the works section lacks thematic coherence. Would a high school student or freshman in college, for example, really understand the basic themes in MW's works or the relationship between her life and her works after reading this page? I wonder. Awadewit 04:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seeing all the supports, I though I should probably read the article, and I wasn't disappointed; I think Awadewit is being a bit too modest here. (Any failings of the typical high school reader, I think, are unlikely to be the fault of the article.) I do have a few comments on the biographical material:
- The paragraph on Blood reads like a compressed compression; it's been summarized so aggressively that the timeline is a bit lost. It's not obvious how relevant the school is to Wollstonecraft's later life, or if it had any outside impact. Blood is being spirited away to improve her health but it's never been mentioned that she was ill. At minimum, 'the continent' ought to be 'Europe' or a more specific destination, for the sake of those high school readers. Similarly, in the next section, the Kingsborough name comes up abruptly, as if they'd been mentioned before.
  - I will try to fix this. (The school did not have much relevance for W's later life. I just thought it was important to mention that she actually did it.) Awadewit 06:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove (see "Major Works" below). Internal wikilinks are okay, if necessary, but it doesn't seem to be here.
  - Sorry, I don't quite follow. Awadewit 06:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Last sentence in 'first of a new genus': 'perhaps her most famous and influential work (see "Major Works" below).' The parenthetical note isn't really necessary, and should be a link if it is. Opabinia regalis 07:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah. Quotation marks do so much. I will remove the parenthetical. Awadewit 07:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Section title "France and Imlay" is opaque to someone browsing the TOC; even "France and Gilbert Imlay" would make it clear that "Imlay" is a person and not a place.
  - Will change. Awadewit 06:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "explained by most critics as the expressions of a deeply depressed woman..." - I'm not sure I get the point of this sentence. Are they claiming clinical/postpartum depression? If I were alone with a baby in a foreign country in the middle of a revolution, I'd be a little depressed too. Presumably the critics have a more nuanced view than 'she was depressed'?
  - Strangely enough, most critics argue that W's mood at this time is due to her impending break-up with Imlay and not to the fact that she is in the middle of a revolution. Hence, the "most critics" and "some critics" distinctions I tried to draw. Awadewit 06:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "parts of the placenta remained inside Wollstonecraft's uterus" - TMI much? This is just so strangely clinical wording compared to the rest of the article. Are we even certain that's what happened? (I don't know, but just how accurate are 1797 medical records?) Opabinia regalis 06:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just wanted to explain what happened (and we are very sure about that); would something more vague such as "Wollstonecraft died of an infection following complications in childbirth" be more tasteful? Awadewit 06:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That does read better. I'm not necessarily in favor of removing known information, but the tone stands out at the moment. Opabinia regalis 07:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - When I saw Simon Schama's A History of Britain, he told about the placenta incident. Even more detailed even: "The doctor stuck his hand inside Mary and pulled; the placenta came away in pieces." I dunno, but I think it seemed like relevant information. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Can others weigh in? Thanks. Awadewit 17:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Considering that we only have one sentence about the cause of death, the introduction of clinical details does seem a little unexpected. If we expanded the section about her death, I think it might be less jarring. As it is now (with the details removed), I think the wording works well and I don't think the missing information is at all critical. Encarta's article doesn't even mention a cause of death: "She died later that year, shortly after the birth of their daughter." I think the information is certainly relevant to a biography, but maybe not an encyclopedia article. Kaldari 17:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Hm, sorry to have started such a long thread on a small point. Why not just call it what it is, 'retained placenta'? We can leave the pieces and the puppetry alone, or if it's really relevant, expand the section to be less sudden. Opabinia regalis 00:55, 20 January 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.