Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Guardian of Education

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 00:44, 17 March 2008.

The Guardian of Education[edit]

Check external links

This article on the first successful periodical dedicated to reviewing children's literature in Britain is as complete as it can be. I had originally thought of leaving it at GA status and waiting for more scholarship to be published on the work before nominating it for FAC. However, that may be many years in the offing and the article meets the featured article criteria as they are currently laid out. Little scholarship has been published on this important journal, unfortunately, so any imbalances in the article are reflections of the published scholarship. The article has been peer reviewed. Thanks in advance for the constructive criticism! Awadewit | talk 02:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Add the sections external links. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 06:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no relevant external links to list. Awadewit | talk 07:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct. The article is perfect, so I:
  • Support - MOJSKA 666 (msg) 12:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support Sweet cuppin' cakes, Awadewit, we’re going to have to give you the “FA-a-day” nickname pretty soon, eh?
    • Does the “Founding and structure” section have representation in the Lead? Also, “Fairy tales” has a full section, but receives only a passing mention (“such as the undesirability of fairy tales”) in the Lead. The former is more at issue than the latter.
      • I tried to summarize the article as a whole rather than section by section. I can add more to the lead if you think it is necessary, but I think the summary is more elegant when it is holistic than when it is so obviously represents the article's sections. Awadewit | talk 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • For all the discussion of content, impact and underlying considerations this is, ultimately, an article about a periodical. In addition to the necessity that a Lead stand on its own, it seems content from "Founding and structure" (being important enough to have its own heading, after all) should indeed have representation. I've no doubt you'll be able to maintain eloquence. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've expanded the lead. Many of the details in "Founding and structure" are represented in the lead in only the most general terms, however. I think this is best as information such as circulation numbers and the structure of the periodical are best described in the article itself. See what you think. Awadewit | talk 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weasel word: “described as a ‘shrill’ critic by some modern scholars”
      • It is only "some" that describe her as shrill and it is not necessary to list them all in the text. Awadewit | talk 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • We hit this snag in Lessons, but context is different here. Inclusion of all such critics would be unnecessary and absurd. Providing one or two such scholars with “for example” or “such as” phrasing would alleviate the problem. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You already know that I don't think that every instance of "some" is a weasel word. What I have done is add more to the quote from Grenby, essentially including the offending section in a quotation and adding references to the defunct view of Trimmer in the notes. There is no reason to give such an out-moded view equal time in the prose. Awadewit | talk 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • That resolves the issue. I don't consider every use of "some" a weasel word; there are other instances of "some" in the article that are fine. The underlying issue pertains to what you mention below: someone using this article as research. When all we have is "some", we can't reasonably discern the the scholar's identity, their credibility, the context, etc. It seems, if the opinions are important enough to receive a mention, they ought to have a level of accessibility. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check the position of reference 32 (not after punctuation?)
      • That is correct - the reference refers the reader to an article about the first effort to review children's books in Britain. Awadewit | talk 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Non sequitur? Inline citations should follow the closest succeeding punctuation, no?
          • I actually thought this was a helpful citation. The citation at the end of the sentence is for the material in the entire sentence while the citation in the middle of the sentence (related to the issue of the "first") is an interesting article on the first effort to review children's books. For someone using this article as a way to do research, it is an incredibly helpful article. Awadewit | talk 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have no issue with the reference/article, just the "physical" location of the inline citation. This isn't a deal breaker, so I'll drop it. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article says “Edited by … Sarah Trimmer”, but later prose implies she was the sole author/contributor. Is that the case?
      • She was indeed the editor - as the "Founding and structure" section explains, she also included extracts from educational texts in the Guardian, so not every word in the periodical was written by Trimmer. Awadewit | talk 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That she was editor is perfectly clear. What should be better articulated, however, was from whom the prose in Guardian originated (e.g. in addition to editor, she was also the principle author?) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have now added this sentence: Trimmer herself wrote all of the essays listed under her name and all of the reviews, but she was not the author of the texts she extracted. I am wary of saying she was the "principal author" since no study has been undertaken of the percentage of originally-authored material that makes up the Guardian. It could be that the large extracts dwarf Trimmer's own contributions. Hopefully, though, this sentence will clear up any confusion. Awadewit | talk 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is “Trimmer undertook a challenging task in publishing her periodical” per Grenby?
    • I have to admit, I'm at times conflicted with your articles' style. The writing is beautiful and absolutely “brilliant prose”, but that criterion seems so at odds with an encyclopedia which, in my experience, should almost be starchy, dry and mundanely factual. Kinetic words like “flood” and “tumultuous” seem somehow out of place. I suppose this isn't actionable, but I'm just throwing it out there in case others have suggestions/comments. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm pretty sure these descriptive words can all be supported. For example, the 1790s was the decade of the French Revolution - I don't think it is controversial to describe that as "tumultuous". The number of books published in the last quarter of the eighteenth century and the early years of the nineteenth increased dramatically, which is why I described it as a "flood". I can get you the statistics, if you like, but scholars of the novel and children's literature all remark on this dramatic upsurge in printing. Awadewit | talk 18:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't focus on those words, as they were merely quick examples (indeed, tumultuous and flood are technically appropiate descriptions in the sense of their meanings). The idea is more precise, less colloquial (for want of a better term) choices exist. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess I am confused - I always try to avoid writing in a colloquial style and I wouldn't consider descriptive adjectives colloquial. They may less precise than giving the publishing statistics or describing the French Revolution, but the article must sacrifice precision in some areas that are not the focus of it. That is what I have tried to do - offer precision on the topic itself. One cannot, of course, precisely describe everything. However, I don't want anything to be so vague that readers cannot grasp the point of what I am saying. The only way I can really address this issue is for you to point out individual examples. Awadewit | talk 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll strike this, because, as I said, I don't think it's actionable. We can discuss it off FAC, once time allows. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for all of your help! You know how much I value your careful reviews! Awadewit | talk 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

karanacs concerns addressed Karanacs (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning toward support. I did have a few minor quibbles, but the article on the whole was excellent. I understand that you may not be able to find some of this information, but I thought I would ask anyway.
    • I'm not used to seeing dates like that in the lead for anything except biographies. Is that normally done for other subjects? I'd rather see it incorporated into the prose, but if it's common practice this way....
  • Thanks! Awadewit | talk 01:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well-written and appears comprehensive. Karanacs (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. I just have a few questions and comments, but it has no effect on my vote.

    • Following the sentence "she was intent on protecting Christianity from secularism as well as evangelicalism, particularly as the latter manifested itself in Methodism", details are given about the secularism part (Rousseau, the French Revolution, etc.). Could a few sentences be added on how she intended to protect Christianity from evangelicalism (Methodism)?
    • Unfortunately I have included all of the information that is available on how Trimmer tried to protect Christianity. There is just not much published information around. Awadewit | talk 20:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a side comment, there are some difficulties using the word “evangelicalism” and the wikilink to the article. The word has very different meanings depending on context. In modern US usage it means a very conservative non-denominational Protestantism, while historically it meant mainstream Protestants which would include Lutherans and Reformed churches. And I guess there are meanings in between. Because of the ambiguity, perhaps it would be better to just mention Methodism? Or how about “evangelical awakening” or “revival movement”?
    • I think it is important to link this word, as most people are not familiar with it, and it is the right word for the time. Perhaps we just need to find a better link? I have now linked it to History of Evangelicalism - perhaps someday that article will improve. At least currently it has a little paragraph on the 18th century. Awadewit | talk 20:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a better link. Someone seems to be working on the article as it was only recently created. I guess words will always be moving targets. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume Grenby used the word “fundamentalism”, but I think that word also has problems in usage. Originally, fundamentalism was a very specific grouping within conservative US Protestants in the 19th century early 20th century. The word has taken on a wider meaning now, but seeing it in the context of religious movements would make it appear as an anachronism. I would suggest “…illustrated her conservatism”.
    • Grenby does use "fundamentalism". I would prefer to retain it, since it has a more precise meaning than "conservatism", which I am already uncomfortable using, since it has so many different meanings (even at the end of the 18th century). Ah! Awadewit | talk 20:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it's just me. When the word is used in a modern context, I know that means extreme religious groups of any type. And when it is used in a past and/or history of religion context, I think of the Five fundamentals. But when it is used in the context of Trimmer, I get confused and I am not sure what it means. Ah, words! --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well such words are never that clear. All I can say is that I tried to put it in context. For example, it is surrounded by a discussion of Biblical inerrancy. (I know it is no equation!) Awadewit | talk 15:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have a quote that states, “she agreed with ‘Rousseau’s key idea,…’”. Was the quote from Grenby? If so, would it not be better just to paraphrase it?
    • Yes, it is from Grenby. I thought that quoting this was a good idea because it was stating what Rousseau's "key idea" was - not something that is agreed upon, let me tell you from painful experience! I have now indicated in the prose that this quote is from Grenby to dispel any ambiguity. Awadewit | talk 20:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might be good to restructure the sentence, ”She disliked them because they endorsed…”. Initially I made a wrong connection with the conjunction. I read it as “She disliked… and she suggested…”.
    • New version: She disliked fairy tales because they endorsed an irrational view of the world and success without work. - Is this better? Awadewit | talk 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's fine. --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mentioned “her negative review of the works of Edward Kendall did little to dampen the sales of his works”. Since you mentioned Kendall, you may want to add who he is and what were his significant works.
    • Added a brief characterization and a representative work. Awadewit | talk 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK! --RelHistBuff (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Excellent quality as usual! --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Questions, Looking at the subject on a more technical side:
      • How many issues were published in total?
        • I will have to go to the rare books library to find this out, unfortunately (I will have to count them), and the rare books library doesn't open until Monday. Awadewit | talk 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • By my math there should be 30 issues, but I wouldn't be surprised if Trimmer took a month here or there off. --maclean 06:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • and how many pages did the average/typical issue contain?
        • I could count all of the pages in each issue and figure out the average myself, but I can't say I'm excited about this. Also, I only have access to a modern copy, so I don't even know if such page counting is meaningful. Awadewit | talk 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I'm just interested in a sense of scale. Like, a 5-page pamphlet or a 50-page journal, one-paragraph blurb reviews or 5-page detailed reviews? The 400 total reviews over, say, 30 issues would mean about 13 reviews per issue. Will they let you scan an image of a cover? --maclean 06:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've already read many issues and I can tell you it is not easy to describe them. Some reviews were one line long and some were several pages. I really don't know what to do here. There wasn't a standard form for each issue beyond the three sections I've already described. Oddly, the copy at my rare books library is from 2002, so scanning an image would not be helpful. I'm planning on asking someone with access to an original to scan one, but that person is not a Wikipedian and a librarian, so I thought I would ask post-FAC. I wanted to say "wouldn't it look better if...." Awadewit | talk 13:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • did they print double-sided?
      • just kidding.
      • I think the monthly/quarterly publication schedule is worth mentioning in the lead.
        • I'm not convinced, especially since it changed. Awadewit | talk 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at its library reference (OCLC 9276407) it mentions that "J. Hatchard" was the publisher. This article doesn't mention him. --maclean 05:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you can wait a few days, I'll try to get this information from a better source.Awadewit | talk 00:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Bummer - no better source. I have included the OCLC link. Unfortunately, I still don't know who "J. Hatchard" really is. Awadewit | talk 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Great literary historiography, as usual. My one concern is that it may go overly into Trimmer's views, which are already covered in her biography, but the new material that's here certainly qualifies for FA. Beyond that, this line, "The reviewing of children's books was taken seriously for the first time in The Guardian of Education," could be made stronger as an opening line it it were changed from passive to active voice, but this is only a suggestion on my part. Ameriquedialectics 03:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've already tried to rewrite the Trimmer page to reduce the duplication effect. I would, of course, like to have more on the periodical itself and less on Trimmer, but I am hampered by the fact that the published scholarship on the Guardian focuses almost exclusively on Trimmer.
    • That passive sentence is a paraphrase from a source and I think if I reworded by adding "consumers, reviewers, and authors" I might be performing original research. It doesn't actually list those groups in the text, but I know those are the groups from my other reading in the field. (However, might be able to deduce those groups from other point made in Grenby's introduction.) What do you think? Awadewit | talk 14:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how that addition would fit in. I was thinking of something along the line of, "The Guardian of Education was the first periodical to take the review of children's books seriously," or "...to take children's books seriously," or "...to seriously review children's books." Starting with something about "consumers, reviewers and authors" might seem overly complicated, to me. Ameriquedialectics 15:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, sorry, I was trying to integrate two suggestions from this review! Trying to make life complicated. Yes - see new version. Awadewit | talk 15:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good;-) Ameriquedialectics 16:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support What would she have to say about Harry Potter - just a thought. Excellently written and researched and I would be delighted to see this article on the Main Page.--GrahamColmTalk 18:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Guardian_of_Education&oldid=1138473203"