Talk:Adelaide Anne Procter/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I will post my review tomorrow. I look forward to this! You must think I'm stalking you - it's just we seem to be interested in the same things! Hope you don't mind! Awadewit (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course not! I think it's cool we're interested in the same things. Thank you for doing the review - I'm eager to see what you think. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Have you tried the Dictionary of Literary Biography? They often have biographies on obscure writers.

My university - embarrassingly - does not subscribe to this. I checked all the primary sources listed in the DNB article, so I don't know if any other secondary source would have more info, but if you have time, I would be very grateful if you could check. Ricardiana (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

And there's nothing. Too bad. Awadewit (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well - thanks very much for checking. Ricardiana (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• The family had strong literary ties: Elizabeth Gaskell enjoyed her visits to the Procter household,[2] and Procter's father was friends with Leigh Hunt, Charles Lamb, and Charles Dickens, as well as being acquainted with William Wordsworth. - I would suggest identifying these writers in the text with a little phrase so that (ahem) less educated readers know who they are. There are other people mentioned in the article who could do with a little introducing as well.

Will do. Ricardiana (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Ricardiana (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• She became a member of the Langham Place Group, which set out to improve conditions for women, and was friends with feminists Bessie Raynor Parkes (later Bessie Raynor Belloc) and Barbara Leigh Smith, later Barbara Bodichon - Is it important to include their married names?

I think so, because different sources call them variously by either their birth names or married names, and I thought it would be less confusing just to give all their names. Ricardiana (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Parkes is in the References under her married name, as that's what she published under. Yet most sources call her Parkes. Confusing. This is why I don't believe in women having married names, but that's another issue. Ricardiana (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha (agreed people should just have one name - you wouldn't believe the trouble we had writing the Mary Shelley article). Which Shelley is it... :) Awadewit (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I can only imagine. Ricardiana (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Procter helped found the English Women's Journal in 1858 and, in 1859, the Society for the Promotion of the Employment of Women - Can you explain the purpose of each of these?

Will do. Ricardiana (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Ricardiana (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Her third volume of poetry, A Chaplet of Verses (1861), was published for the benefit of a Catholic Night Refuge for Women and Children that had been founded in in 1860 at Providence Row in East London. - It is a little awkward to suddenly have her third volume of poetry mentioned. We don't even know she has become a writer at this point.

Will change. Ricardiana (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed by following your suggestion of integrating first para. of "Literary career" section. Ricardiana (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Is that all the evidence there is for Proctor's lesbianism?

Yes. It's not great, but I wanted to be thorough in reporting what sources say. Should I leave it out? Ricardiana (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you should include it - I just wanted to make sure there wasn't anything else. Awadewit (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• I find the total separation of Procter's "literary career" from her "life" to be a bit strange - it is as if her writing is not part of her life. What do you think about integrating the first paragraph of "Literary career" back into the "Life" section? That way the reader learns when Procter first started writing and publishing in chronological order.

Okay. Ricardiana (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Ricardiana (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This reads better to me - it is more of a "story" and easier for people to follow, I think. Awadewit (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Great! Ricardiana (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Many of the quotes are unattributed in the text, so the reader has to check the footnote to find out who is saying them. Could you attribute more of the important claims?

Will do. Ricardiana (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Attributed these statements:

1. "Procter "does not overtly ponder the vexed question of the poet, particularly the woman poet and her accession to fame"
2. "fabulously popular"
3. "appears to have unduly taxed her strength."

Please let me know if there are other statements I should attribute. Ricardiana (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good selection. I also try to mention quotations that are from distinctive sources, like Dickens. Awadewit (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on this some more. Ricardiana (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• The last paragraph of "Reputation" is more like a list of critical views, but many of them are rather hollow. I would suggest condensing some of this turgid academic prose.

Will do. Ricardiana (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that even those critics who write about Procter don't seem to have read more than one or two of her poems. Lameness aside, I've tried to condense this section. Ricardiana (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that this flows much better. Awadewit (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Could you add places of publication to the references?

I'll get rid of the templates and do them Chicago-style. Ricardiana (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done Ricardiana (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You can still use the templates (if you like them) - just add the parameter "location=Chicago" (or whatever). Awadewit (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Good to know. I do like the templates. Ricardiana (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to put this article on hold for a week. Awadewit (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm passing this article now. Awadewit (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)