Talk:Mary Martha Sherwood

Mary Martha Sherwood is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 22, 2012.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 3, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
June 12, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
July 7, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted
December 24, 2022	Featured article review	Kept
Current status: Featured article

Biography: Arts and Entertainment

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Children's literature High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks you can do:

Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks.

Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles.
Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}}
Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project.
Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature
Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability
Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject.
References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs.
Requested articles: Create a requested article on literature
Stubs: Improve a stub-class article

edit

Women writers High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Religion Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

I have reviewed this article on 7 criteria:

Well-written: Pass
Factually accurate: Pass
Broad: Pass
Neutrally written: Pass
Stable: Pass
Well-referenced: Pass
Images: Pass

Congratulations, it passes! It's very long, but not too much, just thorough. Continue to improve this article to get it to FA class! --PresN 16:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"to Europe"

The Sherwoods are, I infer, somewhere in or near Worcestershire.

By the 1830s, the Sherwoods had become more prosperous and the family decided to travel to Europe.

Since they operated their schools there, I infer that, too. Awadewit | talk 01:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SGML comment:

I have been advised not to use "the continent" (Awadewit)

On what grounds? (To me, "to Europe" seems bizarre, considering that they're already in Europe.) -- Hoary 00:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone knows what "the continent" means and why should "THE continent" refer to Europe? It's Eurocentric. Awadewit | talk 01:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's Eurocentric. "The continent" is standard Britspeak for the European continent. Out of context, it's unclear. Here it has a context, and it's explained immediately afterwards. If people can't be entrusted to wait for one sentence for a clarification, or if it's thought to be offensively Eurocentric, then "the European continent" or similar. Better that than "Europe", which the reader may take as implying that family Sherwood have gone back to India or whatever. -- Hoary 02:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can change it back, if you want. This is yet another battle I am not going to fight. I just wanted to tell you what has happened to me in the past when I used "the continent" (in context). Awadewit | talk 05:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to fight it. Refer any would-be battler to me. "Europe" meaning "mainland Europe" seems bizarrely Briticentric, in the geographical-ostrich or Europhobic mode. -- Hoary 06:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it to "the continent." "European continent" just sounds bad. It is redundant anyway. Awadewit | talk 07:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good move there, Awadewit! -- Hoary 08:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear things up, we say 'the continent' the same way people on other islands would say 'the mainland'. Britain is an island, after all. Strdst grl (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postcolonialism

We read:

Using a postcolonial analysis, Nandini Bhattacharya emphasizes the complex relationship between Sherwood's evangelicalism and her colonialism. She argues that Sherwood's evangelical stories demonstrate the deep colonial "mistrust of feminized agency," represented by a dying child in Little Henry and his Bearer. Henry "subvert[s] the colonialist's fantasy of universal identity by generating a subaltern identity that mimics and explodes that fantasy." But, ultimately, Bhattacharya argues, Sherwood creates neither a completely colonialist text nor a subaltern text; the deaths of children such as Henry eliminate any possibility for an alternative consciousnesses to mature.

The article on Postcolonialism starts by saying that it's a set of theories in philosophy, film and literature that grapple with the legacy of colonial rule. However, little in that article ("in need of attention from an expert on the subject") bears out such a claim. Instead, the article seems to suggest that PC is the critical study of colonial rule and its legacy, particularly in or via literature. (And that article nowhere explains the term "subaltern".) So the passage above seems to mean that NB, whose interest is in colonialism, writes about colonialism: the initial phrase thus seems redundant. For this reason, I deleted it; but it has been reinstated.

I've got a vague idea of what NB is on about here, but no more than a vague idea. And sometimes not even that. "Subverts X by generating a Y that mimics and explodes X": look, if you really explode something, this is hardly a means to the end of subverting it: having been exploded, it's no longer there to be subverted. Descriptions of such matters can of course employ figurative language, but that figurative language has to make sense, and here it doesn't. I hope NB is merely being careless (and not obscurantist), and I don't want to ridicule her writing, but until her writing is clear I see no reason to quote it. -- Hoary 00:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a postcolonial expert. I tried to find one to summarize her article for me, but I couldn't. Unfortunately, the postcolonialism page is not very good (there is not much I can do about that right now - I cannot improve every page I link to; also, it used to explain subaltern). Even more unfortunately, postcolonial criticism uses a very specific jargon and different critics use it differently. I did my best to reduce her argument without mistaking her meaning. I do not want to accuse her of being careless or obscurantist, but hers is a particular style of literary criticism. It is not one that I practice, but it would be quite wrong to eliminate her view from the article because it is some of the most recent and best criticism on Sherwood; moreover, those who do know this kind of criticism will welcome its inclusion (not everything in every article is going to be understandable to everyone - think of the science articles, for example). The fact that I cannot summarize it better is one of the problems. Like I said, I tried to fix that, but was unsuccessful. I have been keeping my eye out for someone to help with this. Awadewit | talk 01:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American English?

This is about a British person. Surely it should be written in British English rather than in American English? 86.133.215.69 (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a minor point, but I would agree with you. 86.29.127.23 (talk) 08:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. it's very jarring to see "colored" right up there on the main page in an article about a British writer. Paul B (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mary Martha Sherwood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review needed

This very old FA (2007) contains uncited text and original research, and does not meet current WP:WIAFA standards. Unless someone is able to correct this, the article should be submitted to Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]