Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lessons for Children

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 20:18, 8 March 2008.

Lessons for Children[edit]

Check external links

Self-nomination At the urging of Elcobbola, who provided a thoughtful and careful GA review of this article, I have decided to nominate this article for FAC. While not much has been published on Anna Laetitia Barbauld's Lessons for Children, I believe that I have managed to track down the majority of the scholarship on these eighteenth-century children's books. Whatever imbalances exist in the article (such as the large "Reception and legacy" section) reflect the imbalances in the published scholarship. Awadewit | talk 04:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most interesting and well written. Just a few minor points:

~~This phrase in the opening "because of these books and their works" reads as one phrase and I had to reread it to give the clauses their proper meaning.~~

Changed "these books" to Lessons. Awadewit | talk 23:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~The sentence on Ellener Fenn and Richard Lovell Edgeworth in "Reception and legacy" might be better as two sentences.~~

Broke into two sentences. Awadewit | talk 23:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It really needs a better explanation of how her approach differed from the 'emergent cultural construction of Romantic childhood' near the end as I was unable to work out what this meant which made it difficult to see quite what her detractors were complaining so bitterly about.

I'll work on this tonight. Awadewit | talk 23:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a bit. This is a difficult concept to address succinctly. See if you think what I've added is sufficient for this article, given that an entire article could be written on the "Romantic child". :) Awadewit | talk 03:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's better. I think I get it now but speaking as one who knew nothing of this before reading your article, it takes a bit of thought to understand it. Imaginative adult tales of ancient glory were preferred to a carefully worked out programme of understanding the physical world around you. Is that it? A brief article, even a stub on the 'Romantic child' would be excellent. I would certainly have clicked on it.Fainites ^barley 19:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - that is it. I am reluctant to write a stub because I like to write semi-decent start articles before posting them and I don't have time to do that for such an abstract topic right now. However, I will add it to my growing list of "requested articles" and try to create something in a few months. Awadewit | talk 20:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to end rather abruptly.Fainites ^barley 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've struggled with the ending. I decided to go with a "this is where the scholarship could go" ending. Do you have any other suggestions? I'm frankly at a loss at this point. I've tried several and this is the latest incarnation. Awadewit | talk 23:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at the others. Fainites ^barley 00:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea. How about her response to those particular types of critics, (if she was in a position to make one that is) ? Then the last paragraph and poem. Fainites ^barley 21:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't exactly make one. You might consider her response to Johnson that she kept publishing, but I haven't seen that interpretation published anywhere and she didn't respond to the personal letters of Lamb and Coleridge because she didn't know about them. Attacks on her poetry became quite vehement when she published Eighteen Hundred and Eleven and she didn't publish anything of her own after that. The Romantic criticism of her work basically grew and stood unchallenged until very recently. Awadewit | talk 22:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So she probably never really knew what the Romantics thought of her and everyone carried on using her books anyway. Fainites ^barley 22:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She knew what the Romantics thought of her poetry and her children's books were popular, but not well-respected among the literary elite. (Children's literature occupies a similar place today - children's authors are rarely accorded the same kind of respect given to other writers.) Awadewit | talk 23:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support; gripping little article about a subject that ought to be better known.Fainites ^barley 07:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: an eloquent and thorough discussion of an influential (if under recognized) work, easily satisfying the FA criteria. There’s a strangely satisfying irony to the quite scholarly treatment of a work of such simple prose. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 03:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Awadewit. A couple of comments:
- The sentence Lessons not only teaches literacy, it also introduces the reader to "elements of society’s symbol-systems and conceptual structures, inculcates an ethics, and encourages him to develop a certain kind of sensibility". splits the thought between unquoted and quoted material, with the first verb "introduces" being the article's voice, and the other verbs "inculcates" and "encourages" in quotes. The sentence's voice suffers! Is there a way to fix this?
  - I have expanded the quotation so that the the entire "it also" clause is a quotation. Awadewit | talk 03:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The theme of restriction in Lessons has been viewed both positively and negatively... I wasn't sure that I was supposed to be familiar with the theme of restriction when I reached this sentence. Is the prior paragraph speaking to it, or other parts of the article?
  - New opening sentence: One important theme in Lessons is restriction, a theme which has been interpreted both positively and negatively by critics. Awadewit | talk 03:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I still think that "restriction" should be explained, briefly, in this sentence or the next. Currently, the next is almost all quotation and doesn't make for a strong connection with the topic sentence IMO. –Outriggr § 02:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - How does "restriction of the child" sound? Awadewit | talk 03:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that's sufficient. Hopefully you don't find it pedantic. –Outriggr § 04:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All other year ranges use two digits at the end, except "(1802–1806)". I'd have changed it but I'm not sure if "we" like "(1802–06)"?)
  - I think that it looks a little silly and is hard to read. I wanted to make the lifespan of the periodical very clear. However, I won't stop you if you change it. :) Awadewit | talk 03:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "instead of being fed with Tales and old wives fables"—did their happen to be an apostrophe in this quote? :)
  - The quote is correctly transcribed. Lamb wasn't too careful. :)
I do see how the flow is maybe affected by the limitations of the scholarship available, but it's still featurable! –Outriggr § 01:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that mean you support? (Just to be clear.) Awadewit | talk 20:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. –Outriggr § 02:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - [re edit comment] Just trying to do my part for the "nothing is a vote" cause Sandy! –Outriggr § 04:04, 8 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.