Wikipedia:Peer review/Adelaide Anne Procter/archive1

Adelaide Anne Procter

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's an exhaustive survey of the few sources that exist on Procter, and I would like more eyes to look at the prose.

Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

S Marshall

 Doing...—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Nice article. I enjoyed reading that, and came away feeling informed.
• I shall focus on the prose, as you ask. Because it's generally well-written and all the following remarks are just stylistic suggestions, I have not made any changes myself; the idea is that you can consider and decide whether to reject my suggestions.

1. You may wish to consider WP:ENGVAR, which perhaps implies the article should be in English English (as about an English person). The word "favorite" in the lede surprised me.

I've changed "favorite" to "favourite" throughout - thanks for pointing that out. Ricardiana (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1. You might want to go through the article looking for longer, Latin words that can be changed to shorter, simpler Anglo-Saxon ones. Examples include: "Primarily" → "first"; "Subsequently" → "later" (and note the repetition of "published" in the same sentence, which you may wish to rephrase to avoid); and so on.

I'm keeping the three "primarily"s because, in context, they mean "mostly" rather than "first" and "mostly," to me, sounds less good in these sentences. Ricardiana (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1. The third paragraph of the lede begins with "The favo(u)rite poet of Queen Victoria" followed by a comma. I would prefer "Procter was Queen Victoria's favo(u)rite poet" followed by a full stop.

Agreed; changed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1. The second paragraph of "life" begins with "... Procter was largely self-taught and had little formal education". I would strike "... and had little formal education" as redundant, since your meaning is quite clear without it.

Good point. Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Later in the same paragraph, you say "wishing that her work be judged on its own merits rather than in relation to Dickens's friendship with her father". Instead of saying "rather than in relation to", which could be confusing because of the dual meaning of "relation", I would seek an alternative phrasing.

Hmm, I can't immediately think of an alternative. Will turn the gears.... Ricardiana (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1. The last sentence of that paragraph reads: "In addition to writing poetry, Procter was also ..." I would prefer: "As well as writing poetry, Procter was ..."

Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1. In the next paragraph, it reads: "Though on paper merely one of a number of members of the Society, fellow-member Jessie Boucherett considered Proctor to be the "animating spirit" of the Society". I would avoid the repetition of "Society".

Yes, I never liked that sentence. Changed. Ricardiana (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Should Matilda Hays be redlinked? Is there enough information extant to write an article on her?

To my knowledge, no. Ricardiana (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1. The entire "reputation" section is very heavy on the passive voice. Please consider rephrasing some of the clauses into the active.

I've re-worked the last section to put more statements in the active voice. Ricardiana (talk) 00:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I hope this entirely prose-focused review helps you.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much, S Marshall ... this is very helpful. I will try to address all of your comments in the next few days. Ricardiana (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)