Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Letters Written in Sweden, Norway and Denmark/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review‎ | Letters Written in Sweden, Norway and Denmark

Letters Written in Sweden, Norway and Denmark edit

This is another in my series of articles on the major works of Mary Wollstonecraft. As I am working towards a featured topic (one more article to write!), I am planning on taking this article to FAC. Please comment accordingly. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 06:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Quick note: The "Modern Reprints" section seems out of place because it breaks up the notes from the list of references. --Midnightdreary 18:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the "Modern reprints" section is essentially part of the "Bibliography". Can you explain what is confusing about the organization? (Some of the notes reference books in the "Modern reprints" section, by the way.) Awadewit | talk 02:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's see what I can see. I don't need to tell you that it's superb writing. I learned a good deal about Ms. Wollstonecraft, whom I've admired but never really studied. I feel a bit nitpicky in some of my remarks, but you axed for it.[1]

Reading over these notes, I feel like some of my advice is more suggestive of my own inadequacies as a reader than editorial need in the article. But I'll leave it up to you to decide. Suffice it to say that my suggestions are completely disposable if you think I'm wrong. (But you don't need me to tell you that, right?) Some of the notes here are presented as questions, but please don't feel the need to respond. If I'm wrong, or you disagree, feel free to strike it or just ignore.

Comments are in order of their appearance in the article. (I generally don't do small copyedits, like some reviewers do. I apologize if this is a standard I'm not living up to. In my case, it has to do with (a) me being lazy and (b) my respect for the personal integrity of another's writing -- maybe this concept doesn't belong so much in Wikipedia.)

The fact that I focus below on tiny details of wording and punctuation is a testament to the quality of your overall sense of style and organization.

  • "…philosophical questions regarding identity." Personal identity? National identity? Religious identity? I recognize that I may be splitting hairs here.
  • I have tried several different phrasings here. Other options are "subjectivity" and "sense of self". None of them are as specific as national identity or religious identity - those things would be subsumed under these other terms. Let me know what you think of the other options. I thought "personal identity" might be less abstract and simplicity is essential for the lead. Awadewit | talk 05:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…over the course of the three months she spent in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark,…" that final comma sets apart the earlier dependent clause – but it comes at the end of a series as well. This always throws me a bit as a reader. Maybe just say "at the end of her travels,"?
  • I sympathize with this, but I wanted to say somewhere in the lead what countries she visited. Any ideas? Awadewit | talk 05:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about replacing "Scandinavian tour" in the previous sentence with "her tour of Sweden, Norway, and Denmark"? And vice versa? — Scartol · Talk 22:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See what you think about the switch. Awadewit | talk 05:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Using the rhetoric of the sublime, Wollstonecraft explains her conception of the relationship between the self and society." Two "of the" clauses in one sentence. How about "Using sublime rhetoric…"? (The link, I think, does the work of the "of the" phrasing here.) I see that the section of the article focusing on Sublimity uses the "of the" construction exclusively. Is this perhaps a standard convention of which I am unaware? I confess to a painful ignorance of discussions of the sublime.
  • I have always seen "rhetoric of the sublime", I'm afraid. I don't know why. I have removed "her conception of" - that was unnecessary anyway. Awadewit | talk 05:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine. I totally defer.
  • "Letters Written in Sweden was Wollstonecraft's most popular book…" Maybe say "at the time of its publication" or some such? Surely she's more well known now for Vindication? Was Letters her most popular at a certain point in time? I think I just get nervous when I see a simple past tense without a general context nearby. This is a concern for me in the "Reception and Legacy" section as well.
  • Good point. Fixed in both places, I think. Awadewit | talk 05:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point me to a guideline for when to first link a name? (WP:MOS-L doesn't really cover this.) You link to Gilbert Imlay in both the lead and the first body ¶, which I will assume is okay. But, for instance, in Honoré de Balzac, there's a link to Dickens in the section on La Comédie, referring to serialized novels. Is it wrong to also link Dickens later on, in the Style section? How about in the Legacy section? (I realize this isn't about your article, but I'd like to know.)
  • I rely on these statements from that page when deciding what to link: Remember, the purpose of links is to direct the reader to a new spot at the point(s) where the reader is most likely to take a temporary detour due to needing more information. However, note that duplicating an important link distant from a previous occurrence in an article may well be appropriate . . . Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection. Thus, if an important technical term appears many times in a long article, but is only linked once at the very beginning of the article, it may actually be underlinked. - I always repeat important links from the lead (although not everyone does this) as well as important links throughout the article. I try to think about when a reader might want to click. Does that help? Awadewit | talk 05:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks.
  • Can we hear how Imlay saved her from her suicide attempt? Is this too morbid?
  • Alas.
  • "…she attempted to drown herself in the Thames but was rescued by passersby." Pretty sure you need a comma after Thames.
  • But the second clause is not a complete sentence nor a long clause, so.... Awadewit | talk 05:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think you're right. I saw the assumed "she" in the last bit as making it independent, I guess.
  • The first ¶ of "Scandinavian journey" has a good deal of the conditional tense. Is it necessary, or does the source give the impression created. (That is, I conceptualize the conditional as essential if we're conjecturing. But it sounds like you've got evidence to suggest that readers were intrigued and/or shocked.)
  • "It is still not known how successful Wollstonecraft was or what happened to the ship and its treasure." This sentence feels a bit clunky. (I despise the passive voice, but I can't think of an active alternative.) I've been wracking (racking?) my brain for fifteen minutes trying to word it differently, and I've got nothing. Sorry.
  • I know, I know. I have reworded that sentence so many times! How about: Wollstonecraft's success or failure in the negotiations is unknown as is the ultimate fate of the ship and its treasure. Awadewit | talk 05:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that works.
  • Re the redlinked Helgeraa – is it kosher to make a little stub in this sort of instance, just to eliminate redness?
  • Unfortunately, I know nothing about that town. (I also hate making little one-line articles. It's just a thing I have.) Awadewit | talk 05:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know what you mean. I guess I was asking in general.
  • I think it is a personal decision. I really dislike creating stubby stubs. I'm not sure that it encourages people to contribute good material. Awadewit | talk 05:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…memoir (a word used by Wollstonecraft in the book's advertisement)[11] while others see it as…" I think we need a comma after the close-parens.
  • "The text, which reveals Wollstonecraft's thought processes…" Oooh, two semicolons and a colon in one sentence. Any way to break this up?
  • So academic of me. Broken into two sentences at "however". Awadewit | talk 06:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…it is the image of the suffering woman that dominates the book." Per Strunk & White #13, how about: "…the image of the suffering woman dominates the book"?
  • Clearly I should read that brilliant little book again. Fixed. Awadewit | talk 06:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image of Rousseau -- if I'm reading WP:MOS#Images correctly -- should be before the subhead.
  • Wow! You did read the MOS carefully! I've moved it a bit. Awadewit | talk 06:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Favret points out that Wollstonecraft's Letters…" this sentence continues later with "…they much more closely resemble…" but the "they" is unclear, as two sets of letters are indicated at the start.
  • Oops - how embarrassing. Fixed. Awadewit | talk 06:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the quotes in "Autobiography" from Wollstonecraft, or someone else? It's not really clear from the note.
  • The "Sublimity" section ends with a quote not attributed in the prose itself. Is this standard? As a reader, I always like to know (at least in general – "as one critic noted…") where a quote is coming from. Otherwise, my default is to assume it's from the subject of the article.
  • "Maturation becomes…" in the "Reason" section: Maybe the commas in this sentence could be spaced en dashes? I feel like a non-essential phrase of this magnitude is better set off with something a bit stronger than a comma.
  • "In contrast, others view Wollstonecraft's emphasis…" Isn't the contrast indicated by the opening "others view…"? Do we need the "In contrast" clause?
  • Here I wanted to emphasize that the "other view" was a direct contrast to the previous one, not just another view. Awadewit | talk 06:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense, although for me that's implied by the fact that it follows the sentence. But it's your little red wagon as Stephen King quoted someone as saying.
  • Does Favret need a second redlink? (See question about when to link names above.)
  • "her flight from sorrow . . ." As this ends a sentence, I think you need a fourth period on that ellipsis.
  • It doesn't end a sentence in the original text. Awadewit | talk 06:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, man! I've been doing it wrong. I thought we used four whenever the recycled quote ended a sentence. Duh!
  • In "Individual and society": "While her earlier works focus…" This sentence has a whole bunch o' commas. Maybe reword to make it easier for the reader to make it through? (I tend to get bogged down when there are more than two or three in a sentence.)
  • I might like to see an example of how she writes about nature, rather than just descriptions of the purpose in the section "Nature".
  • I was hoping the mention of the waterfall would prompt readers to remember the long waterfall quote I had already given. No? Awadewit | talk 06:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that's true. Maybe my brain wasn't in the right place to catch this.
  • I just didn't want to overquote. I'll think about adding a little quotation into this section. Awadewit | talk 05:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Gender": "Despite her attempts otherwise, Wollstonecraft comes to the realization that she has always been forced to experience the world as a woman…" The first clause isn't clear. She attempted not to come to the realization? Or not to experience the world as a woman? Maybe say "…she has always been forced – despite her resistance – to experience…"?
  • Just deleted that phrase. I don't think it is necessary, in retrospect. Awadewit | talk 06:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She defends Queen Caroline of Denmark, for example, who had been accused of "licentiousness"…" This makes it sound like Wollstonecraft was defending the Queen on the basis of her licentiousness. Maybe indicate that she defended the record of the Queen or some such?
  • She was defending her licentiousness, in a way. She endorsed the Queen's affairs. Awadewit | talk 06:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very interesting..
  • Added in a biographical tidbit to make this explicit. Awadewit | talk 05:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While the Rights of Woman argued…" I'm going to assume you know what you're doing here, because while it seems odd to use the past tense when discussing one book and then present tense for another, it also seems likely that it's okay to do so when focusing primarily on one of the books. (It sets up a time frame reference scheme? I'm asking out of ignorance here.)
  • I was trying to set up a reference frame. She had already written the VRW which had one point of view and she now was writing Letters - is it too confusing? Awadewit | talk 06:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but it also makes sense to use the different tenses. Damn me and my willingness to consider other points of view! Math teachers don't have to deal with this crap! (I think it's fine to leave it.)
  • In "Commercialism": "Throughout the text, she contrasts the constructive…" This is a big long sentence-paragraph. Maybe break it up a bit?
  • Maybe link "epistolary"?
  • Oh, yes, definitely. I don't know how I missed that one. Awadewit | talk 06:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the uncapitalized "christianity" in the quote from Monthly Magazine and American Review need a [sic]?
  • On Brown: "He read the book as a cautionary tale while Wollstonecraft had intended it…" I think "whereas" is better here than "while".
  • Does note #71 encompass the earlier claim that her work was disavowed by the public after Godwin's book was published? Or is this common knowledge and I'm too uncommon to know about it?
  • Note #71 does not encompass that piece of information, but it is a common piece of knowledge regarding Wollstonecraft. If you think I should add a note, let me know. Awadewit | talk 06:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, it's fine.
  • Do we know for sure that Coleridge is alluding to Wollstonecraft, or do we need an "apparently" in there?
  • What does "for sure" mean? Nothing is for sure in literary studies, but this is as close as it gets. It seems pretty obvious. Awadewit | talk 06:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, you're probably right. I get a little paranoid about it sometimes. I thought maybe he had written a letter as evidence or something.

I hope this helps. I apologize if my inane scrutiny only muddies the water (as I fear it might). — Scartol · Talk 14:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is wonderful! I will start addressing these issues over the next few days. Thank you so much! Awadewit | talk 18:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am searching for that Futurama episode now. It sounds amusing. Thanks for all this great help! Awadewit | talk 06:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[2][reply]
Glad it was useful. Cheers. — Scartol · Talk 23:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ In the Futurama episode "Xmas Story", Leela indicates that Frye's use of "ask" instead of "axe" is "an arcane pronunciation". I'm just getting a head start on English usage in the year 3000.
  2. ^ I found the episode - evil, robotic Santa! Very funny!
And John Goodman in his most evil role since Charlie Meadows. The stuff in the article looks good. Good luck with the FAC. One of these days I'll make the changes Willow recommended for HdB and we can move on that. I'm getting jealous watching other folks rack up the stars. – Scartol · Talk 21:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Letters_Written_in_Sweden,_Norway_and_Denmark/archive1&oldid=160124649"