Wikipedia:Peer review/Margaret Fuller/archive1

Margaret Fuller edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.

I'm hoping to bring this article to featured article soon. I'm curious particularly about length, the lead, and the sections on Legacy and Beliefs to see if they are up to par. Many thanks. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is beautifully done and is nearly ready for FAC, in my opinion. I have a few minor suggestions for improvement.

You asked about the lead. I think it's good, but I'd consider breaking the long middle paragraph into two paragraphs to give the reader a bit of a rest. The break point could come pretty naturally between the sentence ending with "higher education" and the sentence starting with "She became the first editor... " Perhaps the change would necessitate adding a phrase or a sentence to the new third paragraph to smooth the transition.

I'm worried that might make the paragraphs a bit too choppy. What do you think? --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a toss-up. Go with your best judgment. Finetooth (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked about length. I think it's about right. If you decide to shorten it a bit, I'd suggest trimming the second paragraph of the "New York Tribune" section. Fuller's part in the Poe affair seems minor, and most of the information in the paragraph is not about her. I wouldn't throw the whole paragraph out, but I'd try to squash it to its essence: she annoyed Poe by butting in.

I was thinking more about expansion rather than shortening. But I do agree about the section relating to Poe. I tend to focus heavily on Poe-related events (as you might imagine). I'll summarize better. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm awfully fond of concision, and I wouldn't make the article any longer. Reader fatigue sets in at some point. If something important is missing, I'd suggest a swap rather than an add so that the total doesn't keep creeping up. Finetooth (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sections "Legacy" and "Beliefs" seem fine to me, most interesting.

The photos "Birthplace and childhood home" and "Memorial marker" will need to be moved elsewhere because they violate the MoS guideline suggesting that images not be placed directly under second-level heads.

I kept the birthplace home image on the left because it's sort of "facing" right... I know it's not a portrait but it seems reasonable to me. What do you think? --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that it violates the MoS guideline that says, "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes." See MOS:IMAGES. I don't think it will get through FAC where it is. You could move it to the right, or you might move it down to the middle of the subsection if you want it to stay on the left. Finetooth (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In "Early life and family", a sentence says, " ...Timothy Fuller did not run for re-election so that he could help John Quincy Adams with his presidential campaign in 1824..." How about "...Timothy Fuller, in order to help John Quincy Adams with his presidential campaign in 1824, did not run for re-election"?

Done. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In "Assignment in Europe", a sentence reads, " ...Italy had been left in various pieces, part of which was under the control of the Papacy." How about " ...Italy was divided into small states, some controlled by the Papacy"?

It wasn't "some" as far as I know, but one large piece. And none of the pieces were really legitimate, as I understand, so "states" might be a misnomer. Someone might know better than me. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urk! Yes, sorry. I don't know the history either. My thought is that "left in various pieces" sounds like a weasel. "Various" is the red flag here. So is "part", come to think of it. It would be better to hunt around for some more data and make the statement more specific. Finetooth (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In "Death", "chastised her personal life" might better be "said disapproving things about her personal life".

How about "criticized"? The phrase "said disapproving things" isn't nearly as harsh as it should sound, I think. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's good. Finetooth (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In "Legacy and criticism", "... Browning was also a strong admirer, but believed that her unconventional views were unappreciated in the United States and, therefore, she was better off dead" is a bit ambiguous. Probably "her unconventional views" should be replaced by "Fuller's unconventional views".

Yeah, this was poorly-written; fixed. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of the article says, "She compared herself to Fuller in her own move from Boston to New York, saying that it was not a good place for intellectuals, despite the assumption that it was the best place for intellectuals." How about "She compared her own move from Boston to New York to Fuller's, saying that New York... "?

Much better. This was a difficult sentence to write! --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The constructions including digits modifying units or other nouns need to be glued together with no-break codes to prevent them from being separated by line-wrap. Two examples are "50 years" and "34th birthday". I fixed one or two others, but I didn't fix them all.

I'll work on this in a bit. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you find these comments to be helpful, please consider reviewing another article, perhaps from the backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Finetooth! Your copy edits were extremely helpful... it's always better getting a fresh pair of eyes to catch your poor writing. Thanks again!! --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. I'll be watching this one and cheering you on. Finetooth (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 22:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)