Talk:Sabrina Sidney

Currency conversions / inflation rates

It might be worth using {{Inflation}} for the currency conversions/inflation rates, although these seem to return quite different values from the ones in the article, since (according to [1]) it seems to use the RPI increase rather than the average earnings increase. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy with using the template, I hadn't realised it existed. Worm^TT(talk) 08:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sabrina Sidney/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 03:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See comments below
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See comments below. DONE
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	See comments below. DONE
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Will run a final check before final review; preliminary assessment looks OK. Earwig tool is clear, AGF on offline sources and those I cannot access.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Sabrina Bicknell aged 75.png has a warning tag on it, needing some additional parameters Fixed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Suggest one caption be tweaked and the image moved, but not a huge issue
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

Fascinating article. I'll focus on the GA criteria, but with a nod that you hope to go to FAC, so I'll comment where I see issues.

• Lead is a bit long -- rare for me to say that, but it's six choppy paragraphs, and it rambles. There are also some inconsistencies between it and the body of the article (such as "no servants" versus "two servants" I would suggest doing the rest of this GA work and then going back to tighten it up and make any corrections FIXED.
  • Current version needs a light copyedit for minor punctuation issues ("dressmakers" -- etc.)
• Also, the article title is Sabrina Sidney, but the Infobox says Sabrina Bickwell. I just tweaked that, hope it is OK with you. Montanabw^(talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Overall, I (still) have issues with long sections being sourced with three or four footnotes at the end, particularly when the content is sort of a mashup of several things that probably could each be sourced to one work. If the material is truly an amalgam of all the sources, you gotta do what you gotta do, but in most cases, the various clauses can be cited to a specific source, and I'd prefer to see that, makes it far easier to verify the material.
  • Let me know where you really DO need to pile up the sources, but where they can go one per sentence instead of four per paragraph, please do so. Montanabw^(talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Related to the above, the footnotes do need to be rearranged so, if there are several in a group, they appear in numerical order.
  • These two issues still need to be addressed, in particular, the first. The second is a nitpick but will be an issue at FAC. Montanabw^(talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

done

On the chart above, note that the lead image has a copyright tag issue, apparently it is not specific enough for the folks at commons. Need to fix that. The remaining images are all OK for GAN. I am not doing the more thorough FAC level review of them, though the Seward image may or may not become a problem at FAC due to the odd tag there.  Done I've tided up the tag, I just went through the wizard and didn't realise it left me with something to fix. Useful Commons, useful... WormTT(talk) Excellent, Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 21:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC) Overall, my main concern is that the article is choppy and needs more work to improve narrative flow, there are abrupt transitions from one topic to the next, sometimes facts are presented with insufficient context to be clear to the reader and so on. This is not a fatal flaw, I suspect it stems from editor fatigue; one simply has worked on the article to the point that it is hard to tell the forest for the trees. But if you've had a few days off from it, look at it with fresh eyes, a lot of what I am discussing here probably will jump out at you. This is much better. Montanabw(talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

done

Early Life Beginning section "Manima Butler..." is confusing. I presume this was Sabrina Sidney, but nothing in this section tells us that. Simply making it clear who we are talking about right off the bat will help. (Something as simple as "Sidney was born _____ and her original name was --- when she was left at the ______")  Done I've had a go at the section to make it more clear. WormTT(talk) I'd move the Shrewsbury Hospital photo up to this section. Also, as it appears the original hospital was torn down, do we have an article to link on the "Shrewsbury branch of the Foundling Hospital" -- which I presume is the same as the photo? May want to tweak the caption too, perhaps to add, "Sidney was moved here in ____" I've included an additional image, of the hospital she was abandoned at, now torn down. WormTT(talk) Overall, the section lacks narrative flow, it could benefit from an overall copyedit with an eye to smoothing the text and making it a bit easier to follow. For example, sentences such as "nurse Ann Casewell at her home until 1765 when she resided in..." are confusing, you are jumping back and forth between Sidney and Casewell in an unclear manner. I won't go into specifics at this point, as I suspect a new run-through by the editors (having, presumably, had a bit of a break from it) will see the problems themselves.  Done I think, does that read better to you? WormTT(talk) Yes. Montanabw(talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Day's experiment First section is a bit choppy, similar copyedit needed, we get the impression that he had trouble with women, looks like in two stages, from bad to worse. Need to smooth this out and perhaps expand a bit. Choosing the girls This section looks pretty good, though again a little smoothing and copyediting for flow would help. My only issues are the several sentences all sourced to four sources at the end of the paragraph, and the other area where three sources are piled at the end of a multi-sentence sequence. I'd prefer to see these attached a bit more closely to what they cite. This method of citation is marginally acceptable at GA level, but I'm not fond of it, and I suspect it will be trouble at FAC. The Guardian source (Uglow) mentions that Rousseau's Sophie was an inspiration for Day, might want to mention that here, it's significant. Education in France "... at the beginning of November he decided to move them to France." November of what year? Third paragraph is a mishmash of a lot of different things. Again, the choppiness problem with a lack of narrative flow and the multiple sources at the end of the section problem. I'd suggest a little bit of expansion would help this the most. "Later accounts..." No mention of "early accounts." May want to explain what you are talking about; their own stories, other historians,...? Fuzzy. Return to England "...whilst Lucretia did not show any progress." Any more you can add to explain this? Progress in what way? Was she rebellious, unintelligent, any reason given...? "Her tuition continued at the same time..." Normally I think of "tuition" as a payment to a school; did you mean "tutoring?" It's an odd word choice... "..methods taken from Rousseau's Emile, ..." Were the hot wax and firing gunpowder specifically in Emile or was he using a more general philosophy? Clarify.

• "unsuccessful at abating her phobia of horses ..." again, we have a section that jumps about a bit randomly, no mention of this anywhere before or why it was a phobia...
  • This still an issue -- if there is nothing more about it, I understand, but it's random. Montanabw^(talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Moving away from Day

• Anna Seward comes into this article rather abruptly. For people not familiar with her and her work, it may be worth a bit more of an introduction to who she was, why she knew Day, and from whence came her moral authority to tell Day what to do -- she also kind of gets dropped... this first paragraph really covers about three separate topics, mostly in rather disjointed sentences, and should be expanded a bit.
  • Seward still needs to be addressed, as a reader, I do ask, "so where did Seward come from and why was she so concerned? A clause noting how she knew Day (friend, neighbor, fellow seeker of higher education, or whatever the connection was) would help. Montanabw^(talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

done

"In 1774, Day visited Sidney..." Did she finish her schooling, was she about to graduate... I am a little unclear if he never visited her between 1771 and 1774...? Clarify and expand a bit? Broken engagement I'd make this a subsection of the one above, it doesn't need to be its own; it is still about her movement away from Day. It is also a little unclear if this all happened in 1774 nor if "Day returned to moulding Sidney" occurred at the Keir family's home or if she was working for him as a housekeeper. Arguably, this may not even need a subsection header, it needs to flow more clearly from the preceding material. Marriage This section is better written, with a few caveats: Do you really need four sources to verify the single sentence that begins, "Bicknell and Sidney married on 16 April 1784..." you also end the same paragraph with three sources, that again I think could be more closely attached to what they verify. If you have to do it this way to avoid ridiculous-looking sources every three words, say so... Montanabw(talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC) So how old was Bicknell, if Day objected to his age? (It appears Day was about 9 years older than Sidney??) Clarify? Still want to know Bicknell's age, if Day objected to it (doing the math is OK and not OR). Montanabw(talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "Day's widow carried on paying Bicknell's allowance after his death..." First time we discover that Day married at all... Uglow does answer my question -- how DID he find a woman who would put up with him? Can we note her name and when he married her? (smile) Also, we mention Day had a widow but not when he died (Uglow says 1789?) This section is improved in style and flow, but the above issues remain I'd like to see a bit of expansion on when Day died and also when he married Milnes (just a sentence or so, given how hard it was for him to meet women and his failed experiment with Sabrina, it's a miracle he married at all from the sound of things. The reader should at least have a light outline, the parenthetical is a bit awkward and lacks sufficient context. Montanabw(talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC) FIXED. Montanabw(talk) 20:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

done

Legacy Another section that might benefit from expansion. The works written about her during her lifetime should, perhaps, be a different section than those discussing her posthumous recognition. Perhaps a rename of the section would work though. Again we have sort of abrupt jumps from one person's writing about her to the next... I'd like to see each separate work discussed in separate paragraphs, with more context. The question that goes begging is why Seward or others wrote about her at all, was it because they were writing about Day and mentioning her in passing, or were these works telling her story for her own sake? Perhaps even listing the books they wrote by title and such, at least in as part of the narrative, (i.e., "Seward, in her 1804 work Foo, stated...") References and bibliography. Reference formatting and style is fine, a few errors noted here: The Youngman BBC ref should be cited in full in the bibliography and then just as "Youngman" in the footnotes, the way you did for all the print works and other websites. Oelkers 2014 in the footnotes is missing page numbers, and a page cite is needed. Do google books links exist for Blackman or Schama? Or, did you access them only in hardcopy?

More to come, I think this is a fascinating tale well worth telling and your research is excellent! Montanabw^(talk) 04:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• OK, I think that is my preliminary review, feel free to discuss any of my suggestions. Montanabw^(talk) 05:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, this was exactly what we needed. I'll get on it asap. Worm^TT(talk) 06:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll wait to make extensive comments until you've done a once-through. No worries on timeline, as long as progress is happening, I'm fine. Montanabw^(talk) 21:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in re-reviewing. Much, much improved! You might now be overusing the word "whilst" a bit (do a word search, you'll see it) and may want to do a little more light copyediting (there are a couple places where commas and/or apostrophes would be useful) but vastly improved. I am also OK with saying Emile sometimes after an initial mention with the full title, as it's a well-known work and Emile, or On Education might now be overdone, particularly when used twice in a paragraph. I'm hatting everything that is done to my satisfaction and adding comments to anything I see that still needs some fixes. What's not hatted, re-read for additional comments. Looking good, almost there! Montanabw^(talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• All issues have now been addressed, I did a light copyedit of a few things that jumped out at me but are of minor significance. Passed! Congrats. Montanabw^(talk) 21:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

What does the ref say?

Third paragraph, second sentence, says:

"Sabrina then had a number of moves between boarding school, a dressmaker's, and eventually was employed as Day's housekeeper."

If I knew the correct name for the place where a dressmaker or dressmakers work, I would insert it after the word "dressmaker's". As it is currently written the dressmaker's something is missing - studio, shop, salon, parlour or whatever. Does the ref mention this? Must say this is an interesting article. Moriori (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Moriori, I believe the book said mantua makers, a term I hadn't heard of so I used dress makers as an equivalent. I'll be getting the book back out from the library when we push the article for Featured, so will be absolutely certain then. Perhaps a "dressmaker's family" would be better? She stayed with the family as an apprentice. Worm^TT(talk) 07:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Sabrina Sidney, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Moulding into a perfect wife

My link to child grooming was removed, with rationale "I don't feel that's an appropriate link". I on the contrary feel that it very neatly summarises the situation when a minor is "trained" to be someone's "perfect mate".-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:B07C:73B3:20CA:811D (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Linking that article is not adhering to a neutral POV, especially to do so in the first sentence of the article. It is a modern day concept and did not exist at the time of this historical article. Further, I would say the edit done by a different IP a few days ago that introduced "sometimes cruel" into the lead is also not neutral. Yes, it very well may be but it is not stated anywhere else in the article and is adding opinion. I will be interested to see the views of others on these. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

And the rationale for your opinion being what, exactly? If you'd read the article, Sabrina Sidney herself was not exactly rapturous about this "arrangement"... And yes, the mores of the era were more permissive for this kind of treatment of minors. Of course it was also the time when child labour was completely unregulated in most nations and drawing and quartering was considered an acceptable punishment.

Granted, the child grooming article suffers from recentism and hardly gives any pre-20th century example.

And no, I can't be held responsible for edits by different IPs - no more than all registered users could be counted for a single editor. -2A00:1028:83BE:4392:39D6:17ED:9882:2585 (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

For that matter, while I agree that the characterization 'sometimes cruel' added by that other IP sounds a bit judgemental, it's quite justified vis à vis what he was doing - calling it just "unusual and eccentric techniques" sounds too much like whitewashing of his actions. Shooting blanks against her? Non-consensual "wax play"? Really, that Day fellow must had been some serious perv.-2A00:1028:83BE:4392:29CF:71A1:BF28:D37D (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

So if there are no relevant objections (besides your initial "personal feelings") and in the discussion here there were no more objections, can I possibly restore the link to the child grooming article you'd rather frivolously removed?2A00:1028:83BE:4392:287D:988C:62A6:D502 (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Please refer to her by last name

Per MOS:SURNAME, the subject of an article should be referred to by the surname, so why does this article use "Sabrina" all over the place, instead of "Sidney"? —howcheng {chat} 19:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

"their strict upbringing meant they would not have rebelled excessively"

I'm not sure about having this line in wikivoice, but I'm not touching it myself because I can't proclaim to know exactly what the source says or how better to paraphrase it. Certainly a strict upbringing is no guarantee against rebellion, 'excessive' or otherwise. Is there a way to phrase this that respects the statements of the source, but simultaneously doesn't make sweeping and controversial pedagogical claims in wikivoice? Vaticidalprophet 17:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Have to say, though, it's a good read aside. Props to you. Vaticidalprophet 17:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)