Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Margaret Fuller

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 by User:SandyGeorgia 22:01, 12 September 2008 [1].

Margaret Fuller[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightdreary (talk)


Nominating for Featured Article; concerns I have that could be considered by reviewers include the sections on Beliefs as well as Legacy and criticism. Are they clear? Organized well? Etc. And, of course, the usual question: is the quality of writing throughout sufficient? Thanks in advance. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the open peer review request on the article's talk page should be closed per FAC instructions. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep trying; I haven't found anything yet. It's the only known daguerreotype of Fuller and it's used all over, but I have yet to find substantial information on its provenance. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Information discovered! See image description for the full story. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. Images all check out, then. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Otherwise all images have author, license, and appropriate source and tags. I guess I'll try and review this article too, it's a shame it wasn't in this shape when I had to do my english lit presentation on Fuller a couple years back... :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment by jimfbleak, just a drive-by nitpick, no time to review properly at present about 100 yards (91 m) delusions of accuracy, I think. In accordance with MoS, 90 m or even 100m would be better - although if you use 100 m, someone will point out that 100 yd and 100 m aren't the same (: jimfbleak (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC) I've now had a proper read, no major issues, jimfbleak (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a template that makes an automatic measurement conversion; I had nothing to do with it. I can remove it though and re-write the line in a manner that more accurately represents the cited source. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I'll make it clear now that, forbidding any drastic revelations, I'm supporting this page. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerns 1) "Modern scholars have suggested Woman in the Nineteenth Century" You only have one scholar cited. Maybe cite the actual scholar? 2) "Once equal educational rights were afforded women, she believed, women could push for equal political rights as well" This (and some surrounding text) reads more as a term paper or as a novel than as an encyclopedia. Make the language straightforward and to the point. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote is actually referencing the source saying that modern scholars believed that the work was the first of its kind since Wollstonecraft; the source itself does not make the comparison independently, really. Not sure what the problem is with your second point. Could you clarify what is unencyclopedic about it? I've never been accused of "novel"-like writing before... Is it because the sentence is broken up by the "she believed" part? I was trying to add variety to the sentence structures (rather than "She this" and "She that", which I am commonly criticized for during my FA/GA reviews). I'm just taking a guess at your meaning though.; if you explain a bit further can address it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see on the first point. On the second, it was: blank, inserted name says, continue blank. Instead of having it as inserted name says _____. When you put in the stylized dictum acknowledgment after a phrase, it appears to be more "pretty", or "aesthetically pleasing" which is appropriate for novels, essay writings, etc, but not encyclopedias. Does this make sense? Its just a style item. Its not a huge issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense now; thanks for clarifying! I really only did that to break up all the sentences that started with "She something" and then "She something else". I'll see if I can find another way to do it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chances are it will be difficult, thats why I wouldn't even think about opposing on such an issue. I know exactly what position you are in, especially when I have to rely on quotes throughout my articles. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I added something that might cover this. Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes dislike the indirect back 'n forth that characterizes content review. I'm just gonna write my own version of the lead in my user space, and them you can look at it, OK? But it may be much later today... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 00:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I wrote a revised lead in my user space, and left a note on User talk:Midnightdreary. The principal contributors/FAC nominators can take/leave anything they want. Cheers Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 06:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to put something together, Ling! I'm curious if other reviewers have a preference for either the current article version or the proposed revised version. (As an aside, I will be out of town for a couple days starting tomorrow and may not respond swiftly to queries, as they say). --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) My (very slightly different) version of the lede is temporarily in my user space here. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 12:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ling, I didn't add it to the lead, but you came up with some good information so I added it into the main part of the article, under Legacy. Thanks for providing the great info! --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as for the lead: the bit about going to elementary school in this or that place (Groton, Massachusetts; irrelevant data that smacks of boosterism) is boring enough to make me click away from the article; plus the lead is supposed to be a stand-alone article of sorts... and i don't think it actually captures the spirit of her excellence (see the bit about most well-read in my version) or of her contribution to feminism (see the last 2 quotes in my version) in its current state. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 00:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had no intention to make it seem like I was promoting/boosting an elementary school in Groton. As per the guidelines on leads, the lead should accurately summarize the full article. As the majority of the article is biographical, the lead will be mostly bio as well. I think I see your point, though, and added another bit of info to further emphasize. I'm hesitant to add more about her influence in that third paragraph because, as you might remember, your first comment pointed to the lack of criticism. Adding too much positive stuff seems to add a little POV. I'll keep thinking on this one, however. Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about how her influenced waned after her death was my swipe at showing the negative side. To be honest, after reading the article, I came away with the impression that most of her detractors were folks whom she'd quarreled with, rather than objective impersonal thinkers. They still warrant mention, of course... do any of them look objective impersonal to you? I mean... of course they have an opposing POV; I mean "objective" impersonal in the sense of "not springing from personal quarrels". Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR)
I see what you're saying now; my attention was drawn to the wrong aspect. Let me take another look at this. I really do appreciate your input! --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"After some formal schooling, she became a teacher for a time" Th e words "some " and "for a time" are vague weasel words, sorry. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 08:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have solved this as well. Let me know. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Excellent article. Quite the feat. —Sunday Scribe 23:14, 9 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Margaret_Fuller&oldid=1049171901"