Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mary Martha Sherwood/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC) [1].

Mary Martha Sherwood[edit]

Notified: WP Bio, WP Children's literature, WP Women writers, WP Women's History, WP Women in Religion, talk page notice 2021-03-03

This 2007 promotion has minor amounts of original research or uncited text that has not been addressed since I raised it over a year ago; this should not be a difficult fix if someone has the sources. The original writer is deceased, and there are no other active involved editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia, I will take care of addressing the sourcing issues and other problems in the two-week period allotted. Thanks for bringing this back to our attention. The original writer, Wadewitz, was my mentor in my early days of editing, so I'm on it! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thx Christine! I will be away on vacation, but please keep this page informed of your progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia, of course, will do. Have an enjoyable vacation. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Figureskatingfan when do you expect to be ready for a new look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia, I'm busy with other projects this Fall. I'm almost done with one, so when I'm finished, I'll make a more concerted effort to work on this article. Would you mind giving me another month? If not, I understand, but I'd appreciate the extra time. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; let me know when ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia, I have finished going over this article, so it is now ready for a FAR. Thanks for your flexibility and patience. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Figureskatingfan, digging in:

  • It is not clear to me why we need links to individual works when we already have multiple links to her works overall ... can external links be pruned to eliminate the individual links here, which seem excessive ?
  • Unattributed opinion in the lead: the poor, as "one of the most significant authors of children's literature of the nineteenth century".
  • Please review my changes: [2]

It looks good enough to keep, but suggest others read it, as the topic is out of my comfort zone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia, addressing your comments:
  • I agree about the external links sections; it looks like similar articles don't list individual works, so I removed all but the general links to works.
  • The quote in the lead is attributed to Dawson.
  • Your changes all look great; thanks for making them.

I also agree that this should be keep, even though I don't get to vote in this situation. Thanks again. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the quote is attributed in the body ... you do get to vote in this situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Well then I vote KEEP. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick read of four or five paragaphs, the writing looks great; clear and concise. Will look more closely over weekend. Ceoil (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, are you still planning on looking at this? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CITATIONOVERKILL??? There are numerous instances of multiple citations on seemingly straightforward statements ... are they necessary ? One sample only: She also taught at a local Sunday school.[3][4][5][17]. Please review throughout ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone through and corrected the overkill. Please let me know if I've missed anything. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good enough, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a ce of the article, and I'm putting some thoughts below:

  • The lede is quite short. I'd recommend expanding it.
  • There's an "Evangelicalism" section and a "Evangelical tract literature in the 1820s and 1830s" section. Why are these separated (especially since the latter is a paragraph long.) Should these be merged?
  • "Sherwood also wrote a companion story titled Little Lucy and her Dhaye (1825) that told a similar tale, but from a little girl's point of view." Needs a citation.
    Why is that not WP:SKYISBLUE; the book speaks for itself? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SandyGeorgia: Even though it's addressed below, I wanted to respond to this an I'm happy to move this to another venue. SKYBLUE is an essay so I'm hesitant to base FAs on it. Also, as someone unfamiliar with this person, I would not instinctively know this fact, so I think it does need a citation. Z1720 (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia and @Z1720, I think that I agree with Sandy about the sky being blue, so I've removed the last phrase. Re: a citation: note ref64. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got. Z1720 (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, thanks for your comments. Addressing them:
  • According to WP:Lead, at 28177 characters, two or three paragraphs is long enough, but I expanded it anyway.
  • I too dislike short or one-paragraph sections, but I think in this case it's warranted and they shouldn't be combined because they're about two different genres: the "Evangelicalism" section is about her evangelical novels and the other second is about her tracts, which were evangelical in tone.
  • Added citation.
Also thanks for the ce, looks good. Hope I've sufficiently addressed your comments. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Overall, I think the article looks good. I would like others to do a copyedit of the lede, and try to remove the quotes in the third paragraph, but otherwise I'm happy with this article's prose. Z1720 (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2022 (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_review/Mary_Martha_Sherwood/archive1&oldid=1129272632"