Wikipedia:Peer review/Mary Martha Sherwood/archive1

Mary Martha Sherwood

This is another article in my series about early British children's writers. As with Sarah Trimmer, there is very little information available on Sherwood's life. There is, unfortunately, even less written about her works than there is with Trimmer. I have done what I can with what is published. The article is currently GA. I am aiming for FA eventually. There is one book I haven't seen yet, but I can't imagine that it is going to be some amazing revelation that will necessitate a complete rewrite. Awadewit | talk 23:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Carom

Excellent job on a rather obscure personage. A few (minor) quibbles:

1. The lead seems a tad on the short side. Would it be possible to expand it a touch?

What do you feel is missing? It's hard after reading the article so many times to know what the lead reads like "the first time." Awadewit | talk 15:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that there is anything really missing, per se; the lead just seems rather terse. Your prose is very compact and "tight" (you must surely be an academic of some kind) and could stand a little expansion for the sake of the average reader. For example, the last two sentences of the second paragraph seem like they could be recombined and expanded a little. Note, though, that this is really a minor detail.

That is hysterical! I am indeed an academic but am a very verbose writer (as are most academics). I am glad that my efforts to rein that in are working to some extent. Too bad my 70-page dissertation chapter hasn't been cut down to 45 pages yet. I will work on the lead. Sometimes it is very hard to put myself in the place of the reader who doesn't know anything about the topic. Awadewit | talk 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I don't dispute that academics are verbose, but I find that they tend to opt for more tightly constructed sentences (and paragraphs). That is, while there may be plenty of superfluous paragraphs (witness the twenty pages excised from my undergraduate thesis) there are relatively few superfluous words within each sentence.

I've tried to fix this. I'm not sure that I'm happy with the first paragraph, but we'll see. Let me know if you think it is an improvement. Awadewit | talk 17:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

1. There are several very short sections. It doesn't look like it would be appropriate to merge these into the larger sections around them (although I may be wrong), but would it be possible to expand these slightly?

I am generally against short sections myself. The problem is that there is very little published research on Sherwood (most of it is indeed listed in the Bibliography). I am thus not sure how to expand these sections without veering into unnecessary plot summary or original research. Do you have any suggestions? (I assume you are referring to "Sentimental novels," "Tracts," "Anti-catholicism" and "Victorianism"?)

Personally, I would not fault you for a little plot summary in these cases. Fo example, you tell us what people have said about Caroline Mordaunt, but I don't have any idea what the story is about, other than that it concerns a down-on-her-luck governess (a description which could easily fit a hal-dozen other stories, at least). Obviously, you want to stay away from paragraphs composed entirely of plot summary, but a little expansion would not be amiss.

I will work on that. There is another problem with that, though. I don't even have access to many of these texts. Many of them exist only in a handful of copies in rare books libraries around the world. Happily, I have read Caroline (it was boring). Awadewit | talk 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have expanded "Sentimental novels," "Tracts" and "Victorianism." Let me know what you think. Awadewit | talk 21:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

1. There are a handful of redlinks - would the understanding of the article be enhanced by turning these blue and allowing a reader to follow a link to a brief stub?

I could do that for most of the redlinks. I just don't like creating stubs that I have no intention of expanding much in the near future. It feels so irresponsible somehow.

If the reader might gain from having more information available to them, and it is inappropriate to add that information to this article, I would say you are not being irresponsible in creating a stub. A nice, short, one-paragraph stub, properly formatted and categorized, is a nice addition to the encyclopedia.

Sure. I can do that. Awadewit | talk 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have stubbed the ones that I feel competent to stub. Awadewit | talk 21:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said, nothing major, and an excellent job thus far. Carom 14:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I appreciate your helpful comments. Awadewit | talk 15:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hope my further comments help a little more. Carom 16:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, they do. Awadewit | talk 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, then! I look forward to being able to support this at FAC. Carom 16:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Your additions and alterations look good, and I have no further quibbles or complaints. Nice work! Carom 23:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WillowW

(pasted from Awadewit's talk page)

I'll keep thinking about Mary Martha Sherwood, but here are some general suggestions from a random lay-reader

• Maybe go easier on abstract nouns in the lead, such as "patriarchalism"? Maybe you could also combine the two examples, e.g., "such as prescribing social roles by gender and class" or some-such?
  • I agree that that sentence is a problem. It used to lack examples (to avoid just that problem) but then a reviewer suggested more details in the lead. I will keep working on it.

• I'm really prone to writing, "It was X who did Y.", but it usually seems swifter and more direct to write "X did Y".
  • I do that as well - I will look for those sorts of verbiage problems.

• I was taught never to start a sentence with "But..." or "And...". But I occasionally backslide on that. ;)
  • Such rules are often given to students (even in college) without any reasoning, unfortunately, which leads to the absolutes. It is justifiable and even elegant to begin sentences with those words. You just have to know what you are doing - I usually use "But" at the beginning of a sentence to emphasize a contradiction or juxtaposition of some sort. The reason for the rule is that most people cannot do so properly.

• Perhaps the Literary analysis might be organized more ruthlessly chronologically? Or as a milder change, perhaps the section titles could be extended to strengthen the reader's sense of progression, e.g., "Victorianism of later works". The reader seems to want a firm guiding hand in that section.
  • I'm not sure what a chronological analysis would add. I tried to discuss the sentimental novels (written first), then proceed to the evangelical and colonial themes (which occupy Sherwood's early to mid works) and end up with Victorianism (later works) to give a sense of chronology. But when someone writes 400 works, there isn't an overarching "story" that is easy to tell about their works. Also, the scholarship doesn't really say much about "progressions" or overarching changes in her writing, so arranging it that way would be difficult. I would not be able to tell a "chronological story," as it were. I will see what I can do with the section headings. I found this section very difficult to write because of the dearth of material; that is part of what is restricting my options, I think. Awadewit | talk 19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hoping this helps, Willow 18:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Awadewit | talk 19:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)