Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sabrina Sidney/archive1

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2016 [1].

Sabrina Sidney

Nominator(s): Worm^TT(talk) & ツStacey (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Sabrina Sidney, a foundling girl taken in by

• Rousseau's Emile is referred to throughout as Emile, or On Education. I'd give the subtitle only on the first mention (or perhaps first mention in the lead, and then again at first mention in the body of the article).

  I've removed some instances of the subtitle, leaving it in the lead, one mention in the article and in the image of it's front page. Worm^TT(talk)

• The final paragraph of the article could, I think, do with a rewrite; I had to read it a couple of times to work out what was being said. I'll have a go to see what I can do about it.

  here is my attempt; feel free to revert/improve. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like a significant improvement to me, thank you! Worm^TT(talk)

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably formally support this nomination... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Fountains-of-Paris

• The references in the Wikipedia article on Rousseau appear to indicate that this Sabrina Sidney article is a counter-intuitive reading of his book on Emile, and this might be amplified to clarify its usage for the readers of this article since Rousseau actually believed the exact opposite of the type of treatment received by Sabrina S. This is the passage included in the section in
  Wollstonecraft regarding the type of feminism Austen explores in the depiction of Fanny Price. For Kirkham, these two views are highly constrasting with Rousseau portraying the role of women as limited by "feminine" frailties which, counter-intuitively, Rousseau encourages women to exaggerate in order to affectionately manipulate their effect on men as he states in his book Emile: "So far from being ashamed of their weakness, they glory in it; their tender muscles make no resistance; they affect to be incapable of lifting the smallest burdens, and would blush to be thought robust and strong." (quoted in Margaret Kirkham, "Feminist Irony and the Priceless Heroine of Mansfield Park; In Jane Austen: New Perspectives (Women and Literature, n.s. 3), edited by Janet Todd, 1983, Holmes and Meier Publishers.) Wollstonecraft for her part agreed with Austen's perspective contrary to both Rousseau and his followers in this regard such as Fordyce whom Kirkham criticizes stating: "I know not any comment that can be made seriously on this curious passage (from Fordyce and Rousseau), and I could produce many similar ones; and some so very sentimental, that I have heard rational men used the word indecent when they mentioned them with disgust." Kirkham, siding with Austen, was critical of the "feminine" frailties school represented by Rousseau and Fordyce. Sabrina received tuition opposite to that suggested by Rousseau. Wikipedia's current top editor is User:Moderninst who might have another relevant viewpoint. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Hi Fountains-of-Paris, thanks for your comments and sorry for the delay in replying. Your interpretation of Rousseau matches mine, I do agree that Day misunderstood the work - but that doesn't take away from the fact that he was following his interpretation of Rousseau. Day was a complicated individual, who's opinion of women was contradictory - he appeared to want a strong-willed, intelligent woman with whom he could discuss matters of gravitas, but at the same time she should be chaste, need protection from all other men and follow his every will. He was not alone in his interpretation of Rousseau, which is not surprising as radical works will be interpreted differently by people with different backgrounds. I'd certainly value Modernist's view if he has time to read the article.
  That said, whilst I'm happy to debate Rousseau and the different interpretations, I do think the article is clear that it is Day's actions were based on his reading of Emile, not that Rousseau was advocating Day's approach. I don't believe Rousseau and Day ever met, nor that Rousseau was even aware of Day. If you think that it's not clear, I'll have another look and see if I can reinforce that fact. Worm^TT(talk) 11:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's all fair. When I did the Kirkham edit for the Jane Austen pages, Kirkham was of the opinion that this type of reading of Rousseau should be written up as being "anti-Rousseau" in her published article. Since its a published source and Kirkham is a respected scholar, then it seems that your lead section might benefit from calling it an anti-Rousseau position following Kirkham. Just leaving it as another "Rousseau" reading seems a little ambiguous if it is left without some adjective (or some sort) to clarify Day's off-center reading of Rousseau. Its really up to you, though I thought you would like know about Kirkham's published preference on this question. Possibly @Modernist: can comment further. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (but involved). I did the GAN review on this piece and it has improved since then. Fully support. Montanabw^(talk) 07:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Foundling_Hospital.jpg is tagged as lacking source and author information and needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I hadn't realised! I'll have a look for the source or replace it. Worm^TT(talk) 15:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Now replaced the image with File:The Foundling Hospital, Holborn, London; a view of the court Wellcome V0013456.jpg from the Wellcome Trust. Worm^TT(talk) 15:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  For that image, I believe the given tagging is meant to represent the copyright of the scanner/uploader - we need to know the copyright of the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll have a look into it, Nikkimaria Worm^TT(talk) 18:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting that I've updated the template, and double checked with Nikkimaria Worm^TT(talk) 16:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The Thomas Day image is garbage and you should use this one -
  n 11:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Thanks

  Hahnchen, I've replaced it. Worm^TT(talk) 15:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

  ]

I like the engaged writing, excellent job! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your suggestions Gerda.

• I think we used both names in the info box as we couldn't decide which to use. Which would you suggest? Sabrina Sidney or Sabrina Bicknell?
• I've put in the sub-heading.
• I have changed the sentence to make it clear who's birthday we were referring to.
• Thanks for your edits too! ツStacey (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, - just Gerda is fine with me. Name: I'd match the article name on top, and have the other as other_names.

Support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RexxS

Accessibility comments:

• All of the images have sensible alt text. I tweaked the alt text for File:The Foundling Hospital, Holborn, London; a view of the court Wellcome V0013456.jpg because we shouldn't be using alt text to provide information not visible in the image - that's the job of the caption.
• The only list conforms to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Lists.
• There are no tables requiring conformity with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables
• The use of colours and small text comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style #Color coding and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting #Font size.

Note on references: it appears that the Oelkers 2014 entry in the Bibliography section isn't used as an in-line citation in the article. Technically, it should be in a "General references" or "Further reading" section, but I wouldn't insist on such a section being created for just one entry. --RexxS (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks RexxS. I've now used Oelkers 2014 in the article as an in-line citation, hopefully that removes the difficulty. Worm^TT(talk) 10:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note - has this had a source review? --Laser brain (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

• Refs 25, 56 and 57 (all to Moore 2013) should be "pp" not "p"
• In Bibliography, location missing from Backscheider, Cunningham, Oelkers, Sadler, Schama, Stewart and Wilson. These locations are needed for consistency with the others.
• All sources look to be reliable and appropriately high quality.
• Spot checks not done

Apart from the above two points, everything looks fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Sarastro1. I've tackled those two issues. Worm^TT(talk) 11:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- such an unusual, almost unbelievable, story I decided to recuse from coord duties and copyedit/review:

• The story could hardly be anything except engaging but I felt the prose could stand some improvement, so I've spent some time tweaking and trimming; please let me know if I've inadvertently altered any meaning.
• Article layout seems straightforward, the level of detail appropriate, and the tone neutral.
• I'll defer to Sarastro re. source formatting/reliability.
• Likewise Nikki re. images, although it looks to me that there might still be an outstanding point, pls check on that.
• It's been a few years since WTT's last FA so I think someone ought to spotcheck sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- if no-one beats me to it I'll try and do so in the next day or two.

To summarise, at this stage I'm leaning to support but I'd like to check that the image review is finalised and see a spotcheck of sources before committing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the copyedits, Ian Rose, I'm not the best writer (my BSc was in Maths!) so I appreciate anyone taking the time to tidy up anything I've written. Looking through your edits as you were doing them and they all seem to keep the meaning but improve the prose. Nikki's point was dealt with, but stupidly I confirmed on her talk page rather than here! I've commented above with a link to the talk page. I've no issues with a spotcheck on the sources, I may not spend much time at FA, but I do ensure that articles I write are regularly peer reviewed through other Wikipedia processes, so I'm confident that there should be no difficulties there. Worm^TT(talk) 16:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing or plagiarism -- I've restricted myself to sources available online either through Google preview or elsewhere on the web...

• FN14a -- article mentioned "slender" but I didn't notice anything supporting that in the source; also both article and source mention a "melodious" voice and, while it's only one word, perhaps using a variation like simply "pleasant" would be preferable.
• FN14b -- okay.
• FN17 -- okay; also supported by Backscheider p. 121, which I'd checked earlier for FN14 (just an observation, no action required).
• FN34 -- okay.
• FN55 -- "despite Bicknell being just two years older than he"; this may be true but the source doesn't actually make this comparison as far as I can see.
• FN59a -- okay.
• FN59b -- okay.
• FN67 -- "stating that she never loved Day" may be implied by the source but isn't that explicit as far as I can see; the rest of the sentence is fine.

WTT, none of the above is particularly serious but the proportion of such little niggles suggest that as well as taking care of these it might be worthwhile you going over the article against the sources and just double-checking things along the lines that I've noted. Of course if you think I've missed something in my checks above pls let me know. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian Rose. I don't believe I added anything in that was not from the sources. When I put the article in for GA, Montanabw recommended that duplication of sources was a bad idea and so I've removed anything where very similar information came from two different sources. I expect these niggles can easily be put to rest by double checking the earlier version and bringing some of those sources back in. The only one with a little synthesis is FN55, which is correct, but not drawn as a parallel in the source. This was another point raised in the GA, Day's complaint that Bicknell was too old was rather hypocritical given their comparative ages, but the age difference hadn't been made clear in the article. Worm^TT(talk) 14:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice the first point among my spotchecks has been actioned so I've struck it; pls keep me informed how the rest go so I can strike and wrap up my review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Apologies for the delay, the real world has rather taken my attentions. I've had another look through the sources and I can't find the statement that she didn't love Day, so I've removed that too. Regarding FN55, as I mentioned above the GA raises the issue that Day complains about the age difference, without explaining what the age difference is. I don't see anywhere that the age difference is mentioned in a book, though I believe Moore does mention both ages in her book. I've reworded to make it more neutral as no book is bringing up that age difference - it's now simple information which can be found easily by checking each birth date. Hopefully that resolves the issue there too. Worm^TT(talk) 09:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tks, I've struck the remaining concerns and am ready to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I've had this article on my watch list more or less from when it was created so have followed the changes as it has progressed. I feel after recent final tweaks it now meets the FA criteria and am happy to support promotion.
  SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]