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 00:36, 5 March 2008.

Fanny Imlay[edit]

Check external links

Self-nomination - This is an article about Mary Wollstonecraft's first, and less well-known, child. It has been peer-reviewed by Ruhrfisch, Roger Davies, and Qp10qp. I believe that it meets the FA criteria. Awadewit | talk 00:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as noted, I am one of the peer reviewers. I find it deals admirably with the uncertainties and differing academic opinions, as well as meeting the FA criteria. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, also as a peer reviewer. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article is soundly based on secondary sources: Awadewit has done Fanny Imlay—who assumed in her suicide note that her existence would be forgotten by the world—proud. I found it a fascinating case study on the limits of what can be known about fringe historical figures like Imlay. It is difficult for those non-creative people on the fringe of the Wollstonecraft-Godwin-Shelley literary circles—Fanny Imlay, her father, her stepmother, her aunts, Jane Williams—to be imagined today. Unless I'm mistaken, scholars turn up their noses slightly at such figures, who had the impertinence not to be writers. qp10qp (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - was very impressed with this at GA (where I passed it), and am pleased to see that it has improved even further since then.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with some minor things:
- Why was the trip to Scandinavia hazardous?
  - Because Scandinavia was considered close to "uncivilized" at the time and Wollstonecraft was traveling only with another woman (her maid) and a baby. Should I add this? Awadewit | talk 00:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think so. My thoughts are that, if being "hazardous" is consequential enough to get a mention, it would be helpful to explain.
      - Added. Awadewit | talk 05:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A few inconsistencies with English variants (e.g. British “neighbour” and “enamoured”, but American “realized”)
  - This is Oxford spelling - all of the Template:Mary Wollstonecraft articles are now spelled this way. It is a compromise spelling-system that is least jarring for both Americans and Britons, I think. Awadewit | talk 00:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per below, no big deal.
- Per Tony’s 1A guide, the “both” in “brief periods both before and after the birth of Fanny” is redundant.
  - Removed. Awadewit | talk 00:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first paragraph is one sentence long; perhaps you could expand to three sentences? (The minimum, per rigid elementary school English teachers everywhere; although I often use one and two in my professional writing, so no big deal)
  - I tend to think of the first paragraph as establishing notability. I don't think we need more than the one sentence to explain Imlay's and I'm not really sure what to add to the paragraph otherwise. Do you have any suggestions? Awadewit | talk 00:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This was purely stylistic, but let me see whether I can concoct something.
- When will it be Lessons' turn? ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Do you really think Lessons for Children has the potential to be an FA? I kind of thought it was too small.) Awadewit | talk 00:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the test is “comprehensive(ness)”, not length - see, for example, John Day (printer), Hurricane Irene (2005), (cough Oliver). I’d go for it, if you believe it complete. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - (Oh, it's complete. Sometimes I just think I should wait for more material to be published.) Awadewit | talk 01:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lessons for Children. Awadewit | talk 04:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information: "realized" (and all ize/izing/ization variants) is British "Oxford" spelling; "realised" (and ise/ising/isation) is British "Cambridge" spelling. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but "-ize" is not exactly in favour; it seems switching to "-ise" would assist readability, albeit minorly so (id est, people won't have to stop to wonder whether it fits). It's by no means a deal breaker (I've already supported), and the last thing I want is another English language debate. You English-speaking types need a Duden. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The opening sentence uses the word "illegitimate" to describe Fanny Imlay as being born outside wedlock. Should Wikipedia use a judgmental term like this, or am I being too sensitive? It is a commonly-used term and perhaps isn't Wikipedia's place to judge how appropriate it is to use. That said, English is not controlled in the way that French is controlled by the Académie française; there is no rule saying that this is the term to use in this context. Is it a legal term? It could easily be replaced with "born outside marriage", or something to that effect. The article Illegitimacy describes the term as "once commonly assigned", does this make it appropriate within the context of a 19th century biography to describe her legal status? --Oldak Quill 00:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up this and related issues in reference to the family tree (I wanted to make it as non-judgmental as possible). I'm not sure that "born out of wedlock" is any less judgmental, as it implies that being born within wedlock is the "right" way to be born. :) "Illegitimate" is common and easily understood, I think. However, I'm open to other suggestions that are less POV. I just haven't been able to think of any. (The word is historically appropriate.) Awadewit | talk 01:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bastard would be judgmental; illegitimate is a statement of fact about English law. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: could you make the quote When you were hungry.. into a blockquote? it is forced into the right half page in IE, leaving a white gap.

I used the Template:Imagequote for both of the blockquotes there, so that the blockquote would indent from the image. It should look ok. Can you post a screenshot? It looks fine here. Awadewit | talk 05:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I can't. But on this computer it falls below the image, and so does not need to be forced right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just removed the templates. Awadewit | talk 06:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, could you make the family tree image into a section of its own? At that sise, the text which should flow around it breaks up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you suggest I do that at the end of the article? Awadewit | talk 05:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or in a separate section where it is, perhaps with a fourth level header, off Percy, Mary and Claire . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - See what you think now. Awadewit | talk 06:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Much more readable, but You know that as a female... is no longer indented, relative to the text. Hmm. Let's see what others think. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The reason I took that template out is because I thought it would look odd to have one quotation indented and not the other (which would be the result over here). So, I just unindented both. Tricky problem. Awadewit | talk 06:50, 29 February 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.