Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

[edit] A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

Self-nomination I have worked quite a bit on expanding this page on an important feminist text from a mere list of quotations and chapter headings to its GA current form. I believe that it is well-written, comprehensive and well-sourced. It has recently been through a thorough peer-review as well as a review from another wikipedia editor. See Talk:A Vindication of the Rights of Woman and Wikipedia:Peer review/March 2007. I may have given extensive answers to questions you have at those locations. Thanks. Awadewit 16:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments The lead is pretty good except the first sentence gets me. You write, "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) is one of the earliest works of feminist literature or philosophy." Which is it? Is it both literature and philosophy? Is there a debate about it? Otherwise the lead is fine and a good summary of the text.-BillDeanCarter 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant it is one of the earliest feminist books of any kind, in either literature or philosophy. And, yes, I would assume that philosophers would say this is not philosophy while literary critics and feminist scholars like to claim that it is. Awadewit 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• You write, "In a lively and sometimes vicious pamphlet war, now referred to as the "Revolution Controversy". Should Revolution Controversy be wikilinked? It sounds like something interesting and worth an article.-BillDeanCarter 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no page on the "Revolution Controversy." Perhaps I will write one someday.

• You write, "That same year, French feminist Olympe de Gouge published her Rights of Woman, and the question of women's rights became a live one in both France and Britain." I think "became a lively one" is what you meant here. It reads a bit funny overall. Did the question of women's rights become a lively one because of de Gouge's publication, or was it an overall mood that begun due to various factors.-BillDeanCarter 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

DoneI meant "live" as in a "living" question, a question that was up for debate. Literary critics use that diction a lot. I will change it as it is not familiar to the general reader. de Gouge's publication had a lot to do with it becoming a more important issue at the time. Awadewit 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You write now, "That same year, French feminist Olympe de Gouge published her Rights of Woman, and the question of women's rights became central to political debates in both France and Britain." It's a little ambiguous about something that might be complex. Was de Gouge's publication responsible for the political debates in Britain as well? The way it's phrased I can't tell what led up to the political debate on women's rights. If it was maybe 12 publications and 6 movements, or simply de Gouge and Wollstonecraft's publications.-BillDeanCarter 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is a complex event, and, yes, de Gouge's pamphlet was responsible for prompting increased debates in both countries. I can't go into the whole history of women's rights in the eighteenth century here. That is why I provide a link to the "history of feminism" page later. Awadewit 07:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• You write, "she is concerned with the rights afforded to "woman," an abstract category." This could do with a bit more explanation. What is an abstract category, and specifically why have women been placed in it?-BillDeanCarter 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was clear that "woman" is abstract while "men" is specific - is it not? Awadewit 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How abstract was the category of "woman"? For men it's specific to country and time period, and for woman it was universal and timeless? Could you characterize how abstract the category of woman was in a more explanatory way? It's an important comparison to make, but the phrase sounds like women are an abstract category when what you mean to say is that "she is concerned with the rights afforded to an abstract depiction of "woman,"..." I think.-BillDeanCarter 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In this context, it is grammar that reveals all. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman is discussing the abstract category of "woman" because it is using the singular. A Vindication of the Rights of Men is discussing particular men because it is using the plural. I don't think that it is necessary to explain this. I do not mean to say she is concerned with "rights afforded to an abstract depiction of woman." "Depiction" suggests that the category is a mere representation and not part of reality.

• I did a minor copyedit of the Themes section, "sensibility" was a physical phenonemon" (misspelled phenomenon?) the sentence on what the discourse on sensibility did for humanity, ...
• Further down in the same section, you write "For example, Wollstonecraft advises her readers to "calmly let passion subside into friendship" in the ideal companionate marriage". What is a companionate marriage? It comes up again in the Reception section

DoneMarriages based on love rather than those based on money. I will add an explanatory phrase. Awadewit 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• "In many ways the Vindication of the Rights of Woman is inflected by a bourgeois view of the world"... very nice! an example of brilliant prose.
• In the Revision section you write, "I intend to finish the next volume before I begin to print, for it is not pleasant to have the Devil coming for the conclusion of a sheet fore it is written." She knew she was dying? Was she ill? Did she know things were going bad for her, health-wise? How did she die? From the article on Wollstonecraft's life I see it was due to an infection after giving birth. Maybe a note on this would clarify things.-BillDeanCarter 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

DoneNo, she did not know she was dying. She was being hounded by her publisher to finish the book quickly. I will add a phrase. Awadewit 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You write, "the Devil [a reference to her publisher, Joseph Johnson]". That seems a little bit harsh. Are you sure that's correct? Are you sure she wasn't just speaking metaphorically about deadlines?-BillDeanCarter 23:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure. Awadewit 07:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, "the Devil" is a metaphor for her publisher, so she is speaking metaphorically. :) Awadewit 17:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Overall, very neutral, and it really gives you a good idea of what this work is all about. If I were to read it I would immediately know the context within which it took place.-BillDeanCarter 01:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support I happen to have read this work, and this article covers all the topics within. Moreover, it does so in a neutral and complete manner, using a brilliant prose at times. I believe it meets all FA requirements, although I am aware some editors prefer a referenced lead. Just two nitpicks: maybe at the end of the article you could add a line or two about the author's lifestyle, so the reader has a more accurate idea about why the Memoirs would cause such a stir so as to make people want to distance themselves from Wollstonecraft and the VRW? And perhaps the image of Wollstonecraft could appear before in the article, as opposed to nearly at the end of it? Aside from these minor points, superb work! :-) Raystorm 20:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have changed the placement of the images. Let me know if you think it is better.
• I have added sentences explaining Wollstonecraft's "unorthdox" lifestyle.
• All of the statements in the lead are referenced elsewhere. There seems to be no agreement on this issue. I think the lead looks more elegant without all of the notes and since it is a summary, all of the information reappears in one form or another in the article itself. Awadewit 20:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, looks great. :-) And I agree, leads without refs look better, but as there's no consensus on the matter you might get an editor yet that will want you to ref it up. ;-) Cheers Raystorm 16:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support this article was very good when it came to peer review and it's only gotten better since. The writing in particular is outstanding (though I'd still replace 'hostilely' with 'with hostility' in the sentence about its reception). Opabinia regalis 00:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed the sentence in the "Reception" section but then added a new sentence to the lead, forgetting about your objection to that phrase. I have now changed the sentence in the lead to "unfavorably received." Awadewit 07:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.