Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Mary Wollstonecraft
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Mary Wollstonecraft
I have been working on this set of articles for about a year now and I believe that it meets the FT criteria.
- 1 a and b) This set of articles covers all of the major literary works of Mary Wollstonecraft and includes a helpful timeline and informative biography.
- 1 c) The articles are linked together using Template:Mary Wollstonecraft (I do not think a category called "Mary Wollstonecraft" is necessary at this stage).
- 1 d) The articles listed here cover all of her works. I hope to eventually include all of the articles in the template, but that will take years of diligent research.
- 2) The introductory article is Mary Wollstonecraft.
- 3) All of the articles are FA.
- Other: The articles are as similar in structure as possible.
- Other: As infoboxes are optional and only cause confusion on eighteenth-century literature pages, they have not been included here.
- Other: All articles have been peer reviewed.
- Other: The topic is contained.
Thanks! Awadewit | talk 09:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Fantastic topic- I've been noticing these articles at FAC for a while. For the information of other reviewers, the articles that are linked in the Template:Mary Wollstonecraft that are not listed here are: various people related to her (professionally or relatives), biography written by her husband after her death, and a periodical that she was an editor for. I do not feel that any of these articles should be in the topic, so I fully support it as is. --PresN 17:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support
Comment- How many other works of hers are there? Is this all of them, or just her "major works"? gotta be specific with these kinds of things. Judgesurreal777 22:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- All of her works are listed on Mary Wollstonecraft. In my opinion, none of her other works deserve their own wikipedia pages. Awadewit | talk 22:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- So there are no other articles on her works then besides the ones listed here?? Judgesurreal777 20:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- There are no other articles that I am aware of and it would be next to impossible to write an article on any of the remaining works, most of which are fragments published after her death (such as "Lessons"), translations of other people's works (such as Grandison), or on her contributions to the Analytical Review (we are not even sure which articles are hers - she did not sign them with her name). There is simply not enough scholarship on any of these texts to sustain an article. Awadewit | talk 20:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Here is an essay by the Wollstonecraft scholar Janet Todd, written for the BBC History project, that briefly outlines her life and works. Perhaps this will help you decide? Awadewit | talk 21:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the article, I was just checking on the comprehensiveness issue, which you seem to have well in hand :) Judgesurreal777 22:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't a make-or-break issue, but would it be possible to make a single article for all of the Minor works of Mary Wollstonecraft? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps I am not being sufficiently clear. When I say there is no scholarship on these works, what I mean is, there is absolutely nothing of any substance. A sentence here and there for her translations and infant stories in biographies (she wrote them). Two or three articles on her contributions to the Analytical Review (which I'm using for that page), passing references to the "Cave of Fancy", and a few mentions and half of one article on Historical and Moral View of France. It is not possible to make an article out of this scattering of material, even a GA article. I would have, if I could have (I am very diligent and honest in these matters), but it is just not possible. I know someone who is trying to publish an article on one of MW's translations, but that isn't in print yet. Alas. This is not akin to the minor works of Jane Austen, on which a great deal has been written. Awadewit | talk 00:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Here is an essay by the Wollstonecraft scholar Janet Todd, written for the BBC History project, that briefly outlines her life and works. Perhaps this will help you decide? Awadewit | talk 21:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- There are no other articles that I am aware of and it would be next to impossible to write an article on any of the remaining works, most of which are fragments published after her death (such as "Lessons"), translations of other people's works (such as Grandison), or on her contributions to the Analytical Review (we are not even sure which articles are hers - she did not sign them with her name). There is simply not enough scholarship on any of these texts to sustain an article. Awadewit | talk 20:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support - All of her other works truly are minor. Short blurbs in journals, etc. that haven't really gathered much criticism individually at all. All these can be clearly separated as her major works, and they are all excellent articles. Wrad 22:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Wow. This is incredible. Rebecca 01:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I think I agreed somewhere that I would help review some of these articles for serial commas or something, but I can't find where I made the offer and in any case it looks like the work has been done already. Regardless, I'm very impressed by all the work which has gone into these articles; insofar as they're all FAs, it appears that they've all been vetted very carefully one by one. Given the cohesion of the pages and the fact that nothing significant appears to have been excluded, I say "Aye!". Kudos, Awadewit. – Scartol · Talk 15:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Full disclosure: I did some peer-editing on some of these (Letters and Vindication … Men). – Scartol · Talk 15:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I have read all the articles and have just caught up with the timeline. I've reviewed all the articles except the lead article and have come to know this topic very well, thanks to colleague Awadewit and the other editors. It's all been done with such loving care (there's something of Lothlórien here). It adds up to a colossal achievement—I mean, what we have here is the equivalent of a book. The thoroughness, attention to detail and discerning study of the best sources simply takes my breath away. Any student of Wollstonecraft who clicks Wikipedia will hardly believe their luck in striking this treasure trove. Wikipedia at its finest. qp10qp 17:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support A simply superb achievement. To my mind, the completion of this corpus of articles marks a watershed moment for Wikipedia, and sets a new standard for us all, by their comprehensive scope, well-knit integrity, scrupulous referencing and excellent writing. These stars would shine in any firmament; we're blessed to have them (and their author) here. Willow 17:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support - A great set of works on an important topic. It reflects well on Wikipedia that it can produce a topic like this and draw in editors like Awadewit. --lquilter 01:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support To sum it up: You are awesome. :) Honestly, this is perhaps the most complete compilation of articles on Wikipedia! Nishkid64 (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strongest possible support - The finest body of work on Wikipedia by a long long way. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment on the superlatives As my friend Willow is fond of saying, "now I'm really blushing!" Thanks! Awadewit | talk 03:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Saw all these at FA, and commented on a few. But to see them together is really someting. Benchmark. Ceoil 14:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. The support list here is like the Who's Who of humanities on Wikipedia. But seriously, these articles are the new gold standard of what's possible. Bravo! --JayHenry 23:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I've had some very pleasant reading time catching up on all of these. This really is outstanding work. I know of no overall body of work on Wikipedia of comparable quality, and I hope this becomes well-known as an exemplar of what Wikipedia can achieve. Mike Christie (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. How could I add anything not already said? These articles are absolutely supurb. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 16:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support - Superb! Period. - KNM Talk 01:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Pile on support. This is a complete and superbly written topic. Nothing could be added and every article is featured. What more to say. Woodym555 22:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Pile on support. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Promoted --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
