Talk:Sedgwick family

Last bullet list
The last bullet list in the last text section, does it work properly? May it be some sort of bug? Thank you! PPEMES (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like the Tree list didn't have a Tree list/end at the end; I've fixed the issue. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Critique
I have raised this issue elsewhere, now I am going to raise it here. This is not an encyclopedia article, it is an unreferenced genealogical tree with a brief introduction. First, family articles are written in prose - text, not a family tree, needs to be the primary mode of presenting the family. Trees are used to help understand what is described in the body of the article, not as the body of the article. Second, if this is to be about the Sedgwick family, it needs to be about the whole Sedgwick family, not present the immigrant and then skip over almost 200 years and only address one particular cluster. If this is to really be about that one cluster, then the text (and perhaps the page name) needs to be refocused to reflect that (e.g. Theodore Sedgwick family, or even Ellery Sedgwick family). Third, the 'Connected people' section is. . . what? 'connected' is an arbitrary distinction, and a list such as this needs defined inclusion criteria, rather than just being at the whim of individual editors. In most cases, articles don't have a section like this - if the people are 'connected' enough to be noteworthy, then they should be mentioned in the article text. If they are too peripheral to be mentioned in the prose, they shouldn't be stuck on the end. But to incorporate these names into the article text, there actually has to be article text. And every single relationship in the tree needs to either be referenced in the tree, or discussed with full references in the text. Anything that is unreferenced can be removed - that would be the whole tree in this case, and that doesn't leave much of an article. One possibility to consider - maybe the article should be recast to be about the book, rather than the hopeless task of making it about the thousands and thousands of descendants of a 400-year-old family. Finally a note on the family being shaped by tragedy. All families are. Saying this family is adds nothing. Equally important, Wikipedia aims to show, not tell - to provide a description of the family such that the reader sees the situation for themselves, then you don't have to make the statement at all because you have told the reader all about it. Here the opposite is done - making the bold assertion that the family was tragic without providing any details whatever. Agricolae (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Sedgwick Avenue?
Is the this family that Sedgwick Avenue is named for? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)