Template:Did you know nominations/Ellen Pickering


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ellen Pickering
* ... that some think that Ellen Pickering Victorian novels do not need to be re-read to find "hidden feminisms"?
 * Reviewed: QPQ = Solar eclipse of 1 May 1185
 * Comment: ... you find some odd stuff looking at old Victorian authors. Last one for WHM? Victuallers (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Created by Victuallers (talk). Self nominated at 10:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg I'm afraid you missed the end of WHM.  It's an interesting article you've got here, but there are a few minor issues in the body.  But, let's deal with the hook first.  Since we generally avoid weasel words, why do you use them in the hook ("some think")?  Perhaps that's acceptable for DYK.  Let's assume for the moment that it is.  Then, what in the world are "hidden feminisms"?  I read the article and still couldn't really figure it out. Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As you say "some think" avoids mentioning names that are in the article. My understanding is that "hidden feminisms" if her criticism of modern feminists directing their views onto long dead authors to make some point. "hidden feminisms" is a noun that she applies IMO to ideas that are hidden and feminist. She also says that "we" need to "debunk our history of reading these texts back from reality". I want to avoid a POV so maybe you might care to assist? As Lewis Carroll says (I think) the words means what I want them to mean. I think the phrase you highlight is intended to be deprecating. It works for me, so can we find a synonym or an alt hook? Victuallers (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * (alt1) ... that some think that Ellen Pickering Victorian novels show that we need to debunk our "history of reading these texts back from reality"?
 * Pretty much the same problem as before: weasel words and obscurantism. How about a nice, factual hook that makes sense? :) Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the problem with these academics - some find their work difficult to make out. I find it tricky myself. Why not have a go at writing a hook? Victuallers (talk)
 * Can I sleep on it? :) Viriditas (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , I looked at the hook again and I read the corresponding source material on pp. 24-27. Unless I'm seriously missing or overlooking something, I think we need a new hook and you should delete the sentence from the article.  I can propose new hooks, but it would also help for you to go over this article again and look for any problems.  I'm wondering, for example, if the phrase "crazy gypsy" is problematic. Also you refer to a "Helen Poovey", but her name is actually Mary Poovey.  I'm concerned that the article needs to be reviewed a bit closer. Viriditas (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

After looking closer at this article, I'm seeing larger problems. First, you haven't done enough research. Poovey's opinion has sparked a debate in the relevant literature (for example, see Margaret Homans, Jill Campbell ["her work is part of the history of English imaginative writing and therefore usefully mapped, even if properly placed at a distance from the central line of English literary history"], Joy Castro, and Ben Bagocius)  In other words, Poovey's opinion about Pickering's work is not definitive. In fact, Joy Castro places it in the correct context, as one of a "theoretical exercise". This is problematic because you constructed the biography on Pickering around this theoretical exercise as the primary, definitive narrative when it fact it is only a thought experiment by Poovey, and a disputed one at that. If you want to salvage this DYK (and I'm sure you do), simply rewrite the entire article based on a more historical, biographical narrative that does not frame her life and importance around Poovey. Viriditas (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased that you have corrected an error and mafe a wikilink. Thank you. However you are meant to be reviewing against DYK criteria. You might find the phrase problematic but the ODNB doesn't. The article (and the ODNB) are talking about a period when the fashionable novels were about gypsies. Are you suggesting a "obscurantism"? As for your suggestion that we(I?) have not done enough research then .... help. I suggest you stand back and re-read the DYK criteria. Pooveys research was an exercise and is presented as such. "Some say" means its an opinion. This is not a GA Victuallers (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are conflating several different issues. My problem with this current DYK has to do with policy issues and hook content issues, both of which are DYK criteria.  But since you raise ODNB, let's go with that.  What does the ODNB say about Poovey? Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This is not a sensible approach. I am conflating based entirely on the points that you raise. I think I would be best to thank you for your attention. Cheers. Victuallers (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please answer the question above? If you think we should construct our article around the historical and biographical framework offered by the ODNB, I am in agreement. Therefore, could you please tell me what the ODNB says about Poovey?  If it says nothing, why have you constructed the biography around it? The short lead says that Pickering's work was "re-evaluated in 1999 and they were considered over-complicated and conventional". Does the ODNB say this as well?  This appears to be a neutrality issue because other authors have pointed out that this opinion, which you have constructed the entire biography around, is considered a "theoretical exercise", yet you have presented it as definitive.  Further, you have not offered the counterarguments or rebuttals.  You have simply presented Poovey's opinion as the final deciding factor on Pickering's legacy as a writer and you have constructed a hook around it.  Does the ODNB support this narrative?  If it doesn't, then we have a problem with WP:UNDUE. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , I did some editing to the Contemporary review section of the article, because the way it was written didn't make sense to me. Once I read what was available to me of the references, I had to delete the sentences mentioning Tamara S. Wagner. While she did make those comments that you use in the hook, on  PGs 25-27, they were not specific to Ellen Pickering.  She was responding to author Talia Schaffer's later examples on how evaluating feminist literature has changed since Poovey's comments in 1999.  You are free to revert my edits if you like, as is anyone else.  But the way I read it, Wagner's comments you mention in the hook are not specifically about Pickering's work, but more generalized about how the 21st Century audience evaluates feminist literature.  As for an alternate hook, perhaps this:


 * ALT2 ... that Ellen Pickering earned £100 a year as a published author?


 * The Life section is a little confusing to me, but I don't have the access to the sourcing you used. You mention the lead character of her most successful book, but it's unclear if that's the book you are referring to in the rest of that paragraph. — Maile  (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Still needs a complete review. I edited the article and cannot do the review. — Maile (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the improvements . I have sharpened up the life section to make it clear that it is the same book. I think you may have have missed that Tamara was discussing "projects like the current one" (ie the study of Pickering) when she makes her conclusions about "hidden feminisms." Without this then I feel that we are left with Ellen Pickering who as Poovey says is not worth further study. Earning a 100 pounds a year may have been a remarkable claim at the time but its not very hooky out of context. Poovey's findings are not that surprising without Tamara's conclusions. But maybe Poovey is right and Ellen Pickering does not require further attention. Thanks again. Victuallers (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Well, I went through World Cat and found a number of titles for her books, and added them to what you already had, giving all an OCLC number.   In doing so, I discovered that Nan Darnell had an alternative title of The Gipsy Mother, so I added that to the body.  Hopefully, this review will proceed.  She did a fair amount of work on the novels. At least, she's notable.  Must be something worth mentioning in a hook. — Maile  (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Recent edits have improved the article, however, there is still undue weight being given to Poovey, even after I have pointed out that critics such as Margaret Homans and Jill Campbell (linked above) seriously dispute Poovey's stance on Pickering's legacy as a writer.  Ben Bagocious does a good job summarzing Homans and Campbell's arguments against Poovey.  Unless the nominator is able to balance Poovey's disputed, theoretical view of the author with the positive reviews from the past as well as the the positive reviews from contemporary authors such as Jill Campbell, who says that Pickering's "work is part of the history of English imaginative writing and therefore usefully mapped, even if properly placed at a distance from the central line of English literary history", then the DYK should not proceed.  Both Maile66 and myself were unable to verify the current hook in Wagner's comments, so the current hook should be struck.  However, the neutrality issue is still present in the current article.  Given that I've presented the sources and links to the above, I'm concerned that the nominator is unwilling to fix the undue emphasis on Poovey. Continuing comments like "maybe Poovey is right and Ellen Pickering does not require further attention" demonstrate an IDHT/tin ear in regards to the problems at hand. The nominator has been given the necessary sources and links to fix the problem. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ,, just a comment as it was my intention help the nomination. I believe Poovey can be rebutted, and Victuallers was on the right track with Tamara S. Wagner, if he has the online access to Talia Schaffer's rebuttal to Poovey. I did verify Wagner's comments in the hook with the above link, in the fact that she said that. However, Wagner was building on Schaffer's rebuttal, but and as a stand-alone, I didn't think it was clear. I spent some time searching and could not access anything that might shed light on that. With more research by someone who has access, I believe it is possible to flesh this out to complete this nomination. Unfortunately, I don't have the kind of online access needed. I wonder if  or  might have any access that could help with this. — Maile  (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clear up any confusion, as you probably realised I "did hear". Thanks again your effort and positive contribution was appreciated . Victuallers (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking, but I don't have access. I go to Tim riley and Wehwalt for access. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You might also try a request at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. gobonobo  + c 03:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Always happy to research anything for Gerda or any other editor, and I have access to the British Library. If someone will make it clear what needs researching I'll be glad to help.  Tim riley  talk    06:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I'm not going to read this wall of text!--Wehwalt (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tim, Gerda et al. I'm quite happy with the article as it is, but I think it lacks a hook. There have been requests of me to follow a line of enquiry suggested?/demanded? by an early reviewer, but I consider the article to be complete (although I would add a bit to give it a hook). Can I thank you for turning up and I agree TLDR may be a good summary. Victuallers (talk) 09:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're still saying this? The article is neither complete nor neutral.  The lead and the body still places undue weight on Poovey as if her opinion was definitive, when it's been shown to you over and over again that her opinion about the utility of using feminist history techniques to "recover" Pickering is disputed by multiple scholars cited in this discussion.  There's at least four scholars in this discussion pointing out that Poovey's position (and ultimately her opinion on Pickering) is disputed: Margaret Homans, Jill Campbell, Mary Loeffelholz, and  Ann Ardis. Ann Ardis describes the problem: "Poovey positions archival research on uncanonized women writers antithetically to work on disciplinary history".  You have also failed to cite the positive critical appraisal of Pickering when she was alive.  The problem is, you are promoting Poovey's perspective on Pickering as the dominant view, when in fact, it isn't. It's highly disputed and controversial.  Does the ODNB even mention Poovey?  You've been asked this question over and over again but refuse to answer it.  I will assume the answer is no. You've been given links to other POV in the sources here and you haven't added them.  Should I just delete Poovey since you seem incapable of making this article neutral?  I think I could make a good argument for deletion.  Based on Mary Loeffelholz's book, it looks like Poovey's experimental opinion on Pickering was based on her reading of one of her sixteen novels.  That's a very small sample size to conclude that her entire corpus is "over-complicated and conventional".  If this is truly the case, then that's a good argument to limit any mention of Poovey to one or two sentences and to delete her opinion from the lead section. This seems to be a classic case of undue weight. You've got only four sources in the article, and you rely heavily on Poovey for the most part while ignoring all of the sources that point out problems with Poovey's position.  It is extremely difficult to believe that you have still not fixed this problem when it has been explained to you over and over again.  Because this DYK nomination completely fails to meet the NPOV policy it should not be passed under any circumstances. You know how to fix the problem but you refuse to do so.  As a result of your continuing intransigence, I've added the NPOV tag.  The way forward is specifically outlined in this discussion.  I suggest you read it carefully and implement the fix. The fact that you are "quite happy" with the article failing to adhere to our NPOV policy is a serious problem. Viriditas (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg, I am requesting that you let someone else do this review.  I have great respect for you, but the way you are going after  is beginning to border on being a personal attack.  And, in fact, Victuallers had neutrality on rebutting Poovey.  I'm the one who deleted it, hoping to find something more complete to substitute in that section.  So, let's not go whacking on Victuallers about the neutrality being lost. I like to think you don't mean it that way, but what you have written above makes me cringe.  From the DYK RULES → DYK is not a smaller-scale version of either featured content or Good Articles, though selected Good Articles do appear in the DYK box. Articles must meet the basic criteria set out on this page but do not have to be of very high quality. It is fine for articles to be incomplete (though not unfinished), to have red links, to be capable of being expanded or improved further, and so on. As DYK's main purpose is to showcase new and improved content, it is not expected that articles appearing on DYK would be considered among the best on Wikipedia. Please let it go for your own good, and let someone else take over this review. — Maile  (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New hook and reviewer needed.  Per This Post on my talk page, the original reviewer has permanently stepped aside. — Maile  (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg I am willing to look at this, please forgive me for not reading all the above. I wonder if the neutrality tag is justified. It would be nice to have another recent view, but if it doesn't exist, one is better than none, if you ask me. - I dislike the header "Contemporary review", because it made me expect something written at her time. - So far I see no hook that would hook me, - how about mentioning Walter Scott, to place her in style and time? Money earned depends a lot on earned at what time ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Victuallers, Gerda Arendt, what is the status of this review? It has been nearly four weeks since Gerda posted, there is no hook as requested by Maile a month ago, and there haven't been any edits to the article in over two weeks. (The neutrality tag has been removed.) Please let's get this moving again. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite happy for others to complete this but I do not believe this can get a good hook when the debate that Ellen Pickering's work created is summarised as "Contemporary feminist scholars have debated the value of her work" with three refs to papers that do not discuss her work and only one mentions it after the title of their papers .... but they do mention the debate raised by her work - which this article ignores. Gerda has asked me to not abandon this nomination and therefore it remains here. Victuallers (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If a hook is presented I can review, - probably better than I propose and another one has to come in. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Gerda Arendt, if this doesn't have an interesting hook proposed by May 17, I'm going to close it—a month plus a week is more than enough time. So please be prepared to propose one by then if no one else has done so. We can always request a new reviewer if it comes to that. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * ALT2: ... that contemporary feminist scholars have debated the value of the work of Ellen Pickering
 * Hate to see a good nomination go to waste, reading the article, that was the most interesting fact, to me.  78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 04:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good approach but please include a hint at her time and profession, - contemporary feminists discuss a lot ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, good point. I will therefore present the following.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 13:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT3: ... that contemporary feminist scholars have debated the value of the work of 19th-century novelist Ellen Pickering?
 * Or get her more to the front:
 * ALT4: ... that the work of 19th-century novelist Ellen Pickering has been debated by contemporary feminist scholars?
 * Symbol voting keep.svg offline sources accepted AGF, no copyvio obvious, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)