Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adelaide Anne Procter/archive1


 * 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 by Karanacs 21:07, 27 September 2009.

Adelaide Anne Procter

 * Nominator(s): Ricardiana (talk) 07:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Adelaide Anne Procter was one of the most respected and best-selling poets of the 19th-century, though she is now all but forgotten: she was the favorite poet of Queen Victoria, and her death was described in the press as a national calamity. Material on her is scant, but I've pulled together everything I could find (many sources duplicate info from primary sources, so I've leaned on primary sources here). Though the article is short because of the lack of sources, I believe it fulfills the FA criteria and if not, I would still like to hear suggestions on how to improve the article. Many thanks to Awadewit for a very thorough GA review and to S Marshall for a helpful peer review. Best, Ricardiana (talk) 07:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Support - I have a few comments.
 * "She suffered from ill health due to her charity work" - This isn't supported by the text in the main body: "Dickens and others have suggested that her illness was due to her extensive charity work".
 * What do you suggest - perhaps "she suffered from ill health, possibly due..."? Ricardiana (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It might work. I tend to think that the Dickens et al. statement says more about Dickens than about Procter, with Dickens basically arguing that Procter, as a woman, was too frail to work outside the house. Something I guess was not uncommon at that time.--Harthacnut (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It does indeed say more about Dickens than Procter, but unfortunately Dickens is nearly the only primary source on Procter. As such his opinion must be included in the body of the article, and once included it must be summarized in the lead. I don't think expressing editorial doubts regarding the sources is appropriate, unless some other source does so, which is not the case here. (Also, have you ever worn a corset? Working vigorously while your kidney and liver are being shifted out of place to give you a 20-inch waist can indeed take a severe toll, and often did.) Ricardiana (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and added possibly. (I'm pretty sure I would look ridiculous in a corset, being male and all....) --Harthacnut (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "The few critics who have examined Procter's poetry generally find it important for the way that Procter overtly expresses conventional sentiments while covertly undermining them." - Is this supported by Armstrong? If not it needs a source.
 * Yes, it is supported by Armstrong. Ricardiana (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Procter converted to Roman Catholicism" - Why?
 * No reason is given in any source I've found. Ricardiana (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

--Harthacnut (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks), but it repeats the caption (see WP:ALT) and doesn't convey enough information about what the picture tells us that Procter looked like (see WP:ALT). Eubulides (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm still getting the hang of this. I've worked on the alt text; I hope it's better now. Thanks, Ricardiana (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks. I needed another example for WP:ALT so I tweaked it as best I could and copied it into WP:ALT. Hope this helps. Someone should write a treatise on how to describe hairstyles concisely. Eubulides (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help, Eubulides - I appreciate it. Ricardiana (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, very well put together. Thank you. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, but some comments:
 * Several links are repeated in both lead and body text. I wondered whether this was overdoing it in a relatively short article (the relevant ones include Charles Dickens, Household Words, feminist, lesbian, Roman Catholicism, Queen Victoria, Coventry Patmore and Alfred, Lord Tennyson).
 * I also thought providing the following links was overlinking things, though this is a judgement call, not a policy or guideline issue: feminist, lesbian, Bedford Square, Harley Street. In the case of the first two, I thought these would be likely to be understood by a lay reader; in the case of the latter two, the locations are inconsequential and the links are therefore distracting.
 * I take it "fulness" is a spelling in the original?
 * Thanks for your support and comments.
 * It's true, but I thought links were supposed to be given in the lead and then repeated at first appearance later on. I just looked at WP:LEAD and WP:Linking - I didn't see any firm answer. What do you suggest - saving the links for the body of the article, or linking the first appearance of a term?
 * I think linking "feminist" and "lesbian" is useful because, although a lay reader will have a mental definition of those terms, they are terms that are used differently by different people. I agree about the place names, though, so I've removed those links.
 * Fulness is the spelling in the original, yes.
 * Best, Ricardiana (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, should have replied earlier. Thanks for those tweaks. I think whether to repeat links is a judgement call - hence my comment about "in a relatively short article". But unless anyone else raises this subject, leave them as they are. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem; thanks! Ricardiana (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Image check: File:Adelaide Anne Procter by Emma Gaggiotti Richards.jpg is currently the subject of a dispute as to whether it is PD or not, see Commons:User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive39. --Harthacnut (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments –
 * Life: "An attempt to improve her health by taking a cure at Malvern failed." I wasn't familiar with the phrase "taking a cure", so I clicked on the link to find out more, only to discover that the linked article was about a type of torture. The article intended to be linked is at Water cure (therapy).
 * Reputation: "Readers valued Proctor's poems were valued for their plainness of expression". Two words need to be chopped for grammar purposes.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 20:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Giants2008 - thanks for your comments and sharp eye. I've fixed both of the problems you pointed out. Ricardiana (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support – Not the longest article FAC has ever seen, but seems comprehensive for the subject and says everything it has to. Prose is top-notch, as I've come to expect from the primary contributer.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 21:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Support A well-written and thoroughly researched article on a poet who embodies an important Victorian sensibility. I really enjoy little articles like these that bring together all that is known about an author - thanks Ricardiana! Awadewit (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As someone who in his childhood memorized Casabianca by the other neglected (almost) Victorian poet Felicia Hemans, I'm delighted that an article on Procter has made an FAC appearance. However, I'm not convinced that you've scoured the sources, indeed even your own sources. For example, you use only the life sketch in O'Gorman, but not the two introductions to "Philip and Mildred" and "A Legend of Provence," where O'Gorman talks both about affective rhetoric (or "sentimentality") and cautious boundary testing. I feel that we as readers don't get enough of a sense of what Procter's poetry felt like to read for Victorian readers. There is only one example. I feel you should have more, in order that a Wikipedia reader can better understand what the commentary means. O'Gorman, for example, has done a good job in her introductions to the two poems. Later today, when I have some time, I'll leave a list of other sources that you should be including, as well as a more detailed critique of the prose.
 * Oppose

Please don't get me wrong. I'm delighted that such an article is here (indeed I would even suggest that Felicia Hemans be your next FAC target), but I feel that Procter needs more work to be a great article. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are two papers and a book. The first paper requires JSTOR subscription. If don't have it, please let me know, I'm happy to email it to you. The second paper appears in a book of critical essays. (It is accessible on amazon.com (up to a point)). The third is a book, which you'll have to look for in a library.


 * On pages 472–474 Markovits talks about how during the Crimean war, Procter's poems, "Waiting" and "Lesson of War," published in Household Words might have influenced (or had thematic similarities) with Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South, which was being serialized in the same journal at that time. Says Markovits, "Many of the war poems in Household Words were written by Gaskell's acquaintance (and Queen Victoria's favorite poet) Adelaide Anne Procter.27 Procter's poem "Waiting" comes before the seventh installment of North and South. A typical tale of female patience (the basic premise can be compared to that in Tennyson's "Mariana" [1830o]), the poem records a working- class woman's conversation with a "Lady" in which she explains why she dwells at the seashore instead of passing a life of "rest and ease" ... As we shall see, the dangerous temptations of ease in a time of war were registered by Gaskell as well, and would culminate in Margaret's reflections during her seaside holiday."
 * Here is a quote: "Perhaps part of the cause for this occluded memory of Procter can be found in Charles Dickens's cultural biases, since his biography of Procter remained influential through the twentieth century. Until the 1990s, most work on Procter (including the Dictionary of National Biography&mdash;which might be seen as the authoritative reference for English biography) all but ignored other sources in favor of referring to&mdash;or quoting at length or simply plagiarizing&mdash;Dickens's idiosyncratic essay.  From his literary pulpit, Dickens roused his readers through playing high priest for a secular religion that worshiped women as domestic angels, and of all of that religion's resulting misogyny. ..."
 * From the review in Literature and Theology 2008 22(3):376-378; doi:10.1093/litthe/frn033 Quote: "This book, in the British Council's 'Writers and their Works' series, focuses on the work of three women poets who are not well known now, though they were widely read in their own time. Felicia Hemans (1793–1835) was said to be the most widely read woman poet of the 19th century ..., the theological preoccupations of Dora Greenwell (1821–1882) were popular until the early 20th century, and Adelaide Anne Procter (1825–1863) was Queen Victoria's favourite poet...."

Sorry, I had time only for these. Will add more later on the article's talk page. I'll leave my comments on the prose on the article's talk page (or a subpage of the talk page) later as well. I think with these sources you have material for a really great article and it is worth attempting it. However, it will take time. My best advice is to take it off the FAC, work on it for a few weeks, then resubmit and knock it out of the park! Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  19:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I will add a brief ref. to O'Gorman's views on the nature of Procter's poetry. (O'Gorman, by the way, is a man, not a woman.)
 * The Markovits article mentions that Procter was Queen Victoria's favourite poet, which is already mentioned in the article. I have added some discussion of Procter's war poetry, from the article.
 * The second source is more about Dickens than Procter, and its implication that discussions of Procter lean too heavily on Dickens is beside the point, as Dickens is in fact the primary source on Procter and there are few other primary sources to lean on, and those slight. I will add a brief mention of this text to the "Reputation" section.
 * The final source mentions that Procter was Queen Victoria's favourite poet, which is already mentioned in the article. I'm not going to add it.


 * Thanks for your comments. Ricardiana (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid, the sources have a great deal more than what I have quoted! For example, Hoeckley's 16-page article, which has very little to do with Dickens, goes one to say "'While one might expect that Dickens's familiar relationship with Procter's parents and his professional role as her editor would prompt an appreciation of the nuances of her poetry and her charitable work, he chooses instead to focus on three stock incidents in her life: her childhood education, one continental journey marked by her attendance at a peasant's wedding, and her death scene. Rather than drawing on Procter's various experiences in women's rights, philanthropy, and professional writing, he relies on his skills as a novelist and represents her as one more in his catalogue of self-sacrificing, dutiful, female heroines: Little Nell, Florence Dombey, Esther Sommerson, Agnes Wakefield.  To look beyond the myopic representation of Procter as a model middle-class domestic angel that Dicken's brief biographical sketch left to literary history, one only need turn to the less-remembered memoirs published by her friends in the Langham Place circle. Procter's letters provide even richer context to reveal the pointed, and sometimes comic, irony that gives political edge to her pious images and language.'"

The paper then spends 15 pages examining these other representations. Dickens doesn't make an appearance. Similarly, a third of Emma Mason's book is devoted to Procter. And these are just three modern sources, and there are likely more. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  22:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS For example, here is another:


 * References to Procter: pages 117–119, and 121.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Anyway, this is all the time I have. I wish you good luck.  Regardless of how the FAC turns out, if you need any help either in accessing the sources or in discussing them, I'd be delighted to help. Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I responded to you on my talk page. Ricardiana (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I will look at Mason tomorrow. For the moment, here's how things stand. You have mentioned a number of sources, adding that others exist; however, if you wish the others to be added, you will have to name them, as neither I nor Awadewit nor other reviewers have found the material you say exists. As for what you have mentioned:
 * Markovits - brief mention added, in keeping with the brief nature of the discussion of Procter in an article that focuses on Elizabeth Gaskell.
 * Bennet's book is on Google Books; Procter's name appears only 4 times, mostly in passing in the introduction or as part of a list. One of Procter's poems is briefly discussed; I think that discussion of specific poems is appropriate for an article on said poem, rather than this one, as the discussion is a close reading and does not make generalizations about Procter, save that Bennet mentions in passing that Procter writes about women and economics, which is already in the article. I'm not, therefore, going to add this source unless someone else weighs in on the matter.
 * The Hoeckley article is mostly a discussion of Dickens (as both your quotations demonstrate) and a plea to use other sources, which Hoeckley does; however, you should notice that the primary source Hoeckley uses and recommends is Bessie Raynor Parkes Belloc's book, which is already extensively used in this nom. I will add, as I said before, some mention of Hoeckley, but only a brief one.
 * I have added some more references to Mr. O'Gorman, although, again, O'Gorman's headnotes on specific poems are, of course, focused mainly on those poems. I will therefore only add his generalizing statements.
 * I don't wish to get into an argument about this article, and I don't wish, either, to convince you to change your oppose vote. I have stated my plans; your oppose is in effect. I will only be changing my mind if a third opinion weighs in (and perhaps, of course, not then - I am not willing to kowtow for pixelstars). Ricardiana (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Kowtowing? To whom?  Certainly not to me, since I didn't write those books or papers.  I merely noticed that they showed up in my search, then examined them, and passed them on to you.  I thought we were collectively trying to make the article as comprehensive as possible ....  As for your rest of your reply, your characterization of the sources' content is not one I agree with.  Readers, for example, can easily check Hoeckley's content for themselves, by searching for "Procter" at the book's web site.  But, in the light of what you've said, I agree that further discussion here will probablyh not constructive.  I wish you the best and am now taking this page off my watchlist.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see by the edit you made to your post that I've annoyed you, and for that I'm sorry. Sometimes I'm too blunt/cranky. At any rate, below is a summary of the texts you've suggested and what I've done with them.
 * Mason. Added some refs, although many of them duplicate info already in the article (e.g., Mason discusses Procter's relationship with Hays; talks about influence of Catholicism on P's work, following (and frequently quoting) Gill Gregory. Have refs also to a few things not already in the article. I've left out the parts of Mason that give bio. background, as those sections repeat what's already here and I've used the same primary sources as M. anyway. I've also left out her readings of particular poems, e.g., A tomb in Ghent, as more appropriate for an article on said poem/s.
 * Tyler-Bennet. The 4 measly refs to P. have nothing to add, so didn't add.
 * Hoeckley. I read her chapter in entirety just now, rather than relying on snippets from Amazon. Again, mostly repeats stuff already in article. Have doubled up some refs anyway, and added the bits that weren't already in the article. Have left out H's bio stuff, for the same reason as with Mason; readings of particular poems, ditto. The rest of the article is just set-up, arguing that Procter's Catholicism hasn't been taken into account in readings of her poetry but that it should be (which isn't true, as Gregory spends plenty of time reading P's work in light of her religion - but that's neither here nor there).
 * O'Gorman. Added a few refs.
 * Markovits. Added brief para.
 * You didn't mention this, but I also added a ref or two from the Encyclopedia of British Women Writers on my own steam - although they add little and the authors mostly just hash up Gregory's chapter on P's bio (although they do manage to get Procter's age at death wrong, which I don't think Gregory did, as they can't do subtraction).
 * Have searched:
 * Jstor (two articles that perform close readings of spec. poems, rather than discussing Procter's life and work more generally)
 * MLA index
 * Project Muse
 * Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals + Curran supplement
 * Google; Google Scholar; Google Books
 * Library databases
 * Bibiographies of all sources
 * If there are any other sources out there, I haven't found them. You mentioned that there are other sources, but you haven't added to your original list except to mention Bennet, who, again, barely talks about P. at all and says nothing new. You have argued that Hoeckley should be included, and she is; ditto Mason, O'Gorman, and Markovits. I think the article is about as complete as it can be; some day it would be nice to add pages on specific poems such as "A legend of Provence," but for now I think this is complete. Ricardiana (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.