Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Letters Written in Sweden, Norway and Denmark


 * 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 17:10, 24 September 2007.

Letters Written in Sweden, Norway and Denmark
This is another in my running series of articles on Mary Wollstonecraft. I see the light at the end of the tunnel for my featured topic! This article is about a travel book she wrote late in life (one of her best works, in my opinion). As usual, I have had wonderful help from my peer reviewers. This time I have also had help from a wonderful cartographer, Kmusser, who designed the map. I believe this article meets the FA criteria. Awadewit | talk  04:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Just read through the article and thoroughly enjoyed it; easily meets the criteria in my eyes. Trebor 16:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it! Awadewit | talk  19:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Are you going to do the others in the Mary Wollstonecraft template? If so, I think you should know that Stillusio hasn't edited in months.--Rmky87 01:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Eventually, yes, I plan to do the rest, but I thought that I could propose the topic with just MW and her works.
 * Henry Fuseli will require a bit of work, I think.
 * There is a new biography of Gilbert Imlay that I am waiting to get before proceeding with that article - it is the first full-length biography of Imlay to be published.
 * Joseph Johnson is well on its way. I have collaborated with WillowW on that article. We have plans to bring it to FA in a few months.
 * Fanny Imlay won't be that difficult since there is so little information on her and she committed suicide young. I am anxious to see what is in the Gilbert Imlay biography about her.
 * Memoirs of the Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman should not be bad, either. Not much has been written on it.
 * Analytical Review should be a breeze once Johnson is over, since he published it. Again, WillowW has done a lot of work on that article already.
 * The truly momentous tasks are Mary Shelley and William Godwin. If you know anyone interested in working on those projects, or if you yourself are, please let me know. Completing those will take me years. I'm not exaggerating. (If, however, you want to remain in the science realm, I could always use help at Joseph Priestley - I have solicited a science peer review for that polymath). Thanks for your interest. (It's too bad about Stillusio.) Awadewit | talk  02:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What about "An Historical and Moral View of the French Revolution"? Isn't this considered a work that would need to be in the topic? HansHermans 03:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think HMV needs to be included, for the following reasons:
 * There is next to nothing published on HMV, so the article would be sourced primarily to articles and books on other topics.
 * Wollstonecraft scholars say little about HMV compared to her other works, even texts such as Thoughts on the Education of Daughters and Original Stories from Real Life. (This is due to the fact that most Wollstonecraft scholars are feminist scholars and primarily interested in gender issues.)
 * HMV doesn't seem to arise in discussions of other topics, such as histories of the French revolution (at least as far as I am aware). Thoughts on the Education of Daughters, for example, arises independently of discussions of MW in scholarship regarding conduct books.
 * If you think this analysis is flawed in some way, I would be happy to reconsider it. Awadewit | talk  04:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Support. Full disclosure: I was one of the aforementioned peer editors. (As such, I feel bad that I've only just now seen this FAC.) As usual Awadewit has done some superb work here, balancing comprehensive context and analysis with the requisites of brevity and concision. It was a pleasure to help out with it. – Scartol  ·  Talk  12:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously featured article quality. A few brief thoughts:
 * Did she die in 1797 or 1798? Her article says 97, though it says 98 in the legacy section.
 * How embarrassing. Fixed. It is 1797. Godwin published in 1798. Awadewit | talk  19:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Letters Written in Sweden is/are...? The article appears to treat subject as both singular and plural in different places.  Singular in the lede, plural in letter, etc.
 * When speaking of Letters as a whole text, it is singular, but when speaking of the letters that make up the text, one uses the plural. Two incorrect plurals fixed. Awadewit | talk  19:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with Wollstonecraft, read Vindication as an undergrad, but didn't know the dates of her life off the top of my head. Perhaps a sentence or two more in biographical background, saying she was 36-years-old and had just done X and Y, and would die in two years, would help set the stage, for the casual consumer of Wollstonecraft.  Was this her last major work, etc.?
 * I added some more information - this is a helpful perspective to have. You are precisely one of the kinds of readers I want to make sure can easily read the page. Awadewit | talk  19:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's very accessible. The new paragraph makes it just perfect. --JayHenry 03:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I initially read "she had had an illegitimate daughter" to mean that she had had the child, but no longer had it. Meh, that's a minor minor point.
 * See if the revised biographical section fixes this problem. Awadewit | talk  19:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Was she rescued from her second suicide attempt by several passersby or one passerby? Is it known?
 * It is not known. Awadewit | talk  19:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That opening of reception and legacy is a bit confusing. I think grammatically it might be saying that "the successful sales were prompted to publish."
 * Fixed. No longer a glaring grammatical error. Awadewit | talk  19:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is "business correspondence" actually considered a genre? I mean, I guess it's a category of composition, but by that token txt messaging is also a genre.
 * Indeed "business correspondence" is a genre. I've actually taught people to write it. Txt messaging is also a genre. Awadewit | talk  19:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The map of her route is a brilliant addition.
 * You can thank Kmusser. He made it. I should have mentioned that above - inserting now. Awadewit | talk  19:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Did Godwin actually fall in love with her while reading the book, is what led to their courtship?   Also, should the lead perhaps mention that he married her?  It just identifies him as a philosopher.
 * Since Godwin and Wollstonecraft despised each other before the book was published, I think that the book had a lot to do with it. I tried to write a sentence for the lead that explained the whole Godwin scenario, but it just became unwieldly. Do you have any suggestions? I have wrestled with that sentence for a while now. Awadewit | talk  19:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I think it's fine. I re-read the part about Godwin in the Mary Wollstonecraft article, and it seems that the book had some influence, but it's not exactly clear how much.  I'd say it's dealt with well in both articles. --JayHenry 03:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see I have only minor points (as you know the subject and I don't really, feel free to disregard comments that are of little use) and thus I happily support. --JayHenry 17:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. These have been helpful. Awadewit | talk  19:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Another fascinating article from Awadewit, this one even tinged with adventure. I found it so interesting that I went and read the work, which provided an excellent evening's reading. I have made some notes and comments, but since none affect my unreserved support for this article's promotion, I shall post them on the article's talk page.qp10qp 22:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I should have done the same. Indeed my support is also unreserved. --JayHenry 03:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Support excellent article, very well polished. Far above most FAs.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 02:53, 24 September 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.