Wikipedia:Peer review/Anna Laetitia Barbauld/archive1

Anna Laetitia Barbauld
I would appreciate having this article peer-reviewed at this point; I am aiming for GA and eventually FA. I could use a copyeditor as really only I have looked at the prose (sometimes late at night) as well as some help with the pictures (see Barbauld talk page). Thanks. Awadewit 09:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Some points:
 * "Furthermore, her poetry inspired many young Romantic writers..."—Can "furthermore" be removed here? Its presence is somewhat cumbersome.
 * Why? Are transitions frowned upon in leads?
 * There are many types of transitions; I can't answer every case succinctly. However, "furthermore" is a heavy transition; a more forceful, formal "and". It is best, I think, to use it sparingly, and to use the ordering of ideas for the connection and transition. It's up to you, though.
 * I have tried to improve the lead overall.
 * Inserting "moreover" in another position is better, but not necessary. Read the sentence without "moreover" and the writing flows. A word like "moreover" is more useful for asserting force; similarly, "however" and "therefore" assert the proper relation of ideas, and "furthermore" introduces a premise with force—often at the expense of flow. I found a good example of "furthermore" in Frog.
 * I know what all the words mean and how to use them - I teach people how to write. I intended the "forcefulness" you are describing.
 * Sorry. I didn't mean to be condescending. I don't think I'm helping; so I'll let others review the article.


 * "Although Barbauld was only remembered as a pedantic children's writer during the nineteenth century"—This is in apparent contradiction to "her poetry inspired many young Romantic writers"; can you be more specific about who only remembered her as a pedantic children's writer?
 * When you read the article, you will discover that the Romantic poets later turned against her. I do not think that it is necessary to say who remembered her - it was a general social memory. It was not only scholars, for example.
 * Ok. But I think the lead should be clearer, without any apparent contradictions. It should read like an essay in its own right, albeit a very short one.
 * I hope this is clearer now.


 * Can you provide references for the statements in the introduction? FAC reviewers look upon references favourably.
 * All of this information is referenced later in the article, but sure, I can do that.


 * "As both a teacher and a writer for the young"—"children" instead of "the young", perhaps? An earlier sentence calls her a "children's author".
 * Isn't it better to use a variety of words?
 * Generally, no; see elegant variation.
 * Well, I would have to say that I disagree with that. I understand a bit of what the page is saying but to never vary one's vocabulary is ridiculous - one's writing would sound repetitive and stilted.
 * You're partly right: variation of a different kind is essential. Avoidance of repetition, however, should occur through pronouns and the proper arrangement of ideas. If a noun has to be tediously repeated, with the added temptation for elegant variation, this should suggest reordering the prose for better flow; and, in some cases, radical revision. Variation of synonyms is useful for other purposes; it's not frowned upon, except when it's ostentatious. This is unnecessarily disgressive, so I'll stop here.


 * "for other women writers at the time."—wordy. "for contempory women writers."?
 * I think "contemporary women writers" sounds awkward in that context.
 * Ok. The two successive prepositional phrases suggest periphrases, though.
 * Your change makes the sentence less stilted. I withdraw my objection.

If you like, I can go through the subsequent sections later. The introduction, by the way, looks pretty good. Rintrah 12:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. Awadewit 05:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 21:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have tried to respond to the concerns calculated by the program - see responses.