Wikipedia:Peer review/The Unsex'd Females/archive1

The Unsex'd Females
I would be particularly interested in what people with an interest in the eighteenth century or the Romantic period have to say, but I would also like to know how well this article works for a more general reader. An early reader thought that in places it sounded too academic; I have tried to address that but different eyes would certainly help. I am also wondering if the article gives a solid sense of the poem, or if the various topics seem unconnected. Another question I have is whether there is sufficient background given, and whether the significance of the poem comes across. Thanks in advance! — scribbling  woman  01:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Willow
Hi Scribbling !

Your article reads very well! I love the way the language flows; I don't find it too academic, and I appreciate the way that thought follows on thought. I found myself feeling some unscholarly outrage at a few points, esp. the quotes from Polwhele, whom indeed "no decorum checks"; but that reflects more me than any lapse in scholarly presentation.

As you suggest, I think the article might benefit from being expanded and reorganized slightly.


 * For me, the core of the article lay in the "Unsex'd females" and "Proper ladies" sections; rather than putting them near the end, maybe you could put them ahead of the "Fashion" and "Botany" sections?


 * An interesting sidelight would be how the women themselves viewed each other, e.g., Hannah More and Mary Wollstonecraft. Were they on friendly terms?  The nasty thought occurred to me that Polwhele was trying to drive a wedge into the commmunity of women writers.  But it mainly seems as though he praises his women friends/teachers and chides women unknown to him.
 * ✅: material added to the "Proper ladies" section.— scribbling  woman  01:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you might preface the article with a "Historical context" section? You could perhaps set the stage for the poem's publication, talking of the strides that women writers had been making, the general English reaction to the French revolution, and a short biography of Polwhele up to his authorship.  That might lead gracefully into the "Publication history and reception" section.
 * ✅. At least, I think so … — scribbling  woman  01:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was curious about the political dimension of the poem and the possibility of Polwhele's having political motives. Perhaps Polwhele was trying to rouse disgust at the French ways to reduce the probability of similar reform/revolution happening in England?  It seems implausible, but maybe this flamboyant derision of women was merely ancillary to the political effects he hoped to evoke?
 * ✅: I tried to make this more clear in the "Historical context" section. — scribbling  woman  01:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If the poem has large-scale structure, you might consider devoting a section to that, e.g., describing not only its length and meter, but also the topics covered in its various sections.
 * Not really applicable; main topics (good girls, bad girls, naughty plants, trashy French fashion) are covered. — scribbling  woman  01:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Wolcott appendix is tantalizing. Is it understood why the publisher thought the two parts might go well together?  Does it reveal something about the targeted audience of the poem?
 * ✅: Or, at least, I added a phrase. Is it enough? — scribbling  woman  01:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I hope that these initial thoughts are helpful to you. :) It was a pleasure to read the article (despite my flickers of outrage ;) and I'll keep thinking about suggestions for improving it.  Willow 17:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for such a close and generous reading. I think your advice about re-ordering the sections is good: I will do that. Re. the topics in the poem: I think I have given the gist of it, but I will check to be sure. The idea for a "Historical context" section is a good one, though it won't be easy to collapse so much into a paragraph or so! But I think you're right; this poem makes little sense without some wider knowledge. Perhaps I could say something about the relationships among the women there (More and Wollstonecraft, by the way, were oil and water). There is a separate entry on Polwhele, but I could probably say some more about him here, too. Re.the Wolcott appendix: it was highly political, so the implication is that the same audience would have found the "Unsex'd Females" congenial. I will clarify that and make it more explicit. Thanks again, Willow, for your time, effort, and kind words! — scribbling  woman  18:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * More and Wollstonecraft may not have been friends, but as Mitzi Myers has pointed out, their educational reform programs and their discussion of women's roles were often very similar. Just in case you haven't seen this article yet, it is a very good one. It reveals how our categories of "conservative" and "progressive" do not map very well onto the late eighteenth century (which, of course, you know). Awadewit Talk 19:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Myers, Mitzi. “Reform or Ruin: ‘A Revolution in Female Manners.’” Studies in Eighteenth-Century Culture 11 (1982): 199-216.
 * True enough. Ironically, they had a lot in common. I may use the Myers in the "Context" section when I write it; thanks for the memory jog! — scribbling  woman  21:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅: Mitzi Myers added in a footnote to material in the "Proper Ladies" section.


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 22:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Quadell
Greetings. This article is comprehensive, well-sourced, well-organized, and well-illustrated. There are a few parts that I think could be improved, however. (Don't feel you have to change everything I bring up, of course. Some of it's just my opinion.)
 * Structure: The final paragraph is not a part of the "French Fashions" section, but summarizes the importance of the poem. I think it's a good idea to have a summary here, but I would give it its own section, "legacy" or somesuch. The last paragraph of the "publication history and reception" should also be here, I think.


 * Writing: the text is, in places, unnecessarily stilted. Here are examples.
 * The first sentence calls the poem an "intervention", followed by four prepositional phrases. I think it would be better to call it a "poem designed to influence the public debate. . .", or words to that effect.
 * The text uses too many colons and semi-colons. The first sentence in "Historical Context", for example, uses a colon, a semi-colon, and two dashes.
 * Later in that section, sentences begin "And much of his criticism. . ." and "Or so it seemed. . ." I don't think of this as encyclopedic style. That last sentence should probably be something like "Ideas about enfranchisement, liberty, and equality were everywhere. To Polwhele and others who shared his perspective, these ideas were accompanied by attacks on. . . "


 * Similarly, "were conflated with the most outrageous actions" would be more clear and approachable as "were accused of the most outrageous actions". Most of the first half of the article should be proofread with this in mind.
 * ✅ (the suggested change, not yet the general edit)


 * The first sentence of "Unsex'd females" seems redundant with the previous two sentences.


 * The last sentence of "Proper ladies" sounds polemical to me. Consider "Polwhele's polemical structure was not concerned with these nuances, however, preferring to [something or other]".

But all in all, it's a great article, and well-written. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, these are useful suggestions. It is so good to get an outside pair of eyes! — scribbling  woman  16:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I like your improvements. "Confused with" rather than "accused of" is more specific, and more accurate. ("Conflated with" is probably the most accurate, but difficult for many readers.) By the way "I have, several times, seen boys and girls botanizing together" is now my favorite 18th century quote. :) – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I know! In a century when people were trying very, very hard to be quotable, here comes this guy who pulls out the rug from under everyone else with a throwaway line in a footnote. Sigh. I love the 18thc. — scribbling  woman  01:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Review by Awadewit
What a nice article on Polwhele's poem! Your succinct summary of the historical context made me despair of ever becoming a succinct writer (my latest dissertation chapter has ballooned into 70 pages). Here are my suggestions.
 * I wonder if you could say something more specific than "the role of women" in the first sentence - is it "the role of women in the public sphere" (although of course you couldn't use public sphere)?
 * Made a couple of unsatisfactory stabs; will come back to this.


 * In the second paragraph of the lead you imply that the poem is only of interest to scholars. Perhaps you could find a way to phrase it that broadens that field such as "those interested in the history of women as well as revolutionary politics" or something like that. If someone reads the lead who isn't a scholar and sees that it is only of interest to scholars, perhaps they will not be encouraged to read on.


 * In the infobox you list Cobbett as the publisher - usually the infobox gives information for the first edition (Cadell and Davies?) Also, I deleted the "subject" information; I am begining to find that that field fosters reductive information.
 * Deletion fine by me. Cobbett is listed as the illustration is of the edition he published; have added the original publisher in parentheses.


 * In the first paragraph of the "Historical context" section I think that you need to give slightly more context. For example, give just a few phrases describing Behn's and Philip's careers and their reputations so that the reader knows more precisely what kind of comparison you are drawing. Also, mention a detail or two that made Wollstonecraft's life unconvential. Essentially, make the history "come alive" for the reader through detail.
 * I tend to identify scholars when I name them so that readers know why they should take the quotations I am providing seriously; so, for example, "Janet Todd, a scholar of the period," or whatever is most relevant to the quotation.
 * As indicated by his subtitle - did you mean title? I was slightly confused.


 * One reviewer comments this "ingenious poem" with its "playful sallies of sarcastic wit" against "our modern ladies,"[13] though others found it "a tedious, lifeless piece of writing." - I found this sentence a bit awkward.
 * I might rearrange the pictures - it is odd to have Wollstonecraft looking off the screen. Left-facing portraits usually go on the right side of the page. They are "looking at" the reader more, then.


 * The Wollstonecraft quote from the poem is missing what I presume is a book number as are several others.
 * Polwhele's polemical structure is not concerned with these nuances, however, and he positions these writers strictly according to his overarching scheme. - which is primarily political?
 * The contemporary reader may find some of Polwhele's preoccupations, particularly botany and fashion, amusing. - this is opinion and probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia
 * Footnote 5 - wikipedia is not a suitable reference. You have to find outside sources. The page's characterization of Wollstonecraft is problematic to say the least.
 * If you want to submit this page for "featured article" eventually (and I think you should), you will need to standardize the footnotes and bibliography (ISBNs for all books, formatting for every note should be the same, etc.). Awadewit Talk 07:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! All excellent pieces of advice which I will incorporate soon. And thanks for the kind words in your opening sentences. — scribbling  woman  13:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)