Talk:George Ripley (transcendentalist)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and will be adding comments below. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Most of my comments have to do with the stilted prose style of the article. Also, the prose does not flow. Examples

• who was a long-distance relative of - unclear what this is

Not sure what the issue is here. Help me out? --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Is a long-distance relative one that lives a long distance away, or one that has been distant (i.e. not close) for a long time? Or does it mean that the relative is distantly related, i.e. remotely related? —Mattisse (Talk) 15:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think it would be taken literally! Clarified. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• a distant relative who was also an uncle by - not clear why the "also"

Well, the sentence is explaining relations to two different people, one which is almost shockingly coincidental, but I think the "also" can wash away. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• his Unitarian father pushed him to attend Harvard College - is Harvard College for Unitarians?

Well, traditionally, yes. I can explain better, maybe? --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I am curious about what is going on here between Harvard and Unitarianism. (Also, why was he pushed around by his father so?) —Mattisse (Talk) 15:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I added a few words that should make this clear (remember, Transcendentalism was born at Harvard). --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ripley had been a good and dedicated student - he stopped being a good and dedicated student?

Err... yes. Once he graduated, he wasn't a good and dedicated student anymore. But maybe just "was" is fine. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I wonder why he was not popular with fellow students (other than siding with the admin over food) as later you present him as cheerful and he seems outgoing and to make friends easily, or at least, he is not withdrawn, solitary, grouchy. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have been a bit of a teacher's/administrator's pet, I think. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Early in his tenure at Harvard - don't think "tenure" is right word here - you use tenure again regarding his job

I've changed the first tenure to "time". --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• during winter vacation of his senior year in 1823. He graduated in 1823 - needlessly repetitious

Good catch. PS: Do you like how the paragraph splits there? I'm thinking the "he graduated" line can move to the previous paragraph. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have not looked at the changes, but those paragraphs did seem rather haphazardly organized before. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• he became disenfranchised from his father and his home town - does this mean he became estranged or do you really mean disenfranchised?

Fixed. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• He graduated in 1826. A year later, on August 22, 1827, he married Sophia Dana, though he originally kept it a secret from his parents before asking his sister Marianne to inform them. - what does the "though" imply? why not just say that he originally kept it secret from his parent.

Awkward sentence. I'll take a look. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• (parenthetically, are you setting up an underlying thesis regarding George Ripley and his parents, specifically his father? Right after he was disenfranchised from his father, he was once again influenced by him regarding divinity school.)

Not purposely, no. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ripley officially became a minister at Boston's Purchase Street Church on November 8, 1826, and aided in the development of the Unitarian religion. -- seems like an out-of-place sentence.

I rewrote it a bit so it might make more sense. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• their relationship became strained by the 1850s - assume you mean with his wife and not Orestes Brownson

Clearer now, I think. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Greeley took advantage of Ripley's cheerful style of writing to boost circulation amidst significant competition - not clear how Greeley took advantage,

Not sure why this isn't clear, to tell you the truth. Greeley was his boss, hired him to write, and reaped the benefits. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• But is not that the purpose of hiring a writer, for the writer to write and the publication to reap the benefits? Never thought of this as exploitation, or taking advantage, before. I thought it was called being a successful writer. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, I'd call it being a successful editor! I'll reword a bit. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Amidst", and "amongst" are not considered modern words for an encyclopedia

Gah! I know nothing of these things! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• though he was careful to avoid the city's literary feuds - why?

Wouldn't you? I think it has something to do with his "cheerful" non-confrontational style, but I'm making that connection myself. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well, it seems to come out of no where. You have not described his literary social life much, or the advantages and pitfalls therein. It seems to imply that he had a keen political sense to be able to side step those things and still maintain his stature in literary circles. As you say, most people would avoid feuds. So, is it stating the obvious, like saying he avoids walking in cyclones? Or does it refer to something more? —Mattisse (Talk) 15:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I can only speculate that he was just non-confrontational. NYC's literary scene was cut-throat at the time. Let me see if I can find a way to squeeze that in there without breaking OR policies. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• please check for the overuse of "though" as a transition word. Generally "although" is preferred to "though" as it is a clearer contrast. "though" is weak and equivocal.

I probably overdo it because my FA's have focused on my transitions. I might be trying to overcompensate. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Critical assessment" section - is it worth it to have this section, since there is not much in it?

Well, yes, it's important, I think. It just needs to grow. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I am wondering if you are so familiar with the subject matter that you allude to many underlying issues and themes that to the general reader are perceived as confusing. Not meaning to be unduly hard on you, but this is not as clearly written as I was expecting.

—Mattisse (Talk) 02:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's very possible. Harvard and Unitarianism, for example, seems very obvious. As far as "underlying issues and themes", I'm not so sure what that means. If you see places where the text makes jumps like that, let me know! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I am religion-ignorant. Although I know of Harvard, and I know of Unitarianism, this is the first I have heard of a connection. So I am curious. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and giving it such a thorough review! Yeah, I wasn't as comfortable on this one as I was with most of my others, so I don't disagree. I don't have time to respond fully to this review just yet, but I wanted to acknowledge I've seen it. Thanks again! --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• You have made this into a wonderful article! —Mattisse (Talk) 23:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 23:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'm sure the prose could still use a bit more tightening (and I'm thankful you stepped in for a couple of spots) but I'm putting it aside for now. Thanks again! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)