Talk:Mary Toft/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Good day, I'll be reviewing this interesting article. Will take a couple of days to read through it carefully. Sasata (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

While I was reading it, I noticed that the name "Richard Mannigham" and "Richard Manningham" are both used. Which one is the correct one? -Yupik (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Manningham. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, sorry about the delay (real life interruptions). I have some comments and suggestions for consideration below. I'll come back for a second read-through later. Sasata (talk) 16:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

lede

• Cyriacus Ahlers is mentioned in the lede but is redlinked; suggest mentioning that he was a surgeon for more lede context.

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Account

• link placenta, midwife

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• "...but despite his reservations the next day he went to see Tofts." suggest adding a comma after "reservations", otherwise it may be interpreted that Horward has reservations the next day

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Initially Horward dismissed" typo in name

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Ann Tofts showed him pieces of the previous nights exertions," The previous paragraph claims that the pieces had been sent out to Howard

Clarified Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• "...came to the attention of Nathaniel St. André, from 1723 a Swiss surgeon" from->since

Changed Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

"since" is a bit jarring so close to "Swiss", could this be reworded? Perhaps "St. André, a Swiss national [native?] who became a surgeon in 1723"? This also avoids the implication that he became Swiss that year. -- Reconsideration (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Investigation

• "St. André then made a medical examination of Tofts," performed a medical examination on Tofts, better?

Yep, changed Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• "...two days later St. André was orderd back to Guildford, along with a Mr D'Anteny." typo in orderd; who is this Mr D'Anteny who is not mentioned again?

Hes someone who at some point I'll expand upon, but he isn't a central figure so I've replaced him with 'colleague' Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• suggest changing a couple of uses of the word "apparently" (9 instances throughout article) to supposedly or a different word

Curtailed Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Examination

• "Rabbit stew and jugged hare disappeared" what's a jugged hare?

Wikilinked Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• "...however Lord Onslow told Sir Hans Sloane that it had "almost alarmed England". Need a bit more info about who these people are so the reader doesn't have to leave this article to find out.

Moved this to the 'confession' section - it was a remnant from the old version of the article, and in the wrong place. Added a ref to give further context. Sloane was one of the many physicians interested in the case, however I'm not certain its necessary to add this (I have no preference though) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• "...and Lord Hervey told his friend Henry Fox" who are these people? (Henry Fox also needs dab fixed)

Fixed. I can't yet be certain if Fox is Henry Fox, 1st Baron Holland, so I thought it best to keep the DAB in case another more knowledgeable editor came along. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Man-midwife James Douglas, like Manningham, presumed that the affair was a hoax kept his distance despite regular invitations to attend from St. André." missing a word somewhere

Inserted 'and' Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• "...whereas St. André was often considered to be a member of the court only because he spoke German (the King could not speak English)." Only German-speaking people could become members of the court?

The implication is that he was favoured because of his ability to speak German. I can't really change this as it would be OR to state that the King favoured German-speakers. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any more OR in "was favoured because of his ability to speak German" than in the quoted sentence? Is there another possibility in the meaning of the quote from the article besides the implication you mention? -- Reconsideration (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Mannigham informed him of the suspected hog's bladder," typo in name

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• In the picture caption, what's a tester bed? Also, the caption is rather lengthy, why not put the additional descriptive information about Tofts and her husband in the article text?

A tester bed is fixed to the walls, or hangs from the ceiling. Its in the Bed article so I've linked Bed. I originally had Andre's description of both in the article body, but there was nowhere sensible to put it - there is so little information about Tofts and her family that a separate section on their background isn't worthwhile. It also is easier to have the description of those two, in the same image that also identifies the other protagonists. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Confession

• "Lord Onslow had began an investigation of his own and had discovered..." Second had unnecessary; also, is it "had began" or "had begun"... not sure.

Removed had. Begun is a past participle (ie - you'll form an opinion once the investigation has begun) or (ie - you began to form an opinion) Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for a second opinion from a well-known copyeditor - I'm beginning to doubt myself! Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Begun Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• "On the same day, Thomas Howard, a porter at the bagnio," link/define porter, bagnio

linked porter, Bagnio is linked previously Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• "on 7 December Tofts finally gave in." gave in -> relented

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• link parturition

I don't believe this is necessary, although some would disagree. Childbirth is already linked (indeed Parturition redirects there). I tend to insert the odd 'big word' here and there to pique the interest of the reader. I'd rather it be left unlinked. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I like having the word there, but I suspect most readers don't know what "parturation" means, and although they can make a good guess, wondering about its meaning may be distracting. A link would help readers who would be more distracted by wondering about the word. Reconsideration (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "(it was Douglas that took down her confession)" "took down" is ambiguous (to me)... does this mean record?

Yes, but I think 'took down' is less pejorative than 'record', which may have legal connotations. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think either "took down" or "record" are acceptable; I'd prefer either to "wrote down", but that also would do. Reconsideration (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "she made further a confession" construction sounds awkward

moved the 'a' Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• "...before being sent to Tothill Fields Bridewell," who?

Mary - the context makes this clear. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• "and in 1729 he married the widow of Samuel Molyneux shortly after he died of poisioning..." typo in poisoning; it must have been quite a feat to get married after dying :)

I originally had Samuel Molyneux in twice, but this reads easier. Fixed spelling. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the first 'he' - this should make it slightly clearer. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That probably works; another way of saying it might be "Molyneux, who had recently", possibly even "Molyneux, who had just", and then it wouldn't matter whether or not the first "he" is retained. Reconsideration (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• link defamation

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• "In it he suggested that Douglas had been taken in by Tofts, and concerned with his image the latter replied" "taken in" sounds colloquial; "the latter" in this sentence seems to refer to Tofts

Changed to 'fooled', and inserted 'Douglas' for 'latter' Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Several doctors not connected with the tale were forced to print statements that they had not believed Tofts' story." Why were they "forced" to do so?

Because of the mockery the press made of the gullibility of the profession as a whole Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I've changed this now to 'felt compelled', I think it reads better. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• "He died in 1755." Is this fact relevant?

Not really, but it does demonstrate that regardless, he continued to earn a living. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• "She had her portrait drawn by John Laguerre, while holding a rabbit on her lap, before ultimately being discharged on 8 April 1727, as it was unclear as to what charge should have been made." Suggest splitting into two sentences, as the discharge isn't really connected with the portrait.

Split Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• "She reappeared briefly in 1740 when she was imprisoned for receiving stolen goods, but her death was reported in 1763." "But" implies contradiction... I think it's not a logical connector here.

fixed Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• "The case was used by opponents of prime minister Robert Walpole to symbolise the age, perceived as greedy, corrupt, and deceptive." Clarify "age". Who "perceived" this?

clarified Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• "One author, writing to the Prince of Wales' mistress, suggested the story was a political portent of the approaching death of his father, the King." Who's the author? If he's writing to the mistress, why does the sentence refer to the death of "his" father (i.e., the King wouldn't be the mistresses father)

ah, that's a leftover from a mistake when I left 'mistress' out earlier. Fixed Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• link portent (divination)

Again, I don't think this is necessary - its a common enough word. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I don't think this needs a link. It's used in news accounts all the time, and someone with 12 years of education should know it. Reconsideration (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "..., and compared the affair to 1641..." did they compare these events to that year, or rather to the events that occurred in that year?

The source text is 'blessed age of '41', so I've added 'events in' Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok I've reread the article and have some fresh comments: Sasata (talk) 06:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Local surgeon John Howard was called to investigate, and upon delivering several pieces of rabbits..." "Delivering" is ambiguous here, it could be equally interpreted as either "childbirth" or "transfer"... I'm wondering if it might be worthwhile to link delivering?

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "William Hogarth was notably critical..." suggest adding "Social critic" or something similar at the beginning for more context.

Added "pictorial satirist and social critic" Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "William Hogarth published Cunicularii, or The Wise Men of Godliman in Consultation (1726), which portrays Tofts in the throes of labour, surrounded by the chief participants of the tale. Figure "F" is Tofts, ..." I find this part a bit confusing, as I am not clear as to whether it's talking about a book or a picture?

Well you can publish either - but I've added the name of the picture to the image caption above. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Tofts complained of painful complications early on, including in August the expulsion from her body of various pieces of flesh, one "as big as my arm" (most likely an abnormality of the early developing placenta, causing the embryo to stop developing, and the expulsion of clots and flesh)." - This sentence seems a bit clumsy to me... big thought in parenthesis, use of "expulsion" twice... suggest recasting

Reworded Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "She showed the pieces to her mother, and to her mother-in-law Ann Toft" Was the mother's name Toft or Tofts?

There is an issue to resolve here, which is on the talk page. At some point the article was renamed to 'Tofts', due to the use of the 's' by one scholar. Many of the original texts just say 'Toft', and so following this review I'd intended to get a consensus on renaming it to 'Mary Toft'. I didn't want to do it during the review however, as it would just confuse matters. I'll rename her to Ann Toft for the time being. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Ann sent the pieces to John Howard..." Use of only the surname here isn't consistent with rest of article

Changed to 'she' Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "As the story became more widely known, on 4 November Henry Davenant, a member of the court of King George I of Great Britain, went to Guildford to see for himself." To see what for himself?

Added "what was happening" Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "to investigate the purported phenomenon himself"? Reconsideration (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Howard's behaviour was similarly suspicious, as he refused to allow Ahlers to deliver Tofts..." needs rewording, Tofts is not the one being delivered

Reworded Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Upon closer study, he evidently found evidence..." reword to avoid unintentional prose funniness

Changed to "reportedly" Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Making his excuses, he returned to London." Making excuses for what?

He actually feigned illness, but I didn't think it worth mentioning. 'making your excuses' is a phrase common in Britain, if you want to leave an embarrassing situation without causing offence. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "While there, Manningham delivered what he thought was a hog's bladder (although St. André and Howard did not agree)." In what way did they not agree? Did they think it was a rabbit instead of a hog?

Clarified Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "As unlikely as the story sounded, many physicians felt compelled to see for themselves;" See what for themselves?

Explained in the following quoted letter Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Under the strict control of St. André," "control" sounds pretty severe, how about "supervision"?

From what I've read from multiple sources including original documents, it does seem as though Andre controlled the situation - he controlled all visitations. For him, the affair was a career-making opportunity. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Hogarth's print was not the only image that ridiculed the affair—George Vertue published The Surrey-Wonder, and The Doctors in Labour, or a New Wim-Wam in Guildford (12 plates) (1727), a broadsheet of twelve scenes satirising St. André as a jester, was also popular at the time." Sentence needs recasting, difficult to follow

Well, I see what you mean but older documents and letters tend to write things uninterrupted - I've seen entire paragraphs without the use of a full stop. Its really only the title of the 12-plate work that creates the length in the sentence, I could remove '12 scenes' and change to 'became popular' rather than 'popular at the time'? Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The sentence could be split in two where the dash now is. Reconsideration (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Although ultimately the document was the cause of much derision," I think "source" is better than "cause"

Changed Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "...it differs from earlier more fanciful publications about reproduction in general..." clarify "more fanciful"

This is a subject that would require another section - conception in those days was largely a mystery. That's why 'The Sooterkin Dissected' is in further reading. There's a section I want to add later, on the popular theory that a woman's thoughts could be imprinted on the child, which is of course very relevant to this story. Would you trust me to leave this be until then? Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• suggest adding non-breaking spaces throughout article in "St. Andre"

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "...but neither he or his wife managed to live down the scandal." neither...nor; "live down" = idiomatic

Changed to 'but the careers of André and his wife were permanently damaged by the scandal" Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Manningham, desperate to exculpate himself, published a diary of his observations of Mary Tofts, together with an account of her confession of the fraud, on 12 December." unclear... was Dec 12 the date of publishing or confession?

Publishing - the distinction is made clear by the comma, and the reader will already know the confession dates from the previous text. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• trim "...Douglas replied by publishing his own account. of his reactions."

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "John Howard appeared before the bench ..." I think non-native English speakers might not understand this phrasing.. how about just "appeared in court"?

linked Bench (law) Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional suggestions

(Apologies if I'm formatting this wrong — this is the first time I've commented in a GA. I'd welcome any corrections if I'm doing this wrong. -- Reconsideration (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC))

Account

• "The protagonist, Mary Tofts, was between twenty-four and twenty-five years old" -- Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers as figures or words suggests numerals.

"numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred" Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I get it. OK. Reconsideration (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Confession

• "she blamed the entire affair on a range of other participants, from her mother-in-law, to John Howard." second comma is unnecessary

Done Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath

• Second paragraph: "his forty-page pamphlet" should be changed to "40-page pamphlet"

Its a personal thing, but where possible I prefer to use words rather than numbers. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Another case of my misunderstanding that guideline. Reconsideration (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "St. André never recovered from the affair." change to "St. Andre's reputation ..."

I'm not sure about this - right now, its fairly ambiguous. I have few or no details on what he did once he left court, he may have practised once more. He certainly fell out of the spotlight though. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Andre never recovered" seems a bit inexact to me. I took that phrase to mean his reputation never recovered. If he never recovered, many readers will be a bit distracted, thinking (for a moment) "was he sick?". It's a flicker of distraction for the reader. Reconsideration (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• "was fined £800 (£91.6 thousand today)." I'm not familiar with the style guideline, but Numbers & Dates MOS seems to want "91,600".

Its a template, I'm unsure how to make it do that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I misunderstood the guideline. Reconsideration (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

changes since this review

I thought I'd add, I moved the detail about The Surrey Wonder up to meet the Hogarth print info, and I also copyedited the last section about Pope's ballad. I need to edit the citation as it was inserted by another editor, who hasn't used a template. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the article meets all criteria for GA, so I will promote at this time. Good luck at FAC! Sasata (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   More details on Mary Tofts personal life would be nice, but I understand these details are probably lacking.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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):

   All images have appropriate free use licenses.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: