Talk:Sabrina Sidney/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 03:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See comments below
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See comments below. DONE
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	See comments below. DONE
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Will run a final check before final review; preliminary assessment looks OK. Earwig tool is clear, AGF on offline sources and those I cannot access.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Sabrina Bicknell aged 75.png has a warning tag on it, needing some additional parameters Fixed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Suggest one caption be tweaked and the image moved, but not a huge issue
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

Fascinating article. I'll focus on the GA criteria, but with a nod that you hope to go to FAC, so I'll comment where I see issues.

• Lead is a bit long -- rare for me to say that, but it's six choppy paragraphs, and it rambles. There are also some inconsistencies between it and the body of the article (such as "no servants" versus "two servants" I would suggest doing the rest of this GA work and then going back to tighten it up and make any corrections FIXED.
  • Current version needs a light copyedit for minor punctuation issues ("dressmakers" -- etc.)
• Also, the article title is Sabrina Sidney, but the Infobox says Sabrina Bickwell. I just tweaked that, hope it is OK with you. Montanabw^(talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Overall, I (still) have issues with long sections being sourced with three or four footnotes at the end, particularly when the content is sort of a mashup of several things that probably could each be sourced to one work. If the material is truly an amalgam of all the sources, you gotta do what you gotta do, but in most cases, the various clauses can be cited to a specific source, and I'd prefer to see that, makes it far easier to verify the material.
  • Let me know where you really DO need to pile up the sources, but where they can go one per sentence instead of four per paragraph, please do so. Montanabw^(talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Related to the above, the footnotes do need to be rearranged so, if there are several in a group, they appear in numerical order.
  • These two issues still need to be addressed, in particular, the first. The second is a nitpick but will be an issue at FAC. Montanabw^(talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

done

On the chart above, note that the lead image has a copyright tag issue, apparently it is not specific enough for the folks at commons. Need to fix that. The remaining images are all OK for GAN. I am not doing the more thorough FAC level review of them, though the Seward image may or may not become a problem at FAC due to the odd tag there.  Done I've tided up the tag, I just went through the wizard and didn't realise it left me with something to fix. Useful Commons, useful... WormTT(talk) Excellent, Thanks. Montanabw(talk) 21:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC) Overall, my main concern is that the article is choppy and needs more work to improve narrative flow, there are abrupt transitions from one topic to the next, sometimes facts are presented with insufficient context to be clear to the reader and so on. This is not a fatal flaw, I suspect it stems from editor fatigue; one simply has worked on the article to the point that it is hard to tell the forest for the trees. But if you've had a few days off from it, look at it with fresh eyes, a lot of what I am discussing here probably will jump out at you. This is much better. Montanabw(talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

done

Early Life Beginning section "Manima Butler..." is confusing. I presume this was Sabrina Sidney, but nothing in this section tells us that. Simply making it clear who we are talking about right off the bat will help. (Something as simple as "Sidney was born _____ and her original name was --- when she was left at the ______")  Done I've had a go at the section to make it more clear. WormTT(talk) I'd move the Shrewsbury Hospital photo up to this section. Also, as it appears the original hospital was torn down, do we have an article to link on the "Shrewsbury branch of the Foundling Hospital" -- which I presume is the same as the photo? May want to tweak the caption too, perhaps to add, "Sidney was moved here in ____" I've included an additional image, of the hospital she was abandoned at, now torn down. WormTT(talk) Overall, the section lacks narrative flow, it could benefit from an overall copyedit with an eye to smoothing the text and making it a bit easier to follow. For example, sentences such as "nurse Ann Casewell at her home until 1765 when she resided in..." are confusing, you are jumping back and forth between Sidney and Casewell in an unclear manner. I won't go into specifics at this point, as I suspect a new run-through by the editors (having, presumably, had a bit of a break from it) will see the problems themselves.  Done I think, does that read better to you? WormTT(talk) Yes. Montanabw(talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Day's experiment First section is a bit choppy, similar copyedit needed, we get the impression that he had trouble with women, looks like in two stages, from bad to worse. Need to smooth this out and perhaps expand a bit. Choosing the girls This section looks pretty good, though again a little smoothing and copyediting for flow would help. My only issues are the several sentences all sourced to four sources at the end of the paragraph, and the other area where three sources are piled at the end of a multi-sentence sequence. I'd prefer to see these attached a bit more closely to what they cite. This method of citation is marginally acceptable at GA level, but I'm not fond of it, and I suspect it will be trouble at FAC. The Guardian source (Uglow) mentions that Rousseau's Sophie was an inspiration for Day, might want to mention that here, it's significant. Education in France "... at the beginning of November he decided to move them to France." November of what year? Third paragraph is a mishmash of a lot of different things. Again, the choppiness problem with a lack of narrative flow and the multiple sources at the end of the section problem. I'd suggest a little bit of expansion would help this the most. "Later accounts..." No mention of "early accounts." May want to explain what you are talking about; their own stories, other historians,...? Fuzzy. Return to England "...whilst Lucretia did not show any progress." Any more you can add to explain this? Progress in what way? Was she rebellious, unintelligent, any reason given...? "Her tuition continued at the same time..." Normally I think of "tuition" as a payment to a school; did you mean "tutoring?" It's an odd word choice... "..methods taken from Rousseau's Emile, ..." Were the hot wax and firing gunpowder specifically in Emile or was he using a more general philosophy? Clarify.

• "unsuccessful at abating her phobia of horses ..." again, we have a section that jumps about a bit randomly, no mention of this anywhere before or why it was a phobia...
  • This still an issue -- if there is nothing more about it, I understand, but it's random. Montanabw^(talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Moving away from Day

• Anna Seward comes into this article rather abruptly. For people not familiar with her and her work, it may be worth a bit more of an introduction to who she was, why she knew Day, and from whence came her moral authority to tell Day what to do -- she also kind of gets dropped... this first paragraph really covers about three separate topics, mostly in rather disjointed sentences, and should be expanded a bit.
  • Seward still needs to be addressed, as a reader, I do ask, "so where did Seward come from and why was she so concerned? A clause noting how she knew Day (friend, neighbor, fellow seeker of higher education, or whatever the connection was) would help. Montanabw^(talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

done

"In 1774, Day visited Sidney..." Did she finish her schooling, was she about to graduate... I am a little unclear if he never visited her between 1771 and 1774...? Clarify and expand a bit? Broken engagement I'd make this a subsection of the one above, it doesn't need to be its own; it is still about her movement away from Day. It is also a little unclear if this all happened in 1774 nor if "Day returned to moulding Sidney" occurred at the Keir family's home or if she was working for him as a housekeeper. Arguably, this may not even need a subsection header, it needs to flow more clearly from the preceding material. Marriage This section is better written, with a few caveats: Do you really need four sources to verify the single sentence that begins, "Bicknell and Sidney married on 16 April 1784..." you also end the same paragraph with three sources, that again I think could be more closely attached to what they verify. If you have to do it this way to avoid ridiculous-looking sources every three words, say so... Montanabw(talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC) So how old was Bicknell, if Day objected to his age? (It appears Day was about 9 years older than Sidney??) Clarify? Still want to know Bicknell's age, if Day objected to it (doing the math is OK and not OR). Montanabw(talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "Day's widow carried on paying Bicknell's allowance after his death..." First time we discover that Day married at all... Uglow does answer my question -- how DID he find a woman who would put up with him? Can we note her name and when he married her? (smile) Also, we mention Day had a widow but not when he died (Uglow says 1789?) This section is improved in style and flow, but the above issues remain I'd like to see a bit of expansion on when Day died and also when he married Milnes (just a sentence or so, given how hard it was for him to meet women and his failed experiment with Sabrina, it's a miracle he married at all from the sound of things. The reader should at least have a light outline, the parenthetical is a bit awkward and lacks sufficient context. Montanabw(talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC) FIXED. Montanabw(talk) 20:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

done

Legacy Another section that might benefit from expansion. The works written about her during her lifetime should, perhaps, be a different section than those discussing her posthumous recognition. Perhaps a rename of the section would work though. Again we have sort of abrupt jumps from one person's writing about her to the next... I'd like to see each separate work discussed in separate paragraphs, with more context. The question that goes begging is why Seward or others wrote about her at all, was it because they were writing about Day and mentioning her in passing, or were these works telling her story for her own sake? Perhaps even listing the books they wrote by title and such, at least in as part of the narrative, (i.e., "Seward, in her 1804 work Foo, stated...") References and bibliography. Reference formatting and style is fine, a few errors noted here: The Youngman BBC ref should be cited in full in the bibliography and then just as "Youngman" in the footnotes, the way you did for all the print works and other websites. Oelkers 2014 in the footnotes is missing page numbers, and a page cite is needed. Do google books links exist for Blackman or Schama? Or, did you access them only in hardcopy?

More to come, I think this is a fascinating tale well worth telling and your research is excellent! Montanabw^(talk) 04:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• OK, I think that is my preliminary review, feel free to discuss any of my suggestions. Montanabw^(talk) 05:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much, this was exactly what we needed. I'll get on it asap. Worm^TT(talk) 06:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll wait to make extensive comments until you've done a once-through. No worries on timeline, as long as progress is happening, I'm fine. Montanabw^(talk) 21:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in re-reviewing. Much, much improved! You might now be overusing the word "whilst" a bit (do a word search, you'll see it) and may want to do a little more light copyediting (there are a couple places where commas and/or apostrophes would be useful) but vastly improved. I am also OK with saying Emile sometimes after an initial mention with the full title, as it's a well-known work and Emile, or On Education might now be overdone, particularly when used twice in a paragraph. I'm hatting everything that is done to my satisfaction and adding comments to anything I see that still needs some fixes. What's not hatted, re-read for additional comments. Looking good, almost there! Montanabw^(talk) 02:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• All issues have now been addressed, I did a light copyedit of a few things that jumped out at me but are of minor significance. Passed! Congrats. Montanabw^(talk) 21:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)