Talk:Sally Mapp

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lwebb15, Amohan12, Mpatel58. Peer reviewers: Ssimko1, Vfang3, Krahaman1, Mpatel58, Dghosh5.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing this article

Hi! I am currently working on editing this article. I am thinking about adding more about her history, techniques, and her patients. Any advice on where to look for sources? Thank you. Lwebb15 (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and Epsom Explorer articles both have lists of sources - some of which don't appear to have been used here. May be worth looking for those with the help of a librarian. —Luis (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

scholar.google.com also points at this (not flattering), this (more interesting, at a glance), and this. —Luis (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Finished Editing Article

Hello. I just rewrote the family, practice, and legacy sections of this page as well as added an image. I also added to the later life section. Are there any recommendations on how I could make this better? Thank you. Lwebb15 (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I really appreciated the legacy section! Mentioning the idea that she excelled as a bone-setter and "was a very successful female in what was typically considered a male field." It would be awesome to see some historical context about bone-setters within the medical marketplace? To help understand just how extraordinary she was, e.g. how bone-setters were typically 'low wrung' but she was an exception and able to reach the fame that she did. Additionally, perhaps the lead section at the top can be expanded and benefit from a quick explanation about her significance/legacy to cultivate the reader's interest more.Vfang3 (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the feedback! I think it would be interesting to add more about the relative status of bone-setters. I am currently trying to find more sources about that topic. Lwebb15 (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds great! Keep up the great work! Vfang3 (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback on Article

Hi, I just finished reading your edited section for Sarah Mapp and thought you did a great job! I do have a few minor edits, mainly with the organization and placement of certain sentences in specific sections.

1. I thought that certain sections of the Family section could be moved into the Practice section, especially information pertaining to the name of her practice and reason for her nickname. 2. I think that there are a lot of stories which pertain to her odd personality which you might be able to make a section about her Personality, if you plan on editing this article further. You could move information about the reason for her nickname and encounters into this section as well.

Overall, I think this was a well edited article and if you are thinking about adding more, I would love to see information about patients and stories showcasing her personality. Krahaman1 (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! I agree that she is a very colorful character in history and this article could benefit from consolidating some of those stories into a personality section. I added the stories I found intermittently throughout the article, it's a fine line to walk though because I want to make sure the stories found are factual and backed in history. One of the only stories that I found in multiple sources was about her shouting from her carriage so I added that. However this article could benefit from more and it is a space for more research. I changed the title of the Family section to Early Life as recommended by someone else. Lwebb15 (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback on Article for LWebb15

Hello, I very much enjoyed reading your contributions to this article. It seems very well-researched and I think it's a super interesting topic. Some ideas that might improve the article I had are to rename the first section, titled 'family'. You might want to change it to 'Early life' or something to that extent, as that section is more so about her background as opposed to strictly her family. In addition, certain sentences could be rephrased so that they are slightly easier to read. For example, when you say: "Sarah Mapp was baptized in 1706 near Wiltshire, England. She was the daughter of John and Jenny Wallin" It might read more clearly if you wrote: "Sarah Mapp was born to John and Johnny Wallin in 1706 and baptized near Wiltshire, England." The way it currently reads make it unclear what year she was born in, as she may have been baptized sometime after her birth. Overall, I thought this was a great article! Mpatel58 (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your feedback. I really appreciate it. I will change the name of the family section. I left the sentence that you mention in your comments the was it was because I wasn't able to find an article that states exactly when she was born. Only when she was baptized. I agree that it is a little unclear. I am currently trying to find more information on that. Lwebb15 (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Feedback on article

Hi! I think this is quite an informative and interesting article, which covers several key aspects of Mapp's life and practice. A few suggestions:

1) Some more information in the lead section that highlights the features that make Mapp interesting/unique 2) A small section on bone-setting just to help the readers understand the context in which Mapp operated 3) Perhaps renaming the 'Family' section to early life? 4) Moving information about Mapp and her father's practice from the 'Practice' section to family or early life just to maintain chronological order?

I hope you find this feedback useful and i look forward to discussing them further! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dghosh5 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

There was a lot of stuff mentioned here that we covered in class, but it would be cool to see other things mentioned, like maybe her relations to other practitioners or something. Also, it would be cool to see if you could find what specific physicans had to say about her, I know generally many thought of her as a quack, but if you could find what some practitioners at the time actually had to say that would be really cool. Alternatively, it might be cool to see more of what was going on in her life besides bone-setting, just a thought… Haley Wendt (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! I changed the Family section title to Early Life. That suggestion was very helpful and makes the article easier to read. I agree that there should be more information about bone setters in general and I am currently researching it. I think I will name the section bone setters in history. I am trying to find more information about her personal life. But I want to ensure that it is factual and that is sometimes hard to find. Lwebb15 (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Lead Section

Hi Wikipedia editors! This article had a message that the lead article did not summarize the article well enough. I just added a few sentences to the section. Is this section sufficient? Thank you. Lwebb15 (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lwebb15: Much better! I'm going to make a few tweaks myself. Can I suggest that it would be good to have a clear, one-sentence definition of what a bone-setter is somewhere in the lead? That's the one gap that I struggle with as a modern person who has no idea what a bonesetter was :)

By the way, you're a Wikipedia editor now :) So you can address questions to "more experienced editors" :) —Luis (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment on sourcing

Note that the "Epsom and Ewell History Explorer" cites Wikipedia as a source. That's not automatically disqualifying, but it means you should be very careful in citing it, because that can lead to citogenesis. I haven't reviewed it carefully to see if that's a problem here, just flagging it since I noticed it when doing a cleanup/formatting pass on the citations.—Luis (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sally Mapp/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LuisVilla (talk · contribs) 06:19, 31 March 2017 (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.	Have made copyedits to help here, but some other observations: The beginning of "practice" is very redundant to the current state of "early life". Edit down? Hogarth's print is discussed in both "art" and "legacy" - is that necessary? The discussion of pushing quacks out of London seems to be more about her career than "legacy" - should that be moved? Two discussions of her death in Seven Dials/burial by the parish.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	"Innate" is not formally on the "words to watch" list, but it isn't supported by the citation, and implies a lot of judgment. Similarly, "well recorded" (by whose judgment?). Suspect this will be better after dealing with some of the redundancy noted elsewhere in this review, though.
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.	Not a hugely critical point, but when citing to articles, note that Wikipedia prefers that "pages" refer to the specific pages that support the point, rather than the entire article. I've made this adjustment in "quacks through the ages".
	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).	The first source cites Wikipedia as a source, which is not a good sign - can lead to citogenesis. Would strongly suggest deleting that source and going back to the sources it cites instead.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I'm very uncomfortable with how closely paraphrased the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is throughout; e.g., in the sentence about 'rolling of bandages'. I would edit down - less flourish and detail unless there are other sources.
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).	Maybe a little unnecessary detail in "Practice"? Not hugely problematic, but not clear that every little story is really necessary either.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The last sentence of "Legacy" is uncited and "cheerleader"-y; recommend deleting - should be obvious to the reader by the time they get to that point that she's notable (or not!)
	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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Still needs a lot of work, I'm afraid - solid but not GA yet. Great effort for a first article, though!

@LuisVilla: When will you start the review? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hanif Al Husaini @Lwebb15: Sorry about the delays - life has been very busy. Done now. —Luis (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

General comment

Hello, I found this article incredibly interesting overall. The research and the detail of the article can't be beat. I think that a lot of the information is presented with the assumption that the reader has more knowledge than may actually have. So, essentially, I think you have to work on making things more generaly and less specific. Good job overall, I really enjoyed reading this! Ssimko1 (talk) 05:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)