Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Charleston Female Seminary

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Charleston Female Seminary, Charlestown Female Seminary, Female seminary

edit
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)

Charleston Female Seminary, building by John Henry Devereux

Created/expanded by Drmies (talk), LadyofShalott, (talk), 7&6=thirteen (talk). Nominated by Drmies (talk) at 04:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Looks like a candidate for Women's History Day in March! --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • An interesting set of articles, as indicated by my note about saving the hook for Women's History Day -- and the fact that I've now added several additional articles to Category:Female seminaries in the United States. All three are new enough and long enough.
  • My face is red. Women's History Month is in October. March 8 is International Women's Day, which isn't such a good match for this article. --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No, you were right the first time. In India, it's in October, but in the US (relevant here) and UK, it's in March. LadyofShalott 19:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for sorting that out for me. Sigh! --Orlady (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
However, I find myself with a bunch of questions and concerns about the articles and the hook. Let's start with the hook: It's clear from the articles that both of these schools were "female seminaries" in the 19th century, but I don't see anything in the articles or sources that indicates that these particular schools were "spawned" by the "cultural phenomenon". For that matter, the idea of "cultural phenomenon" seems a bit overblown. The story here is that, over a period of 5 decades in different parts of the U.S., a small number of schools were established to provide women with the kind of education that had previously been reserved for men. An important movement, yes -- but a "phenomenon"?!?
In the articles, I am struck by the large number of quotations in such short articles. Female seminary has nine quotations, none of which is identified as to the speaker. Some of the quotations indicate some sort of judgment, but most are statements of fact. I looked to see who was being quoted, and I find that several of the quotations are from this webpage, which is hosted at a reputable educational institution, but seems to be anonymously authored. This strikes me as excessive -- and sloppy -- use of direct quotations. Additionally, when I looked up the sources of some statements that struck me as oddly worded (for example, that Emma Willard's school "is hailed as the first institute..."), I found that the sources cited did not support the statements. (I've long thought that Emma Willard's school was the first of its kind, but "hailed" seemed like an odd way to describe that, and the source cited doesn't even say her school was first, much less "hailed." Additionally, this other webpage suggests that someone else's school came first.)
Charleston Female Seminary has 7 direct quotations. I was particularly bothered by a statement that also appears in Female seminary -- that southern seminaries were "among the most advanced in the country". That's a judgment, so I want to know who said it, but it's that same largely anonymous website. Further, since that quotation (and the entire paragraph) is about female seminaries in the South before the Civil War, it's not clear that it's relevant to a seminary that opened in 1870.
Finally, Charleston Female Seminary (Massachusetts) seems choppy and disjointed -- and I am wondering if the school was truly named "Charleston," since it was in the place known primarily as "Charlestown" and one source calls the school "Charlestown Female Seminary."
Bottom line: Both the articles and the hook need some further development -- but if we hold this until March 8, there will be time to do things right. --Orlady (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Orlady. I'm going to have to ponder this. One quick note: Female seminary certainly needs developing: I wrote it quickly to make a blue link, and it needs to be much bigger, that's for sure. Now, I don't agree that every quote needs to be attributed in-text; many of them are general historical observations rather than interpretations or opinions. I'll get on it. I hope the Lady is watching this also--the two seminaries are her (and 13's) brainchild more then mine. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved the Charleston Female Seminary (Massachusetts) to Charlestown Female Seminary (Massachusetts). Even though internet archive lists the primary source as "Charleston" the book itself used "Charlestown". I would call the former a typographical error which we ought not repeat. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Added text to Charlestown Female Seminary (Massachusetts) concerning the predecessor to it, which had been founded 2 years before, educated both Catholic and Protestant girls (had a sterling reputation) and was burnt by an angry intolerant mob in 1834. Fully referenced. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Alt1 ... that development of female seminaries in nineteenth-century America spawned similarly named institutions in Charleston, South Carolina (pictured), and Charlestown, Massachusetts?

  • Almost there. Between recent efforts by the creators and editing I did within the last few hours, the concerns I had with the articles are mostly resolved. My only remaining concern is that I have not seen any sources (neither in the article nor anywhere else) that connect the Charleston (South Carolina) Female Seminary to the "female seminary" movement described in the articles. The name certainly is suggestive of a relationship, but similarity of names doesn't constitute reliable sourcing for a hook fact.
PS - There seem to be a lot of good sources on the general topic of "female seminaries" cited in the various articles in the "Female seminaries in the United States" category. --Orlady (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Added the citations per your suggestion. Rewrote couple of paragraphs on female seminaries generally. These new sources, however, don't mention the Charleston Female Seminary by name. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I knew those sources didn't mention Charleston Female Seminary. I did manage to find one source that had more information about CFS; that makes me feel better about the article. Apparently the South Carolina Encyclopedia (not available electronically) has content about it, too.
The only remaining issue is the hook fact. We need a hook that doesn't indicate a cause-and-effect relationship that can't be supported by sources. Here's one idea:
  • I think this one is ready (but other eyes are always welcome). IMO, it should run during the month of March -- Women's History Month in the U.S. --Orlady (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Charleston_Female_Seminary&oldid=1022392115"