Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Toft/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:00, 3 August 2009 [1].

Mary Toft

edit
Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Who could resist the charms of an 18th-century woman who...erm...well, I'll leave it to you to read exactly what she did, only today she probably would be paid lots of money for doing it. Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment: Wonderful queasy subject. Just a few odd points at present:- Various smallish concerns have been addressed and I am happy to support. I'd love to see it on the front page! Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overuse of quoted material - I'm particularly concerned by the 180+ word blockquote near the beginning of the article. Most of this, I think, could be paraphrased with just the odd word or phrase quoted directly
The quote is well out of any copyright claim, but it exists as a contemporary introduction to Toft, and her story. Although the article would seem to be a biography, its more about the hoax and the subsequent scandal. I think quotes are important in this regard, certainly in my mind they help me to better understand the mindset of the day. Just as the public first read about the story 280-odd years ago, the modern viewer reads the same curious report. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]
I am half-convinced by this reasoning. If no other editor is concerned about the extent of the direct quotes, I'll say no more. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption for the Cuniculari image is way, way too long, and contrary to WP:CAPTION
I've reduced it slightly. The caption contains text that I could find no other place for in the article, I thought it better in the caption as the reader can compare it with Hogarth's illustration. I can also remove the 'blasphemous parody' bit, but I need the descriptions of the Tofts to remain there. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]
The reduction isn't really apparent. I find the overblown caption distracting – why exactly can't you find a place in the text for this material? According to WP:CAPTION, a caption is "a short text message"; also: "More than three lines in a caption may be distracting". We are further told: "Do not tell the whole story in the caption." I really think that this needs addressing. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]
The only real place I can put a physical description of Toft is at the point where she is introduced as the protagonist, in 'Account'. The problem for me is that if I do so, I have to use St. Andre's description - and he hasn't yet been introduced. I feel its better to use that description once St. Andre has been introduced to the reader, and especially so alongside an image of both her, and her husband (and St. Andre for that matter, who is also in the image). There are three sentences in the caption, and I don't believe that anything is lost by having that information there - in fact I think it being there makes the article easier to read. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Have a look now - I've shortened it considerably. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw several sentences that could be interpreted as editorial opinion, for example: "The timing of Toft's confession could hardly have been worse for St. André, ..."
St. André had staked his professional reputation on the affair, the subsequent disgrace I feel removes any hint of editorial opinion here - if he had waited a few days, and not published his account, he could very well have escaped relatively unscathed as several other surgeons did (Manningham escaped by the skin of his teeth). Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Something like "The timing of Toft's confession was very awkward for St. André, who had staked his professional reputation on the affair" would, in my view, be neutral. "Could hardly have been worse" reads like POV. I can live with other slightly POV-ish wording, but I believe this one has to be softened. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]
How about this? I've tried to keep it short (the 'more fanciful' part refers partly to Maubray's The Female Physician and his Sooterkin theory). Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it more attention later, but thanks for brightening my day. Oh, and there is a dablink that needs fixing. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link - I'd left it there as I don't know which Henry Fox it is. Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no other issues with the article other than the above, and will be happy to support when these are resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few minor changes but the pages you link give no guidance for the description of drawings and paintings. Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Thanks, that's much better, but a bit more work is needed still. Drawings and paintings use the same rules as other illustrations typically (unless the art itself is the topic). Phrases that should be removed from the alt text, because they can't be verified simply by looking at the images: "Toft", "Methodist", "satirise the story", "Frenchman", "of the doctor's earlier life". Phrases that could be removed in the interest of brevity (see 2nd example in WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples): "A coloured portrait of a", "An portrait of a", "An engraving showing", "A drawing of a". Typos: "An sequence". Eubulides (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about now? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's better, and I struck the phrases you fixed. How about the remaining phrases? Also, it might help to give a few more details of some of these delightful illustrations, e.g., something like this for St. André, "Three-quarters portrait of a middle-aged man in an 18th century red and blue frock coat with a black tricorn hat under an arm. He wears a white wig and ruffled shirt, and gazes sadly downwards with his hands slightly raised." Eubulides (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? I'm afraid I can't go into too much detail on the second Hogarth image, that would require an article of its own (as many of Hogarth's illustrations do). Parrot of Doom (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better and better. I agree about the detail. I still see two phrases that cannot easily be verified by a non-expert who can see only the image, and which therefore need rephrasing or removal: "the State Crown of George I", "Methodist". Less importantly, perhaps "Frenchman" should be "French surgeon" (since the visible caption in the image says that)? Eubulides (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed them Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, and thanks for doing all that. Eubulides (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed 'Frenchman' to 'French surgeon' Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review File:Nathaniel st andre.jpg - I couldn't get the source on this to work. Notice that the license says "This applies to the United States, Australia, the European Union and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years" but the author is unknown. If we can't locate the author, we should change the license to PD-1923 and establish that the image was published before 1923. (I've worked on the rest of the images and they are all fine now.) Awadewit (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Click the edit button on the image description and use the url there - for some reason it won't work if you click it. No idea why. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I also fixed the licensing. Awadewit (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments Toft is always a fun story! I'm excited we have such a good article on her!

Prose, part 1 - The lead and "Account" section need to be copyedited. Here are some examples of why:

  • I think the lead can be better - it is weighted down with detail right now - just tell us the essentials of the story. Not who sent letters to whom.

  • Local surgeon John Howard was called to investigate, and upon delivering several pieces of rabbits wrote letters to several people, some of which came to the attention of Nathaniel St. André, surgeon to the Royal Household of King George I of Great Britain. - This sentence is awkward.
Ok, how does this read? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already a mother, several months earlier she had become pregnant, but as a peasant in 18th-century England she had no choice but to continue working in the fields. - Is the clause about her already being a mother necessary? It seems a bit awkwardly attached.
I think so - (IMO) some readers might assume that motherhood was unknown to her. I think its important people understand the modern perception that she did it for money and attention, and not because she was mentally scarred by the miscarriage. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toft 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" (possibly an abnormality of the developing placenta causing the embryo to stop developing, and the ejection of clots and flesh). - Almost a run-on.
This has been edited down a few times, but I'm no physician and am not certain which parts of the medical description I can remove. Can you offer any help? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the version I rewrote: Early in August, she expelled several pieces of flesh, one "as big as my arm". This may have been the result of an abnormality of the developing placenta, which caused the embryo to stop developing and blood clots and flesh to be ejected. - I just don't like "expelled" - any thoughts on that? Awadewit (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about discharged or egested? Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that is much better. Choose what you think is best. Awadewit (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • She sent the pieces to John Howard, a man-midwife of thirty years experience, who lived in Guildford - Is this "she" Ann Toft?
Replaced 'she' with 'Ann Toft' Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He wrote several letters to Davenant, notifying him of progress in the case, some of which came to the attention of Nathaniel St. André, since 1723 a Swiss surgeon to the Royal Household. - Almost a run-on
How about this? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "investigate" recurs throughout the article. Could another word occasionally be used?
I never notice these things until they're pointed out to me. You're quite right, so I've replaced several. Some uses weren't quite correct anyway. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prose, part 2 - There are a few places that need further explanation.

  • The pictorial satirist and social critic William Hogarth was notably critical of the gullibility of both the Methodist Church, and the medical profession. - The Methodist Church is suddenly introduced at this point in the lead and the point is never explained in the article.
Hogarths criticism of the Church isn't directly related to this story (more to the Cock Lane ghost) so I've deleted that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maubray was a proponent of Maternal impression, and also warned pregnant women that over-familiarity with household pets could cause their children to resemble those pets. - I think the article should explain what maternal impression is, as the idea is really bound up with this story.
How about if I re-word the sentence to remove the 'and also', to join the theory and his warning? Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think we need to explain the theory. Clearly, Toft was relying on this theory when she made up her story. Awadewit (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can say that. None of the sources I used state in certain terms exactly how Toft's story matured. Bondeson goes furthest, giving possible explanations, but then casting doubt on each. Toft was an illiterate 18th-century woman, I doubt she or her peers would have known of The Female Physician. I think it more likely that Maubray latched onto the story as proof of his own crackpot theories. The best I could do would probably be to paraphrase Bondeson's work, but I'm slightly uncomfortable doing that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest adding that explicit connection to the article. However, this idea (not necessarily Maubray's specific theory) was widely available and known during the 18th century - it was actually quite influential. It turns up in a lot of literature, particularly in chapbooks for the poor, for example. Anyway, I really think that we should not allude to theories like this, which are clearly relevant to the topic of the article, without explaining them. All it would take is a sentence. Awadewit (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? You can change 'widely held' to 'common' or 'popular' if you like. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • St. André therefore desperately wanted the two to attend Toft; their Whig affiliations and medical knowledge would elevate his status as both doctor, and philosopher - The Whig reference is not really explained to a reader unfamiliar with 18th-century politics.
I'll see what I can do about that Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I added a note on this. What do you think? Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add something into the article itself about the Whigs being the ruling party and that is why his status would have been improved? Awadewit (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does this look? Its short and perhaps slightly clumsy, but I think that to expand further on politics would be straying off topic for this article (I have included a link elsewhere to Grub Street, another I'm working on, that article contains quite a lot of relevant political info). Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensiveness and/or structure:

  • This article is ostensibly a biography - should it have sections about what is known of Mary Toft's life? Right now, everything is about the hoax.
I'll address the above points later, but the story of Mary Toft is pretty much the hoax - she was a peasant woman in 18th century England, little else is known about her. I do recall some information on a family tree, but the only salient information I think I could add is her illiteracy (her confessions are like text-speak). Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to make sure. Awadewit (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - (of course, there will be things) Third paragraph of "Aftermath" could be split into two. The first, second, and third sentences of the fourth paragraph in that section seem not to go together. Perhaps put together a linking sentence at the beginning and then list events that happened to her. The page kinda just dies with Pope. It seems a little odd that Pope ends it although his is dated earlier than the others. You need to find some kind of conclusion or way to summarize to end it at the last piece of contemporary statement. I don't know how, but I am sure someone like Malleus can come up with an idea if you can't think of one. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does this look re the three sentences? Unfortunately I'm not sure how to end it quite as you suggest - I'd like to write something like "Pope aptly summarised the affair with the following verse" but I'm unsure if that's suitable. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a critic who praises Pope's lines, then you could end like that. Be glad I like you - "a rudimentary answer to this question is suggested by one of the most brilliant and witty satires of the Mary Toft affair" from here. Also, here are some other sources I found: 1 and 2. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had a think about how to do this, and decided the best way would be to add a short section detailing the general piss-taking that Toft received. I've integrated the ballad into that. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support No idea how much of it is accurate, but it on good faith. This was a fun read, and educated me. Would be good to have on the front page for pure novelty if nothing else. If there's a snag I don't much like all the red links, and not sure how many of them are likely ever to get an article. Otherwise, great job! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to create articles for each - Sooterkin will most certainly be one. Nearly everything in the article is verifiable online, you can see much of the original documentation here Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting; I'm going to put this in Culture and society, but if others think it belongs in Health and medicine, it can be moved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mary_Toft/archive1&oldid=1078803047"