User talk:Scribblingwoman/Unsex'd Females (archived)

Brief comment[edit]

This is a nice, concise explication of the poem, but it reads more like an essay than a wikipedia article. It doesn't really have that lead/subsection feel. Also, there are quite a few "commentary" words that I feel might get you in trouble with some editors. They might argue it is not NPOV - that whole impossibility. Also, do you have any more sources? Without more sources, the page reads like your own interpretation (although I know that this is a standard interpretation). I can edit the language a bit here and there later, if you want. Awadewit 23:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick. Thanks. Yes, I need to hunt down some other sources; I don't have much to hand. You're probably right re. the essay vs. article comment; I haven't written too many wiki articles on single texts and I suppose it shows. Thanks for your feedback, and if you are so inclined, come back and edit away. — scribbling woman 00:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

In rearranging the layout, I removed this picture for now. Perhaps there will be more room for it later as you expand the article or perhaps you want to change some of what I did with the layout and put it back in. I tried to align the pictures with relevant text in the layout.

Caricature: "Parisian Ladies in their Full Winter Dress for 1800" (Nov. 24th 1799) by Isaac Cruikshank

I like what you've done. Let's see if there is room for this down the line. — scribbling woman 18:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I managed to squeeze it back in. Is there anything about it that gives you pause, or was it purely a question of the layout and the available space? — scribbling woman 22:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that you might run into trouble if you try to go for GA or FA. The page reads like an essay (a very fine essay!) - it all flows together, but that is not the writing style of an encylopedia article. What do you think about a "Themes" section and a "Style" section (you could talk about the heroic couplets, etc.)? Also, I think that some editors might think that the article is POV. They might think that it is anti-Polwhele. You might try to adjust for that a bit. What we would write for a journal article, we cannot write here, I've discovered. Finally, I think that you have to alter your vocabulary. I am always working on this myself. I have edited the lead as an example. Many of your words are excellent ten-cent words, but I think that they might be too difficult for the "average" reader and many of them have very specific meanings within literary studies that they do not in the outside world. Along with that, I would encourage you to define (briefly) important terms such as "Jacobin"; I would not rely on readers to know that or to click. I hope that isn't too harsh! Awadewit ^Talk 06:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent advice, which I will take. (Though I am inclined to think that if someone doesn't know what something is, AND doesn't click on the link, they are on their own. Perhaps I am harsh.) The lead section reads very well. Thanks! — scribbling woman 11:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One important thing to keep in mind is the quality of the links. Jacobin, for example, leaves a lot to be desired. Awadewit ^Talk 17:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]