Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mary: A Fiction/archive1
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [1].
- Notified:
Wadewitz(deceased), WikiProject Novels, WikiProject Women writers,, Women in Green, 2021-03-03, 2023-03-06
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because of missing citations and original research concerns. SandyGeorgia noted these concerns in 2021, but they are still present in the article when I checked in March. I also wonder if the Reception section can be updated with additional sources, especially more recent ones. Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I do see room for improvement for this article, but after a first read through I don't have major concerns about original research. It does have more of the tone of a journal article than an encyclopedia at times, but everything still reads to me as "simple" reporting of scholarly consensus. The bibliography also doesn't look terribly out of date (e.g., the works from the 90s and 00s remain to my knowledge well-regarded works on Wollstonecraft, whose fiction isn't studied with great intensity). I did some preliminary research for more up to date sources and found the following:
- We should certainly consult (and mention) the 2012 Broadview edition of this novel
- Those wishing to find a lot of new sources might wish to start with the bibliography of this 2017 thesis. I also looked at this 2022 literature review on Wollstonecraft but didn't see anything immediately relevant to this book, though a more careful read through might find something.
- Two articles that intrigue me are this article about Wollstonecraft's income as a writer and this article with an ecological reading of the novel.
- I think it would be sufficient to read the Wikipedia article closely with the Broadview edition in-hand, and supply any missing/undercited information from the Broadview. A very enthusiastic person might find more to add from other sources but I don't think they are vital for a comprehensive and accurate article. A prose editing pass could also go through and making the sentence-level writing more boring. I can't guarantee I'll get around to any of these tasks myself, but I will keep the tabs open for convenient poking, and I hope these sources are helpful for others. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC, zero progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC no progress on the OR concerns or incorporating sources found by LEvalyn. Z1720 (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and OR. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, issues unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist no edits since early May. Issues still present. Z1720 (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per Sandy. Hog Farm Talk 01:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.