Talk:Lessons for Children

Columns

Could someone fix the columns? They are misaligned. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 03:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Now we have tables. We can see all of the text and all of references, but I think the table apparatus looks intrusive. Ideas? Awadewit | talk 01:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting

Well done to the author(s). What a pleasure to read such an interesting and well-written DYK article on the main page. One small point - I think the nationality of the author/country of publication should be maentioned in the intro paras - the intro paras state that the book influenced British authors but doesn't state explicitly that the book itself was published in the UK. 81.152.169.70 13:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you and you are absolutely right. I have added a description of Barbauld as a British writer to the first sentence. Awadewit | talk 15:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

1

• Minor grammar issues; I’ll fix what stands out.
• Possible typo: “Although there are no extent first editions…”

• Changed to "extant". Awadewit | talk 22:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 01:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Inconsistent cases, e.g. “Barbauld's Lessons emphasize the value…” and “Barbauld's Lessons also illustrates mother and child…” - Lessons needs to be consistently plural or consistently singular.

• Which do you think it should be? Since it is a series of books, perhaps it should be plural. However, sometimes series are referred to in the singular. Awadewit | talk 22:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• I would suggest that the article itself provides the answer; “After its initial publication, the series was often published as a single volume”. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 01:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have made it singular throughout. Awadewit | talk 01:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• An instance of a weasel word: “some modern scholars…” and passive voice: “It is through his exposure…”

• It is true that "some modern scholars" and not "all modern scholars". This is accurate. Writing "modern scholars" implies "all". Awadewit | talk 22:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Rewritten as: Charles learns to care for his fellow human beings through his exposure to animals. Awadewit | talk 22:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weasel words aren’t problematic for reasons pertaining to factuality or truth; I would certainly not debate that “some” is accurate and “all” is not. The problem with “some say yes”, for example, is that the converse, “some say no”, is, consequently, also correct. Therefore, in addition to an undesirable lack of specificity, weasel words are to be avoided because they are predisposed to manipulation to serve whatever cause an editor may wish to further. To put this in context, consider, “some modern scholars have not pointed to the lack of overt religious references in Lessons…” - ignoring that the phrasing is odd. This statement is equally as true as the existing statement, but it supports, rather than rebuts, the previous statement. The problem would be fixed by naming one such scholar. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 01:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• The problem with naming scholars every single time (and it crops up in this article) is that it then appears that only one person holds the view. I name scholars when views are theirs alone or when the idea I am citing "belongs" to them, in the sense that it is acknowledged in academic circles that they "own" it as intellectual property of some sort or other. Articles on topics such as this would be unreadable for a lay audience if they were constantly peppered with "Scholar X says", "Scholar Y says" "Scholar Z says". Some summary is necessary and this is the best way to do it. I am already unhappy with how many people I had to name in this article. The average reader does not care about the scholar - they care about the information. I am usually very meticulous about these kinds of attribution and I feel that this one is fair. It is not a wildly vague "some people" and there is, of course, a citation. Awadewit | talk 01:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I certainly understand the predicament. This issue, however, is more so one of technical necessity than of readability. Ultimately, we don’t want to allow the aforementioned logical problem to persist or violate the Manual of Style. Perhaps you could substitute this sentence: “A lack of overt religious references in Lessons, particularly in contrast to Hymns, has prompted alternative claims that the work is secular”? Other options may be to simply drop the “some”, or say “…scholar X, for example…”, “…scholar X, among others,…”, etc. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 02:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Currently the sentences read like this: As F. J. Harvey Darton, an early scholar of children's literature, explains, they "have the same ideal, in one aspect held by Rousseau, in another wholly rejected by him: the belief that a child should steadily contemplate Nature, and the conviction that by so doing he will be led to contemplate the traditional God". However, some modern scholars have pointed to the lack of overt religious references in Lessons, particularly in contrast to Hymns, to make the claim that it is secular. - I think that the contrast is clear - between Darnton, an early scholar, and "some modern scholars". That contrast is made explicit by the "however". Awadewit | talk 02:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I’m concerned that your response strays from the point at issue. The sentence and paragraph are indeed clear and factually accurate. The issue is, however, that the phrasing is technically a logical fallacy and explicitly to be avoided per the MoS. That being said, I think it is only a violation of the letter of the rule, not the spirit; thus, this issue won’t preclude the article’s passing. You might, just for the sake of it, want to take on the challenge of finding an agreeable phrasing that does not rely on a weasel word. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 18:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see the logical fallacy, I'm afraid. Which fallacy is it? I might also point out that these sentences are definitely "following the spirit" as outlined in the guideline as they make every effort to identify who the some are—modern scholars—and contrast them to the early scholar Harvey Darnton. Awadewit | talk 23:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• See my first reply for the explanation of the fallacy; the weasel words page also explains the problem. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 23:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I've read that page and your explanation - neither identifies the fallacy. The page identifies the "bandwagon fallacy (which is the "many people say" wording). That is not a problem here. This sentence doesn't fall into any of the traps listed on that page, either. I teach argumentative writing and am familiar with most logical fallacies. I don't see one here. If there is one and I'm missing it, please explain it more clearly or identify it. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 00:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of the weasel words page addresses the fallacy; weasel words make the converse of a given statement true, making the statement, at best, weak; I would argue meaningless. We need not kibitz over this further; I’ve ceded that the spirit of the rule has not been violated. I was merely suggesting that you might wish to explore one of the numerous, equally accurate and eloquent phrasings which would avoid the problem all together. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 01:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, the converse is true as well, but it is not important to include. The one modern scholar who does not agree, if there is one, is not a prominent voice in the chorus of secularization thesis advocates. However, if I said "most", someone would ask me to prove that somewhere it said "most" and I can only tell you that I know it is "most" from reading the literature, so "some" is the best way to go here. I hardly think the statement is meaningless since the meat of it is what the scholars said, not who said it. Everyone talking is a respected scholar. That is all that the reader really needs to know. I'm not really sure how to more accurately phrase this, frankly. I have thought about it quite a bit as we have been talking/writing, but nothing has occurred to me yet. I think you may be reading this guideline a bit too strictly - it is not always poor judgment to use "some", just like it not always poor writing to begin a sentence with "but". :) Awadewit | talk 01:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Let me reiterate that I’ve ceded you’re not in violation; there is, after all, a green check next to MoS compliance. This discussion is not about a strict interpretation; there would be a red “x” if it were. I’m also not searching for a more accurate phrasing. Simply put: I’m just saying the wording isn’t optimal. If you’re interested, I’d be happy to elaborate and continue to pursue a mutual understanding; that, however, would be a continuation better had on one of our talk pages. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 01:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am less interested in the check mark and more interested in "optimal phrasing" and understanding, as you put it. Drop me a longer message on my talk page, when you have the time. Thanks for painstakingly explaining your arguments. Awadewit | talk 01:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Wording seems, at times, overly ornate. Words such as “imbibe” to describe acquisition of knowledge, although grammaticality correct, could affect readability (in this example, imbibe is problematic as it is typically used solely in the context of consumption of liquids).

• I have changed "imbibe" to "acquire". Please list any other imprecise diction you see. Awadewit | talk 22:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• “Conceit” is another. I’ll alter others as I find them. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 01:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Changed to "depicts". :( Awadewit | talk 01:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• This sentence seems abrupt and could stand to be better integrated into the paragraph: “Building on Locke's theory of the association of ideas, David Hartley had developed an associationist psychology that greatly influenced writers such as Barbauld (who had read Joseph Priestley's redaction of it).”

• Now reads: Barbauld's pedagogy was fundamentally based on John Locke's Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1693), the most influential pedagogical treatise in eighteenth-century Britain.[18] Building on Locke's theory of the association of ideas, which he had outlined in Some Thoughts, David Hartley had developed an associationist psychology that greatly influenced writers such as Barbauld (who had read Joseph Priestley's redaction of it). - Let me know if that fixes the problem, or if you want more of an explanation of the theory. Awadewit | talk 22:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• The new phrasing is very good. David Hartley, however, seems to appear from nowhere. Perhaps something to the effect of “David Hartley, a philosopher influenced by Locke, had developed…” would be useful to the reader; I’m sure you could put it more eloquently than I. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 01:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• You don't think the "building on" part conveys that idea? Awadewit | talk 01:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• It indicates he “furthered” the work, but it doesn’t tell us who he is. Why not give him the same treatment as Mr. Darton (“F. J. Harvey Darton, an early scholar of children's literature, explains…”)? Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 02:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, yes, I see - added "philosopher" tag. Awadewit | talk 02:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

2

• Some sentences appear to be original research, e.g. “It is only in the 1990s and 2000s that Barbauld and other female educational writers are beginning to receive their due in the history of children's literature”. If I’m incorrect, a reference would be appreciated.

• Not original research - a well-known fact. However, I will try to dig up a citation. Awadewit | talk 22:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Added. Awadewit | talk 22:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Well known in academic or literally circles, perhaps, but I very much doubt the typical layman reader would have been aware of that. As much as it may occasionally pain me, they are the people for whom these articles are written. Thank you for the reference. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 01:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ay, there's the rub. Scientists have it so easy. They just say: here's the textbook. :) Awadewit | talk 01:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

3/4

• Although helped by the criticisms at the end of the article, this article appears too approbatory in its treatment of the subject. I’m unable to give many examples, but phrasing such as “Lessons is far more than simply a way to acquire literacy…” seems too grand to be considered neutral. I would suggest looking it over for similar phrases (and, if you’d like, I’d be happy to do the same).

• I agree with you - I felt the same way writing it. However, the published scholarship on this book sounds the same way. I am simply replicating their tone. One of the reasons for this laudatory tone in the published material is that there is so little of it and the scholars publishing on Barbauld's Lessons are trying to make a case for why it is significant. They might go overboard at times. However, that is the published material available. I think it would be disingenous of me to change that. That would be original research, in my opinion. Awadewit | talk 22:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Verifiable facts are facts regardless of the motives, perceived or otherwise, of those who pen them. As scholarly materials are not necessarily bound, as encyclopedias are, to neutrality, the tone present therein is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Indeed, the requirements that prose represent views fairly, proportionately and without bias necessitate revisions to the article. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 01:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am comfortable that the article represents the scholarly material on Lessons. As I read through it again to change the verbs for Lessons, I checked for WP:PEACOCK terms and I removed a few phrases. However, I am confident that any superlatives that exist in the article are backed up by the sources. One of the reasons that I documented the "Reception" section so heavily was because I didn't think anyone would believe that this series was so influential (it is almost unheard of now). However, if you take into consideration that it was in print for over a century, the picture becomes clearer. Awadewit | talk 01:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Let me sleep on this one... Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 02:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Not a problem. You can always list questionable statements and I'll verify them for you by typing out quotations from the sources. Awadewit | talk 02:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• It reads better today. At the moment, I’m unable to provide further examples of approbatory phrasing. I’ll conclude, therefore, that such remaining faults lie with my personal interpretation and not the article itself. I’ll just request one last thing; could you better define what exactly “their due” is (e.g. recognition, acceptance, respect, etc)? Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 18:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• The online Merriam-Webster's defines due as "something that rightfully belongs to one". Awadewit | talk 23:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm asking you to tell us what that "something" is (e.g. recognition, acceptance, respect, etc). Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 23:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• An understanding of Lessons's place in the history of literature - how much it influenced readers and writers. Generally scholars grant such influential books pride of place in the narratives they tell about the literature or about childhood. However, Barbauld's Lessons has not yet been accorded this place in these larger stories about literature and childhood because so little scholarship has been done on it. Recently, the series is being given its "due" - being accorded the appropriate space in these histories. Awadewit | talk 00:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• That is something that will need to be articulated in the article. Wikipedia is not a literary journal or dissertation; we don’t have the luxuries of writing to a predominately academic audience and the consequent assumption that they will understand the process through which such works receive recognition. Phrasing such as ‘receiving [one’s] due” contains a biased tone which implies “it’s about time” and is, therefore, a neutrality violation. If, however, that is truly the phrasing used by William McCarthy, put quotes around it and all will be well. Otherwise, as I said, please expand on “due” in the article; I’d even accept “due recognition”, albeit unenthusiastically. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 01:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I have changed it to "to be acknowledged". Awadewit | talk 01:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Also, and in regard to board coverage, inclusion of additional criticisms may enhance the article. The existing criticisms seem to be mostly directed towards children’s literature in general or discontentment that Barbauld "wasted her talents" on children’s literature (which is, actually, backhanded praise). Is there any criticism of Lessons itself? You mention the book was too expensive for the poor; did contemporary/do modern critics comment on the exclusion of these children (who, I presume, would have been more numerous than middle or upper class children in the late 18th century)? Just a thought.

• I have read almost everything there is on this book (it features prominently in my dissertation). There is criticism of Lessons itself and I have included that (see "Bibliography"). In fact, most of the article is based on the few articles that have been published on Lessons. I am confident that I have exhausted the resources for this article. Whatever is missing is missing because scholars haven't worked on it yet (maybe some day I'll publish something!). Awadewit | talk 22:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• The desire for additional criticism is largely a reaction to the laudatory tone. I’m satisfied that the coverage is sufficiently broad. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 01:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Overall:

• Despite the quibbles, this is a quite well written and researched article. If you are able to promptly (7 days) address the issues I’ve mentioned, I’ll go ahead and pass the article. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 22:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• By the way, any imaginative ideas on how to get rid of these horrifically ugly tables? I had columns before, but they wouldn't format correctly. Is there any way to make the table lines disappear? They are just so invasive... Awadewit | talk 01:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I changed the table in "Pedagogical theory". Is that what you're looking for? Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 02:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, aesthetic relief. Thank you! I'll just break that line earlier and all will be well. Awadewit | talk 02:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, breaking the line doesn't work. Do you know how to move the columns apart more so the first sentence isn't smooshed into the second column? Awadewit | talk 02:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Is it better now? I'm using ugly code, but it's simple and gets the job done. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 02:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I made the cell padding "1" instead of "0" - was that the right thing to do? Awadewit | talk 02:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• It won't hurt anything; cell padding sets the amount of space between the contents of the cell and the cell wall. The cell wall is invisible, so the cell padding setting won't really be noticeable unless you set it very high. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ _talk 02:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

changes

[1] so it had no effect in Ireland, or Canada, then? Johnbod (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The scholarship about this book usually refers to the Anglo-American world, and specifically excludes places like Canada, India, Australia, and South Africa. Awadewit (talk) 06:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Humpf! And Ireland? "Anglo-American" is generally, and best, restricted to political or trade contexts, at least in UK English. Johnbod (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, this isn't about BE or AE - this is about being precise. Using "English-speaking" is entirely misleading. :) As far as I'm aware, the scholarship about this book does not discuss Ireland, either. Awadewit (talk) 06:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Since such a very specific and restrictive combination would, in my experience, be pretty unusual in EngLit studies, perhaps you could kindly provide some short quotes to justify this assertion, which would indeed probably be worth mentioning in the article itself? Why, for example, would using "English-speaking" be "entirely misleading" for the late 18th & early 19th centuries? The answer is certainly not obvious. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is not at all rare in EngLit studies. Your lack of AGF on this matter is stunning. I did, actually, report the scholarship correctly. You are welcome to read through the articles listed in the bibliography and see if they mention any traditions outside Britain and America if you are so skeptical. That is what it is there for. Awadewit (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is an ENGVAR matter in fact. The links mostly seem American: from an American perspective one may think of "Anglo-American literature", but the British are less ready to brush aside the (at this date) very tiny other readerships, and even smaller numbers of authors, elsewhere around the world, and think of literature in English, and the English-speaking world. It is not a matter of AGF, but your phrasing stuck me as odd, and perhaps making a point you were not intending to make. Of the two uses, one seems to cover readers and the other writers. The restricted sense may be more justifiable in the latter case, but in UK English at least, talking of "children's literature in the Anglo-American world" implies that for some reason Ireland and the other places to which the English book trade routinely distributed their product did not share in these develpoments. While we are on the subject, can I suggest you consult your style guides, which I think will confirm that the omission of a leading "the" in phrases like "written by prominent 18th-century British poet and essayist" is considered journalese on both sides of the Atlantic. I notice your prose is rather prone to this. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to restrict my point to the Anglo-American world since there is no scholarship on places like Ireland, as I have already said. My wording was quite precise on the matter. Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That is rather my point. To an English reader, "Anglo-American" implies evidence of absence, which I don't think you have, rather than just absence of evidence. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Quotidian??

Online dictionaries define this word "quotidian" as "everyday, ordinary, commonplace" [2]. Now, being a linguistics buff and all, I love the odd spot of unusual vocabulary, but if even I didn't know this word, it's a safe bet that 90 percent of the wiki's readers aren't going to know it either. And since it has a simple English replacement, I can see no reason to keep it. Unless adequate reason can be provided, I suggest that this word be speedily replaced. Kilyle (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I second the motion - even though I recognized the word from my high school French (daily newspaper if I remember correctly). I was immediately distracted from the text, thinking "Why not use an everyday word to describe the concept of 'everyday'?" Smallbones (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

But then our readers wouldn't learn this awesome new word! :) Awadewit (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Lessons for Children/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Thanks; a fascinating and well-written article. Particularly good are - highlighting the importance of her ground-breaking approach to a specifically children's literature - excellent cross-references to other writers and thinkers; this substantiates claims for her importance, and her difference from them Points for further development include - as suggested, her influence on modern writers - Barrett Browning, T S Eliot, and presumably if she was read by so many, on others There is no scholarship on this yet that I have seen. Awadewit | talk 08:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC) - the difference between Lessons for Children and Hymns in Prose indicating (encouraging?) an emerging sense of the secular; compare this with the influence of Sunday Schools, and her role in their emergence Barbauld did not participate in the Sunday School movement. I am hoping that the Hymns in Prose for Children article will discuss the differences more, as there is more scholarship on that text, but there is very little to go on. Awadewit | talk 08:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC) The article encouraged me to read the full article on her life, also very good. Thank you for both. Arvwd 11:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

URFA/2020 review

I am reviewing this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, an initiative to evaluate featured articles that were promoted before 2016 to ensure that they still meet the FA criteria. I am concerned about the numerous usages of block quotes in the reception section, and I am wondering if this is necessary or if it can be reduced. There are also some places where there are uncited statements and an "original research" tag from March 2021. Is anyone willing to address these concerns? If not, this article may be nominated at WP:FAR. Z1720 (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)