Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Mary C. Seward

Mary C. Seward

Would like to see this article achieve A-class as representative of the many people whose work or accomplishments have been cited and/or endured enough to warrant a basic on-line entry, but usually not notable enough to make the cut in printed form or as a Featured Article. Thanks in advance for any comments or other feedback. Rostdo (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Free comments: Great job at finding research material on this person, and building up an article with limited available information. The article overall looks pretty solid to me. I have just a few comments and suggestions:

It's not good to have links to uncreated articles - better to remove them or else create new article pages.
Early Years - Maybe try to expand this a bit - Maybe give some more background info on the period and area - Is it possible to have a bit more on the New London Female Academy?
Poet and composer - Again, maybe try and expand this section a bit - What are the names of some the magazines, she was published in? Maybe add some commentary on her poetry, lyrics, and music, if possible. Are there any recordings that feature her compositions? Maybe try to go into her relationship with her husband a bit more.
Club woman and parliamentarian - Maybe try to include more dates in this section, if possible - In what year did she join such and such club, until when, etc...
Philanthrophy and later years - Good job at integrating background information here. Maybe include something about when her husband died.
Overall, I think the information is presented with good encyclopedic quality. Maybe the sentences are a little short and staccato in some areas. Consider improving transitional passages and elaborations to improve readability.

Hope this helps, --Scott Free (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! I've listed these on the article discussion page and will address there as time permits (or other editors handle). One clarification on the first comment: judicious use of red links is actually an asset to wiki-based article development as described on the Wikipedia linking page and in The Missing Manual help document. Main reasons given for removing red links are the topic is already covered somewhere under a different name (includes typos) or is not notable enough to warrant an entry. I don't believe either of these apply to the red links in this article, but please let me know if that is what you meant. Rostdo (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Happy to help out. My red link comments were incorrect. I wasn't up to date on the guidelines for that. Thanks for pointing them out. I'd rephrase that by saying that it's probably more useful to have stubs than red links. --Scott Free (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AdamBMorgan: Just some notes on layout.

At the moment the pictures seem to be displacing each other, leaving some areas of Whitespace. That isn't necessarily a problem but it can look untidy. You could try removing images, resizing them or using the template {{Multiple image}}.
The references are not linking properly. For example "Leonard 1914" is trying to link to the anchor #LEO1914 but the {{Citation}} template generates anchors with names such as #CITEREFLeonard1914. (The various {{Harvard citation}} templates will do this automatically, if you want to replace the text in the links.)

Hoepfully this helps a little. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]