Talk:Thoughts on the Education of Daughters/Archive 1

message: This article is well written, well referenced, and covers the topic well.  The automated peer review suggests:
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Congratulations, DoomsDay349 01:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Passed

message: I think I know what is meant here, but it's a very loose sense of the word. I'm not sure at the moment what should replace it: "evolutionarily"? even "ontogenetically". But much the same point would be made either by omitting the phrase or by saying "scholars view it retrospectively as". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I am aware, "teleology" is not being used loosely. It is being used to mean "we can see an endpoint or telos that Wollstonecraft is purposefully driving toward", that is, we can read Wollstonecraft's works as leading towards her Rights of Woman. Jones uses the word in the section of her essay that I cite for that section, so I feel justified. Awadewit | talk 02:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to say that I somewhat disagree with the use of the word without a phrase of explanation ("stepping stone" is useful but doesn't mean quite the same thing) in such a vital position in the article. I had to look it up (I knew it; but I had to look it up to reassure myself that I knew it!).qp10qp 03:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This word is so perfect, I hate to change it (and look, you relearned a word!). I have slightly altered the explanation you provided. Awadewit | talk 05:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Awadewit; I like the use of "teleology" here and it seems precise as is.  The only qualm might be whether typical readers will be familiar with it?  Just a stray thought, Willow 21:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Teleology" is linked and explained now, so... Also, the "typical reader" of this article - one who made it to the end - is not the ordinary wikipedia reader. This is an obscure work. Perhaps we can rely on them to click or know the word? Awadewit | talk 22:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Teleology?

message: The MW navbox used to have centered fields and now everything is left justified. I don't know why that changed, but I liked it centered. Does anyone know how to change that? Awadewit | talk 07:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it. (Someone converted to a different template on Sep 3.) –Outriggr ₪ 08:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor question