This review is transcluded from Talk:Letters Written in France/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 23:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 18:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LEvalyn, before I get to the prose review, it'd be great to get your thoughts on the points below, particularly 2b and 3a. They should be pretty straightforward, I have no doubt we're on the road to a GA here. Thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ganesha811, thank you for taking on this review! I really look forward to your feedback.

Regarding 2b, yes, I'm citing Lanser & Fraistat's editorial material. They have introductions of various kinds up to p 61, and then after reproducing the first volume in full, they provide only excerpts of the later volumes, each with its own mini introduction (super useful). You may be able to do some spot-checking with the google ebook.

For 3a... I will see what I can find to expand on her more recent reception. I suppose it's historians and literary scholars in general who now see the letters as an important record -- I don't think anyone else really reads them. If you can think of a better wording feel free to put it in, or I will try to revisit it when I expand the section. I'm pretty sure that Duckling article does explicitly summarize the modern consensus view like that (ie I'm not basing my claim on the fact that just Duckling sees her that way); she may also have a useful summary of Williams' feminist 'recovery' or other notes on Williams' modern status.

I think you are OK to go ahead with the prose review. Feel free to make prose changes directly if you prefer. I may need a few days to get to that expansion but I look forward to improving the article! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I don't think we need a ton more on contemporary reception, just another 1-2 sentences and some slight rephrasing sounds about right. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed most of your comments in the "prose" section, though there were a three I couldn't find answers for:

Nobody notes who specifically arrested the Williamses, though I was able to pin down that she wasn't actually arrested under the Law of Suspects; rather, there was a decree on 9 October 1793 that all British nationals should be arrested. But I can't find anyone who states whether the decree was from the National Convention or the Committee of Public Safety. I added a wikilink to Reign of Terror instead.

I think it was moderately unusual for a single woman to move abroad, though less so because she I've worked out that she did move with her mother. None of the sources really note this, though; it doesn't seem to be something that attracted 18thC scandal the way her relationship with Stone did.

The letters were published quickly because everything got published on a quick turnaround in the 18thC, especially political topics. (For example, A Politcal Romance was printed less than a month after Sterne started writing it.) But because it's not anything unusual that would attract comment, none of the sources say anything about it.

Let me know if you have further questions/comments, and thanks for your thorough review so far! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:08, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that all sounds fine. The detail on the arrest is particularly good to have.

• This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to LEvalyn and any others who may have worked on it; thanks for an interesting read. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As is my usual practice, I've gone through and made minor tweaks myself to save us both time. Not much to complain about, the prose is generally high quality. A sentence or two of background on Williams herself would be helpful to lead off the 'Background' section. Was she nobility? Gentry? Old, young? Not much detail required, just something to give the reader a sense of her. How is the fall of the Bastille connected to du Fosse reclaiming his inheritance? When Williams returned to France, was it without her sister? How common was it for single women to move to another country and live there - unusual, or no? Arrested by who, specifically i.e. what organization, not what individual? And when did her mother arrive in France? Were her mother and sister living with her? Why were the letters published so soon after being in written? Who were the letters written to, primarily? It's implied later that they were written deliberately for publication and were not actually sent to anyone - is that correct? Should be made clearer to the reader. liberal journals... conservative journals journals in England, presumably? Why was she seen as sexually immoral? died in 1827 Did Williams live the rest of her life in France or return to England? Who wrote the 1930 biography and why? Issues addressed, pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues or unreferenced claims.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Generally, the sources are high-quality and good. Just a couple of things: Kelly, Kennedy, and Lanser could all use ISBNs, and in two cases location of publication. The Lanser work is a printing of the letters themselves. I see that it has an introduction and apparently extensive footnotes. I presume the citations are to the footnotes and introduction, and not to the actual letters? Otherwise we might have an issue with using a primary source / conducting OR. Issues addressed, pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, none found.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Hold for manual spot check. Spot checked 5 cites as far as I could via previews and archive.org searches - no issues detected. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	A single sentence on the 21st-century perception of the letters seems a bit short, given that almost all the sources are 21st century scholarship focused on them. Are there any more details available? "now seen" is also somewhat circuitous phrasing - seen by whom? Issue addressed, pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass, no areas of major overdetail, any minor trims can be handled in prose review.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, major expansion completed February, the one substantive issue raised on the talk page appears to have been addressed by subsequent editing.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass, no issues here, all public domain and appropriately tagged.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Made a couple of minor trims to captions, but generally images well-chosen, interesting and relevant. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.