Talk:Asylum confinement of Christopher Smart/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I will be reviewing this article. Cheers, Ricardiana (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 1: well-written

Mostly very good. Some small comments:

• "Monro instead believed that those who were mad had the correct perceptions, but lacked the ability to judge properly, but his suggested treatment, beating patients, was as equally harsh as Battie's who sought to isolate patients completely" - two but's in one sentence is a little much; "as" seems repeated; there should be a comma before "who sought".
• "but was too late to ever help Smart" - Death to Split Infinitives is not my motto - but here it sounds awkward - and (see below for more on this) not really NPOV.
• "and they would be denied the cause of their madness (these causes ranged from alcohol and food to working outside)." -- By the end of the sentence, I get your meaning; but still, "denied the cause of their madness" threw me off severely. Perhaps re-order so as to explain first that madness was deemed to have some material or environmental cause, and then mention that those causes were denied.
• "There were limited spots available for patients to be treated for free" -- a little verb-heavy. Ricardiana (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• A number of sentences start with "There is" and could be shortened. For example, "There is an "inner light" that serves as a focal point for Smart" could be "An 'inner light' serves"; "There is little information known of Smart's condition during his stay at St Luke's" could be "Little is known of..."; "There is little information known about how and why Smart was released" - same thing, etc.
• "If Smart would have attempted to be freed via legal means" - again, clumsy verbs. Perhaps could re-word to something like "Had Smart attempted to gain his freedom through legal means". Ricardiana (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 2: factually accurate and verifiable

Mostly good here. Comments:

• "This agrees with Christopher Smart's 1760s writings on the subject in which "the category of madness is insistently relativized, and made to seem little more than the invention of a society strategically concerned to discredit all utterances or conduct that threatens its interests and norms."[9]" --This statement is set up for a quotation from Smart, but sounds more like Foucault's writing style; the footnote cites someone else entirely. I'm left wondering if Smart said this or not, and if not where and when he does say something like this. Ricardiana (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Citations are inconsistent; some give the year as well as author's last name, some don't, e.g., note 1 v. note 17. Ainsworth and Noyes is cited once as Ainsworth and Noyes and twice simply as Ainsworth. More importantly, page numbers are missing from several citations.
• The title of Smith and Sweeney's work is given incorrectly in the references section. Ricardiana (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 3: broad in its coverage

Good, but I noticed some works are missing which discuss, not just Smart, but his mental condition during the asylum years:

• Christopher Smart and the Enlightenment, by Clement Hawes
• Christopher Smart, by Geoffrey Grigson
• Christopher Smart as a poet of his time: a re-appraisal, by Sophia B. Blaydes

Is there a particular reason why you don't discuss these works? They might be especially useful in rounding out the final section which, as discussed below, is the linchpin of the article's stance re: Smart's madness but whose sources do not currently support the lead or the POV of the article. Ricardiana (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Clement Hawes's work is a collection of essays. Keymer's essay is the one on the "madness". Blaydes doesn't say anything new that wasn't covered again and in fuller detail in Mounsey. Grigson falls under the same case. I also left a few others out. When I add more to the end section, I will slip a few of the critics in if they have something quotable (i.e. a way of phrasing it that is more than just saying "he was mad" or "he wasn't mad"). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 4: neutral

The title of the article, and the extensive use of quotation marks to imply that Christopher Smart's "madness" was no such thing (particularly in the lead), are not really neutral in point of view. It's perfectly clear where you stand, and you are likely right; but as this is a subject of some disagreement, I think the "madness" and "allegedly" stuff needs to be significantly toned down. I think this problem be solved by statements like "Many believed Smart to be mad, but their definition of madness varied" - "X felt that y behaviour was a symptom of madness", blah blah.

"To Battie's credit, he and others believed that those deemed "mad" were abused under the British asylum system" - "To Battie's credit" also seems POV. Do you have a source that says this? Ricardiana (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

From Ricardiana's talk page

On NPOV - No current critic believes that Smart was "mad". They either belief that he was devotedly religious (which was seen as a social problem) or that he was imprisoned because of his father-in-law. According to NPOV, we have to represent the case based on what the majority of scholars have stated. I have read through all of the works, and I have even produced an updated complete bibliography of scholarship on Smart since 1980 (as one of my mentor's was the one to produced the pre-1980 bibliography and I was invited to take up an appendix to it). Since he was never -legallay- deemed "mad", and only put there by a family member, the word "alleged" is necessary. Since "madness" isn't an actual term for anything anymore, it could be a variety of problems (physical, mental, or social). I hope that clarifies. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll respond more fully later, but for now: first of all, this is interesting information. It should be more clearly present in the article, specifically the lead, that "no current critic believes" this. If current scholars are in agreement that S wasn't mad, then of course the title of the article should be as it stands. However, I stand by my general comment that the article does not read as NPOV, and my recommendation that you emphasise your sources more.

Further, the critics you cite towards the end of the article do not display the unanimity you claim currently exists re Smart and his mental state: "he drank because he was mentally unstable"; " when the desire to pray struck him, Smart abandoned what the world chose to call rationality"; "18th and 19th century diagnosis of Smart has been held as correct by many people" - these are not part of an unequivocal view that Smart was not mad. I am not questioning your knowledge of the subject, but I do think that it can be presented better and more clearly and with more attention to both sides of the argument. As your 20th c. section mostly cites older critics, perhaps you need to incorporate more modern sources in that section, as a start. I should note, too, that the most recent source you currently cite in that paragraph, from 1997, expresses the opinion that Smart was in fact unstable in some sense, contradicting your statement about "all" modern critics. Ricardiana (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 5: stable

Yes. Ricardiana (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Criterion 6: illustrated, if possible, by images

Fine here. Ricardiana (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Verdict

I am putting the article on hold. Ricardiana (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Lots of good changes to a Good Article. Ricardiana (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)