Talk:Emily Manning

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Emily Manning used a poetic dialogue between a husband and his clairvoyant wife to examine Victorian gender roles?

• Source: Webby, Elizabeth (1988). "Some Nineteenth-Century Women Poets". In Adelaide, Debra (ed.). A Bright and Fiery Troop: Australian Women Writers of the Nineteenth Century. Ringwood: Penguin Books. pp. 41–52. ISBN 978-0-14-011238-2. Its hero, Theodore, complains about his hard lot but is taught acceptance by his wife Agatha. A clairvoyant, she conjures up scenes from many other lives to demonstrate that he is not alone in his pain. and Hansord, Katie (2021). "Emily Manning: Spiritualism and Periodical Print Culture: 1860–80". Colonial Australian Women Poets: Political Voice and Feminist Traditions. New York: Anthem Press. pp. 111–138. ISBN 9781785272691. In attributing to the wife a defence of religious faith, Manning's poem falls in line with the common practice of representing a split between religious and political (or rationalist) discourses in gendered terms. However, in approaching poetic voice through dramatic dialogue, Manning's poem encompasses discourses outside the acceptably feminine space of domestic ideology and engages in what Murphy argues was an ethical religious crisis in the nineteenth century... Particularly, Manning's use of theatrical dialogue in this poem, in which the husband and wife are engaged in debate around theological discourses, suggests the significance of these themes to gender roles around motherhood and marriage.

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Three Rivers Museum

5x expanded by MCE89 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 23 past nominations.

MCE89 (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2026 (UTC).

• New enough (5x expansion), long enough, presentable. Reliable sources used throughout and cited inline. Copyvio Detector comes back clear. Hook is interesting, cited appropriately and confirmed by the source. QPQ done. No image submitted with the nomination but, if added, the image from the article's infobox is appropriately licensed and clear at small size and is thus approved for use on DYK. Good work! Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Emily Manning/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: MCE89 (talk · contribs) 13:29, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: MSincccc (talk · contribs) 15:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Source-to-text spot check

• 1 –  Done The fact that her father was a lawyer and politician is noted here.
  • Also, could it be noted that Blandville and Henley are the same?
• Is there any way to access the rest of the sources? MSincccc (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thoughts, @MCE89? Thanks. MSincccc (talk) 10:50, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks @MSincccc, and apologies for the delayed reply! I've added that source for her father's occupation, and trimmed out the suburb of her death. You can access the Smith 2001 source here, and I can send a PDF of Hansord 2021 if you'd like to send me an email. I can also give quotes from Webby 1988 or send pictures of any pages you'd like to check. MCE89 (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• 3- Done
• 6- Done
• 11- Done
• 16- Done

MSincccc (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Prose

Life

• "At around nineteen" → "At about nineteen"
• "began to contribute her writing to periodicals" → "began contributing to periodicals"
• "published her writing in" → "published in"
• "was also briefly employed by" → "was briefly employed by"
• "Between 1888 and 1889" → "From 1888 to 1889"
• We could link to book review.

Poetry

• We could link to secularisation and critical rationalism
• "describes Manning's poetry as featuring" → "describes Manning's poetry as characterised by"
• "She suggests that Manning's poetry displayed" → "She suggests that it displays"
• "Manning's poetry is distinguished by its" → "Her poetry is distinguished by its"
• "The opening poem of the collection" → "The collection's opening poem"
• "helps him to reach acceptance" → "helps him reach acceptance"
• "Manning's most significant work was the 1877 volume" → "Manning's most significant work is the 1877 volume"

Bottom line

• MCE89 That's all for the prose. I intend to wrap up the spot check by tomorrow. Best, MSincccc (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks again, I've made all of the suggested prose changes . MCE89 (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.