Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:55, 18 April 2021

Anna Laetitia Barbauld

Anna Laetitia Barbauld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Anna Laetitia Barbauld

• Featured article review/Anna Laetitia Barbauld/archive1

Notified: Carbon Caryatid, Bmcln1, Iridescent, WP England, WP Bio, WP Children's literature, WP Poetry, WP Women's History, WP Women writers, 2021-02-28

This is a 2007 FAR whose main editor is deceased. When noticed for a FAR at the end of February, the article had uncited text and original research. I asked other editors if they had the sources to begin repair, but found no one able to take on the task. Subsequently, other editors pointed out that this article had earned for Misplaced Pages a spot in the journal literature, saying it spread inaccuracies, since corrected. A new editor fixed some of them, but the article still has uncited text, original research, and now missing page numbers. Salvaging this requires access to a number of sources to sort out original research from citable text, and get the page numbers correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This statement in the third para of the lead is lacking context: “Barbauld's reputation was further damaged when many of the Romantic poets ... “ The lead could benefit from expansion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, improved, but still has uncited text, original research, and the lead has not been corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• Move to FARC There were improvements to the lede, but no progress towards citation needed and original research concerns. Z1720 (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
• @Victoriaearle: I see you've been working on this; do you feel the issues raised are things you would be able to address? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  Hi Nikkimaria, it's a bit early to tell. Because the Hemingway articles need tending right now, (thanks for your help in that regard!), I've been around more than I'd like and I started idly picking at it. One important issue has been resolved in the body (not the lead yet), but I'm not sure how invested I am, whether it's possible to resolve the other issues w/out access to the literature, or how much citation/accessiblity, etc. work needs to be done. To be honest I'm on the fence as to whether it should just be delisted, or to put in the work for a decent salvage job. Is it okay if I report back in a few days after assessing a bit more? Victoria (tk) 20:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  Sure, see what you think. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  Whatever happens, thanks for trying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Could someone add citation tags to the uncited text? I can only see one at the moment. Also, where can I find what caused "other editors pointed out that this article had earned for Misplaced Pages a spot in the journal literature, saying it spread inaccuracies, since corrected"? SarahSV 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  SlimVirgin I believe that Victoria has addressed most of the cn and or tags; I don’t believe any more tagging is needed. Victoria deleted the mention of Misplaced Pages from the article, but you can see it still on the talk page in the Press mentions box. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  I can only see one page of the source, where it seems to say that the WP article reflects what was generally believed at some point. I can't see the next page. This is the version that was promoted. Does it deal with that issue poorly? SarahSV 23:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  after edit conflict: Hi Sarah I removed and will explain on the talk page why. But I just got in and am very tired so will try to do so tomorrow. Short version is that prior to 2008 it was believed Barbauld stopped publishing at age 68 after receiving really vile reviews for her poem "Eighteen Hundred and Eleven" based on a biography written by her niece (I believe I have the family connection correct). Barbauld did in fact continue to write poetry but not publish, based on recent research published since 2008. In my view the article as written at the time fully reflected the literature available. I've rewritten the section that accused Misplaced Pages of perpetuating the myth that the poem's reviews ended her career, because 1. I couldn't access the sources and found another (and in my view better one), and 2., because the section needed rewriting. I do intend to move it to the poems article, but not immediately. At first I trimmed that section in this edit, and and again, and then commented out.

  Then rewrote here,here,here, and here. There is still some work to be done, and this is now far from the short version :). Furthermore, I've not found any original research, but that's for a separate post. Victoria (tk) 23:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Victoria, take your time, there's no time pressure at all. This was an odd FAC. Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Anna Laetitia Barbauld. There were three supports over two days. It was promoted by a bot six days later. How can that have happened? SarahSV 23:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  I wouldn't know, maybe Sandy can explain. Basically the issue at hand didn't exist in the literature in 2006 and Awadewit had a statement (I believe in the lead but no longer there; I'm still searching for it) that Barbauld's career ended in 1812. Newer researchers have proved that to be wrong and have said the lie/myth extended even to Misplaced Pages. It's impossible to guess, but if Awadewit hadn't died there's a chance she might have updated. She did update extensively with a book published in 2008. Victoria (tk) 23:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  No, it was a standard promotion for 2007 procedures. Back then, the bot did not indicate who archived or promoted, but also back then, it was always Raul. Raul promoted and Gimmebot did the bookkeeping only. Separately, the OR problem seems to be that Awadewit tacked on concluding summaries that contained content that may or may not be found in sources— that is the dilemma on this and the rest of her articles. I’m particularly wondering how we will deal with similar in other Awadewit articles, and digging for the sources is a lot of work; once Victoria has finished up here, will be interested to her her opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  I've been able to cite all the OR tags I've looked at and there haven't been discrepancies between the concluding summaries and the sources. I'm thinking that if Sarah or you think I've gone about this incorrectly, then please go ahead and revert back any or all edits. I've plenty on my plate with the Hemingway suite currently, and hadn't really even meant to be editing, so am happy to bow out let it be delisted. Victoria (tk) 00:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  I am not a literature type, but I think you’re doing fine :). There are still three tags in the article, and then the lead needs to be addressed. If we can salvage this one, great; if not, you have improved the article ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  I had no idea that articles were promoted in 2007 after two days' worth of comments. Or perhaps I did and I've forgotten. SarahSV 00:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  It was six days I think; it was nominated on the 16th, and promoted on the 22nd Yep, that was pretty standard back then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  Three comments over two days: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Anna Laetitia Barbauld. Promoted without further comment four days later. SarahSV 00:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)