706:(and to everyone else), last night I was thinking that I've spent more time explaining what needs to be done than it would take to get it done and I should just dive into the article and get it done. The problem your link raises is one I've not mentioned. There are new sources about this previously extremely obscure children's book writer and really we need a thorough literature search. I'd not seen that book, published in 2012 w/ only 30 pages viewable (if they're read all in one session - in other words, lots of reading), but there are a number of post-2010 sources I noted during a quick and nasty Project MUSE search (again, lots of downloading & reading time required). The other issue is that I'm sorta trying to be polite and not give away too much info, but getting this done is just really difficult for me for real life reasons. All that said, thanks for the link - I'll bookmark it. And I'll see if I can get some work done there this afternoon to reduce the list of issues.
248:, 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?
626:. As an aside, without having read the recent book that's cited, it's impossible to tell how important it is to mention it in the lead. Some of the material is redundant to what I cleaned up last week and should probably go the sub article. Beyond all that, there's quite a bit of nitpicky and time-consuming work to be done with the citations, i.e. there are now citation templates in the sources section that affect the rendering and citevar (specifically in the "Other" section). I had to look through the history to find out what had happened and last night found edits like
358:
the article as written at the time fully reflected the literature available. I've rewritten the section that accused
Knowledge 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
634:. All this after only spending a small amount of time picking at the article. I think it'll take some work to get it right and I'm very slow these days. That's why I posted that I can't get it done. The FAC Sarah mentioned is interesting and might contribute in terms of the article not being polished 15 years ago, but isn't really that relevant to issues that have arisen because the article hasn't been tended.
815:
Editors working to address concerns recommended FARC, which doesn't give me confidence that this article is FA-status. Victoria mentioned above that there are numerous post-2010 sources that need to be consulted, and I don't know if FAR is the best place to complete this process. No significant edits
357:
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
617:
last week because it became clear to me that there's more to do than it seemed at first. Re the tags, I've seen the statement re "unjust war" mentioned in the sources I've been able to view, but can't promise I can find it again. The others we can get rid of it. But the problem is deeper. These two
424:
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
446:
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
299:
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
Knowledge a spot in the journal literature, saying it spread inaccuracies, since corrected"?
138:
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
Knowledge a spot in the journal literature, saying it spread inaccuracies, since corrected.
747:
I am sorry to see this happen, Victoria :( I don't know why editors who have been silent throughout have to suddenly start editing, leading to edit conflicts, just as you are attempting repair. So sorry :( I felt if anyone could salvage this article, it was you.
142:
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.
470:
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.
314:
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 Knowledge from the article, but you can see it still on the talk page in the Press mentions box.
586:, the three statements that are tagged do not appear critical and I don’t believe the article suffers if we simply delete them. If we were to do that, and if you were to reconstruct a lead, Victoria, would this be satisfactory to Keep?
485:
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 !
648:
P.s - forgot to mention, that to get the article to where it should be, it's necessary to have access to the sources and the new research needs to be read and evaluated. Those books are only available via ILL.
539:
410:
163:
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.
353:
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
443:
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
389:. 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.
102:
429:
to Knowledge. 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.
466:
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
334:
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.
447:
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.
834:- As Z1720 noted, it looks like this one unfortunately is gonna have to turn to black goo on the internet. Issues with recent sources not being included.
630:, which is unhelpful in terms of citevar. It would also be a good idea to replace the blue boxes for accessibility reasons, i.e see the boxes I've used in
110:
114:
663:
P.p.s. - sorry, to keep adding, but also with limited time here it's best to use it to repair articles I've worked on and/or have sources for, i.e
40:
685:
98:
94:
882:
852:
843:
825:
805:
784:
762:
742:
715:
697:
676:
658:
643:
600:
574:
548:
533:
511:
500:
480:
461:
438:
419:
398:
344:
329:
306:
290:
271:
257:
239:
218:
201:
177:
157:
106:
30:
17:
863:
505:
I had no idea that articles were promoted in 2007 after two days' worth of comments. Or perhaps I did and I've forgotten.
82:
413:. There were three supports over two days. It was promoted by a bot six days later. How can that have happened?
209:
There were improvements to the lede, but no progress towards citation needed and original research concerns.
780:
738:
711:
672:
654:
639:
570:
476:
434:
394:
253:
758:
596:
565:, apologies for the delay. To answer your question, I won't be able to address the issues raised. Thanks,
529:
496:
457:
325:
286:
230:
I see you've been working on this; do you feel the issues raised are things you would be able to address?
197:
173:
153:
72:
631:
618:
recent edits require citation clean up, more rewriting and reestablishing the lead which was rewritten,
878:
801:
267:
235:
90:
839:
776:
734:
707:
681:
668:
650:
635:
579:
566:
472:
430:
390:
249:
225:
187:, improved, but still has uncited text, original research, and the lead has not been corrected.
772:
749:
606:
587:
520:
487:
448:
316:
277:
188:
164:
144:
86:
61:
874:
821:
797:
693:
610:
583:
562:
543:
506:
467:
414:
350:
339:
311:
301:
263:
245:
231:
214:
53:
835:
409:
Hi Victoria, take your time, there's no time pressure at all. This was an odd FAC.
131:
This is a 2007 FAR whose main editor is deceased. When noticed for a FAR at the
870:
516:
It was six days I think; it was nominated on the 16th, and promoted on the 22nd
57:
817:
703:
689:
210:
859:, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the
664:
338:
is the version that was promoted. Does it deal with that issue poorly?
39:
Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at
796:
Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing.
540:
Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Anna Laetitia Barbauld
411:
Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Anna Laetitia Barbauld
627:
623:
619:
614:
517:
444:
386:
382:
378:
374:
367:
363:
359:
335:
140:
136:
132:
118:
65:
135:, the article had uncited text and original research.
542:. Promoted without further comment four days later.
688:, would that be any help? (I can email it, if so)
890:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
775:, do you mind if we move the comments to talk?
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
896:No further edits should be made to this page.
869:template in place on the talk page until the
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
519:Yep, that was pretty standard back then.
41:Knowledge talk:Featured article review
276:Whatever happens, thanks for trying.
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Featured article review
425:have said the lie/myth extended
613:, apologies for my slow pace.
538:Three comments over two days:
1:
615:I wanted a few days to assess
913:
806:01:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
763:22:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
743:22:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
716:16:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
698:02:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
677:20:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
659:20:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
644:20:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
632:Big Two-Hearted River#Plot
601:19:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
575:16:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
549:00:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
534:00:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
512:00:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
501:00:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
481:00:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
462:00:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
439:23:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
420:23:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
399:23:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
345:23:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
330:23:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
307:22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
291:22:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
272:20:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
262:Sure, see what you think.
258:20:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
240:02:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
219:15:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
202:14:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
64:) 1:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
178:05:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
158:20:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
893:Please do not modify it.
883:01:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
844:17:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
816:since it moved to FARC.
785:21:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
349:after edit conflict: Hi
103:WP Children's literature
36:Please do not modify it.
864:featured article review
826:17:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
31:featured article review
684:, I've found a PDF of
73:Anna Laetitia Barbauld
111:WP Women's History
853:removal candidate
547:
510:
418:
343:
305:
122:
904:
895:
868:
862:
755:
593:
546:
526:
509:
493:
454:
417:
342:
322:
304:
283:
229:
194:
170:
150:
115:WP Women writers
79:
48:The article was
38:
912:
911:
907:
906:
905:
903:
902:
901:
900:
891:
866:
860:
842:
792:
753:
591:
524:
491:
452:
320:
281:
223:
192:
168:
148:
133:end of February
129:
83:Carbon Caryatid
76:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
910:
908:
899:
898:
886:
885:
873:goes through.
846:
838:
810:
809:
791:
788:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
661:
646:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
503:
441:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
371:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
274:
221:
204:
181:
180:
128:
127:Review section
125:
124:
123:
75:
70:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
909:
897:
894:
888:
887:
884:
880:
876:
872:
865:
858:
854:
850:
847:
845:
841:
837:
833:
832:Delist, sadly
830:
829:
828:
827:
823:
819:
814:
808:
807:
803:
799:
794:
793:
789:
787:
786:
782:
778:
774:
764:
760:
756:
752:
746:
745:
744:
740:
736:
732:
729:
728:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
700:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
682:Victoriaearle
680:
679:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
660:
656:
652:
647:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
616:
612:
608:
604:
603:
602:
598:
594:
590:
585:
581:
580:Victoriaearle
578:
577:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
550:
545:
541:
537:
536:
535:
531:
527:
523:
518:
515:
514:
513:
508:
504:
502:
498:
494:
490:
484:
483:
482:
478:
474:
469:
465:
464:
463:
459:
455:
451:
445:
442:
440:
436:
432:
428:
423:
422:
421:
416:
412:
408:
400:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
373:Then rewrote
372:
369:
368:commented out
365:
361:
356:
352:
348:
347:
346:
341:
337:
333:
332:
331:
327:
323:
319:
313:
310:
309:
308:
303:
298:
292:
288:
284:
280:
275:
273:
269:
265:
261:
260:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
242:
241:
237:
233:
227:
226:Victoriaearle
222:
220:
216:
212:
208:
205:
203:
199:
195:
191:
186:
183:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
162:
161:
160:
159:
155:
151:
147:
141:
137:
134:
126:
121:
120:
116:
112:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
78:
77:
74:
71:
68:
66:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
892:
889:
856:
849:Closing note
848:
831:
812:
811:
795:
790:FARC section
773:SandyGeorgia
771:
750:
731:Move to FARC
730:
607:SandyGeorgia
588:
521:
488:
449:
426:
354:
317:
278:
207:Move to FARC
206:
189:
185:Move to FARC
184:
165:
145:
130:
80:
49:
47:
35:
28:
366:, and then
875:Nikkimaria
798:Nikkimaria
611:Nikkimaria
563:Nikkimaria
355:publishing
312:SlimVirgin
264:Nikkimaria
246:Nikkimaria
232:Nikkimaria
119:2021-02-28
95:WP England
91:Iridescent
81:Notified:
54:Nikkimaria
855:has been
364:and again
360:this edit
107:WP Poetry
857:delisted
851:: This
836:Hog Farm
777:Victoria
735:Victoria
708:Victoria
669:Victoria
651:Victoria
636:Victoria
567:Victoria
473:Victoria
431:Victoria
391:Victoria
387:and here
250:Victoria
50:delisted
754:Georgia
665:Imagism
592:Georgia
584:SarahSV
544:SarahSV
525:Georgia
507:SarahSV
492:Georgia
453:Georgia
415:SarahSV
340:SarahSV
321:Georgia
302:SarahSV
282:Georgia
193:Georgia
169:Georgia
149:Georgia
813:Delist
362:, and
99:WP Bio
87:Bmcln1
58:FACBot
818:Z1720
751:Sandy
704:Aza24
690:Aza24
589:Sandy
522:Sandy
489:Sandy
468:Sarah
450:Sandy
351:Sarah
318:Sandy
279:Sandy
211:Z1720
190:Sandy
166:Sandy
146:Sandy
16:<
879:talk
840:Talk
822:talk
802:talk
759:Talk
694:talk
686:this
628:this
624:link
620:link
609:and
597:Talk
582:and
530:Talk
497:Talk
458:Talk
427:even
383:here
379:here
375:here
336:This
326:Talk
287:Talk
268:talk
236:talk
215:talk
198:Talk
174:Talk
154:Talk
62:talk
56:via
871:bot
761:)
702:Hi
605:Hi
599:)
561:Hi
532:)
499:)
460:)
328:)
289:)
244:Hi
200:)
176:)
156:)
52:by
881:)
867:}}
861:{{
824:)
804:)
783:)
781:tk
741:)
739:tk
733:.
714:)
712:tk
696:)
675:)
673:tk
667:.
657:)
655:tk
642:)
640:tk
622:,
573:)
571:tk
479:)
477:tk
437:)
435:tk
397:)
395:tk
385:,
270:)
256:)
254:tk
238:)
217:)
117:,
113:,
109:,
105:,
101:,
97:,
93:,
89:,
85:,
67:.
33:.
877:(
820:(
800:(
779:(
757:(
737:(
710:(
692:(
671:(
653:(
638:(
595:(
569:(
528:(
495:(
475:(
456:(
433:(
393:(
381:,
377:,
370:.
324:(
285:(
266:(
252:(
234:(
228::
224:@
213:(
196:(
172:(
152:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.