Talk:Anna Laetitia Barbauld/Archive 1

Spelling of name

In the Norton Anthology, her name is spelled "Letitia." Should it be moved? john k 04:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The eighteenth-century spelling is "Laetitia." I've seen scholars spell it both ways. Take your pick. awadewit 6 June 2006

Expansion and Sections

I was going to greatly expand this page, but I just noticed that a McCarthy was editing it. Are you the McCarthy who has written all of the articles on Barbauld? If so, you should do the expanding as you know far more than I. Also I was thinking of dividing the page up into sections. Most of the biography pages do that. Childhood, Palgrave, Legacy, Major Works, etc. Awadewit 23:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Does anyone have any pictures of any of Barbauld's texts that we could put up? Awadewit 10:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

So, I've uploaded a picture of Eighteen Hundred and Eleven to wikipedia, but I don't know how to link it to the page or make it smaller. Help on this? Awadewit 21:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've managed to add some images, but when I change the size on Lessons for Children, the caption disappears. Thoughts on this problem anyone, anyone, anyone? Awadewit 08:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Caps only appear for thumbed images - now it should work. HTH Kbthompson 09:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see "thumb" and the size. Thanks. Awadewit 09:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography

I have compiled a small bibliography of scholarship on Barbauld here, but it is difficult to keep it short because there are no standard books on Barbauld. At this point, there are really only articles and book chapters. If anyone could help me out with suggestions of what should be included here and what should not, I would greatly appreciate it. Awadewit 18:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Poetry Quotation

Does anyone know why my quotation from 1811 looks like it is properly formatted (broken up into its proper lines) on the "Edit" page but appears all run together on the actual page? Awadewit 09:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki editing is a mark up language, formatting that you put in the source (like line feeds) is invisible to the wiki page processor, you have to explicitly tell it what you want the page to look like. (and even then, it won't always play!) Kbthompson 10:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Awadewit 18:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Very minor edits; excellent article!

Thanks! Awadewit 21:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

British English

I enjoyed reading this (came up on random article, after a slurry of stubs on schools, sportsmen etc - v refreshing). However, it seems more than a little odd that an article on a British author is written in American English. Wikipolicy states that if the subject is strongly tied to an area that uses a particular type of English (ie British English, Commonwealth English, American English) then the article should be written in that style. Anyone mind if I change this article to British English spelling? 81.156.127.16 14:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the massive debate I have already had on this issue at Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft. In general, I feel that it is disruptive to change a page as firmly established as this one (please note that it has achieved featured-article status). There is also a policy, further up that same page where you saw the policy about national spelling, stating that one should not change the style of the page once it has been established. It is one thing to change the spelling of a page at start-status or even B-status, but this page has been relatively stable for a while and has gone through an extensive review process. (By the way, for your information, this page was written in American English because I speak American English, not out of some desire to see my plans for American domination succeed.) As you will see from my endless replies at Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft, the appropriate language for this page, if you want to be logical, would be eighteenth-century British English. Thank you. I am glad you enjoyed reading the page. Awadewit 15:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

"The appropriate language for this page, if you want to be logical, would be eighteenth-century British English" is a bit disingenuous. We don't expect encyclopaedia articles to be written in anything but a current language form. My understanding of Wikipolicy is that the nationality of the subject takes precedence over the nationality of the person who created the article. I've looked at the Mary W article you mentioned, and the talk page - again, a great article, but it seems to me that ownership of both this article and the MW one is creeping in here. I've also seen articles written by Brtish authors on American subjects where they have changed their English to fit the nationality of their subject, so it can be done. If there's the will. And that, I feel, is the problem here.81.156.127.16 22:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not disingenuous. It is logical. You are making the argument that Barbauld's page should be written in British English because she was British, but the British English you would change it to does not reflect the Britain she knew. Also, would you suggest changing Chaucer's page? There was no Britain at that time. You cannot make the argument that he was a British writer. My understanding of wikipolicy is that stable articles should not be changed. Moreover, like I repeatedly stated in the Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft debate, I think that editors should use their time to make substantive additions to the article. Awadewit 05:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Stoke Newington category

I have removed the "People from Stoke Newington" category for now. I had left a message on the talk page of the user who added it asking if the category was for people who were born there or lived there, but I received no response after about a month. Most of those categories are "birth" categories. Since Barbauld was not born there, I have removed it. Awadewit | talk 19:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Anna Laetitia Barbauld/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Solid, well-referenced, B-class article. It should have a peer review and then be submitted for a GA class article. --Bookworm857158367 05:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC) In my opinion this is worthy of an A-class, so I have reassessed it. MLilburne 10:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 10:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Wrong chemistry reference

in “A Tea Lecture” the child learns that tea-making is “properly an operation of chemistry” and lessons on diffusion, evaporation, and condensation follow. Molecular diffusion was only discovered in the 1830s to 50s. I would be quite interested to read the original passage - is it short enough to type in here ? -- Marie Poise (talk) 11:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the excerpt:

Tut[or]. Solution is when a solid put into a fluid entirely disappears in it, leaving the liquor clear. Thus when I throw this lump of sugar into my tea, you see it gradually wastes away till it is all gone; and then I can taste it in every single drop of my tea; but the tea is clear as before.

Pup[il]. Salt would do the same.

Tut. It would. But if I were to throw in a lump of chalk, it would lie undissolved at the bottom.

Pup. But it would make the water white.

Tut. True, while it was stirred; and then it would be a diffusion. But while the chalk was thus mixed with the liquor, it would lose its transparency, and not recover it again, till by standing the chalk had all subsided, and left the liquor as it was before.

Pup. How is the cream mixed with the tea?

Tut. Why, that is only diffused, for it takes away the transparency of the tea. But the particles of cream being finer and lighter than those of chalk, it remains longer united with the liquor. However, in time the cream would separate too, and rise to the top, leaving the tea clear...."

The reason I used the word "diffusion" in the article is because it was used in the text. Do you think it is misleading? Awadewit (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Awadewit. Nice reading. Maybe, it would even be worth inserting such an example of here writing into the main text. As for "diffusion" and "diffused", it's not molecular diffusion nor any other diffusion in the modern sense. Diffusion is a process, she describes a state. I guess, in the first case, it's a suspension, in the second case an emulsion. -- Marie Poise (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just taken out the diffusion example to avoid confusion. I've also replaced one of the title pages with the tutor's explanation of "solution" above in a quote box. Awadewit (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Featured Article??

This is probably the most tendentious article I've ever seen up for the main page, and really a triumph of the footnote writer's art. Could Mr. McCarthy have written this any better himself? Why do get the entire epitaph (it's nothing special) but not one line of her actual poetry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.46.177 (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you think is tendentious about it? FAs usually have a lot of footnotes on Wikipedia, by the way. It is an artifact of making sure everything is referenced. What poetical quote would you suggest? Awadewit (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

When I saw this article on the main page, I knew it was an Awadewit article. Well done and by the way I had to look up the meaning of tendentious. I disagree with 75.118.45.117. Dincher (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought it might be hers as well. Nicely done, as always. Kafka Liz (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Could it be anyone else? Wonderful work and a pleasure to read. Thank you for another great contribution to Wikipedia. (Ice Explorer (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC))

Thanks all! Awadewit (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or isn't it a little odd that this is a featured article two months in a row? Once in Dec. 09, then in Jan. '10?--Dudeman5685 (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are you thinking of Lessons for Children, which was the TFA on December 16, 2009? Awadewit (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Your right, but still pretty close. I would think that who ever chooses the TFA would have enough choices not to feature a book then its author so close. Just IMHO.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This one of the few FA's I have read that I would re-read again for pleasure. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

McCarthy biography

I am in the process of reading the McCarthy biography and adding material from it to this article. Awadewit (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

NYTimes Reference

This article has been linked from the New York Times as an example of the highest level of WP contributions, in the obituary on the major contributor to the article, Adrianne Wadewitz. [1] I thought it appropriate to add this note here. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)