The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC) [1].

---

Anna Laetitia Barbauld[edit]

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

Review section[edit]

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.[2] 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 Wikipedia a spot in the journal literature, saying it spread inaccuracies, since corrected. [3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

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

• 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 Wikipedia a spot in the journal literature, saying it spread inaccuracies, since corrected"? SarahSV ^(talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

  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 ^(talk) 23:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

• Hi Victoria, take your time, there's no time pressure at all. This was an odd FAC. Wikipedia: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 ^(talk) 23:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

  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 [4] 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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 ^(talk) 00:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It was six days I think; it was nominated on the 16th, and promoted on the 22nd [5] Yep, that was pretty standard back then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Three comments over two days: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna Laetitia Barbauld. Promoted without further comment four days later. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Nikkimaria, apologies for the delay. To answer your question, I won't be able to address the issues raised. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 16:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Victoriaearle and SarahSV, 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? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi SandyGeorgia and Nikkimaria, apologies for my slow pace. I wanted a few days to assess 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 recent edits require citation clean up, more rewriting and reestablishing the lead which was rewritten, link, link. 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 this, 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 Big Two-Hearted River#Plot.

  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. Victoria (tk) 20:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  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. Victoria (tk) 20:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  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 Imagism. Victoria (tk) 20:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Victoriaearle, I've found a PDF of this, would that be any help? (I can email it, if so) Aza24 (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Aza24 (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. Victoria (tk) 16:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC. Victoria (tk) 22:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, do you mind if we move the comments to talk? Victoria (tk) 21:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist 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 since it moved to FARC. Z1720 (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, sadly - 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. Hog Farm _Talk 17:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the ((featured article review)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.