Talk:Jane Barker
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
editThis article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kgocinsk. Peer reviewers: ChaudharyAA.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Untitled
editMuch of this article is badly plagiarized from the Kathryn King article “Jane Barker and Her Life (1652-1732): The Documentary Record.”
Working to adjust missing references and reworking structure of article so that it is not plagiarizedKgocinsk (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)kgocinsk
For instance:
King writes, “Like other families of only moderate prosperity, the Barkers pinned their ambitions and concentrated their limited resources on the eldest son and heir. Edward's academic career witnesses to the minor gentry's pursuit of advancement through the channels of elite education: when nearly thirteen he was sent to the prestigious Merchant Taylors' School in London; 25 he matriculated five years later (on 3 July 1668) at St. John's College, Oxford, 26 receiving a B.A. in 1672 and an M.A. from Christ Church on 8 March 1675. 27”
Which in the article becomes:
“Like other families of the gentry class, the Barkers dedicated their limited resources to the education of the eldest son and heir, Edward, who received a B.A. in 1672 and an M.A. in 1675 at St. John's College, Oxford.”
Needless to say, King’s article is not out of copyright. While the Wikipedia entry acknowledges King's article as a source, it appropriates significant portions of her text without citation. The entire article needs to be either rewritten or returned to a plagiarism free earlier version.
Nice long expansion, but perhaps too long. I wikified a bit, trimmed a tiny bit, but more could be done. It reads more than a bit like a lit crit essay (occasionally on the NPOV line), not so much like an encycopedia. Zafiroblue05 06:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- I've made some cuts to redundancies, tightened up the sentences a bit and worked for greater precision in language. I think it is fair shape now.LLRungegordon (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC) I also added some links, but there are many other words that can be linked. Unfortunately, the existing link is to an disambiguation page, and so more work needs to be done. LLRungegordon (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)