Talk:Mary Leapor

Hey,

Some great work has been happening on this article. I want to do a few small edits, but let's touch base here on the talk page if anything comes up. — scribblingwoman 22:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're doing a grand job. Having strayed onto the article, I read it through with great interest. If you have time, please come and apply your editing skills to "Anne Wharton", "Elizabeth Wynne Fremantle", "Henry Teonge", "Sarah Burney", "Jane Bowdler" and "Rhoda Power", which I've created in recent weeks. As a mere male... Blessings. Bmcln1 (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources?

This article is really growing! I think it would be improved, though, with some citation of sources, particularly for the more interpretive statements. There are some statements here that I can't confirm, given the materials I have at hand, else I would put references in myself. I am thinking in particular of the stuff on blason poetry, Leapor's themes and interests, &c. — scribblingwoman 13:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Leapor's death; partisanship

I know it must be annoying that I keep removing the word "untimely" from the sentence on Leapor's death. I don't think it's necessary; the sentence says that she died at 24 so it was obviously untimely. Also, the word implies, I think, an emotional attitude on the part of the writer that is not in keeping with the encyclopedic tone for which we are all striving. Quite a bit of the material I have edited from this article sounded like it was written by a real partisan, or defender, of Leapor, and as innocuous as that may seem, it could make readers doubt the reliability of the article. They might think, for example, that if the authors were so fond of the subject, perhaps they left some things out, or exaggerated others? I think it is better to let the verifiable facts speak for themselves: Leapor was obviously an extraordinary woman who achieved much in a short and difficult life. We don't need to editorialize or lead the reader; her achievements are clear.

Also, I would like to see more sources being cited here. Some of this material is not verified in my more general sources, so if anyone out there has anything more specialized, like the Green text, it would be wonderful if they could go through and add some references. Otherwise, other editors could justifiably ask us to cite sources or remove material. — scribblingwoman 19:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

it's the carlyle school of pathos history writing. removing all adjectives & adverbs is modern. 198.24.31.118 (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverts; use of poetry

I took out some of the poetry because there was little context for it and if there is too much it will overwhelm the article. Perhaps shorter lines, intersperced through the article? (Also, remember to include line numbers).

Please read the posts on this page and discuss editing issues rather than just reverting the article. Engaging in conversation means we can all work to improve the article; reverting edits with no commentary or discussion is combative and, if it happens too often, is against Wikipedia rules and might result in being blocked.

Thanks! — scribblingwoman 23:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

WP: Women's History Assessment Commentary

The article was assessed as C-class for lack of in-line citations. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)