Talk:Rebecca Harding Davis

Note on "Here and There in the South" (1887)

Harding Davis' article "Here and There in the South" (1887) was original listed in this Wikipedia article as "Short Fiction," but I moved it to the "Essay" category because I have a copy of Part V of this essay, and it's clearly a non-fiction travelogue; the places she visited were real, and she does mention at least some real persons, and as far as I know the rest of the essay is entirely factual. --Skb8721 17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

English 630- Wiki Project

Ok group. So here is a breakdown of what we need to add to RHD's talk page-

I. Biography (needs to be added to)
II. Major Works Nicolette D.
III. Influences Nicolette D.
IV. Style Genesse P.
V. Themes- Anna B.
VI. Honors and Distinctions
VII. Legacy- Anna B.
VIII. Published Works Genesse P.

It looks like their are three of us in this group, so we should start some research soon. The "Influences" section seems like it might be difficult to find info for, but let's just try to do some basic research to see what we come up with. I also think, from what we learned in class about RHD, Honors and Distinctions could possibly be omitted, or included in the legacy section. Basically, we just need to start researching. I'm going to put my name by the sections I am interested in, but seeing as we are such a small group, it might be a good idea to collaborate a little more on this project. Maybe meet in a week and see what kind of info we have accumulated.

Genesse, I know you were talking about adding pictures, which I think would be a great idea, and give the page a little something extra. -Annamini (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Anna, I put my name down for the areas I would like to focus my attention however I think that perhaps collaborating more due to our small group is a good idea. Also, yes I still want to do images but like you said I think some preliminary research will give us better grasp on what is available to us. --Genesse23

I added style section but I am planning to add a bit more once I have a chance to obtain some books on the subject. Or at least add them as resources. Also, R.H.D published more works than are listed, a lot actually, so I am looking for a good comprehensive list of those works in order to fill in the blanks. Genesse23 —Preceding undated comment added 03:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC).

does anyone know why the "Life on the Iron Mills" is red in the style section? I can't figure out why. Genesse23 —Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC).

Guiza, the bio is looking pretty untouched, I think it could have more. Genesse23 —Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC).

Hey group! So I checked out the William Attaway author page and it looks like we are doing ok. Our sources our cited and our added information is concise. I'm waiting on a book from the library, then I will add to the female social roles section of themes. I do agree with Genesse that there might be things missing in regards to the bio section. Also, if you guys have found any other themes while doing your research let me know so I can add it! Other than that I think we have a pretty good page in the works. That being said, lets try to have all these sections filled and edited this weekend. As far as Legacy and Honors and Distinctions go, lets see at the end whether or not that might be too repetitive considering we cover most of it in the other sections. Annamini (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC).

Group- I looked over the Attaway group's article to get an idea what others are doing with an author page and I think it was overall pretty solid. However, I think ours is good as well. I think what they have done particularly well is the biographical information. It is thorough and well-organized. So, I thought perhaps we could think about reorganizing our bio section from life & works to early life, education, career, and family/ personal life. Just a thought to make the page more user friendly. And possibly to broaden our scope. Also, I am definitely planning some library time this Friday so I am with Anna for getting this page close if not entirely finished this weekend! Genesse23 —Preceding undated comment added 01:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC).

Hey Groupies, so as a recap of what we chatted about in class yesterday...lets extend the biography by splitting it up amongst ourselves. I am going to go ahead with personal life and family, and I am also going to start tackling legacy with Anna. So, that leaves education and early life. Can you guys pick which ones you will do and sign up for them on this page. Thanks! Also, I think in accordance with this switch in organization of RHD's bio info we can dissolve or rather redistribute the life & works section to accommodate this new format. Is that cool? Also, lets really try and get this page polished and next to finished this weekend! Genesse23 —Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC).

If you guys need a good resource check out Columbia History of the American Novel. It is available online. Just search for it on google books and it should come up. There is a "search in this book" tab on the left. Just type in RHD and you will get some very direct and easy to access info! Remember we turn this in for good article status on Tuesday. Go group! Annamini (talk)

Alright...so I'm feeling good about my work on the page. what do you guys think? also, do we have to physically nominate our article for "good article status" or are we doing it in class, or...? Hanley posted a link on twitter but I'm still confused. And, can anyone figure out why my citation #8 looks funny on the sources list? I would appreciate a hand with that if you have any ideas at all. Genesse23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.88.167 (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

hey group. just realized i worked on our article without being logged in! oops. my identifying number for those times is 99.73.88.167Genesse23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC).

General Responses

Thank you for all the helpful feedback! Our group is new to Wikipedia and we are learning as we go. We went through and fixed all the problems with citation, etc. Hopefully our article is up to snuff now. Please let us know if there is anything else holding it back. Thanks again! Genesse23 (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Feedback

I think your article is pretty good over all. I like the information you guys have and how you have added pictures. The outline is organized and flows well. The only observation would be to perhaps add a little to the biography as in having a "family" section or something like that or expanding in other sections as the one for "Life in the Iron Mills". Also, Maybe adding an influence section or incorporating it to her style or themes. Lindammunoz (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you have a really substantial article thus far. I am especially moved by the intro paragraph and the Life and Work sections. Nicely Done! Looks like there is still some work to be done on "themes," i.e. writing about women's roles, but I also think it would be interesting to add in some of our 'environmental'/'pollution' talks that seemed to be so prevalent. Lastly, if you were to expand on a 'critical reception' section, discussing how she was received as a professional writer, especially as a female, I think that would benefit your article greatly. Other than that, it looks wonderful! Courtnee11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC). This is so informative and creative. Nice work! Although the Gilb group should dig up some more info. Nikki198705 (talk) 03:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Rowena

Wow! This article looks really well put together! There's a lot of great information. I am just curious about one thing. For your "major works" section did you guys make the decision to stick only to "Life in the Iron Mills" because that's all we read in class--or are you considering researching and looking into some of her other works to add to this section? I'm asking because I'm struggling a bit with Barbra Neely and her "major works" section, not sure if I want to concentrate only on the book we'll be reading in class or if I should try to find some info to build some sort of summary in regards to her other books that are part of the series. Great work so far! --Lgperdomo (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Article is on it's way to good article status! Lots of information about her personal life, family, and education as well as important information regarding her themes. It might be a lot of work but maybe include how she is able to use those themes in the different types of works she does - short stories, novels, and essays. Those are 3 different types of work that might receive different affects from critics. Andreanamv (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC).

Suggestions

Hello, I saw this article was nominated at GAC. Great work so far (especially for a school project)! I see a few issues (mostly having to do with the references), which you may want to take care of before the review begins. Since I assume you're being graded on this, I thought I'd just give you advice rather than fix things myself. ;)

• Citation 5 is currently displaying incorrectly -- perhaps because of a missing curly-bracket ( { ) at the beginning?
• When you use a citation more than once, you should combine them using the <ref name=""> tag. For example, cite 1 and 2 are the same: "Ehrlich, Eugene and Gorton Carruth. The Oxford Illustrated Literary Guide to the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982: 214. ISBN 0195031865") To learn how to combine these two (and others in the article), see WP:NAMEDREFS.
• Citation 12 is currently displaying incorrectly, as well. It looks like it's a combination of citation templates?
• Bare URL alert: citations 17 and 19.
• The References section currently lists these two bare URLS (3. http://www.lehigh.edu/~dek7/SSAWW/writDavisBio.htm and 4. http://scotus.francis.edu/rebeccahardingdavis/) What are these links used for? Are they meant to be citations, further reading links, or what?

Also remember that you need to include a clean line between your intended paragraphs. For example, this works:

(This is one paragraph.

This is another.)

While this doesn't:

(This is one paragraph. This is another)

If you "edit" this section and see how I've written the above, you'll be able to see that in the first example I've included a line between "This is one paragraph" and "This is another" -- this creates two paragraphs. If you don't include the line, the text appears as one block of text. I hope these tips help! María (yllosubmarine) 15:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation information. I just fixed the citation in the Major Themes section by grouping. Annamini (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Style

I think you need some refs for the style section, especially in re Davis and Realism and the transition to realism. It might be helpful also to expand this section a bit - - as Davis seems to be a pretty example of the transition to realism.

Industrialism/Gender as themes - - very good. Wondering if you've picked up any other themes from your reading? For instance: art and the artist?

Profhanley (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I came across a couple excerpts about "art and the artist", but not enough to formulate its own section. I feel like I was able to include some kind of info about women as artists, and how they defy social norms in RHD's works. I also found a substantial amount of information on the theme of "Hunger in the Work Place". However, it was more of an analysis of specific works. Not sure if that would be worth including though. It seemed like too much detail for Wiki. Annamini (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation tags

Just an FYI to all of this article's editors, I worked a little to clean up the article, and added citation tags where needed. Please work to get those fixed. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 04:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, those citations at the end need cleaning up (3. http://www.lehigh.edu/~dek7/SSAWW/writDavisBio.htm 4. http://scotus.francis.edu/rebeccahardingdavis/). If they're not in-line citations, what purpose do they serve? Ruby 2010/2013 04:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rebecca Harding Davis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Maclean25 (talk · contribs) 01:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Good article review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article? for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Four public domain images used File:Rebecca Harding Davis.jpg & File:Richard Harding Davis 7.jpg & File:Warrick.jpg & File:Silhouettes Davis.jpg

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Comments:

   I understand this is part of a class project: User:Profhanley/teaching/literature of labor.

   Replace the [citation needed] tags with citations to the reference used to obtain this information, as noted abover (Talk:Rebecca Harding Davis#Citation tags)

   There are 2 stray urls in the Notes section. Were they used as references, if so provide citations to show where they were used.

   You can properly (and consistently) format the references using the cite templates, like {{cite journal}}{{cite book}} {{cite web}}, like this.

   2c. "most likely brought in for her brothers" - this is speculation and needs to be attributed to a reference. Either remove it or add a citation.

   2a/b. "...regarded by many critics as a pioneering document marking the beginning of Realism in American literature.[5]" - this reference only gives the opinion of one critic, not many.

   2a/b. "is widely considered Rebecca Harding Davis’ most significant work.[5]" - this reference only gives the opinion of one critic, which does not translate into 'widely considered'.

   2a/b. What is this reference? "Davis, Rebecca Harding, 1831-1910." Literature Online. ProQuest, 2005. Web. - is Literature Online a journal?

   2. "...the American Civil War, industrialism, racism, women's rights, and the struggles of the laboring class.[13]" - I don't see this information in the reference provided.

   1a. Questions on the prose:

   • What is an "entrepreneurial spell"?
   • ...public schools in her hometown were not yet available - this isn't clear - are you purposefully distinguishing between public and private schools? what do you mean by "available"? like there was no teacher to staff the schools? or do you mean there was no school in Wheeling?
   • In 'Personal life and family', "...but it was her last." - her last what?

Conclusion

I will continue the review if there is work done to address these above notes. If there is no response, I will fail the article. maclean (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC);

It has been one week since the article was last edited. Because there has been no progress I am closing the review. Once the above issues are addressed the article may be re-nominated for GA-class. maclean (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

We went through the citation errors and fixed the mistakes. Also got rid of those floating citations. Thanks for your review. Annamini (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)