Talk:Anna Laetitia Barbauld

	Anna Laetitia Barbauld is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 9, 2010.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 12, 2007 Peer review Reviewed February 14, 2007 WikiProject peer review Reviewed February 22, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted May 15, 2021 Featured article review Demoted Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 20, 2017, March 9, 2018, June 20, 2018, June 20, 2021, and June 20, 2022. Current status: Former featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

England Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Mid-importance). This article has had a peer review which is now archived. Children's literature High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks you can do: edit history watch purge Here are some open tasks for WikiProject Children's literature, an attempt to create and standardize articles related to children's literature. Feel free to help with any of the following tasks. Add {{Portal|Children's literature}} to the See also section of related articles. Tag the talk pages of related articles with {{WikiProject Children's literature}} Join WikiProject Children's literature and list yourself as a Participant in the project. Cleanup: A cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Deletion discussions: listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Rate the Unassessed articles in the Children's literature WikiProject . References: Add references to Unreferenced BLPs. Create a requested article on literature Stubs: Improve a stub-class article edit Poetry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Women in Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Galena11, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 22 February 2007.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Murphy, Olivia (2013). "Anna Letitia Barbauld: New Perspectives". Bucknell University Press. Retrieved 2021-03-14. That this is not a rare oversight but rather the voice of 'collective wisdom' on Barbauld is underscored by Wikipedia, which in its lengthy entry on her states that 'her career as a poet ended abruptly in 1812'.

I'm touching up the images on this & we have this image on Commons, apparently taken in Newington Green's churchyard. But the article says she was buried in a "family vault" with a memorial inscription in the church later. Was she moved subsequently? Or is the photo's name and file info wrong? Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that that is her place of rest. It lies in the medieval graveyard surrounding St Mary's Old Church on Stoke Newington Church Street. In fact, the photographed brick structure is right next to the street railings. St Mary's is about a mile from Newington Green Unitarian Church, the nonconformist chapel of which she was a member, and which has never had a burial ground. (I do not know what choices Dissenters had for place of burial at that point in history. It seems incongruous that Barbauld is in a Church of England grave, rather than in Abney Park Cemetery down the road, but the latter didn't open till 15 years after her death.) She has an excessively verbose (marble?) plaque over the door to the vestry of Newington Green Unitarian Church, where her husband had been minister till he went mad, and where she maintained her connections in the decades following. I know of no other memorial to her. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - did you see what the article has (presumably Wadewicz): "Barbauld died in 1825, a renowned writer, and was buried in the family vault in St Mary's, Stoke Newington. After Barbauld's death, a marble tablet was erected in the Newington Green Chapel with the following inscription....(all quoted)" Is this the "vault"? Unusual term for an outside grave I'd have thought. Or was she moved? We should perhaps give the modern names for these places of worship as well. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on burial structures, but I think the item in the photo could be described as a Burial vault (tomb). Maybe. I'm used to graves and crypts and walk-in tombs, but nothing like this blocky brick Thing. So yes, her vault is with the CofE in Stoke Newington, and the memorial (plaque/tablet) is with the Dissenters in Newington Green. I'm ambivalent about changing names. Presumably there is policy on this. Should we write about a place using the name that the subject of the article would have recognised? Or the one that is used now? I bow to greater wisdom. Barbauld wouldn't have called it "St Mary's Old Church" because that's a retronym; there was no New Church to necessitate the differentiation. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One would just give both: "old name, now new name, ..." or "New name (then Old Name)" or some such. Usually those C18/19 blocks are just hollow, with a normal grave in the earth below (as becomes apparent when they start to fall apart), & I wouldn't call one a vault myself. Do other family members have inscriptions on it, do you know? They all look rather standard & recent, which might suggest bodies (or "remains") were relocated from inside to out at some point, such as some fearsome Victorian campaign of "restoration". Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a detour via the churchyard to see what I could see. Even better, a pair of long-serving council workers were hacking away at the undergrowth, and happy to break to chat. There are a couple of other Things, and yes, they are hollow and prone to crumble, revealing shallow graves. The older worker said that several families could be buried in each Thing. The final chapter of ALB's biography describes visiting the grave, then in poor shape. The mid 1990s perhaps. Since its publication, and possibly because of it (such is the power of public shame), the Thing has been re-bricked, and a new plaque attached. The two on the longer sides are blurred with acid rain and time. The one on the short side facing the camera is new an legible, and gives ALB's name, only. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This very old FA (2007) contains uncited text and original research, and does not meet current

I would like to provide some updates during the "edit-athon" being held in connection with the Nineteenth-Century Studies Association Conference next week; meanwhile, I am reading the guidelines and other information about editing/contributing to Wikipedia.97.96.16.35 (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, IP97; working an a

verified to one of the listed sources. You might find it easier to learn Wikipedia’s guidelines and policies on an article that is not already featured, but if you are able to fix the issues noted in the text, that would be grand. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for this advice, SandyGeorgia. Though I don't claim that I can fix everything tagged, I can try to fix some things. I'm actually more concerned with one outdated assertion that is not tagged. Scholarship no longer sees the reviews of 1811 as ending Barbauld's career. An essay by Olivia Murphy in _Anna Letitia Barbauld: New Perspectives_, ed. by William McCarthy and Olivia Murphy (Bucknell UP, 2013) actually criticizes the Wikipedia article (among others) for perpetuating that view. What I would most like to do is bring that part of the article up to date, referencing the McCarthy and Murphy volume, along with E. J. Clery's book-length study _Eighteen Hundred and Eleven: Poetry, Protest and Economic Crisis_ (Cambridge UP, 2017), which also takes issue with the idea that Barbauld was shocked into silence by the reviews; Clery claims instead that she provoked them to spur political debate about the topic. 97.96.16.35 (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP 97, I am happy to hear you might be able to help with the issues tagged, and more. I am aware of similar issues throughout a series of related articles, and it would be grand if you were to stick around after the upcoming conference to help fix similar in those other (related) articles! But by not being a registered user, it is more complicated for me to communicate with you, as I cannot go to your talk page (as you can to mine). If you were to register an account, you would not only have greater anonymity (by posting as an IP, everyone knows your geographic location and your ISP), but you would have your own talk page where others can reach you, and welcome you, too! Also, I want to be sure I can ask you questions about your sources, and don’t want you to go missing :). Please be sure, when using book sources, to provide the page number in the citation. Should you have problems with correct formatting of citations, I can always clean up as long as I have all the relevant info (publisher, date, author, title, page no, ISBN or DOI when available, etc.) Hope to see you soon, improving the sum of all human knowledge and I am most relieved to hear you can help! You might also want to review

WP:WIAFA for what Featured articles aspire to (although this one is quite dated). If you don’t mind, I’d like to see the criticism of Wikipedia from the source (you can put it here on talk); as I mentioned, I am concerned about related articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Found that part: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updates made

I have also indicated some places in the new text where attribution of opinions are needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SandyGeorgia. I've made some updates to the article. I believe that all of the book citations have page numbers now; but I wasn't sure how to cite specific chapters of an edited volume, so I made them into general references. Will that work? Let me know your thoughts when you have a chance. Thank you. Macaron1863 (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Macaron1863; I am traveling, but will have a look as soon as I have a free moment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, SandyGeorgia! Whenever you have a chance. Macaron1863 (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a quick look ... do you have page nos or chapters for those tagged in the lead? If you don't know how to edit them into the article, you can put them here on talk and I will get to them from a real computer (not an iPad :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions: individuals to add into the article

There are at least two more people who influenced ALB and they need to be included. For ease of linkage, I'll copy the first paragraph of our biographies:

William Roscoe (8 March 1753 – 30 June 1831) was an English banker, lawyer, and briefly a Member of Parliament. He is best known as one of England's first abolitionists, and as the author of the poem for children The Butterfly's Ball, and the Grasshopper's Feast. In his day he was also respected as a historian and art collector, as well as a botanist and miscellaneous writer.

John Wilson Croker (20 December 1780 – 10 August 1857) was an Irish statesman and author.

Source:

There are other sources besides Clery, of course: Tomaselli mentions that Roscoe was chairman of the Liverpool Anti-Slavery Society and commissioned MW's first portrait (from Opie). (Philosophy, Passion, Politics. 2021. p 72.) All these characters were intertwined.

--Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big snip here. This is the text removed:

Harsh reviews in partisan journals became the foundation for a misconception that she was so affected by the attacks on her work to publish anything further, a misconception that began with Lucy Aikin's Memoir of 1825 and often repeated by critics until recent scholarship reexamined the record.^[1][2] As of 2017, it is well established that Barbauld published a poem “On the Death of Princess Charlotte” in 1819 and several others after that date.^[3] Levy attributes it to a misunderstanding of the quantity of work Barbauld published throughout her career. Rather than submitting her poems for print, Barbauld preferred to present them to a coterie of acquaintances as was customary in "manuscript culture" before the late-eighteenth century.^[4] The small number of print publications after Eighteen Hundred and Eleven is consistent with the earlier pattern of her career.^[5]

And replaced with:

--> Eighteen Hundred and Eleven is now often viewed by scholars as her greatest poetic achievement.^[6]

Could the upper text be re-integrated elsewhere? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carbon Caryatid the section was rewritten in these edits, diff, diff, diff. Long story short, the section needed some rewriting, Clery's book isn't viewable or available, so I sourced to McCarthy's landmark Voice of the Enlightenment and to Olivia Murphy's chapter "Anna Laetitia Barbauld, Eighteen Hundred and Eleven" in the Handbook of British Romanticism which presents a concise version of events and is a fine source to use. There's more than that sentence quoted above.

As for the other points, there are gaps in coverage here because the article was written before publication of recent scholarship, the editor who wrote it died some years ago, and no one has updated it. It needs some reworking. In the meantime there's a discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Anna Laetitia Barbauld/archive1 about removing the featured article status. Feel free to chime in there. It would be great if you could help. I thought I might be able to tackle it but there's more to do here than I have time for so I've stopped the work. Victoria (tk) 23:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]