| Revision as of 23:10, 9 June 2008 editJohn Carter (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users176,670 edits →Areas needing work: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:39, 10 June 2008 edit undoDavid Underdown (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers23,893 edits →Areas needing work: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| The article as it stands says that the subject wrote anonymously, based on being in the "public life". What exactly does that mean? There is nothing in the article to indicate it. Was he successful in the public life, or not, and to what degree? Did he have any particular achievements in public life? We have no indications of any. Considering that the subject evidently considered his other career(s) more important than his writing career, it is very hard to imagine that at least reasonable information on that career, if it is available, is not something that the article would require to be complete. Did he get paid for the publications or not? If not, how did he acquire money, or even did he? Also, in my own limited experience with the single extant source, the DNB, on the ] article, I found it to be both incomplete and non-neutral. What can be true in one article can be true in another, even if such recurrences are unlikely. On that basis, I believe, even given the reputation of the source used, that there is every reason to believe at least one other source meeting RS standards to any reasonable degree should be reasonably included to make this article more clearly reliable. ] (]) 23:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | The article as it stands says that the subject wrote anonymously, based on being in the "public life". What exactly does that mean? There is nothing in the article to indicate it. Was he successful in the public life, or not, and to what degree? Did he have any particular achievements in public life? We have no indications of any. Considering that the subject evidently considered his other career(s) more important than his writing career, it is very hard to imagine that at least reasonable information on that career, if it is available, is not something that the article would require to be complete. Did he get paid for the publications or not? If not, how did he acquire money, or even did he? Also, in my own limited experience with the single extant source, the DNB, on the ] article, I found it to be both incomplete and non-neutral. What can be true in one article can be true in another, even if such recurrences are unlikely. On that basis, I believe, even given the reputation of the source used, that there is every reason to believe at least one other source meeting RS standards to any reasonable degree should be reasonably included to make this article more clearly reliable. ] (]) 23:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Don't confuse the current ] with the ] and it's supplements. The current ODNB article on Melmoth has been written for the new book (though it draws on the older material to some extent), both old andnew articles are avialable from the link I've no winserted in the article (every British library member should have access to the online version). I note that the ODNB also contains a new biography on Bryant - but we must also recognise the essential difference about writing about someone who died almost 300 years ago, as against someone who died less than 15 years ago. With one we've had time to come to a mature assesment of his writings and importance - with the other, opinion is still changing. ] (]) 09:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:39, 10 June 2008
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William Melmoth article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from William Melmoth appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 January 2008 (check views). A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2008/January. |  |
Let's start over
I've removed all the WikiProject ratings on this talk page and archived all the old discussions to Talk:William Melmoth/Archive1. Can we get back to focusing on the encyclopedia's articles? giggy (:O) 08:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Areas needing work
The article as it stands says that the subject wrote anonymously, based on being in the "public life". What exactly does that mean? There is nothing in the article to indicate it. Was he successful in the public life, or not, and to what degree? Did he have any particular achievements in public life? We have no indications of any. Considering that the subject evidently considered his other career(s) more important than his writing career, it is very hard to imagine that at least reasonable information on that career, if it is available, is not something that the article would require to be complete. Did he get paid for the publications or not? If not, how did he acquire money, or even did he? Also, in my own limited experience with the single extant source, the DNB, on the Arthur Bryant article, I found it to be both incomplete and non-neutral. What can be true in one article can be true in another, even if such recurrences are unlikely. On that basis, I believe, even given the reputation of the source used, that there is every reason to believe at least one other source meeting RS standards to any reasonable degree should be reasonably included to make this article more clearly reliable. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Don't confuse the current Oxford Dictionary of National Biography with the Dictionary of National Biography and it's supplements. The current ODNB article on Melmoth has been written for the new book (though it draws on the older material to some extent), both old andnew articles are avialable from the link I've no winserted in the article (every British library member should have access to the online version). I note that the ODNB also contains a new biography on Bryant - but we must also recognise the essential difference about writing about someone who died almost 300 years ago, as against someone who died less than 15 years ago. With one we've had time to come to a mature assesment of his writings and importance - with the other, opinion is still changing. David Underdown (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)