Talk:A Worn Path

message: In the original piece it is ambiguous in-text whether or not the grandson is dead or living, and Welty said herself that she had meant for him to be alive at the time of the story,https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:iJkbxlTdBqQJ:tarvinlit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/6613WELTY-WORN-REV.doc+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShyVDWqRPGyGmi065vB-bGx_KWchMiZSD8z1mko8G19Ry4LGrG-PVvo4De0j5oN-NVYmGhJdVCezY0f0tY_Ogid-8PXtTyR5codohPUcfd0JjbO1Wh8sjpBFr1rEE2PgHj6EVta&sig=AHIEtbTDsoj9p-fARvwjFv3bggDvXBCY3Q so it should not be stated as fact in in this article (as it is in the sentence about the nurse) that he is dead. That's certainly one critical interpretation, but Wikipedia should present the textual facts of the story, not individual theories about it. 23.31.96.229 (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grandson's Existence 

message: I added some citations, but the entire symbolism section could use rewriting.  This story is so dense you could stick a fork in it, and has piles of literary criticism written about it.  With more work this could be a very nice article. SarahTheEntwife (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new  request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.
I have a fair-use image for the cover art, but for some reason I'm having trouble linking it.
:. It needed to be entered as . JohnCD (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Cover Art

message: Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?The article itself isn't bad but there are things that can definitely be added. There are things that are unnecessary, but at the same time there can definitely be some things that can be added. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? There are a couple view left out but that is okay because we can add some. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? no it does not. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? yes the sections are organized well. Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? Ye sir I believe i can. Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." There are a few but it isn't to bad. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." Ye maa'am they do. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. nope.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helena12435 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jolie's peer review