Talk:A Vindication of the Rights of Woman

message: I'm reverting a recent copyedit as I think it's introduced some poorer prose, and perhaps some inaccuracies as well.  Some examples:
*"was a treatise": the lead is in the historical present, which is common for works since they still exist; even if this were to change it should be made consistent in the rest of the lead.
*"an education commensurate with their position in society" -> "an education that was relevant and apppropriate with their position in society": commensurate is more concise and the new version doesn't mean the same thing.  It should be "appropriate to", not "with", if we were to keep it, in any case.
*"claiming" -> "the reason for this view was because she believed": loses concision and gains nothing in return.
*"prompted" -> "encouraged": though the words can be synonyms, the former implies that the prompting came from Wollstonecraft's thoughts on the topic; the latter implies external encouragement.
*"While Wollstonecraft does call for" -> "In the treatise, Wollstonecraft wrote about": there's no reason to cut "call for"; the book is a work intended to persuade.  In addition the new version of that sentence weakens its rhetorical structure.
*The resequencing done at the end of the lead is reasonable but I think needs another draft before the prose is quite ready.
Perhaps any future drafts could be discussed here -- nothing is so good it can't be improved, but sometimes it takes a bit of discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of recent copyedit 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110209180906/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=PolUnse.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=front to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=PolUnse.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=front
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403154849/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au:80/w/woolf/virginia/w91c2/chapter13.html to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/w/woolf/virginia/w91c2/chapter13.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Reception section makes no mention of any efforts to ban the book. Was it banned or censored in less progressive nations in Asia and or the Middle East? Crawiki (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a citable source, but Catawiki says no. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was it banned anywhere? 

message: This very old FA (2007) contains uncited text and original research, and does not meet current WP:WIAFA standards.  Unless someone is able to correct this, the article should be submitted to Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  15:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed from WP:FARGIVEN, will see how it goes at TFA.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  22:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

text: I remain concerned about original research and editorializing in this entire suite of articles ... one example, I wonder about, "In the introduction to her foundational work on Wollstonecraft's thought, Barbara Taylor writes:" ... does Barbara Taylor cite her self as foundational?  Or does Sapiro describe her work as "foundational"? If Sapiro does, the citation should be placed there.  This sort of issue is throughout this work, and I wonder if careful readers will pick this up during TFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  22:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies haven't been able to be around. Claudia L. Johnson's 2003 review on jstor calls it the "best study to date" so foundational may have been justified. If she were writing today Awadewit would have needed to cite that statement. As it is, it was easy to remove. I missed the TFA day, but seems to have gone ok. Victoria (tk) 19:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk)  19:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article review needed 

message: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/A Vindication of the Rights of Woman --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: do you still have concerns about the article meeting the FA criteria, per the previous section? Z1720 (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; the problem is that all sources should be checked considering history of OR in this suite. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

text:  Also, work needed on MOS:LQ and MOS:ALLCAPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  17:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFAR 

message: Had to look it up, should be linked or clarified. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  16:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Resolved,  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  22:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ur-document"