Talk:Harriet Jacobs

message: She is often called "Harriet Ann Jacobs" (see the first footnote in the article), but I don't know where the middle name comes from. Yellin used "Harriet Ann" in 2000, but by 2004 she had changed to "Harriet", without giving an explanation. I am under the impression that the middle name was invented long after Jacobs's death, but by whom ? Can anybody help me ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did she have a middle name ? 

message: I spent some time re-writing the article, mostly based on Yellin's biography and Yellin's edition which seem to be the most extensive works on Jacobs. Now I hope the article is no longer C-class, and would be happy, if some other users agreed to call it "B". --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: , sorry again for reverting most of your recent changes. Let me explain my reasons: You took the story surrounding the cottage from the summary at docsouth. Comparing that source to Yellin's biography, I'm very confident that Yellin's biography is much more reliable (see WP:RS).
Jacobs definitely was no advocate. And "former enslaved woman" doesn't match the category "occupation".
I changed the order of the last two paragraphs, because I think Yellin's statement should remain at the end as the conclusion of the section. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The cottage and other recent changes 

message: Was lucky enough to find a scan of an original carte-de-visite of her. I think, given it's the only known formal photograph, it would be wise to keep the mount as part of its presentation - though we can always use  in the article to crop out the mount in the article. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.3% of all FPs 03:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: In your edit summary a few days ago, you said  - Regarding citations, I only found  Are there other problems you see, apart from the citation problem ? --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agree that we shouldn't have the same book being cited and also listed in Further reading, and that there are many inconsistencies in the formatting of citations. As to the larger question of repeating long citations: technically that is permissible, but for the reasons articulated by Drmies I would suggest using a different style here, whether , , or just manual short cites. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: * I'm not suggesting anything. I asked in good faith, hoping to get an explanation by a very experienced editor about an edit summary the meaning of which I didn't fully understand. While I agree with you that the expression "enslaved by" is appropriate, I disagree on the appropriateness of calling the work of many hours "ridiculous". --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's all you got out of my message, which took me a half an hour to research and write? I repeat, one of the main problems with the article is its arcane, inconsistent, and cumbersome system of citations. You have just been offered some good advice on what system to use by someone who has reviewed and written hundreds of GAs and FAs, and following their advice will improve the article. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems according to MOS 

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Gilbert Studios photograph of Harriet Jacobs.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for March 7, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-03-07. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 11:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD 

message: I think there are too many extraneous and tangential images cluttering this article. Agree or disagree? --Animalparty! (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Which are the ones you'd like to remove ? Rsk6400 (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many images 

message: "...the distance as the crow flies between the two houses was only 600 feet (180 m)." Any reason why this sentence uses a WP:IDIOM? Why not just say the distance between the two houses was only 600 feet? Muzilon (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The two houses were on different streets, so walking distance was considerably longer. So I used that idiom in order to stress that it was not walking distance. But I'd welcome any suggestion for a better wording. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "The distance between the two houses was (at the shortest point) only 600 feet"? Muzilon (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure. To me, "at the shortest point" sounds like "between the south-east corner of Norcom's and the north-west corner of her grandmother's house". Rsk6400 (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd use of idiom