User talk:Sarahbiss96/sandbox

Thorough work as always here Sarah

I absolutely agree that the early years need to be fleshed out, and the material already there needs to be supported.

I also note that the career section dives into the society of friendship without adequately explaining what it is.

I thought a major omission was the lack of information on her major works, except to use them as clues to her sexuality.

Tone

Nicely observed that material such as appeals to her “elegance, with and clarity” need references or rephrasing. With regard to the literary criticism like tone that creeps in around her sexuality, I agree that it seems a little too analytical and not quite descriptive enough. And yet – to the best of my understanding – points of academic debate like this can be represented on Wikipedia if done so neutrally using facts (e.g. – the percentage of her poems dedicated to her best female friend, the style of those poems, and gesturing to the positions of voices on either side.) Let’s get Shalor to offer us some further advice on this, because part of the rubric here is to get academic research out from behind the paywall, and so it would be a shame to steer clear of literary debates in relation to Philips entirely.

Excellent work evaluating sources

Helpful engagement with the talk page.

EmerOToole (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, !
 * When it comes to information about sexuality Wikipedia tends to lean towards the cautious. We can include generally held positions on her sexuality, but it can't be written like it's personal speculation or original research - in other words, our interpretation of source material. The article on the Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln is a good example of how to cover speculation of sexuality, as is J._Edgar_Hoover. While she's a living person, the personal life section in the article on Jodie Foster is also a good example of a smaller section about sexuality.
 * Essentially we can cover her sexuality and I'd actually even suggest that this should be its own section since it looks like there's been a fair amount of debate over it as far as coverage goes. We just have to be careful about how it's written. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)