Jump to content

Talk:Maria Edgeworth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ruston = Ruxton

[edit]

I strongly suspect that the Margaret Ruston mentioned in this article is likely to be Margaret Ruxton. The original author of the article might want to confirm that Ruston is not a typo. Turtlens (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made this change, based on the informtion at John Ruxton (1721–1785) PaulBetteridge (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coming Edits

[edit]

1. Fasick, Adele M. Maria Edgeworth (1 January 1768 - 22 May 1849. British Children's Writers, 1800-1880. Dictionary of Literary Biography, Vol. 163. Detroit: Gale Research, 1996. P 83-90.

2. Michals, Teresa. Commerce and Character in Maria Edgeworth. Nineteenth-Century Literature, Vol. 49, No. 1, Jun 1994. P 1-20.

3. Gamer, Michael. Maria Edgeworth and the Romance of Real Life. A Forum on Fiction, Vol. 34, No. 2, Spring 2011. P 232-266.

4. Wohlgemut, Esther. Maria Edgeworth and the Question of National Identity. Studies in English Literature 1500-1900, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Fall 1999). P 645-658.

5. Altieri, Joanne. Style and Purpose in Maria Edgeworth's Fiction. Nineteenth-Century Fiction, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Dec 1968). P 265-278.

6. Pearson, Jacqueline. Arts of Appropriation: Language, Circulation, and Appropriation in the Work of Maria Edgeworth. The Yearbook of English Studies, Vole. 28. Eighteenth Century Lexis and Lexicography (1998). P 21-234.

7. Brundan, Kay. Cosmopolitan Complexities in Maria Edgeworth's "Ennui". Studies in the Novel (Summer 2005), Vol. 37, No. 2. P 123-140.

8. Boulukos, George E. Maria Edgeworth's "Graceful Negro" and the Sentimental Argument for Slavery. Eighteenth-Century Life (Feb 1999), Vol. 23, No. 1. P 12-18.

9. Maurer, Sara L. Disowning to Own: Maria Edgeworth and the Illegitimacy of National Ownership. Criticism (Fall 2002), Vol. 44, No. 4. P 363-389.

10. Sobe, Noah W. Concentration and Civilization: Producing the Attentive Child in the Age of Enlightenment. Paedagogica Historica (Feb 2010), Vol. 46, No. 2. P 149-160. HaddaBeMe (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's all this stuff for? Hohenloh + 20:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of a student assignment for a class (see tag above). Wadewitz (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Education in Maria Edgeworth's Writing

[edit]

The following topics will be included, with more information, to this article in the coming weeks.

I. Why write about education? Edgeworth's interest in how children should be educated has roots traveling back to her national identity. II. What was Edgeworth's approach to writing about education? What influenced her writing style and what the purpose of this style is. III. Why such focus on commerce in education? Edgeworth's unique views on how commerce in individualized. IV. Why is a central tenant about Edgeworth's pedagogy of education? Edgeworth focuses a lot on the attention of the student and how to capture the attentiveness of the student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaddaBeMe (talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very focused addition to the article - good work! I look forward to reading these improvements! Wadewitz (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outline

[edit]

Up for review Your instructor has asked me to look at the outlines for changes that you plan to make to this article. It appears that you have yet to create an outline on this talk page, so it's not possible for me to provide feedback. Please bear in mind that I will be happy to help you, but I can't do that if you don't make any effort yourself. Pacing yourself is key to this assignment and since semester is mostly over, you really need to ensure that you're keeping up with project. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The outline is above. :) Wadewitz (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

[edit]

Sources:

This article seems to have many sound articles which contribute to the clarity and clear purpose of the article. One small thing I noticed, the early life section didn't seem to have a lot cited, especially within that first paragraph. Not sure if that is okay or if that might need to be looked into.

Structure:

This article is very nicely structure and seems to be well on its way. This has actually given me many ideas surrounding how I want to revise my article. Overall, there was nothing that I would change about the structure.

Grammar:

The sentence structures featured are diverse and academically sound, along with being interesting. I really wanted to read this article and was impressed by how creative the language was.


Great Job! I can't wait to read your finished work :) Bookworm1989 (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is coming along very nicely! Wadewitz (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Style and Purpose section: uneven style

[edit]

The section on Style and Purpose reads like a clumsy stylistic intrusion.

It's clear, from the whole Writing section, that there's an interesting story to be told about the intersection between Edgeworth's literary interests, her politics, her interest in education in general, the 18th century novel's perceived or claimed role in moral education, and the extent to which Edgeworth's writing does or doesn't fit into this. While the first part of the Writing section seems to be working up to this, the Style and Purpose section suddenly launches into a (to be frank) rather ranty account, which reads as if it's been repurposed from a professional lit-crit article (this is not intended as a compliment). And true enough, a good fraction of the text in this section comes from the cited Altieri article (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2932555). I'm not suggesting that this material shouldn't be here (it should be), or that the citation is in any way inappropriate (it's not), but I am saying that this text is one rhetorical voice in a long-running argument. The section needs at least a great big 'It is asserted that...' at the beginning, and a more summary account of the Altieri article, combined with more context about what the argument is about, and the various factions within it. NormanGray (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Producing the child's attention: too broad? and digressive?

[edit]

So, I certainly don't object to a discussion of Edgeworth's pedagogical theories, but the "Views on education" section as it currently stands consists solely of a mini-essay called "Producing the child's attention," which eventually broadens out to have very little to do with Maria Edgeworth and more to do with Enlightenment theories on education. In fact, from the sentence beginning "To be sure, concern for how best...", Edgeworth isn't mentioned again. Also, the entire section is derived from a single journal source (which I don't have access too), and it reads like an interpolation that doesn't take into account the rest of the Edgeworth article: like, before I edited it a bit, it started out by stating that Maria Edgeworth was an Anglo-Irish novelist and educational theorist, which was already established in the intro.

So, my thinking is that the article as a whole would benefit from a trimming of the "Producing the child's attention" section. Edgeworth's opinions on the issue are still relevant and should be included, but the attempts to situate them within the context of the Enlightenment are far broader than they need to be and, frankly, go beyond the scope of the article. What I suggest is removing the last third or so of the "child's attention" section so that the focus remains on Edgeworth, but I'd like to hear some input from others before I make such a significant change. Thoughts? Also, if someone with access to the relevant material would like to attend to it, maybe we could expand the "Views on education" section to include other subjects? Tigercompanion25 (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree with your suggestion to trim the section, but not to expand it.Hohenloh + 13:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so I'm going to go ahead and prune away most of the portions of this section that don't directly pertain to Edgeworth's opinion on the subject. Tigercompanion25 (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maria Edgeworth. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Indiana University-Purdue University-Indianapolis supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:04, 2 January 2023 BB un (U TVTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maria_Edgeworth&oldid=1207082302"