Talk:The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History of Christian Science

The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History of Christian Science has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 29, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cover[edit]

Hi Freeknowledgecreator, the page you restored is an inside page, not a cover. And the point is to use the first cover showing both authors' names. That's the one I added. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, thank you for the clarification. I will self-revert. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changes since GAN[edit]

It's very clear that the article in 2014 certainly met Good article standards, but I am not so convinced that it can be said to meet those standards today. While I understand that historiography for a work can change over time as more information comes to light, I think that still won't explain a lot of the changes made to the article since its GAN. There are statements like However, more recent scholarship has questioned the accuracy and trustworthiness of the series and book. aren't really included in the 2014 version. This mostly can be attributed to the increase in prominence of Gillian Gill's writings about the topic (which is used to source doubts about the books authenticity).

I cannot determine whether or not any of the changes since 2014 are worth keeping, but I definitely know that the article in its present state runs afoul of WP:NPOV. I might nominate this article for WP:GAR assuming nothing is corrected here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably wrong about Willa Cather not having at least ghost-written the book[edit]

Only a single scholar has disputed that Willa Cather was likely the primary author of this book, ever since 1993, when Cather's letter to her father admitting it explicitly was discovered (and this letter was found to be hidden due to terms of Cather's will, showing also that Cather did not want her name publicly associated with the book). The weight given "doubt" in this article is excessive, as there is no doubt on the part of multiple other writers. Biographers since the discovery of that letter have consistently assigned Cather as the primary author (with Milmine as the researcher). This article's statement about authorship needs to be revised in my opinion. Harborsparrow (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]