Jump to content

Talk:Jane Austen

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Migottlieb (talk | contribs) at 15:06, 14 September 2017 (Update Jane Austen Bits to Bytes assignment details). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleJane Austen has been listed as one of the Language and literature 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 21, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
April 6, 2016Good article nomineeListed
April 11, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 16, 2016Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
August 18, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article


Typo

The sentence "Her custom was to keep an infant at home for several month" should be "months". I can't edit this article. 62.232.92.194 (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Wrong date?

In the intro it says the new bank note was released on 2017-07-19, but it is only the 18th. I don't think released the new notes tomorrow, or at midnight, but there is no citation to check. Koonboi (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation on new £10 note

The quotation on the new £10 note is not from Jane Austin herself, but the character Caroline Bingley, in Pride and Prejudice, who actually hated reading Chevin (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that, Chevin, with the original source. I'm not sure that detail belongs in the lead section, nor as a blockquote, so I have moved and adjusted accordingly. And I've also changed from an in-line external link to a ref citation. I hope that look ok to you. But it probably also belongs over at Jane Austen in popular culture. But how very ironic. It seems, in a way, more notable that the airbrushed image which has caused all the fuss. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]