Talk:William Byrd II

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Virginia C‑class High‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Problems, Small and Large edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The first section of any encyclopedic article is meant to include their occupation and a brief synopsis of their contribution to society, literature, etc. Therefore, 'slaveholder' does not belong in that part. It is notable, but not what we know him for. We know him for his diaries. Also, nearly the whole article is not cited, and the reference list contains 6 entries, three of them redundant. One of them--"Empire of my Heart..." by Paula Trekel--is a summary piece and has no place in an encyclopedia. PRIMARY SOURCES PEOPLE! GeneralPotato (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Tone edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The tone of this article quite unencyclopedic. I wonder if it isn't being copied wholesale from some other source. RobertM525 (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The tone is unencyclopedic, but to be honest, it's so poorly written that I doubt it's copied from elsewhere. I've added a couple of the images in the past, but haven't had time to get to the text. It would be nice if someone who knows something about the subject would have a crack at it. I'll try, but it might be awhile. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if all of the feminist rhetoric is really appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.178.126 (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Add topic