Talk:Reviving Ophelia

A member of the Guild of Copy Editors, Dthomsen8, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing on September 2012. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining!

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

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

lead section, copyediting and notability

I have expanded the Lead section, undertaken some copyediting and, based on the research I did, believe this article is notable and should remain. --Soulparadox 21:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes it seems to meet notability criteria with no difficulty. I wonder if the list of case studies is useful, though? Rich Farmbrough, 02:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

A great hole in Wikipedia coverage

It is hard to believe that this enormously influential and hotly debated book has no article yet. I am no admirer of the book, its conclusions or its methodology, but no single book equally affected American educational practice in the last twenty five years. The whole idea of girls as victims, as drowning Ophelias who must be revived and protected, altered American life, and eventually American law. A whole library of books has been written for and against Pipher's ideas (and, most recently, her continued refusal to produce the research on which she based them.)Profhum (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a section on religion?

I read this book quite a while ago when it was still fairly new and identified with many aspects of it compared to my life growing up. It hit many of my nails on the head and was very impactful in my life. One thing I felt as a teenager was that God had a "special plan" for me, over that of other people. I remember the book mentioning that most religious girls shared the same belief. It was a true moment of realization for me that led to my eventual rejection of organized religion. I not longer have the book, though. Was there a section covering religion or was this discussion a part of a particular case study? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article have dictionary links?

I cannot understand how things like the definition of 'amicable' are thought to be so relevant to this article that they merit being linked. Does anyone else know? Other articles that could plausibly be relevant to young readers, such as Percy Jackson, don't contain these sorts of dictionary links. Ilzolende (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Mark Stenwyck" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mark Stenwyck and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 26#Mark Stenwyck until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 04:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]