Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rufus Wilmot Griswold

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 01:10, 15 April 2008.

Rufus Wilmot Griswold

edit

Giving this a go, as pretty much the only major contributor in the past year or so. Reviewers, I'd suggest you particularly think of neutrality, proper sourcing, and clean writing as I admit they may be problematic. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 23:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Oberholtzer ref needs some formatting. Title should be in italics to match the rest of the refs.
  • In the really picky department. You use p. as an abbreviation in some of the footnotes, but most don't. Consistency is a good thing.
  • http://www.virtualology.com/rufuswilmotgriswold/ what makes this a reliable source? They say "welcomes editing and additions to the biographies". Also the ref needs a last access date.
  • http://www.eapoe.org/geninfo/poegrisw.htm needs a last access date. It looks okay to me as a source For the second usage of it, to quote from a letter of Griswold's, you probably should say that you got the letter quotation from a website. Something like "Quoted from Site {Publisher) (access date).
Otherwise all the links checked out, the sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I'll find a replacement for that virtualology one. I'll see if I can replace the eapoe.org one too, otherwise I'll just fix up the citation format, add access date, etc. The footnotes have "p." if they are not in abbreviated format. It would look odd with the ISBN number followed by a number, so the "p." seems like a logical way of displaying it clearly. What do you suggest? Thanks for taking a look by the way! --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The quickie answer is to put the p. in the rest of the footnotes, but I'm not sure you have to do that. I'm not an MOS-maven, so lets let someone else chime in on that one. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All you need is uniformity. Just as long as you stick with one way of indicating page numbers (either "XX, p. 111" or "XX, 111"), then you shouldn't have any MoS worries. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 04:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Midnight, I did a bit of copy editing of a section to improve flow, as the prose seemed a little staccato to me (he did this, he did that, he did the next). However, if you don't like it, feel free to revert me, as I know it can be annoying to submit something for FA and have people who've not worked on it start changing things. Regarding page numbers, I see you've put some after the ISBN. The usual thing is to write p. 100 or position it with a colon after the date of publication e.g. 2008:100. Both would be before the ISBN, which would normally be the last thing in the citation, if included at all. SlimVirgin talk|edits 07:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, a citation with page number would look something like: Smith, John. Name of Book. London: Random House, 2008, p. 100. And then the ISBN number if you want to provide it. There are variations on this theme, but that would be one acceptable way of writing them. SlimVirgin talk|edits 07:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copy edits were great, so thanks! So you're saying I should add back the "p."? Does that affect the shortened references? --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't have to add back the p if you'd rather not. But it should come before the ISBN, so for example with this one: "Frank, Frederick and Anthony Magistrale. The Poe Encyclopedia. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1991. ISBN 0313277680. 149" — there are a number of ways you could write that. You could write "1991, p. 149" or "1991:149," or "1991 at p. 149" or "1991 at 149." I suppose you could also write "1991, 149." I don't remember whether that's an acceptable style, but it probably is. Really, so long as you're consistent, any of these would be fine. As you've not used p in the shorter refs, probably the best thing would be just to add the number without p after the long ones. The main thing is to put it before the ISBN number, which should come last. SlimVirgin talk|edits 06:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Years with full dates should be linked.
  • There seems to be some redundancy in the article. It would be nice if you cleaned that up.

Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 16:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments (and the edit you made to the article)! Regarding redundancy, more specificity would certainly help me correct as needed. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, any MoS suggestions on this line: He was the 12th of 14 children. I'm inclined to write "twelfth of 14" - is there an established method? --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:MOSNUM - In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are given as words; numbers of more than one digit are generally rendered as figures, and alternatively as words if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million). and Within a context or a list, style should be consistent (either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs). I would advise "He was the twelfth of fourteen children." I'll get back to you on redundancy. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 19:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five cats and 32 dogs would be okay, because five is under ten. It's five cats and 5 dogs that wouldn't be okay. I would say the twelfth of fourteen children or the 12th of 14, but probably the former. SlimVirgin talk|edits 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On redundancy, for example: "Some of the information that Griswold asserted or implied include that Poe was expelled from the University of Virginia and that Poe had tried to seduce the second wife of his guardian John Allan." The vague term some contributes nothing to this sentence. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 19:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I disagree. The term "some of" seems to clearly indicate that the list is only a sampling. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we're all entitled to our opinions. I tried to remove the redundancy from that specific line, but I would continue to say that "some of" is an incredibly important piece of the sentence. Instead, I removed the more buried word "included". Any other specific spots, feel free to point them out! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What SlimVirgin said about staccato writing. Also I wasn't sure about some of the organization within sections. Overall, though impressively well-sourced and thorough, the prose doesn't flow as it could (and should). I've gone through to copy-edit to try and fix some of this (revert as and when you see fit), but feel it could do with another pass or two. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 12:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look - Just so you know, I took half of your lead and half of mine and spliced them together to make a new lead. Part of it was incorrect (there was no selection criteria that Poe questioned and Griswold was not twice-married but thrice). Most of your edits were quite helpful though in some spots it seems to make the prose harder to read... I'll take a look at answering some of your questions too. I think you made some incorrect assumptions on them. But, again, thanks for diving through this! --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I left a bunch of questions that were deleted. Let me try again here, then...
Sorry, I thought they had been answered. I'm going to splice some responses in between your comments and questions.
OK, just one more pass... --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why say he "left his family" rather than "leave home"? The former sounds rather odd, and more appropriate of a runaway husband or wife than a child who, well, leaves home?
That particular wording came from the source. I'm not particularly married to either version but I do think leaving his family emphasizes that he lost all contact with them (presumably; I have not found any indication that he stayed in touch with any of his family members).
I'd have thought that if you're quoting a striking turn of phrase like that, then put it in quotation marks, then. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll excuse me for misrepresenting myself; I have not quoted, but paraphrased. Not sure quotes are necessary but leaving home or family... maybe the best solution is to say both? --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • published a critical response that questioned the inclusion of some of the collected poets. In the body of the text, it's suggested that Poe criticized omissions as well as inclusions. NB this certainly seems to be questioning the principle of selection! (And when we do get to the issue in the article itself, it would seem more elegant not to repeat "inclusion" in the phrase "although Poe questioned the inclusion or lack of inclusion of certain authors.")
Certainly, but use of the term "criteria" implies that selections were based on serious consideration. They weren't. I disagree on re-using "inclusion"; I like the echo effect.
I guess we'll disagree on the meaning of the word "criteria." But again, there is a contradiction between lead and body. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contradiction or just different level of detail? This is an easy fix, either way. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree on the elegance or otherwise of the later formulation, but no problem.
  • I do think the lead should say something about his own poetry and writing.
The lede should really only emphasize the important points of the article. His own poetry, even in his day, was incredibly irrelevant (even to him) so I'm not sure it's worth the space it would take up. I did add the term "poet" into the first sentence.
  • If he only "attempted" to enroll in the school, surely he could be neither kicked out nor expelled?
Again, wording comes from Bayless's book. I'm not sure about the specifics any more than you are. My assumption was that he was admitted to the school but didn't have the opportunity to sign up for class.
Again, then, perhaps quotation marks?
Again, this is a paraphrase. I hardly think the line is relevant enough to quote in full anyway. I'll try to take all ambiguity and question from this line. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not sure about saying he "wandered around" the New York area. Is that the verb used in the source?
Yes. I think it mirrors that whole "wandering soul" quote from earlier. He was a restless fellow and I think that is being emphasized. It might be worth using a softer term?
Again, it just strikes me as a little odd. If the oddness comes from the source, then better to be clear about it. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the distance between husband and wife, Griswold's marriage continued. On November 6, 1842, Griswold visited his wife in New York after she had given birth to their their third child, a son. But three days later, after returning to Philadelphia, he was informed that both she and the infant had died.[17] Deeply shocked, Griswold traveled by train alongside her coffin, refusing to leave her side for 30 hours. I asked here both what was meant by "distance" (if simply geographical distance, I think that should be clarified) and about the mechanics of this journey; it's rather confusing that at one point he's in Philadelphia and the next point he's on a train with his wife's coffin for perhaps up to thirty hours. I presume he was taking her to Philadelphia for burial, but do I presume aright?
I think we're all presuming. I did answer your question that it was a literal distance; I can't imagine a reader would automatically assume the more poetic interpretation in an encyclopedia article. The 30 hours is not a journey. It's just how long he stayed on the train. The ride itself was likely about an hour; she went from outside New York to the Bronx. Again, I'm presuming. The source leaves little further information on this incident.
You answered the question in the edit summary, but didn't clarify it in the text. I don't see anything poetic about recognizing that there are different sorts of distance. And if we know that she's buried in the Bronx, then it's easier to clarify the matter of the movements of corpse and grieving husband.  ;) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure I agree that "distance" should be clarified to mean "distance". --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this sentence by itself, I would expect the distance to be psychological, not spatial; the implication that being in different states would dissolve a marriage is an anachronism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've let it sit for a few days, looking at the line again makes me think the confusion is irrelevant as the sentence is really useless and says nothing (which you sort of pointed out). I've removed it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's meant by the notion that he "began" The Opal if he didn't in fact work on it? Did he simply hire an editor to work on it?
He started up a magazine... I didn't think it was confusing. The next line, in fact, says that it's editor was N. P. Willis.
I'm confused. How do you start a magazine without working on it? What was his role? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Founder. Is this still not clear? Maybe the word "founded" would be better than "started". --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As written it's not clear whether or not "his poetry collection Christian Ballads and Other Poems (1844)" refers to his own original work or not: the article uses the term "collection" indiscriminately. More generally, I'd still suggest separating out his work as an editor from his work as a writer (and again, mentioning the his writing also in the lead).
Poetry collection vs. poetry anthology? The whole section is about Griswold's own work. If confused, the list of Griswold's works at the bottom seems abundantly clear, don't you think? Actually, I'm really having a hard time understanding why you're confused... those few sentences are specifically about Griswold's own works, not just his editorial anthologies... You suggest separating his work as an editor from his work as a writer, when these lines are doing exactly that... How can I separate them further??
That paragraph includes mention of his his work as an anthologizer (unless I've misread the first two sentences) and editor. The section is about him as "anthologist and critic." The title isn't exactly a giveaway (especially as the other information we have about him doesn't really make it obvious that he'd be one to write "Christian ballads." I'd have thought a word of clarification was in order. All I can give you is my response as a reader, and the points at which I was confused. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Still seems clear to me. Do you think The Republican Court is clear? --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notion of Grisworld's "purchasing" Poe's review still sounds odd to me. What would be the mechanics of that?
He tells Poe write a review and I'll buy it off of you. It's no different from freelance writing today. I think it's a little clearer later that it was probably a bribe. Remember this is during the "puffing" era of literary criticism.
Actually, it's rather different from freelance writing, in which the publication pays the author. Here it seems that Grisholm is acting as some kind of a middleman: he pays the author then he gets it published in some other journal. He's acting like an agent, but paying rather than being paid. Perhaps that's how things got done in the nineteenth century? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, it was sometimes done that way. Then again, it was probably a bribe, as the text states. I've already edited this line to be a bit clearer. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why repeat the number of pages here?
I don't know. I suppose it can be knocked off in its second mention. I hadn't noticed it before. Was that a question you asked earlier? You make it seem like these questions are those that I have blown off or disregarded, which I certainly didn't do intentionally. I had tried to answer your questions one edit at a time in the edit summary.
I included the comment in an edit summary. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another source of animosity between the two men was their competition for the attention of a female poet named Frances Sargent Osgood in the mid to late 1840s. While both she and Poe were still married, the two carried on a public flirtation that resulted in much gossip among the literati. "The two" here need to be clarified. Addendum: Ah, now I get it... while she and Poe were married to other people, right? But I only realized that as I've recently read the article on Poe's wife, and suddenly put two and two together. We can't assume that people who read this article will have read the other one. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realized it wasn't clear; it seems very in the face obvious to me. But, then again, I wrote the thing. I'll try to clarify. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps! --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 14:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thank you! --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I made some minor changes you might want to look at. I'm not particular about these things. Change back if you'd like. The article is well-written and interesting. Very much a Salieri-Mozart thing here. It might possibly be worth a sentence or two somewhere making a little more explicit why his relationship with Poe is of such importance that it's a level two heading. It seems from the bibliography that scholarship about his life is primarily because of his relationship with Poe? If this is the case, I think it's worth saying so somewhere, probably in the lead, "He is primarily remember for his rivalry with..." or whatever exactly would be appropriate. Anyways: well-written, comprehensive, stable, concise lead, well-organized, proper referencing. If you wanted to add a few more images, I think you could. Appropriate length. I'm not a subject expert to make conjectures about neutrality, but I am left with the impression that he was an abrasive personality, mostly resented by the poets who craved the publicity he provided, and without much credibility (today) in his evaluation of good poetry. If that impression accurately reflects modern views of Griswold, I believe the article is neutral. --JayHenry (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The edits are very helpful. And I think your final assessment is just about prefect. It was interesting doing the research for this because I now think Griswold was more complex than he has been given credit for, considering his difficult marriage/family situation, his health, the fire, etc... I think an earlier version of the lead did say Griswold was mostly known for his rivalry with Poe but it bordered on POV and/or OR. I'll see if I can find a good source I can paraphrase that makes a similar statement as, frankly, it's true (at least in 2008). --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Along with later anthologies such as Prose Writers of America and Female Poets of America, he earned his reputation as a literary dictator whose approval writers sought only begrudgingly. Please recast; I think I know what this is intended to mean, but it doesn't say it: In later anthologies? And the authors don't begrudge, Griswold does.
  • Can we please drown authored? The English is wrote, or for anthologies, compiled. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got what you were going for. Take a look and let me know what you think. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked somewhat further.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was somewhat copy edited throughout the FAC though I'm sure it's not perfect. Of course, some corrections may have been more subjective than others. If there are a couple commas you think are mandatory that others have not caught, would you add them in or at least point them out? Thanks for pointing out what you already have, by the way! --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added one after literary dictator, which I see survives.
  • In the lead He worked as a journalist, editor, and critic in Philadelphia, New York City and elsewhere. is inconsistent: either none after editor or one after City
  • He built up a strong literary reputation in part due to his 1842 collection... needs one after reputation; due is non-defining.
  • Griswold was born on February 13, 1812 in Vermont near Rutland, and raised a strict Calvinist in the hamlet of Benson. needs one after 1812 or Vermont to open the parenthesis closed after Rutland.
  • Griswold attempted to enroll at the Rensselaer School in 1830 but was unable to take any classes after he attempted to play a prank on a professor. needs one after 1830.
That's five; the problem is endemic. Don't just fix them; copyedit the whole. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have fixed those ones. If I were able to catch the other errors myself, I would have caught them by now. When you've seen this article as much as I have, there's a slight haze that encompasses the whole thing. If you see any other problems, feel free to lend a hand or let me know! --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, it's very hard to copyedit your own prose; but try having another look anyway. This is not an oppose, but I don't think I can support unless someone looks through the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. I did what I could, just now and a little earlier this morning. Not sure it's perfect but it might be better. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Lar (this article was brought to my attention by my wife, since some of "her ladies" are linked from it, it's far from my normal area of interest :) )
    • There is a potential sequence problem around George C. Foster: Griswold attempted to enroll at the Rensselaer School in 1830, but was unable to take any classes after he attempted to play a prank on a professor.[8] He moved to Albany, New York to live with a 22-year-old flute-playing journalist named George C. Foster, a writer best known for his work New-York by Gas-Light.[4] Griswold lived with Foster until he was 17, and the two may have had a romantic relationship.[7] When Griswold moved away, Foster wrote to him begging him to return, signing his letter "come to me if you love me".[9] 1830-1812 == 18 so he was either 17 or 18 when he tried to enroll. But he lived with Foster "until he was 17" so that suggests there may be a sequencing problem there, or maybe the order is right, but the reader might be left confused. Do references support what months these things occurred in? Use of months might clarify the ambiguity. I see you ordered this in a different order but is that the order the sources gave? Struck though since I think it's sorted.
    • In 1843 Griswold founded The Opal, an annual gift book that collected essays, stories, and poetry what is a gift book? This needs linking or explication I think. Elsewhere it seems to be referred to as a magazine.
      • I may be confused here with another publication by the same name, which was a magazine. I expect E to help clarify this, she just rang me about it. :) As for Gift Book == Coffee Table Book, why not set up a redirect from GB to CTB and if someone thinks they are different, they can put an article at GB explicating that (rather than just linking directly to CTB from here)
    Actually, now I'm tempted to start an article on gift book, if I can find some good sources! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, wouldn't be the first time. Might be hard to find sources that define/describe the class, because the two words are so common. You might want to also define this meaning even though it's not what is meant. (I could see it as a likely search term) I am assuming this is another example of the term as you intend. ++Lar: t/c 15:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you and E have started working on The Opal (annual) which sorts this objection, whether or not you end up doing Gift book ++Lar: t/c 15:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He had by now earned the nickname "Grand Turk", Why? If this nickname is significant it might be good to explain how he got it and why, assuming sources exist. If it's not significant, why mention it?
      • Maybe source that people called him that and let the reader draw the conclusion?
Let me see if I can go back to the source and do that. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found a lot of places that reference it. Google books won't let me look inside Bayless, but check page 137 if you have it, that text apparently refers to some of the nicknames he got. ++Lar: t/c 20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jewish woman named Charlotte Myers, woman named Harriet McCrillis, "woman named" seems awkward wording to me. Why not say Griswold married Charlotte Myers, who was Jewish. and Griswold pursued Harriet McCrillis? Mdreary sorted this out...
    An interesting article, I hope to support it shortly. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One new worry... it seems you use Bayless a lot. That's the only ref that is ABOUT Griswold, the others are about other folk or topics, but is this overreliance? ++Lar: t/c 15:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought about that myself but I think it's pretty solid. And just because a source is about Poe doesn't mean it's not a good reference for Griswold material. As I've told people, you can't talk about Poe without Griswold and vice-versa; their biographies are really one intertwining story. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look! I hadn't noticed the chronology problem but it's now fixed, as are the "woman named" lines (and one more, actually). As far as "Grand Turk", it's relevant because, well, people did call him that quite a bit. I think the significance is mostly sarcastic, making fun of his own elevation of self... but that's just my opinion and I have no source to support it. As far as The Opal, I'm curious as to where you saw it referred to as a magazine. Gift books, I suppose, were the equivalent of today's coffee table book: expensive, showy, with little significant content. To me, it's a very common term so I hadn't realized it needed explanation. I don't want to link to coffee table book because that's my own assessment... what do you think? --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
revisions and strikes in response. ++Lar: t/c 15:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More strikes. I think there still are issues that need attention but it's getting closer. Tony's right, a good copyedit by fresh eyes might be very advisable. Perhaps ping the League of Copyeditors to see if they can squeeze it in? ++Lar: t/c 15:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advice requested It suddenly occurred to me that most bio articles on reverends on Wikipedia start with "Rev." in the first line. Does anyone think it would be necessary to start this page as Rev. Rufus Wilmot Griswold, despite it not being his primary point of interest? It seems almost like a technicality and therefore not as important as in other bios. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't; I agree that it would be misleading. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 21:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it was not his primary vocation, as in this case, I would leave it out of the lede. It could be mentioned that he was entitled to the title somewhere though... ++Lar: t/c 15:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—The whole of the text could do with a polish: I'm finding glitches like these in just a sample portion of the article:

  • "the best examples in American poetry"—"of" rather than "in"?
  • "Griswold succeeded Poe as editor of Graham's Magazine at a higher salary than Poe"—false comparison: "Poe's".
  • English speakers should know what an obituary is: why is it linked? Same for "copyright". And "flute" ... really, these are common terms.
  • "He worked various editing jobs in the New York area."—Does one work a job? TONY (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though I for one can easily see "working a job" being acceptable, I see your point, Tony. I wonder, since you are so good at picking up these things, if you would be willing to take a quick run-through and see what you can catch? I'll fix these ones you just pointed out myself. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, not to defy you or anything, but I kept one of the links for copyright. It seems like a complicated enough concept that readers could benefit from viewing that article, if they so choose. I definitely agree with you on flute and about 99% agree about obituary. :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking, but I usually avoid copy-editing myself. Why? (1) I can have more influence over standards by reviewing instead, and there's constant pressure on me to review more (I hardly touch FAR, by the way). (2) Copy-editing is too much like my RL job. Please find a collaborator or two who are in the field and wouldn't mind assisting with the c-e. TONY (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and thanks anyway. I'll see who I can find to lend a hand with a good, solid copy edit. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is an excellent article. I saw a few minor things that should be addressed.
    • "but was unable to take any classes after he attempted to play a prank on a professor" - was he hurt in the prank, was the professor hurt and unable to teach, or was Griswold expelled because of it?
    • quotes of under 4 lines should not be offset, but should be inline (WP:MOSQUOTE) (see reputation and influence)
    • Should put a citation immediately after "Griswold claimed that "among the last requests of Mr. Poe" was that he becomes his literary executor "for the benefit of his family". ", even if it is coveed after the next sentence (just in case someone slips in another sentence from a different source)

Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts; I've made these recommended changes. I wish I could find more info on this prank but, for now, I think the current line satisfies your confusion. Thanks again. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Rufus_Wilmot_Griswold&oldid=1138470345"