Talk:Rufus Wilmot Griswold

Good article nomination

The article looks good, but needs some work on the following good article criteria:

1. N Rewrite lead section: remove unnecessary and stand alone details about his personal life. Avoid the use of words such as "bitter" in the lead: let the facts speak for themselves.
2. Y Pass.
3. N Add a bibliography section. Remove explanation about "anthology" in the lead section.
4. Y Pass.
5. Y Pass.
6. Y Pass. An image of a first edition The Poets and Poetry of America would be nice.

Good luck! – Ilse@ 13:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I actually have an image of the title page from one of the early editions of The Poets and Poetry of America (you can imagine it's hard to get my hands on a first edition) but the image is of poor quality. Instead, I have included the frontispiece engraving of Griswold, which still is of low quality but there's no blurry words to read! As far as bibliography, I'd have a hard time finding a complete version but I'll cull one from what's already listed in the article. Not sure why I should remove anything about his anthology from the lede, though... it's definitely his most important work... actually, I'm not sure about what you mean by the comments regarding the lede. I feel that it does justice as a summary of the full article, as per WP:LEAD. What parts need to be re-written specifically? -Midnightdreary (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the lead section, possibly you can improve it further. The other issues have been resolved. – Ilse@ 16:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry! But I went and reverted back to the older version of the lede. I don't feel the new version adequately summarized the article or established his notability or how he's discussed these days. I'm no expert on ledes, but the new version just didn't do him justice, I feel. Can we flesh something out here on the talk page instead and, please, explain why you think the lede needs such drastic changes? I've not been made aware of exactly why this old version wasn't acceptable. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want my help, please improve the lead section yourself; on the points of neutral language, clear paragraph scope, and notability of facts. – Ilse@ 08:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said I didn't want your help...! In fact, I'm sort of begging for it! I'm just confused as heck. How does this lede NOT fully summarize the article, as ledes are supposed to do? I've just re-read WP:LEAD, and I feel it works pretty well. It seems pretty NPOV too (since I changed that word you mentioned), and points out all the pieces that make him notable, describing notable controversy, and serves as a concise stand-alone introduction. It quickly presents Griswold with "to be", briefly jumps through his biography, establishes his notability and influence as editor and anthologist, then jumps to the big controversy that he's known for today. I'm just at a loss. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Still no response on this GA nom... Hope to see it pass soon! --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I failed the nomination, because I believe criterion #1 was not met. – Ilse@ 17:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to it! I'll keep plugging away here. I still wish I could have gotten more specific feedback as far as what part of the lede you thought was too specific. But, I've found a new source and I'm still expanding so I'll get to the lede soon enough. Thanks again! --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My compliments for the images. – Ilse@ 18:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold

This article is really good. I'm just (ironically, as it seems when looking at the old GA review) hesitant about the lead. I think it's too short. I'd like more about his personal life, more about how he supported poetry teaching in schools. Kind of funny but... oh well. Wrad (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Wrad. I'll take another look at that lead. While you're here, do you feel the "Influence and reputation" section is appropriately named? I've never been fully satisfied with it but I could be over-examining. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was fine. Wrad (talk) 23:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm passing it, although I would like a bit more in the lead about his early life. I think it meets GA criteria, this is just my preference. Wrad (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Very nice! Thanks so much! I'm putting this article aside for a while but I may get back to it and work on bringing it to featured status. I'll definitely reconsider the lead along the way. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Two questions

• Here, In 1843 Griswold founded The Opal, an annual gift book that collected essays, stories, and poetry. Nathaniel Parker Willis edited its first edition, which was released in the fall of 1844.[26] For a time, he was editor of the Saturday Evening Post.[27]
  • What is a gift book?
  • Who was editor of the Post, Griswold or Willis? GrahamColm^Talk 17:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That should be that Griswold edited the Post for a time; good eye. As far as gift book, we had a quick discussion on the FAC review. I was sorta taken aback that everyone didn't already know what a gift book was and didn't realize it needed explanation. My intention is to eventually get a stub article on it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Epousesquecido beat me to it just now with gift book. That's what I get for procrastinating. ;) --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Divorce and Third Marriage

Something confused me as first time reader of this article.

These two ladies are mentioned for the first time in the line:

"Elizabeth Ellet and Ann S. Stephens wrote to Myers urging her not to grant the divorce, and to McCrillis not to marry him"

but no explanation is given on who they are or why they have taken upon themselevs to do this. Could someone add this?

--otocan

The internal links are helpful. It's hard to identify them further here (i.e. as writers) because that doesn't add much context to this particular line (their writing has nothing to do with their strange interloping). --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely one line explaining their motivation would be helpful and add arguably necessary context?

--otocan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.171.162.206 (talk) 11:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to sign your posts. If you feel it is so important, go right ahead. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)