Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nathaniel Parker Willis

< 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 18:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]


Nathaniel Parker Willis

edit

Self-nomination I'm giving it a shot. Willis is today completely forgotten but was, for a period in his life, the number one celebrity writer of the country. I'm partially concerned about breadth but curious to hear what other editors think of the article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Can you include the publication year in every reference, per WP:CITE?
  • I would prefer that every page number be preceded with p. or pp., but I don't know if that's mandatory.
  • Fill out title, url, publisher, and accessdate for all web references.
  • "in New England about 1630 and" — unlink year per MOS:UNLINKYEARS
  • Consider adding Template:Persondata
  • What currency is used in the article? Don't just leave it be implied, per WP:CURRENCY.
  • "both ways... the two" → "both ways [...] the two" if text was removed

Gary King (talk) 22:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Gary! I addressed some of your concerns. As far as adding publication years to footnotes, I'm not sure it's necessary and I'm afraid it might be a bit clunky. As far as I know, there is no set requirement for citation style, so long as the article is consistent. I'd say the same regarding the use of "p." or "pp." but I'm willing to hear what other editors suggest! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citation style looks fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Good to go. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support with comments: I reviewed the article for GAC and just now performed a minor copy-edit. I believe the article fulfills the FA-criteria, although I'll warrant that the prose may need a sprucing from someone with a more technical eye than myself. :)
I have a slight lingering issue with the third paragraph in the lead, which begins "Willis had boosted his popularity thanks to his good nature..." in that I'm not sure it's as explanatory as it should be. The full meaning is made clear when one reads the rest of the article, but this sentence is still somewhat vague, I feel. Who noted him for being "effeminate and Europeanized"? Why does that differ from his "good nature"? The following sentence could be more explicit, as well: "As a publisher, he tried to appeal to the taste of the readers (which was?) while supporting new talent (like who/what kind?)." A little more detail would help greatly.
Also, I added a {{fact}} tag in the section devoted to Willis' relationship with Stephen Bishop; the entire paragraph is uncited and needs verification. Other than that, I think this is a fine article about an interesting, unsung hero. Great work! María (habla conmigo) 15:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, María. I haven't been able to verify the Stephen Bishop material anywhere so I've removed it. I also reworked that third paragraph a bit so I think it clearly addresses what's most important. Thanks again! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All image concerns resolved, Kelly hi! 22:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images:

  • Image:NathanielWillis.jpg has vague sourcing information (only a base URL) and no authorship or publication information. The licensing details also seem to specify only noncommercial use. At only 7 KB, it is also somewhat low-quality to be the lead image on a featured article, in my opinion. Recommend moving the Smithsonian Brady daguerrotype up to the infobox, or possibly using another photo of Willis...there are a couple more taken by Mathew Brady at the Library of Congress here and here, as well as a Civil War image here that may be useful somewhere in the article, though it's a photo taken at a distance.
  • Image:NPWillis-1857.gif - is there an online source for this image?
  • Image:NPWillis-Young.jpg - I see the image came from a 1991 book, do we have any information on original authorship or publication of the image prior to usage in this book, if any?
  • Image:AmericanScenery Willis.jpg is sourced to the Library of Congress but is missing a source link...I was unable to find it on a search. Do you remember the search terms or image location?

Kelly hi! 20:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replying out-of-line, hope you don't mind. Re: First image, I added all the correct info (The Knickerbocker, 1857) but I agree it's not the best so I've replaced it with one of the LoC images. Would you mind taking a look to see that I gave all the info I needed? The second image, almost certainly, and that's probably how I got it... I'll see if I can find it again. Regarding the third, I believe that's actually an original portrait owned by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, painted circa the 1840s (still hanging in his home today). I can get further information on that within a couple days. As far as the fourth, not sure how I found it at the LoC, but it seems like it's definitely public domain considering its publication history. Thanks for being so thorough!! --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that Image:NPWillis-brady.jpg is better - I fixed the {{LOC-image}} template to include the photo ID, and changed the license from {{PD-USGov}} to {{PD-Brady-Handy}}. However, the image still should be cropped to remove the border. Kelly hi! 23:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! I don't have any software that would enable me to crop anything right now, and I have to note that the FA criteria do not say anything more specific about the quality of images as a requirement to pass. :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cropped the image - please take a look to ensure it is OK. By the way, Wikipedia:Graphics tutorials talk about some free software you can use if you ever want to play with this in the future. Kelly hi! 00:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are awesome! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, regarding the NPWillis-young image: Its original author is Samuel Laurence, and it was painted prior to 1850. It was owned by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and still hangs in his home today. It doesn't seem like I can get any further information than that. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand...can you offer any evidence of that? Also, there needs to be an explanation and/or sourcing of the copyright assertion on the image description page. It's not that I don't believe you, it's that copyright information has to be verifiable per WP:CITE#IMAGE. Kelly hi! 21:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, unless I can get my own picture of it, it's hard to verify. The image has the info on its artist, and it's already got it's copyright tag, so there's no problems under WP:CITE#IMAGES. If it's such a concern, however, I'll remove it from the article and hope it can pass this FA review without (it's not particularly vital to the article anyway). --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I would recommend - sorry, it's a verifiability thing. Kelly hi! 21:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, I've updated the file information. Have you seen it? I'm not sure how much more we can do other than take our source's word for it (i.e. Silverman, who reproduced it in his book). --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Sorry, if the Silverman book makes that attribution, please state that it the description. Once that's done, consider this concern resolved. Kelly hi! 21:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(undenting a bit) Yes, Silverman gives the artist's name... it's been there since it was first uploaded. All the information in the description comes from that source (with the exception of the artist's life dates). --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments before Supporting -
  • The paragraph that starts out: On June 20, 1839, Willis's play Tortesa, the Usurer has a couple issues. The jump from hanging out with Dickens to being famous is odd. Can the segue be a bit smoother there? Also, can you state that the column he wrote was weekly or the publication was weekly, but not both? How about that he was required to write a column for each weekly publication or some such?
  • There's an external citation to Google books for Pencillings on the Way.
  • Is there an explanation why Willis would buy Jacobs' freedom if he was proslavery?
  • In Home Journal, you have to restate that as of 2008 Town & Country was still being published.
  • Take out "and others" from the list of women poets. You've already named the notable ones.
  • You'll have to cite that Griswold purposely set out to ruin Poe's reputation.
  • I thought it was an interesting article, well-writen and apparently very well-researched. I'm sorry I haven't reviewed it for FAC until now. I hope you get some more responses.--Moni3 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look! Regarding your comments:
  1. Good catch. I did some significant work to the paragraphs around that area.
  2. Not sure what you mean here.
  3. Not that I'm aware of.
  4. Done. Is this the proper way to do it?
  5. Done.
  6. Already part of the given footnote (Quinn).
Thanks again! --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pencillings by the Way has an external citation. I'm not sure how else to explain that. No other link in the article links to Google Books, and I'm not sure that it's appropriate to link to it here, since only portions of the book can be read through Google.
Ok, my comment about Harriet Jacobs was my roundabout way of asking you to make that section more logical. By itself it seems like a factoid out of place in Willis' life, though interesting. It doesn't really say anything about his character that he freed his servant, but was pro slavery. What does that mean? How does that tie in to the rest of his life? --Moni3 (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was confused because there is no external citation (and, if there was, I was having trouble understanding if you were saying that was a bad thing), but there is an external link. I can easily remove it; there's already a Google books link under "External links". As an aside, it's not a portion of the book, but the whole book. Nevertheless, I'll unlink it. As far as Harriet Jacobs, I think you're reading too much into it: He wanted her employment, when her owners came looking for her, he bought her so he could continue employing her (at least, that's how I read it). As far as I can tell, there's really nothing altruistic about it. Is that more sensible? Or less? :) Thanks again! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very interesting article on a man I should have know about. There are a few minor things that you might be able to clarify for me, though.
    • In the lead, it might be good to mention why Harriet Jacobs and Richard Storr Willis are famous (she's a writer and he is a composer). The others in that paragraph are identified by occupation.
    • Any information on his mother (even her name)?
    • Awkward phrasing "1829 he founded the American Monthly Magazine,[9] which was continued from April of that year to August 1831 when it was discontinued.[" - could perhaps become "In April 1829 he published the first issue of American Monthly Magazine, which continued until August 1831."
    • "Dismayed by the "tight purses of Boston culture" - does this mean he was having trouble getting the magazine to make money? I'm a little confused as to whether the magazine went out of business so he took a job in Europe, or whether he closed the magazine so that he could work in Europe.
    • Is that $7/copy in 1835 dollars or 2008 dollars?

Karanacs (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the vote. I think I've taken care of your concerns and these spots that were unclear, so thanks for bringing them up! --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent corrections - you even answered the one question I forgot to write down (why did they move to Maine). Karanacs (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Another interesting Poe-related article! Thanks! I have just a few comments and suggestions for improvement.

Thanks for taking a look! I consider this guy's connection to Poe is very, very minor considering his importance as a stand-alone writer. I'm going to reply to each of your comments in-line. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the lead sounds like a family tree - is Willis notable for who he is related to or notable for being an author, poet, and editor? The first paragraph makes it seem like he is notable for who he is related to but the article definitely makes it seem like he is notable for being a magazine editor. Perhaps this first paragraph could be rewritten? Remember, some people only read the first paragraph!
Some people only read the lead, which is why it's there! Not sure how to write a biographical article that doesn't start with the subject's family. See my next comment. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the first paragraph of "Early life and family" could be organized a bit better. As it stands. NPW is born and then we backtrack in time to his parents and ancestors. It is a bit confusing.
I removed the line about his Puritan ancestry in 1630; not sure where it came from as it's not in the source cited for the next line. This might help your first comment a bit too. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Willis began contributing more frequently to magazines and periodicals. - This sentence at the beginning of the "Literary career" section needs some context, such as dates or motivations.
The context is in the preceding and following sentences: between 1827 and 1829. Is that not clear? --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Willis arbitrarily refused to print the work of his sister Sara Willis ("Fanny Fern") after 1854 - Why "arbitrarily"? Had he printed it before? Some clarification needs to be added here.
Hmm... arbitrarily implies there is no reason; that makes it hard to clarify. Even I am confused by this one. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Among his later works were Hurry-Graphs (1851), Outdoors at Idlewild (1854), and Ragbag (1855). Willis had complained that his magazine writing prevented him from writing a longer work. He finally had the time in 1856, and he wrote his novel Paul Fane which was published a year later.[8] His final work was The Convalescent (1859), which included a chapter on his time spent with Washington Irving at Sunnyside. - Are these all novels? Could we get a hint of what they are about since there are no links?
He only wrote one novel, Paul Fane. I think I clarified this nicely, if you want to take another look ("no links"? What does that mean? I was earlier asked to remove a link to an online version of a work in this same review). --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that perhaps the first paragraph of the "Reputation" section is too flippant - it describes Willis as a static character. Of course Willis was well-liked by his friends, for example! And, he was well-traveled only after a certain point in his life and he was only six feet tall after a certain point as well. I don't think these kinds of descriptions are helpful. The relevant quotations about his being a dandy, etc. should be inserted into the article where appropriate, not all grouped together. We have to be careful not to give undue weight to a few people's remembrances and be sure that we give ample room for the reader to decide what NPW was like from the article.
I strongly disagree. Willis's appearance and his image were his reputation. He introduced himself as a character to the reading public, and that's what made his work popular. I can clarify this, but I would never budge on including his physical appearance and personality under reputation, nor would any biography of Nat Willis. :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Willis built up his reputation in the public at a time when readers were interested in the personal lives of writers - Why were readers particularly interested in the personal lives of writers at this time?
Explaining why is difficult. Why do so many people say red is their favorite color? It's just the fad of the time. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link in footnote 4 does not work for me.
I removed it; it was only a link of convenience to an online version of a magazine article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 31 is missing an opening paren
That closed parenthesis should have been a colon; fixed! --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page numbers are missing from the Sandra Tomc article in the "Sources" list.
I didn't realize I needed this. I'll take care of it.
  • Is it worth linking to this archive in the "External links" since only UVA people can see it?
I'll look for advice on this one. UVA has a fairly substantial Willis collection, and there are not a lot of collections out there. I differ to others' opinions. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to being able to support this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if I'm not clarifying things enough. Nat was a complicated fellow. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Sandy has just promoted the article.[1] Further discussion should probably go to the article talk page. Karanacs (talk) 18:01, 17 June 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/Nathaniel_Parker_Willis&oldid=1126595460"