Talk:Tottel's Miscellany

Comments

Rather than reverting my copy edits, it would be a good idea to discuss them here first. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello Charles,

I messaged you on your personal page but just wanted to write the information here as well. We are a group in a United States University that was supposed to pick a page on Wikipedia to edit that wasn't necessarily up to par with the rest of Wiki standards. Our group chose this article, as you can see. We appreciate the edits that you made to the page and would greatly like any information or other suggestions for making it better. If we've done anything wrong please let us know and we'll correct it immediately.

Regards, TottelWiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tottelwiki (talk • contribs) 02:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I backed off from editing when I saw you were still busy on the page. Mostly the material is fine. I was going through doing a few things: adding more internal links (wikification) and seeing to punctuation and the placing of references; format, for example the heading levels, and to display the poetry properly by line; and some moving and tightening of phrases and sentences. I created a redirect for Thomas Vaux, which had been a redlink. For me this was just a few routine passes to bring the article more into line with "house style". There are still issues with spelling and structure which I'll fix up, in two of the sections. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the first reference given: is this the Dictionary of National Biography, late-Victorian? I happen to know that quite well. In any case another reference could easily be found for Surrey and blank verse. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Yes, the first reference should be to the DNB. Thanks for all your help! - TottelWiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.140.10.141 (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The claim, cited as being from Pollard, that this miscellany was "the last large use of sonnet form until The Phoenix Nest was published in 1593" isn't accurate. Sidney's Astrophil and Stella (1591) was earlier and a more notable sonnet sequence. The source should be verified and clarified and/or this claim removed.Redcknight (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In this case a fairly vague assertion ("some decades") should say enough. Details on sonnet sequences and so on belong in another article. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

DNB

The link to the Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) shows it to be published by the University Press in 1818. The DNB is a very well known publication for English biography, but its original series of 63 volumes was published between 1885 and 1900. It was first reprinted by the Oxford University Press in 1921-2 from "plates furnished by Messrs. Spottiswoode & Co." though the OUP became its publisher in 1917. The linked publisher's page is an unhelpful disambiguation page, though I know that the OUP often appears as "University Press, Oxford". It is tempting to alter the references to "Oxford University Press, 1899, Vol. 57, pp. 74-5" but for the fact that it does not necessarily reflect the source used by the person who contributed them. Maybe there was a publication of the same name in 1818. Perhaps the contributor could comment. Eclecticology (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No, just a slip, I think. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)