From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
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)
-
- 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)
- Citation style looks fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments Sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Good to go. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
-
- 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)
All image concerns resolved,
Kelly hi! 22:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- You are awesome! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- That's what I would recommend - sorry, it's a verifiability thing. Kelly hi! 21:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- (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)
