Talk:Nathaniel Parker Willis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments. After the FAC director promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{ArticleHistory}} template when the FAC closes.

	Nathaniel Parker Willis has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 30, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

	Nathaniel Parker Willis is part of WikiProject Poetry, a WikiProject related to Poetry.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Lots of work to be done

I got started on cleaning this up a bit. The 1911 encyclopedia information that was used is unbelievably biased. I have no references about most of his life and work, but I did what I could in relation to some of his magazine work and relationship with Edgar Allan Poe. This desperately needs more clean up and more sources. I'm not sure if it's entirely necessary to list every single item he ever published in sequence, but I'm unaware of what is most important from his works. -Midnightdreary 15:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

This is a very interesting article about a man I've never even heard of until now -- learn something new every day, huh? In short, it fulfills the GA criteria in that it is well written, correctly formatted, verifiable, broad in its coverage, stable, neutral and well illustrated with free images. I do have a few points that I would like to see addressed or at least considered before promoting it to GA status, however:

• The date-range in the lead should have an en dash.
• There are two instances of "building up" or "built up" in the lead; just "building" or "built" will do, but you may want to change one to a synonym so it's less repetitive. Creating?
• The lead seems skimpy, although it does hit upon the high points. I think it's lacking in detail and explanation, so here's some suggestions for what you may like to add to give it some life; feel free to pick and choose:

• ...who worked with several notable American writers. What notable American writers? Poe, for example, stands out in the article, and I know he's your Wiki-muse. :)
• Willis came from a family of publishers. More detail here, perhaps a few words on his father's reputation. That his father began "the Youth's Companion, the world's first newspaper for children" may be worth mentioning.
• He started his own publication, the Home Journal, in 1846... How successful was this publication? What is it known as today? The lead in its separate article notes that "It is the oldest continually published general interest magazine in the United States"; is this true?

I actually can't substantiate that claim. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Alas, it sounded catchy. :) Still, just a few words on its current title and that it's still being published today (this is already stated in the body) would be enough. María (habla conmigo) 23:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Willis had built up his popularity thanks to his good nature, though he was occasionally noted for being effeminate and Europeanized. What is "his good nature"? Friendliness, kindliness? Examples? Is this in addition to his work as a writer and a publisher, or do they go hand in hand? What are the negative connotations of "effeminate" and "Europeanized"? Perhaps that would require too much detail to explain the 19th century American male machismo, but if it's that notable to be placed in the lead, a little context would help.

It's hard to explain... Willis's literary reputation and personal reputation were one and the same. He created for himself this sort of public persona which he sold (whether it was true or not) in his writings which were, usually, autobiographical essays. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• His sister was Fanny Fern, how interesting! Notable enough to mention in the lead? What about his brother, the composer?

For an article on N. P. Willis, I'm not sure why his siblings merit introduction in the lede. I will definitely consider it though. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, like I said, pick and choose. I definitely had an epiphany when I learned that Fern was his sister, but that may be just me. María (habla conmigo) 23:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Willis has connections all over the American literary map; first Fanny Fern, now Harriet Jacobs? Unbelievable! Since she's such a well known figure in feminist/slave narrative, this could could be mentioned in the lead, as well.

I had never heard of Harriet Jacobs or her book before putting this article together. Is she someone of particular importance? --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends, I suppose; I've read excerpts of her book in two separate Eng. Undergrad classes (Af-Am Lit. and Early Am. Lit.) and apparently it was quite sensational at the time. It's certainly one of the most scandalous of slave narratives published then. María (habla conmigo) 23:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• During this time, he became the highest-paid magazine writer in America, earning about $100 per article and $5,000 per year. Perhaps worth a mention.
• The fact that he "especially promoted women poets" may be notable, given the time period. Whose career did he impact?

Few are remembered today. He mostly promoted the "scribbling women" of the era not known for their deep literary merit. ;) --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• The romantic descriptions of scenes and modes of life in Europe at once gained a wide popularity and established Willis's literary reputation, despite the high price tag of $7 a copy, and an American edition was soon issued. The bolded part seems a little random; that is a high price to pay, but I don't know if it's notable enough to break up the flow of this sentence.
• He soon married Mary Stace on October 1, 1835 after a month-long engagement. Is there any information about her available? Where was she from, for example?
• The article caused some scandal and Willis's publisher had to apologize. "...for which Willis's publisher had to apologize"?
• During a short visit to England in 1839-1840...: the dreaded en dash.
• His personal life was touched with grief when his first child was born dead: eek! "...when his first child was stillborn"?

I'm not very familiar with this type of terminology: the "born dead" line was from the source. But, I'll take your word for it and make this change! --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Born dead" just sounded so cold; "stillborn is at least medically recognized. :) María (habla conmigo) 23:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Willis was part of a committee of literary figures–including William Cullen Bryant, Charles Anderson Dana, and Horace Greeley–to invite Edward Everett...: these should be either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes per WP:DASH.
• "an impersonal passive verb - a pronoun of the feminine gender." Because this is part of a quote, I'm not sure what the dash is supposed to be, but definitely not just a plain dash.
• Should the "Bibliography" be underneath the header "Writings"?

I'm not entirely sure what to do with that "Writings" section. Any advice is welcome. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would keep "Writings" a second level heading and make "Bibliography" a third level heading underneath it, since it's on the same topic, yes? María (habla conmigo) 23:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not positive that a ref is required after every work listed in the "Bibliography section"; is this information going to be contested? Most if it is cited to Beers, so perhaps only one ref is needed for the entire section?

I'm hesitant to do something like that, lest future editors go in and make additions which are not supported by the source even when the article claims it does. I know it's a lot of footnoting, but it doesn't hurt, does it? I like to play it safe in case anything is ever challenged (and after some pretty brutal FAC reviews in the past, I've found that anything can be challenged!). --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, good point; Trust No One (at FAC). And, no, it doesn't hurt. Certainly more citations are better than none. María (habla conmigo) 23:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have faith that this can be promoted soon to GA status; my main concern is plumping up the lead, but other than that, most of my comments are minor. If you have any questions or concerns, or need further clarification, please do let me know. I'll put the nomination on hold for now. María (habla conmigo) 13:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, María. I probably won't get around to these changes for a day or two, but I appreciate your being so thorough! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just let me know when you're ready for another look. :) María (habla conmigo) 15:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I've hit all of your concerns (well, the ones I was capable of addressing). Give it another look and let me know if you have any further suggestions for improvement. Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Great work, Midnightdreary, it's much improved; the lead especially is a lot more interesting. :) One thing, though: since Willis did not technically work with Jacobs (she was his nursemaid, yes?), it may not pan out mentioning her in the lead after all. That minor point aside, I'm satisfied that this passes the criteria, so consider it promoted. Congrats! María (habla conmigo) 17:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thanks so much for your review and your great suggestions! --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)