Wikipedia:Peer review/Death of Edgar Allan Poe/archive1

Death of Edgar Allan Poe

The death of Edgar Allan Poe was a branched off article from the main Edgar Allan Poe page that's been brewing and improving for several months. There's definitely still some work to be done (there are a couple citation needed tags that I added; those sources are forthcoming) but what I'd really like to know about is overall content, quality of writing, if it maintains NPOV, and if there's a shot this could pass a good article nomination. Any help or advice is certainly welcome! --Midnightdreary 03:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, the article seems to have a decent amount of information, pictures, refs etc. A great start. My main concern with the article is the prose. For example the opening "The death of Edgar Allan Poe on October 7, 1849 has some element of mystery to it." This is far too vague, and a weak opening sentence.

"Poe finally died on Sunday, October 7, 1849 at 5:00 in the morning." This partially repeats what is said earlier, and is confusing for the reader. Earlier it says he was found and taken to hospital early on sunday morning, and this sentence says he finally died on Sunday morning.
"After Poe's death, a person calling himself "Ludwig" (in reality Griswold)..." What's a Griswold? Sure there is a wikilink, but the prose is weak. Should read something like: "After Poe's death, a person calling himself "Ludwig" (in reality Rufus Griswold, American anthologist, editor, critic, and Poe enemy)..."
"Many parts of it,..." vague
"...but it was the only biography of Poe for several years." How many years?
...was unmarked for several years." how many?
Picture captions, esp the Poe photo. Instead of just the name, try "A daugerrotype of Edgar Allan Poe taken in 1904, etc" and so on.
"Poe was in Richmond, Virginia making his way to his home in New York, having left on September 26, 1849. " Another weak lead sentence.

After reading just the intro and a little bit of the body, this is what I see so far. Remember that the intro should be able to concisely summerize the entire article and be able to stand by itself to explain the content. Write specific information (no vague references) and write complete thoughts. Keep up the good work though, lots of good info in the article to work with. Jeff Dahl 03:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! I'll jump into these suggestions later today. Quick question, if you don't mind, some of the editors were concerned about a lack of NPOV in the Griswold section. I think its current version is fine, but an outside opinion is welcome! --Midnightdreary 14:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the only concern that I have with the Griswold section is whether or not the character assassination was justified. If it was, it wouldn't be an assassination of his character. You might be able to find some other primary sources (relatives, publishers?), besides Griswold, that attest to his character. A few other quickies:

I see a [citation needed] tag, you'll want to take care of that.
Keep away from weasel words/phrases, such as "A commonly held belief is that..." which doesn't say who held such a belief or how commonly. But lots of good work here, good citations, etc. Jeff Dahl 16:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Whether or not the character assassination was justified"? I'm not sure what you mean by "justified" here. It's character assassination, regardless of what sparked it or if Griswold had a good reason to be a jerk. :) If you mean, is what Griswold said true? The answer is no, which I can make clearer in the prose there. I'm still working on that one citation needed tag (I added that myself as a reminder). Oh, and I know I'm horrible with weasel words! I'll get back to this tonight. Thanks again! --Midnightdreary 17:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 03:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]