Talk:Metzengerstein

Metzengerstein 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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 1, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Horror Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Novels: Short story / 19th century Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Short story task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by 19th century task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Fixed Date

Hey, fixed an error in the original date of publication. It's January 14th, 1832, which was correct in the introduction paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.130.66 (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. It was likely either a typo or very, very, subtle vandalism that no one caught. It appears to be correct everywhere else. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

When adding editorial commentary (such as edition information), in professional publications it would be relegated to a footnote. It is jarring to be reading a summary of the plot, then transition to an editorial comment, without any markers of transition (a simple parenthesis is not clear). It is also poorly worded as it stands, it took a couple double takes to figure out what was trying to be done there. 71.191.42.242 (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's written poorly, and I disagree that the "editorial comment" must be a footnote as I've seen it elsewhere in high quality articles on Wikipedia. Also, if you'd just take a moment and look, that particular footnote that you added is used three times in the article. You'd have to do some serious work to convince me that The young baron says, "It is a path I have prayed to follow. I would wish all I love to perish of that gentle disease." is referring to age 18 .. the age is not consistent in later re-publications of the story. I'm reverting again. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's easily fixed make it a separate note with a reference to the source in standard author, date format. But I have no interest in fighting over something so trivial. If you disagree, than you win, pretty simple. Again, keep up the good work on the Poe articles, I'll move on. 71.191.42.242 (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to start a fight - and I definitely don't mean to put you off from assisting in approving this article and others. I'm sorry if I came across too strong, I'm just wearing my hat as the defender of the Poe on wiki! :) Thanks for improving the plot summary here. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

PASSED. Brilliant, well-written article that answers all the questions and "covers all the bases". ShaShaJackson (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]