Talk:Thomas Holley Chivers/GA1

GA review

Another interesting Poe-related article! Thank you! I have a few suggestions for improvement. I think the article can be better structured and there are a few places that need clarification and expansion:

Question about structure: I'm not quite sure why the information about Chivers's relationship with Poe is not integrated into his life. It is odd to have Chivers die and then to read about his relationship with Poe. Cannot the "relationship with Poe" section be a subsection of the "Life"?

Yes, it can! --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This has been done; at least, I think I nailed your concern. It seems to work well this way, but further advice is welcome. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chivers the writer: There are a few books and articles on Chivers himself. I'm curious why Watts is not used at all for this article, for example. I also checked out Chivers on the MLA database and found a few more articles. It seems it would be possible to write a little section on his poetry from these sources. For the article to broadly cover Chivers, I think it needs to address to his career as poet in a little more depth, not just his relationship with Poe.

The only thing stopping me is access to the books. They are relatively rare finds and, as of now, I don't have access to any particularly scholarly libraries. I hope to get my hands on them soon. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding some info as I find time based on Lombard's book. Hopefully, I'll be able to grab one of the other books as well but it won't be any time soon, I'm afraid! --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section is improved and I'm sure even more can be added to it. Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two soon separated due to alleged meddling by Frances Chivers Albert, the wife of the poet's uncle, prior to the birth of their daughter in 1828 - What kind of meddling?

Ah, the typical nebulous inconclusive type of description infamous from this period. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is from a quotation, it might be best to include that quotation, then. That would reassure readers, I think. Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has also been suggested their separation was due to abuse - What kind of abuse?

More of the same. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find a good clarification on this from Lombard! I think it may also explain the meddling better. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, we don't really know what kind of rumored abuse? Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though Chivers contributed to various newspapers and magazines, he was turned down by the Southern Literary Messenger in March 1835, which suggested he return to medicine and the "lancet and pill-box". - What was turned down, exactly? A story? Was he turned down for a position?

Sorry, I assumed it was clear. I'm referring to a poem here, as he was a poet. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, as attested to in an 1848 pamphlet titled "Search After Truth," (New York: Scholar's Facsimiles & Reprints, 1976) - There seems to be a mixing of citation styles. There are other examples of Harvard in the article - pick one style and stick with it.

Sorry, I didn't do extensive work standardizing the references added by others. An easy fix. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still see one in the "After Poe's death" section. Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Some pieces of information are repeated twice, such as the Poe quote about Chivers being the "best and worst poet". Since the article is so short, I don't think this kind of repetition is necessary.~~

I only noticed that for the first time today. I don't think I intended the repetition; will fix. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This site makes me just the littlest bit nervous. They say that their pieces are fact-checked and written by qualified people, but then they don't publish the name of the author so that can be verified. If the information available from this source is available from a more reliable source, I would use the more reliable source. If it is not available anywhere else, I would be skeptical of it.

Those enotes refs were added by another editor; I tried to replace whenever I could with more legitimate sources. I can keep looking as we go along. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No enotes references exist in the current version! --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to put this article on hold. If the editors need help obtaining sources, I can certainly help with that. Awadewit (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking a look! I'm in the middle of a 300-mile move and currently living out of boxes so I may be inactive until I settle into the new job. I'll do what I can! --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have been able to acquire one of the Chivers biographies. I'm waiting to get my hands on it now. I'll be able to add lots of info from this book, I think. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit, considering my lack of speed in addressing your concerns/comments fully, feel free to fail (I promise not to take it personally) and I'll take the time to further improve before submitting again. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightdreary, I don't really care about the "seven day" deadline. Don't sweat it. Just keep improving the article and let me know when to rereview it. I don't want you to have to resubmit it! Wikipedia has no deadlines! Awadewit (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightdreary, I have been extraordinarily pleased to watch this page grow from the few sentences I wrote a year or so ago into the excellent article it is today, thanks mostly to your work. If there is anything that I may do to assist this article in receiving its nomination, please let me know. Algabal (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Algabal! Gotta love these (relatively) obscure figures! --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review ready Awadewit, if you are still watching this page, I think it's ready for your final review. I have followed your suggestions as best I could: I replaced the enotes references, combined the discussion on his relationship with Poe into the main biography, expanded information on his published works and writing style (I've also added more examples to his Wikisource page), and was able to expand the overall article just a bit. I hope to get a hold of some other sources as I continue to build and improve this article but I think it's ready for GA standards. I leave it in your capable hands. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best to get to it today! Awadewit (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article meets the GA standards. I look forward to reading is expanded version! Awadewit (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]