Talk:Tamerlane and Other Poems

Tamerlane and Other Poems 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 9, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

GA rating[edit]

I rated it a B and removed the GA status, the review was inadequate. cygnis insignis 10:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Actually, the article is still listed as a GA. You changed it only on the Poetry Wikiproject rating. Please explain why you think this article should no longer be listed as a GA. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facsimile[edit]

The 1941 facsimile was edited by T. O. Mabbott, not A. H. Quinn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.213.82 (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I confirmed this with the cited source and made the appropriate change. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh. is that happened. I gave it a verification, after that edit, and removed the note. Perhaps you want to add or change that, but giving the full citation of the work in question seems useful. cygnis insignis

I restored it back to the prior version. 3rd party references are considered more reliable sources, rather than sourcing to itself. I'm not sure about the rest of your comment, Cygnis ("oh. is that happened"). --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went to change it and thought the user must have done it. Then add that ref as well. I'm weary of your baseless blanket reverts, I'm reverting it cygnis insignis 16:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're referring to but the edit history is available. What revert? I restored the 3rd party source, reasoning is explained above (not "baseless"). If you want to add more, we can do that, I think. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That site is not a reliable source, neither is a primary source perfect, but it is that or remove it. cygnis insignis 16:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Okay, so the source's reliability is challenged; I won't stand up for it. But, if we add a new source we should remove any info that the new footnote does not verify. I still disagree about using a self-reference rather than a third-party source. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The Christies site has other supporting documentation, but primary sourcing does suck. I will try to find a better secondary ref. I agree it is a bit clumsy to insert it those as what seems to a supporting ref, which eapoe.org is, but the ultimate referent happens to be noteworthy and appears in the "notes" section of the article. Articles in other publications would note this in a bibliography or further reading, the latter would also suit me. cygnis insignis 17:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To answer another question of yours: I think the format "H L Poe" looks fine to me. I couldn't find a specific suggestion in the MOS but I might be missing it. If anyone has other thoughts, I'd love to hear 'em. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, I don't know if the stopped 'H. L. Poe' style is favoured - there is probably an archive full of unresolved debate about it somewhere. cygnis insignis 17:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, I guess I have no preference personally, though I do agree that the distinction of which Poe it refers to is important. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are say something about most paid for a first edition book of poetry, RS is tricky with current events - I'll try to get to some recent journals. cygnis insignis 18:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]