Talk:Herman Melville

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Herman Melville/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Alcmaeonid (talk · contribs) 11:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  • The lede section is too long and contains too many biographical details, duplicated below. Needs telescoping.
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  6. Overall:

Start of assessment[edit]

Thanks for taking on this long article. I did the trim to the lead section which you requested and look forward to your next set of comments. CodexJustin (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Herman Melville:  Spintendo  08:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Information to be added or removed: Requesting a change to the first mention of Nathaniel Hawthrone in this Article (third paragraph). Not only is he listed only by last name / without a corresponding WikiLink, the sentence assumes that the reader has prior knowledge of Hawthrone and his relationship with Melville. However a clickable link and background on Hawthorne isnt listed till later in the article. Without context of his identity and their relationship a reader who is less familiar with the subject (such as myself) could easily be confused. Explanation of issue: If I was more knowledgeable on the subject I would re-word the sentence and properly introduce Hawrhorne, but I don't want to further dilute the article

Herenow44 (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Article has added a short addition on Hawthorne and Melville friendship. CodexJustin (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Argento Surfer's review[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'm taking over the review since the original reviewer has not edited in some time. Due to the length of the article, it may take some time for me to complete my notes.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Is there a reason for the empty See also section?
    Nice of you to pick up on this review. The See also section has not been edited since Sept 2015 and appears to have been kept as residual from use prior to that time. I am removing it for now unless this review determines it needs to be returned. CodexJustin (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    What's the inclusion criteria for the selected bibliography?
    This was inherited from a previous editor and it is selective and not complete. Other than verifying them as existing books on Melville, they do not appear to have an obvious systematic center and appear as a general and partial directory for further Melville reading. It can be abridged or expanded as needed. CodexJustin (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    My first instinct would be to limit it to works that have their own article, but I'll let you decide if that's a good criteria. I'll be ok with just about anything that isn't arbitrary. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Same thinking here. The section is meant as a supplement to the Sources section directly above it and it seems to be useful as long as it is not redundant to anything already listed in the Sources section. CodexJustin (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Do we know what caused Stanwix's death? Malcolm's death is explained in the lead, but the lead and body are oddly silent about Stanwix.
    Cause of Stanwix death now added, along with a short quote from the 2017 NYRB article on his life which is now linked there. CodexJustin (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    The sentence that starts "In 1826, the same year..." reads like a mishmash of random facts. Was contracting Scarlet Fever a significant event? If not, I'd recommend removing that part.
    Scarlet Fever fever was 25% mortality around 1900 before penicillin was available. Since there was a non-trivial death risk, it seems worth a mention. CodexJustin (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    There are two quotes from Allan to Gansevoort. Are these from the same letter? The contents and structure suggest they're separate communications.
    The previous editor of that seems to be primarily concerned with the sibling rivalry between the two brothers. He collects some evidence though no conclusion about whether one brother or the other was smarted or more distinguished during their grade school years. If you have a good idea to shorten this then let me know. A shorter version of this paragraph might work. Open to your suggestions here. CodexJustin (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    I have some ideas, but it's important to know if the description of Herman as "very backwards in speech" was written prior to the "rapid progress during the 2 last quarters". The context of the former is very different if it was said in isolation compared to if it was juxtaposed with the latter. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    The previous editor was apparently filling in available details for their childhood education, since the main point appears to be that they did not go on to get law degrees, or medical degrees, or advanced college degrees. In the absence of an advanced education to report for Melville, the previous editor accumulated available comments about the grade school years for the 2 siblings, with one ahead of the other at some point in time and with the other excelling at other times, somewhat changeably as happens with grade school children. The main point, I believe, is a lack of advanced college education for the siblings. CodexJustin (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    I assume Peter Gansevoort Jr is Herman's maternal uncle?
    Maternal grandfather, as identified in the second paragraph of that same section with a link to the Wikipedia article for PG. CodexJustin (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
    The Peter Gansevoort linked as the grandfather is the son of Harman Gansevoort. Peter Gansevoort (politician) was the general's son, but he doesn't appear to have used the Jr? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    That appears to be the case as presently preferred in the Wikipedia article for him. He apparently did not use the 'Jr'. CodexJustin (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    "a fire destroyed Gansevoort's skin-preparing factory" - Why is Delbanco's account of this period parenthetical? Is the situation at this time disputed, or was Delbanco just wrong? If the former, the parenthesis should be dropped to avoid the impression of favoring one view over another. If the latter, I recommend removing for being inaccurate or putting in inside a note.
    Dropping parenthetical aside by previous editor as not directly relevant to a Melville biography. CodexJustin (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    "A Complete History of Connecticut (1797 or 1818)" - is the publication date unknown? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    This is a volume I and volume II question. Vol. I was published in 1797, with Vol. II published in 1898. Vol. I covers 160-1713, while Vol. II says it extends this as 1630-1764. CodexJustin (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    Citation needed for the honeymoon and house on 4th Avenue
    Adding NYTimes article for MELVILLE ASHORE, By Edward Tick, Aug. 17, 1986, with link. CodexJustin (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    "all of them effusive, profound, deeply affectionate" - who describes the letters this way?
    In John Bryant edited Melville volume. The Bezanson essay is cited by page number. CodexJustin (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    I trimmed some excessive detail from "1850–1851: Hawthorne and Moby-Dick". Please review to ensure I did not inadvertently remove something important.
    Trim works I think. Two paragraphs seems about right since Hawthorne was a significant colleague at that time. CodexJustin (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    "his autumnal masterpiece," - who is being quoted here? Was this how Melville described it?
    Confirming Milder as the correct source for this quote and the page number in confirmed. CodexJustin (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    "similar to Melville in his younger days" - I assume this is opinion, but it's presented as fact. It needs to be attributed inline or removed.
    No problem for you to drop this if you prefer. There are many other attributed quotes which typify Melville's writing in the article. CodexJustin (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    The stuff on Billy Budd in the section "1877–1891: Final years" isn't sourced.
    Citation added for Billy Budd. CodexJustin (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    "Melville turned the short chapter into an instrument of form and concentration" - This opinion should be attributed in-line, not shared in Wikipedia's voice.
    The wording is now simplified. CodexJustin (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  1. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Arvin (1950) appears as a reference in different forms (15, 31, 72, 82, and 90). Given the lack of page numbers, is there a reason these are split?
    Pulling it all together for consistency under cite #15 in current list. The old cite numbers are now shifted as a result of consolidating to the current cite number 15 for Arvin. CodexJustin (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    Ref 185 just has the url and title fields completed. Website, author's name, and access-date should be added.
    Currently at cite #183, and I have added the author info and access date. CodexJustin (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    no concern
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Earwig had one serious concern, but upon review it was due to book titles, common phrases, and shared quotes. No concern.
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  3. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  4. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    no concern
  5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    no concern
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Not a serious concern, but what's the red can in File:Herman Melville Headstone 1024.jpg? Am I missing its significance? Is there a version without it? Pinging uploader @Anthony22: for comment.
    @Argento Surfer: Not hearing form Anthony22 regarding the tombstone marker image, which looks like a optional image since the article already has the newspaper announcement image for this. It can be deleted. There are now 2 versions the lead section, the short version I placed today and the one which you have already read. Let me know which version of the lead section you prefer, and the optional image of the tombstone can be deleted if the article looks better without it. CodexJustin (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    It doesn't need to be deleted, I was just curious about it. If it's a candle or something left by a fan, that might be worth noting in the caption. Short of a response from Anthony, there's not much action to take here. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Argento Surfer: End of month checking in to see if there is any progress one way of the other, what time frame for next edits. CodexJustin (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry, I haven't had more than a few minutes to spare here and there. I think work is slowing down, and I plan to dedicate at least 30 minutes to this tomorrow. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
  • @Argento Surfer: Thanks for taking this over from Alcmaeonid, are you still making progress? If you're still busy with work, let me know if you'd like someone else to take over. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Work is starting to slow down, but it will probably be a week or two before I have time to devote to a thorough review. I've been keeping in touch with the nominator, and he's been very patient so far. If you want to take over, I won't protest. You can see my notes above. I noted issues as I read through the prose, and I left off in the section 1850–1851: Hawthorne and Moby-Dick. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Glad things are starting to slow down for you. I'm in no rush to take over; I just wanted to check in because the review has been open a while. Thanks for the work you've done so far. Wug·a·po·des​ 23:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Casually checking in for the start of September. If you might have noticed there was a very large page count spike on August 1st for the Melville article and most of the readers at that time seemed to find the article to be in pretty good shape. This might suggest that we are being overly cautious in moving the article to GA-status if over 10K editors found the article to be in fairly good condition during the page count spike on August 1st. I'm ready to continue with the section by section assessment/improvement, but is it possible that the care being shown over the past few months here is going past simply GA-assessment and towards FA-issues usually taken up at the FA-level. Is the article closer to having reached GA-level than either of us thought? At the same time, I'm ready to continue with the article assessment/improvement as previously and as you feel is best suited. CodexJustin (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
          • CodexJustin, a B-class article, which is where the article was most recently assessed, is typically satisfying to readers, and is in "pretty good shape". A GA, however, has to meet all of the specified criteria in order to be listed as a GA, and the typical reader isn't going to be analyzing at that detailed a level. The review process needs to be followed until the article has been fully checked and the necessary emendations made. I am sorry this has taken so long; Argento Surfer just added a couple of additional adjustments needed today. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
            • Thanks for that comment. I am going along with Argento's timetable for this review. He has been quite busy with his own GA article which was recently passed. Wugapodes also made a useful note above. CodexJustin (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
              • @Argento Surfer: Nice set of edits from yesterday and I think I have them all cited now. Ready to move on to next section of the article with you when you are ready. CodexJustin (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Wugapodes' review[edit]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

  1. "two decks and three masts, but no galleries." decks and masts are linked, but galleries are not. I'm unfamiliar with the term and a link would be very helpful for readers since I assume you're not referring to an art gallery.
    This is actually quarter gallery which is now linked in the article. CodexJustin (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  2. "the Acushnet regularly gammed" what does gammed mean here? Can it be phrased in a less technical way? The general biography should be broadly accessible in general.
    Cooperative whale hunting between 2 or more ships. CodexJustin (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  3. "In November, he signed articles on the Nantucket whaler Charles & Henry " what does "signed articles" mean?
    That is, he contracted to be a seaman for six months. Wording adjusted in article. CodexJustin (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  4. The second and third paragraphs of "Successful writer", essentially from "Melville extended the period..." to the end of the second block quote, needs to be rethought. The GA issues is that the two block quotes feel unfocused and like coatracks; I'm not sure what the relevance of Melville's review of Hawthorne's book has for Melville's own career (perhaps it is important, but that should be made clear). The block quote of Hawthorne's largely repeats the inline quote and adds little to the content. What is important about the Hawthorne review is that MElville's contemporaries, not just modern academics, praised this book which is not clear from the text and gets lost in extensive quotation extolling the noble savage trope which modern academics would probably criticize rather than praise. There are some prose issues but those will probably be sorted out in the course of addressing this point.
  5. The use of "bemused" in "Pleased but slightly bemused..." is opaque. Readers familiar with "amused" but not "bemused" will likely misinfer the meaning and be confused by the word in context. Better to choose a more common synonym.
  6. This sentence is rather confusing and I'm having trouble understanding its purpose: "The two corresponded until 1863, and sustained a bond for life: in his final years Melville "traced and successfully located his old friend"." What is the significance of 1863? Is it when one of them died? If not, what does "sustained a bond for life" mean if Melville was able to locate this person in "his final years" of c.1890? The following sentence describes a second book that seems to have no relation to this information, what is the connection or should it be a separate paragraph?
  7. "To get a divorce, she would then have to bring charges against Melville, believing her husband to be insane." Did this part of the plan occur? Did any part? This is an interesting chapter that should be a little more clear.
  8. In the "Final years" section, what's the difference between a legacy and inheritance? Previously the article spoke of inheritances but now of legacies; are they different and if not can the usage be standardized?
The previous editor preferred legacy to discuss his wife's benefits, and inheritance to discuss what Melville received from his own family. CodexJustin (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  1. The general writing style takes too long to get to the point. The first paragraph really should be an overview of what constitutes his style. The specifics of when and how it developed can be explained later in the section.
Some of the narrative needed to be expanded, and some needed to be shortened. I have done both in the current version. Let me know if more is needed. CodexJustin (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  1. "For Berthoff, added "seriousness of consideration" came at the cost of losing "pace and momentum"." This is a sentence fragment.
This sentence from a previous editor is now rewritten. CodexJustin (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  1. The general narrative style section feels like it has far too many quotes. Both pull quotes which clutter the page, and in-text quotes. The quotes in prose cause readers to jump in and out of encyclopedic voice which disrupts the flow, and it winds up being more confusing than if the main points were simply summarized and stated outright in wikivoice. Ignoring the the name, you may find WP:QUOTEFARM a useful read on this problem.
The Quotefarm has been reduced in several places, which the previous editor appear to like to apply. It should look better now since I have cut back on the quotes being used. CodexJustin (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  1. "only one sixth of his Biblical allusions can be qualified as such" antecedent isn't clear here; what is "qualified as such"? Qualified as allusions or qualified as (stated in the part not quoted here) direct quotation? Presumably as direct quotation, but this can be reworded to fix the ambiguity.
Melville's adaptation of biblical language and symbols is often not acknowledged by Melville. He prefers to directly integrate his adaptations of biblical text directly into his own narratives. CodexJustin (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  1. "far more unmarked than acknowledged quotations occur" I'm not sure what this means.
Wording there is now clarified. Melville was rather direct in adapting biblical passages to his own needs in writing his own prose and narratives. This should be more clear in the rewrites I have just added. CodexJustin (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  1. Are the footnotes of the bock quote taken from Wright's work verbatim? This gets into the realm of extensive copying and close paraphrasing, and I think it would be better to simply quote melville's work without the annotations. The important parts can be summarized in following text, and it stylistically improves the work since readers will not be confronted with underlines and a sea of little blue letters.
These passages have just been cut-back by me and let me know if more is needed. The blue links to the Biblical allusions can also be cut-back if they are distractions. I'm not sure that blue links to the individual books of the gospels and of the Bible are really needed. Let me know if it needs even more adjustment. CodexJustin (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • In the lead, the juxtaposition of sentences "In 1867, his eldest child Malcolm died at home from a self-inflicted gunshot. Clarel: A Poem and Pilgrimage in the Holy Land was published in 1876, a metaphysical epic." is jarring. Ideally the prose should flow slightly better; is that work related to the death of his children in some way? It's implied by the prose but not clear.
Reworded for better narrative flow. CodexJustin (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "in a family of Dutch extraction" interesting turn of phrase; could it be simplified so the meaning is more obvious to readers?
Changed to a discussion of the family heredity. CodexJustin (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "the Dutch Reformed version of the Calvinist creed of her family." This is difficult to understand, can it be stated more simply?
Changed to a discussion of the biblical orientation within that denomination. CodexJustin (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "severe Protestantism" This has negative connotations for me, is that intended? What is meant by "Severe"?
Changed to a discussion of the increased emphasis on biblical reading in that denomination. CodexJustin (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The felicity of Melville's early childhood," what does this mean?
    • That entire paragraph is confusing in fact. All the info in there is interesting and worth including, but the loss of funds and care of his parents seem rather unrelated to each other and it's not clear how it is related to Melville's development.
These sentences can be rewritten and I have tried to update it. If a rewrite is needed just mention which sentences to give attention for enhancement. CodexJustin (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Why are these sentences important? "When Melville's paternal grandfather died on September 16, 1832, Maria and her children discovered Allan had borrowed more than his share of his inheritance, meaning Maria received only $20 (equivalent to $500 in 2018). His paternal grandmother died almost exactly seven months later."
Melville's family had to repair financial damage done by the father before his death. He did poorly with his money affairs. Text updated. CodexJustin (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Among the sample entries was "Pequot, beautiful description of the war with," with a short title reference to the place in Benjamin Trumbull's A Complete History of Connecticut (Volume I in 1797, and Volume II in 1898) where the description could be found." I cannot figure out what this sentence means.
Wording updated. Let me know if more rewriting of these sentences is needed. CodexJustin (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Interesting suggestion. Is there someone good at the Map workshop that I could approach about this? Even if this is optional, it sounds like an interesting option. CodexJustin (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Why did Lizzie's father relent and allow Melville to marry her?
This was a distinguished family, while Melville's family was not that well established by comparison. The wording could be tweaked or rewritten if its still not clear. CodexJustin (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Melville had high hopes that his next book would please the public and restore his finances." It's not obvious from the previous context that his finances were poor so this sentence jumps out of nowhere. A better transition from the previous section would benefit the article.
Adding a re-emphasis on his $3000 loan from his father-in-law to describe his difficult finances for clarity. CodexJustin (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


08:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC) Working my way through, got up to "Years at sea". Will continue, likely Wednesday but Friday at latest. Wug·a·po·des​ 08:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Those were very useful comments and cite tags, which I have attended to and I think I'm ready for the next round. Nice of you to get around to these so quickly. CodexJustin (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

08:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC) Didn't make as much progress as I had hoped, but finished "Years at sea" (really good section by the way). I have a busy weekend but should have time come Monday. Wug·a·po·des​ 08:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Those were interesting comments again, and the wording is now adjusted in the article. Looking forward to more comments when you return on Monday. CodexJustin (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

07:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Sorry for the slow progress. I'm up to "Unsuccessful writer". I should have more time tomorrow to continue, and worst case, with the US holiday coming up, I should have plenty of time next week. Wug·a·po·des​ 07:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Nice over-night edits which should now be up to date. I shall try to complete the bullet points before evening today. Holidays are just ahead. CodexJustin (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

22:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC) Finished the biography section and in general it's very good! The last sections in particular are very well written; I would recommend working on the first few sections so that they set the "cast of characters" a little better. At times it's not clear who is enduringly important (like Lizzie and Hawthorne) and who is important in that phase of life (like Toby) until later, so balancing that would improve the whole article. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments. I will give a further look at the Melville-Hawthorne passages to see if they might be expanded to cover some of these issues you raise here. Looking forward to your next set of comments with holiday week-end coming up. CodexJustin (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

07:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC) Slow but steady progress; it seems I have two screenfulls of prose left to finish which I should hopefully be done with by the end of next week. You've been working on things as they come in, so I'll look over those changes over once I finish up reading through the article. Wug·a·po·des​ 07:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The Quotefarm from the previous editor has now been cut back. Let me know if it needs more. Otherwise, it looks like the article is ready for the next section comments/improvements. CodexJustin (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Context and WikiLink Hawthorne[edit]

Moved to Talk:Herman Melville/GA1: This would be better handled by those performing the article's GA review. Please note that because this post was moved to a page which is transcluded here, the post will show up twice on the talk page. This is normal. I have placed the original post under the Extended content banner below to avoid any confusion. Regards,  Spintendo  09:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Extended content

Information to be added or removed: Requesting a change to the first mention of Nathaniel Hawthrone in this Article (third paragraph). Not only is he listed only by last name / without a corresponding WikiLink, the sentence assumes that the reader has prior knowledge of Hawthrone and his relationship with Melville. However a clickable link and background on Hawthorne isnt listed till later in the article. Without context of his identity and their relationship a reader who is less familiar with the subject (such as myself) could easily be confused. Explanation of issue: If I was more knowledgeable on the subject I would re-word the sentence and properly introduce Hawrhorne, but I don't want to further dilute the article Herenow44 (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Answered on review page. Article has added a short addition on Hawthorne and Melville friendship. CodexJustin (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

200th birthday[edit]

The article says "The 1919 centennial of his birth became the starting point of the "Melville Revival" with critics rediscovering his work and his major novels starting to become recognized as world classics of prominent importance to contemporary world literature." I've proposed putting the article on the main page for the August 1 bicentennial of his birth. Jonathunder (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)