Henry Wadsworth Longfellow 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 March 13, 2008 Good article nominee Listed January 24, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 24, 2017, and March 24, 2023.
Current status: Good article

This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Massachusetts High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as High-importance). Maine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaineWikipedia:WikiProject MaineTemplate:WikiProject MaineMaine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Poetry High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hi, I have the picture of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow 1807-1882
`The Perry Pictures, Boston Edition
Copyright, 1899 by E. A. Perry

Anybody interested? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.116.170 (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the picture at the bottom (legacy section) is signed as showing Longfellow in 1893. But according to the data he's been dead for 11 years at the time! There must be a mistake! --Maxl (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a simple misunderstanding... The image was first printed in 1893, not taken in 1893, so that's the confusion. I will change the caption. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the qualified Poe comments, all we have are negatives here. But HWL was highly regarded during his life-time. Can't some-one look at the critical literature of the time and find a truer refelction of his appraisal? Kdammers (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It's a work-in-progress. I'm basically re-writing the majority of the article, which will probably take a couple weeks (take a look at the edit history to see how much it's improved in a couple days... I think I'm off to a good start!). It's good to have the negative stuff, of course, but the balance will certainly be the positive (normally it's the other way around, but this is just what I have found thus far). If you have sourced information regarding a positive critical response, feel free to add it in. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the recently added section on Quotations. For one thing, none of the quotes were sourced, nor was the line that they were "commonplace" today. Besides that, there's a link to Wikiquote. I think that's enough. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

An overall excellent article (small quibble, but the "list of works" section seems to need some organization; seems to me that first unlabelled section has some poetry collections and the Dante translation in it. These should be moved into the appropriate section. Maybe also a labelled column for books and/or plays?)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Good job on the logical quotes, be careful with quotations (short works) and italics(long works, including epic poems). The prose is mostly good, although some parts seem stilted and choppy (ex. the section about the confusion over the manuscript of the play seems odd, extraneous, and unclear). Try to achieve a better balance between short sentences and compound and/or complex sentences.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   more sources are never bad, esp. if this is to go on to FAR. More sources would also help expand the criticism and writing section, which is important.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   again, this article may need more analysis/interpretation of his writing for FAC

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

--Malachirality (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for taking the time. I'm concerned with the number of sources myself. Unfortunately, before Calhoun, Mr. Longfellow had gone several decades without a proper biography. Most of the sources I could've gotten my hands on were circa 1906 and not written in a very scholarly manner. I'll keep an eye out, though, and I'll definitely try expanding the sections you suggest. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The The New Yorker called him "one of the very few in our time who has successfully aimed in putting poetry to its best and sweetest uses" "

I don't see how this can be right - The New Yorker started in 1925. Is some other periodical meant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.203.42 (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that! It was a periodical called the New-Yorker, and has nothing to do with the more modern The New Yorker. I made the change. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor with a rotating IP address keeps splicing information about Hiawatha into the "Style" section of this article. Though I have no particular qualms about the (irrelevant) information this person is adding, they are adding into a phrase that is already sourced. As the current footnote does not support their addition, it would be misleading to put that information before the footnote. Instead, this editor should add it after the footnote, with a new source footnoted. As this is not being done, I will continue to revert, as I have done about a half dozen times now. I'm trying to maintain the integrity of this GA-class article, and misrepresenting its verifiability will certainly compromise its quality. I would also hope that this anonymous IP consider reading the edit history of this page before he adds it again, so he can see what's going on. If not, I can only hope they read this talk page. Here's hoping, anyway... --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone still working on this page? It is so close to being complete. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still here, patching it up here and there. It's on my backburner as far as "things to do" (literally; I have a section on my user page). Let me know what you think and where expansion is still needed; I'd appreciate the feedback! --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was his religion?? 75.86.223.123 (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian, though he was not particularly open about his religious beliefs as he considered them a private matter. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldnt that be noted then??75.86.223.123 (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it's important... and easily sourced. --Midnightdreary (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a litterature specialist, but wanted to give my contribution for a poem of Longfellow on Skanderbeg. You may read it "here" and use it for the article. I noticed that none of the sources provided in the article included this poem, please correct me if I'm wrong. --sulmues (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this poem is particularly canonical for Longfellow; he wrote over 300 poems and not all will be represented in this article. It is, however, already on Wikisource, which is the depository for all his works on the Wikimedia project. --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it. Thank you! --sulmues (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was he really born both in Portland, Maine and part of Massachusetts? LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowcharge (talk • contribs) 18:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh... yes. Portland was part of Massachusetts when Longfellow was born in 1807, before the independent state of Maine was established. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Lepore (12/19/2010). "Paul Revere's Ride Against Slavery". NY Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
is a good reference if anyone wants to add anything about his abolitionist beliefs.--Javaweb (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb[reply]

That's an opinion piece so I'm not sure that's the best source for much. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The NY Times civil war opinion pieces usually have citations at the end can themselves be searched for references. The references rather than the opinion piece itself would be cited in Wikipedia. However, in this case, there were no references, only the name of her latest book. Searching snippets of her book online, it doesn't say much about Longfellow .--Javaweb (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb[reply]

I suppose it would be okay to include her views from that column, so long as it's "Jill Lepore suggests that..." With that said, Longfellow's anti-slavery views are fairly well known so I'm pretty sure there are other sources. Do you think the article under-represents these views? Should we expand on them? --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has the right balance.Javaweb (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Javaweb[reply]

? worth mentioning: Longfellow came to Europe for the last time in 1868, with his three daughters. He visited Alfred Tennyson on the Isle of Wight, had tea with Queen Victoria and saw Liszt in Rome. [1] Michael P. Barnett (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that trip is important to telling his complete biography here. As I understand, it was part of his son Ernest's honeymoon after his wedding to Harriet Spellman, and the whole family went along (including uncle Thomas Gold Appleton). I didn't know about the tea with the Queen, though I know he met her. We'd need a better source, though. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there is a Legacy section, so this might be able to be included in that, but I'm wondering if there could be a section or paragraph about Longfellow's influence on other writers and poets? In particular, (albeit, this is a very specific and, perhaps, weaker example) it would appear that his poem "Tegner's Drapa" was very influential on C.S. Lewis (see Surprised by Joy, page 11).
Although I would love to see that sort of minor link in the article, I'm not certain it is necessary; but I do think some sort of "influence" section, alongside the legacy, would be important. I'm curious myself to see who Longfellow influenced! Thanks! Sir Ian (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a possibility to include something like this but I would caution against starting a simple list. If it doesn't merit a full sentence or two, then the influence is not strong enough. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Longfellow's first wife is mentioned in the section "European tours and professorships." Since she doesn't have anything to do with either, I'd like to suggest that this part be moved down to the mention of his second wife. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'd agree with a move like that. The article, as it is, is impressively chronological (and coherent that way). The subheadings are mostly assistance in navigation, not necessarily complete summations of the information. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quote calling him "nothing more than a hack imitator of the English Romantics" seems a bit much. The entire evaluation of his work seems too negative and worse yet, is all couched in praise for other poets with different styles. There should be a degree of balance in the section and there is not. 184.21.186.73 (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first two paragraphs of that section focus on positive response. The second two paragraphs show the negative responses. Following that, there is an entire section on his legacy where he is repeatedly praised. If anything, the balance tips more positive than negative. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the end of the section is uniformly negative and flatly says that his "popularity rapidly declined, beginning shortly after his death and into the twentieth century". To say that his general popularity "rapidly declined" after 1882 seems an overstatement. The concluding paragraph also seems wrong in that while it talks about his "popularity" in general, it makes arguments strictly in terms of his popularity with academics. The paragraph seems to be correctly reflecting declining opinions among academics after 1882, but its written with wording that suggests a broader decline. 12.12.144.130 (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this edit, undoing the re-addition of a lead section paragraph which appears to be a too-close paraphrase of material appearing at AlexHenry Wadsworth Longfellow (1994). Tales of a Wayside Inn. Lulu.com. p. 105. ISBN 978-1-105-94551-9. Longfellow wrote predominantly lyric poems, known for their musicality and often presenting stories of mythology and legend. He became the most popular American poet of his day and also had success overseas. He has been criticized, however, for imitating European styles and writing specifically for the masses. A slightly different (but still too close, IMO) paraphrasing was inserted into the article in this March 2008 edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have it backwards. Again, I assure you that I wrote this paragraph years ago -- before the source you found online was published. It's extremely possible that they took it from Wikipedia. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some assistance: The version approved as a good article in 2008, which significantly predates the self-published source from 2012. Please assume good faith next time. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for highlighting this. I had relied on this info from Google Books page about the source I cited above, which I read as identifying that book edition/variation as ISBN 1105945510, 9781105945519, and which says that it was published in 1994 by Lulu Lulu Press, Inc. Google Books search results here seem to confirm that. However, I see that the Edition notice page, here, inside the Google Books preview material is dated 2012, and that the WP article on Lulu Press says that they were founded in 2002. The material at issue here appears in undated endmatter which follows Longfellow poems republished in that book. I don't know enough about the mechanics of book publishing to resolve that apparent discrepancy but, for present purposes, it looks like I was wrong about this. My apologies. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question to you 2409:4056:E17:E2FB:BA87:3B86:6F7D:C5F8 (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone can understand this question. This section is for discussing ways to improve the associated Wikipedia article, not general conversation. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second stanza from 'Serenade' were flattered with an SATB musical setting by Australian composer Ernest Edwin Mitchell [2] Tradimus (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing. Are you suggesting this information be added to the article? If so, I think it seems a bit trivial and does not add much understanding to the subject of this article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have an opinion about that. Is a statement of the impact usual? Perhaps ask whether these publications are encyclopaedic fact? I believe the same lines were covered by Neil Diamond. I believe a Longfellow citation can be traced from a link mention in the composer page 43.230.176.5 (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]