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
