copyright dates updated

I changed "1995-2009" to "1995-2010" both in the HTML source for the front page and in the XSLT source for the inner pages.

~Brett

Australian Journal's 1869 Review of Poems by WW added

I have encoded and added the Australian Journal's 1869 Review of Poems by WW to the review section of the Archive.
<http://whitmanarchive.org/criticism/reviews/poems/anc.00345.html>

The review has been linked from the poems index here:
<http://whitmanarchive.org/criticism/reviews/poems/index.html>

-Bev

Review of the 1860-61 LoG from the New York Day Book Added

I have encoded and added the review of the 1860-61 Leaves of Grass that Eric Conrad discovered to the review section of the Archive (http://whitmanarchive.org/criticism/reviews/leaves1860/anc.00347.html).

- Vanessa

DHQ essay posted in "About the Archive"

Vanessa Steinroetter posted my essay from Digital Humanities Quarterly "Edition, Project, Database, Thematic Research Collection: What's in a Name?" in the "About the Archive" section of the site.

--Ken

Travis Brown, who works with Matt C. at U Texas, has added to the bibliography of scholarship all of the entries from the Giantvalley volume (1838-1941).

~ Brett

Error corrected in periodical printing of "Beat! Beat! Drums!"

I've corrected a typographical error in our transcription of the periodical printing of "Beat! Beat! Drums!" In the second stanza, I've corrected "Over the traffic of cites" to read "Over the traffic of cities."

--Liz

editorial policy statement revised

I have revised a paragraph of the editorial policy statement relating to correspondence. The paragraph which previously read, "Those letters for which the Archive has digital images have been freshly transcribed and edited, often for the first time. For now, we follow the practices of other editors of correspondence by remaining as unobtrusive as possible and presenting an inclusive text representing as nearly as possible a clean, reading version of the letter. We have not recorded deletions, noted authors' insertions, or attempted to duplicate the appearance of the original holographs. We have omitted letterheads and standardized the placement of salutations, signatures, and postscripts. These decisions have been made on a pragmatic basis and to create consistency among the materials presented. As we secure more digital images of original letters, and as we have time, we will update our XML files and encode all deletions and insertions. In the future, Archive users will have an opportunity to choose between two different ways of viewing the correspondence, either as clean, reading versions or as diplomatic transcriptions," now includes a sentence explaining our treatment of meta-commentary, "Those letters for which the Archive has digital images have been freshly transcribed and edited, often for the first time. For now, we follow the practices of other editors of correspondence by remaining as unobtrusive as possible and presenting an inclusive text representing as nearly as possible a clean, reading version of the letter. We have not recorded deletions, noted authors' insertions, nor attempted to duplicate the appearance of the original holographs. We have also omitted metacommentary in the form of cues such as "(over)" that were relevant to the reader of the original letter as a physical object but are more distracting than helpful in an electronic environment. We have omitted letterheads and standardized the placement of salutations, signatures, and postscripts. These decisions have been made on a pragmatic basis and to create consistency among the materials presented. As we secure more digital images of original letters, and as we have time, we will update our XML files and encode all deletions and insertions. In the future, Archive users will have an opportunity to choose between two different ways of viewing the correspondence, either as clean, reading versions or as diplomatic transcriptions."

~Liz