Talk:Bruce Chatwin/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 18:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Notachatterbox (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

General comments

• Several sections have titles like Chatwin's books. Why not provide a Further link to the book article(s) at the start of each such section?

 Done Notachatterbox (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• There is an unusually large number of references in the lead. The minimum for a lead section is zero, if the article is fully cited and topics are not specially controversial. I wouldn't have thought many of the lead's claims needed citing in situ, given they are also in the article, though perhaps one or two of the Aids claims do need to have their refs repeated in the lead. I suspect instead, given that the lead is cited differently from the rest of the article, that it grew in the telling rather than being written from and as a summary of the article's body. Perhaps therefore the whole lead needs to be revisited, with all the refs candidates for moving to the article body? For example, while the Harvey quote is fine, why does it not form a part of the Influence section? I suspect it would be best to reconsider the whole thing, with the default position being that every link belongs in the article body, to be repeated if and only if essential in the lead; and much the same applies to the text that accompanies those links: otherwise, the lead is just a plain-text summary, in 3 or 4 paragraphs.

I've removed the references and re-written the lead. I moved some information, such as the Harvey quote. I know some of the information I have left in the lead also needs to be incorporated in the rest of the article, but any feedback on the revision to the lead thus far is welcome.Notachatterbox (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's already much better.

• The most obvious thing that the lead doesn't say is that he was hugely admired both by the public and by other writers for the quality of his prose; this is mentioned in the body of the article. Similarly, his influence on other writers ought to be mentioned.

• The article relies heavily on Nicholas Shakespeare's biography, with only a few uses of Nicholas Murray and Susannah Clapp. Shakespeare obviously did an excellent job, but it seems surprising that Murray isn't cited a little more.

I've added another citation from Murray and will try to incorporate more if I can. Notachatterbox (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there's probably room for more, and for some more evidence of his importance and influence.

• Perhaps Under the Sun should be marked as edited by Elizabeth Chatwin in the references.

 Done Notachatterbox (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No it wasn't! But I've done it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

That's odd--I did make the edits and they were showing up as changed, but thank you for following up! Notachatterbox (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• I found the formatting of the External links confusing. They could either be like the References with Surname, Forename - only not all have named authors; or they could (preferably) be "Topic", description as is fairly common for External links, with "by X.Y." if need be. As it stands, the initial name is sometimes the topic and sometimes the author.

I've made some revisions to the links. Notachatterbox (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Specific comments

• "Following his death, Chatwin was criticised ... and caused some critics ..." Maybe this could be better expressed.

 Done Lead re-written.Notachatterbox (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Actually, I wonder if this whole paragraph on Aids, complete with quotations and refs, is correctly placed in the lead. Maybe it should go into the Illness section, with a short summary of that section in the lead.

 Done Lead re-written. Notachatterbox (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• I fixed the URL in ref 215.

• "While The Times did not accept those photographs for publication, it offered Chatwin a job." Perhaps "it did offer ..." would be better.

 Done Notachatterbox (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Chatwin experienced a tension between the desire to own beautiful items but also had a strong need ..." might be better worded.

I've re-written this sentence. Notachatterbox (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Francisco Felix de Sousa" should be "Francisco Félix de Sousa". Or Souza.

 Done Notachatterbox (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Illness and final works: too many sentences begin "Chatwin". Perhaps some "He"s might alternate with the surname.

 Done Notachatterbox (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Influence: I wonder whether there should not be two subsections here, one on Influence during his life, and one on Posthumous influence (or Legacy; things like the clothing label might be Legacy, while literary discussions of his personal life might be Posthumous influence). The two were and perhaps remain very different. If so, and perhaps in any case, more is needed on how he was regarded during his life.

Started to re-work this section, with more work to do. Any feedback is welcome. Notachatterbox (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Already better.

I suggest you look at Rory Stewart's Walking with Chatwin in the NY Review of Books; Stewart is another very personal and unusual writer (a diplomat and politician as well as a travel writer), so anything he says is rather relevant.

I think, too, you ought to read Chatwin's introduction to Robert Byron's The Road to Oxiana as that book was certainly a powerful influence on Chatwin (either for this section or elsewhere). ((http://)fivebooks.com/interview/nicholas-shakespeare-on-bruce-chatwin/ Nick S. thinks so too, and suggests how 4 other books were also influential.])

For Chatwin's importance, David Taylor's Connoisseur of Exile, Exile as Connoisseur is as tendentious as the title sounds, but you might get one or two points from it - he's no Flaubert, but "an impressive development of the formal possibilities of post-imperial travelogue" (!) is a remark with some sort of heft.

Did you see Jonathan Chatwin's* Anywhere out of the world: The work of Bruce Chatwin? Surely worth a look. Press the "+" on the page to get a description. *No relation.

Thank you for these suggestions! I will take a look at them. Notachatterbox (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Influence: the coverage of In Patagonia is split between 2 paragraphs; that of Songlines over 3 or perhaps 4. This comes across as a bit staccato; please read it through and consider whether the flow could be smoothed. In particular, "Chatwin had failed to disclose to these individuals his intentions.[204] /// The Songlines is a controversial book." feels rather sudden to me.

• Works: the last 3 books might usefully be shown as posthumous, perhaps using a subsection.

 Done Notachatterbox (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Aboriginal walkabout: these are quite problematic terms. I think walkabout should at least be linked, and it almost needs scare quotes ("...") as it can be a term of abuse. Something similar applies to Aboriginal: perhaps "indigenous Australians" would be safer, but I recognise that we don't want to be anachronistic here.

 Done I linked walkabout and added Australian. I did a little reading and it seems as though Aboriginal is preferred to indigenous. Notachatterbox (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• "those individuals on whom Chatwin had based his characters" -- does feel a little forced. Perhaps we might be allowed "the people Chatwin had based his characters on".

 Done Notachatterbox (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• "he was viewed as a liar and his work dismissed by some critics" should perhaps be "some critics viewed him as a liar and dismissed his work", avoiding both the passive and the awkward jump between the verb phrases.

 Done Notachatterbox (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Moleskine books: is it implied that the company was founded with that name because of Chatwin? At the moment it's ambiguous.

 Done Notachatterbox (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Overall

This is a likeable, readable, and informative article with excellent citations and a clear structure. I'm sure the mainly small comments here can quickly be addressed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Now that the comments have been addressed, and the discussion of influence has been extended, I think the article is clearly up to GA standard. There is certainly room for more, but since "the main points" have been covered and are properly cited, I'm awarding a pass now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to review this article! I have appreciated your comments; they have been quite helpful and have made this experience a positive one. Notachatterbox (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)