Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dorothy L. Sayers/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 December 2023 [1].

Dorothy L. Sayers

edit
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk 15:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy L Sayers was a fascinating person. Although she is best known nowadays as a crime novelist, she had several more strings to her bow – playwright, theological essayist, critic, and – most important to her – translator of Dante's The Divine Comedy. An excellent PR with much constructive input from Tim O'Doherty, Dudley Miles, UndercoverClassicist, Wehwalt and Serial Number 54129. Our grateful thanks to all of these. Any further comments would be most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk 15:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim O'D

edit

Putting down a marker for now. Comments will address the article past Early employment and first novel, 1916–1924, as I'd already commented about the previous parts at PR. Ping me after a few days if I still haven't commented. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, pinging as requested! - SchroCat (talk) 10:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, had actually forgotten about this (don't take that personally!):

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Cut to the core, etc...
  • This one is in the first section but remains my only nitpick left from PR: I think (Nell) needs to be clarified. My point was I didn't really understand what it meant at first: nickname, middle name ... ? I think it is a nickname given that she's referred to as Nell later down: if so, I'd just go with "Nell".
    OK, looking at MOS:QUOTENAME, I think that's probably fair (although I think the brackets works better. Still, the MOS suggests this way, so...) - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The series of Wimsey novels continued with Unnatural Death in 1927, and The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club in 1928 - is the comma needed?
    Blitzed. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • moved from London to the small Essex town of Witham - first time Essex has been mentioned in the body, maybe add a hyperlink.
    OK - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scholar George Saintsbury wrote an introduction to the book - wrote an indroduction or the introduction? Not trying to be smart here, if there was genuinely more than one.
    I think either are fine, regardless of the number (and I say that as someone whose immediate reflex is to use the definite article!). By way of example, if you do a search for "with an introduction by", you'll see multiple reliable and grammatical impeccable sources using this form.
  • 1930–1934 - any sort of description you can give this heading beyond the years? If it's too artificial and inorganic to invent one though, fully understand why you'd choose not.
    I think this may be forced. Her membership of The Detection Club and the introduction of Harriet Vane into her novels were the two main changes in those years, and it's an odd sort of pairing for a title - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I suspected. Happy with that.
  • The Scotsman called it a book to keep the most jaded reviewer out of bed until the small hours - feels a bit quote-y; is it?
  • The Liverpool Echo -> the Liverpool Echo
    Gone for consistency within the newspaper titles with a capitalised "The". - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why refer to Wimsey by his surname but to Vane by her forename?
    On this point I'm going to defer to Tim riley who wrote this part. - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It follows Sayers's practice. She occasionally gave him his full title – "Lord Peter Wimsey murmured: 'They all wrote down on their slates'", or half of it – "The Dowager Duchess made her way along the benches and squeezed in next to Lord Peter", but most of the time it's just his surname – "He fidgeted, and Wimsey frowned at him". Harriet is sometimes "Harriet Vane" in full, mostly just "Harriet" and never just Vane. Tim riley talk 09:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The use in this way is also in line with MOS:FAMILYNAME: "For fictional entities, use common names", and I think "Wimsey" and "Harriet" are classed as the common names in her work. - SchroCat (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dante and The Man Born to Be King, 1940s - no notes :-)
  • The Daily Sketch -> the Daily Sketch
    As above. - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 2021 study by Laura Mayall - who is she?
    Sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christian writing - also found nothing to complain about here, but confirming I have read it.

Will tackle the rest shortly. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent stuff - many thanks. Just one point left for TR to answer. - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philip L. Scowcroft - might want to introduce him.
  • "The second man ... seemed to wear the long-toed boots affected by Jew boys of the louder sort." - if this one could be put first while still making sense I'd go for that: we have Sayers being criticised for antisemitism in the first sentence, followed by two anti-black passages and then the antisemitic one last. Makes more sense, to me at least, to have the antisemetic one first as that's what's emphasised in the preceding sentence, followed by the anti-black ones (and, Christ Sayers! someone that religious should know better ... love thy neighbour etc).
  • Link whodunit? (reading down I see you've done this in Legacy - do it at first use?)
  • and, as at 2023, continues - WGHAT!! THIs ISN AN OUTRASGE!!1 (joke)

And that's me. Happy to support, even without waiting for comments to be resolved. In my eyes deserving of the gold star. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt

edit

Comment

edit

At the end of the section headed "Early employment and first novel, 1916–1924" we learn that at the age of 31 Sayers had a son whom she arranged to be fostered. It strikes me as very weird that she did not wish to live with or look after her own child. This presumably throws some light on the character of this deeply religious woman. I'm surprised this isn't more prominent in the article. Do the sources give more background? - Aa77zz (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is surprisingly little in most of the biographies about the matter. At least one biography omits any mention of the son except in a chronology ("1924: Gives birth to a son.") I think that as a single mother in the 1920s who had a child as a result of an affair with a married man, the scandal would have been deeply felt, particularly by her religious family. I don't think this was as uncommon as you may think for the time. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UC

edit

Support: all that's open here is minor, and the article is in great shape. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by for now in place of a proper review, which may follow:

  • When she was fifteen, her parents sent her to a boarding school ... Joining at the age of fifteen, rather than the normal eight, she was seen as an outsider by some of the other girls, and not all the staff approved of her independence of mind. Firstly, does anyone we know which school? Secondly, the ages confuse me a little: in most public/boarding schools, it's normal to join at thirteen from an outside prep school. An all-through school (I'm not sure how many of those there were in the 1900s) may do things differently, but I'd be surprised in the modern day to find a school where it was abnormal to join at that point. Is there any more digging to be done here? People's schools are generally the sort of thing that are a matter of record, if only because the schools themselves tend to remember and commemorate their famous alumni. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks UC. I've tweaked this a little. She was home educated until she was sent to Godolphin, so I've made sure that's clear now.
    In terms of the age of entry, I suppose it depends on the school, but I've tweaked it here to show it was Godolphin's normal age, rather than more generally. - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, their article seems to support that (or at least that 8 was normal in the 18th century). I still suspect it was a little less normal than that, but if the source says it, I've only got OR to go on here. A small point: the Salisbury school simply calls itself "Godolphin School", not the Godolphin, unlike the more famous one in London. UndercoverClassicist T·C 23:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi UC, I couldn't crowbar in another edit just to put another edit summary, so I'll answer your question here. Godolphin nearly put her off religion altogether (and didn't want to be confirmed at the time). Her "principal reason for choosing Somerville College rather than Lady Margaret Hall was that Somerville was undenominational", according to Brabazon, and this is partly because of the school. (I think we cover this in the relevant bit, but please let me know if it needs beefing up or tweaking a bit. - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes -- to me, that seems like a significant enough influence to stick it in the infobox (not to mention that the school nearly killed her off!). However, flicking through FAs on female writers, it seems pretty unusual to have a school there (or indeed any education at all) -- granted, much of that is because not all of those writers had a school career that we can reconstruct -- so I'm very happy to leave this one to nominator's discretion. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi UC, no pressure (honestly!) but were you still considering a more extensive review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very close to a Support, and would not want the process delayed on my account; my concerns and quibbles are minor. A few more (still not a full review!):
  • The marriage, happy at first, grew more difficult as Fleming's health declined: a slightly buried lede; do we know why and how Fleming deteriorated, or indeed roughly how old he was?
I've added a footnote on his various ailments, and (in the body) mentioned he had a stroke and was age 68 when he died. - SchroCat (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a verse and prose translation of the 12th-century poetic fragments The Romance of Tristan by Thomas of Britain.: consider "verse-and-prose" to be clear that it's not a) a verse and b) a prose translation. Do we want an of after fragments to clarify that the original poem isn't a set of fragments, but rather that only fragments of the complete work have survived?
Yes, both done. SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The series of Wimsey novels: cut series of, perhaps?
OK, done - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest wiktionary linking some of the more idiomatic or British terms in the article: shop talk stuck out to me, as did quite a few of the words Sayers used when describing her fellow writers' work in the footnote.
I've added a couple. Unsure of whether to include one for "rollicking" or not, but I think it may be OK from the context. - SchroCat (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth somehow clarifying the context of Sayers' comment about "not relying on Chinamen"?
Added a footnote about Fu Manchu. - SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • hoping to write a notable novel in the manner of: could perhaps cut notable as obvious (nobody sets out to write a novel undeserving of attention), or expand to exactly what she meant (one that would gain public recognition, or embody literary merit...?)
I've cut 'notable' - SchroCat (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviews were favourable without being laudatory: while laudatory does or can mean over-praising, I'd suggest a rephrase, as this will read as an oxymoron to many ("favourable without offering praise").
Gone with your suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - that wasn't a suggestion, but rather intended to show the problem! My point was that you can't really be favourable without offering at least some praise. Perhaps "moderately favourable", "favourable, but gave only qualified praise" or similar? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They really should instal a 'facepalm emoji' button on WP for me, it would be an overused facility, but there you go. Now understood and one of your actual suggestions used. - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would consider briefly introducing Waugh; we've set him up as a critic, but it's worth being clear, I think, that he walked the walk as well.
Yes - added. - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sayers originally intended that at the end of the book Wimsey would marry Harriet: why does Wimsey get a surname but Harriet a forename? This could be read as our article's voice placing more dignity upon the former.
It's per MOS:FAMILYNAME: "For fictional entities, use common names", and Sayers primarily referred to him as "Wimsey" and her as "Harriet".
  • but financial necessity led the author to postpone their union for another five novels while Wimsey provided his creator with a good income: I think this could be a bit clearer: we could have made it slightly more explicit that Sayers intended the Wimsey series to end (which was not a given if he retired: he could un-retire), but then decided against that because she needed money.
OK, that's reworked and the series end made more clear. - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sayers had never been conventionally beautiful: I'm a little uncomfortable with such a stark value judgement in Wikipedia's voice, and, to be honest, a little yucky about using that voice to pass judgement on women's beauty in any case.
I've put the judgement more onto Case's shoulders now, as it was her quote. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • three card trick: worth a link, as it's a MOS:IDIOM?
Yes, done - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the reviewer in The Liverpool Echo called Sayers "the greatest of all detective story writers", though worrying that her plots were so clever that some readers might struggle to keep up with them: worried is more grammatical here.
Yes, done - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kenney comments that much of Sayers's thinking on the mystery novel and literature generally can be gleaned from her reviews, which reveal much about her attitude to art: can we say anything about what this attitude was?
Not from Keeney, who doesn't clarify or expand on the point. I'll see if any of the other sources cover this specifically, without us having to resort to SYNTH or OR. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction to DLS's collected book reviews gives examples of her outlook. According to the editors her reviews "cast light not only on Sayers’ likes and dislikes as regards crime fiction and English prose writing, but also on her unforgettable personality. More than that, they tell us a great deal about Golden Age crime fiction, and its remarkable evolution during the time Sayers was writing". Sayers expected authors to write to the highest standards of prose and in a personal and recognisable style. In one review she set a little test for her readers, inviting them to identify the authors of six short passages. She frequently berated authors for clichéd situations and hackneyed plot devices (indistinguishable twins, voice of the deceased on gramophone record, death on stage from a gun loaded with live bullets instead of blanks and such like). But I think this is all rather too detailed for a general encyclopaedia article. We could possibly go so far as to say something like, "She expected authors to write excellent prose and to avoid situations and plot devices already used by other writers", and perhaps link that the existing footnote 6. Tim riley talk 17:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that would be a good summary. It sounds as though she was mainly interested in the prose being distinctive rather than simply good (after all, nobody expects people to write in bad prose) -- and therefore we come full circle to the point that she seems to have really valued originality and detested regurgitation. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I've done what you're both suggesting. Let me know if I've missed something or done it wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rev Theodore Venables: should Rev. not have a full stop as an abbreviation? I'd consider spelling out in full or using the abbr template.
I've added the template, but will demur on the full stop - I think we've consistently not used them throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miss Sayers' best: I'd MOS:CONFORM in another s here, as we've been otherwise consistent.
Yes, done - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sayers, who kept in close contact with her son, sent him an account of the demanding rehearsals for the opening, a milieu new to her: can we have his name again (and was she still pretending to be his cousin)?
I've added the name, but the 'cousin' question isn't clarified in any of the sources, as far as I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • to write a drama for performance in Canterbury Cathedral, following the staging there of T. S. Eliot's Murder in the Cathedral: did both the writing and the performance follow the staging?
I've dated Eliot's staging, which should make it much clearer. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the early weeks of the Second World War: could we avoid asking the reader to look this up: did she start the column in September, for example? I'd throw in if possible when the column started and when the war started (mindful that audiences in e.g. Spain, China and the US may have different expectations for the latter).
I've added the dates the articles ran between. As we say that was the early weeks, I think the context should be enough. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • a wry take on the eternal triangle. : I'd never heard it called that before, though I think love triangle is likely to be familiar to most of our audience. Not a problem as such, but consider clarifying.
Doesn't the link clarify things? - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • similarities in his outlook on the lack of faith, declining morality, dishonesty, exploitation, disharmony and other problems.: similarities to what -- her own perspective? Separately, not sure exactly what "lack of faith" means in this context, or whether it's straightforwardly a problem.
Tweaked to cover the 'similarities' aspect. In terms of the lack of faith, as both she and Dante were god-fearing christians, any lack of faith would have been a problem in its own right. (That's a little bit of OR there: the source doesn't expand enough for a clarifying note). - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure she saw the decline of Christianity as a problem, but I'm less sure that we can transfer that judgement into Wikipedia's voice. Compare something like "Wellington discussed his outlook on Irish people and other undesirables" -- we'd rightly change that to stick the judgement firmly on Wellington's shoulders. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked slightly to make it clear we’re talking about her opinions. How does that look now? - SchroCat (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've now got a buried lead (what were those opinions?). Perhaps something like "Sayers believed that her society suffered from a lack of faith [or: the decline of Christianity?], declining morality, dishonesty, exploitation, disharmony and other similar problems, and believed that Dante shared the same view of his own"? I feel as though I can get more out of the sentence if I swap it round (that is, put Sayers first, then Dante). UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • pleased theologians more than it pleased the actors: any idea why she felt it upset the actors?
I've added a quote from her about the "very stale and abstract" nature of the piece. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notices were excellent: not sure totally what this means: does notices mean the same as reviews?
Yes. I though it was a common enough term, but now swapped out. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After years of declining health her husband died at their home in Witham: I'd give his name again (it's been a while) and slightly rework the sentence to be clear that this happened in 1950, not merely after.
Now dated (and named) - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the image of Jeeves/Holmes really best on the left? I see one image "facing" left, the other (marginally) "facing" right: the strong readability preference is to go with right-align unless there's a good reason not to, and this one looks like a toss-up to me. Could consider swapping the order of the images to reinforce that.
I'll mull on that one. It's there partly to avoid a column of images down the right. I think I tried it in draft on either side (given both images have one party facing 'in' and one facing 'out'), and this looked better. Let me sleep on it - I'm have a preference for the left position on this, but I'm not entirely set on it. - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Strong_poison.JPG: source link is dead. Ditto File:DorothyLSayers_MuderMustAdvertise.jpg
  • File:Jeeves_in_the_Springtime_01.jpg: as this is on Commons, it needs a tag for country of origin
File:Strong_poison.JPG and File:DorothyLSayers_MuderMustAdvertise.jpg: Links for both updated (I've archived them as well)
File:Jeeves_in_the_Springtime_01.jpg and File:Dante_Domenico_di_Michelino.jpg both tagged (hopefully appropriately!)
Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

caeciliusinhorto

edit

Generally excellent, as I would expect given the collective level of experience that has already gone over this at peer review!

Some prose nitpicking:

  • "From the mid‐1930s Sayers wrote plays, most were on religious themes": maybe "... mostly on religious themes" would read better
  • "From the early 1940s her main preoccupation was translating the three books of Dante's Divine Comedy into colloquial English. She died unexpectedly at her home in Essex, aged 64, before completing the last of the three." I find "the last of the three" a little awkward; perhaps "... before completing the third book"?
  • "and college chaplain of Christ Church, one of the colleges of the University of Oxford": is the first "college" necessary? I would simply say "and chaplain of Christ Church..."
  • "an amount led Reynolds to describe him as 'far from wealthy'": I think you have a "that" missing here
  • "Reynolds considers Sayers was well placed to deal with Dante's rhymed couplets": couplets?!

And one factual query/nitpick:

  • "Her first novel Whose Body? was published in 1923. Between then and 1939 she wrote ten more, all of them detective stories, and all but one featuring the upper-class amateur sleuth Lord Peter Wimsey." Is this right? I count eleven Wimsey novels, plus The Documents in the Case and the four Detection Club collaborative novels.

An initial readthrough didn't bring up any concerns about the sourcing, and the article certainly seems comprehensive. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The FAC reviewer's vade mecum

edit

Normally, I'd probably support immediately because "all my points were addressed at PR". But, think only 50% of them were  ;) ——Serial 20:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's because she didn't learn campanology: she read up on it, but still made a couple of errors in the description. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to cause trouble you understand, but if you'll allow me to be me for a minute or two  :) ...Well, I think she read up on it sufficiently to "master an esoteric, and, to her, uncongenial discipline", to the extent of being able to "write out on paper a complete touch of Grandsire Triples or Kent-Treble Bob Major from the course-ends and observation calls". Rev Venables introduces the reader (and Wimsey) to C. A. W. Troyte, and she learned from him. It's true that she made errors; she also criticised herself for scientific inaccuracy in the Docs in the Case, and it's well known that her choice of murder weapon in Unnatural Death is almost an impossibility. I think, in the way you touch on thebaxckground to Documents, you should do something similar here; if she just learned French, for example, then it would be completely unnoteworthy, but one of the most obscure practices this country has ever produced, interlinking music and mathematics? Worth a punt (on the Isis, presumably!).
By the way, while I'm here—and I don't want to tread on PMC's toes—but there's some curious cites (now), e,g. 183–186. Just OCLC numbers? ——Serial 16:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was a bit odd, but they're citing the catalogue entry rather than the books themselves. (Which makes sense as the books are fiction and it would feel weird to cite fiction). It's unorthodox, but I don't see any reason not to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos: Well, if you think something's odd, ask at WT:FAC, that'll get an answer. The source review is governed by the featured article criteria. In this situation, criterion 2C, which mandates "consistently formatted inline citations". In any case, no exceptions are made for fiction (and in the Sources/Books section, DLS's fiction is fully referenced anyway!). Also, they're not to fiction: Dorothy L. Sayers : a bio-bibliography, a thesis; Hitchman's Such a Strange Lady; Maker and Craftsmen: The Story of Dorothy L. Sayers; Dorothy L. Sayers: a literary biography. This last one, by the way, is most odd: It's Hone, Ralph E. (1979), which is already cited in full. Those are the first four; I'm not going to list the rest, but they're all biographical (and indeed at least one other—the Kenney source—is also already used as a source. AFAICT, there's nothing wrong with the reliability, but the consistency is, off-kilter, to say the least  :) Enjoy. ——Serial 00:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to come off as prickly, but I know what the FACR are and don't need them linked. I didn't ask because I wound up deciding that I did not see it as an issue. The distinction as I see it is that it's not the content of the books which is being cited, it's the OCLC catalogue for publication details being cited. The citations are consistent when they are being used for that purpose, and I think that satisfies the FACR. (I did misspeak when I said they were citations to fiction - I shouldn't reply when I've just woken up from a night shift and only barely remember what year it is). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Coords, I'm waiting for snail-mail source to arrive. FYI, not forgotten  :) ——Serial 14:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tks SN -- btw it's {{@FAC}} if you want to ping the coords... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: But I didn't want to... or need to. This is a Riley-SchroCat production, pure Glimmer Twins, and I know that, where they go, @FAC coordinators: ain't far behind  ;) ——Serial 16:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: FTR, not resolved here yet. Cheers, ——Serial 12:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's not resolved? I think I've covered your points, but I must have missed something: can you clarify? - SchroCat (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: You wanna beat me up? You want beat me up? WTF mate?! ——Serial 10:01, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No - I just want to know what's outstanding! I read through this thread a couple of times and can't see what's still left to do. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'll still probably end up supporting, because, well: the phenomenon that is WP:SCHROFAC. But I admit to still wanting to know how a) these refs are consistently formatted inline citations compared to the rest of the article; b) if it's referencing the database more broadly, then why does {{Citeweb}} or {{Cite linked authority file}} not do? I'm also uncertain as to how WP:V (ideally giving page number(s)) is met, or WP:HOWCITE, or even WP:PAGENR (the citation must clearly support the material as presented). I think, Schro, more importantly, I'm curious as to why. You've never done it before (well, not in your last dozen articles (one a month for a year, an incredible achievement!) anyway), and it hasn't been done in the last 30 or so nominations more generally, so I'd be interested in seeing these other FAs. Although I'll grant you MEDFAC, who have their own... idiosyncratic interpretations of these things  :) I hope Tim's OK? ——Serial 17:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it's still about those refs - that wasn't clear. Well, the cites are supporting the fact that books were published. Nothing more than that, and the OCLC, being a doi of the book's existence, is sufficient to support the claim that the book exists. Page numbers etc don't enter the equation - it's the existence of the book that is being shown by use of a recognised doi. However, given you're obviously not happy with them, I'll swap them out.
As to "why", you'll have to ask Tim: he wrote that section and made the choice. - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support the article's promotion, apologies, I see this got dealt with, to a certain extent, a few days ago. ——Serial 13:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC - source review

edit

Putting myself down here, give me a sharp prod if I don't come back within a week :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay - here we go. No spot-check performed. This is on formatting and reliability.

  • I notice that some sources have links in the citations, such as 125 to P.D. James and 151 to Contemporary Authors and Gale, but most others with viable links like Oxford Dictionary of National Biography are unlinked. Should be consistent.
    OK, unlinked them all - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 37: ""Special Literary Supplement", Truth, 24 October 1923, p. vi;" - there are several publications with the name Truth, it might be worth putting a location or linking the correct one
    I'll check with Tim on that one as he wrote that section. - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might want to do the same for The Times and The Daily News, both of which can refer to multiple publications
    I've done the Daily News, but I'll leave The Times I think. They all refer to the best known of all the papers under that name. - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 89, 202, 203: BBC Genome is more properly called the BBC Genome Project
    I've swapped one of them for the Radio Times reference (which is better), but renamed the other two - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 213: Is Lesser Feasts and Fasts liturgically applicable to all American Episcopal Churches? If so, why is the St. Alban's one needed? That seems to a user-made post from one random church.
  • There are quite a few older newspaper stories but they're generally used to cite their own opinion, so no concerns with reliability
  • I've been told not to use state abbreviations like "Boston, MA" in refs. Apparently it should either just be Boston, or the state should be fully spelled out as Boston, Massachusetts.
    • Same for Kent, OH (especially since you have Kent, Ohio, right under it)
    • Ithaca, NY; Malden, MA;
  • New York: Church Publishing, Inc. - should be New York City to avoid ambiguity. You have a bunch of these, I'll not highlight them all, ctrl+F "New York:" will pop them
  • Worsley, Lucy (2014). A Very British Murder. London: BBC. - properly this is BBC Books
  • It's really mostly nitpicks. I don't see any sources that need challenging. We have books from reputable publishers and peer-reviewed scholarly journals. Web sources are used sparingly and for basic facts.

That's everything I have. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks PMC. All done bar the one about The Truth, which I'm looking into. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Truth now linked! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a support; I'll reiterate that I don't see the use of OCLCs as citations as an issue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

edit

Placeholder - I have a few questions and will try to finish review over next 24hrs. JennyOz (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tim riley and Schrocat, did I ever tell you how 24 hrs is a different period in southern hemisphere? This was wonderful to read thank you! Some questions...

Early years

  • Sayers was born on - I am confused why some bio FAs do or don't include full name at first mention after lede. I had a quick look through some of yours (both) and Brian's and can't see an obvious pattern. For Sayers, in this Early years section, it becomes obvious where the middle name "Leigh" comes from. In other articles the full name is introduced (and cited) after the lede, but in others, not. Is there a formula, or FA discussion etc, I should read?
    There's no guidance on this point (or at least as far as I know!). I know I've included and not included in the past. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • her first cousin and Nell's niece - "and" seems like two separate relationships? 'her first cousin as Nell's niece '?

Schooling

Oxford

  • Mutual Admiration Society, a literary society - or Literary circle? (appears that page)
    I think either term is possible here, but as the MAS called themselves a society, I think I'll just about edge for that one. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • named Roy Ridley, later chaplain of Balliol, on whose appearance and manner she later drew for her best-known character, Lord Peter Wimsey - partly drew?
    The source suggests it's pretty much a full portrait of him she used (and she used to get annoyed later in life with his "exploitation of his likeness to Wimsey", according to Reynolds. - SchroCat (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I only asked because elsewhere "Eric Whelpton, who was teaching English there.[30] She had been in love with him at Oxford, and he was among the models for the appearance and character of Wimsey". No problem though. JennyOz (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Covered all the above, unless explained otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early employment and first novel, 1916–1924

  • Hull High School for Girls - pipe to Tranby School? (Sayers is mentioned in that article)
  • In 1921 Sayers began a relationship with a fellow writer, John Cournos, which intensified after her return to England shortly afterwards.[30] - this started in France or was a distance thing? Where was Cournos before and after her time in France?
  • products including Guinness stout and Colman's mustard - is separate link to stout needed? The Guinness article is about the stout, and there isn't a separate link for mustard?
  • come as anti-climax to disappoint expectations - definitely no 'an' before "anti-climax" in that quote?
  • She was known to him at first as Cousin Dorothy, - quotes on name?
  • writing it before joining Bensons - Benson's with apostrophe per elsewhere

Early novels, 1925–1929

1930–1934

  • The Documents in the Case - link
  • raise money for the acquisition of premises - did they purchase or hire or book places for their dinners?
  • organised by Sayers, was Behind the Screen - link The Scoop and Behind the Screen?
  • she worked on The Documents in the Case - link
  • a notable novel in the manner of Wilkie Collins - introduce Collins eg 19th-century author?
  • Wilkie Collins, whom she admired - whose work she admired?
  • a longer serial for the BBC, The Scoop, - link per behind the Screen above?
  • Murder Must Advertise (1933) - in caption the year is 1932
  • She edited a third and final volume of Great Stories of Detection, Mystery and Horror - should that be Great Short Stories like the first two?
  • adopted his first person narrative technique - hyphen/s?
  • As her portrait of the Rev Theodore Venables "tenderly evoked" her father, "unworldly, self-effacing [and] lovable", as Reynolds puts it. - Is "As" correct at opening of this sentence?
  • She spent considerable time researching campanology which gave - this needs context? To understand I read The Nine Tailors article and found "She also was inspired by her father's restoration of the Bluntisham church bells in 1910.[11]". Perhaps, "The rectory in which Wimsey and his manservant, Bunter, are offered refuge after a car crash, resembles that in which Sayers grew up" might include a mention of the church's bell tower? Or start the sentence "As the story featured a bell tower, she spent considerable time...
  • Kenny ranks it below the final three Wimsey - Kenney

Last novels and early religious works, 1935–1939

  • her biographer David Coombes - Coomes

Dante and The Man Born to Be King, 1940s

  • life of Christ, The Man Born to be King (1941–42) - cap Be per elsewhere

Detective stories

  • caption Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson - Holmes is on the right, swap names?

Feminism

  • according to Sayers's biographer, Catherine Kenny - Kenney
  • everyday readers"[179] Sandberg considers - missing full stop

Biographies and other books about Sayers

Legacy

  • installed a blue plaque at 24 Great James Street, Bloomsbury, - per image (caption "The door to 1 Brewer Street, Oxford, where Sayers was born") there is also a plaque there but is not an official English Heritage one?
    The image next to that bit of text is the English Heritage one in Great James Street. I don't have any details on the Oxford one (possibly the local council, maybe an appreciation society, who knows): I'll have a look. - SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency

  • The Divine Comedy v the Divine Comedy v Divine Comedy (are intentional?)
    Yes. Dante published Divina Commedia, which translates as Divine Comedy. Sayers's translations were published as The Divine Comedy, complete with definite article. - SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image alts

  • alt=Book cover with title, author and mention of earlier "Clouds of Witness"]] - swap quotes to italics
  • alt=book cover of Strong Poison, with name of author and the words "A new "Lord Peter" Detective Novel - needs closing quotes

Notes, references and sources

  • note 15 including the 20th century poets - hyphen

References

  • Ref 84 Coombes, p. 118 - Coomes
  • Ref 182 Kenny, p. 152 - Kenney

Categories

That's it. Thanks again, JennyOz (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • I have already commented at PR, but will have another look through.
  • It seems curious that the cause of death is not given. The New York Times at [2] says it was coronary thrombosis. Is this not correct?
    Added - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a personal opinion, I think sources such as the ODNB article should be listed in the sources section for the benefit of people using it for further research.
    I've been mulling on this one, as there is some merit to it, but I think if we move that into the sources, it would be inconsistent with the other web sources, so we'd have to move everything out of the body and into the sources section. - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "because of its practice of cultivating its students take prominent roles in the arts and public life". "to take"?
    Yes - added - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kenney describes the book as "flawed but brilliant", and ranks it below the final three Wimsey novels—The Nine Tailors, Gaudy Night and Busman's Honeymoon—in terms of its literary status in relation to more manifestly serious fiction of Sayers's day." This sentence seems too convoluted to be clear.
    Reorganised to get rid of the parenthetical clause: does this work any better? - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pedantry point. It is not correct to say that a sub is required for access to the ODNB Sayers article. It is free access, which seems to be a new thing on ODNB for some articles.
    So it is - how pleasing! Subscription template now removed - SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another first rate article from SchroCat and Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks Dudley. All duly attended to, except where commented on above. Thanks also for your PR comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will do a source review this week. Poke me if I don't get this done --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 12:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks In actu: PMC has already done one above, but happy to go through another if needed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Johnbod

edit
  • Excellent article, now much dug over. I won't add, except that I share UC's doubts about 8 being the "normal" starting age for her boarding school. Even more than boys, girls tended to stay at home until 13, unless the school specialized in parents working around the empire. A junior section, up to 13, would usually become much larger at that age. But I won't withold support for that. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Johnbod. I agree the "usual" part is a bit of a wrinkle. The school now takes girls from age three, but whether in the 1900s it was "usual" for entry at 8, 11 or 13, the main source doesn't say and I can't find any other sources that confirm or deny what the "usual" intake age was, so I think we'll just have to rely on the source as it stands. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dorothy_L._Sayers/archive1&oldid=1189782764"