Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gerald Durrell/archive1

Gerald Durrell

Featured article candidates/Gerald Durrell/archive1

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most influential people in the history of conservation biology. Durrell became famous for his books, and used the money from them to found Jersey Zoo. As recently as the mid-1970s there was still opposition at the highest level of the zoo world to the idea that zoos could help with conservation of endangered species. Durrell's work is one of the main reasons that that's no longer the case. One point that reviewers will notice: the article depends heavily on a single source: the only book-length biography of Durrell, by Douglas Botting. There are other reminiscences, and I've cited some material to them, but they are essentially books of anecdotes rather than of encyclopedic material. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Gerald_Durrell,_Askania_Nova_(cropped).jpg: source link is dead, and I note the uploader has had a number of uploads deleted for permissions issues - is there anything to confirm the release of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that I can find. The picture is from Durrell's time in Askania Nova, in the mid-1980s; I have the book of that trip and this picture is not in that chapter, so it's at least possible that it was taken separately as claimed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

Saving a spot. 09:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Gerald Malcolm Durrell, OBE (7 January 1925 – 30 January 1995) was a British naturalist : as MOS:COMMA warns, don't let other punctuation distract from the need for a comma. As we've got a comma before OBE, we need one after it as well -- in this case, after the brackets. However, a perfectly acceptable alternative, which plays better with the previews you get when mousing over a link, would be to remove the preceding comma instead.
Comma removed.
Per WP:INFONAT, I think it would be worth clarifying his British nationality in the infobox, as it is not obvious from his place of birth and death.
Added "British" to the infobox. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
animal collecting trips: consider animal-collecting trips per MOS:HYPHEN, but it's arguable either way.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
he married Jacquie Rasen: better as he married Jacquie (née Rasen)?
I think this is better as is, unless you feel strongly about it -- she was Jacquie Rasen at the time they married, and although I know the locution is common, just using the first name in this way always strikes me as odd. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem -- to me, it's equally odd to use a name that became wrong through the act we're describing, but there's pros and cons either way and this is very much a matter for editorial taste. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 1957 he visited the Cameroons for the third time, and on his return attempted to persuade Bournemouth and Poole town councils to start local zoos...: a very long sentence. It reads better if cut in two after zoos here.
Done. Long sentences are one of my besetting sins. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
continued to mine his past for autobiographical material: I think MOS:CLICHE applies here.
Trimmed, though I'm not sure if that flows well now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He received an OBE in 1982: this is me being very pedantic, and probably more so than even most HQRS, but OBE is technically ~~an institution~~a personal title. The Gazette uses "appointed as an Officer of the Order of the British Empire" vel sim.
I used "became"; does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does, though I'd still be tempted to spell it out, as many people will (mis)read OBE as "Order of the British Empire". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll leave it as is, if that's OK -- I rarely object to pedanticism but the technically correct formulations are a bit unwieldy and will surprise most readers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Durrell's father insisted that Louisa conform with conventional expectations, but she was more independent than most women of the era. She spent much time with her cook, learning to make curries, and had trained as a nurse.: the tone here just feels a little off to me: a bit like it was written by a Victorian rather than about one. Anyway, is all this really that unusual in this time period? This is the 1920s, not the 1820s -- flapper culture is in full swing, and people like Virginia Woolf, Emmeline Pankhurst and Jane Ellen Harrison are getting well into middle and old age, and of course many women worked as nurses and in traditionally masculine roles during the First World War. I need a bit of convincing that having a trade and chatting to the servants was really all that exceptional.
I think the Anglo-Indian (that's always the adjective I've seen, regardless of the ethnicities) community in India at the time was more determinedly British than the British themselves -- shades of Passage to India and Burmese Days. That's certainly the impression that Botting gives: he says of Louisa "As an Anglo-Indian, she was less mindful of her exalted status than the average white memsahib who passed her time in the subcontinent in a state of aloof exile. As a young woman she had defied convention and trained as a nurse, and had even scrubbed floors (unheard of for a white woman in India then)." Botting goes on to mention talking to the servants and learning to cook curries. Haag quotes an interview with a woman who knew the Durrells when she was a girl on Corfu in the thirties; she is quite stiffly disapproving of them, saying the Durrells did not behave as an English family in a colonial environment were expected to behave. I don't think Botting is an expert on Anglo-Indian social mores, but it does seem reasonable to me that the Durrells were not typical of their community. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No quarrel with that, but I think we need to make a bit more of it clear. At the moment, we suggest that most women of the 1920s were not independent, would not have trained as nurses and would have had nothing to do with the servants, which is hard to wear. It sounds as though Botting contextualises this in a very specific aristocratic Anglo-Indian context, which we don't (yet). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to make that clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anglo-English: something is awry here. "Anglo-Irish" would be the obvious correction, but doesn't make much sense -- it sounds as though we mean "English parents living in India" or "English parents of a certain social class".
This was just absent-mindedness; I've switched it to Anglo-Indian, which is what I meant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the household included an ayah (a nursemaid) who helped raise the children: I think it's worth clarifying that an ayah is specifically an Indian servant, which helps explain the (presumably European?) Catholic governess.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
his father bought a house in Dulwich, near where both the older boys were at school: at Dulwich College? If so, worth including, I think: that's quite an elite school which says something about the social standing of the family.
Lawrence was at St. Olave's Grammar School (where I went myself, as it happens); I don't know where Leslie went, and Botting doesn't give more details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
while out with his ayah one day: italicise ayah consistently.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald was scarcely affected, having had little emotional connection to his father: perhaps more to the point, he was only three years old!
Well, yes, but Botting's point is that the elder Lawrence did the Victorian father routine and only saw Gerald for half-an-hour a day. Botting quotes Durrell: "I must confess my father's demise had little or no effect on me, since he was a remote figure", followed by some minor reminiscences and Durrell saying he was closer to his mother and his ayah. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that latter detail would be nice to include: at the moment, we present this almost as a deficiency on Gerald's part (as if he was himself aloof or disconnected), rather than as a natural consequence of Lawrence's parenting. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see It was usual for Anglo-Indian parents to see little of their children a little further up, and Gerald was scarcely affected, having had been much closer to his mother and his ayah than his father. Those are both much weaker than what you said here, about Lawrence having chosen only to see Gerald for half an hour a day, and the latter still places the weight on the child rather than the father. Do we have the sourcing to say that Lawrence chose to be barely involved in Gerald's life? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Botting says he "by all accounts was a decent but rather distant and often absent figure to his children, for his work as an engineer took him across the length and breadth of British India ..." which ascribes the distance more to his work than his inclination. Botting also says "though he was a straightforward servant of empire, he was not an entirely conventional one; he did not live like the British but like the Anglo-Indians, and he resigned from his club when an Oxford-educated Indian doctor he had proposed for membership was blackballed", so I don't think we can say it was conventional Victorian behaviour. Margaret is quoted: "In those days children only saw their parents when they were presented to them at four o'clock for the family tea ... our lives revolved around the nursery and our Hindu ayah and Catholic governess. Gerry would have had more to do with the ayah than we older children did". The half hour is from a quote from Gerald: "I would see him twice a day for half an hour and he would tell me stories about the three bears. I knew he was my daddy but I was on much greater terms of intimacy with Mother and my ayah than with my father." I don't see anything there that speaks to the elder Lawrence's motivations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, indeed -- and we can hardly assume that the four-year-old Gerald was timing these interactions to the minute. I think we do have enough to say that he was often absent, though. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added. I put this in with the account of his death, which has the slight disadvantage of forcing the sentence into the pluperfect. I could move it earlier, to where I give Lawrence's job, but since the relevance is to his death's effect on Gerald I think it's better there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She began to drink: This is a bit of a euphemism: I think we should be more direct. Likewise, later, temporarily freed of her drinking habit is a little on the flowery (and possibly moralising?) side.
I am hamstrung by Botting's language here. He quotes Durrell, who says his mother began "resorting to the bottle more and more frequently", and then Botting says "Eventually, matters reached a crisis", and quotes Durrell again, with the "nervous breakdown" euphemism. I don't think I can use this to say either that she was an alcoholic or was being treated for alcoholism. I agree with you that Durrell's language is euphemistic, but I don't want to go beyond what he actually says. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The usual solution here would be to lean into Botting: something like "Durrell later wrote that his mother "began resorting [..."]; in Botting's words, "matters reached a crisis" in 19XX, when..." UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found it tricky to navigate between overquoting and over-interpreting but I've had a go at this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When he was nine he was spanked by his headmaster, and his mother took him away from the school: this I find interesting: it would have been completely normal in those days, and indeed much later. Any indication as to why both Durrell and Louisa reacted so strongly here -- was it simply the last straw?
I think Louisa spoiled him, and he was unused to school discipline anyway -- at age nine he had not lived through four years of school life, as most children would have, and I imagine he was used to getting his own way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrence and his partner, Nancy, moved in with Louisa and Gerald at about the end of 1934 when the friends they had been living with, George and Pam Wilkinson, emigrated to Corfu: clarify the antecedent here.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a house in Perama: in looking up a potential ILL, I discovered that there are (or were) two villages on Corfu by that name: I think this one [sv] is the most likely candidate, as the second wasn't known by that name until the 1960s.
That seems to be the right one -- not far south of Corfu town fits with the description. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greek-British doctor: endash here, I think, as he was jointly Greek and British, rather than being primarily British but also sort-of Greek (as in "African-American" or "Swiss-German").
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stephanides spent a half-day every week with Gerald, walking in the countryside with him: could cut with him as implied by the previous clause.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Henri Fabre: seems to be fairly universally Jean Henri Fabre in sources: Henri Fabre is the aviator.
Done, with a hyphen rather than a space as that's what our article uses; no objection to changing it to a space if that's the usual form. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His call-up for the war came in late 1942, but he was exempted from military duty on medical grounds: was this because of bad sinuses? Seems a rather light ailment on which to reject someone from military service, given the pressing situation.
Durrell tells an amusing story about this; it sounds like his sinuses were truly spectacularly bad, but he also gives a conversation with the doctor who exempted him in which he admitted to the doctor that he didn't want to fight and the doctor said that was fine by him. Since Durrell was sometimes faithful to narrative interest rather than accuracy in his recollections I decided to skip this detail in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was given the option of working in a munitions factory or finding work on a farm: I would clarify, here, who gave him the option: it sounds like he was being conscripted to do this?
Apparently the way it worked was that after the medical, one received a letter giving the results, and it was this letter that gave him the options. I've rephrased to make this clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Durrell's biographer, Botting, says Durrell broke his hand while separating the African buffalo calf from its mother, but in Durrell's own autobiographical account it happens while caging the gnu: we've chosen Durrell over Botting here, which is a little dangerous: people's autobiographies are frequently inaccurate, for all sorts of reasons. Unless a published source has done the same, I think we need to avoid passing judgement: we can say that he had both tasks, and that the hand was broken, but not discriminate between the two stories of which one broke it.
Yes, fair; I said above that Durrell's own recollections aren't automatically truthful and I should have been more cautious here. Rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. It's undoubtedly an excellent article, though I must admit that my niggles about the tone remain: I worry that it's just slightly too far towards the sort of writing that Durrell himself would have put out about his own life, rather than a dispassionate encyclopaedic treatment of it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply to your points later, but just a quick note to say that as a longtime reader of Durrell's work I shouldn't be surprised that I am writing a little under his influence. When I go through with your points in mind I will see if I can also sweep away some of that tone. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have now replied to all points; have not yet gone through for tone. I think I'm going to find it hard to spot but will do my best; I'd appreciate any pointers to the problem you can give while you read through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a major issue, and I wouldn't want to take away the article's sparkle. I'll go through and pick out the bits where the distinctive voice is strongest. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading the parts on which I commented yesterday, I think I'll retract what I said about the tone -- maybe thanks to recent edits, it seems to be just about right. Will pick out anything that stands out as I move forward. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

was invited to the zoo to meet the Superintendent, Geoffrey Vevers: good old MOS:PEOPLETITLES - decap superintendent here.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the interview, Durrell "prattled on interminably about animals, animal collecting and my own zoo", as he later put it: not totally clear whether he is Durrell or Vevers.
Made it "as Durrell later put it" -- I'm not too keen on the repetition of "Durrell" but I don't see a less clumsy way to do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The extinctions of animals such as the dodo, the passenger pigeon and the quagga appalled him, and he realised that zoos had little interest in addressing the problems of endangered species: I wonder if we're being a little unfair here, particularly with the last part. None of those animals went extinct because of zoos: it's not so much that the zoos were sitting on their hands, as that nobody thought of conservation as something that was within a zoo's remit. It's a bit like someone being appalled that museums are doing nothing to address childhood obesity: the fact that we now believe that zoos should try to stop species from going extinct is in large part a consequence of what Durrell did later.
I made it "he realised that most zoos considered themselves showplaces for animals, rather than scientific institution which might have a role in addressing the problems of endangered species". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I've ever seen the word showplace before! Googling around, its primary meaning seems to be a place that is itself to be shown off (i.e., a particularly fancy building), rather than a place whose contents are interesting. Not immediately thinking of a good synonym, but I'm sure you'll be able to. We need a plural on institutions too. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised, but I took a look at an ngram of it vs. showroom, and it does seem to be falling slowly out of use, so perhaps other readers will also not recognize the word. I've rephrased (and fixed the plural). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
many of whom were unwilling to pass on what they knew in any case, in order to protect their jobs: I think this could be smoother. Suggest cutting "in any case", and rephrasing to make in order less ambiguous (are we saying that, in order to protect their jobs, they refused to help others, or that they refused to help others, even when doing so would have protected their jobs?). It seems like there's two points being made: the staff didn't know very much, and they didn't talk about the little that they knew. Might be clearer to disentangle the two a little more?
Reworded; I dropped the point about why the staff were unwilling to pass on their knowledge, as presumably it's Durrell's speculation and doesn't really matter anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good (I made some minor CEs here). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Durrell had good friends among the women keepers: in many style guides, "female X" is preferred to "woman X"; the latter reads as antiquated and sometimes patronising (cf. Woman police constable). Here, there's the unfortunate possibility that a "woman keeper" is like a "lion keeper"...
Changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a woman in London that he refers to in his writings only as Juliet: consider "Juliet" per MOS:WORDSASWORDS, and to be clear that this might be a pseudonym.
Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in a boat acquired from the Germans because of the war: a few things here. Which Germans? As written, this phrase doesn't quite mean what it should: we've said that he acquired it because of the war, but surely the war was the reason these Germans lost it (was it commandeered/captured/confiscated?), presumably at least two years earlier, rather than why Durrell got it?
I've cut those details; I originally included names and descriptions of the ships they took for these early expeditions, but cut them to reduce the article's length. This was left over and I don't think is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
learning pidgin: consider "the local dialect": pidgin covers a lot of mixed languages in a lot of places, and is often seen as derogatory.
I changed it to "Cameroonian pidgin"; as far as I can tell it's the local name. See Cameroonian Pidgin English, which gives other names "for what Cameroonians call Cameroon Pidgin English", and cites linguistics texts from 2008 and 2017 that use that name. I know what you mean about the negative connotations of the word, but it wasn't a dialect, technically. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good compromise -- likewise, I see your point about calling it a "dialect" (sans army or navy). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the return to Mamfe required sixty carriers to bring them all: is a carrier a person or a box?
It's a person. I was trying to avoid both "porters" with its associations with Great White Hunters on safari, and "native carriers", which would be unambiguous but might be the best solution despite a risk that "native" would offend some readers. Would "local carriers" work? Or "on the return to Mamfe he had to hire sixty carriers to ..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about "sixty people to carry..."? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, done, though I realised that there is a reference in the previous sentence that also had to be changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
while he was there a hunter brought in an angwantibo, one of the animals he was keenest to obtain, as he knew London Zoo were looking to acquire them: lots of hes here. Suggest untangling a bit: did Durrell or the hunter really want to obtain an angwantibo?
It was Durrell; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On which -- we are not well served for images of these creatures! Did you consider this drwaing at any point? The black and white photo doesn't really do the animal great justice, but then I can see a strong argument for a photograph over a drawing in principle.
I did look at it but I think photos are of more use to a reader if they exist, and the angwantibo picture is quite clear, though it would be better in colour. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A thought: how about using a multiple image template to have them next to each other? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I like how it looks, but I might have made it too wide at 400px; let me know if it looks odd on your screen. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a tweak-y edit here, please revert if not an improvement (size to 300px and a footer instead of two captions, which means that we have a greater proportion of image overall). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; mostly fixed, with a couple of queries above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Cecil Webb, a well-established animal collector, arrived in the Cameroons intending to catch angwantibo shortly afterwards: as far as I can tell, the plural of angwantibo is angwantibos (see e.g. here. p. 209.
Changed -- I did check, and Durrell and Botting both independently use "angwantibo" as the plural, but as the form with the "s" is accepted that's the less surprising choice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
he considered Durrell and Yealland to be amateurs: this was, strictly at least, true. Is there a better way of putting it that comes closer to the intended "incompetents"?
I'm not sure it's strictly true -- they had negotiated with zoos beforehand, and although the zoos would not give them money up front, they were doing it for pay. As you say it's the connotation I'm looking for. Botting's wording is that Webb considered them "novices and upstarts"; I think "incompetent" is a bit too strong to be sourced to that. I've made it "inexperienced and amateurish"; does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The expedition had been successful but not profitable; it had absorbed half of Durrell's inheritance: I assume this is after any income from selling the animals? Perhaps worth reminding us how much money we're talking about here (I think it would be a routine calculation as permitted by WP:OR).
Yes, after selling the animals. I agree re the routine calculation, but it seems simpler to just repeat the inheritance amount: "half of Durrell's inheritance of ₤3,000". I didn't repeat the inflation conversion since there's one in the very next sentence with a simple ratio to this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ken Smith agreed to partner Durrell: not sure I've seen that verb used in that way (rather than transitively: "to partner someone with someone else"): be Durrell's partner, unless I've just missed a common usage?
Changed to "join"; I think it's a valid usage but as elsewhere I think if it sounds odd to you it will sound odd to others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
where the Fon, Achirimbi II, the king of the area: this isn't quite phrased right. If Fon means 'king' (more or less), we don't want to then gloss it with "the king of the area". Could do Achrimbi II, the local Fon ('king')?
The Fon's name is not really needed inline, since I don't use it later in the article (Durrell and Botting never use it at all; he's just "the Fon" throughout.) I've made it "the Fon (the local ruler)" and added a footnote giving his name. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
augmenting what he was obtaining from the hunts he went on: again, a lot of "he"s here. "From his own hunts"? Even then, might not be clear if "he" is Durrell or the Fon.
Clarified, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the two men emptied it over the course of the evening: consider drank or finished: this is slightly figurative language that might confuse a non-native speaker (are we talking about some kind of libation ritual?)
I made it "drank". This is one of those "tone" moments you mentioned; for lifelong Durrell readers such as myself, the night that Durrell meets and drinks with the Fon is a memorable event, and I mentally slipped into a literary rather than an encyclopedic state of mind. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
requiring an emergency trip to Bemenda: where was that?
Forty miles away; I added that. It was a five-hour trip in the Fon's kitcar, and Durrell would have been at serious risk of death if they had not obtained the antiserum, but I cut the details as being colourful and not strictly necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They knew that obtaining one of the high-value animals would immediately resolve their financial problems: well, not immediately -- they would have to get the thing safely back to the UK first.
Yes, fair enough. Cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As they came ashore Durrell and Smith were already planning another trip: possibly getting a bit poetic here. Literally as they were stepping off the boat, or around the time of their return?
Almost literally: Durrell tells the press about the plan as they are interviewed while docked at Liverpool, just before getting off the boat. But I agree it's not necessary to be so poetic, so rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the animals survived the journey, but the last flying squirrel died just one day from docking at Liverpool on 25 August: didn't we have dozens of these things a few paragraphs ago? We've been pretty cavalier about what sounds like a very dark day in flying-squirrel history.
Yes indeed. The story of these flying squirrels (known now as flying mice, though that wasn't true back then, I believe) is one of the more memorable episodes from the book of the trip. He had 42 of them, if I recall correctly and I could easily expand this section to tell more of the story -- capturing them was an adventure, and then finding something they would eat was difficult. They eventually showed a willingness to eat avocados and Durrell had to persuade the ship's cook to give him some of the avocados that the ship's captain had brought on board for his own diet. They died in twos and threes on the trip home, despite his best efforts. Again I omitted this for length reasons. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the expedition had brought back several species never previously seen in Britain: would be nice if we could specify some of these.
Botting says "London [Zoo] took some of the rarities of special scientific interest, many of them never before seen alive in Britain, including the hairy frog and a large number of insects". Then there's a quote from a news story citing the hairy frog as "the first creature of its kind ever to be brought into this country". Durrell caught a hairy frog on the previous trip, though perhaps it didn't survive the trip home -- Durrell doesn't mention it in The Overloaded Ark; Botting's details come from Durrell's diary. I think this is enough to mention the frog, and have done so, though now I wonder if a reader will recall that the previous trip mentioned the same animal. Perhaps it would be better to delete the earlier mention? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
where he visited Tiny McTurk at his ranch: ...who?
The McTurks, as far as I can tell, were a well-known British family in the area -- googling "mcturk guiana" (or "guyana") finds a lot of references. I think the McTurks are likely to be notable, but perhaps this is not the place to worry about that, so I've cut the reference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a long quote from Jacquie Wolfenden in the paragraph of her introduction. I think it could be better integrated into the prose of the paragraph, but we certainly need to be clear about when she wrote this and in what context. It looks from the citation that it's a quote from her 1967 autobiography?
Yes, now attributed directly. I like the quote and I think paraphrasing it would rob it of its emotional directness. Do you think it should be shortened, then? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David Attenborough, another rising figure in the world of natural history: was this quite right in 1950? He would only just have been out of the Navy and not yet properly working at the BBC; I think his first natural history programme was in 1953.
Attenborough's comment was later; the wording was clumsy in that it wasn't intended to imply that Attenborough made the comment at the time. Checking Botting's citations I see in fact it was much later, so I've cut it; we don't need to have Attenborough's affirmation that Durrell was right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
she was free to marry without her parents permission: apostrophe needed here. I was surprised to discover that this remained true until the late 1980s.
Apostrophe added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Durrells began their marriage in a tiny flat in Margaret's house in Bournemouth: perhaps remind us who Margaret was; it's been a while.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jacquie joined him there and began "learning about animal keeping the hard way", helping to feed and care for the animals.: quotes always need to be attributed inline: whose words are these?
Attributed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jacquie knew Gerald was a marvellous storyteller: how about considered G. a marvellous storyteller, which is verifiable, whereas the current formulation is not?
Yes, my own biases coming through there. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fee was a welcome fifteen guineas: how much was that? I would cut a welcome for tone.
Cut, and an equivalent given. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
equivalent to ₤120.00 in 2023: don't think we want the decimals here (false precision).
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to make the book entertaining and humorous rather than tediously factual: I don't think any writer wants to make their work tedious, though I know I usually manage it with my FAC reviews.
Durrell did actually say "I have tried, firstly, not to be boring", but I take your point. Changed to "simply factual". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The completed typescript, titled The Overloaded Ark, was posted to Faber & Faber with a covering letter mentioning that Lawrence was Gerald's brother: better the other way, I think: "that Gerald was Lawrence's brother" (because F&F would have known Lawrence, but not Gerald).
Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Curtis Brown, Lawrence's own agent, in late 1952. They read...: is there a way to do this so that Curtis Brown doesn't sound like a person's name, and so that we're not surprised by the plural they? Get the word agency in there somewhere?
It was actually Spencer Curtis Brown, son of the Curtis Brown who founded the agency. I wrote it referring to the agency but it's confusing, I agree. I've tried to finesse this by giving Spencer's full name and removing the link to a footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a galley proof: I had to look this up: wikilink at the very least, I think.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sold to Rupert Hart-Davis: who was that? Incidentally, do we mean the man, or the company?
This is tricky for the reverse reason to the issue with Spencer Curtis Brown. Our article, Rupert Hart-Davis, is about the man; the publishing house is Rupert Hart-Davis Ltd, but the "Ltd" is rarely used in discussing the publisher, so it can be confusing. I've linked it and added "a London publisher" (though technically "London" is uncited, if that matters), but "publisher" can also refer to either the man or his company. At least it's clear we're talking about a publisher now. Does that do enough to resolve it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book's dialog used pidgin: BrE prefers dialogue. Are you still happy with pidgin, with the discussion above in mind?
Changed. I think we do need to keep "pidgin"; there's a later quote from Jacquie that refers to "comic pidgin" being seen as offensive (that is, the reported speech of the Fon, not the word "pidgin"), and I don't want to change that, so it makes sense to keep it throughout. Given that it is the Cameroonian name for the language (although it's a creole, I think, technically, rather than a pidgin) I don't think the word itself needs to be avoided. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An occasional review questioned: do you mean "a small number of reviews"? The phrasing makes it hard to be sure how many we're on about here.
Changed to "Some reviews". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A secretary, Sophie Cook, was hired to help with preparations, all made from the tiny flat in Margaret's house in Bournemouth. Their ship left Tilbury: did Cook go on the trip? The use of "Their" makes it sound as if she did, but everything else in this section points the other way. Suggest, if not, "the Durrells left Tilbury by ship..."
Clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in the event the accommodations were cramped and unpleasant, the boat filthy, and the food appalling: at least the last of these is a matter of opinion, so we need to couch it as such, or use a verifiable statement like "Durrell found the food appalling".
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When starting a new paragraph, it is best not to use a pronoun (like "they") whose antecedent is in the previous paragraph: restate the noun(s) instead.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as they were making plans for the thousand-mile journey back to Buenos Aires they discovered there had been a revolution in Asunción, the Paraguayan capital: I'm struggling to cross-reference this and find out what we're talking about. Is it the 1954 Paraguayan coup d'état? If so, "revolution" is probably not the right word.
Both Botting and Durrell call it a revolution, and neither one makes it completely clear what they're referring to, but from the timing I agree it has to the 1954 coup. Changed to coup d'état and linked to the relevant article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jacquie and Sophie had to nag him constantly: I would find a better word than nag, which is very gendered and quite contemptuous.
I agree the noun is contemptuous and gendered; I think of the verb as being non-gendered, but I've changed it to "pester". The source has "cajole" and "bully". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link the Savoy hotel?
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
illustrating the talk with lightning cartoon drawings: what's one of those -- do you mean that he produced these drawings ex tempore?
I thought this was a general term, but Google is not supporting me on this so I guess I was wrong. Yes, drawings produced at the time. Changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Still) more to follow, I'm afraid. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who should apologize! For having so many flaws in the article for you to find. I really appreciate the detailed review; thank you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

The Corfu Trilogy is a perennial favourite of mine. Comments to follow.

I mean, the main thing, as noted in the nomination, Botting: has his work any irregularities, or received negative reviews, or anything of the sort? I think he would have to be regarded as essentially inviolate for FACR 1b) and c) to be met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only inaccuracy I'm aware of in Botting is commented on in note 9, and that's very minor. Botting was given access to all of Durrell's files and the papers at the zoo, and interviewed all the relevant people who were still alive, as far as I can tell. I agree the article has to stand or fall on whether Botting is accepted as a top-quality source, but I'm not aware of any problems with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had only read a couple of reviews of Botting, which is remiss of me; I've now read everything I can find on newspapers.com, which is most of the good British papers and a couple of Canadian and Australian ones, and those are all positive. A couple praise Botting, but most simply talk about Durrell. However, there is a negative review in the NYT. Some of the points the reviewer makes aren't really relevant to the article, but you may think some are. Here they are:

Botting "falls short of Durrell's voice as a storyteller. We never learn the background of Cansdale's feud with Durrell, for instance, and the account of the fierce opposition to captive breeding by a later head of the London Zoo is also garbled. When one of Durrell's own trainees ultimately becomes director of the London Zoo, what ought to be a moment of triumph and vindication turns up instead as a footnote."
I think the first two of these are odd complaints -- Botting quotes Jacquie Durrell on the background of Cansdale's feud with Durrell, and quotes the head of London Zoo in detail (an incident I didn't include in the article as it's already very long). These are not stories only told in Botting's own words, that's to say; he's quoting, not just citing. The third point, about the emphasis on the victory of Durrell's point of view, is one of emphasis, not of accuracy; again it's not something I've included in the article since if I stray too far into the world of conservation politics the article would balloon even further.
"Botting also bungles the poignant story of Durrell's second marriage": here the reviewer's complaint is that Botting simply quotes the relevant sources rather than tells the story of the complex emotions of those two years. That's valid for readability but for me it doesn't raise doubts about accuracy.
"The real frustration of this biography, however, is that Botting seems not to understand or care much about Durrell's work with animals". I agree with this, but I'm not sure it makes much difference to the validity of what is cited to the book. I did use some of Durrell's own books to add mention of some of the animals at a couple of points, but I refrained from going into detail about the breeding successes at the Jersey Zoo, for example. That could be an article in itself and perhaps should be. I could see adding a little more about that if reviewers think it's necessary.

Let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

From a first canter-through for spelling etc:

"died of a cerebral hemorrhage" – the usual BrE spelling is "haemorrhage"
"a few days, househunting" – the OED and Chambers both hyphenate "house-hunting"
"handrear four newborn Père David's deer" – ditto for "hand-rear"
"parents permission" – lacks a possessive apostrophe
"he traveled with the animals" – American spelling; the usual English form is "travelled".

More later after a proper read-through of the content. Tim riley talk 23:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed; thanks, Tim -- my eye for British English has been hopelessly corrupted after decades in the US. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]