Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2015 [1].

The Ordeal of Gilbert Pinfold

edit
Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a short novel by Evelyn Waugh, in which the author relives a real-life episode of temporary madness through his fictional counterpart, Gilbert Pinfold. Waugh chose to frame his experiences in the form of a black comedy. The book was greatly admired by his friends for its unshrinking honesty, but the critics and the public were less entranced. It is indeed a slightly odd work, but the quality of the prose surely redeems its faults. Read it (the book) when you can. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have read it – about forty-five years ago. I found it more disturbing than funny. Time for another go, perhaps. Meanwhile, no hesitation in supporting the promotion of the article. Handsomely meets all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 22:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like you, I first read it when I was probably too young to appreciate it fully; having gathered from critics that it was "brilliantly funny", I read for a long time looking for the first laugh. I found it on what is page 54 of my current Penguin edition: "Later Mr Pinfold tried to raise the topic of burial st sea, but this was not taken up with any enthusiasm". For some reason I still find that funny. Anyway, thanks for your discerning eye and kind comments. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I haven't read it, philistine that I am. Shall do so one day. But the article I have read and reviewed on the talk page. I thought it a splendid piece, amply meeting FA standards, and have no qualms about echoing Tim's support. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review comments & support here. I hope you do get round to reading it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from SchroCat

edit

As usual a fascinating read on an interesting topic. I've made some minor tweaks to, but feel to revert anything you don't like. Aside from that, a couple of things to look at:

Writing history

  • "September he told Ann Fleming": I think we should probably give a word or two as to who she is. You should also note that you give the full name "Ann Fleming" on each of the three occasions you name her.
  • I have described her on first mention as Waugh's "friend", and have added a footnote giving details who she was. I'd rather leave her as "Ann Fleming" on the subsequent mentions, as to refer to "Fleming" might perplex readers. I hope I'm not in breach of some gender equality rule lately imposed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks good. On reflection I think you're probably right with the full name; referring to "Fleming" may suggest Ian to some. I have Ann on a list to write at some point - she's notable enough for the DNB, so she prbably warrants something on here too. - SchroCat (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rebecca West and Pan Books.[n 5] an ..." I'm not sure what punctuation you want there, but it isn't a full stop!

Critical reception

  • Is there a reason that New Statesman isn't linked? It looks like the other publications are.
  • Now linked

That's all from me. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this input. I have made the necessary fixes as noted above. Brianboulton (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All good from me. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments. I've read through twice and can find little to comment on; a very polished article. Some minor points:

  • "He had financial worries, a legacy of his free-spending post-war habits combined with lack of remunerative productivity and accumulated tax liabilities" might be better as "He had financial worries, a legacy of his free-spending post-war habits combined with accumulated tax liabilities and a lack of remunerative productivity". I think "a lack" is more natural than just "lack", and the plural sounds better coming first in the list of two.
  • Any reason not to link "BBC" on first occurrence?
  • The lead and the body give slightly differing explanations for Waugh's decision to embark on the SS Staffordshire. The lead says he took ship in search of peace; the body says it was to finish his book. Obviously these are not necessarily in conflict but I think the two descriptions should match a little more closely.
  • How about linking Alexandria, and perhaps also Ceylon?
  • Stannard is introduced as "Waugh's biographer"; I think something similar is needed for Sykes.
  • "Pinfold's age, his domestic and professional circumstances": I think this should be "Pinfold's age and his domestic and professional circumstances" -- both his age and circumstances are the subject of the following verb.
  • "The novel was published on 19 July 1957 by Chapman and Hall in the UK and by Little, Brown in the US": this makes it sound like simultaneous publication, but I believe the Chapman and Hall edition is actually the first.
  • "This comment followed closely on the issue of Muriel Spark's first novel, The Comforters, which also dealt with issues of drug-induced hallucination": "issue" twice in a short space.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie: Thank you very much for your time: I believe I have dealt with all your points – mainly by adopting your suggestion. Unfortunately I don't have the date for the first American publication; it may have been simultaneously with C and H in London, or perhaps shortly afterwards. I have slightly tweaked the sentence to leave the matter a litle more open. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it was published on 12 August in the U.S.; I found a couple of newspaper announcements of the impending date, and the reviews in U.S. papers all cluster around that date. I'll leave some links to clippings on the article talk page and you can decide whether to use them. I've supported above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mike, for your help and support. I have added the US publication date into the article, and will contact you concerning the incorporation of a brief critical comment. Brianboulton (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per my comments at peer review. Nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your earlier comments and for this support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Just a reminder that we'll need a source review at some stage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • We have some references with locations and others without. For example the Life article has its location given as "International: Chicago" while others such as The Times, Guardian etc have nothing at all. To me consistency is the most important thing, so I am happy to see either locations for everything or no locations.
  • Locations are not normally given for newspapers or magazines. In this case I thought from the sourse that "International: Chicago" formed part of the magazine title. Now deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 22 (O'Halloran) needs the access date for the link as no page number is given.
  • I think the rule is that page numbers are required where there is no online link to the source. I have never given access dates for online articles that originate from a printed source. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Brian, I'm going to promote but, in passing, I'd have thought this would normally take a retrieval date because it's in web format rather than newsprint format, even though it may also have appeared in newsprint. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have fiddled with some of the formatting a bit.
  • Spot-checked refs 4, 22, 77, 95. Assuming good faith on the rest.

Hope this helps. Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks indeed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I'm sorry I haven't got to this sooner but I have been extremely busy of late and I've had no real time for anything around here. Having said that I did manage to read this today and could find no faults at all. I did spend a bit of time looking at the paragraph that starts "Shortage of cash was the principle reason why..." in the "Background" section. "A shortage of cash was the principle reason why..." looked more correct to me, but I expect either would be OK. An excellent article! CassiantoTalk 20:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, "a shortage" reads better. Thanks for dropping by, and for youe welcome support here. Brianboulton (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2015 (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/The_Ordeal_of_Gilbert_Pinfold/archive1&oldid=1138473379"