Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/P. G. Wodehouse/archive1

P. G. Wodehouse

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) & Tim riley talk, 22:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

P.G. Wodehouse needs no introduction. From before the First World War until the 1970s he wrote a series of comic stories, admired by the grandees of English Literature from A.E. Housman and Rudyard Kipling onwards as well as by a huge public in the UK, the US and worldwide. He was also a key figure in the development of the American musical. An otherwise fairly uneventful life devoted to writing was shattered during the Second World War, when he inadvertently blotted his copybook very conspicuously, but he was eventually forgiven and honoured with a belated knighthood in his old age. All comments gratefully received. - SchroCat (talk) & Tim riley talk, 22:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Support I won't say I'm a Wodehouse fan, I think there's a cultural gap somewhere along the way, but in reading for the peer review, I found SchroCat's and Tim riley's account most interesting. My few concerns were dealt with. Easily meets the criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Support Had my say at PR and have no issue with supporting this fine piece of work. A really excellent effort all around I think. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Wehwalt, and Cliftonian, for your support here and your valuable input at PR. Tim riley talk 07:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• And adding my grateful thanks to you both too: much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Support Tim riley is in all honesty a bit of a nightmare to review for from my perspective because he's so sure of himself, it's very difficult to find real fault or anything in a review which he'll agree with. This is a great article though well worthy of promotion, sorry I couldn't have been of more help.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Doc, for your excellent thoughts and comments - much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • And by me, scout's honour! Tim riley talk 20:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment

• A few of the online references are missing retrieval dates. Some of these are archives of offline sources, but not all. I'm looking at #67, #171, and #189 in particular.
• Ref #73 formats the date "7 May, 2015" which is inconsistent with the rest of the references.
• Ref #81 could do with more information, what does "DNBarchive" refer to?
• Personally, I'd split ref #99 into two separate citations, it's a little confusing with them merged into one. You've done this a few times, but this one is particularly confusing because they are different formats.
• Ref #101 is formatted differently to the other Hansard references, #131 and #153.
• Speaking of which, refs #131 and #153 have full-stops at the end of them (presumably because of the template), which none of the other references do. (Look, it's super-picky, but if you'll insist on submitting such relatively flawless articles for review, what do you expect?!)
• Ref #171 needs author details.
• Ref #181 has a raw link
• Ref #188 has "Michael Joseph" as the author, where the other references would use "Joseph, Michael"
• Ref #189 needs a space between the author's last and first name.
• Ref #191 needs a comma after the work, Georgia Review.
• In a similarly picky vein, ref #206 has a comma after the page numbers before "Project Muse" and then a full-stop at the end, while ref #207 doesn't.
• Why is there a question mark at the end of the "Green, Benny (1981)" source? Harrias ^talk 14:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have no idea about the question mark - it doesn't appear in the text. Any thoughts? - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think I've fixed it? It looks like it was something to do with the curly brackets. No real idea, but messing around in my sandbox, I found that if I deleted the original curly brackets, and retyped them, it displayed fine. Don't ask me. Harrias ^talk 15:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• SchroCat has dealt with most of the above points, and I've looked after the remaining few. I think I should mention that SchroCat has kindly adopted my old-fashioned manual citation formatting rather than his customary sfn templates, so most of the above slips are my fault. I hope between us we've answered all the points in your review, Harrias. Thank you for a very keen-eyed scrutiny. Tim riley talk 21:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
• Many thanks, Harrias - mjuch appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Per COM:SIG, signatures in the UK are typically entitled to copyright protection

• Now expunged. - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Good catch, Nikki. Wouldn't we be able to host this locally, though? This would be free in the US (wouldn't pass the TOO). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think that should be possible, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. Alright, Schro and Tim. It's up to you what you want to do. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'd be in favor of that, and though it's the middle of the night in England, I think that he nominators have both said that they like the sig. Crisco, if you have a moment, would you upload it locally with the "do not copy to Commons" restriction? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've uploaded a local copy: Nikkimaria or Crisco 1492, could you pass your eyes over it to check I've done this properly? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• I've updated the templates. The link is dead right now. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Do you mean the link in the file description, http://www.autographcollection.co.uk/ekmps/shops/autograph/images/pg-wodehouse-typed-letter-signed-[2]-17429-p.jpg? If so, that works if cut and pasted. There is a square bracket in there which clashes with our software. - SchroCat (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Ah. Last I checked, we weren't supposed to link directly to the image itself, but to the page hosting the image (i.e. this page). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for that - I wasn't aware of the rule over where the link should point, so I'll bear that in mind for the future. Now updated with your link. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• File:61031-CLT-0025-01_Fort_van_Huy_(2).jpg: since Belgium does not have freedom of panorama, we need to explicitly account for the copyright status of the building. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• I will add the following to the Commons file, which should be sufficient for the purposes of use here.

The castle at Huy was built in 1818. According to Belgian copyright law, there is no Freedom of panorama in Belgium, but the protection ends seventy years after the death of the original author, which ensures this image is PD.

Please let me know if this is OK, or if you need some more info on this, Many thanks, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That's fine with me. You may wish to include a life+100 tag (as is almost certainly the case) to make absolutely explicit its freedom in the US too, but we should be okay with just your text if you prefer. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added that too, just to make sure. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Chris Woodrich comments

• The lack of parental contact, and the harsh regime of many of those in loco parentis, left permanent emotional scars on many children from similar backgrounds, - Many/many — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes. First "many" now some. Tim riley talk 07:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• where the Wodehouses were also living. - Construction feels awkward to me.

I took the liberty of removing "also". -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• When Muggeridge tracked them down later, he managed to get Ethel released straight away and, four days later, ensured that rather than keeping Wodehouse incarcerated, the French authorities declared him unwell and put him in a nearby hospital, which was more comfortable; while there, Wodehouse worked on his novel Uncle Dynamite. - Almost Wodehousian... I'd simplify

I took a crack at redrafting this. Modify and Anglicize if needed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Much of Wodehouse's use of slang terms reflects the influence of his time at school in Dulwich, and partly reflects Edwardian slang. - Can this be worked in somewhere, rather than stand on its own? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Re-merged into the following paragraph (which is where it was originally - I have no idea how it came to be cut loose).

• Many thanks for your comments Chris, and for your help at PR, which was invaluable. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I second that. Tim riley talk 08:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• teetotal Gussie Fink-Nottle - Teetotal or teetotaler? That's it from me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The former, used as an attributive adjective, is how it now stands. The noun would be perfectly acceptable, but I think it flows better as it is. Does it jar a transatlantic reader? Tim riley talk 18:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Not sure if its being Canadian, or being a child of the 90s. Anyways, it's a minor thing, really. Support on prose; good work everyone. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I did some copy-editing on this article while it was at PR, and I have discussed various issues with the nominators, who have satisfied all of my concerns. It is good to see an important author getting a superb Wikipedia article. It is not only informative, comprehensive, well-referenced and well-illustrated, but very readable. SchroCat and Tim riley have done an excellent job of improving it until I believe that it is among the best content on Wikipedia and satisfies the FA criteria. Well done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Ssilvers - much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I desire to associate myself with that expression of thanks. Tim riley talk 08:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support: A superb article, extensively researched and beautifully written, which had my detailed attention at the peer review. I have little else to add here, apart from congratulating Tim and SchroCat on their work, and indeed on their choice of subject. It pains me to recall that Tim invited me to assist in the article's expansion, and that I had to refuse because I lacked the time to do basic reading. But before I sign off, can I please tweak Tim's tail over the description of Ian Sproat as "the biographer"? Sproat was a long-serving Tory MP and somewhat lacklustre Sports Minister in John Major's government. He wrote a book about PG's wartime travails, and for some reason ODNB used him to write their article on Wodehouse, but these credentials hardly justify calling him "the biographer". Knowing Tim to be a sworn enemy of the false title, would it be possible to give Sproat a more accurate description? Brianboulton (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, BB for your support here and your substantial and valuable input at PR. As to Sproat, it seems heartless to out someone as a Conservative MP, especially when he's dead and unable to answer the accusation, and so I'll modify his label to something like "the author of the ODNB article on PGW". Point taken about the ODNB's choice, especially as they already had an excellent article by Lady Donaldson. Parenthetically, there was some talk a while ago about our collaborating on Osbert Lancaster, an illustration by whom appears on the dust jacket of my only Wodehouse first edition. – Tim riley talk 18:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support -- Aside from a couple of ref formatting issues (which I fixed), I had a great time reading about this much respected author. The article is well illustrated, brilliantly written and exhaustively researched. Worthy of FA status in my view. Cassianto^Talk 17:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much, Cass, for your support. Glad you liked the article, Tim riley talk 19:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Hear hear! Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes I found it a great read too, reading it at least wasn't nightmarish ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Doc, that is particularly gratifying – thank you! Tim riley talk 22:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.