Talk:Nadja Malacrida

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: I am not seeing the passage of WP:N, based on current sourcing.

The most-exploited source is a poem-collection from a publisher of no/little repute and the biography (over there) is written by someone, of no/little repute.

Going by Murdoch (who seems to be the sole source to have covered her), I guess we need to wait unless somebody manages to eventually rescue her :-)

∯WBG^converse 19:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, she frequently read mostly Victorian prose excerpts and poetry on BBC radio is textbook synthesis. ∯WBG^converse 19:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Where exactly is “over there?” Giano (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Over the collection, as far as I see. ∯WBG^converse 14:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent reverts

The passage is written in a manner that indirectly conveys of the marriage being a factor behind Piero's expansion of activities et al. I am not seeing as to how the cited page (166) is supporting the core basis of the line or any causal connection or the date of marriage. [Fixed by Pigsonthewing, after this post.]

Now, the broader question is, why shall this article be any concerned with her husband's activities, absent some kind of evidence that she influenced him and/or similar scenarios? IIRC, WiR (and academicians) have frequently noted that our articles about women are laden with unnecessary information about their husbands/brothers/male relatives, which they deem as a negative feature. Will link, once I find the stuff.

∯WBG^converse 20:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

When I read through pages 164 to 166 of The Long Weekend: Life in the English Country House Between the Wars by Adrian Tinniswood, I gain the impression that the couple formed a team; Piero seems to have quickly gained greater access to the higher strata of English society because of Louisa/Nadja's aristocratic connections. I find it perfectly reasonable to examine the possibility that the interior design work was by no means solely due to Piero, and Nadja's taste in interiors is commented on by Tinniswood. The article's text does not state a causal connection between the marriage and the expansion of Piero's work. That is merely a conclusion you seem to have jumped to. The expansion was subsequent to the marriage and simply stating those two facts without drawing conclusions is how we avoid the problem of synthesis. I believe that a description of their activities is completely relevant to her article and I don't agree that it is an improvement to remove a summary of what Tinniswood wrote about the Malacridas in those three pages. --RexxS (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly my conclusion but given that reputed grammar-texts have written considerable stuff about how the usage of typical coordinating conjunctions can be deemed/interpreted in a subordinate (causal et al) context, it seems that I might not be alone. Also, I have struck out that part after Andy's rewording, which separated the two sentences.

Can you be kind enough to point out the passage wherein Tinniswood comments on Nadja's taste in interiors. The precise page number and the starting words will be enough for me. I am not seeing it within 164-166, apologies. ∯WBG^converse 15:57, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure. On page 166: "Between 1926 and 1929 the Malacridas lived in and decorated an eighteenth-century house in Upper Brook Street, Mayfair." and "a set of interiors that were relentlessly modern ... steel furniture and black glass ... built-in furniture and shelving" etc. If those were not Nadja's taste in interiors, she would have been the only wife in history who did not reflect her tastes in the houses she lived in. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

That's quite much synthesis. ∯WBG^converse 16:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It really isn't. Synthesis is taking two or more sources and combining them to reach a conclusion not stated in any of them. Try again. --RexxS (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Lines between Orig. Research and Synthesis are not necessarily distinct. The source does no where state, all that you interpret from it. ∯WBG^converse 05:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The "No Original Research" policy, which is being referred to here, was designed so that you couldn't write that anything Kevin Trudeau produces will make you fitter, happier and wealthier by cherry picking bits of sources and pulling them together. I don't think the interior design tastes of an early 20th century socialite was at the front of Jimbo's mind when the policies were originally drafted. As RexxS says, to conclude that the couple's Mayfair property did not in any way reflect Nadja's opinion on furniture and fashion is just daft. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Some benevolent samaritan pointed me to this thread and I was stupefied to read certain netizens (!) stating that all aspects related to interior designing of aristrocatic houses of ~20th century England were dictated by the female members. I do not take any position in this debate except to reject the above statement, from being universally applied. If you are well-read in the intricacies of urban history (which is a seperate field of historiographical studies), you will find a ton of sources that discuss the effect of these class of women on influencing contemporary architecture but with a huge deal of nuance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.103.140.16 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Nom de plume

Nom de plume is said to be Lewis Hope in the announcement for "Recent Wills", 30 November 1934, The Manchester Guardian, p. 7. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed by a play announcement for The Cheque Mate on 22 May 1932. The Observer, p. 15. Four-person play written by "Lewis Hope (the Marchesa Malacrida)", starring Rosalind Fuller, Ruby Miller, Gerald Pring and Ronald Ward. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't look like that play amounted to much! See here. - Sitush (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Added. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Pages in references

@Bishonen: Sorry I meant to get back to you yesterday, was busy, and then found a long subsequent edit-history. Anywho; this is for denoting a page number, yes. The issue being that citing a whole book can make verifiability difficult, and specific page ranges are preferable; since you had provided a page number already, I thought you wouldn't mind. If you don't like the formatting I used, there are alternatives, including sfn, which I much prefer. Cheers, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course it's best to provide a page number, Vanamonde, but did you see how it came out? "16" wasn't in the footnote, but appeared as a mystery number in the text. That can't be good. "Sfn"? OMG, do I have to take another tutorial? (Compare [1]. Too many tutorials.) Would it be a disaster to just do one single extra footnote which is sufficient unto itself and simply, you know, contains the page number? If that's seen as amateurish, I invite readers of this page (including yourself, Vanamonde, HINT HINT) to take care of it. Bishonen | talk 17:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC).

Happy to switch it to sfn formatting if you want me to, but at this point it looks like the matter's been rendered moot thanks to the use of two different editions (I assume that's necessary). Vanamonde (Talk) 19:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Portrait

• 
  Museo di Ca' Pesaro (PDF) version (54 KB)
• 
  AKG version (59 KB)
• 
  Athenaeum version (64 KB)
• 
  Madame de Pompadour version (630 KB)

Can anyone find a better version of this? The AKG version seems to have better colours, but is lower resolution, and has a watermark. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it does much for the article in either form, Andy. Gala portraits aren't very expressive, are they — in my eyes, it's pretty much all dress. Do we need it, now we have the more individual wedding portrait? Bishonen | talk 21:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC).

I like having the two pictures in the article., The wedding portrait would do better at the beginning of the article/in an infobox. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I deliberately left the wedding pic first as I think it the better image. But the dress pic is better than no second image and speaks about her life and her social connections (The artist was a friend of the couple; I'm just looking for a good source for that.) Also, it is referred to in the text. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I really don't like having the painting of the dress in the infobox (nor is it what you suggested above, Willthacheerleader18). I've switched the two images. What do you think? Bishonen | talk 22:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC).

Originally I preferred the wedding portrait, without realizing it was a wedding announcement. Since their is text with the wedding photo, I think the portrait is better suited for the infobox. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It appears I was immediately reverted with no comment here. OK, I'm done with this. Bishonen | talk 22:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC).

My Apologies, that reversion was made prior to your comment directed at me. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The photograph is by far the better image. These soft, golden light, society portrait paintings were all painted to flatter and are the Mills and Boon of the art world. If it must be there, have it in her social life section. Giano (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Third & fourth (!) versions added. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Racing

We seem to have gone from a cited claim of Nadja having "driven at Brooklands motor racing circuit" to being a full-blown "racing driver", which is uncited. Is there any evidence for the latter? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don’t suppose people drove at Brooklands racing circuit for a Sunday afternoon pootle about at 15mph.Giano (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not the point, Giano. I'm sure she burned rubber, but that hardly makes "racing driver" one of her "occupations", as the infobox claims. Bishonen | talk 12:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC).

Well if you race around a racetrack that makes you a racing driver in my book. Anyway, I didn’t write the info-box, nothing to do with me. Useless, misleading things at the best of times. What about her aviation, is that mentioned? When are you going to finally DYK this? Be careful you don’t over tweak and miss the boat. Giano (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Finale

I've posted a question about the artist who painted the image used on the cover of Finale, here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

...and I have answered you there. Giano (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The artwork has now been identified and I have added the image to the article, captioned accordingly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Referencing

I've nominated this at DYK; and I'll handle whatever needs to be done there; but there's a few sentences in the current version that are not followed by a citation (the last bits of "early life" and "career"). Would one of you with access to the relevant sources mind fixing that? @Bishonen and Pigsonthewing: Vanamonde (Talk) 19:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Excellent news, but would somebody like to add to that silly infobox that her chief claim to fame was as a poet. Giano (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, Vanamonde. About the quotes from the Vim advert: really? I put a footnote, currently number 10, after the first bit of direct quotation in the sentence "She also appeared in a national newspaper advertising campaign for Vim household cleaner,[5] where she was quoted as explaining that it was "no use having new ideas of decoration if you have old ideas of dirt"[10] and contrasting the dusty hangings and bric-à-brac of the Victorian era with the simple, spare modern interiors, which must be kept clean because "every speck and spot is glaringly obvious". Do you mean that the same footnote needs to reappear at the end of the sentence as well? Don't you think it's obvious that both the short quotes are from the same text? Or would you like footnote 10 to be moved to the end of the sentence?

The information in "Early life" that I put there is all from this source. I don't know where the details that have been added after this version are from. Bishonen | talk 20:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC).

Moving the footnote is fine; a footnote covering a large span of text is no problem; when it's at the beginning of that span of text, though, it isn't obvious that it's covering the whole thing. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)