Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/A Handful of Dust/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Handful of Dust

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This is it – Evelyn Waugh's greatest novel, according to...well, me I suppose, although others have said much the same thing. He was in a miserable frame of mind when he wrote it, and much of the book reflects this, but the wit and imagination is undiminished. I really enjoyed researching and writing this article, which sadly has been something of a rare event lately. It's quite short – have I missed anything? As always, I'd be most grateful for any reviewers' comments. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

These are going to be very slim pickings:

  • General
    • I can't work out your policy on capitalising, piping and italicising press titles: The Tablet, The Spectator and The Observer, but the New Statesman and the Daily Express.
      • Basically, if the mastheads include "The" in the title, I include it in the italics, otherwise not. There were a couple of cases where I had erred, now corrected. However, if the name of the journal is being used adjectivally, as in "Plomer's Spectator review, I think it's OK not to italicise the "the". I will be guided, though. Brianboulton (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm. The goalposts move with maddening frequency. The Guardian is the most extreme, with the definite article deprived of lower case on its masthead and no itals anywhere to be seen, but that isn't really good enough for Wikipedia. I saw this chez Grauniad recently: "One of the most famous paintings in the Museum's collection, Gassed by John Singer Sargent…" – a malicious libel of a fine painter, which commonsense italics would have avoided. So, me judice, damn the papers' changing mastheads and impose a rational style. That being the case, I recommend title case and itals: The Times and not "the Guardian" etc. Tim riley talk 00:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
    • If you're linking from the main text to Roman Catholicism, you might also do so from the lead (third para).
  • Plot
    • A perfect encapsulation, in my view. You might move the blue link to Roman Catholicism up to this section from the first para of the Background section.
  • "The Man Who Liked Dickens"
    • "speech and appearance on Mr Christie" – does he need the "Mr" again here?
  • Writing and title history
    • "Chagford, in Devon, a regular retreat which he used" – I'm no zealot in the which/that brouhaha, but I think "that" would be better than "which" here, unless you put a comma after "retreat"
  • Autobiographical
    • "Heygate, Waugh's cuckold" – not my area of expertise, but I think Tony is the cuckold – cuckolded by Beaver.
    • The dab tag will doubtless be attended to in due season.
  • Religion and humanism
    • "acknowledgely" – doesn't roll off the tongue. If you need an adverb "avowedly" might do the job more smoothly
  • English Gothic
    • "in the hands of savages – first Mrs Beaver etc" – the MoS (WP:MOSQUOTE) bids us make minor changes to puctuation in quotations to conform with the main text, and you can with clear conscience substitute your usual unspaced em-dash for the spaced en-dash here.
  • Publication history
    • "reissued it on a regular basis" – "regularly"?
  • Critical reception
    • "rhythms of life as it lived in certain quarters" – missing "is" or possibly "was"?
    • "Driberg agreed to place a notice" – this is the first mention of Driberg and he needs a Tom and a word of introduction.
  • Notes
    • Ref 48 – I think the MoS bids us reduce all cap words to ulc, much to the rage of those who can't live without capitalising TIME magazine.
    • Ref 75 – ulc wanted (see comment on punctuation in quotations, above)
    • Ref 84 – the formatting has gone off the rails here.

I am delighted to learn why there are two versions of the text. I had occasionally wondered why, without ever bothering to find out. Similarly, thank you for saying where the title comes from: I count myself an Eliotist, so should have known. I thought it was from the Bible. For the rest, this is a superb article. It looks completely effortless – which despite your disclaimer, above, I suspect means you have made a very considerable effort to ensure that it so appears. – Tim riley talk 09:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am very grateful for these comments and suggestions which, except as noted, have been put into effect. Perhaps toy will advise on the outstanding points. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

Very nice article indeed. I made a few minor tweaks (see here), which I think are correct, but please feel free to revert if you disagree.

"The Man Who Liked Dickens"

  • "Mr Christie": no need for the Mr again

Writing and title history

  • "Peters sold the pre-publication serialisation": Who's Peters?

Critical reception

  • "muted and sparse;[81] This relative paucity": semi-colon (then needs lower case T) or full stop?

FNs

  • FN48 needs to correct the double-double quotes to read: "'Was Anyone Hurt?': The Ends of Satire in 'A Handful of Dust'". The NOVEL should also be Novel (as per FN25)
  • IMDb isn't a reliable source, so the following may prove useful replacements:
  • I understood that IMDb was an acceptable source, if used to support basic information about a film, although not for critical comment or discussion. But I agree BFI is better, and I have changed to that. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All good aside from that, but please drop me a line if you need any clarification; please let me know when you go to FAC with this. – SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All matters attended to, I believe. Thanks for your help. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt Very little to comment on. Quite impressively done. Usual quibbles.

Lede
  • I suggest that it be restructured somewhat, with a much shorter lede paragraph. You might want to take the second half of the first paragraph, beginning with "Initially ..." and make it the third paragraph. You have a spare paragraph, after all. The present lede paragraph seems too much of a mouthful.
Plot
  • "or of his son's developing waywardness" I would say "and" rather than "or"
  • "pressurised" The devils! To pressurise a person! I would simplify to "pressed" or perhaps "influenced"
  • "Mr Todd" The honorific is used often enough to make me wonder at the two omissions.
  • "Waugh suffered personal and sexual frustrations" This seems all a bit vague, was there a relationship he had to forego or some such?
South American journey
  • "Manáos" I would suggest Manaus, for those who recall the late World Cup or prefer not to. It seems more usual in what I've seen about Brazil.
  • "Brazilian forest" It's a pity you used "Brazilian jungle" in the previous paragraph. I suggest "Brazilian jungle" more effectively used here, and perhaps just "Brazil" for the previous placement?
Autobiographical
  • In the second paragraph, can it be made clear where the opinion of Wykes ends?
  • Slight rewording/clarification should make this clear.
Satire
  • "position as a Catholic writer" Is this a formal position?
  • " Tablet criticism" you have not mentioned the Tablet since its initial; you have mentioned Oldmeadow since. Perhaps something like "criticism from that source"?
Publication history
  • " in many different editions" I would strike "different"
  • "since when the book was published" this reads a bit oddly to me.
Critical reception
Thanks for the review – some excellent points here, all of which I've acted on, only noting where necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tonystewart14 I thought I'd chime in as you've submitted reviews for the Liberty in North Korea and Leo Frank articles and I wanted to contribute back to you. I noticed you have TFA for Carsten Borchgrevink, so congrats on that! Anyway, here are a few things I noticed:

  • Per the automated [peer review], you use the word 'apparently' in the second sentence of the plot section, which is apparently (ha ha) a weasel word. The word 'apparent' is also mentioned in the MOS under Expressions of doubt. There are some other adverbs in this first paragraph that give the paragraph a poetic aura, although this may not be best for an encyclopedia article. You've written a lot more featured articles than I have (i.e., zero), so you would know more about this than I would, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
  • If you scroll up a bit on that MOS link, it mentions Unsupported attributions which might come into play in the first paragraph of the lead when you say, "Commentators have...". This sounds like some of the examples in the yellow box. Perhaps the lead is a bit more generous in regards to generality, but you might consider that as well.
  • In the second paragraph of the Background section, you have a [6][5] for citations after the second sentence of the second paragraph. You might flip these two around so they'll be in numerical order. I don't know if it matters for FA review, but it looked a bit funny.

Hope this helps. Don't worry if you disagree with something I've said - I'd like to see your response to my feedback and use it to further develop my skills as a Wikipedia editor. You can help me as much as I'm helping you! Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tony, for this review. These are good points.
  • The word "apparently" occurs in the plot summary, where the style of the prose may be a little different from the general encyclopedic tone of the rest of the article. However, I have not been completely happy with that sentence, and have rewritten it, without using "apparently".
  • Commentators' views of the work are fully attributed and cited in the main body of the article (see, e.g., the "Satire and realism" and "Critical reception" sections). The lead comment is a broad summary statement and does not require specific attribution/citation.
  • The ref order error which you spotted has been corrected.

Please let me know if you have any other issues with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/A_Handful_of_Dust/archive1&oldid=1138559412"