Wikipedia:Peer review/Nancy Mitford/archive1

Nancy Mitford

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Nancy Mitford, doyenne of the famous Mitford girls, was a writer of sparkling wit whose postwar novels of upper class life delighted the war-weary British public. Behind the glam and the glitter, however, there was an enduring sadness from the failure of her own pursuit of love. She disguised her feelings by teasing her friends and the public – not least with her notorious "U" and "non-U" division of the English language. As a Mitford, she was at the epicentre of English high society, her family connected by marriage to just about anyone who was anyone – and there were some surprising goings-on in the well-upholstered background. Read footnote 5 to discover what Winston (yes, that Winston) might have been up to when he wasn't running the country. And if you have the time or inclination to read the rest, I'd be grateful for any comments. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

I despair. I go through your articles with as Beckmesserish an eye as I can, and this time my poor gleanings (a few typos apart, which I have amended) are just these:

• Lead
  • "she had no training in journalism before publishing her first novel" – hard to see why the former might inhibit the latter, which seems quite another matter.
• First years
  • successive governesses – possibly helpful to give "governesses" a blue link, do you think?
• War, Batsford Park and Asthall Manor
  • "serving at the Front" – is it usual to capitalise war fronts?
  • "in cash and income terms" – are these five words necessary?
  • "his still-growing family" – perhaps "increasing"? The little buggers would have grown with or without a new sister.
• Debutante and socialite
  • "of her entry into Society" – not sure, but might it be helpful to link to High society (group)?
• Incipient writer
  • "her relatively meagre allowance" – one of the bees in my bonnet: relative to what?
• Marriage, writing, politics
  • "Mitford affected a stance of moderate socialism" – is "affected" a bit harsh, perhaps, suggesting insincerity? I note the rest of the sentence, but I wonder if "adopted" might be less severe.

• • I think "affected" is the more accurate term. Hastings describes Nancy as "politically immature, her opinions too frivolous and too subjective to be taken seriously", and certainly nothing she is recorded as having said or done amounts to "adopting" a socialist stance. It was a light affectation, mainly to separate herself from the extremes of left and right represented by other family members, but I suspect she had little real idea of what socialism meant. In a 1970 letter she wrote that "my considered opinion is that the world has been wretched ever since the abolition of slavery". The trouble with Nancy is that you never knew when she was being serious or teasing. Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Second World War
  • "(ARP) driver, then worked shifts" – "then" isn't a conjunction: it needs "and" before it, I'd say.
• Rue Monsieur
  • "summers generally spent in Venice" – I was so surprised that someone with any money would stay in Venice in the summer, when it pongs and every mosquito stingeth like an adder, that I looked up the cited ODNB article, and lo, it doesn't mention Venice at all…

• • My mistake in omitting the ref, Hastings, p. 221: "For fifteen years after [1954] she returned to Venice every July, putting up at a hotel, once taking a flat..." etc. As to the pong factor, I have been to Venice in June when it did not stink, and in November when it did, so maybe it's a matter of luck. Ref now added, by the way. Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• • "The Sunday Times newspaper" – it will probably be apparent to non-British readers what The Sunday Times is without the "newspaper"
  • "she provided the English translation of André Roussin's play La petite hutte" – I reckon she did rather more than translate it: the archives of The Times, Guardian and Observer all say "adapted"; Philip Hope-Wallace commented on the "tactful and witty adaptation by Nancy Mitford". ("The Little Hut", The Manchester Guardian, 24 August 1950, p. 3); The Times talks of "a habit of speech at once colloquial and unexpected which instantly declares itself the creation of Miss Mitford." ("Lyric Theatre", The Times, 24 August 1950, p. 6). It ran, I see, for 1,261 performances (Gaye, Freda (ed.) (1967). Who's Who in the Theatre (fourteenth ed.). London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons. OCLC 5997224. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help), p. 1525), which must have done her coffers no harm.

• • This is great info which I will incorporate into the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• • "This time Waugh … was uncritical" – not quite comfortable with this. "Uncritical" is, I think, generally used to indicate a suspension of the critical senses – hardly something Waughlike – rather than "not critical".
• Noblesse Oblige
  • "Mitford's article, when the article" – "it" for the second article?
• Later career
  • "France's Ambassador to Italy" – capitalised, but poor old Duff Cooper, above, and Alfred, below are merely ambassadors
  • "President de Gaulle, who recommended it to every member of his cabinet" – in the French edition no doubt. One can't imagine de Gaulle recommending a book in English. I see from WorldCat that there are also German, Spanish, Czech, Danish, Slovenian and Dutch translations.
• Fiction
  • "despatches which Acton describes" – the OED allows "despatches" but prefers "dispatches"
• Biographical works
  • "Acton considered" and "Fraser considered" in close proximity
• Journalism, letters and other works
  • Another "considered" – perhaps "regard herself as"?

That's my lot. Nothing of any moment. A crackingly good article, nicely paced and of course well proportioned, with widely sourced references. A pleasure to read. On to FAC! – Tim riley (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. Where I have not commented I have followed your suggestions. Very glad to include the Little Hut stuff - your knowledge of theatrical ephemera never ceases to astound. Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

SchroCat

I've made some minor copy edits around some small MoS points: feel free to revert, tweak or ignore how you see fit. Further thoughts and suggestions are below—again feel free to accept or ignore as you see fit:

Family background and connections

• I'm gently humming and ha-ing about this section a little. I appreciate that it certainly places Nance in the centre of a Who's Who of English society of the time (crucial, given what follows), but I suspect it'll possibly receive comment at FAC. I don't advise you do anything in the way of trimming, but it may be worth getting your defences lined up in advance. Nice table too—kudos to Mr R on that.

War, Batsford Park and Asthall Manor

• "Although the Redesdale estates were extensive, in cash and income terms they were uneconomical": seems a little clumsy to me. Perhaps "in cash and income terms" could be removed (how else could they be uneconomical?)

Fiction

• "upper-class family life and mores": I suspect "mores" may trip a few people up: perhaps a link to the dictionary (coded as [[wikt:mores|''mores'']] to provide mores)?

Slim pickings in an as-always readable and interesting piece. Please drop me a note when you proceed to FAC. – SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments and the minor ce. I have made the adjustments you suggest above, while leaving family background as it is for the moment. I think it is relevant, and interesting, to include this very brief potted history of the Mitfords, but am open to ant suggestion as to how it might be improved. Brianboulton (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

No changes needed to it as far as I am concerned: placing La belle Mitford in a social context is key to understanding her and much of her writing. My only concern is that this section may be a focus of issue at FAC, but let's hope it doesn't arise! - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt

Very well done. A few quibbles:

Parentage

• "he remained in this post " the word "post" is used in the quoted sentence immediately prior; accordingly it may be better to find an equivalent for use here. "Position"?

Childhood

• "Before this experiment was discontinued, Nancy had become self-centred and uncontrollable" This troubles me a bit because well, if there are two characteristics of two-year-old, I think you've hit both of them. The third being jealousy of new brother/sister, again typical of toddlers. There's nothing exceptional in this, really. I'm questioning how encyclopedic this is. The relationship with younger sister seems a bit fuzzy too. The reader's being told, basically, that jealousy as toddler of newborn younger sister led inevitably to a troubled relationship into adulthood. Perhaps some inline attribution would help, or, perhaps, some judicious cuts. (do two subsections really need to be devoted to her childhood?)

• I think that Nancy's behaviour went a little beyond the normal self-centredness of an infant; I have amended the text to include a cited comment on her "roaring, red-faced rages". As to her relationship with Pamela, sibling jealousy in young children is one thing: Nancy carried on tormenting poor Pamela well beyond childhood. Hastings: "When Nancy was around, Pam could usually be found in tears; if something could be spoiled, Nancy spoiled it for her". I believe it is important to have this aspect of Nancy's character established, whilst at the same time not sensationalising it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Nancy was sent to the nearby Francis Holland School" perhaps it could be clarified if she boarded there.
• "with their Redesdale grandparents" mildly problematic. If referring to Nancy, why the "their",?if referring to the family, the Redesdales would only be the grandparents for the children. Possibly change "their" to "the children's"

Debutante

• "her presentation at Court—a brief formal meeting with King George V at Buckingham Palace" I am not sure if I like the term meeting. Possibly "introduction to"?

• Possibly "presentation to"? - SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• That would mean repetition. I have made gone for the "introduction". Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Waugh's link is not upon first mention, even disregarding the quote.
• Marriage etc.
• I believe the footnote should precede the m-dash (or whatever the long one is called)

• Well, MOS insists on refs after punctuation, and the mdash is, sort of, punctuation, so... Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Second WW

• "and was shipped home through neutral Switzerland." I'm not sure I like "shipped" applied to a person, except if literally by ship, and since there was a port of call in Switzerland, that doesn't look that promising.
• " Mitford moved to the family's Rutland Gate house where she sat out the London blitz." If Rutland Gate is in London, then I would not use the term "sat out". In American English anyway, it implies an avoidance, i.e. "He sat out World War II in Switzerland".

• That implication is not always present in British English, where to sit something out can mean waiting passively for something to end, with no pejorative implication But I've modified it anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• A mention of the postwar relationship with Diana Mosely, or the lack thereof, might be good, even if only used to add to the league of excellent footnotes.

• Agreed, and footnote added. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Fiction

• "intelligent women surrounded by eccentric characters determined to find life amusing" Is it the women or the characters with the determination? I assumed the characters, then re-read her quote about dying

• It is pretty clear from the sources that she meant the characters, which is I think how it reads. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• "It is unsurprising that Mitford should first attempt to write a novel when she did" I'd toss the reader a reminder of when this was.

That's it. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Mostly accepted without demur, see my notes for explanatory comments. I hope the high seas are not too high. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto comments

So sorry for the delay Brian, I will start reading now and post as I go...

Family background and connections

I personally love a section which explains lineage such as this and I think that it is pertinent to keep it as it is; couple of things...

• We use "John de Mitford held" twice in close succession. Is there a way to alter the second?

• There was actually only one "Sir John de", but there was overuse of the surname in the line, so I have reduced "Sir John Mitford" to "Sir John". Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "William Mitford was recognised as a leading classical historian..." – who recognised him as this?

• Well, he was pretty generally known, in the manner of his contemporary Edward Gibbon, but I have elaborated slightly to indicate the reason for his recognition. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Are you aware that the second paragraph finishes with no cite, just a note? Are you using the cite within the note as back up for this too?

• The cite within the note covers the phrase in the text. It seems a waste of space to insert the citation twice. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Childhood

• "he fought in the Boer War of 1899–1902" – as opposed to the Boer War in any other years? I would swap "of" for "during" possibly.

• Yes, as opposed to the First Boer War of 1880–81, admittedly a barely-remembered conflict. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Just clarify that "a daughter born in Victoria Road on 8 August 1914" was the same London address and not a Victoria Road in Canada.
• "Laura Thompson, in her biography of Nancy, describes Hatherop as not so much a school, "more a chaste foretaste of debutante life".[32] Here she learned French" -- Mitford presumably and not Thompson...
• "In 1932 her plight was overshadowed by a public scandal involving her younger sister Diana, who in 1932 deserted her husband and two young sons (she had married Bryan Guinness in 1928) to become the mistress of Sir Oswald Mosley, the leader of the British Union of Fascists, himself married with three children." -- That is one, long sentence!

Second World War

• Link to Curzon Street in the image caption?

• There's a link in the text, immediately adjoining the caption, so another seems superfluous.

Journalism, letters and other works

• Just checking, but the quote "a more sophisticated version of A Year in Provence, bringing France to the English in just the way they most like it" doesn't seem to make sense at the end, "...just the way they most like it". It looks as if it should be "just the way that most like it".

• There was indeed a "that" inadvertently missing from the quote. The exact wording, now included, is "bringing France to the English in just the way that they most like it". Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That's all I have to offer Brian. A typically tight article on an interesting subject. Cassianto^Talk 20:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments, and I look forward to more when you have time. "No comment" means I've adopted your suggested tweaks. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)