Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells/archive1

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2018 [1].

Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells

Nominator(s): The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the stereotypical morally outraged letter writing style attributed to residents of Royal Tunbridge Wells. I believe that the article covers the topic comprehensively. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the nature of the micro-topic, you really need more on the very widespread use of pseudonyms in journalism, pamphleteering and authorship in general. It seems to me this peaked in the decades around 1800, but goes back at least to the Renaissance. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just have a few preliminary comments:

According to WP:ITALICTITLE, italics should only be used in titles when they would be used in running text. The only possible justification I can find in WP:ITALIC for the title being italicized here is this being words used as words. In most cases in this article, Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells is in fact being used as words. That doesn't seem like a reason to italicize the title though, since by that rationale any title could be italicized since they could all reasonably be mentioned rather than used. Generally the use of quotation marks versus italics in the article seems inconsistent to me, but I might be missing something.
"A "stuffy, reactionary image"[1] was associated with the town of Tunbridge Wells by the novelist E. M. Forster in his 1908 book A Room with a View, in which the character Charlotte Bartlett says, "I am used to Tunbridge Wells, where we are all hopelessly behind the times"." The first quote is a little confusing, since it kind of seems like the quote could be from the book.
There are a number of instances where the same footnote appears in more than once in the same sentence, or after consecutive sentences. That seems like overkill to me.
"Tunbridge Wells was later granted a royal charter by King Edward VII in 1909 and renamed "Royal Tunbridge Wells".[4]" The relevance of this sentence isn't clear to me.
"Despite being described as the "quintessential Englishman" and having his letters regularly published, his identity was never known because he would only identify himself as "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells". The phrasing implies that there is a contradiction between him being a described as the "quintessential Englishman" and his identity being unknown. That contradiction is unclear to me.
"who had developed a skill for letter writing after five years of observing apartheid in the Union of South Africa." This seems to imply that there is a link between his skill and apartheid. What exactly is the link? Did he write letters about apartheid?
"The term Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells was later used to stereotype Royal Tunbridge Wells as being a town of retired British Army colonels who would write such letters to newspapers" What is such referring to here? The relevance of the letter that follows this is unclear to me.
"People writing them have been claimed by commentators to be readers of the Daily Mail, despite the original letters not originating in that publication" That's not what the source says. The source is citing one case where some Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells expressed themselves in the Daily Mail
"UKIP leader Nigel Farage stated in 2013 "I used to say you could always tell it was a UKIP meeting by the number of Bomber Command ties in the room"" What is the relevance of this?--Carabinieri (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

Tricky topic.

"he BBC radio show Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh, first broadcast in 1944, is sometimes stated in newspaper reports to have popularised the term Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells for correspondence to newspapers." In the lead, you framed this as a possible origin, but that's not what's suggested here.
"sometimes stated", "also suggestions", "some reports have popularly rumoured": all a bit weaselly.
"the Kent and Sussex Courier claimed" I'm generally a little wary of personifying publications like this, but I know that opinions vary.
You alternate between "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" and Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.
Dates of George Thomas Howe? How does this match up to the claims about The Times?
It'd be really nice if we could include an example or two of letters signed by the pseudonym. That might serve as a better "picture" than the current lead.
"The type of letters written with a tone of incensed moral outrage have become commonly described as "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" letters, even though the writer may not be from Royal Tunbridge Wells.[6][11][12] For example, the actor Michael Caine once said: "I don't want to sound like Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells, but I do think there should be some sort of national service for young men"." That doesn't sound like "incensed moral outrage" to me!
"of which the UKIP leader Nigel Farage stated in 2013 "I used to say you could always tell it was a UKIP meeting by the number of Bomber Command ties in the room."[20]" I'm not sure about of which, and it's not fully clear what the ties have to do with anything.
Three short paragraphs in a row start with "In [year],": It feels a bit listy.
"Critical review of the book has stated that the" Do you mean a critical review?
"some of whom wrote to newspapers similarly to the "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" style stating" This doesn't read well.
There are a lot of hits on Google Scholar for the phrase. There's an editorial in the British Dental Journal, for example, and there are a few fun references to "Disgusted-of-Tunbridge-Wells Syndrome", as well as what looks like (something resembling) a piece of investigative journalism from Country Life of all places. And that's just from the first page! Have you had a look through these results?

I feel like this article makes a decent GA, but it feels very bitty for a FA. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a further think about this article; I do stick with what I said about examples. I feel like there should probably be a "use" section with a few examples; perhaps an older one from the Courier, and a newer satirical one from Private Eye. I'm also surprised that you don't cite the book that's mentioned; I'm sure that will have an introduction section explaining the significance of the pseudonym. No doubt that would be a great place to find examples, too. (A quick Google suggests that there are a few reviews out there which will also be worth citing.) I've thrown together an example of how I might structure an article like this on the talk page; take it or leave it, but perhaps it'll be useful for thinking about how to further develop the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; after a little further thought, I think this is too far from where it needs to be for FA status at this stage. More than tweaking is needed. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

It looks to me from the commentary above that there are some fundamental concerns that are best addressed outside the FAC process, so I'm going to archive this. Note that if (as I gather) you don't yet have any FAs under your belt, you'd be eligible for the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 09:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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