Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evelyn Waugh/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Laser brain 04:35, 20 December 2010 [1].

Evelyn Waugh edit

Evelyn Waugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The critic Clive James considered Waugh to be the culmination of centuries of English prose development. Sharpness of wit was his trademark; when told that Randolph Churchill had had a non-malignant growth surgically removed, Waugh remarked that it was a typical triumph of modern science to find the only part of Randolph that was not malignant and remove it. I doubt that he was an easy man to know, but he is still a delight to read, which in my view excuses many faults. Perhaps this article will whet a few appetites. Thanks to several editors for the very thorough peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Support – I contributed to the peer review. It was already a fine article and is now still more so. I have no comment on the images (being no image specialist) but as to the content and the prose, I believe all FA criteria are handsomely met. The article is well-proportioned, balanced, a good read and impeccably referenced. A few tiny stylistic points, none of which affect my support:

  • Childhood
    • This section of the biography (the longest) includes the Oxford sub-section. An undergraduate is not really a child. Perhaps the section should be headed "Early life" or similar?
    • "Oxford" is not, in fact, a subsection of "Childhood". See table of contents. Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa! Tim riley (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lancing
    • "The school's reaction to the novel, which alluded to homosexual friendships in what was recognisably Sherborne, offended the school and made it impossible for Evelyn to go there" – I think you may have meant to delete the four words after "Sherborne".
    • "His initial aversions" – plural? An unusual (idiomatic?) form.
  • Oxford
    • "…the first of several homosexual relationships, most notably with Richard Pares and Alastair Graham" – the meaning of this would perhaps be clearer if "most notably" were "the most notable of which were"?
  • "He-Evelyn" and "She-Evelyn"
    • Another editor has recently changed "Lady Burghclere" to "Lady Burghclere (the daughter of the 4th Earl of Carnarvon)". This addition seems to me pointless in the context, and I suggest you consider removing it.
    • This has been changed. The editor in question wanted to include a link that would provide some background on Lady Burghclere. This has been done by pipe-linking "Lord and Lady Burghclere" to the Lord Burghclere article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's still there unchanged at the moment, I fear. I don't think it helps the reader, at this point, to know that the lady was Lord Whatnot's daughter any more than it would help to mention her wooden leg, her kleptomania, or her passion for bungee jumping – Tim riley (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I originally had it as "Evelyn Gardner, the daughter of Lady Burghclere". At present it reads "Evelyn Gardner, the daughter of Lord and Lady Burghclere". Is this form objectionable? We need to identify Evelyn Gardner in some way, and this form provides us with a link which another editor feels is useful. Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's the next para I refer to. The mother in law's father is there gratuitously dragged in - not by you. Tim riley (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've finally got it, and removed it as completely unnecessary. Thanks for pointing it out. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writer and traveller
    • "Waugh … saw Abyssinia" is closely followed by "Waugh saw little action" -- the first is a quote but perhaps the second "saw" could be rephrased
    • "he was introduced by Father D'Arcy" – title still needed at this second mention?
    • I'd say probably yes. I'm not sure of the protocol for referring to Jesuit priests, but none of the sources refer to him as "D'Arcy". It ia always either "Father" or "Fr." Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Breakdown
    • "out of step with the zeitgeist" – the OED still prescribes the capital Z for this word (and the fact that you have italicised it does rather point up the fact that it has not yet become an English word)
    • "He was increasingly dependent on drugs" – in the previous paragraph (end of the Fame and Fortune section) you have said already said "increasingly dependent on [alcohol and on]] drugs"
  • Decline and death
    • "buried, by special arrangement, on a consecrated plot" – in rather than on?
  • Footnote 3
    • Fowleresque quibble: to anticipate is not just to look forward to, but to do something in advance of the thing anticipated.
    • But "to anticipate" can also mean "to expect or foresee", as in "he anticipated that x would happen". This from my Collins English Dictionary, 2nd edition 2005Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm! Collins! I suppose it counts as a dictionary. (Grudging acquiescence)
  • Reference 179
    • "Mugwump" – I had to look that word up. The WP article clearly uses the word in a different context. The OED tells me that in English usage this American word means "1. orig. and chiefly humorous. An important person, a leader, a boss. … 2. A person who remains aloof from party politics, professing political disinterest". Worth a few explanatory words in brackets at the end of the reference?

That's all I can find at a second trawl. Congratulations on a first-rate article. – Tim riley (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments and suggestions. Other than when I have inserted comments above I have acted on them. Thanks, too for the support and earlier help given at the PR stage.Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Good job Brian, this article is very well-written and referenced. The research and effort put into the article really shows. I'm happy to support it.--AlastorMoody (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contribs SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rather than clutter off this FAC page, I've reviewed the article and left a list of comments here. Gladly support as a fine article about a very noteworthy author whom I personally have never cared much for. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support. I have dealt with your useful talkpage comments. Brianboulton (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The opening sentence "Arthur Evelyn St. John Waugh (pronounced /ˈiːvlɨn ˈwɔː/ (28 October 1903 – 10 April 1966) was an English writer of novels ..." has a missing closing bracket (and should not be nested according to the MOS). I am not too partial to the pronunciation guide there and think it can be left out of the lede or placed somewhere else later. Jappalang (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: As a participant of the peer review (although commenting mostly on the images), I had found this a comprehensive, well-written coverage of the author's life. The above comment (about the missing bracket) although a minor issue should be addressed, but I have no doubt Brian will find an excellent resolution to the matter. Jappalang (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, and for help generously given during the peer review stages. Brianboulton (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I read this for the first time just now. It's extremely well-done. I searched largely in vain for quibble prompts, finding only one. Should Duckworths lose the "s" in "This led to a contract from the publishers Duckworths for a full-length biography?" This is in the last paragraph of "Schoolmaster and incipient writer". Finetooth (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose if the "s" was retained, it should be "Duckworth's", but I have removed it. Thanks for picking this up, and for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: I checked all of the online refs to which I have access; these included refs 135, 158, 194, 197, 207, 225 through 228, and 230. All looked fine except 194 and 197.

  • In the case of 194, Life should be in italics and "magazine" lower-cased, I believe.
  • In the case of 197, the link goes to the wrong article, a Wall Street Journal piece rather than Buckley's National Review article.
  • Except for the mix-up in 197, the sources I checked are reliable, support the claims, and involve no copyvios or too-close paraphrasing. The "Sources" section looks fine to me, all complete and correct. Finetooth (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for these checks. I have replaced the wrong url in 197 (don't know how that happened) and have added a second ref direct to the short story. I have also dealt with the italics in 194. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • "Chapman and Hall, holders of the copyright to the works of Charles Dickens"; does this mean "publishers of the works of CD, then still in copyright", or had they actually bought the full copyrights from the Dickens estate?
    Dickens died in 1870 so the works would still have been in copyright. It's not entirely clear from the source that C & H actually owned the copyright, so I've altered to "publishers of Dickens". Brianboulton (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The great success and controversy of The Loom of Youth should probably be quickly conveyed.
    I'm reluctant to add much because this was Alec's book, and its only effect on Evelyn was to scupper his Sherborne chances. I have added that the book caused a "public sensation". Brianboulton (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the captions have links, which they normally do. In the caption: "Lancing College, with its high Gothic chapel", what does "high" mean - High Church, tall, high up, High Gothic? All are probably true, but it's a bit confusing.
    I have added links to all the captions, and clarified that the Lancing chapel is "tall" rather than "high"
  • That Scott Montcrief was pretty much exclusively engaged in his translation of Proust should probably be mentioned.
    Words added. Brianboulton (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he went down to a nearby beach ..." - nearby where? He is not located at this point.
    Waugh doesn't locate the beach. I have added that he was still in North Wales, so I think the reader will deduce that it was there. Brianboulton (talk)

BANK! more later Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments and I look forward to the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Part 2:
  • "William Boot, is in part a parody of Deedes" - Is it not an essential condition of a parody that the audience is aware of the original being parodied? But Deedes, later of course truely if indirectly parodied in the Dear Bill letters, was then a very obscure figure. "in part based on Deedes" I think.
    Nice literary point - accepted Brianboulton (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pixton Park in Somerset, the Herbert family's country seat,.." I've added the missed link, with others, but it was more his father-in-law's only seat.
  • "and, Patey observes, "the book that seemed to confirm his new sense of his writerly vocation".[117]" - Patey needs introduction here I think.
    Introduced and linked. Brianboulton (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he travelled to Goa for a ceremony consecrating the remains of the 16th century Jesuit priest St Francis Xavier.[128]" - "consecrating" is unlikely to be the right word. And what was the Spanish religious festival - we are bound to have an article on it
    I can't see an article on the Spanish festival, but I have added detail that it was in celebration of the 400th anniversary of the death of Francisco de Vitoria and hve linked him. As to Goa, on investigation "consecration" is too loose a term. It was the exhibition, (or "exposition") of Francis Xavier's remains before their final burial. I have added a further reference. Brianboulton (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Zeitgeist," - no capital in English I think
    This came up at peer review. The view was that Zeitgeist is not yet an English language word; this is supported, for example, by at least two major dictionaries including the word in italics, with a capital Z. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his drugs dependency," "dependency on drugs" better; "worsening" is a bit awkward too.
    Tweaked Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Lord Noel-Buxton really an Express journalist? Maybe, but I thought the point was that Spain had picked him up from Rent-a-peer just for the day, as Waugh immediately sniffed out.
    That is correct, though descriptions of the event have sometimes referred to "two Express journalists". I have corrected my text.
  • "Waugh remained detached; he did not go to Cyprus, nor did he immediately visit Auberon on the latter's return to England. His evident coldness shocked the scholar David Wykes, who calls Waugh's sang-froid "astonishing", and the family's apparent acceptance of his behaviour even more so.[145]" - seems somewhat POV; his wife went to Cyprus & some of the other children were very young to leave I think. What do the other bios say?
    Stannard's account is along the same lines as Wykes's, though slightly less shocked; he implies that Waugh was offended by the disruption to his well-laid plans, and was embarrassed by the affair, rather than deeply upset. He adds that the military authorities were authorities were expecting Mr Waugh rather than his wife: "He would not, would he, allow his son to die on foreign soil without at least bidding him farwell? Apparently so; 'I shall go out', he told Dians Cooper, 'to travel home with Laura if he dies'". Patey dismisss the whole incident in a couple of lines; Hastings is brief and neutral; Sykes writes "Undeterred by his anxieties, Evelyn persisted with work in a dedicated spirit" and says little more. I have slightly tempered Wykes's comments, but are they sufficiently out of step to need further qualification? I'd rather not add text if at all possible. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the joke on Save the Children (est 1919) be shown by a link? Maybe
    Problem is, a direct link might have people assuming a real link between Waugh and the Save the Children fund, but I've found a way of doing it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Wehwalt, I'm dubious about the champagne to Ms Spain as evidence of a forgiving or generous spirit. But he did make up with friends after colossal rows & estrangements, like R Churchill, eventually.
    I don't think "forgiving" came into it. More likely it was a magnanimous gesture towards a thoroughly defeated foe who, in court at least had "behaved like a gentleman" (per Waugh). But we can't obviously know his deepest motives; whatever they were, the act itself was I think generous enough. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critic and literary biographer David Wykes" - he's already been introduced as "scholar DW" at 1958. not sure if that matters.
    Dealt with. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pass 2: "An extended essay on the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood was printed privately by Alastair Graham, who had acquired a small printing-press" - not what Patey, p. 20 says (see here too. Also, just below Patey says it was a "matron" that Waugh made his pass at in Aston Clinton.
    There is some confusion among the sources about the printing of "P.R.B." Stannard's catalogue of works shows it as "privately printed, Alistair Graham, 1926", not by the Shakespeare Head Press where Graham was training as a printer. Byrne (p. 103) says it was printed on Graham's private press, but doesn't give details. Hastings is likewise unclear, so I think the best thing is to revise this to "An extended essay on the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood was printed privately by Alastair Graham, who was undergoing training as a printer", and to cite this to Stannard. On the matron business, yes, that is correct; I was distracted by Hastings's reference to a housemaid in the same paragraph. Now amended. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking for something else, I happen on this, from the Spring '71 EW newsletter, Volo 5:1, which shows matters were as I thought they were: "1p. Engraved heading reading "from Mr. Evelyn Waugh." n.d., but written at the time Alastair Graham printed Waugh's PRB booklet in 1926. To. Mr. Newidigate (He was in charge of the Shakespeare Head Press where PRB was printed). "Alastair asked me to send you a copy of this little essay of mine which he printed, on your press. It was extraordinarily kind of you to allow us to use it - I only wish it was more worthy." Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very fine piece. There's an obvious problem with pictures, but for example Madresfield Court has several on commons. I'll add other suggestions at the article talk. It would be useful to clarify to what extent Waugh's constant post-War grumbling about money reflected real problems or was just a habit of mind. I have a concern about the lack of coverage of the "aesthete" part of Waugh, which (as he thought - Freeman interview) was fundamental. His conservatism was not just political, but included overt hostility to contemporary art and most contemporary literature. Meanwhile, with Betjeman and a few others, he was a pioneer in the revival of interest in Victorian art and architecture and in later years quite a serious collector, whose purchases (and gifts from Betjeman) were often excellent investments Export licence for £800,000 sofa refused and [£240,000 washstand.

Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • On these final points
  • I agree that the image array is a bit meagre, but whether the article needs more images only indirectly related to Waugh is arguable. I'll certainly look at any suggestions.
I've made some at article talk. Less indirect than Haile Selaisse anyway. Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On whether Waugh's money grumbles were justified or not, we may have difficulty finding something to cite. My guess, from all the reading I've done, is that Waugh tended to spend money as it became available, didn't save or spread his income over years and, given that his income was uneven, sometimes ran into short-term difficulties. But these are my own conclusions; I'll look again to see if a source supports this view.
  • I agree that a short paragraph on his aesthetic conservatism could be added to the "Character" section and I will prepare something.
    • This has now been added to the "Character and opinions" section.
  • Can Waugh really be described as "a pioneer in the revival of interest in Victorian art and architecture"? He certainly became a collector; he was knowlegeable, and in his 1953 radio interview he said that if he had more time and money he'd collect a great deal more. But the impression I have from the biographies is that he was a well-informed and occasionally shrewd amateur collector rather than the co-founder of a movement. The washstand referred to above was not in fact collected by him, but presented to him by Betjeman as a gift.
I think certainly yes. By the time of his death the revival in interest in Victorian Art, especially beyond the PRB, was still very young and tender. What I think was the first book on Victorian Painting, by Reynolds, was not published until 1968, & Roy Strong complains in 1978 about how partial that rehabilitation still was, and is (And when did you last see your father? The Victorian Painter and British History). There had been Kenneth Clark's Gothic Revival in 1928, but that is narrower and takes a rather cool academic attitude, and a book on the PRB in 1948. The Victorian Society - again nearly all about architecture - was only founded in 1958, with 28 members. The (certainly not full) bibliographical entries with the brief bios at the end of Piper, David, Painting in England, 1500-1880, Penguin, 1965 revised edn. show starkly how little there was on the few Victorian painters he covers. Obviously Betjeman did the heavy lifting, but he was not yet a National Treasure, and Waugh's fewer pieces on such matters perhaps drew more attention and carried more weight - eg his wartime letter to the Times on railings, made the subject of a leader. Also painting was Waugh's interest rather than Betjeman's. I could go on, but had better not. The biographers are essentially literary specialists & may not give this enough context; no doubt people like Bevis Hillier have covered it. You might ask User:Paul Barlow who is a pro in this area. Both items I linked were part of the "Betjeman Bequest"; now if some images of his pics were found they would be free. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article on the man who must have been Waugh's main rival, as their areas of collection were just the same. Waugh is mentioned lower down, as is Allen Funt, producer of US Candid Camera, who only began after Waugh's death, and collected a different area. Forbes began 1n 1969. Johnbod (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, but I really don't think it necessary to add more about about this aspect of Waugh's life to this article. He was a collector of Victoriana, though from the very few references to this in the biographies, letters, diaries and other relevant material, I'd say that he bought things that "amused" him, often on an impulse basis. The fact that after his death the "Victorian revival" gained momentum and that some of Waugh's objects eventually acquired great value is not central to his life story. You may disagree, but I don't think it is appropriate to continue to focus on this marginal issue during this FAC, though I might be interested in pursuing the discussion in a different forum. Waugh was a multi-faceted personality, and any article on him could stretch to infinite lengths if every point of interest was pursued in detail. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I sorry to hear that, as I don't think I can support on the basis of what's in the article at present. There are in fact copious references in the post-war diaries and letters (and no doubt many more not in the edited selections published), and several articles, reviews etc by EW. If the literary biographers are underweight here, which I don't know about, no doubt there are other sources. As it is, his religion and politics are given very full weight, but not this essential side to his character, which you evidently do not appreciate fully (imo of course). However I won't oppose. Johnbod (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not in any expectation that you will change your mind on supporting, but as an acknowledgement of your concerns, I have added a paragraph to the "Fame and fortune" subsection which indicates the nature and range of Waugh's collecting, and notes his prescience. In preparing this article I have used five biographies (six if you count Byrne) only two of which–Patey and Wykes–can be described as "literary biographies", so I don't think the biographical sources, collectively, can fairly be described as "underweight". References in the postwar diaries and letters to Waugh's role as a collector of Victoriana are meagre rather than copious. I feel I have based this article on an adequately wide range of sources, and have endeavoured to reflect their balance in the text. Brianboulton (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I thank you for these various points and suggestions and for the consequent improvements in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch. This is a fascinating read. I find it meets all the FA criteria and am happy to support.

  • For consistency, it seems as if the birth and death years of Alexander Waugh (the Brute) should be given parenthetically. The years for his parents could also be given (his father's death is noted, but I did not see his mother's).
    Dates added for the Brute and Catherine.
  • I think there are several places where a bit more on geography could be added for those readers not overly familiar with Britain. For example, West Hampstead and Golders Green could be identified as being in London, or the location of Lancing College could be alluded to.
    I've given the geographical info for West Hampstead; Golders Green is "nearby". As for Lancing College, doesn't the link provide the necessary geographical information? Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence seems out of place as the last sentence in the first paragraph of the Golders Green and Heath Mount section "In 1916, Waugh devised and edited a school magazine, The Cynic.[11]" The second sentence of the next paragraph is about pre-WWI invasion literature, but I assumed it was in chronolgical order and that these were WWI invasion fears. Then I read the third sentence about WWI breaking out in 1914 and was confused.
    Sentence relocated per chronology.
  • Missing word? in Late works "The broadcast was shown on 26 June 1960; according to his biographer Selena Hastings, [Waugh?] restrained his instinctive hostility and coolly answered the questions put to him by Freeman, assuming what she calls a "pose of world-weary boredom".[146]"
    Word inserted.

Image review - all of the images are freely licensed. Well done! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 06:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, these comments and for the image review. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help and thank you for this fine article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I read the article today, in two sittings, and I have nothing to add to the accolades above. WRT St, Francis Xavier, I saw his remains in Goa in the 1990s, so was it really "the final exhibition"? Thanks for a superb contribution that certainly exemplifies our very best work. Graham Colm (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Waugh certainly thought it the final exhibition. In his report he wrote: "On 6 January the casket was carried back to Bom Jesus, its panels replaced, its doors locked, and the saint's restless bones at last found peace, not to be touched or sen again until the Day of Judgment." Thanks for your kind comments and support. Brianboulton (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Evelyn_Waugh/archive1&oldid=1078799343"