Wikipedia:Peer review/C. R. M. F. Cruttwell/archive1

C. R. M. F. Cruttwell

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This is a spin-off from the recent Evelyn Waugh biography, the story of Waugh's unfortunate Oxford tutor Mr Cruttwell. He fell afoul of his feisty pupil, and suffered 15 years of sly mockery through Waugh's fiction. Eventually it drove the poor fellow mad. I'd particularly value reviewers' thoughts on the use of a non-free image in the infobox. Personally, I think it is important that readers should be aware of what Cruttwell looked like, but I know that the conditions for acceptance of non-free content are arduous. Please let me know your thoughts on this, and on any other aspect of this sad but nebertheless funny tale. Brianboulton (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jappalang

• "A mental collapse led to his death in an institution two years later."

  Prone to misunderstanding: that the collapse led to his death. Later text does not state this. It would be more appropriate to say "A mental collapse led to his committance to a mental institute, where he died two years later."

• "On the outbreak of war in August 1914, ..."

  Seems like the war was not identified, perhaps "On the outbreak of the First World War in August 1914,", or "Great War" (to be in line with his work, although it might be overly romantic to use this term).

• "Apart from its physical effects, Cruttwell's experiences ..."

  Should it not be "their physical effects" (experiences)?

  Or "experience" can be single, which is what I have done. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "removing the general good manners of his youth and substituting a short-tempered, impatient and bullying character."

  "Substituting" seems to be used wrongly here; "substituting the general good manners of his youth with a short-tempered, impatient and bullying character."?

• "... by an Independent, ..."

  Should Independent be capitalised?

  It is usual, in the UK, to capitalise "Independent" when the word is used as a political label in an election. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The final Cruttwell appearance ..."

  Appearance or reference, since Waugh was mocking but not directly identifying him as such?

• "Waugh told a survey asking modern novelists to nominate their best work that his choice was as yet unwritten:"

  Noun plus -ing construct that could be ambiguous (Waugh tells the survey to ask modern novelists); suggest "Waugh told a survey, which asked modern novelists to nominate their best work, that his choice was as yet unwritten:"

• File:Cruttwell.jpg: Generally, it is acceptable to use a copyrighted photograph for dead figures with no known "free" images (although that might change with an ongoing RFC), so one identifying shot should be okay. One possible query to make before asserting this claim should be to check that no photographs of Cruttwell was published before 1923 (since this shot was published in 1924 and he had published books in 1922 and earlier, that might be the chance a photograph of him was published). Otherwise, it would seem fair to use this image (which has the additional benefit of actual critical commentary on it in the article).

  Cruttwell's only publication before 1923 appears to be his history of the Royal Berkshire Regiment, first published in 1922 and reissued in 2007 by Bibliobazaar (I missed this in the list of works by Cruttwell). There is no indication in the reprint that the book included a picture of Cruttwell - see here. Although information on the provenance of the Isis photograph is elusive, from my reading of the various accounts I suspect that the photo was provided to Isis in the expectation that a normal profile article was being prepared, rather than Waugh's satirical contribution. I am fairly sure that if other photographs of Cruttwell had been published, they would have found their way into one or more of the many Waugh biographies and critical studies.

A nice short article about this man. It makes Waugh seem like a ... jerk, but there is no defence for that sort of attitude. Jappalang (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. Except where indicated, I have followed your suggestions. I have to agree with your assessment of Waugh, but great writers and artists are often not nice people. Brianboulton (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with Jappalang's comments and was going to make some of them myself. This is a very nice article, here are some nit-picky suggestions for improvement.

• The other thought I had about the File:Cruttwell.jpg image was that, from its description, the image is the very one that Waugh used in the 1924 satirical newpaper article about Cruttwell. Thus it seems, since there is some discussion of Waugh's newspaper piece about Crutwell, that the Wikipedia article should make clearer that this is the very image discussed, probably in a caption and in the article text itself.

  I have added an informative caption to the infobox. Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the Lead should say something like "commonly known as C. R. M. F. Cruttwell" since this is the article's title
• The lead makes it clear that Queen's and Hertford are part of Oxford University, but I think that either the lead or first mention in the body should make it clearer that All Souls is also at Oxford. Many American (and I suspect other) readers will not know this without following the link.
• Did he have any siblings or was he an only child? If this is known, could it be included in the Background, childhood and early career section?
• In War service, there seems to be a bit of a contradiction - first his wound "ended his active military service" in 1916, but then he kept serving in Military Intelligence until apparently about 1919, which sounds like continued active military service. Perhaps something like "ended his frontline military service" would be clearer?
• In the Feud with Evelyn Waugh section, I would link the books or stories that have articles here (like A Handful of Dust)
• Is the year of Crutwell's one marriage proposal known? Even the decade would help add context

  Unfortunately, no mention is given of a year in either of the Waugh biogs that report this information. Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Would it also help to mention his age at early retirement?

  Well, his age at death, a couple of years later, is given a line or two further on, so maybe this isn't necessary? Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

  Good point, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• If the Bibliography is a complete list of all his books, should it say so?

  I have added one, previously missed. I can't be 100% sure that there are no others, though none appear on Amazon or Abebooks searches. I'd rather call it a "list" than a "complete list", just in case I'm wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches for more details (I say this in every one)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for this review and these suggestions. Except where I have responded with a comment, I have adopted your suggestions. Just as a footnote, in the Brit idiom "active service" generally means "frontline service"; a desk job with the Ministry wouldn't be considered as "active". However, to save any possible confusion I've adopted your alternative. Brianboulton (talk)#

You are very welcome - as Churchill said the British and Americans are two people separated by a common language. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

One more The link to Isis (journal) seems to link to the wrong publication - it is an American journal on the history of science, not the Oxford publication. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted! Now fixed Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt: A few comments. Short but sweet, very nice article.

• Lede:

The statement that Waugh's persecution of Cruttwell caused me to immediately advance into the text looking for the reason why it ended, my impression of Waugh from your article was that Waugh was a man who did not give up his grudges lightly. I find nothing. Surely something should be said?

There is nothing in the sources that says specifically why Waugh stopped, but perhaps the facts speak for themselves. Scoop was the last novel Waugh finished before Cruttwell's death, and "An Englishman's Home" virtually Waugh's last prewar short story. By 1940 Waugh was in the army, and by the time he resumed writing fiction, Cruttwell was no more. Perhaps even Waugh wasn't quite such a jerk as to continue the feud after his enemy's demise. But this is theory - no sources back it up. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Early life:

Does a two-paragraph section really need to be subdivided?

Probably not. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"commissioned as a second lieutenant" I've also heard similar phrases without the "a". You will no doubt be better at me at determining which works better in Britlish.

Your version probably works better. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hertford College

"and as one of the group of academics nominated by the vice-chancellor as a delegate to the Oxford University Press." This may be technically correct, but it reads oddly. Did the group together constitute a delegate, or where they individually delegates? If the second, I would change "a delegate" to "delegates". If the first, the sentence might be worth a rephrase.

Clarified. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Note, please, that Oxford University was a two-seat consitutency. If you would like the complete results, I can give them to you sourced to Craig's very comprehensive book of election returns from 1918-1949 (left over from my Chamberlain days). Basically, he finished third out of four in what was a two-seat constituency decided by preference balloting. It was not particularly close. It is perhaps not surprising he did not stand in the 1937 by-election.

I do have the results. The multi-member university parliamentary seats were an odd anomaly, abolished in 1950, whereby graduates at Oxford, Cambridge and some other universities could vote for a universiity member as well as casting a vote in their home constituency. Elections in these university seats were by the STV (single transferable vote) method. I don't think, however, that these details, interesting though they are, are relevant to this article.

• Feud

"Jowett". I think that would be a useful link. I imagine Benjamin Jowett is meant?

We don't normally link within quotes, but I don't think the rule is absolute, so linked. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

"The basis for the rift ..." I think this sentence needs to be split. I was at sea about what was intended by "this", I assume Waugh's scholarship, but am not prepared to bet the house limit on it.

"He did this in Isis, in unsigned contributions," Ambiguous, I'm afraid. Were what Waugh did in Isis and the unsigned contributions two separate things, or one?

"he continued the vendetta against his former tutor" Perhaps, better "resumed".

Above three prose fixes done. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

" embezzling Wolf Cub master." We would say "Cub Scout leader". I don't know what the terminology for such things is in the UK, Just for your reference.

We call them Cub Scouts here, now, but fidelity to Waugh's prose requires use of the older name. The link is there to resolve any uncertainty. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Reputation

I would put his professional reputation first, then the controversy about how he was viewed by Waugh. Even though without Waugh, he'd be forgotten. It will require a little shifting around of sentences, but it looks doable to me.

I've done as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice little piece. Looking forward to seeing it advance. Regarding the image, even given the inevitable wrath of Fasach Nua, I think you'll be upheld. An image for purpose of identification of the article subject is acceptable.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and advice, largely taken. I'll let it fester awhile before sending it on - always the chance of more comments. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)