- 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 SandyGeorgia 21:37, 20 April 2010 [1].
Adrian Boult (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because, following an extensive peer review recently completed, I believe it meets the FAC criteria. The subject was the least publicity-conscious of people, but his life and work are nevertheless well documented. Boult played an important part in British musical life through the majority of the last century. I believe the article covers all the important aspects of his life and work. It is stable, the images are accounted for, and the article is, I hope it will be found, well-referenced and easy to read. Tim riley (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No dab links but some external links where a subscription is required. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 10:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those links are marked as such and should not be problematic. Ucucha 13:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I helped in a very thorough peer review of this article, and think it is now in excellent shape. It gives an involving account of the life of an uncharismatic but historically important conductor, and off-hand I can see no bar to its promotion. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - I'll have a read through and correct any obvious grammatical problems, but I'll also raise a few questions as I go.
The last two sentences in the lead don't really sum up his life. I don't think the fact that his music has been released on CD is that notable, certainly not enough for a lead section. While on the lead, it speaks only of his career - I'd like to see a little more, even just a passing mention, of his family and background. Right now I don't think the lead accurately sums up the article. My rule of thumb is to mention at least one fact from each section of an article, but that's only a guide I use. It just seems a little bit lacking right now. More to come. Parrot of Doom 19:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point: I've expanded as suggested, and the lead is definitely more rounded now.
When did Boult go to Oxford? I know its hinted at in the previous quotation from his biographer, but I'd like to know in the article body.
The chronology of the second paragraph is slightly muddled. We start by mentioning he went to Oxford, then he met someone before he went to Oxford (why is this important?), then we say "By the time he went to Oxford..."
- Moved earlier meeting with Elgar to the chronologicalally relevant point in the article.
What is the Oriana Society?
"He was president of the University Musical Club in 1910" - when did he become president, and when did this presidency end?
Parrot of Doom 19:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good points. Shall attend to them and report back to this page soonest. Tim riley (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC) Later: now all addressed. Tim riley (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Boult graduated with a pass degree in 1912" - I wasn't clear on what this meant, so I moved some text out of the note into the prose. I hope this is ok. By the way, you might consider formatting text in the notes section by using ((#tag:ref|This is a note|group="nb")) in the body, and in the notes section, ((reflist|group="nb")) (see [[Gunpowder Plot]] for an example). It won't affect my opinion on the article's promotion though.
- I am attracted by this. I have lately been (most peripherally) involved with a major revamp of the article on Gustav Mahler which splits the notes, à la Gunpowder Plot, into citations and amplifications. I can see that there is a distinct difference between "click here to see more interesting stuff on this point" and just "click here to see why this statement is justified." Shall ponder further on this. Your rewrite of the degree info here is fine, I think. Tim riley (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Hans Sitt? If he's a musician, just add "musician" before his name.
I made this change - ""I went to all his [Nikisch's] rehearsals and concerts in the Gewandhaus. …" - is it Nikisch being talked about? I wasn't sure.
- It was - the brackets are fine.
- "This style accorded with Boult's opinion that" - I don't think accorded works here, as a verb, as it may imply causation. I could be wrong, however.
- I don't think I agree with you here, but would gladly look at an alternative phrasing...
- I changed to "in accord", "accorded" can be taken to mean something else entirely. Parrot of Doom 21:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Boult made his professional conducting debut on 27 February 1914" - I'm uncertain of the terminology of conducting, but would "made his début as a professional conductor" not be more suitable?
- "He was recruited by the War Office as a translator (he spoke good French, German and Italian)" - when was this - before/during/after 1916? Also, is "fluent" a more descriptive word than "good", or would that be over-egging it a bit?
- "some of which were subsidised by his father, with the aims of giving work to orchestral players and bringing music to a wider audience" - was this his father's aim, or Boult's aim?
- "In 1918 he gave a series of concerts with the London Symphony Orchestra, which included important recent British works" - the concerts included important works, not the London Symphony Orchestra.
- "Just before the Armistice, Gustav Holst burst into my office:" - this quote might benefit from being not in the prose, but in a quote box - check out Template:Quote box3. You can see how it works in, for example, Dick Turpin. Your choice though, just a suggestion. Right now it isn't obvious who gave the quote.
- "Boult ran the classes from 1919 to 1930. In 1921 he received a Doctorate of Music" - are these two facts connected?
- More to come, but the more I read the more I like. The corrections to the prose are minor, and its well-written. For a layman like myself I'm not at all struggling with the terminology. Parrot of Doom 19:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is full of food for thought - thank you very much. I'll work my way through in the next day or so. At first glance I think all your points may help me tighten the prose up. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Parrot of Doom indicates the corrections needed are minor: please continue working with PoD post-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, Tim riley could you address the points above on the article's talk page? I can continue there, if you like. I was leaning towards supporting. Parrot of Doom 21:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed (the below items have been addressed, according to Hekerui)
The other images look fine. Hekerui (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite sure how to take the image questions forward, and have asked Hekerui for a steer on this. Tim riley (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Will re-do collages if need be after above points are resolved. For the time being is is acceptable to leave them as they are? I uploaded the Beecham original, to which I'll add bibliographical detail. I didn't realise that Commons files were dubious, but I agree that the Weingartner and Strauss files are plainly from their youth and so can be fairly taken to be out of copyright in this century. The Elgar is, I have no doubt at all, pre WWI. Taken at about the turn of the century in his early forties to judge by his hair colour. - Tim riley (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I looked at the images. As is often the case with older Commons images, some of the ones used for the compound images have incomplete and lacking descriptions that make verification difficult.
- File:Gustav Holst.jpg: There is no further information on the image. Assumption: the image was taken in the UK (since he lived there), then the image is safely public domain in the UK per http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/private.pdf if the author is unknown. However, there's no evidence that anyone has done "reasonable enquiry" into whether the author is actually unknown or just wasn't mentioned on the blog. If he were known he would have to be dead 70 years for the image to be public domain in the UK. To be hosted on Commons the image has to be free in the US as well, but there's no evidence it was published pre-1923 and no evidence it was already public domain in the UK on the URAA date, which would make it free as well.
- It was written on my talk page that the image was published at least 1921, which means it is definitely a keep for the Wikipedia project. The question whether it fits in Commons can then be ascertained separately and is of no relevance for this nomination. The image needs to be uploaded to Wikipedia for that withTemplate:PD-US. Hekerui (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The National Portrait Gallery says the photographer died 1936, not 1944, clearing that up. Hekerui (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Beecham emu 1910.jpg: the image lacks a source (for verification of date and country of origin), but that one could be given by the original uploader.
- I uploaded the original scan into en.Wikipedia. I don't seem to be able to edit the bibliographical information, but the source was the dust jacket of Lucas, John Thomas Beecham: An Obsession with Music, London, Boydell, 2008, ISBN 9781843834021. - Tim riley (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added this information to the file. The edit tab is on the upper right corner in commons, Tim. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the images are all fine now, no further issues for me. Hekerui (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - A good, informative read. I think the Bibliography entries should be consistently formatted (last one has city, publisher, and is missing ISBN/OCLC#), possibly using ((cite book)) since you use that for the references, and maybe give some indication of whether they are in print. The older works used as references should have OCLC numbers. Magic♪piano 02:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for this. OCLC refs added. The list of Boult's books originally had the ((cite book)) layout, but somehow the simpler form felt more suitable for a para in the middle of the article. But will change back if that is thought preferable. I'm a little bit wary of saying which are in print and which not, as such info tends to get out of date. I could say "in/out of print at April 2010, perhaps." A good idea? - Tim riley (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC) Later: Changed entries to cite book format as discussed. The books are all out of print at present: worth saying so? Tim riley (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's worth saying so. The books are in the library. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Support. I've included "in print as of xxxx" in other bibliographies, that would be fine. When using cite book for this purpose, I also just omit the author. Magic♪piano 23:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Full disclosure: I also participated in the peer review of this article, which was fairly exhaustive. Like its companion article on John Barbirolli, this one is thorough, well written and engaging. Boult may not have been the most charismatic figure in British classical music but was a central figure in a tremendous amount of music history durng his long life and deserves a first-rate article of his own. It's heartening to say that he finally has one. Jonyungk (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I did some proofreading of this article. The article is comprehensive, well-referenced, readable and well-balanced. It covers Boult's life, career, reputation and style. I don't see how it could be improved in an encyclopedic format. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article says he died on 22 February 1983 in London, but the Allmusic biography says he died "just two weeks shy of his 94th birthday" on 24 March 1983 in Farnham, England. Does the book source state the full date? The Allmusic description seems awfully specific. Hekerui (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dictionary of National Biography and all other source I have checked agree that it was 22 Feb. in London. His The Times and New York Times obituaries were both published on 24 February 1983, so if he had not died yet, the reports of his death would have been "greatly exaggerated". -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes sense :) What's up with AMG? Hekerui (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad this has come up. The above is not the only article that gives the wrong details about Boult's date/place of death. I am adding a short note on the article talk page to prevent future confusion on this point. - Tim riley (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments First of all, thanks for working on the article. Some questions/suggestions, some are minor language things, some about understanding:
Lead
- "Forced to retire from the BBC in 1950" by whom or why? can be shortly mentioned so the summary doesn't become a teaser
- Tim, I think you changed this based on a comment at PR, but FWIW, I preferred the old language about the "rival". -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is so. My original wording was "Manoeuvred out of the BBC by a rival in 1949," but at peer review we agreed that the more neutral wording was less of a teaser. In fact 60 was the BBC's official retirement age, but Boult had been promised by Reith that it would not apply to him – but Reith had gone by then and Wilson was able to apply the rule to his enemy. - Tim riley (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it should be simply stated that he was forced to retire due to age? That's true in any case, no? Hekerui (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "orchestra set standards" of what? should be plainly stated
- "founder-conductor" is that an often used title or just a more complicated way of saying "first conductor"?
- not the same – he was not merely its first conductor but also its founder. - Tim riley (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just meant that being a founder is already stated in the sentence with "he established", no? Hekerui (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Indian Summer" it's not made clear here or later why that name is chosen, what does the source say?
- The phrase is used in many articles about Boult – there is not just one source. It is a common English expression indicating a late burst of warmth in the autumn, and applied to people indicates achievement later in life. Tim riley (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey! Stop stealing American expressions and calling them "common English expressions". Well, I guess it's fair, since we stole some English words and use them to this day. :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just checked the Oxford English Dictionary and am obliged to acknowledge that it is indeed U.S. not UK in origin: "A period of unusually calm dry warm weather, often accompanied by a hazy atmosphere, occurring in late autumn in the northern United States and Canada; a similar period of unseasonably warm autumnal weather elsewhere. … fig. A late period in the life of a person or in the existence of a nation, culture, etc., characterized by calm, happiness, or achievement."
- Actually, here in NY State, where we had many Native American tribes, it specifically means "warm weather after the first frost". :-p -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
- where is Chester? The country is northwest England, perhaps that could be mentioned for people unfamilar with English cities
- "The family moved to Blundellsands ..." when?
- it should be mentioned what Hugh Allen was, so the article doesn't rely on clicking through to another page for knowing why he was Boult's mentor
- "effect of music made utterly without effort" not clear what that means, at least to me
- Difficult to rephrase: what Boult wrote was "…the work must sound easy" – in other words that audiences must not be distracted by the apparent effort of the performer(s) to play the notes accurately.
- How about, "without apparent effort"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- what was Ralph Vaughan Williams when he met Boult, another student, a teacher? I think the sentence should explain that, so people don't have to read Williams' Wiki page first/alongside this one - the sentence also has a weird style with the "he made friends with Williams, a life-long friend"
- VW was neither a student nor a member of the faculty. He was someone whom Boult met at Oxford. I don't think the construction of the sentence "weird". Perhaps you might like to suggest another form of words. - Tim riley (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "keen rower" is vague - was he cunning or an achiever or just enthusiastic?
- I like most of H's comments, but I disagree with this one. Even for us Americans, I think "keen" is very clear that he was enthusiastic. I don't think it indicates cunning or achievement in this context. I think there should be some room in Wikipedia for a little regional flavor in the writing, or else everything will just be cardboard. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- it's not clear that the "Leander Club" is also about rowing, since the sentence generally talks about "interests no wholly confined to music"
- One could change this to "the rowing club the Leander Club", but that's an ungainly repetition, I think. Tim riley (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence already mentions rowing, and the club's name is linked, so I think it's OK as is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- music education: did he learn an instrument or singing (which later mentioned) or already conducting from 1908 to 1912? - this is not clear in the text, it only mentions his switch to music, and I think important to understanding his education
- Oxford musical education in those days was geared towards composition and theory. There were no instrumental classes. The choral tradition of the university meant that membership of a choir was open to musical undergraduates. Boult played the piano, but did not study it as part of his Oxford course. Tim riley (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "... should be clad in an invisible Tarnhelm which ..." - Tarnhelm needs delinking per MOS:QUOTE
- MOS experts: Is this right? MOS:QUOTE says "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation...." I don't think this link clutters, and Tarnhelm is an unfamiliar term to most readers and is important to understand the quote, so I think it helps to link it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First conducting work
- I'm neither here nor there with regard to the forced image sizes.
- "Salonika" should be noted to be Thessaloniki, perhaps with brackets in the quotation (I suspect many people have never heard this version)
- I agree that Zeppelin doesn't need linking, but I think Balfour Gardiner does. And if MOS wants to avoid clutter in quotes, it would be much better to wikilink Thessaloniki than to use brackets. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I had thought about the "principle of leaving quotations unchanged" of the MOS, but it's a suggestion only. (this reply is by Hekerui)
- "rather spoilt by a Zeppelin raid" and "... Salonika quite soon and Balfour Gardiner, bless his heart ..." delinking per MOS:QUOTE
- "Ansermet gave Boult all the help he could" with what, learning them?
- Partly learning the music per se, – more learning how to pace ballet music to make it danceable. I've added "with his preparation…".
- "had jointly gone some way to doing so" - vague, better to just describe what they did
BBC Symphony Orchestra
- "During this period, Boult accepted some ..." - the period of being at the BBC Symphony Orchestra or the period mentioned in the preceding sentence?
- Both - not mutually exclusive. "During this period" could come out if a majority of reviewers find it intrusive. The dates suffice to make the period clear. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "in 1930 being considered outstanding" by whom? if the source mentions no one then it's probably according to the source itself
- This was originally in quotes (from the earlier of the two ODNB articles cited) but the quotes were removed, following discussion at peer review. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "later came to be Boult's undoing at the BBC" - sounds like like a narration and as if he was chased out of there, because it is not stated how and leaves the reader wondering
- I disagree with you, but if other reviewers are of your opinion I am happy to redraw. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "pre-war glory" - peacock-ish, or not? what about "reputation"?
- As above. The other reviewers to date have not had a problem with this. I'm happy to go with the majority. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "However, Boult's BBC days were numbered." - unencyclopedic formulation imo
- Must our prose be unrelentingly bland? "Pre-war glory" is crystal clear here, since it comes at the end of the section that describes exactly what it means. And "days were numbered" may be a little fanciful, but you will see similar formulations in Brittanica and other encyclopedias. Tim's prose has a little bit of old-fashioned academic flavor to it, and I think this is a good thing for this encyclopedia. Let's focus on clarity rather than replacing anything refreshing with edit-by-committee words. Again, just my 2 cents. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
London Philharmonic
- "... with the mezzo Blanche Thebom ..." - just "mezzo" is jargon
- I thought I had written mezzo-soprano. Mea culpa. Now fixed. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Of the Elgar, The Gramophone wrote ..." - the Elgar? is the Falstaff meant?
- "A less happy aspect of 1952 ..." - POV?
- As above - happy to go with a majority view on this. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "... but when matters came to a head ..." - unencylopedic, vague imo
- As above - happy to go with a majority view. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "... at the Festival Hall and the Albert Hall ..." I think should use the "Royal" for both because even if the Royal Festival Hall is mentioned before it left me wondering whether it was the same thing and the Royal Albert Hall is the name familiar for uninitiated like me ;) there is another instance of this further down
- As above - happy to go with a majority view. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added Royal before Albert the first time, and then the subsequent times can use the short form. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Later years
- "... as a fallow period when Boult thought himself relegated to the second eleven." - should perhaps be rewritten for readers like me not familar with colloquialisms (?) like "second eleven" or "fallow period" (I thought "fallow time" had to do with agriculture and "second eleven" I don't get)
- Both these phrases were originally in quotes, but following discussion at peer review the quotation marks were removed. Fallow period is self-explanatory, I think. Second eleven is a term from cricket and football, referring to the lesser of two teams fielded by a club. I would be very happy to restore the quotation marks there if a majority of reviewers think it would help. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "fallow period" is a common metaphor. But "second eleven" should be replace by something that readers from everywhere will understand. Tim, I can assure you that it (and all cricket terms) is utterly meaningless to those of us unfortunate enough to be from this side of the pond. Can you replace it with "second tier" or something? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have blitzed the sentence. The meaning remains plain without it. Tim riley (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "His repertory in general was much wider than his discography might suggest." - that is really vague
- Clarified in footnote. The footnote was originally part of this para, but was turned into a note following agreement at peer review. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Musicianship
- "This could have been written of him at any point in his career." - is this original research?
- Not in my opinion: the quotations illustrate the point. But happy to go with a majority of reviewers on this one. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless it is sourced in a RS that is a pretty broad (original) analysis - it's better to let the quotes speak for themselves. Hekerui (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recordings
- "He recorded all eight then-existing symphonies by Vaughan Williams for Decca Records in the 1950s ..." - "then-existing" sounds kind of unencylopedic, like "Tony Blair, then-Prime Minister of the UK, decided X", or not?
- I inherited this phrase from an earlier contributor, but could not find a better way of expressing it. When Sir Adrian made his cycle of VW symphonies for Decca, there were only eight. VW wrote another later. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "... received great critical praise." and "The conspicuous breadth of Boult's repertoire ..." are peacock-ish
- The first seems factual enough to me, but happy to go with majority opinion. The second slightly troubled me, but I felt it was not enough to say "breadth" tout court. There is breadth to anyone's repertoire - some more than others. Boult's repertoire, as demonstrated in the article, was exceptionally broad. I'd be grateful to know what others think on this point. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exceptional breadth? Unusual breadth? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exceptional is spot-on. Done.
General stuff
- the article mixes "repertoire" and "repertory", I think this should be made consistent
- I demur. Both perfectly good words. Otherwise one must not mix any synonyms like "start" and "begin". Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some changes to use repertory only when referring to a group's repertory, and repertoire to refer to Boult's repertoire. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS:HONORIFIC says the inline use of honorifics is discouraged unless the usage is pervasive in the coverage - are the people named "Sir" in the text, Henry Wood, Hubert Parry, Thomas Beecham, John Reith, William Haley, John Barbirolli, really described in the sources as "Sir" by default? the Wiki article on John Reith shows no Sir designation at all (is that included in the Baron title?)
- Yes to your first question. In British usage it would be a solecism to omit the title. No to the second, but he was Sir John before he was made Lord Reith, and should be so referred to in mention of events at the relevant period. Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What was the effort to obtain a free image of him? (I'm just interested, I realize it can be very tricky, but there is a Hall named after him so someone might have connections to get a free image or release an image.)
- Online enquiry and at public libraries of two boroughs and one university library. - Tim riley (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good, you tried and finding something like that from a person dead for so long is difficult, so it'll be hard for anyone to question the FUR of the image. Hekerui (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hekerui (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think other input from a majority is forthcoming so I made some changes, I think for the better. I also removed "avowed" from "avowed member of the party X" as it's just a fill word as in "avowed atheist", "avowed xyz". Hekerui (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support So, I want to add that the article looks well researched and reads well. The sources appear to be high quality, and it covers him in so much detail that it appears comprehensive as well (as much as I can tell without access to sources). The images are all fine now and the rest of the FA criteria are met too in my opinion. Hekerui (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I read this engaging article last weekend. The prose is of a professional standard and IMHO this contribution satisfies all the featured article criteria. Graham Colm (talk) 18:25, 20 April 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.
