Bernard Shaw achieved international fame more than a century ago as a playwright, polemicist and critic, was a prominent public figure until his death in 1950, and remains one of the best-known dramatists in English. Brianboulton and Tim riley have been overhauling the article during the past three months. It has been a challenge to cover Shaw's 94 years, 62 plays and innumerable opinions in 11,500 or so words, but after the benefit of a thorough and penetrating peer review we hope and think the page is ready for consideration as a Featured Article candidate. As ever, suggestions will be welcome about further improvements to prose, proportions, balance, structure or anything else colleagues feel moved to comment on. – Brianboulton (talk) and Tim riley talk 12:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. During the PR I restricted myself to looking into the sourcing. My issues there were dealt with, but a couple more have bubbled to the surface in the interim:
Footnote 305 (Bentley) doesn't have any associated source; neither does FN322 for Cole (is it 1949, or should it be 1961, like the others)?
Aside from that, this mammoth piece of work is a thorough and solid biography of a complex, contrary and productive individual. – SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, SchroCat, for the input here and at peer review. The two absentees have been added to the list of sources. Are you happy for us to point to your source review for FAC purposes? If so, I'll put a note on this page drawing it to the attention of the coordinators. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, sorry fr the delay in getting back: for some reason the ping here didn't get through to me. Let me have another look through them once again and I'll comment separately. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating and well-sourced article at first glance. Very comprehensive and overall quite interesting. That said, I find the writing a little bit "in-universe" in tone and phrasing -- what I call (in my own cases) "looking at the article so long you can't "see" it any longer). Certain things jumped out at me as either assuming a knowledge not necessarily in the hands of the average reader, or perhaps a bit jargony, or --occasionally-- not quite making sense in places. I'm going to list them as I see them; it isn't an explanation I'm looking for (I usually figured it out) but rather a suggestion that it's a bit of writing that needs to be reworked for clarity because the average reader is lazier than anFAC reviewer ;-) . Montanabw(talk) 06:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
I'd actually suggest a complete rewrite of the lead and a significant expansion so it presents a more thorough summary of the rest of the article; it's too short, it is not in sequence with the article, and IMHO too focused on his political views, it doesn't really meet the standard of a FAC-quality lead. (I say this as someone who hates writing a lede, so I say this with sympathy.) Some places that need rephrasing if you do keep it as is:
I so agree about writing leads! This one survived PR without adverse comment, but if other reviewers here share your view that a complete rewrite is wanted we can go back to the drawing board. Responses to your individual points are below. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC);[reply]
My thinking is that you probably can salvage what's there, but you need to supplement it to be more of an overall summary of the article. Montanabw(talk) 18:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"controversialist " Might want to link; that's an unusual noun form for the US reader... The redirect if linked would go to polemic, but I'm not really sure that's the precise meaning intended? ;-)
"polemics" will do very well as a link. Indeed, Shaw is so described in the opening of the article on him in The Cambridge Guide to Theatre: "playwright, critic and polemicist". I'll link to polemic for now, and with my co-nom will ponder if changing to "polemicist" would be better. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to "polemicist". Either word fits Shaw, and there's not a paper's thickness of difference in meaning. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
struggled for some years to establish himself as a writer, while undergoing a rigorous process of self-education..." (awkward)
"..."renounced Fabian caution" awkward -- the phrasing is "gradualism" in the preceding paragraph, sounds like something different here.
Will make this "renounced Fabian gradualism". Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these comments. On the lead generally, I'm sure it can be improved – in particular the balance between politics and drama looks a little lopsided – but I would be against any large expansion. I believe the most important function of the lead is to draw readers in, and that this requires above all two features: that the first paragraph should pack a heavy punch (which I think this does), and that the lead be as short as possible consistent with the requirement that it summarises the whole subject. Long paragraphs in the lead – walls of text – can be deeply off-putting to casual readers. So I will tackle the question of balance, but will try to do so without a significant increase in the wordcount. Give me a day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have redrafted the lead on the basis of the above, adding about 80 words, which is a bit more than I'd hoped but probably acceptable. Tim, when you see this, please tweak as you think best – I don't think I can do much more with it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First two paragraphs a bit jumpy; leaps around from birth to ancestry, back again. Might want to start with the history of the Shaw family, and then do the birth section; that or consolidate the info on the household and then duck back to 1689 in a new paragraph.
I may be wrong, but I think it is fairly usual to follow this pattern in Early Years sections in FA biographies: the subject's specifics, then the background, and then back to the main topic. Off the top of my head I'm thinking of other FAs such as Evelyn Waugh, P. G. Wodehouse and Laurence Olivier. In cases where the background is extensive, such as Nancy Mitford it comes first, and Shaw's could do so here, if reviewers agree. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The pattern concept is OK, it's the implementation... As I read, I feel like I am in a car that is randomly switching lanes with no clear sense of the traffic pattern. ;-) Basically Montanabw(talk) 18:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Streamlined. The gallant Captain has been relegated to a footnote. Tim riley talk 11:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"...styling himself "Bernard Shaw" after his move to London..." this is touched upon in a couple places, but never explained why he made the decision to drop "George" -- is it known why?
He simply loathed the name. We develop this topic later in the article, but could mention it here too if wanted. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote added expanding on this point. Tim riley talk 11:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"...Shaw, a sensitive boy, found the less salubrious parts of Dublin shocking and distressing..." this jumps out of the blue, not being a Dubliner, I'm wondering if Upper Synge Street was a "less salubrious part" or...?
Middling, if I interpret the sources correctly, but Shaw was familiar with some dodgier parts of town. I don't think we can say that Synge Street itself was insalubrious. "Genteel poverty" was Shaw's phrase, and (this is OR, admittedly) the Shaws' street seemingly had pretensions to some sort of gentility. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Later: I've found just the thing, from Ervine, and will add it. Tim riley talk 07:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
London
3rd through 5th paragraphs jump around quite a bit, leap from jobs to books, to beards and back again. It appears you are seeking a chronological arrangement, but it's not quite linear, and if the timeline is going to be a little chopped up, best to try and organize it more topically... wrote three books, grew a beard, joined Zetetical Society, etc…
We have grappled throughout with the competing demands of chronology on the one hand and of coherence of topics on the other. I think the third and fourth paras could be swapped about for chronological precision, but that would weaken the link between the present fourth and fifth paras, which are related to each other. I'll discuss with my co-nom on his return a few days hence. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fabian society
Wonder if there would be any sense to putting the bit on Marxism from the earlier section here as an intro to this period of his life
We'll come back to this: a bit of experimenting would be as well. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried this out – works quite well I think, though it requires a rather cumbersome revised section title. what do you think, Tim, Mbw? Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It works so well that I didn't even notice the change when I was reading through for something entirely different the other day. So it's fine with me. Tim riley talk 10:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Critic.
Well, the first sentence was an attention-grabber, but wonder if it would be better placed as the conclusion to the "London" section. I almost wonder if the entire "critic" section should move up with the "London" material, perhaps with some of the London material popping into the Fabian society section. Seems the departure into his political views would do better as a wrapup to the 1880s.
I agree about the attention-grabbing line, and my inclination would be to do as you suggest, but I seem to remember that we are exhorted to refrain from ending one para/section with a taster of the next. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reasonable case for transferring the first two paras of this section to the London section, as they don't really relate to Shaw's career as a critic. Or we could leave it as it is and retitle the section "Novelist and critic". Don't see any advantage in transferring the whole section or shoving more stuff into the Fabian section. Brianboulton (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with either, but on balance I prefer the present grouping of the information .I've changed the section heading, as you suggest. Tim riley talk 10:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Playwright and politician
"...After using the plot of the aborted collaboration with Archer ..." Forgot all about Archer, perhaps a few words to remind the reader where we are at now…
Good idea. I get cross when I have to ask myself "who was he, again?" in mid-article. Shall add a bit as you suggest. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, between 1880 and 1894, I'm a bit fuzzy how he earned his daily bread... office jobs until... when? IN the late 1880s was his income from his work as a critic?
Yes, this could be tightened. After the phone job he earned his living (a negligible one at first) wholly as a writer. I'll redraw. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(More to come...)
Thank you very much for these points; looking forward to more when you're ready. Meanwhile I'll go and make the changes mentioned above. Tim riley talk 08:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks echoed, looking forward to more. Brianboulton (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've addressed all the above points – satisfactorily, I hope. Tim riley talk 11:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better! ONWARD! (and sorry for my delay in getting back here) Montanabw(talk) 07:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stage success/Fabian
Not much to pick at here, though the sentence, " His co-star then toured in the piece in the US" is a bit awkward and a weak end to the section, perhaps a more complete sentence like "Campbell toured with the production in the United States from X to Y (dates)." Or something...
"He later wondered if the Fabian Society would have benefited if, after all, it had dismissed the Old Gang ... " Also a bit awk.
"Although less active—he blamed his advancing years—Shaw remained a Fabian" I'd make that the end of the preceding paragraph instead of the start of the one it's in (which is about the weekly)
Re the above two, I've tweaked and rearranged per your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First World War
"Shaw was scathing in The New York Times about Irish nationalism, writing... " icky construction, perhaps "Shaw wrote scathingly in ..." or something... Actually, that whole section might benefit from a new copyedit, it's not fatally flawed, but it's clumsy. It jumps from the war to Ireland and back to the war... given that the Irish issues are going to get more attention in the 1920s section, perhaps put the Irish bit last and maybe expand it a wee bit to give a little more context; the last time you mentioned Ireland was John Bull's Other Ireland, and we the readers perhaps need to get a bit more setup for what will be coming next...
I have tweaked the icky construction. The "War and Ireland" section was an attempt to maintain the chronology, which as Tim says earlier, has been a recurring problem for us. I think on balance that we made the wrong decision here; it would have been better to split "War" and "Ireland" into separate sections, thus uniting the two Irish paragraphs into a single narrative. I have done this (also adding a piccy). I will add a few words of context to the Ireland section so that it doesn't jump out of the blue. Tell ne if you think this works. Brianboulton (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1920s
" Shaw visited Dublin in August" this being 1922... but in the earlier section where he left Ireland in 1876 "and did not visit it for another twenty-nine years" = 1905... do we need to know anything about his visits back home prior to 1922? (Do we care). Just wondered... was his 1922 visit a rare thing or was he making a habit of it, particularly in light of his future dual citizenship?
He only went back in 1905 because Charlotte bullied him into it. He doesn't seem anxious to have visited often, but I don't recall any comment from a RS that he actively avoided the place. Tim riley talk 07:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Shaws regularly holidayed in Ireland after the war, usually staying with their friend Sir Horace Plunkett, but I don't think such detail is necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" It is a cycle of five interrelated plays ..." There's a past/present awkwardness... most of your discussion of his previous plays is in the past tense. Just a wee copyedit there.
I rather liked that quote from the Nobel Committee in Note 18 and would not find it amiss to make its way back into the main article.
OK. Done. Doesn't inflate the word count too much. Tim riley talk 07:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The bit on Mussolini, dated 1922, seems out of sequence and awkward in the middle of the section. Might want to look at giving the reader a sentence or so of lead in, as going from the Socialist Fabians to Mussolini and then Stalin and his interest in dictatorship seems odd... later in the article you note his views were "contradictory... partly an intentional provocation" -- I'm thinking that it's OK to point that out here and there early, as you go, otherwise the readers of these sections (who may not reach the end of the article) could come away thinking he just a curmudgeon that way and shifted gears all of a sudden. His later embrace of eugenics and such should have cost him more socially -- or was he not taken seriously? Were his ideas viewed as satirical, or was there more public sympathy for his views then than now? (Just a question)
There's more about this slide away from Fabian socialism and towards a fondness for dictatorships in the "Political and social writings" subsection, found in "Works". I'll bring a little of that material forward to provide a better context here. I agree the positioning of the Mussolini paragraph looked odd, and I've now put it at the end of the section so it doesn't interrupt a discussion of Shaw's stage works. Tim needs to agree. There's probably no ideal position, but putting it here allows it to lead directly into the political discussion that opens the next section Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"and at 2016 remains" Could use the as of template: ((as of|2016|lc=on)) should work.
"but this breach of his vegetarian creed" -- hadn't mentioned this since 1881... might want to make a more memorable note of it earlier -- if he was famous enough for it to be criticized when he "slipped up," then I'd at least note in the "London" section that he not only became a vegetarian, but remained one pretty much for life and became famous for it, etc... just a bit more of an anchor for the reader when they see it 50 years later. ;-)
I've added a footnote mentioning this and some of his other famous trade marks. Tim riley talk 07:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that keeps nagging at me is his flirtation with dictatorship; how did he remain such a popular public figure? Did he alter his views during WWII? Just wondering?
He was by no means alone in these views. Ex-prime ministers, media moguls, opinion-formers, all spoke favourably of the European dictators in the 1930s, and many believed idealised versions of life in the Soviet Union. Shaw's views were not egregious. A decade later many were anxious to forget what they'd said, but not I think Shaw. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Works
Not much to do there, it is a narrative list by nature, spotted one place where you have "St Joan" instead of "Saint Joan" at the 1920–50 subsection
Criticism
Section makes me think "criticism OF Shaw," not "criticism BY Shaw." Perhaps title "Artistic criticism" -- or something?
May want to note how famous he was in America up in the earlier sections, at least the initial success there.
His early US success is mentioned in reArms and the Man and Mansfield's lucrative production of The Devil's Disciple. Tim riley talk
OK, NOW I'm done. This is an impressive effort and with only minor cleanup as noted above, it will easily gain my support. Montanabw(talk) 07:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tim has to deal with a few points, and as indicated I am finalising a couple of your issues. Thank you again for this thorough review, which has certainly helped to improve the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, I am now fully supporting this FAC; my concerns are addressed, (Other than my last point about fame in America, which is minor) and I am confident that you two will clean up any remaining quibbles I may have. Excellent effort! Montanabw(talk) 05:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added my responses, above, and add my thanks to Brian's here. Tim riley talk 07:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not easy to add much to such a comprehensive and carefully-written article, but I'd agree with Montanabw that the lead could be a little smoother, and that phrasing throughout could be improved. Here are a few illustrations: the whole text needs to be checked for similar usages.
To take one example of a punctuation issue, phrasing like "If as Holroyd and others surmise, George's motives were mercenary, he was disappointed, ..." seems to me not to flow well. Perhaps "If, as Holroyd and others surmise, George's motives were mercenary, then he was disappointed, ..." would work better.
I'm happy with that rewording and will incorporate it. Tim riley talk 15:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As an instance of choice of words, "had become close to George John Lee, a colourful figure" is more journalistic (even journalese) than encyclopedic. Why the pluperfect tense? At that time she and Lee were close friends, perhaps lovers. "Colourful" and "figure" could similarly be rethought.
The pluperfect came into my mind to emphasise that the relationship had been going on for some (unknown) period. Given Shaw's obsession that Lee might have been his father I think this is worth giving the pluperfect a short outing, but I'll go with the consensus on this. Tim riley talk 15:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An example of doubtful sentence structure is "During this period he was known as "George Shaw", before dropping the "George" and styling himself "Bernard Shaw" ..." Perhaps something like "During this period he was known as "George Shaw". Around ?1873? he decided to drop the "George", and styled himself ..." would work better.
Indeed it would. I'll redraw, and add a date if I can find a reliable citation for it. Tim riley talk 15:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "Shaw's next attempt at drama was in 1884, Un Petit Drame, a one-act playlet in French, not published in his lifetime." does not quite work. Are we talking about the attempt or the play? Perhaps we could say "Shaw's next attempt at drama was his 1884 one-act playlet in French, Un Petit Drame, but it was not published in his lifetime."
Happy with that change. Will do. Tim riley talk 15:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The mid 1880s marked a personal and professional turning point in Shaw's life:" should perhaps be "The mid 1880s marked a turning point in Shaw's life, both personally and professionally:".
That's fine with me. It shall be incorporated. Tim riley talk 15:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"is less widely credited.[81][82][83][84][85]" Why so many refs here? What is needed is a ref to a review that summarises critical opinion and that states "less widely credited".
Indeed, but I know of none, and for want of it we have had to look at a representative selection of the important sources and point to their conflicting interpretations. Trying to get a scholarly or critical consensus about anything to do with Shaw is like trying to juggle flour. I accept that having five cites in a line does rather smack the reader in the eyeball, but I don't think the citation templates allow for bundling. I'm inclined to dig my heels in on this one. Tim riley talk 15:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or herding cats? OK. Though it is possible to put a list of cite templates inside one set of ref tags. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"In April 1916, in The New York Times, Shaw was scathing about Irish nationalism, writing:" could perhaps be "In April 1916, Shaw wrote scathingly in The New York Times about ...".
"wrote...writing" doesn't work, but I've made an appropriate tweak. Brianboulton (talk)
"his errant reputation" - he was hardly a Don Juan.
"errant" means straying from the accepted standards of thought or action - it doesn't necessarily imply promiscuity. Brianboulton (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, as you like, but the overtone is there nonetheless. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" his fellow-writers Hilaire Belloc and G. K. Chesterton": might be worth glossing them as Catholic, unlike Shaw himself.
The Anglo-Irish confrontation between 1919 and 1921 was much more than a religious dispute between Protestants and Catholics, and emphasising the religion of these writers might suggest otjherwise. Brianboulton (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kaufmann's "godfather, if not actually finicky paterfamilias" is a bit obscure: I think I get the "godfather" bit, but "finicky paterfamilias" with its alliterative "f"s just leaves me confused. What has the absurd to do with finicky? Maybe give an explanation instead of the quote?
I've prefaced the quote with a phrase of introduction. Tim riley talk 09:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy and influence: the section alternates between past tense and present tense. 1976 is apparently in the past, whereas 1983 is in the present, for instance. Maybe we should choose one tense for the section.
Done, except for the para on the Osborne-v-Billington punch-up, which needs to be in the past tense, I think: I've tried the present tense for it and it looks very odd. Tim riley talk 09:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope these few illustrations from a not-very-literary editor may prove helpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Not-very-literary", forsooth! Some top-notch stylistic criticism there, which I'll enjoy working through. Thank you very much, CC. I've responded on some of your points and I'll report back on the others in the next day or so. Tim riley talk 15:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I've added my pennyworth on a couple more points. Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We've covered all the above points now, I think – I hope to your satisfaction, CC. Tim riley talk 11:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, happy to Support, it's a fine article and we need more like it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support and kind comment, CC. Your suggestions have certainly helped us improve the article. Tim riley talk 13:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the peer review Dr. Blofeld asked about the Dublin area where Synge Street is located. It is in Portobello if you want to add it. I doubt there is anything to pick apart in this massive rewrite but I'll give it a better read later. A fine job. ww2censor (talk) 10:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, ww2censor. I'll incorporate that. Perhaps (just for background – I'm not trying to lure you into Original Research) I could ask if you have a view on the question raised by Montanabw, above, in the third bullet point of the "Life" comments? How would you characterise the Synge Street of Shaw's youthful years? Tim riley talk 15:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ Tim riley - South Circular Road, Dublin mentions the area's residential development and this jstor item mentions the street and Shaw's description of the house, while this describes the area in the early 1800s. Maybe that gives you something to look at. In this image File:Portobello1840.jpg Synge Street is the unnamed street that runs north from the letters "Le" of Lennox right by the boat basin, now filled in for parking. I'll see if I can find anything else more specific. ww2censor (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That JSTOR article is fascinating – thank you! I think it will be worth raiding it for a footnote about the birthplace museum. Tim riley talk 11:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent article, was already in great shape before the peer review. I admire how much work has gone into this, a fine collaboration from two of wikipedia's best editors. Easily meets the FA criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, dear Doc. Your input at the PR was of great help (and its ripples are still rippling, as you can see from Ww2censor's point immediately above), and your support here is much appreciated. Tim riley talk 15:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and appreciation echoed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has been on my watchlist for a number of years, and it has been a pleasure to witness this rewrite and overhaul. An outstanding achievement. I stayed out of the PR, but have been reading on and off, and went through it again today, and find the prose crisp, clear and deeply informed. Especially wrt his views on Irish nationalism, the main writers are evidencing their own seemingly well informed knowledge and sensitivity. Ceoil (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this generous assessment and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I gratefully add my thanks to Brian's. Tim riley talk 11:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like the article very much. Do we need to have "UK" in the infobox? --John (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally say no. Ireland was part of the UK when Shaw was born, but I don't see any point, really, in rubbing it in and would be happy to see it go. Tim may have another view. Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. As long as we drop it from both the place of birth and of death that will look fine, I'd say. I'll do the deed. Thank you, John, for your kind remark about the article. Tim riley talk 19:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:George_Bernard_Shaw_1936.jpg: what is the copyright status of this work in the US?
Good old Commons! You can always rely on it to let you down. God knows what the missing details ought to say. Should we replace the image? There are plenty of pictures of Shaw that are definitely not in copyright in the US. Tim riley talk 09:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That might be easiest - it's possible the image is PD, but it's hard to say given current information. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
File:George_Bernard_Shaw_signature.svg: commons:COM:SIG would suggest that this tag shouldn't be used here, as Ireland uses common law. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at that guideline and if I understand the matter correctly we should not use this image. It is almost certainly covered by UK law (Shaw steered as clear of Ireland as possible after he left in 1876 and the letter was written at his English country house) and the guideline says, "The level of originality required for copyright protection in the United Kingdom is very low, and it is easily arguable that personal signatures are entitled to copyright protection." The signature doesn't add anything much to the article (the various forms of his name are fully covered in the text) and won't be missed if we blitz it. @Nikkimaria: what think you? Tim riley talk 09:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether UK or Irish law, the threshold of originality is low enough to include signatures - unless there's another reason this might be PD I would suggest removal. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that v. clear and helpful steer. As Ko-Ko says in The Mikado: "Very glad to hear my opinion backed by a competent authority". I'll follow your advice. Tim riley talk 12:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Were his parents Church of Ireland? Denomination is important in C19 Ireland and one expects to be told.
Yes on the basis of evidence. Shaw's uncle was rector of St Brides, a C of I church (where GBS was christened), and in later life the old boy wrote about the effects of Church of Ireland teaching on his young mind. Tim may have a direct reference but if not, I can cite Holroyd and Pearson in regard to the above.
If mention of the Protestant Ascendency won't sufffice, we can add that the young Shaw was sent to worship at Molyneux Church in Upper Leeson Street. (Holroyd 1997, p.16). Tim riley talk 07:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"to share a large house in a better part of Dublin" Do we have the address? We'd include it if was London, I'm sure.
"... writing under the pen-name Corno di Bassetto" - explain.
Will do. I have seen (but where?) a retrospective comment by Shaw that he originally thought the name sounded dashing, and was grievously disillusioned when he later heard the dolorous sound of the basset horn for the first time. If I can't find that, then I'll add a plain explanation of what a C di B is. I don't think a plain blue link on its own will suffice. Tim riley talk 07:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Later: found it! It was under my nose, of course, in the collected music criticism. Now added. Tim riley talk 09:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Jumping ahead) "Though Shaw's intentions were clear, his drafting was flawed, and the courts ruled that only £8,300,..." - This is still a leading case ("Re Shaw 1957") on what is "charitable" under English law, and I'm not sure how much it was that his (or his lawyer's, one would think?) "drafting was flawed". There is a lot of legal literature on the case - maybe User:Bencherlite or someone could advise.
My clear impression is that Shaw's reputation as a dramatist has been in sharp and steady decline over recent decades - or at the least his popularity for revivals. While contemporaries like Harley Granville-Barker have seen notable revivals of interest, productions of Shaw remain relatively infrequent compared to some decades ago. I see that many of the references used for the overall assessment are 40-20 years old. It would be good to have something very current, as I suspect that critical interest and appreciation have also declined. Mind you, he comes out of copyright in a few years, which may perk things up.
I'll have a look for a 2010+ assessment and add details if I can find a good source. I'm sure you're right about an upturn when the copyright runs out. Who ever programmed Mahler before 1961! Tim riley talk 07:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've found two 2012 critical assessments (Guardian and New Statesman) and added them. Tim riley talk 12:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On a similar note, "He campaigned against the prevailing fashion for performances of Handel oratorios with huge amateur choirs and inflated orchestration, calling for "a chorus of twenty capable artists"" - so he would be very happy with the modern fashion to do them them just this way, which might be noted.
True, but I'm a bit wary of ascribing a putative posthumous opinion. Tim riley talk 07:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have "Shaw's political and social commentaries were published variously in Fabian tracts, in essays, in two full-length books, in innumerable newspaper and journal articles and in prefaces to his plays", but I wonder if more should not be made of him as a public intellectual/rentaquote/soundbite master etc? By the end of his life he had (if only because of the distinctive beard) colossal and more or less unique public recognition stretching down to the very popular tabloid level (Bertrand Russell taking up the baton after him I suppose), and was very frequently in cartoons etc. One can only be relieved he was not around in the Twitter era.
stretches of the article are unillustrated, but there are some decent images of various types on Commons, even if his portraits are beard-dominated and rather samey
...and many of those Commons images have dodgy licences which would not survive FAC scrutiny. We'll look, but no more bearded Shaws, I think, merely to break up the text. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just spotted this when browsing through (ping didn't work, if I was pinged). Charitable law isn't my speciality by any means, but I can send someone the full text of the judgment if desired (by Charles Harman - sample quotations: "It is, indeed, a curious reflection that this same work, tagged with versicles which I suppose Shaw would have detested, and tricked out with music which he would have eschewed (see the preface to the “Admirable Bashville”), is now charming huge audiences on the other side of the Atlantic and has given birth to the present proceedings"; ... "Unfortunately the will bears ample internal evidence of being in part the testator's own work." ... "The result is that the alphabet trusts are, in my judgment, invalid, and must fail. It seems that their begotter suspected as much, hence his jibe about failure by judicial decision. I answer that it is not the fault of the law, but of the testator, who failed almost for the first time in his life to grasp the legal problem or to make up his mind what he wanted.") After Easter, I can have a hunt for commentary in the legal literature, although it may add little to this particular article; it might improve Purpose trust where the case is mentioned, or indeed it might be possible to create an article about the case itself, which is probably sufficiently notable in WP terms. BencherliteTalk 21:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that as far as this article is concerned, this issue is not hugely significant in the overall context of Shaw's life and works. So let's not go overboard on the research. I have amended the text to make it clear that Shaw's intended trust was declared void, and that the £8,300 arose from a later out-of-court agreement with the residuary legatees. I don't think much more is called for, although obviously if there are inaccuracies in the text they will need to be corrected.Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Johnbod, Bencherlite. Tim will need to answer some of these points – I'm sure he'll be on the case soon. Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added my comments, above, and add my thanks to Johnbod and Bencherlite here. Tim riley talk 07:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I spent time at PR in sorting out the minor issues found in the sources, and have done so with a few more missed points at FAC. The formatting is up to scratch, spot checks reveal no copying or plagiarism problems, and there is no text that is not covered by the sources as far as I can see. – SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SchroCat, for this and your labours during the PR. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 07:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary absence
Note to reviewers: My conom Tim Riley has been unwell for the past few days and unable to respond here. He will do so as soon as he can. Brianboulton (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now back in the co-driver's seat. Hello, folks! Tim riley talk 07:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments leaning support. I had my say at peer review but am giving this a close second reading due to the importance of the subject:
Just a few remaining things.
"and did not visit it for another twenty-nine years" I'm not sure why the "another" is needed.
"Despite the rift, Shaw maintained contact with Lee" I might cut "Despite the rift"
"By this time he had embarked in earnest on a parallel career as a playwright:" I would strike parallel
Happy with the first two, above, and will (not wholly convincedly) make the third change too. Tim riley talk 08:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"received a one-night performance in South Shields in 1895" is this an ENGVAR thing? So if it had gone 79 nights in South Shields it would have "received a 79-night performance"? I might have used the word "engagement"
It's Tim's phrase. I think the essence is that it was a single performance rather than a run. I've risked the wrath of Riley and altered it to "single performance"
"Shaw had long supported the principle of Irish Home Rule within the British Empire (which he thought should become the British Commonwealth)." I wonder if the parenthetical really adds anything? It does stray from the point and his view regarding the relationship is stated with his national and imperial parliaments idea.
I think the source included this to modify any impression that Shaw was a whole-hearted imperialist. He accepted the British Empire as a fact, but nevertheless wanted it to evolve into something less, well imperial. I'm not wedded to the phrase, but it might be useful? Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" he expressed horror at the summary execution of the rebel leaders," hm. This might be read to say they were executed upon capture, rather than after what passed for trials.
The first executions took place within three days of the surrender, after "trials" lasting minutes with no legal representation for the accused. I take "summary" to mean "without due process". rather than "instant". Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This caught my eye when I first read BB's para during our drafting stage, and I read up on the case to see if I thought it necessary to query the wording. Given the course of events after the men were captured I reluctantly concluded, and still do, that "summary execution" is indeed the right phrase, so much the worse for British justice! Tim riley talk
I shall not press the point and in essence agree with you personally.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"twelve years after the Irish Free State was established" what's wrong with "in 1934"? brevity and all that.
I had in mind that he was hardly down on one knee in a pre-sprinting position to apply for Irish nationality at the first opportunity, but I suppose that's a slightly tendentious comment. Tim riley talk 08:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"In December 1932 the couple embarked on a round-the-world cruise. In March 1933 they arrived at San Francisco, to begin Shaw's first visit to the US." That seems scant time for them to go around the world (from Southampton?) and THEN go to San Francisco. Round the world cruises returning to point of origin tend today to be in the 3-4 month range. I doubt if it was different then. Then Southampton to San Francisco is likely to occupy much of a month, depending on route and calls. Possibly they embarked on a world cruise but only went as far as San Francisco?
It would be a rash man who argued with Wehwalt about ocean voyages. I'll go back to the sources and check, reporting back here soonest.
It appears that the dates are right. R.M.S. Empress of Britain sailed on 16 December 1932, called at Athens (where Shaw made some remarks, perverse even by his standards, about the Parthenon), passed through the Suez Canal on New Year's Day, arrived at Bombay a week later, then via Ceylon to Hong Kong arriving on 11 February. After further short stops in China and Japan the ship called at Honolulu on 16 March, and arrived at San Francisco on 28 March. I wonder if, possibly, cruise schedules were less leisurely in those days because the ships doubled as the main means of international passenger travel from A to B. – Tim riley talk 09:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think my point is, it was not round-the-world, though certainly a significant portion thereof.
It didn't take in Australasia or Antarctica, it's true, but it circumnavigated the globe, starting and ending in Europe, taking in Africa, Asia and America and is referred to in the sources as a round the world tour. Tim riley talk 07:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"New York harbour" New York Harbor has a link. I merely mention the fact.
Thanks for these comments. Thus far they're mainly for Tim, who is under the weather at present, but shortly expected to rise from his bed. I have answered where I can. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad he is feeling better.
"permeation" possibly the reader needs a link on this"?
The meaning is explained in the text. The link article deals with the scientific principle. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"precipitated by injuries incurred by falling while pruning a tree" I would simply cut the second "by" to eliminate the repetition.
The curse of the common language. Modified. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" In this, he denounced the pacifist line espoused by MacDonald and many socialist leaders," as it has been some time since we've met this gentleman, I might toss a "Ramsay" in and change "many" to "other".
In most cases you have spaces between paired initials, but "G.B.S." appears an exception.
I think all is as it should be. The MoS, presumably written by a nonagenarian in the early 20th century, still insists on full stops (spaced) for initials before surnames, such as "W. S. Gilbert" although in English usage such full stops were abandoned decades ago by Her Majesty's Government and others as unnecessary and antiquated, and the form "W S Gilbert" is now used on most websites, in the press etc. (Full stops are still used for nominal initials in some printed books, even now.) At the same time (late 1960s/early 1970s) or thereabouts, we also dropped the full stops in discrete sets of initials, such as BBC, NATO, USA etc, and Wikipedia has at least caught up with that. We could apply this to GBS passim, but as he himself used unspaced full stops, as do those who still cling to them even now for, eg, U.S., it seems proper to do so here. Better still would be to rewrite the MoS to bring it into the 21st century, but that's another matter. Tim riley talk 07:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" in which Shaw had praised Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin: "[T]hey are trying to get something done, [and] that they are adopting methods by which it is possible to get something done"" The quote with interpolation reads a bit oddly.
Yes, I roughed that up a bit. Now smoothed
"As late as the Second World War, in Everybody's Political What's What, Shaw blames the Allies' "abuse" of their 1918 victory for the rise of Hitler, and hopes that, after defeat, the Führer will escape justice "to enjoy a comfortable retirement in Ireland or some other neutral country"" Three things. The present tense stands out here and seems inconsistent with the past tense in which you seem to describe Shaw's arguments elsewhere. Second, the "escape justice" bit sounds like someone else, not Shaw, as it appears he did not consider justice called for in Herr Hitler's case. Third, while his preferred fate for Hitler is obviously unusual, saying that the Allied actions after the war toward Germany led to Hitler's rise is hardly unique to Shaw. I might place greater emphasis on the Hitler in retirement at Kilkenny and less on what seems a commonplace.
First: I've adjusted the tense. Second: Shaw does say "escape". I've replaced "justice" with "retribution" as more exactly fitting Shaw's text. Third: I'd prefer to keep Shaw's view of Allied culpability, which won't necessarily be a commonplace to all. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Shaw was pleased with his third novel, Love Among the Artists (1881), feeling that it marked a crisis in his development as a thinker," possibly "turning point" or "breakthrough" for "crisis"?
"The eponymous girl, intelligent, inquisitive, and converted to Christianity by insubstantial missionary teaching" possibly "vague" for "insubstantial".
I think "insubstantial", in the sense of lacking solidity and depth, is probably better than "vague", which suggests lack of clarity. Much religious nonsense is taught with perfect clarity but still lacks solidity and depth. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Laurence commented that unedited they would have filled many more than the twenty volumes that Shaw once estimated they would take up; [284]" A full stop is probably intended rather than a semicolon. I might rephrase as "Shaw once estimated his letters would occupy twenty volumes; Laurence commented that, unedited, they would fill many more."
"Among those active in Shaw's lifetime he includes Noël Coward, who based his early comedy The Young Idea on Shaw's You Never Can Tell and continued to draw on the older man's work in later plays." I might move the "Shaw's" to serve in place of "the older man's". Despite my comment about the reader, I think they will understand from context that Shaw penned YNCT.
Not sure. That wording might leave the impression that Coward drew on YNCT in later plays. I'm inclined to think "work" should be "works", and I've made that change, but I'll leave the other to Tim. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As we've said earlier that YNCT is one of Shaw's plays I've removed "Shaw's" before it. Tim riley talk 07:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Assessing Shaw's reputation in a 1976 critical study, T. F. Evans described Shaw as unchallenged in his lifetime and since, as the leading English-language dramatist of the century, and a master of prose style." I might cut the second and third commas as unneeded slowing and possibly put "as" before "a master".
My preference is to lose second comma but keep third. And add the "as". Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" Crawford sees affinities with Shaw in some of Osborne's plays, and concludes that though the latter's work is neither imitative nor derivative, the affinities" I would eliminate one "affinities" by changing "affinities with Shaw" to "the influence of Shaw" if the source will support it, and change the latter "the" to "these".
"Shakespeare pleads with Queen Elizabeth I for the endowment of a National Theatre" I'm a bit troubled by the capitalisation of "National Theatre". I hesitantly offer "state theatre" in its place.
"Writing in The New Statesman in 2012 Daniel Janes commented that Shaw's reputation, having declined by the time of his 150th anniversary in 2006, had recovered considerably; Janes remarked that " maybe "Daniel James wrote in The New Statesman in 2012 that Shaw's reputation, in decline at the time of his 150th birthday in 2006, had recovered considerably." I'd end the sentence here and recast the remainder to stand on its own.
"In the 1940s the author Harold Nicolson advised the National Trust not to accept the bequest of Shaw's Corner, predicting that Shaw would be totally forgotten within fifty years." This would probably find a better home in the previous subsection. I think the section open's more strongly with "Shaw's broad cultural legacy, embodied in the widely used term "Shavian", has endured and is nurtured by Shaw Societies in various parts of the world." That really sums it up in my view and it shouldn't be relegated to the second sentence.
That opening sentence has travelled a bit. On balance I prefer it where it is (or not at all is another option). There is a natural flow in beginning with Nicolson's negative prediction and then showing the extent of its misjudgement. Tim may feel differently, and I'll do as he prefers. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the paragraph as it is best conveys what I hoped it would convey. Tim riley talk 07:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the musical legacy being not entirely of his choosing is completely tied up without at least some notation that Lerner and Loewe, in their adaptation, did not honour his wishes regarding the ending.
The pass had been sold by then: the Pascal film of Pygmalion ends in the same emetically sentimental way. Lerner can be blamed for many things (rhyming "bother" and "rather", "on the street" for "in the street", "fall" for "autumn" etc) but not for that. I'm still not sure how Pascal sneaked the soppy ending past Shaw. Tim riley talk 07:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having read footnote 20, I'm troubled by "He accepted the award, but rejected the monetary prize that went with it." Rejecting it, to my mind, means not taking the cheque and the money stays in the prize fund, as it would if, say, he had declined the award entirely. He took the money but used it for a purpose other than personal.
The money did not pass through his hands, but was, at his suggestion, given to found the institution. Tim riley talk 07:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me that refs 199-201 could be usefully combined.
The Conolly book contains the title of a play in the book title, and you may wish not to italicise the play title.
""Mr. Bernard Shaw's £367,000 Estate". The Times. 24 March 1951. p. 8.
"Mr. Shaw's Play". The Times. 15 October 1923. p. 10.
"Mr Shaw's Saint Joan". The Times. 29 December 1923. p. 8.
"Mrs. Warren's Profession". The Times. 29 September 1925. p. 12.
"Mrs Pat Campbell Here". The New York Times. 10 October 1914. (subscription required)" My initial quarrel here is with the full stop following Mr or Mrs. I am willing to grant that The Times may change its style guide from time to time, but here it looks downright indecisive, and the NYT somewhat British. I also italicise Saint Joan for the purpose of noting you are not consistent with italics of titles of plays in the references, such as in the case of the ancient profession of Mrs Warren (see the 1925 cite). (also see the Broughton journal cite I think)
I'm always in some doubt about the proper way to tackle punctuation, including italicisation, in references. If one tries to obey the MoS we cannot always faithfully reproduce the sources because of, e.g., the MoS's rules for single-within-double quotes. The MoS, if I read it right, allows, and indeed recommends, leeway in dealing with punctuation within quotations. We could go for consistency by blitzing all the full stops after "Mr" and "Mrs", and by italicising all or no play titles within headlines, regardless of the original. I see the attractions of the latter, but part of me feels that the flavour of the original (as in the point about Anglicising the NYT) should be preserved. What do BB and Wehwalt (and anyone else, of course) think?
My concern is accuracy. In October 1923, according to the sources, The Times were doing it with the dot. And then in December without, and then in 1925 with. That seems odd. Could you check the originals?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not at all clear what the issue is with the New York Times so I can't comment on that. As to the rest, I take liberties with source article titles, e.g, in capitalisation and with uglifications such as the full stops after "Mr." and "Mrs." If what's there is as appears in the originals, I'd zap 'em, and I'd italicise the play title, too. There doesn't seem to be that much "flavour" needing to be preserved. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will be content with any defensible and consistent way. The NY Times one does have the full stop, by the way. here, and I've viewed the original if anyone cares.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've italicised all Shaw titles within headlines regardless of whether the publications did so; all full stops now removed after "Mr" and "Mrs". I haven't gone for consistency in ulc, but tried to follow the originals as far as the MoS permits: in one headline (Nothorcot) all cap word BERNARD is in itals here (MoS); title case instead of all cap headlines in headlines from older newspapers; sentence case for more recent headlines when the paper has used sentence case, otherwise title case retained where used in original. I think this is about as good a balance as we can achieve between consistency, fidelity to the original forms, and adherence to the MoS. – Tim riley talk 06:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Bennett, Richard (2010). The Black and Tans. Barnsley: Pen & Sword Books. ISBN978-1-84884-384-4." I would add a county name for Barnsley as you do for Abingdon.
"Conolly, L. W. (2005). "Introduction". Bernard Shaw: "Mrs Warren's Profession". Peterborough, Canada: Broadview Press. ISBN978-1-55111-627-3." I would use the province name rather than "Canada".
"Feinberg, Leonard (2006). The Satirist. New Brunswick NJ: Transaction Publishers. ISBN978-1-4128-0562-9." I'm doing this offline and am unfamiliar with the publishing house. Is this a high quality RS?
Yes. The book was originally published by the Iowa State University Press Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Kevles title seems to need capitalisation. Ditto Searle.
On Peters 1996, you might want to add a CT after New Haven, for consistency.
"Crawford, Fred D. (1998). The Annual of Bernard Shaw Studies, Volume 18. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN978-0-271-01779-2. Is this Shaw? It is the only time you refer to the volume number of the annual as part of the title. Did Crawford write the whole thing?
No, it's from the chapter "Shaw's Advice to Irisnmen" (Crawford was the editor} I've redrawn the source and thecitation. Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are not consistent on whether the publishers of journals are mentioned. Nor with the capitalisation of journal article titles (see Broughton, Sloan) or newspapers (I think they are about equally divided).
I have removed the small number of publishers - these should not be necessary when there are links. I have also laboriously standardised the capitalisation in article titles (if anyone has a different view I invite them to fix it) Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a missing single quote mark in the Sharp reference.
Pygmalion should have italics in the 10/13/1914 NYT reference title.
One NYT ref has an accessdate and the others do not.
The one that has an accessdate goes to a website, rather than to the facsimile news article itself. Brianboulton (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let not the length of my comments detract from an immense achievement. Like the Snark, I simply make far more of it than the witnesses ever had said.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this meticulous readthrough. I've left some for Tim to polish off tomorrow Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One remaining query: Brian, unless there is some purpose I have overlooked, under Sources – Shaw's writings I think we can blitz the fourth, consolidated, listing of the music criticism: the three individual constituent volumes are listed immediately above it. That apart, I think we're there, unless Wehwalt sees something we've missed. This late revisit to the referencing has been entirely beneficial, and I echo BB's thanks to Wehwalt. – Tim riley talk 07:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ref 249 cites the 3-volume edition. Oddly, I don't see any citations to the individual vol. 3 Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes. My fault, and now amended. Tim riley talk 11:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied whichever way you go on that. You are most welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose, comprehensiveness, and on sourcing, as well as all other components of WP:WIAFA. A masterful work that could only, I think, have been done by these two masters of FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I say! Thank you, Wehwalt, for your support here, your invaluable input both on this page and at PR, and for that cherishable praise from the undisputed FA maestro. – Tim riley talk 09:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. --Laser brain(talk) 15:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
