Jump to content

Talk:Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 11:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Disgusted of Boughton Aluph : "I hate pornography .... I haven't even got a pornograph!"

On a more serious note, the article has been on the main page so all the various wrinkles should have been ironed out. My concern is that 5.5k of prose, it is a little on the short size and may not meet the "broad in coverage" criteria. However, I can dig through my newspaper subscription archives and see what else I can ferret out.

General

[edit]
  • Shouldn't there be some way of tying in the Daily Mail and Daily Express into this? This is not a great source, but it does tie the "disgusted" and Mail stereotype together
Okay, we've done that but "People writing them have been claimed by commentators to be readers of the Daily Mail" seems a rather ham-fisted way of getting the point across. Let me have a coffee and biscuits and see if I can think of something more suitable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had a go at putting in File:Writing a letter.jpg. This probably makes the infobox completely wrong, so I've removed it; I personally think the article looks better without one but I realise these things generate strong views so I won't complain if you format another around it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if it would be worth having an "Introduction" section, that basically describes the stereotypical "disgusted" and their typical habits. This source and this source could be used as a suitable starting point for that. This would be particularly useful for non-Brits and people who don't know much about Tunbridge Wells

Lead

[edit]
  • The lead says the phrase is "humorous", but in some of the cases I have dug out, particularly looking through the Times archives, suggests it's used in serious conversation as a handy generic term for white middle-class southern Britain.
  • usually with strongly conservative political views - this claim in the lead doesn't appear to be backed up anywhere in the body
  • I think the lead could do with expanding a little bit, to cover the "Later use" section
  • The date formats on all the citations should be consistent. I don't mind what you go for; my personal preference is nn Month yyyy

Origins

[edit]
  • The BBC radio show Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh, first broadcast in 1944, is sometimes said - by whom?
  • However, some reports have popularly rumoured - this claim has a "clarification needed" tag on it
  • Is the 1929 quotation from the Tunbridge Wells Advertiser out of copyright? (I can never remember with these specifics) And precisely what relevance does it have to the article?
  • The type of letters written with a tone of incensed moral outrage have become commonly described as "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" letters, even though the writer may not be from Royal Tunbridge Wells - the source given doesn't appear to verify this statement
  • Per the talk page, there should be something about Take It From Here. For example, this archived episode features "Disgusted of Tunbridge wells".

Later use

[edit]
  • In politics, the people behind "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" letters are commonly viewed to support the Conservative Party. - I think you need another source alongside the St Louis Post Dispatch to verify this. This Independent source, referring to a surprise Lib Dem council gain in Tunbridge Wells, might be suitable.
  • Critical review of the book has stated that the "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" style displayed an art of letter writing that remained the same despite other things in the world changing - precisely how does the source given support this statement?
  • Can we work in this Michael Caine quotation? [1] (hopefully with a better source)
  • Local merchants at the town's information centre... - this sentence has a "clarification needed" tag on it
  • I think there is still a bit too much recentism in this section; referring mostly to events in the last ten years. Any chance we can dig through news archives and pull out something earlier?

Summary

[edit]

I can't think of anything else, so I'll put the review on hold pending improvements Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to get some work done on this tomorrow. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I have made the improvements you suggested. With regard to the copyright question, UK copyright law says that if the creator is unknown, then copyright expires 70 years after first publication. Given the quote was first published in 1929 it is out of copyright now. Furthermore I wish to express my own Disgust at having to include a source from the heinous liberal publication known as The Guardian to cite Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' support for the Tory party! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely disgraceful that an anti-Monarchist newspaper like The Guardian should be sold in a shop near to where I live. I shall write to my MP about it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You write to your MP? Get out of the 1950s, everybody uses Twitter these days :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is outrageous using that manner of communication, that one cannot express one's disgust in more than 140 characters. The finest words in the English language cannot be adequately conveyed sufficiently by such limitations! @Ritchie333:, in all seriousness beside the image, what is your view on the article now in relation to GA? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I need to check all the points are resolved (as opposed to you merely saying they are), and I'd also quite like that "Introduction" section that describes a stereotypical "disgusted" (not great analogies but WP:UNBLOCKABLE#Characteristics and WP:HITANDRUN#Characteristics are what I have in the forefront of my mind right now). I see you've put something in the "Origins" section; that might be enough. Hopefully we should be done and dusted by close of play this evening unless get distracted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Okay, only thing is I'm still confused as exactly how the source verifies the statement : "Critical review of the book has stated that the "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" style displayed an art of letter writing that remained the same despite other things in the world changing" - but other than that, everything checks out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: It's right at the bottom where it says "Readers will hopefully appreciate the labour of the letter writers – an art still very much alive, while so much else has changed". But I have altered the sentence slightly to make it clearer. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's a wrap!

Unfortunately, Disgusted of Boughton Aluph is not happy....


Well, that's enough of him then.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What 'appropriate derivative of antidisestablishmentarianism' can be used here that breaks Twitter? Jackiespeel (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disgusted_of_Tunbridge_Wells/GA1&oldid=1085454316"