Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Handful of Dust/archive1

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC) [1].

---

A Handful of Dust

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This is Evelyn Waugh's fourth novel, a relatively early work (he was just 30 when he wrote it) yet by some accounts his best. His personal circumstances were miserable at the time, and some of the book reflects this. In places the phrasing is dated and awkward, even embarrassing to present-day ears, but generally the wit and imagination are undiminished. I hope a few readers of the article will be minded to read the book, or at least watch the film (available in its entirety on YouTube). Thanks to loyal peer reviewers, as always up to the task. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Support – I was one of the phalanx of peer reviewers, and my few and minor points were dealt with most satisfactorily then. Waugh is not a writer I generally enjoy, and it says much for BB's article that I was moved to get the novel off my shelves and dip in again. A fine article, comprehensive, balanced, clear, beautifully written, and as well illustrated as one could ask for in the circs. FA all the way, in my judgment. Tim riley talk 22:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your peer review, your encouragement and your support here.

• Image review:

• File:Lancing College Chapel Exterior, West Sussex, UK - Diliff.jpg - Very much good to go.
• File:Easton Court - geograph.org.uk - 168425.jpg - License is good
• File:Evelynwaugh.jpeg - Fine
• File:Dust300.jpg - Fine (FUR is appropriate, though in theory this could be free I highly doubt the anonymity requirement is met). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for this review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Support most interesting, though Waugh is not my field.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks – and for the very helpful peer review that preceded this FAC. Your willingness to review outside your comfort zone is much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN1 should italicize ODNB

• I don't think it should – this is the online ODNB, not the printed edition. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• FN6: which Stannard?
• Slater ref duplicates surname and formats editor notation differently than for other books
• FN41: italicization is reversed
• Some Waugh short cites use commas, others colons. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Except for the point noted, all these are fixed. Thanks for the review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Driveby comment by Curly Turkey

• The infobox seems to give info restricted to the first edition (number of pages, etc, but tells us the Media type was Print (Hardback & Paperback). The body tells us a paperback edition didn't appear until 1951. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Pub year of paperback version added Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I think there's no need to mention anything other than the first edition. Books tend to be re-released in a wide variety of formats—paperback, ebook, audiobook—but the infobox is not the place to note them all.—indopug (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

I looked at just the lead section and fixed a comma; feel free to revert, as always.

• "unofficial "best 20th-Century novels" lists": I'm hesitant to fiddle with capitalization inside quote marks, but that doesn't look right to me.
• If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. The comma you added is I believe superfluous, in BritEng at least, so I've removed it. I have rephrased the "best 20th century novels" bit and removed the capitals. Any more comments? Let's see if the thing gets promoted, before you think of adding the lead to your no doubt excessive watchlist! Brianboulton (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• That's all I've got, Brian, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Support; I was a previously a peer reviewer, and had my small concerns happily dealt with there. Two subsequent minor tweaks from me, but the article is certainly better for the previous comments and improvements since PR. A further read through shows nothing to stop me supporting such an excellent article. - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Support. Looked very strong from first glance, though I must admit I knew nothing of the subject. Read through with the intent of noting any quibbles and made a few very minor, mostly cosmetic, changes. This clearly meets the FA standards in my opinion. Really excellent work. Thank you, Brian, for the enlightening read. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and kind words. I am pleased that you found the article interesting – I am sure that, dated though the prose sometimes is (embarrassingly so in a few cases), you would enjoy the nove. Some day, perhaps. Brianboulton (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Note -- I'll leave this open a couple more days in case anyone else wants a go; if no issues will aim to close by EOM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

• 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. Ian Rose (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.