Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kenneth Widmerpool/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 User:GrahamColm 10:33, 10 February 2013‎ [1].

Kenneth Widmerpool

[edit]
Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Widmerpool is, according to most critical opinion, one of the great monsters of 20th century fiction: a supreme egotist, small-minded and vindictive, lacking in social graces or cultural sensitivities, yet, mysteriously, becoming ever more successful and powerful as Anthony Powell's long novel sequence proceeds (though he gets his comeuppance in the end). He has held an awful fascination for readers and critic alike; Evelyn Waugh complained that there wasn't enough of him in the books, and Powell's contemporaries vied with each other for the honour of being the real-life model. The article has benefited from an insightful peer review to which several contributed; thanks to all concerned. Brianboulton (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I took part in the peer review, where my few quibbles were thoroughly dealt with. I refrain from comment on the images (I am no expert on WP's rules) but the text seems to me to meet all FA criteria: balanced, well proportioned, comprehensively researched and referenced, and a pleasure to read. Tim riley (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – As per Tim riley, above, my minor points were all dealt with at peer review and the article has improved further since then. A wholehearted support on another excellent article. - SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and ditto as for Tim Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I also helped somewhat during the peer review, and was very impressed with the article, which is a gripping and engaging read through out. This is a remarkably well written page and exhaustively sourced, and though long it never dips, labours or lost my attention. Ceoil (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and help (it isn't really that long, a mere 4000 words) Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Cassianto: Firstly, congratulations on a neatly put together article. I found it to be a thoroughly enjoyable read with no major faults to report. Nearly all of my quibbles surround possible overlinking:

  • Do we need to link Second World War?
  • Maybe for younger readers? It did end 68 years ago
  • Do we need to link Buckingham Palace?
  • Perhaps for the benefit of non-English readers?
  • Do we need to link solicitors?
  • Likewise; I don't think, for example, that US readers are familiar with this UK term for lawyers.
  • Yes when used as a mosifier, as it is here ("a music-hall burlesque")
  • Could Eton College have a link in the image caption?
  • Yes, done.
  • Likewise Longford and Beale?
  • Also done.

Support - Ceoil, ScroCat and Tim have said it all. I reviewed the piece for the PR, honestly only finding minor nitpicks, all of which Brian quickly resolved. Widmerpoole is an engaging read and more importantly, I believe, it sets an excellent example for an article about a fictional character. I'd also like to note at how impressed I am at the process of taking the article to PR first, where it had a lot of attention, which meant it was in very good shape by the time of the nomination. Thanks for the good read - very well done. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating in the peer review, and for your support here. I invariably try for a peer review before nominating at FAC. Unfortunately the PR process remains in near-crisis, with simply not enough reviewers prepared to give time to it; at least a quarter of articles sent there are not getting reviewed. This is a concern I have raised before, and will probably need to raise again. Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

  • All sources look reliable and high quality.
  • Ref 4: Should there be a space in "Spring1971"?
  • Refs 17, 63: p used rather than pp for page range
  • For refs 22, 23, 55, 57, 58, 71, 76 and 77 as an online version is used, do we need an access date?
  • Compare refs 12, 15 and 41: if the first two use p. for the second page reference, should ref 41 use pp. for the second page range?
  • Compare refs 55, 56 and 70: Is there a reason for the distinction between The Daily Telegraph and the Telegraph Online when all go to the same site? Similarly, why do some of the publications referenced online use "online" within the name of the publisher/journal, but others do not?
  • The articles cited to online sources are those which I cannot be certain first appeared in the printed versions of the newspapers/journals. They are therefore treated as web entries. There is some element of uncertatinty, but I have sought to be consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sources lacking an ISBN, could an OCLC number be used?

Everything else fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

Support: I'm not quite sure where Brian gets all his ideas from, but this is another fantastic article. An excellent read, as others have said better than I can. Just some extremely minor nit-picks which do not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Kenneth Widmerpool becomes the principal embodiment of these.[5]": The previous sentence refers to both middle classes and the Establishment, making this sentence slightly ambiguous.
  • "Widmerpool is the only one of the sequence's 300-odd character": Should this be characters rather than character?
  • "The part of Widmerpool was played, reportedly with "audible pomposity", by Brian Hewlett…": Reported by who? I always find "reportedly" slightly weak, but feel free to disagree here. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are right on "reportedly", and I have reworded. It is a second-hand comment reported on the Anthony Powell Society website; I have removed the quotes, as the original wording is "the pomposity was audible". Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Extremely well-written article. Of course, I have some nitpicky comments.
Lead
  • Literary analysts have noted Widmerpool's main defining characteristics: lack of culture, small-mindedness, a capacity for intrigue; generally, an embodiment of many of the worst aspects of the British character. - Characteristics and an embodiment don't have a verb between them. I think "they are" would help, or maybe ; generally, he is the embodiment of ...
Character
  • He first came across the name, he said, through the 17th century book, Memoirs of the Life of Colonel Hutchinson, which features a Captain of Horse, Major Joseph Widmerpoole, who served in Cromwell's army under Hutchinson during the English Civil War. - I think through should be replaced with in.
Career
  • Jenkins becomes his junior officer and observes Widmerpool's industry, also his endless capacity for intrigue. - Also really doesn't work here. Perhaps just a simple and or in addition to.
Critical and popular reception
  • Might be helpful to link running gag (as running joke).
Real-life models
  • Many readers and literary analysts have presumed that Widmerpool was drawn from life. - I think life should be extended to Powell's life. As it stands it's a little general.
  • Capel-Dunn was nicknamed "The Papal Bun" and derided by his subordinates for his appearance and demeanour. - was derided
  • "a very fat, extremely boring, overwhelmingly ambitious arriviste. His conversations were hideously detailed and humourless". - This probably needs a citation.

ceranthor 18:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments and your support. Except in the one case noted, I have folowed your suggested and amended the text accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, all fixed.

Late comment: I'm not sure if it's for formatting reasons, but in your quote box in the "Critical and popular reception" section, there is a gap between "Twentieth-Century Literature" and the citation number [7]. - SchroCat (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A missing full stop - well spotted. Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Kenneth_Widmerpool/archive1&oldid=1086353513"