Talk:Claud Schuster, 1st Baron Schuster/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * I worked on this a long time ago, but I (hope) it is up to the required standards. Ironholds (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it well-written?
Generally very good which, on the heels of some GA reviews where this was less true, has made this one a pleasure (though we do have very different preferences when it comes to optional commas, and I've had to restrain myself from imposing my own; if I do at any point below, please call me on it). You do have a bit of a proclivity (which I share) towards run-on sentences. Some mostly niggling points:
 * Organizing the section on his service as permanent secretary by Lord Chancellor is an intuitive approach, but is it really necessary to have a separate section for each Lord Chancellor? Some of these sections are very short, and in my view could be merged. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 09:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tried to work them down - see if you like the new layout. Ironholds (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Claud Schuster, 1st Baron Schuster GCB CVO KC (22 August 1869 – 28 June 1956)," I'm not sold on that comma, but I'm also not convinced that it doesn't belong there. Can you explain it? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * not really - I'll remove it
 * "Born to a middle-class Mancunian family Schuster was educated..." Comma probably needed after "family". Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...a verbal attack by Lord Hewart the Lord Chief Justice in 1934 during a session of the House of Lords." This is slightly awkward, especially coming as it does at the end of a sentence that's near run-on territory.  I'd suggest either enclosing "the Lord Chief Justice" in commas, splitting up the sentence, or changing the order to "Lord Chief Justice Lord Hewart" (unless that's the wrong way to reference Lord Chief Justices - I'm rather out of my element here). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's fine. In my experience as long as you don't start calling judges "my jolly lord humperdink" they're fine with anything :P. Mind you, some were drunk so often that "humperdink" would probably have been acceptable. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite being officially retired he continued to work in government circles, working with..." "To work" seems overused here. Maybe "...including with..." or "...such as with..."?  Though I guess both of those solutions would require rewording the last bit of the sentence.  See what you think, anyway. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Schuster was born on 22 August 1869 to Frederick Schuster, a manager of the Manchester firm of merchants Schuster, Fulder and Company and his wife Sophia Wood..." Since "a manager of the Manchester firm of merchants Schuster, Fulder and Company" is being used as a parenthetical, it should be followed by a comma. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "The family described themselves as "Unitarian" but were descended from a Jewish family who had converted to Christianity..." I'd rather avoid the repetition of "family". Maybe "...but were descended from Jews who had converted..."? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...and contained other notaries..." First of all, if you adopt my suggestion above, this needs to be reworded. If you don't adopt it, I'd still suggest rewording it, since a family "containing" notaries evokes odd imagery (to me, anyway).  "included"? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll change it to noted figures, since notaries invokes odd images indeed!. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...but one noted for the harsh treatment of its pupils; it was standard for the headmaster to flog pupils..." "pupils" repeated. Maybe just "...but one noted for harsh treatment; it was standard..."? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The word "noted" seems overused to me in the "Early life and education" section. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed - replaced a couple with "known", and tweaked one sentence as well that I felt didn't flow particularly well Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "He practised in Liverpool and though he was not noted as a particularly successful barrister," It seems to me that "though he was...successful barrister" is a parenthetical, and should therefore be preceded, as well as followed, by a comma. Thoughts? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me - fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "As such he decided that with his love of the English language and the knowledge that he was "good with paper" led him to apply..." This is sort of a mish-mash: you need to figure out whether the subject of the sentence is "he" or "his love...", because right now it tries to be both. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to move this one around - see if you like the new sentence. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "the workers union" My impulse here would be to put an apostrophe after "workers", though that isn't necessarily correct. I just wanted you to take another look at this and confirm that it's not intended to be possessive (or a proper noun, for that matter). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems grammatically correct your way - fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "After this he worked as a secretary to the Great Northern Railway and then for the workers union at London & Smith's Bank Ltd before being noticed by Robert Morant who employed him as a temporary legal assistant to the Board of Education on the understanding that the job would become permanent, which it did in 1907." This sentence is a bit long, and seems to deal with three separate positions. It could probably be broken up. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...which granted him a place on the committee." What committee? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...in the eyes of Morant." How about "in Morant's eyes", or simply "with Morant"? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "In 1915 Kenneth Mackenzie, who had served as Permanent Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Office, was close to retirement, and the current Lord Chancellor Lord Haldane believed that the duties of a Lord Chancellor were too much for one man, and should be divided between a Lord Chancellor and a Minister of Justice." That's a lot of mentions of "Lord Chancellor" in one (longish) sentence. Could you reduce them and maybe split the sentence, doing something like "...who had served as Permanent Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Office was close to retirement.  The current Lord Chancellor Lord Haldane believed that the position's duties were too much for one man, and should be..."? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Buckmaster and Schuster both had similar outlooks on World War I, with both their sons serving on the Western Front..." The word "both" is repeated, and I think the first occurrence could be eliminated. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Aged 74 when he was appointed Finlay was the oldest person to be made Lord Chancellor other than Lord Campbell who was 80 when he was appointed in 1859..." I'd suggest some punctuation in here somewhere - a comma after appointed, parentheses around "other than...in 1859"...something, anyway. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I think? Query me if there is a problem with my tweak. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "During this period of time..." I'd suggest eliminating "of time". Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Although Finlay was not a member of the cabinet (it was a War Cabinet, with limited representation of ministers) which limited his political influence to some extent, but he was close friends..." Given the "Although", the "but" is not necessary. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Gah, that was awful - I can't believe I let that slip through my edits :P Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "During FIlay's tenure..." That doesn't seem right. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? Other than the mised letters and Odd capitalisation I can't see a problem. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * An N appears to be missing from Finlay's name, unless I've missed the introduction of a new character. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see it as Findlay, if we're referring to "during Findlay's tenure as Lord Chancellor..."
 * That's because you fixed it here without telling me, you sneaky bastard. All okay now, anyway. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "an odd honour for a man who no longer worked as a barrister." Strictly speaking, what follows a semi-colon should be an independent clause, which this is not. You could change the semi-colon to a colon, or you could reword this. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed, went with the colon. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "it was war-time, and there were already four retired Lord Chancellors claiming a £5000 a year pension" Unless they were all claiming the same pension, this should probably be pluralized. As well, I think (though I'm not sure) that "£5000 a year" could be considered somewhat colloquial; would "per" be better? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed, and fixed :). Pleasure doing business with you, squire. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...thanks to the opposition of the Law Society to reform of the sort suggested by Haldane." I'd suggest eliminating everything after "Law Society". Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...was appointed as a member of the committee." I'd lose "of the committee". Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...Supreme Court, County Courts and the Probate Services..." This is nitpicky (but hey, it's how I roll), but either all of these should be preceded with "the" or none should be. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "although the Supreme Court was resistant..." Capitalization! Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry? Not getting it. Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The first letter of a sentence should be capitalized. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Righto, fixed. Ironholds (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "The Conservative government soon ran into trouble under Stanley Baldwin due to his desire..." This reads a little oddly - assuming it's intended to say that Baldwin's the PM, a better wording might be "The Conservative government under Stanley Baldwin soon ran into trouble due to Baldwin's desire..." Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "This caused various constitutional problems; traditionally every member of a cabinet, including the Prime Minister, must be a Privy Councillor; MacDonald was not a Privy Councillor, and therefore could not be made Prime Minister." Two semi-colons in one sentence is probably excessive (though my record is probably something like five). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "As a member of the old Conservative government Cave left office on 23 January 1924 after Labour formed a government." Given context, I'm not sure "...after Labour formed a government" is necessary. See what you think. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "By 1925 Schuster had spent a decade as Schuster..." I'd wager it was even longer than a decade. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hah, woops! Ironholds (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...paid by the Lord Chancellor's Office under him." I'd lose "under him". Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "The increase eventually appeared in 1937..." Repetition of "to appear". Maybe "The increase was implemented in 1937..."? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...while the cost of living rapidly increased." Not sure if this is necessary to state. Pretty much any reader is going to assume an increased cost of living from 1832 to 1932. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...were shocked by this..." I'd lose "by this" - it's plenty clear from the context what shocked them. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...the section of the act covering the pay cuts for judges..." How about "the section of the act cutting judges' pay"? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "As he had under Lord Birkenhead Schuster attempted to reform the County Courts, which he partially succeeded in doing when his recommendations were included in the Administration of Justice [Appeals] Act 1934 which sent appeals from the county courts straight to the Court of Appeal rather than the Divisional Courts." This one's ripe for breaking up, I think. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...it was reformed as a permanent Law Commission in 1965." Unless British English is different from North American English in this respect, I think "re-formed" is different from "reformed". Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I'm confused. You've left "reformed" in place there, where I think it should be "re-formed" (meaning "formed anew", right?) but changed another ocurrence of "reformed" to "re-formed", when I think "reform" is what you meant.  Am I crazy? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed - no, but I am. No idea how that happened.

That's it. The text could probably benefit from a thorough copyediting, mostly to shorten sentences and improve flow, but it's close enough to GA standard that that's not a prerequisite to GA status. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "In 1934 Schuster was subject to a public attack by Lord Hewart, the Lord Chief Justice in 1934." This is redundant and repeats things unnecessarily. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Woops, sorry. Ironholds (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...where Lord Sankey was expected to make the Second Reading of the bill in question." In Canada, we'd say "move second reading". Is it different in the U.K.? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, me being dopey. Ironholds (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Immediately after the second reading was made..." How about "Immediately after second reading"? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Lord Hailsham, at the time the Secretary of State for War..." Needs a comma after "War". Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...and an amendment to the offending bill it helped appease Hewart." It's not exactly clear what noun phrase "it" replaces. Would "this" work instead? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Schuster and Maugham had a difficult relationship, especially after the start of the Second World War in 1939..." Comma needed after 1939, as "especially after...1939" is a parenthetical. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...all of his Lord Chancellors except one - Maugham." Hyphen should be a dash. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Lord Maugham resigned on 3 September 1939, giving his failing health as a reason (he was 73 when he left the post)" Comma needed after the closing parenthesis, which itself ends a parenthetical within a parenthetical. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Lord Caldecote was forced to leave his position after only 8 months due to the fall of Neville Chamberlain's government, of which he was a part ." Weird spacing before the period. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Schuster retired in 1944, and on 22 June signed a Letter Patent giving him the title of Baron Schuster of Cerne in the County of Dorset." Schuster signed the Letter Patent making him a Baron? I don't know how these things work, so that could be correct, but it seems odd to me. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, oddly enough that is correct. Due to his duties as the Permanent Secretary Schuster's letter patent is signed by.. Schuster :P. Obviously his wasn't the only signature required, but despite sounding a bit nepotic it is true.Ironholds (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Schuster had served as Permanent Secretary for 29 years under 10 Lord Chancellors, a record that has not yet been broken." Which record - the 29 years or the 10 Lord Chancellors? Or both?  Or some record based on an indice that takes both factors into account? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Both. I've tweaked it to hopefully make it more sensicalIronholds (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "They had two children: a son, Christopher John Claud Schuster in 1899 and a daughter, Elizabeth Alice Schuster in 1902 before Elizabeth Merry's death in 1936." The way these are structured right now would seem to require commas after each child's name. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
Looks well-sourced, though I haven't actually checked the sources to make sure that they support the text they're supposed to. Only issue: footnotes 3, 4, 5, and 16 all seem to lead to the same place. Is a reason they're not all the same footnote? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - I'm an idiot :P. I'll stick a ref name=whatnot in for those now. Ironholds (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "He was president of the Alpine Club from 1938 to 1940." This does not appear to be referenced. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Schuster did not play an active part in policy decisions in this period, partially because of his disagreements with Hailsham..." Should "Hailsham" read "Maugham"? Otherwise I'm not sure that I understand this. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Caldecote frequently delegated to Schuster and accepted his advice on judicial appointments, such as that of Arthur Thompson Denning to the High Court in 1944." Should "Caldecote" read "Simon"? If not, this sentence should probably be relocated. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it broad in its coverage?
No major complaints, and only a few minor ones:
 * "...he was forced to resign..." I know this article isn't about Haldane, but "forced to resign" does grab the reader's attention, and it would be nice to have a few words saying why he was so-forced. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ironholds (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...was asked to review the legislation that had been used in the First World War..." Which legislation? I presume it has something to do with war-making, but all manner of legislation is used during wartime, as well as peacetime. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarified and fixed. Ironholds (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it neutral?
Pass - no complaints. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it stable?
Clear pass. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 09:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

 * The images that are used in the article are all good selections, but it obviously sticks out that there isn't one of the subject. I find it surprising that somebody who lived from 1869 to 1956 and is the subject of a book-length biography would not have been photographed.  Are there no photographs in the biography that could be scanned and added, even under a claim of fair use? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 09:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:1stViscountSankey.jpg, File:1stEarlOfBirkenhead.jpg, and File:1stViscountBuckmaster.jpg are all listed as being in the public domain in all jurisdictions who use pma plus 70 years, but none of them have author information or dates. On what basis is it claimed that the author died at least 70 years ago? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 09:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Newcollege wall-hall-chapel oxondude.jpg is tagged as being released under the GFDL, but has no author information (or other information on the copyright holder). On what basis is it claimed to have been released under the GFDL? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 09:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll work on all those points this evening - nice to see you around, btw, I don't think we ever interacted when you were Sarcasticidealist but I saw your work. In regards to the first query there is indeed a portrait in his biography which I need to scan in. It isn't PD, but I can use one of the exceptions I'm sure. Ironholds (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Saturday, even - drunk editing is bad editing. Ironholds (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No bloody clue is the answer. I can't seem to find any reference to individual authors, so I'm removing them posthaste. Ironholds (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a shame; I hate to be responsible for the removal of those. As well, File:Warren Fisher.jpg is now left-aligned and immediately under a second level heading, which is a no-no per WP:MOSIMAGE. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 00:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've right-shifted him - the second-level heading trumps the direction of the eyes/face. Ironholds (talk) 05:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. Another option is to leave it left-aligned, but move it down a paragraph so it's no longer directly under the heading; completely up to you. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll stick one - having the face orientated in the right direction makes this alright, actually, and I'd hate to throw the casual reader as to who this big bloke popping up in the text is. Ironholds (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)