Talk:Olivia Manning/GA1

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

Hello, I'll be conducting the GAC review for this article. Because of its length, it may take a day or two to list all of my comments and suggestions, but from first glance it appears to be in fairly good shape; with a little extra work it may even be close to FAC standards. Please see below for specific concerns. María ( habla con migo ) 14:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * Per WP:MOSBIO, remove places of birth/death from the first sentence. It should read "Olivia Mary Manning (March 2, 1908 – July 23, 1980)..."
 * ✅ done


 * This is admittedly very minor, but some people (especially the picky ones over at FAC) prefer that spelling/date formatting reflect an article subject's nationality. Seeing as how Manning was British, you may want to reconsider the date formatting.  Again, this is stupidly minor, and it doesn't bother me in the least, so just FYI.
 * ✅ done


 * was a noted British novelist. Is "noted" necessary here, with no context? Perhaps it would be less peacocky to say "noted for her..."?
 * ✅ (just removed the noted, and expanded a bit).  This is about the only sentence left over from what I found when I came to the article.  I guess I should have checked it more closely!!


 * Her experiences over the next few years, as the Nazis over-ran Eastern Europe and she and Reggie were evacuated first to Greece, then to Egypt and Palestine, formed the basis for her best known work, the six novels making up The Balkans Trilogy and The Levant Trilogy, known collectively as Fortunes of War. This is a huge sentence. Can it be broken up a bit?  Also, referring to her husband as "Reggie" is a little too familiar, I feel.  Can he not be called "Smith"?
 * ✅ done. I've removed the "Reggie" from the lead, but for the rest of the article I've stuck to Reggie because I found it was the easiest way of dealing with the problem of Stevie Smith. Anyway, I think Reggie was a Reggie kind of guy.


 * In the event, and as she had feared, real fame only came after her death in 1980, when an adaptation of the Fortunes of War was televised. "In the event" seems needlessly dramatic. "As she had feared" works fine as an opener.  Also, later in the article it states that the televised adaptation came out in 1987, but this sentence makes it sound like it was 1980, the same year she died.
 * ✅ done


 * Early years
 * Indeed, when financial circumstances forced Manning to leave school at sixteen, she went to work as a typist... As above with "In the event", "Indeed" may be seen as too ornamental.
 * not done. I'm rather fond of this one and if it only "may be seen as too ornamental...."


 * Manning seemed to be poised for a career as an artist, but meanwhile she had continued her interest in literature, particularly modern literature, and at the age of twenty determined instead to be writer.[12] Her artistic skills were to resurface in her writing in her intense descriptions of landscape. Both of these sentences are somewhat clumsy, perhaps because of repetition? "literature... modern literature" and "in her writing in her" tripped me up somewhat.  Also, you may want to link Modernist literature (if that is what is meant).
 * ✅ done. I've reworked this a bit to remove the repetition and to clarify.
 * Suggestion: "Manning seemed poised to become an artist, but at the age of twenty she determined instead to become a writer. Her artist's eye is nevertheless apparent in her later intense descriptions of landscapes." PiCo (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good too. I've changed it.--Slp1 (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Early career


 * Manning was very short of money, with insufficient food and spending long hours after work writing. Awkward phrasing. Perhaps something like, "Manning was very short of both money and food, and she spent long hours writing after work"?
 * ✅ done. Much better.  Thanks.
 * Suggestion: "Short of food and money, Manning nevertheless spent long hours writing after work." PiCo (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed this too, but without the "nevertheless", as I don't think it really is the appropriate word. --Slp1 (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * With Miles' encouragement she completed her first literary novel... This seems to contradict what the previous paragraph states: "Manning also wrote two novels, neither of which was accepted for publication." Was it just that this novel was published, whereas the other two were not?  If so, then "completed" may be confusing.
 * ✅ Good point. I've removed the "literary" part.

More to come. María ( habla con migo ) 17:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for all the excellent suggestions and comments. It is always good to have the opinions and suggestions of others.  I have put almost all of them into effect, and look forward to the next batch whenever you find the time. --Slp1 (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

So sorry for the delay! Here are my comments and suggestions for the rest of the article (and thanks to PiCo for jumping in with some great suggestions):


 * Marriage and Romania
 * In July 1939, Walter Allen introduced Manning to the charming, ebullient Marxist R.D. Smith.[27][28][29] Reggie was a large, untidy man possessed of a boundless energy and a constant desire for the company of others. Too many adjectives, perhaps? This may be toeing the WP:PEACOCK line, since we don't know who thought/thinks him charming, ebullient, etc, etc.  If Manning thought him such, then it should be clarified.
 * It's the world who thought of him like that. It's actually rather striking reading about him, and how often long combinations of adjectives are used. I'll have to think about this when I am less tired.  BTW, funnily enough part of this sentence has actually been quoted externally, though not attributed!!!
 * ✅ I've tone it down a bit, though :-( . Cf it now with this Sept 2009 description from The New Criterion that I just downloaded : "Like Guy, Reggie was intelligent and enthusiastic, amiable and congenial, overambitious and disorganized, rushing about and always late, at the center of his social circle, engaging but often exasperating, leaving a wake of disappointed friends when he fell behind schedule and failed to show up as promised." I'm now thinking mine was rather tame!!!!


 * Haha! I think it's much improved. :) María ( habla  con migo ) 21:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Manning was less certain of the relationship, but Smith quickly moved into her flat, proposing in bed a few weeks later. Is he still "Reggie", as noted in an above response? I'm not pushing for one or the other, but consistency helps, whichever you choose.
 * ✅ Changed. I thought I'd caught them all but...


 * Those who knew her at the time described her as a shy, provincial girl who had little experience with other cultures. Since the subject of the prior sentence was someone else, perhaps begin with "Those who knew Manning..."
 * ✅ Good point. Changed


 * She captured her Romanian experiences in the first two volumes of her Balkan Trilogy... Needs slight rewording; "Her Romanian experiences were captured in the first..."?
 * ✅ Done


 * ...the first two volumes of her Balkan Trilogy, The Great Fortune and The Spoilt City, which are considered one the most important literary treatments of the Romania during the war. I'm confused about the subject/verb agreement here. The first two volumes of her Balkan Trilogy are considered two...?  Or is the trilogy itself considered one of the most important literary treatments yadda yadda?
 * Good point, too. I think the BT is the subject, but I've got rid of some extra words (e.g. which are) which hopefully will help.


 * ...but she also maintained an intimate correspondence with Stevie Smith, full of Bloomsbury gossip and intrigue. Was the correspondence full of Bloomsbury gossip and intrigue, or Smith herself?  I suggest adding a "which was" or "who was" depending on the intended context.
 * ✅ It's the correspondence. I've added "which was".


 * Greece and Egypt
 * The entire first paragraph is unsourced; the quote especially requires a citation.
 * ✅ The position of the photo made it look unsourced, which it wasn't. Have moved the photo to clarify.


 * Despite early and spectacular successes against invading Italian forces, by April 1941 the country was at risk of invasion from the Germans, and in a poem Manning later recalled the "horror and terror of defeat" of a people she had grown to love. I would split this into two sentences, or separate the two thoughts by a semi-colon.
 * ✅ Done.


 * On board with the Smiths were the novelist Robert Liddell, the Welsh poet Harold Edwards, and their wives, the Smiths sharing a cramped cabin with the Edwardses. This is slightly confusing, since Manning and Reggie have been referred to thus far in the article as Manning and Reggie; were they legally, or commonly known as, "the Smiths"? Speaking as someone whose last name differs from that of their spouse, I know it's merely semantics, but still. :)
 * ✅ Yes, they were definitely known as the Smiths as a couple. Manning was her literary name.  I understand the problem, but it is nice to be able to use this on some occasions. Not sure how to handle this one.
 * Again, it might just be me and my personal biases. Its usage definitely helps vary the prose, so I'll side with you on this one. María ( habla  con migo ) 21:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

devastating news of her brother Oliver's death in a plane crash.
 * Almost immediately after arriving in Alexandria came the devastating news of the death of her brother Oliver in a plane crash. "...devastating news of her brother Oliver's death in a plane crash"?
 * ✅ Done.


 * Post-war England
 * Both Smith and Manning were unfaithful... Again with the "Smith". Also, since it was previously stated that Manning was faithful while her husband was not, perhaps it can be made clear that she was unfaithful at this time?
 * ✅ I worked on this a bit. Let me know what you think.
 * Much better; the modifier helps clarify things nicely. María ( habla con migo ) 21:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One such was Iris Murdoch, with whom she shared an interest in flying saucers... "one such writer"?
 * ✅ Done.


 * Manning channelled her unfulfilled maternal feelings into animals, and the Siamese cats of which she was especially fond. This feels like a repeat of what is earlier said in the article; perhaps rephrase to reduce redundancy?
 * ✅ Once again, have tried something here.


 * She was very concerned about the health and comfort of her pets, taking them on visits to friends, along with hot water bottles for her pets in case the temperature dropped. "her pets... her pets".
 * ✅ Done.


 * At another level, she was a generous supporter organizations against animal cruelty. "At another level" is vague and slightly misleading here, as I think it refers to an opposition. Additionally?
 * ✅ Much better!


 * ...detailing comic episodes that bearing witness to Reggie's character, including his gregarious nature and interest in social issues... "witnessing to" may not be the correct phrase here. "that highlighted"?
 * ✅ Done.


 * The Balkan Trilogy and other works
 * Is it The Balkan Trilogy (as the subheading suggests), or The Balkan Trilogy? I would say the former rather than the latter, but it needs to be made consistent throughout.
 * ✅ Done.


 * Manning was a writer by profession, while Harriet was an observer and a survivor. "observer and survivor"? Manning obviously also survived the war, and she was also an observer, so what exactly is meant here?
 * ✅ Yes, you are right. Have gone back to the sources for this.


 * There were a few carping voices... such as? This may help flesh out a new section devoted to her literary legacy.
 * The Dublin Evening Standard, as well as the Evening Standard and The Spectator both of whom to have failed to recognize that it was the first part of a trilogy, saying that "A sense of direction... is fatally absent." I just don't know that the article is advanced by adding this kind of detail.
 * Perhaps not at this state, no. Just something to keep in mind for future expansion, perhaps. María ( habla  con migo ) 21:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Levant Trilogy
 * ...she rejected the idea moving to Ireland, and so the couple were parted for part of the following years... "parted for part" is odd.
 * ✅ Reworked


 * Manning was always close observer of life, and gifted with a photographic memory. a close observer?
 * ✅ Yup


 * Early in 1975 Manning began The Danger Tree which for a time she described the book as "The Fourth Part of the Balkan Trilogy". Cut "the book"; this is also missing a comma or two.
 * ✅ Yup


 * Manning was deeply affected by the 1997 sudden death of Jerry Slattery... 1979?
 * ✅ Also yup


 * Misc. (mostly little, minor MOS points)
 * One of my initial comments was about spelling/date formats reflecting an article subject's nationality; just to clarify, that goes for the entire article. :) Either way is fine for me (this was merely a point in case you were planning on heading to FAC in the neature future), but the formatting must be consistent.
 * Yes. :*✅ Done


 * I fixed most of all of the dash issues in the prose itself, but many of the citations have regular dashes (-) when they should have unspaced en dahses (–) per WP:DASH. Because it's such a bother to go through and fix these by hand, I highly recommend asking user:Brighterorange on his talk page to use his dashbot.  So much easier.
 * Will do.


 * Some of the punctuation in the References needs to be fixed; although library catalogs typically write titles in lowercase if it's not the beginning of a sentence/proper noun, per MOS standards, titles should be uppercase. British Women Writers of World War II, for example.
 * Okay
 * ✅ I've tried to do this based on your example. Can you give me the link to the MOS page about this.... I looked tried looking through various pages but can't find the specific details about what should and should not be capitalized. --Slp1 (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the examples at WP:CITET display book/article titles with capitalization that mirrors what common citation styles (MLA, APA and Chicago) use. Since the citation template the article currently looks most like Chicago (although the punctuation is a bit off), titles should be properly capitalized.  I've never understood why LOC under-capitalizes like it does, but it doesn't reflect academic standards, alas.  Your edits were great. María ( habla  con migo ) 21:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As you can see, I see little fault with the article outside of picky punctuation/grammar/wording issues. I greatly enjoyed reading it, especially seeing as how I was previously unfamiliar with Manning's work. Once the above comments are addressed, I'll be happy to promote this article to GA-status. I also have some suggestions for future improvement (i.e. not required to pass GA, but would be a good start for FAC) that I'll post later. Great work, and sorry again for the delay! María ( habla con migo ) 20:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem about the delay. I haven't had much time myself. I will finish the final fixes tomorrow probably.--Slp1 (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've done most everything, and responded with why where not. The dash/punctuation bot check has been requested. --Slp1 (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Great progress! Like I said above, it was in good shape to begin with, but with some (mostly minor) polishing, now it's in great shape. The article is well written, follows the MOS, factually accurate and well referenced, certainly broad in its coverage, neutral, stable, and illustrated by properly tagged images. Seeing as how it fulfills the Good Article criteria, I'm happy to promote it at this time. Congrats! As promised, below are a few suggestions for future improvement. María ( habla con migo ) 21:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Final review

Although I believe the article to be a joy to read, if you wish to head to FAC, a thorough copy-edit will be needed. I'm specifically concerned about the over-familiarity, which may be mistaken by some readers as unencyclopedic. There's nothing major that I can point out, but there are little things here and there. Before it was toned down, for example, Reggie's description was slightly over the top. I understand that Reggie himself was a little "over the top", but small examples exist throughout. Again, I personally happen to think it's fun, and certainly more interesting to read than other dry, biographical articles, but I can see where others may have issues.
 * Suggestions for future improvement

I would consider the article broad in its coverage, but in order to become comprehensive, a section dedicated to Manning's works is needed. I did a quick search through Proquest and the MLA International Bibliography, and there are numerous peer reviewed articles dedicated to her written work. Her use of thematic and narrative elements could be explored at length, as could her literary style, gender and social influences, etc. The biography is typically the easiest thing to write in a biographical article, but I admit that I'm one of those people who think that a literary bio isn't done until there exists a comprehensive section or two dedicated to the author's works. The "Literary assessment" section is a great start, but the works themselves need individual attention, not only in terms of their autobiographical nature and/or legacy, but in terms of their literary merit. Perhaps they can be separated according to genre, like what I did with the "Fiction and poetry" section at Stephen Crane (which, by the way, took me months to write). Just something to keep in mind for the future.

If you have any questions regarding this review, feel free to contact me via my talk page. Best of luck, María ( habla con migo ) 21:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)