Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Colley Cibber

Colley Cibber
A concise, scholarly, and comprehensive biography and explanation of a figure of both fame and infamy who stands at the bottom of the page of many of the great poems of the 18th century (in the footnotes). I wrote quite a bit, but the article is 90% Bishonen's work, and it is meticulously documented. Geogre 02:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC) Past nomination is at Featured article candidates/Colley Cibber/Past


 * Support. Fascinating.  &mdash; mark &#9998; 02:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I have never heard of Cibber before, but I found this quite interesting.  Good job.  Edeans 05:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Another top-class article on 18th century English cultural history. Filiocht 09:10, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support: Yet another amazing article, very detailed and well illustrated and interesting - standards on Wikipedia are rocketing upwards. Giano 09:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. This is what Wikipedia is all about. Great work. I know nothing about the subject so I can't vouch for it that way, but it looks great. Keep them coming. - Taxman 13:48, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support very well detailed, could use slightly better images, but hey its 18th century its not exactly easy. Give it a go Raul!  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 16:11, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Enthusiastically support. Hydriotaphia 06:41, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Want to support but
 * "hapless Shakespeare, and crucify'd Molière" needs attribution (Pope, I presume).
 * "herostratic fame" is clever but obscure, and deserves an explanatory phrase. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:50, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Right. Thank you. These are both from the Lead section. 1. "Hapless Shakespeare and crucify'd Molière" is quoted again under "Cibber as manager", and there attributed (to Pope, yes). I thought it could be more of a foretaste in the introduction, to keep the Lead as lightfooted as possible, but maybe not. I'll fix it. 2. Explaining herostratic fame at this point isn't an option IMHO, but of course I don't need to use the word at all, I'll rephrase. (If you don't think it's enough that it's linked to the stub Herostratos, that explains the concept?) Pity, in a way... it's not there for being clever, but for saying much in little compass. For those who've heard of Cibber (= the Alexander Pope buffs), Cibber is an icon of herostratic fame, and in the article we try to lay out, for those who hadn't heard of him, how he came to be that. But never mind, I don't want anything obscure in the Lead, any more than you do. Thanks for pointing it out.--Bishonen | Talk 10:56, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the link is enough. Filiocht 11:49, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * In any case, support, it's a great article, although I still find "herostratic fame" to be obscurantist. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:27, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Social history and the history of ideas are the most difficult to write, and this entry sets a standard where Wikipedia is weak. (Herostratic fame is blue-linked for the curious.) --Wetman 09:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, of course. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:38, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support A wonderful article and a joy to read. One thing I'm wondering about, though, is his later life and death. The story of his professional career ends with his appointment as Laureate in 1730. The date of William Whitehead's appointment seems to suggest that Cibber retained his position until his death in 1757. Is that correct? Also, apart from being the object of progressive scorn, little is said about the last 10–15 years of his life. Maybe a small coda is in order to give proper closure to both the life of Cibber and to the article (provided information on this matter is available, of course). --Plek 15:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Plek (more! more! please say the bit about "a joy to read" again, I couldn't quite hear you!). It makes sense, what you say, and I'll try to find the time to read up a bit more in Barker's biography and flesh out the last 20 years of Cibber's life a little, though my impression is that his life just got progressively less interesting. He seems to have thought so, too—in his autobiography, published in 1740, his focus is overwhelmingly on the 1690—1715 period. The actors' profiles and the theatrical warfare and chicanery of the 1690s, when Colley was a struggling young actor, get far more space than later events at Drury Lane over the whole 25 years that he was head of it, 1710—1735. Another problem is that his autobiography is far and away the best source for his life, and is the basis of later accounts such as that of Barker, and consequently the 17 years he lived on after its publication are in a kind of shade, or information dearth. Samuel Johnson refers to the aging Cibber as a kind of fixture of the London social scene, a hale old man but an unrepentant trifler and posturer, a gambling addict (this had been a life-long problem of Cibber's) and increasingly a parody of himself, that the young stared at with surprise and censure. Ach, though, again, I need to find chapter and verse and exactly what Johnson said. Bishonen | Talk 17:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) P. S. A Poet Laureate appointment is indeed supposed to be for life, sort of like kingship, regardless of whether the duties are fulfilled or not. Bish.
 * Support Interesting, well written, and well referenced. It shines through that the authors care about this article. SlimVirgin 16:52, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Wow. Accolades to Bishonen. Fawcett5 16:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. JuntungWu 06:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Support--ZayZayEM 03:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)