Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/E.W. Hornung/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 User:Ian Rose 10:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC).

E.W. Hornung

 * Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

E.W. Hornung is largely forgotten these days, apart from his hugely popular character A.J. Raffles, who still lives on through film, television and reprints of the novels. Hornung's output was much greater than the four books that gave the world his criminal antihero: his work covered wider and deeper subjects than that however. An extensive re-write has taken place recently, followed by a very productive and helpful peer review which tightened and polished the article considerably. Any further constructive criticism is most welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support I was very impressed with this at the peer review when it was improved even further. Not that well known a writer nowadays, at least in comparison to some of the other writers mentioned in the article like Doyle, but this is very well researched and written. Appears to meet FA guidelines, congratulations Schrod.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article needs to comply with naming conventions guideline WP:INITS and moved to E. W. Hornung.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a separate process for that which is underway elsewhere. As this is an ENGVAR difference, the discussion between whether inits or Engvar takes precedence does not take place here, but on the article talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support on prose and images (checked at PR). Another solid article, and the edits since I left my PR comments have only tightened it up — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support – I was another of the peer reviewers. My few points raised at that stage were thoroughly dealt with, and the article has been further improved since then. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks to the three of you for you extremely positive and helpful comments at PR, and your subsequent support here: all is very much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto
Early life: 1866–86


 * "...of the Hungary?"
 * removed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "...and a permanent state of poor health." -- more of a blanket term for a list of ailments, including the asthma and eyesight. I would lose that as it leaves one asking questions as to exactly what the other factors of poor health were, and keep it at asthma and poor eyesight.
 * I think the problems ran a bit further than just the asthma: it's a point mentioned by all biographers, but without any specifics, unfortunately. I've added "generally" in there, and attributed to a biographer (which also negates the point two below as well). - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "where it was hoped the climate would be beneficial." -- Hoped by who?
 * Clarified to family. - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "...biographer, Peter Rowland. Another biographer..." -- Any chance of avoiding the repetition of "biographer"?
 * Struggling to come up with a substitute term here: any thoughts? - SchroCat (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How about mentioning them both as "biographers", then give their names and quotes? Cassianto (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Moved one of the biographers further up the page. - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Return to England: 1886–98


 * Aren't a "journalist and magazine writer", much the same thing?
 * Tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "also the boy's godfather, the boy's middle name" -- "the boy's" repetition?
 * Tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "casts doubt on conventional responses" -- Who said this? Was this Hornung?
 * Now attributed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Would it be worth linking Lord Alfred Douglas?
 * "The book was a popular and financial success, although some critics also echoed Doyle's fears,[13][40] and the reviewer in The Spectator wrote that "stern moralists" would consider the book's premise "as a new, ingenious, artistic, but most reprehensible application of the crude principles involved in the old-fashioned hero-worship of Jack Sheppard and Dick Turpin". -- That is one, long sentence for it to be ready easily.

First World War and aftermath
 * Ballad of Ensign Joy, was published in 1917. -- seeing as we mention 1917 in that sentence, could we get away with saying Ballad of Ensign Joy, was published that year?
 * "Hornung was concerned about support for pacifism among troops" -- What was he concerned about? Lack of? Too much? Or the fact that there was support?

Death and legacy
 * "Valentine highlights one of the alterations of the stories was..." -- It maybe just me, but does this read correctly? "Valentine highlights one of the alterations of the stories as being..." Maybe?

Writing
 * "Watson goes on to write that Hornung's "writing..." Repetition of write →writing.

Support – Annoyingly good stuff SC, that I'm afraid is all I have to offer! Cassianto (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * lol! Many thanks for all your comments: I hope I've done them justice. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * FN35: should use loc parameter instead of page
 * FN100-102: page formatting
 * Doyle: suggest using full name for county
 * Gariepy: usually wouldn't italicize volume, particularly when not individually titled. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks NM, much appreciated as always! All now sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Driveby comments Given that they are organised by topic, each of the three paras in Style and technique should begin with a topic sentence. "Hornung's prose is widely admired for its lucid-yet-simple style..." for eg. Otherwise, that section appears as a arbitrary collection of quotes. Also, given the predominance of Raffles in this article, I think the first sentence doesn't need the "perhaps" and that "author" should come before "poet". Lastly, can the Nick Rance refs at the start of Major themes be clubbed together as "Rance 1990, pp. 3, 5-6, 14-15" to improve readability?—indopug (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Indopug, much obliged! I've added the sentences, as suggested and changed the poet-author reference around. I'd rather keep the "perhaps" in there: the Raffles stories make up just four of Hornung's 50-odd books, so there is more to him: indeed the Australian Dictionary of Biography concentrates much more fully on the Australian themes than Raffles (and examines Raffles from his development from Australian characters). As to Rance, I think I'd prefer to leave the refs spread out. If people want to identify a single point they can quickly identify the right point in his book, rather than going through a number. I appreciate your concerns on this point, and if others also make comment then I'll happily oblige. Many thanks, once again. - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I reviewed this article at PR, made numerous comments, and was satisified with the responses. Having read the article again just now, I realise that I   missed something at PR. The lead rightly states in its opening paragraph that Hornung is best known for his Raffles stories. The second paragraph gives us a brief flavour of these stories. Then, the third paragraph begins: "The First World War brought an end to Hornung's fictional output". Any reader might easily assume from this that Hornung wrote only Raffles novels, but he wrote buckets of other stuff.  There is no direct mention of any of his very large non-Raffles fiction in the lead, only the hint in the final paragraph that much of his work has fallen into obscurity. Since his non-Raffles output is discussed at some length in the article, it follows that there needs to be some mention of it in the lead, to meet the summary requirements of WP:LEAD. I am sorry that I missed this point in the peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is certainly nothing for you to apologise for, given the fantastic review you gave at PR. It's certainly a point that needs addressing, and I'll work on the lead in the morning. - SchroCat (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made a small addition to the second paragraph to the effect that Hornung also had a number of other works aside from Raffles. Does this read OK, or would you like a little more detail to the rather bald statements there? Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's OK now; most of Hornung's non-Raffles fiction is pretty unmemorable and I am not in favour of over-expansive leads. Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Support: my main review contributions were at PR. Now that you have dealt with the overlooked point, above, I am happy to add my support. On the issue raised below, it does seem rather heavy-handed to register an oppose on the basis of the title format. It is, however, undeniable that almost all the FA biographies with initials use the spaced format (including the egregious Cruttwell, referred to below, one of my less agreeable concoctions of a year or two back). The only exception I can find is the distinctly non-English H.D., which might be considered as a special case. Mainstream English writers (Tolkien, Rowling etc) are all spaced, as is the great H. C. McNeile, which might ring a bell. I think that, in view of the weight of precedent, I would be inclined to introduce the space, while not necessarily agreeing with it. In the same way that an oppose is an over-reaction, so would be a fight to the death on this essentially unimportant issue. (Call me a wimp, if you like). Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your comments and support here, and for the excellent PR. The matter of the space is out of my hands now: others have (quite corrrectly) put the question through the RfC process, and it has attracted comments on both sides from a number of independent editors. Once the consensus has firmed up it may be easier for a neutral party to bring a slightly quicker close, but that may be in a week or so. - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: should there not be a space between the "E." and the "W."? As in other FAs: I. M. Pei, D. B. Cooper, W. E. B. Du Bois, C. R. M. F. Cruttwell ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is an active talk page thread on the point. BrEng doesn't introduce a space between initials, so the question there is whether our inits guideline take precedence over our policy of ENGVAR. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose Article title fails MoS. There's no BritEng rule specifying no spaces between initials. DrKiernan (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a hugely dubious oppose on mightily shaky grounds. The title does not affect the standard of the article and does not "fail" the MoS. At worst the title will have a space added, that is all: there is a discussion about that space that should not affect the progress of FAC, as it's a question of which aspect of our MoS takes precedence here. - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no discrepancy between different parts of the MoS, on this issue. DrKiernan (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 'In your opinion, not in the opinion of a number of other participants. Perhaps we could confine further discussion in the right location of the Move discussion, rather than here, where it doesn't belong? (It doesn't seem wise to open up a fourth thread about one space). - SchroCat (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether the article meets the FA criteria is a separate issue from the move and it is appropriate for me to express an opinion on whether or not the article meets criterion 2 at this page. DrKiernan (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It does meet the criteria, that much is rather obvious. You are opposing based on whether this article meets a flexible guideline? And one that concerns the use of one space that is being discussed in an appropriate manner? I'm sure the delegates will treat this with the weight it deserves. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So despite the fact that this article meets the criteria on prose, images, research and style, you are opposing over a single space? Surely all these things override the ambiguity on a flexible guideline.  If it were up to me then your oppose would not be counted.  Cassianto talk  09:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is why I don't review anymore. Say the most minutest thing, "there's a space missing", and you get abuse. I'm not the one who's over-reacting. DrKiernan (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no abuse here, and you haven't said "the most minutest thing": you've opposed, and on dubious grounds to boot. There is an ongoing discussion about the space in the right forum to have that discussion. It's being conducted properly and a consensus will emerge in time. Opposing this nomination over the addition (or not) of a space seems decidedly odd. - SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't call me odd, or contemptible, or petty, or anything else. The only reason you refer to me or my actions in any way is to belittle and harass me. DrKiernan (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not called you any of those things and I am neither belittling or harrassing you. I have described your action here as odd, but not you, so please do not try and smear by innuendo. - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You've just attacked me again by accusing me of acting odd and smearing by innuendo. DrKiernan (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I have not attacked you and I suggest that we both let the matter drop. This is not the place for commenting on the supposed behaviour of others. - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I strongly recommend that the delegates consider the above "oppose" unactionable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is clearly actionable as all that is required is to add a space. DrKiernan (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, all that is required is to wait for a consensus to emerge from an ongoing RfC. That is running separately from the FAC and these should remain discrete and independent from one another. - SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See above timestamp 13:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC). DrKiernan (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw it: it's something that a number of people have raised a question over. I suggest we leave it to the FAC delegates to weigh up the arguments when they come to read through thre thread. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree with Crisco 1492, the oppose stated above by User:DrKiernan appears to be motivated by spite and not on any actionable issue (since the usage complained of is entirely appropriate in British English, WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN advise against unnecessary edit-warring or cantankerous opposition over something so subjective.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with ENGVAR or spite. The MoS advises a space, if the article doesn't use one without good reason then it doesn't comply with criterion 2. DrKiernan (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Advises, not requires. That's the key point, and the reason for several opposes at your requested move. If anything that part of the MOS needs to be discussed further. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's Robsinden's requested move. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- I'll be promoting this shortly. I note that DrK has withdrawn his objection, while standing by his concern. So there's no doubt, I'd probably be promoting the article whether the opposition stood or not, because when assessing the actionability of opposes I've always tended to defer to the main editor's preferred style if there's any doubt and uncertainly about what the MOS says. Personnally, FWIW, I don't use spaces between initials like this either. OTOH, taking a cue from Brian, above, I am a little puzzled that such a strong stand has been taken against spaces in this article's title, but not re. say H. C. McNeile... Anyway, if in the future there is resolution in another forum to use spaces between ititials everywhere then I'm sure this article will be changed accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.