Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Georges Feydeau/archive1

Georges Feydeau

 * Nominator(s):  Tim riley  talk   21:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

There are grander, posher French playwrights than Georges Feydeau, but he is by several kilometres my favourite. The last and greatest practitioner of French farce, he was, alas, yet another of those geniuses who made the world laugh but were quite tragic in their own lives. I have enjoyed returning to FAC recently after some years' absence, and I look forward to seeing what colleagues make of my latest offering. –  Tim riley  talk   21:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: given that there are a few ultra-dedicated campaigners for a compulsory info-box in every article, may I ask contributors below to say if they disapprove of the absence of an i-b?  Tim riley  talk   23:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Image review

 * Works like File:Mme-Ernest-Feydeau-nadar-and-Ernest-Feydeau.jpg (and also File:Tailleur-pour-dames-1887.jpg, File:His-Little-Dodge-1896.png, File:La-dame-de-chez-Maxim-1899.png) that are at least 120 years old with unknown author can be uploaded to commons using PD-old-unknown, assuming that they are PD in the US. However, for the Feydeau US license tag, how do you know it was published before 1927? Also, this looks like two separate images that you stitched together. I would upload both separately and display them jointly with Multiple images if necessary; for one, that would provide better quality.
 * File:Occupe-toi-d'Amélie-1908.jpg is also ok for commons since a quick google revealed that Yves Marevéry died in 1914
 * File:Je-ne-trompe-pas-mon-mari.png if the author died in 1935 it should be OK for commons (1935+70=2005) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Frustrating experience at FAC over the years has taught me to have as little to do with Commons as possible. I was forever using a Commons picture and being told at FAC it was not acceptable. So I steer clear as much as I can. If anyone wants to copy any files to Commons that's up to him or her, but I'd prefer a copy to be left in English WP for safety's sake, as I have seen too many local images uploaded to Commons and later deleted from the latter on some pretext or other. The publication date for the Feydeau images from the BNF are as given on the linked BNF site. The one of Ernest is "1854-1870", and of Mme Feydeau "1870-1890". The quality looks fine to me as it is, but if you wish to do as you suggest I have no objection.  Tim riley  talk   23:17, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have to check the licensing of Commons images before using them because quite a few of them are sketchy or outright copyvio. It's quite hard to get an image deleted on commons and it usually only happens for licensing reasons, meaning that the image should never have been uploaded in the first place. These aren't good reasons to avoid uploading to commons however, because as it is if someone tried to translate this article into another language they wouldn't be able to use the images as they're enwiki only. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as the images are appropriately documented for use in this article I am happy to leave the possibility of their eligibility for and upload to Commons to anyone who is interested and knows the Commons rules and requirements.   Tim riley  talk   09:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments from User:Smerus
Excellent, I support this for FA and as usual have a few feeble quibbles which may or may not be worth addressing:
 * Early years. You translate Meilhac's comment as "your play is stupid, but it is theatrical". I have the sense that "scénique" doesn't quite mean "theatrical" here, but something more like 'evokes just the right spirit', or 'hits the spot' . Not that either of these are much better.
 * My French is not up to much (or indeed anything) but I think this is probably OK. The Dictionnaire de l'Académie française says of "scénique":"Qui se rapporte à l'art dramatique et, en particulier, à la mise en scène, au jeu des acteurs; relatif à la scène d'un théâtre, d'un opéra, d'une salle de spectacles", so I think "theatrical" is all right. Open to correction by Francophones, natch.  Tim riley  talk   16:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1880s
 * "but, "what gaiety...." ". I suggest that "but, it enthused, "what gaiety...." " or something like that, would be more grammatically orthodox.
 * Indeed. Done.  Tim riley  talk   16:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "from the Renaissance" I had to think twice here - how about "from The Renaissance" (or "from the Renaissance [Theatre]")?
 * I've fudged it and changed "the Renaissance" to "the theatre", which is not a verbatim translation of Le Figaro's prose, but is a fair representation of it, I think.  Tim riley  talk   16:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "vaudeville-opérette" - I don't think these terms are mentioned before, so maybe better "vaudeville-operette?
 * Excellent! Thank you. Duly pinched and inserted.  Tim riley  talk   16:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Best, Smerus (talk) 12:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Smerus, thank you so much for the support and excellent suggestions for polishing the prose. I am, not for the first time, in your debt.  Tim riley  talk   16:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.
 * "Feydeau took a break from writing and instead made a study of the works of the leading comic playwrights". Suggest removing "instead".
 * Yes, good.  Tim riley  talk   22:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "Feydeau was appointed to the Legion". Are you referring to the Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur? (Or the Légion étrangère?)
 * As we specify the Legion of Honour in the preceding sentence I think it's clear.  Tim riley  talk   22:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "During the first two decades of the 21st century, the Comédie-Française presented seven new Feydeau productions". I am not sure that "new" is helpful here.
 * Nor am I, now you point it out. I suppose I was trying to emphasise that none of them were old productions resurrected, but I don't think that needs spelling out.  Tim riley  talk   22:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Trivial points. Excellent stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these points, Gog. Will there be more to come?  Tim riley  talk   22:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The only outstanding point is the Legion of Honour paragraph. It is not an area which I feel I would wish to object on the basis of, so I am supporting the nomination. But as the rest of the article is to your usual high standards this paragraph really jumps out as jarring; a little strangely, more so the more I consider it. The second sentence seems to be trying to convey too much information. And it only works if one realises that "a certain amount of angling on his own account" relates back to the first sentence. This no doubt seems obvious, but even after your comment above it took me three readings before it went "click". And it is taken for granted that a reader is aware of what an appointment to the Legion of Honour is. I would urge you to consider rewriting this paragraph from scratch, possibly with out the, IMO, confusing reference to  La Ruban. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally KJP1 brought up this para in his comments, below. (How little one is able to QA one's own prose!) I have recast, dropping the "angling".  Tim riley  talk   18:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * "as a child he wrote his first plays" Pedants' corner: he could hardly have written his later plays as a child. I would delete "his first".
 * Yes, will do. –  Tim riley  talk   13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC) And now done.   Tim riley  talk   13:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "In 1919 his mental condition deteriorated sharply". Maybe mention due to syphilis.
 * A bit too detailed for the lead, I think, but I am biddable on the point. –  Tim riley  talk   13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "His father, Ernest-Aimé Feydeau". It would be helpful to give his dates. You give them for his mother.
 * I think there is – or used to be – a convention that if someone had his or her own article, as Ernest does, we didn't give his dates in other articles, but as this convention (if I haven't simply imagined it) has always seemed to me silly I am happy to add Ernest's as you suggest. –  Tim riley  talk   13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC) And now done.   Tim riley  talk   13:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "and Feydeau later said that people could think Morny his father if they wanted to" It would be better to refer to him as Georges as you have just been talking about his father.
 * Yes – better, and I'll do so. –  Tim riley  talk   13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC) And now done.   Tim riley  talk   13:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You refer to Gidel as "the biographer" and Pronko as "Feydeau's biographer". The first does not sound quite right to me. Maybe "In his biography of Feydeau, Gidel"
 * Shall redraw as you suggest.  Tim riley  talk   13:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC) And now done.   Tim riley  talk   13:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "French naturalist theatre". Is there an article you can link to?
 * Yes and no. We have one on naturalism (theatre), but it's mainly about Ibsen, Strindberg and Chekhov, and French plays don't get a look in. I'm not sure it would be a service to our readers to link to it. –  Tim riley  talk   13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "Feydeau was appointed to the Legion". Appointed to which grade?
 * Initially he was a chevalier, and was promoted to officier in 1912 (Gidel pp. 238–239). It hadn't crossed my mind to mention this, but I will do so if you wish it. –  Tim riley  talk   13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is significant and worth mentioning. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done.  Tim riley  talk   15:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "is a comedy about a man's strenuous efforts to be appointed to the Legion of Honour". You say this twice.
 * Yes, the repetition jarred on me as I was writing it, but I thought and still think it needs the second mention. Perhaps I'll change the second one to "a state honour" or some such. –  Tim riley  talk   13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC) And now done.   Tim riley  talk   13:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "For some, his late, misogynistic one-act plays were his finest achievements" Misogynism his greatest achievment? What do female critics say about this?
 * Pronko is unequivocal: "During Feydeau's lifetime the four short plays showing the inferno of married life were judged by many to be his finest achievements". Pronko doesn't use the word "misogynistic" but several other writers do, including J. Paul Marcoux in the introduction to Five By Feydeau (1994), and Pronko describes the wife in one of these late plays as a "sour-tempered unforgiving harridan" and another as "Feydeau's most monstrous feminine creation, thoughtless and selfish". –  Tim riley  talk   13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you should clarify that the people who think it was his greatest achievement are not the people who described them as misogynistic - if that is the case. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done.  Tim riley  talk   15:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "The Comédie-Française admitted a Feydeau work to its repertoire for the first time in 1941". Why not in his lifetime?
 * In his lifetime the Comédie-Française was not Feydeau's milieu, nor were his plays the sort to commend themselves to the management of the Comédie-Française in the late 19th or early 20th centuries. I suppose a comparison of sorts would be to imagine the Royal Shakespeare Company staging No Sex Please, We're British in the 1970s. The grand theatrical companies only take up farces when they are safely old enough to qualify for classic status. –   Tim riley  talk   13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "They took the production to Broadway in 1952, and the West End in 1956". Were productions which moved to NY and London in French? Were the actors bilingual?
 * The production was given in French in both cities. The practice seems to have faded away now, but when I was young, Peter Daubeny's World Theatre seasons were full of foreign-language productions, and did good business.  Tim riley  talk   13:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that this is worth a note. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done.  Tim riley  talk   15:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The Era. This seems a bit vague as a source. Maybe link to The Era (newspaper) if that is correct.
 * It is indeed correct, and I'll link it at first mention. –  Tim riley  talk   13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC) And now done.   Tim riley  talk   13:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "in mid-1919 his family, alarmed at signs of a severe deterioration in his mental condition". Who were his family at this point? His children?
 * His sons, Jacques and Michel, were the people chiefly responsible for arranging for Georges to go into the sanatorium. (Gidel, pp. 264–266). I'm not sure naming them here is helpful to the reader, but I'm not dead agin it. –  Tim riley  talk   13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Relevant in my view, but of course as in the similar case above it is your call. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done.  Tim riley  talk   15:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Another first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Dudley. I'll away and make the changes agreed above and will look in here after that to see what you think of my replies on the other points. –  Tim riley  talk   13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Warmest thanks, Dudley. I've acted on outstanding points, and am grateful for your thorough review and your support.  Tim riley  talk   16:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from KJP1
Tim, another well-written, and comprehensively researched article. I won't find much to quibble over.
 * Lead
 * "unsuccessful gambling" - is it possible to clarify what sort of gambling he indulged in? The 1880s Section ends with a reference to stock exchange losses, while the 1900-1909 Section says he "gambled and lost large sums". Are we talking about stock market speculation, or betting at cards or roulette, or both?
 * Not sure what to do about this. Of my two main biographical sources, Pronko says "lost money gambling and on the stock market" and Gidel talks of "les pertes au jeu, les spéculations boursières", neither of which tells us whether the gambling was at cards, on the horses, in the casino or what. I don't think I can in conscience add to what's now in the text.  Tim riley  talk   17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * On a point of consistency, there appears to be some variation of capitalisation of the English translations of the play titles. As examples, the lead has Ladies Tailor, The Lady from Maxim’s, A Flea in Her Ear, while the body of the article, and the list of works, has Ladies tailor, A flea in her ear etc. Not a clue as to what, if anything, MoS prescribes, but I think they should probably be consistent throughout?
 * I think you're right about consistency. I can't see anything in the MoS to guide me on capitalising literal translations, and have now gone for sentence case throughout.
 * Early years
 * "Ernest-Aimé Feydeau (1821–1873), was a businessman" - again for clarity, do the sources indicate what kind of business he practiced? His own article describes him as a financier?
 * That's correct, and I've clarified in the text.  Tim riley  talk   17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "the author dedicated the new edition to the archbishop" - would just "Ernest" be clearer?
 * It would. Not sure why I wrote "the author". Done.  Tim riley  talk   17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * “he wrote The Rebellious Young Lady (La Petite révoltée)” - Any reason why we have the English title preceding the French title here?
 * None that I can see. Amended.  Tim riley  talk   17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "was taken up by the publisher Ollendorff" - I'm assuming this was Paul Ollendorff, for whom we don't have an article although we do have Ollendorff père. Would the addition of Paul help, if not the link?
 * I always find this sort of thing tricky. If there were a link to the company, that would be fine, but I'm not keen on linking to Ollendorf père.  Tim riley  talk   17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1880s
 * "Amour et piano was given at the Théâtre de l'Athénée" - you use "given" a few times in this context, and I appreciate an actor can "give" a performance, but I wonder if "presented", "performed" or "staged" would be clearer for the non-technical reader - like me!
 * I was surprised at this comment, but have changed the "givens" to "presenteds" etc.  Tim riley  talk   17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "It depicts the confusion when a young lady receives a young gentleman who she thinks is her new piano teacher; he has come to the wrong house and thinks he is calling on a glamorous cocotte" - three things here. First, would "depicts the confusion arising when..." work? Second, to avoid the double "thinks", could the second be changed to "believes"? Lastly, link cocotte, I'm quite sure the term will be a mystery to most of our readers!
 * On the first point, yes. On the second, glamorous cocottes are such an everyday phenomenon in the Riley household that it didn't occur to me to link the term, but I daresay you're right. Done.  Tim riley  talk   17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In the third para., starting with La Lycéenne, and running into the first para. of the 1890s Section, we have six titles in quick succession without corresponding English translations. For consistency, should they be included?
 * I've herded the first three into a single footnote to help prevent acute clogging of the prose. I'm really not persuaded readers need the second three translated: they're practically in English already, I feel.  Tim riley  talk   17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1890s
 * "He submitted them to the management" - would "both", as in "He submitted them both to the management..", be superfluous?
 * Quite happy to add it. Flows nicely.  Tim riley  talk   17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "about a man desperately angling for appointment to the Legion of Honour" - Two things. I appreciate "angling" works for a British (American?) readership, but not sure its meaning will be clear for others. "intriguing"? Second, although we're on Wiki (en), and the link is indeed to the Legion of Honour, given there's so much French already, and the Légion d'honneur is so well known, I wonder if it wouldn't be better in French, with the link? You may well disagree but in my support, I would cite note 8, where you use "officier" rather than "officer".
 * First point: not sure "intriguing" is justified, but I'd be happy with manoeuvring. What think you? Second point: done.  Tim riley  talk   17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1900-1909
 * "Of his first four plays of the 1900s, only La Main passe![n 11] (1904)" - A query on note 11. It says, "in card games, where play moves from player to player,..." - is it actually "play" that is moving, or "the bank", or "the position/role of banker"? Just ignore me, if I'm talking nonsense - Snap is about my limit. [Not even Strip Jack Naked?  Tim riley  talk   17:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)]
 * I think this is OK. In e.g. Bridge, play passes to the left (i.e. clockwise), so that if the player sitting at the north side of the table plays first, the player sitting east plays next, and so on.  Tim riley  talk   17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Un puce à l'oreille (A Flea in Her Ear) (1907)" - moving from one area of ignorance to another, is the French title actually "La puce à l'oreille"? That's what the bluelink, and the Tobin article give, as well as the Table of Works and Legacy section here, and it's what I come across via an online search.
 * Thank you very much indeed! I'm so glad you spotted this. The definite article is correct. Amended. Phew! A howler over the title of his most popular play!  Tim riley  talk   17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Last years
 * “the diagnosis was dementia caused by tertiary syphilis” - I wonder whether linking dementia to General paresis of the insane might be more directly relevant than the dementia link you have? That said, the Dementia article is higher quality, so perhaps not.
 * Happy to be guided by you on this. Pray decide yea or nay.  Tim riley  talk   17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Batch 1 - I'll be back for Works and Legacy. KJP1 (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Works
 * First, a question. Do the sources say anything about how Feydeau worked with his collaborators? Did they have defined roles? Did they do half each - unlikely!? Did they receive equal credit/billing? It may be that the sources don't discuss it, in which case so be it, but if there was a little that could be added on how F and his collaborators wrote together, it would be interesting, given how important such collaborations obviously were.
 * A bit of a blank here in the sources. Collaborators certainly received equal billing, but the modus operandi of Feydeau and his co-authors is not discussed, as far as I can see, though the possibility cannot be ruled out that someone whose French is as rotten as mine has missed it in Gidel's 276 pages. Pronko's text (in English) certainly doesn't discuss the point.  Tim riley  talk   17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "twenty full-length plays and nineteen one-act ones." - "one-act ones" reads a little oddly, for me. Perhaps, "twenty full-length and nineteen one-act plays."
 * Yes, better.  Tim riley  talk  
 * Farcical style
 * "mechanical stage accessories such as the revolving bed in La Puce à l'oreille" - Can I beg for a footnote that gives readers an explanation as to what the "revolving bed" does, and how its presence/function is explained? Is it some kind of brothel device, akin to Edward VII's famous Siege d'amour? I went to the Flea article for illumination, where reading of the comings and goings at the hotel gave me a headache, but mention of the roundabout bed was absent.
 * I don't think I can spare the space in this article, but it's like this: in the dodgy hotel there is a bed attached to a wall. If a couple making use of it are about to be intruded upon (by e.g. an outraged husband) the press of a button has the entire wall, and the bed and occupants with it, revolving horizontally 180 degrees into the adjoining room, and the hopefully empty identical bed from next door takes its place. It is a matter of historical fact that in the fifty-odd years since I saw the National Theatre's production, I have never laughed so much at anything, ever, than when the bed revolved, repeatedly and inopportunely. You can see the bed in the original production at the back of the right-hand room in the picture at the beginning of the Works section.  Tim riley  talk   17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added a footnote as requested, and only hope I haven't killed the humour by literal description.  Tim riley  talk   21:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Full-length works, One-act pieces & Monologues
 * Purely a style choice, and ignore it at will, but I like the table you use for the Full-length works, and would myself use a similar format for the One-act pieces and the Monologues.
 * I'll experiment and see how it looks. I don't think tables are always ideal for shortish lists, but let's see.  Tim riley  talk   17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Legacy
 * First image - Given that this section covers his, posthumous, legacy, I'm not quite getting why we have an image of the 1906 production of Free Exchange Hotel. Would something like this work, [[File:Hotel Paradiso FilmPoster.jpeg]] ?
 * It would work brilliantly, but I don't think there is a ghost of a chance of justifying a non-free image here for merely decorative purposes.  Tim riley  talk   17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources
 * Again, merely a stylistic preference, but I might use (|author-mask = 1). That would avoid, for example, seventeen of M. Stoullig's appearances.
 * You have the advantage of me. I have never run across this device. Would you be very kind and apply it for me here, on the understanding that I can revert it if I take agin it?  Tim riley  talk   17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing the deed. I'm not sure I'll be making regular use of the code for my further contributions, but it looks absolutely fine - clear and concise, and I'll certainly not be reverting it. You are very kind.  Tim riley  talk   18:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

That's it from me. As so often, you've taken an artist of whom, beyond mere name recognition, I knew almost nothing, and brought them to life. That, the prose, and the comprehensive referencing, made it a pleasure to read and to review, as well as a most useful lesson. As usual, the above are mainly suggestions, and you can ignore them at will. I'll be back to Support when you've had a chance to review. KJP1 (talk) 11:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * KJ − thanks for these really excellent suggestions. I've adopted most of them and as to the others, please see above.  Tim riley  talk   17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Tim - Quite content with the responses, and appreciate that some are matters of judgement/taste. I’ve put the author-masks in and you can see what you think. I think it’s an excellent addition to the FA canon and am delighted to Support. KJP1 (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Source review
Footnote numbers refer to this version. That's everything I can see before having to run off to work this morning; I'll check back in this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:25, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we get page numbers for the chapter sources Hacht & Hayes; Meyer; and Slonimisky et al.?
 * Not sure I follow you. My normal practice is to give the page number in the refs and the bibliographical details in the sources, and have done so here. –  Tim riley  talk   14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this was both a mistake on my part and an oversight. The oversight is that I should have made it clear that this was just a suggestion, not something I would object to as part of a source review.  It's a convenience to the reader to see that e.g. the chapter by Slonimsky et al. in Kuhn's dictionary is pp. 1803-1809.  There's no requirement to do this; I was just suggesting that it might be done.  The mistake is that I misread both the Hacht and Hayes and the Meyer citation; neither one is a chapter in an edited work, so it wasn't even a sensible suggestion in those cases. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You are missing a location for Hacht & Hayes.
 * Done. –  Tim riley  talk   14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You have one instance of "Pronko (1973)" in the footnotes, which I assume should be 1975.
 * Indeed, and now amended. –  Tim riley  talk   14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You cite Noël and Stoullig in the sources as "Noël, Edouard; Edmond Stoullig"; why the change in name order for the second author? Similarly for Hacht and Hayes, and Mander and Mitchenson.  If this is deliberate, then presumably we need to change Slonimsky et al. to conform.
 * Quite so, and now adjusted accordingly. (I don't normally list surnames of 2nd and subsequent authors before their given names, as the question of alphabetical sorting doesn't arise, and the natural order seems easier on the eye.) –  Tim riley  talk   14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, consistency is all that's needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The 1888 and 1894 editions of Noël and Stoullig do not appear to be cited in the footnotes. Nor do the 1904, 1905, or 1911 editions of Stoullig.
 * The 1888 and 1894 listings are now gone. The 1904 Stoullig is mentioned in note 111, 1905 at note 61 and 1911 at note 54. –  Tim riley  talk   14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops. Glad I was at least partly right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the canonical way to cite [17] would be, but I think at a minimum the author should be given.
 * Done. I'd gladly add more, but the Internet Archive is uncharacteristically coy about the bibliographical details. –  Tim riley  talk   14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Dates are not consistently formatted; you have e.g. "4 August 2020" and "2022-05-17".
 * Alas, the clodhopping 2022-05-17 style is the work of the archiving bot. I don't know how to make it do dates in normal form. Archiving is a marvellous thing, preventing so many dead links in years to come, but it comes at the price of clunky date formats in the citations. –  Tim riley  talk   14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I will see if I can figure out how to resolve this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks as if simply changing the date format inside the template will work. Take a look here; I copied one of your citations and changed the date parameter. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All manually corrected. That was as soul-destroying a half hour as I have spent for some time. What would you have said if I had simply blitzed all the archiving dates? As there is an unbreakable link to each, why do we need the archival date in our references? Wikipedia is not making life easy for its contributors.  Tim riley  talk   19:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you had, I'd have struck the comment, since source reviewing doesn't require archiving. You know, a script to change all dates in an article from one format to another would be useful, and might already exist somewhere in one of the automated tools such as AWB. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What's the intention behind italicizing or not italicizing some elements of the web citations? I think you're italicizing titles of publications and not italicizing websites and publishers.  If so, [51] should have "Dictionnaire de l'Académie française" italicized.
 * Your deduction is spot-on, but I'd be glad of your thoughts on the point: some people italicise websites, I've noticed. Do you have a view? –  Tim riley  talk   14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect it comes from the way the commonly used citation templates work. cite web has a title parameter, a work parameter (for which "website" is an alias) and a publisher parameter.  The title typically gets used for the title of the web page, and gets put in quotes; the work (or website) for the name of the site, e.g. Internet Broadway Database, and is in italics; the publisher is not in italics.  So you get, from a recent FAC, a cite like this: "Burnley match record: 1959". 11v11. AFS Enterprises. Archived from the original on 21 January 2021. Retrieved 31 March 2021."  The website is "11v11"; the publisher is AFS Enterprises.  There's a lot of confusion about the use of the publisher vs. website parameters, and I confess it's only recently that I think I've begun to get it clear myself, having started to do more source reviews.  So you get people putting the website name into the publisher field, which doesn't italicise it.  The rule, as I understand it, is that anything that is reasonably rational, and consistent, is fine at FAC.  That's why I asked about the dictionary title -- it seems to me to be the title of a publication, like The New Oxford Companion to Literature in French, which you italicize even though you're accessing a web version, rather than the title of a website which is not the title of a publication, such as the Internet Broadway Database.  For consistency wouldn't you expect to italicize it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We see eye-to-eye on this, I think. I agree in principle that all book titles should be italicised (I seem to have a pathological reluctance to italicise the titles of dictionaries but I struggle hard to overcome this quirk) and for now will leave websites unitalicised. I've done the necessary for the Académie française's dictionary.  Tim riley  talk   17:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Any reason why you give both the website title and the publisher for [86]? As far as I can see you don't do this elsewhere.
 * Serves me right for copying and pasting from another article. Now pruned. –  Tim riley  talk   14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A nitpick: you have "fourteenth ed." with lower-case "f" for Gaye, and "second ed." for Mander and Mitchenson, but "Second ed." for Hall, and "8th ed." for Slonimsky et al.
 * I'll make them uniform, but before I do, have you any thoughts on which of the three options is preferable? –  Tim riley  talk   14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally I think lower case and spelled out in full, e.g. "fourteenth", looks well on the page, but anything consistent is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Good. That accords with my tastes; done.  Tim riley  talk   17:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What makes historichotelsthenandnow.com a reliable source? The about page makes it seem it's written by a single individual.
 * I've removed the footnote concerned. –  Tim riley  talk   14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What makes Libre Théâtre a reliable source? From their about page it's a labour of love by fans of the theatre.
 * It seems to have the nod from the French Ministry of Culture ("Référencement sur le site Histoire des Arts du Ministère de la Culture, 22/10/2015", though I'm not sure of the exact import of that) and the Bibliothèque nationale de France provides a link to the Libre théâtre site, which seems a good recommendation. –  Tim riley  talk   14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Bibliothèque nationale de France link is a helpful recommendation. Am I right in thinking you're referring in [30] to the review cited?  That is, I see [30] supports "a series of poor or mediocre runs" of four titles, and I see that one of the two links to Libre Théâtre contains an embedded review from The Illustrated Thief; is that review part of what you're citing?  If so I think it would be helpful to cite that directly, reducing the reliance on the website.  I don't see anything embedded for the other Libre Théâtre citation in [30], for Chat en poche; can I just check that the other sources do support "poor or mediocre" for that title?  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For the sake of clean simplicity I've replaced all the citations to Libre théâtre with printed ones (Gidel and Noël & Stoullig).  Tim riley  talk   17:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your review. I've actioned as mentioned, and look forward to your thoughts on the few points I've raised. No rush! As a retired person I felt rather guilty when I read your comment about fitting the review in before running off to work. –  Tim riley  talk   14:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem! I've recently semi-retired (i.e. I now work only two days a week) so you can feel correspondingly less guilty, or in fact not guilty at all, since I do enjoy doing reviews for their own sake. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Afterthought: thank you for adding the "ref=none" to the sources. I don't think I've run across it before, and wonder what it's for: grateful for enlightenment on the point. Ought I to be adding it to the sources sections of any article I work on?  Tim riley  talk   22:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The keepers of the citation templates made a change a year or three ago where the citation template is now expected to have a ref parameter. I don't recall how this expectation is implemented, but certain user scripts now produce error messages if the ref parameter is not filled in.  The ref parameter is used for sfn style referencing, which I don't use myself, so I had never used the parameter in my own citations.  Hence my own articles became peppered with error messages because of the change, and I discovered that "ref=none" silences the errors.  Not something I would raise in a source review because it causes no problems for a reader without the relevant scripts.
 * I think that's it for the evening for me; my workweek is now over so I should be able to give this some more attention tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Just the date issue left, for which there seems to be a solution -- see above. I still have to check links, and will do that next, but I don't expect to find problems since I've already clicked on most of them while doing the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Footnote numbers now refer to this version.
 * The archive links for Le Figaro ([23], [28], [66]) and Var-matin ([31]) don't work. Not everything is archivable; if these can't be fixed I would suggest just deleting the archive links.
 * Done.  Tim riley  talk   20:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Both the link and archive link for [134] just take you to the IBDB front page, not to the relevant page.
 * Amended  Tim riley  talk   20:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

That's everything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixes all look good; this is a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Heartfelt thanks for such a thorough and helpful review. Just what was needed!  Tim riley  talk   21:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt
Support. Very little to comment on. Anything worth catching has already been caught, it seems. Still, I'll try.
 * "From 1908 Feydeau focused chiefly on a series of one-act plays, which he envisaged as a set to be called From Marriage to Divorce" He intended it to have an English title? (since we are not title-capping translations, it looks a bit odd).
 * "Le Ruban (The Ribbon, 1894, in collaboration with Maurice Desvallières), is a comedy about a man's strenuous efforts to gain a state honour.[85] and Le Bourgeon (The Bud) " As title-capping of translations is not being done, these are not consistent with earlier (when you translate the former as "The ribbon". Of course, if The Bud is about a certain beer, I will withdraw that portion of my point.
 * Fn7: "Respectively the titles translate into English as 'The high school girl The betrothed of Loches and The Edouard affair" There is a stray apostrophe before "The" in the first titles, and consideration might be given to the use of commas in separating the titles and, perhaps, a full stop at the end.
 * That's it. Enjoyed reading it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a clear hat-trick. You have me bang to rights on all three points − now attended to. Thank you, Wehwalt, for your suggestions and support.  Tim riley  talk   09:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

(t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)