Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hugh Walpole/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, 11 January 2014 (UTC).

Hugh Walpole

 * Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

In the 1920s and 30s Hugh Walpole was one of the best-selling novelists on both sides of the Atlantic. Praised as a young man by Henry James, Joseph Conrad, Arnold Bennett and others, he produced a wide range of fiction and non-fiction between 1909 and his death in 1941. After he died his novels went out of fashion, and much of his work was neglected. There has been a modest revival of interest during the past decade, with a dozen or so of his best books reprinted in Britain and the US, and the author's own life story is remarkable in many ways. The article has had a very thorough peer review, and is now, I believe, ready for consideration for FA. – Tim riley (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Support – I was active at the peer review and thought then that this was clearly a contender for the coveted gold star. Being a Tim Riley article, there was very little room for improvement, and the few comments I had to offer were quickly remedied to my satisfaction. Top notch article and worthy of FA status. --  Cassianto Talk   12:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow! That was quick. Thank you very much for the support and your (too) kind words. Tim riley (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Support, I was a fellow traveller on the path of FAC and my few concerns were dealt with admirably. A further read through shows no further issues for comment. Lovely piece of work: interesting, insightful and a pleasure to read. - SchroCat (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Greatly indebted for your help and for your support here. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Support Yep, I also looked at the article for its PR and have no concerns. Very high quality article about an interesting man, thanks for your hard work Tim. -- Loeba (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Loeba, for the very thorough peer review and for your support here. Tim riley (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments by the Dr.
 * Lead
 * In the lead you state "Among those who encouraged him were the established authors Henry James and Arnold Bennett." I'd like to know instantly how he came into contact with such men and where they encouraged him. Was it at school, university, Sunday school etc? Also "His skill at scene-setting, his vivid plots, and his high profile as a lecturer" I'd also want an indication of where he lectured at and "After his first novel in 1909" I'd expect you to name his debut novel.
 * He encountered James by way of A C Benson to whom he had earlier attached himself, whereas Bennett was the instigator of their friendship. All in the main text, but a bit detailed for the lead, I think. The lecture tours were in America, which I have mentioned. Name of novel added. Tim riley (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why have you linked Petrograd but not London? - think globally...
 * The MoS (WP:OVERLINK) bids us avoid linking well-known places such as London. Petrograd, I think, is not so generally known, and a link may be helpful. Tim riley (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I believe it advises not to link global cities, but St Petersburg isn't exactly a small city either!♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Under the temporary alias of "Petrograd" it might be unfamiliar to many. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "He eventually found one, and settled in the English Lake District." Who?
 * I tried putting Harold Cheevers's name here when I was writing the lead, but it didn't seem to be helpful, and so I removed it. When a partner or spouse is famous in his/her own right it makes sense to give the name in the lead (e.g. Peter Pears in the Britten article) but Harold was a private citizen whose name will mean nothing to anyone. Tim riley (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: would it be helpful to add "a married policeman", after the comma? Tim riley (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I see, I presumed he was famous. A married policemen I think would be more useful then.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Worth considering, certainly. I'll see what other contributors think. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Having as a young man eagerly sought the support of established authors such as James, he was in his later years a generous sponsor of many younger authors. " Such as?
 * Hart-Davis lists nearly forty of them. I have given a few as a footnote, but I don't think their names should go in the lead. The problem is that though we know the names of those who wrote letters of thanks to Walpole, we don't know which of them he helped with money and which in other ways (contacts, encouragement etc). Tim riley (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Footnote is fine.


 * He worked in Hollywood writing screenplays for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer in the 1930s, and played a cameo in one film. Such as? You see I'd expect the lead to be informative and concise and at present it's a bit vague. Obviously you don't need to real off massive lists but some examples I think really help the reader more.
 * Added name of film. Tim riley (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you add (1935) after David Copperfield?
 * Bit excessive, as we say 1930s just before it. It's in the link, of course. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, it is the norm to link the year in brackets when citing a film.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Early years
 * "In 1889, two years after the birth of the couple's daughter, Dorothea ("Dorothy"), Somerset Walpole accepted a prominent and well-paid academic post in New York." -You seem to assert the position but it would really help more if you knew what it was!
 * He accepted the Chair of Systematic Theology at the General Theological Seminary of New New York City. I could add this, but I don't know that including this eighty-nine-character job title would enhance the section. Tim riley (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe just "accepted a prominent and well-paid academic post at the General Theological Seminary of New York City" then?♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can do. Not an improvement, in my view, but not objectionable. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments so far. I look forward to more when you have time. Tim riley (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Link Truro? Only Bishop of Truro linked to date.
 * Good catch. Linked. Tim riley (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, will continue this evening!♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is now called Rzędziny. I'd be happier with knowing where he was, I'd assume it was somewhere like Berlin or Stuttgart otherwise.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Cambridge
 * "Benson gently forbade Walpole's advances", I'm not sure forbade is the right word here.
 * Ceoil suggests "declined", which I am happy to adopt. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "From April to July 1907 Walpole was in Germany, tutoring the children of the popular author Elizabeth von Arnim." Do you know where in Germany?
 * Nassenheide, near the current Polish border. But the place doesn't run to a WP article, and I think I'll leave it unmentioned here. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Note added. I wonder if we should add a new redirect page Nassenheide>Rzędziny: what do you think? Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Already done it..♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I say! Thanks for that. Tim riley (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Early lit career
 * "Walpole published his first novel, The Wooden Horse, in 1909. " do you know what publishing house? - might be worth mentioning.
 * All HW's UK and US publishers are given in the new sub-article listing all his books. The publishers were Smith, Elder, but I don't think there's anything very remarkable about them for present purposes. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough but I think you should mention the publisher once in the article somewhere.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note added on all his early publishers. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "The Observer gave the book a favourable review: "The slow growth of the poison within [Perrin] is traced with wonderful skill and sympathy ... one feels throughout these pages a sense of intolerable tension, of impending disaster";[33] The Manchester Guardian was less enthusiastic, praising the scene-setting but calling the story "an unconscientious melodrama".[34] and the San Francisco Chronicle praised its "technical excellence, imagination and beauty – Walpole at his best."[35][n 5]"

Not a fan of the colon here and that you go from positive to negative to positive again. I'd word it as "The Observer gave the book a favourable review: "The slow growth of the poison within [Perrin] is traced with wonderful skill and sympathy ... one feels throughout these pages a sense of intolerable tension, of impending disaster", and the San Francisco Chronicle praised its "technical excellence, imagination and beauty – Walpole at his best." However, the Manchester Guardian was less enthusiastic, praising the scene-setting but calling the story "an unconscientious melodrama". " -just a suggestion for continuity's sake, I vaguely remember you saying something about not liking "However" or something though...
 * Indeed. At an earlier FAC, I forget which, John convinced me that nine times out of ten "however" is unnecessary and undesirable. I think this is one of the nine, and would rather stick with the existing wording. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you link persona non grata  if an article exists or point to something for our less well-bred readers who will not be familiar with a non English term...
 * Not persuaded that someone to whom such a phrase needs a link would have penetrated this far into an article about a little-known novelist, but will add a link nonetheless. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * WWI
 * "The "Sanitar" is the part of the Red Cross that does the rough work at the front, carrying men out of the trenches, helping at the base hospitals in every sort of way, doing every kind of rough job. They are an absolutely official body and I shall be one of the few (half-dozen) Englishmen in the world wearing Russian uniform." Not sure why this is worth quite a long quote when it doesn't really seem biographically informative, I'd write in your own words and only quote in part if you think it's really essential.
 * I think the ipsissima verba convey Walpole's excitement as no rewording of mine could. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "The book won the inaugural James Tait Black Memorial Prize for fiction" You should probably mention it was in 1919 not 1917.
 * Good idea. In fact I feel an informative footnote would be of interest at this point, and will add one. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Post war


 * " an attempted putsch" - a link?
 * Definitely. The fairly well-known Beer hall putsch. Can't think why I didn't have one. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Walpole later admitted that he had despised Hitler but also liked him" - I'm never a fan of "but also", you might disagree. but I'd probably word it as "Walpole later admitted that he had both despised and liked Hitler".
 * I agree about "alsos" on the whole, and I prefer your wording. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by " but that he was probably only consulted about them".
 * Just Agate's little joke. Rather funny, I thought. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "During the mid-twenties Walpole produced two of his best-known novels in his macabre vein, exploring the fascination of fear and cruelty." I don't like " in his macabre vein" here as many readers won't know that he had such a vein, I'd write it as "During the mid-twenties Walpole produced two of his best-novel novels, macabre works which explored the fascination of fear and cruelty"
 * I'll have to ponder this. I can't call them two of HW's best known novels tout court because they aren't. They are probably the two best known in his macabre vein. I think perhaps I'll change "his macabre" to "the macabre vein that attracted him from time to time." Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be better.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 1930-
 * Delink (that rag :-]) The Daily Mail, already linked previously.
 * How very odd! I have run the dup link finder yet missed that one. A particularly unfortunate candidate for a second link, I agree. Shall amend. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It was worse than you think. There were two superfluous links to the paper. Now expunged. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You should pipe the link to the film where it says "film adaptation" rather than in the next paragraph.
 * Can do. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking on imdb it might be worth mentioning that around the same time William K. Howard's Vanessa:Her Love Story was made based on his novel (a decent source ) and Mr. Perrin and Mr. Traill after his death in 1948 (a decent source just to be more comprehensive. I'm happy to rid of any red links.  ♦  Dr. Blofeld  22:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll add a footnote. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Added note on those and one other film adaptation. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "He completed a fifth novel in the Herries series and began work on a sixth" -worth mentioning the titles?
 * Ditto Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd have expected such a section to be the one to discuss his influence on others and tributes to him in detail. I feel it is a bit misleading given that most of the section is about is philanthropy and art collecting. Can you think of a solution? I'd be tempted to merge In his adopted home of Keswick a section of the town museum was dedicated to Walpole's memory in 1949, with manuscripts, correspondence, paintings and sculpture from Brackenburn, donated by his sister and brother.[103] into the end of the main bio and rename the section "Art collecting and philanthropy". ♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Legacy
 * I disagree. I think there are many kinds of legacy. I believe you are the only reviewer here or at PR who has expressed any reservations about this point, and I'll stick with the layout, I think. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Works
 * Shouldn't "Walpole's books covered a wide range. " be "Walpole's books cover a wide range. " or "In his books, Walpole covered a wide range of topics"? - I think I prefer the latter.
 * Yes, better. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Reputation
 * "It is an overstatement to call Walpole's works completely neglected. " says who? - a little essay-like and pedantic perhaps, can you reword?
 * One needs something to which to segue from the Hitchens quote. I redrew this sentence several times, finding it difficult to get the right phrase, and am decidedly open to further suggestions. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That will be all. Await your response before leaving my final comments.♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these additional suggestions. We disagree here and there but there are some excellent points. I shall enjoy acting on them later today. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Support Thanks Tim. A pleasure to read. I was tempted to oppose initially based on the fact that it has no infobox - just kidding! Very well-researched and has obviously already had considerable input from many of the website greats here with FA experience. Clearly meets the criteria for FA in my opinion. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your support and input are very much appreciated, Doctor. Tim riley (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Support: I've nothing to add to my peer review comments of a week or so back, except to suggest that the sentence above, that troubled the Doctor ("It is an overstatement to call Walpole's works completely neglected"), could be simply rewritten as "Walpole's works have not been completely neglected in recent years", to remove the possibly didactic element – but this is a suggestion, not a request. Otherwise, superb work. I will throw in a sources review, for good measure. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggested rewording adopted with thanks. Tim riley (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources review:
 * Refs 17 & 20: It would be consistent with the rest if the Lyttelton/Hart-Davis collections were designated by their respective dates rather than by volume numbers.
 * Done. Tim riley (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, damn and blast! I realise I misinterpreted what you said above. Shall further amend. (So sorry.) Tim riley (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now done. Tim riley (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ref 82: The only Maugham book listed as a sources is Cakes and Ale, a novel, and it looks odd that this is the source of Maugham's admission that he lied to Walpole about the basis for Alroy Kear. Presumably Maugham revealed this information in a preface, and it might be worth clarifying this.
 * Indeed so, and done. Tim riley (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ref 92 (Driberg) needs pp not p
 * Ref 132 which Steele?
 * Both these two attended to. Tim riley (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That is all. The sources all look of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Brian. I am in your debt for input at PR, for support and your suggestion above, and for the source review. Thank you so much. Tim riley (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * :Leaning to support A few comments:


 * Lede
 * "and settled in the English Lake District" Given the stress that is being laid on the first part of the sentence, I think that a "they" should be added before "settled", or else "with him" following "settled".
 * Redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Having as a young man eagerly sought the support of established authors such as James," True, but possibly too long considering it's only been two paragraphs since we were told that, I would think there's room to shorten it. Perhaps "Having received support from established writers in his youth" (or some other noun implying "salad days".)
 * Pruned. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Bio
 * "On Benson's advice he accepted." This sentence, rather short, is surely foldable into the previous one.
 * Done. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "when the parents decided that he needed an English education."
 * "Hugh and Dorothy were taught by a governess until the middle of 1893, when the parents decided that he needed an English education." I would assume that the decision would precede the sending of Hugh by some interval, especially if he was entered for the grammar school at some earlier date.
 * Their original idea was to have HW educated in New York, but they changed their minds, and the decision wasn't made long in advance. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * " He was afflicted by occasional nightmares" might be more effective without "occasional" unless there is some strong stress in the source about the episodic nature of these.
 * Now I check against the source I think my drafting is not correct. Walpole said that occasionally he had horrible moments of panic that his real life was a dream and that he would wake up and find himself back at Marlow. I have removed the sentence. So glad you mentioned the point. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * " and that Bede College was the subject of snobbery within the university." I see it might be relevant to Somerset, but how is it relevant to Hugh?
 * Children are apt to be very sensitive to slights on their parents' prestige even now, and much more so, I'm sure, in those snobbish days. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "According to Somerset Maugham, Walpole made a sexual proposition to James, who was too inhibited to respond,[29] but in their correspondence the older man's devotion was couched in extravagant terms." The "but" here bothers me somewhat. It is technically proper, I suppose, playing off James' inhibition, but what the reader will be noticing is, of course, the proposition, to which the "but" is really not germane.  Consider splitting it and substituting "Nevertheless" for "but".
 * Done. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the lack of a link to "First World War" is intentional, but just mention it in case it is not.
 * Indeed. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Walpole returned to Petrograd. The city was made more attractive for him" This seems to contradict somewhat the earlier statement that Walpole preferred Petrograd to Moscow.
 * Redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ", his obvious and genuine liking for his hosts" I wonder if "his" should be preceded by an [and]?
 * Done. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "$1350 apiece." needs a comma after the thousands place per MOSNUM. (normally I'd fix it but I'm reviewing offline and will cut and paste my review)
 * I prefer the comma, and always use it in anything I write away from WP. I had it in my head that we don't use the comma for numbers less than 10,000, and am happy to be told otherwise. Changed accordingly. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "The success of his talks led to increases in his lecturing fees, greatly enhanced sales of his books, and large sums from American publishers anxious to print his latest fiction." There seems to be a verb missing in the final part of the sentence.
 * I think this is what I meant to say, the main verb "led" covering fees, sales and sums from anxious publishers. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * From passing references, I gather Walpole became very well-to-do in the 1920s, but perhaps this should be explicitly stated.
 * Added a bit at the Brackenburn/Piccadilly para. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't comment but for the fact you mention it twice, but we probably have an article on the 1939 papal election somewhere. By the way, suggest replacing one of the "election"s with "conclave".
 * Excellent. Simply hadn't occurred to me. Now linked. First "election" now "conclave". Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Legacy
 * "After his death the pick of his collection, other than his bequests to the Tate Gallery and Fitzwilliam Museum, was exhibited" This is one of the more difficult points of British English for me, but given that "pick" encompasses multiple works, should the verb be a plural form"?
 * Redrawn.
 * "his love of art and old books and manuscripts" the multiple "and"s is slightly jarring.
 * The familiar "fish and chips and mushy peas" problem. I've added an extra "of" which may cushion the jarring. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Works
 * "Mr Perrin and Mr Traill, 1911, and the Jeremy trilogy) that delve into the psychology of boyhood;" I haven't read the former (or the latter, for that matter, but let's stick with the former", but your earlier comments about MP and MT focus on the psychology of the schoolmasters, not the boys.
 * The masters top the bill, so to speak, but there is plenty about the boys too. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "With the Herries stories Walpole restored the popularity of the historical novel," granted, but given that much of your focus on the Herries stories seems to be on the Lake District setting, it might be well if you somewhere mention when it is set.
 * Very good point. Now done. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "willing to go into court and give evidence for the defence after the obscenity trial after the novel The Well of Loneliness was published.[120]" Presumably the first "after" is meant to be "during".
 * Slip of the pen now amended. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "a dozen recent reissues of Walpole's works, including The Wooden Horse, The Dark Forest, The Secret City, Jeremy, and The Cathedral." The cynic in me wonders if that's more to do with the copyright expiring 70 years postmortem.
 * Very possibly, and not having to pay royalties must be an attraction to publishers, but they still wouldn't print new editions if they didn't think they'd sell. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Excellently done. I have not read his works, but I've read R. F. Delderfield's To Serve Them All My Days and I suspect him to be a Walpole admirer given that the Perrin book is mentioned a couple of times and he also named one of the main characters "Herries".--Wehwalt (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Some excellent points there, and one of them has saved me from a quite misleading statement, for which, in particular, I am most grateful. Tim riley (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Support This was enjoyable and very interesting to read; the main writer brought across the context and contradictions very well, its very juicy in places and is certainly comprehensive. The sourcing is impeccable, more please. Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ceoil, for that support and for your thoughtful edits of the text. Tim riley (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Support – Never heard of him but, even so, a great read against the backdrop of interesting times. Sandbh (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that support and kind comment. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Note -- image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (PD-age, own work). Sources and authors provided.
 * Several images are not suitable for Commons yet, but properly tagged as en-Wiki only - OK.
 * The "Carl Van Vechten" images are out of copyright (according to the Library of Congress), so the request to limit possible derivatives is just that, a request for voluntary courtesy, and not against Commons policies - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Much obliged to GermanJoe for the review. Tim riley (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Tks Joe. On that note, Tim, I think it's time to curtail your Walpoling activities -- in the best possible way, of course... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good grief! I deny everything. Well most of it. Tim riley (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.