Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Messiah (Handel)/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 SandyGeorgia 20:13, 4 August 2011.

Messiah (Handel)

 * Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk), Gerda Arendt (talk), Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC) 

Handel's Messiah is among the most frequently performed and best-loved works in all choral music. People who know hardly a note of classical music are still likely to recognise the opening notes of the "Hallelujah" chorus. For much of its 270 years Messiah (not "The Messiah", please note) has been performed in versions that Handel would scarcely have recognised as his own music; he wrote it for a small orchestra and a chamber choir, whereas after his death adaptations using  vast choral and instrumental forces became the norm. Recently there had been a greater respect for authenticity, and you are more likely now to hear something approaching Handel's original intentions. This article has been a team effort, with Tim riley, Gerda Arendt and myself all contributing to what we hope is a worthy article. Enjoy the soundfiles, if nothing else. Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Had my say at the peer review, it hasn't gotten worse since. Well done all.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support and peer review comments. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Excellent article, and on a well-known topic, too! I have already fixed my only problem with the article. Inter changeable | talk to me | what I've changed 01:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. The prose is stellar; the topic is covered comprehensively as far as I can see. I have one, very minor comment: Ucucha 01:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is the footnote about "The Messiah" at the end of the first paragraph? It would make more sense to me to place it immediately behind the name, at the beginning of the paragraph.
 * Thanks for the support. On the footnote issue, the problem is that there is already a citation after the catalogue reference. It would be untidy and awkward if the article began: "Messiah[n 1] (HWV 56)[1] is..." I think the footnote is best deferred into a less conspicuous place. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments. Looks pretty good, but I have a few comments.
 * "In the years after his death the work was adapted for performance on a much larger scale, with giant orchestras and choirs." (lead) - Shouldn't that be has been?
 * The plain past tense is used here to indicate that the adaptations were made in that period; such an adaptation, which the use of the past imperfect tense would imply, would be most unexpected nowadays. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tim riley. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Background, first paragraph: Would box-office receipts be used to describe ticket sales in this period? Seems a little awkward to me.
 * The Oxford English Dictionary cites 18th century use of the term, so I think it's appropriate. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Background, second paragraph: "Even as its future prospects in London declined in the 1730s, Handel remained committed to Italian opera, though to add variety to his theatre programmes he began to introduce oratorios, sung in English, as occasional alternatives to his staged works." seems a little wordy. Perhaps "Although future prospects for Italian operas in London declined during the 1730s, Handel remained committed to the genre; however, he began to introduce English-language oratorios as occasional alternatives to his staged works." or something of the like.
 * I think that would be better: conom thoughts? Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think so, too, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm outvoted. I've changed it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Background, third paragraph: "The work opened at the King's Theatre in January 1739 to a warm reception, and was quickly followed, though less successfully, by a further oratorio, Israel in Egypt, which may also have come from Jennens." - perhaps "The work opened at the King's Theatre in January 1739 to a warm reception, and was quickly followed by the less successful oratorio, Israel in Egypt (which may also have come from Jennens)". I don't think the Jennens bit of information is 100% relevant to the topic, so if needed at all could be included as an aside.
 * Ditto. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Per above. Grrrr Brianboulton (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Synopsis, third paragraph: "Resurrection of the dead" - Should it be "resurrection of the dead" or "Resurrection of the Dead"?
 * We need to revisit capitalisation of terms with specific doctrinal significance: we have two "resurrections" and four "Resurrections". Not my area of expertise, and I invite conoms to look at this. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think as a term, consistently using "Resurrection of the Dead" is not wrong. Will do if we reach consensus. - Looking closer: it occurs only once, the WP article is "Resurrection of the dead", Jennen's calls it "general Resurrection", as opposed to the Resurrection (of Jesus), which is mentioned the other occurances, and probably should be capital as a specific one, not a general term. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On the one occurance left, I think we should either use Jennens' term "general Resurrection" as a quote (no "of the dead" there), or just say "resurrection of the dead", without "general", perhaps best combined: "general Resurrection". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As there were no objections I take it to the article. Now I wonder if we should mark "final victory over sin and death" also as Jennens' idea, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Leave it; it's not an issue. Brianboulton (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Composition, second paragraph: "The effort of writing so much music in so short a time is remarkable, but not unusual for Handel and his contemporaries" - Remarkable by today's standards, but if not unusual at the time I doubt we should say it is remarkable. Perhaps something like "Although it seems remarkable today, the effort of writing so much music in so short a time was not unusual for Handel and his contemporaries"
 * Brian, I think you drafted this: your call. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like "today" which is inspecific, but I've made a similar alteration. Brianboulton (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I like BB's new language. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * London, fourth paragraph: "The year 1750 also saw the institution of the annual charity performances of Messiah at London's Foundling Hospital, which continued until Handel's death and beyond." - Any chance on finding out when it stopped?
 * It certainly seems to have stopped by the 1785, when The Times was first published. Messiah performances are mentioned in its advertisement columns, but nothing resembling an annual Foundlings benefit. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The only relevant information I can find is in Luckett, who says that the Foundling Hospital performances were saved in 1773 "for a few more years" by the singing of the Linley sisters. Personally I don't think it is necessary to extend the txt on this point. Brianboulton (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, though I don't regard this as important: it could say "and for a few decades beyond." -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 18th century, first paragraph: Why is New York not wikilinked? The other cities are all wikilinked and New York is not mentioned before this.
 * The Manual of Style (WP:OVERLINK) enjoins us not to link capitals and other large cities that everybody has head of. I think New York is one such. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. WP:OVERLINK says that commonly known place names should not be linked.  So, we don't need to link Paris, but we probably need to link Baltimore, Maryland.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Will link Baltimore. Thanks for spotting that. Tim riley (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 20th century, third paragraph: "At the Handel Festival held in 1922 at Handel's native town, Halle, his choral works were given by a choir of 163 and an orchestra of 64" - shouldn't that be "in Handel's native town", or is at a town standard British English?
 * In UK usage either "at" or "in" is correct. The usage here followed that in the cited source ("The Handel Festival at Halle") but "in" would avoid the repetition of "at", and I have changed it. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 20th century, image: File:Deborah Warner's production of Handel's Messiah for the ENO.jpg doesn't seem to be of really good quality (lighting, guide rail in the way, etc.). I think it detracts a bit from the nearby text.
 * I should strongly prefer to keep this image: rail notwithstanding it illustrates very clearly how different a staged performance of Messiah is from a normal concert-hall one. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would this crop be better (minus rail and other distractions)? Brianboulton (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That will do me, if everyone prefers it. Tim riley (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have made the change. If people don't like it we can always revert. Brianboulton (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * New crop is okay. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Peer Reviewer tool shows a couple external links may be dead. It also notes that some references may be inside punctuation, although I did not see any while reading.
 * I've re-checked all the external links, and they are all fine. (The tool sometimes boggles at subscription sites, but these are clearly indicated). I've also re-checked the 205 references within the text, and none are within punctuation. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty good. I will be happy to support after my comments are addressed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for these points. I have acted on some and left others to conoms to address, as indicated above. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added some comments. I am still pondering on the Resurrection of the Dead issue, and will add a comment shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. My comments have been addressed quite quickly and to my satisfaction. As I will be out of town for a few days, I will assume good faith about the one outstanding comment. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review and your support. On the "Resurrection" issue, I think in traditional usage the term is capitalised when referring specifically to Christ; likewise "Passion", "Crucifixion", "Ascension" etc. The "general resurrection of the dead" need not be capitalised, though it sometimes is. I don't believe that there is a clear right or wrong way, but to achieve consistency I have been through the article and standardised capitalisation in accordance with these convetntions. Brianboulton (talk) 7:26 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FN 29, 32: which Burrows?
 * Fixed. Also fixed another dateless Burrows ref later. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Use a consistent punctuation for shortened citations, for example FN 61 vs 63
 * Done. Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No citations to March 2007
 * We pruned the relevant section - straggling citation now removed too. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Check formatting on FNs 44, 84, 99, 138, 139
 * All checked and fixed, I think. Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Use a consistent formatting for multiple authors
 * Done, I hope. Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
 * The article linked to is by Teri Noel Towe, an authority quoted in, e.g., Gramophone (here), High Fidelity here and in Alan Blyth's 1991 book Choral Music on Record. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that might be pointed out, because in general I try to avoid that POV site, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Towe's article is essentially the same as that printed in Blyth's 1991 book; we could cite that instead if there is still unease about the present ref; other things being equal I prefer to cite an online reference as it makes things more accessible for our readers. Tim riley (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

More to come on the outstanding queries above. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Now done, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Thank you to Nikkimaria for the eagle-eyed review. Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Be consistent in whether you include publisher for Grove Music refs
 * Done. Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ref 97: page?
 * Fixed
 * Is more information available for refs 132 and 133? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ref 132 links to the actual document. Ref 133 - link and author name now added. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Media No real problems, but if I'm being picky- Nothing here is essential- all the licensing and sourcing checks out. J Milburn (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The licensing on File:Charles Jennens23.jpg needs to be corrected (the first one is kind of irrelevant), and it'd be good if it could be moved to Commons.
 * Same for File:Messiah-titlepage.jpg.
 * File:Musick-hall-dublin.jpg is legit on enwp, but not Commons at this time- formatting it with information would be helpful.
 * File:Messiah-Westminster-Abbey-1787.jpg Again, information, licensing and moving to Commons
 * File:Crystal-palace-handel-1857.jpg information?
 * File:Ebenezer-prout.jpg Again
 * File:Hallelujah score 1741.jpg Move to Commons?
 * File:Worthy-is-the-lamb.jpg Again?
 * Thank you for this review. I have dealt with some of the superfluous licences and have added the information formats as requested. As to the Commons tranfers I'd rather someone else did these as I usually end up making a mess of such things. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No great hurry, as long as we're all happy that it'll happen eventually. Media looks good. J Milburn (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Support, however:
 * I feel the flow of text needs work. There are too many semicolons (which can be often addressed with a comma followed by a conjunction).
 * I will look at this aspect, but in my view the semicolon is often more potent than the comma-conjuction. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Brian and Tim, I also feel that, in general, you both overuse semicolons. As an alternative to comma and conjunction, you can simply break the sentence into two sentences, unless each clause is quite short.  Readers know that two consecutive sentences are related.  In my view, semicolons should be used sparingly.  Of course, this is a very nitpicky point, but I hope you will consider it.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps English prose writers are more comfortable with the use of semicolons than Americans? However, in he interests of transatlantic harmony I will try to zap a few.
 * Hmm. Not too many, I hope. Tim riley (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. There's more than one way to the woods. On close stylistic calls like these, I'd defer to the main contributor(s). Finetooth (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph of the Background section contains the claim that "all three oratorios received triumphant performances". That needs a citation in a FA (as do facts like "1733").
 * No, the citation to Luckett at the end of the paragraph covers the information relating to the Sheldonian performances. It is not necessary to repeat citations at the end of every sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I take GFHandel's point, though, that "triumphant" performances are a bit idiomatic, and it would strike me as odd as a reader so that I would wonder whether the phrase is from the source or a quirk of the writer of the entry. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reworded his, per below. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "giant orchestras"? At least "gigantic", but my suggested change was more elegant than "giant".
 * A matter of personal preference, I'd say. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I must agree that "giant" orchestra sounds strange, at least to my American ear. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No references at all for the claims about the larger orchestras?
 * There are lots of citations for use of large orchestras and choirs. See, for example, the first paragraph of the "18th century" section, and elsewhere in the performance history. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "finally abandoned" feels like tautology.
 * Not really; abandonment can be the final stage in a gradual process of neglect. But I'm happy to accept your preference here. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nebulous information can be bracketed to help with flow, e.g. "(in January and February 1741)" and "(a country squire with musical and literary tastes)".
 * No! Why is this information "nebulous", i.e. indefinite or vague? In my view intrusive brackets such as you suggest kill rather than improve the flow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because "a country squire with musical and literary tastes" is biographical to Jennens and does not deepen the understanding of the point of the sentence (that Handel received a text for Saul in 1735). Is "country squire" really needed in an article about Messiah? Additionally: running "...Charles Jennens" into "a country squire..." (as is currently the case in the article) would not be my preference. While I'm in the neighbourhood "new oratorio" also seems like tautology (could Handel have received a text for an oratorio he'd already written?). GFHandel &#9836; 00:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will leave it to other reviewers to decide if these and similar points warrant any action. My view is that they do not. Your "preferences" are not of themselves reasons for altering the text. Brianboulton (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Brian that the MOS prefers commas to brackets in parenthetical clauses, however, I also find "a country squire with musical and literary tastes" to be overkill. How about just "a patron of the arts", as it says in his bio?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In view of the importance of Jennens's part in the creation of Messiah it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the article should include a little information about him. I don't think that the few descriptive words can really be described as overkill, more a brief thumbnail characterisation. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Brian. Fair enough, and this is my last comment on this small point, but I dont think the phrase "a country squire with musical and literary tastes" conveys anything like what you intend to convey, at least to American readers.  We don't exactly know what the word "squire" means - American readers might think that you are describing his mode of dress, or that he had to travel far to get to London, or something like that.  And "musical tastes" doesn't seem to add anything - why would you ask someone to set a libretto unless you were interested in a musical piece?  What is important here, I think, is the idea that he had money and was an enthusiastic amateur, rather than a respected librettist.  Is that what you are trying to convey?  In any case, I urge you to consider this one more time and see if you can clarify for all readers what you are trying to describe about him that is relevant to Messiah.  All the best!  -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have amended the text to "wealthy landowner with musical and literary interests". I would point out that none of the three main peer reviewers, all Americans, expressed any confusion with my original wording. However, in the interests of ending discussion on this very marginal issue I have compromised. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems better to me. Congratulations on another super article.  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "received" doesn't seem right in "received triumphant performances". Perhaps "resulted in triumphant performances"?
 * I don't think the phrase "all three oratorios resulted in triumphant performances" actually makes sense. Maybe my own effort wasn't much good either, so I have found an alternative wording. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that "received ... performances" is a particularly British phrase, and since this article is using British English, I simply take it as a colorful formulation. So I agree with Brian.  None of the above affects my comments below, as I think these are all excellent stylistic points to think about, but all are quite minor. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated, this has been reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I made an attempt to address some of these in the first two sections ( and ), however my first change was quickly reverted as being "stylistic preferences, not improvements". I'm not trying to be difficult, and am only trying to help. I'm happy to take the time to look at further sections—but only if they are not quickly reverted (and of course if others feel it's worthwhile that I do so). Failing that, good luck with the FAC!

GFHandel &#9836; 23:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support. I appreciate your wish to help with the prose; it would be better, however, if you raised your points as suggestions, rather than simply implementing them. The prose has been carefully edited and reviewed several times—that doesn't mean it can't be improved, but one should be cautious about making ad hoc changes and variations of style without discussion. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Brian was right in that revert. To me, the prose as it is now seems elegant and engaging; your change made it drier. Tautologies are sometimes appropriate for emphasis, and brackets within a sentence do not often make for well-flowing prose. Ucucha 23:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case I disagree with your view about brackets because they can subconsciously help the reader to recognise the start and end of text that is subordinate to the theme of the sentence (as is the case with Jennens). So you are fine with "giant" and with the unreferenced claims about "triumphant performances" and facts such as "1733"? It's been a while since I looked at the FAC process, but it's obvious that things have changed since I did. Oh well, I'll move on. (I'm at a loss as to how we can be sure the performances were triumphant?) GFHandel &#9836; 23:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you conclude from one comment by me that "things have changed", you are giving me too much influence. I am not a nominator of this article, and was merely commenting on some aspects that stood out to me. "Giant" sounds fine to me; the OED gives "Of extraordinary size, extent, or force; gigantic, huge, monstrous." as one of the meanings of that word. That the citation does not immediately follow the sentence does not mean that there is none; I would assume this fact is referenced to the next citation, which is to p. 30 of Luckett's book. I can't check that book (which, incidentally, appears to have an incorrect ISBN), but I see no reason to assume the fact is not in there. Ucucha 00:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FAs have so many footnotes that adding a after another sentence where we claim multiple facts isn't a problem. You give one meaning of "giant", however I giggle at the implication of another meaning of the word (and I believe that the sentence can be changed to avoid that meaning). Don't get me wrong, I'm immensely impressed and appreciative of the large amount of work that has gone into lifting the quality of the article by all those involved. I'm just a little surprised at what is now permitted at FAC. I'll have to watch a few more go through to adjust to the standard. GFHandel &#9836; 00:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you wish The BFG to be in the orchestra, feel free to interpret it that way. I don't think standards at FAC have changed in the way you think they have; it has never been required to have a reference after every sentence. Ucucha 00:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that Luckett, p. 30, contains all the information relating to the Sheldonian performances, including its year of 1733, and I have removed the unnecessary citation tag. The isbn was out by one digit - well spotted indeed! I have fixed this. Brianboulton (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather late to the table, I too thank GFHandel for support and for seeking to polish the prose. I agree with my co-nom Brianboulton that it would help us at this stage if reviewers make suggestions for redrafing here rather than making major changes first, otherwise we are playing catch-up all the time (particularly tricky as there are, unusually, three co-nominators who need to keep abreast of textual changes.) But please do not imagine, GFH, that your help is not valued. I agree with Ucucha about FA standards, by the bye: the bar is being raised all the time, and some older FAs are being demoted. Tim riley (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Support - I did some copy editing during the peer review, and it has improved since then. I believe that it is a well-written, comprehensive discussion of Messiah, well researched and referenced, appropriately illustrated and representative of the best work on Wikipedia. I support its promotion. Thanks, to the nominators, for another excellent article about the arts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Support - wonderfully done article. All of my concerns were met in the peer review. In the interest of full-disclosure, I suggested this article be improved to Brian (thanks to everyone for their work on it), found one of the images on Flickr (originally for the article on the English National Opera) and found a few of the sources used for minor points in the course of the peer review. Thanks, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 10:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks on behalf of all three co-nominators to Ssilvers and Ruhfisch for their present support and past input - both greatly valued. Tim riley (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Support. I, too, peer-reviewed the article, which is excellent. Happy to support. Finetooth (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for review and support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation consistency in page no. convention (pls review all): versus:
 * Luckett, pp. 117–119
 * Luckett, pp. 127–28

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Another: Please check throughout; it appears that the article most consistently uses the last two digits, not three, and a thorough check is needed. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Laurence (Vol. 2), pp. 245–246
 * All now standardised at last two digits. Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

In sources, according to the default sort and his article, Robbins Landon should be alphabetical at Robbins, not Landon-- please check sources for consistency. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's correct: he is generally referred to as "Robbins Landon", rather than just "Landon", and so comes between Luckett and Sackville-West in the list. See obituaries in The Times, and Daily Telegraph. (Nb, however, that the house style of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography will certainly have him as "Landon, H. C. Robbins" if and when he gets an article, but that is an exception.) Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much-- BB and you have a new co-contributor, and I presume you're as involved as typical, so a paraphrasing check is not called for ?? I pooped out last night and will continue through FAC today. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.