Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mortimer Wheeler/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2015.

Mortimer Wheeler

 * Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most prominent British archaeologists of the twentieth century, who specialised in Roman Britain and in the archaeology of the Indian subcontinent. He was also an officer in the British Army and saw action in both the First and Second World Wars. The article has previously received GA status and undergone a peer review in January 2015. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments from JM
 * What are "cruiseline lectures"?
 * Lectures for a public audience on a cruiseliner ship. I'm not sure if there's a better wording for this. Perhaps a link would to cruise ship would clarify things a bit ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be helpful- "lectures on a cruise ship" may also work. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "cruise ship lectures" ? I worry that "lectures on a cruise ship" is a tad clunky in the context of this sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "of A Battery" I'm no military historian, but I'm not clear what this means.
 * "A Battery" was the name of the particular artillery battery he was in charge of but I appreciate that that isn't particularly relevant to the article so I've simply said "an artillery battery" and added a link instead. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Throughout, he continued a correspondence with his wife, sister, and parents." a correspondence? Also, which sister?
 * I've gone with "maintained a correspondence", which I think reads well. The alternative would be "he corresponded" but somehow I just don't think that that reads so well in this particular sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've also stated which sister it was. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with "maintained correspondence"? I've never heard the phrase "a correspondence" before. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As per Tim Riley's comments below I've changed this to "correspondences". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was caught out with this the other day, but "Dr." Wheeler is American English- "Dr" is British English.
 * Oh really ? You learn something new every day. I've altered the prose so that it accords with the British English convention. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "his own career prospectives" Why "prospectives" and not "prospects"?
 * Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * L.C. Carr or L.H. Carr? Also, would "X. X. Smith" not be better than "X.X. Smith"? Spelling out the names would likely be better still. (See also A.W.G. Lowther, W.F. Grimes (twice)- you already have B. B. Lal and O. G. S. Crawford spaced my preferred way. You may also need to look at the references. Consistency would be good!)
 * I've added the required spacing, and corrected Carr's initials.
 * "In 1934, the Institute of Archaeology was officially opened, albeit at this point it only existed on paper, with no premises or academic staff" This doesn't read well.
 * I've altered the prose here to "In 1934, the Institute of Archaeology was officially opened, albeit at this point it had no premises or academic staff". Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure "albeit" works here. How about simply "though"? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "he was assigned to raise the 48th Light Anti-Aircraft Battery" What does "raise" mean in this context?
 * I've changed "raise" to "assemble"; does this work better ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume the mentioned ship is the RMS Empress of Russia- if so, a link would be nice.
 * Very good idea. Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Wheeler became very fond of his students, with one of them, B. B. Lal, commenting that "behind the gruff exterior, Sir Mortimer had a very kind and sympathetic heart."" Presumably that's a retrospective comment, seeing as he hadn't been knighted at this point?
 * I've gone with "later commenting" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What is a "stratigraphy"?
 * I've added a link to Stratigraphy (archaeology). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What is (an) "amphora"?
 * I've added a link to amphora in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "He had trouble securing paper" As in, bits of tree, or do you mean securing academic papers?
 * The former. Do you think that there is a way of phrasing this in a better manner to make this clear ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is Petrie Medal worth a redlink?
 * I've added it in, although it won't be a disaster if someone decides to remove it at some point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you certain the name Falzur Rahman is right? A quick Google is not throwing up the name, but he sounds senior...
 * Ah, no there is a spelling error there; it is Fazlur (see here for instance). There doesn't seem to be a Wikipedia article devoted to him so I've added a red link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Is Buried Treasure (or the other TV/radio shows) worth a redlink?
 * I've added a redlink to that television show but don't think it worth doing so for the radio shows, which I presume were far less significant in this period. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "that year that he obtained an agent.[206] That year" Repetition
 * I've changed the second sentence there to "Oxford University Press also published two of his books in 1954" Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Swans appointed him as one of their paid directors, being chairman of their Hellenic Cruise division" This doesn't read well
 * I've replaced this with "Swans appointed him to the position of chairman of their Hellenic Cruise division". Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "the British School at Ankara, the British School in Iraq, and the British School at Jerusalem" More possible links? Don't be scared of red!
 * Fair enough. I've added those links. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "British financial crisis of 1967" Do we have an article on this?
 * Sadly not (or not that I can find). I spent a while looking for such an article when first writing this article but came up with nothing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "His involvement with the international organisation continued for the rest of his life, for in March 1973 he was invited to a UNESCO conference in Paris." I don't follow
 * I've changed this to "His involvement with UNESCO continued for the rest of his life, and in March 1973 he was invited to the organisation's conference in Paris." Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Category:Deaths from stroke? (The category might be deleted, but while it's there...)
 * I'm not entirely sure if it was the stroke that killed him. He had a stroke, and died after, but I am unsure of the specific cause of death, which I'm not sure has been included in his biography. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It'd be nice if we could have a bit more on his foreign policy politics in the personal life section. It seems some of his views were relevant to his military and educational career
 * I would have added more on his general political attitudes had I found them (I found such things particularly interesting). Unfortunately the sources currently available don't really permit me to do so at this juncture. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In the reception section, be aware of MOS:LQ, and you link Piggott, someone already mentioned several times.
 * I've removed the link and standardized the placement of punctuation there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "However, writing in 2011, Moshenska and Schadla-Hall asserted that Wheeler's reputation has not undergone significant revision among archaeologists, but that instead he had come to be remembered as "a cartoonish and slightly eccentric figure" whom they termed "Naughty Morty"." Not undergone revision?

Very readable. Definitely a worthy topic for a FA. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't want to do a full source review right now, but if you're committed to using the Daily Mail source (and it's hardly of the caliber of your other sources!) you need an accessdate. Also, your Vasudevan source lacks a location. (And, a recurring comment I know, so ignore it if you prefer: I personally don't see the need to list publishers for academic journals. I can't remember ever having seen it outside of Wikipedia.) Josh Milburn (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added a location for Vasudevan and an accessdate for the Dail Mail article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit of a long shot, but remember that if you have any images of him which were published before 1923 (plausible, given the fact that he seems to have been a vaguely prominent figure even back then) they will be PD under PD-US. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Support. After mulling it over, I'm happy to support this article (with the caveat that I may have missed something). Everything looks very strong to me. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Josh! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Support from Ssven2
Great job on the article, Midnightblueowl. Hope to see it as an FA soon. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me '' 05:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Sven. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Commments Support from Hchc2009

 * Close to a support on an interesting character, but a couple of issues from me...


 * "in his personal life he was often criticised for bullying colleagues and sexually harassing young women" - the material in the main body of the article suggests that this wasn't really strictly a "personal" issue but extended to his professional life: he gave attractive women preferential treatment in the workplace, had many one night stands with his students and was allegedly responsible for groping and bullying his work colleagues. I wasn't sure that the "personal" label here or in the section title was really accurate/appropriate.
 * I've removed "in his personal life" from the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "he re-joined the armed forces " - as a specific armed forces (the British Armed Forces), should this be capitalised?
 * A fair point. I have both capitalised it and added in a link to the British Armed Forces page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "non-religious wedding ceremony" - I wasn't sure if this meant "secular wedding ceremony" or not
 * Yes, it does. Do you think the use of "secular" is better in this context ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it would be clearer, and a more positive way of defining the event. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A fair point. I've changed it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "University of London Officer Training Corps" - could this be linked to Officers' Training Corps?
 * I can't find an article on the Officers' Training Corps. The nearest thing seemed to be this article (Reserve Officers' Training Corps) but that pertains to the U.S., rather than Britain. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Officers' Training Corps should work for this one. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How on Earth could I not find that! Thanks for the link, I've added it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "The Wheelers' work for the cause of the museum has been seen as part of a wider "cultural-nationalist movement"" - I couldn't work out who the quote was from: could it be attributed in-line?
 * Good point; I have amended the text accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Wheeler had been expecting and openly hoping for war with Nazi Germany for several years; he believed that the United Kingdom's involvement in the conflict would remedy the shame that he thought had been brought upon the country by its signing of the Munich Agreement in September 1938." - the two halves of the sentence don't quite match, as the Munich agreement was only 12 months before the outbreak of war.
 * I've changed "several years" to "a year prior to the outbreak of the conflict". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "he was recognised as a ruthless disciplinarian" - could this simply be "he was a ruthless disciplinarian"?
 * My concern here would be that concepts such as "ruthlessness" are a little subjective, existing in the eye of the beholder and all that. Stating that he was "recognised" as such takes away the problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Could we attribute the recognition then? e.g. "he was recognised by colleagues as a ruthless disciplinarian"? (or "he was considered by colleagues to be a ruthless disciplinarian"?)
 * Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Consistency of thousands and commas - I thought it looked a bit odd that £5000 had no comma, but £50,000 did; this might just be me though!
 * I've added the recommended commas into the text. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Worth checking the capitalisation of title in the bibliography - I think the MOS would have "Recasting the Foundations: New approaches to regional..." as "Recasting the Foundations: New Approaches to Regional..." etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for these comments, HChc2009. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Ta! Hchc2009 (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Support from AustralianRupert
G'day, I only had a look at the military parts. Overall, they look quite good to me, but I have a couple of points/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "...assigned to the Second Division of Julian Byng's Third Army". By convention, military units at divisional level take a numeral, e.g. "2nd Division". Additionally, this should probably be wikilinked to 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom). Armies are presented in words, though;
 * Done and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "...Wheeler was moved to the..." ("transferred" is probably a more accurate word here);
 * Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "promoted to the position of acting major..." --> "promoted to the rank of acting major" (major is not a position, it is a rank. Officer commanding is a position, which a person of the rank of major might fill...);
 * I have changed it accordingly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * in the lead (and then later in the body also), "rose to the position of brigadier..." as above: "rose to the rank of brigadier";
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Volunteering for the armed services, he was assigned to assemble the 48th Light Anti-Aircraft Battery at Enfield..." what rank did he hold at this time? I assume still major?
 * Have you been able to clarify this point? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not yet; apologies for the delay, but I have to consult the original book (and that means a library trip) in order to do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've undertaken the library trip - apologies for the delay - and unfortunately the source does not actively specify what his rank was at this point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Wheeler's unit was transferred to the 42nd Mobile Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment..." (is transferred right here? Or was it in fact used to form the regiment, along with a couple of other batteries?)
 * Have you been able to clarify this point? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've looked up the page in the book and it is apparent that my original wording in the article was misleading; I have changed it to the following: "As the 48th swelled in size, it was converted into the 42nd Mobile Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment in the Royal Artillery, which consisted of four batteries and was led by Wheeler – now promoted to the rank of Colonel – as Commanding Officer." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Wheeler and three of his batteries..." this seems to jump without explanation from him commanding one battery to three. So, he had effectively become commander of an artillery regiment...do you know which one? Could it have been the 42nd as mentioned above? If so, I think it should be clarified that he was in command; I assume also that he had been promoted to lieutenant colonel at this time, so this could probably be said here, too, if your sources say so;
 * Have you been able to clarify this point? AustralianRupert (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that my clarifications regarding the previous point have dealt with this problem too, as they make Wheeler's control of a regiment and his position as Colonel clear. Best Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "...better understand what it was like to be against an anti-aircraft battery" (this seems a little awkward, perhaps this might be smoother: "...better understand what it was like for aircrew to be fired on by an anti-aircraft battery"?)
 * Good change of wording. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "12th Brigade..." --> "12th Anti-Aircraft Brigade"?
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "British 10th Corps" --> "British X Corps"
 * Is this standard ? I would be a bit concerned about many readers not realising that this was a Roman numeral ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe its standard for British corps. It's not a warstoper for me, though. The link redirects anyway. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's it from me. Thanks for your efforts and good luck with the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments Rupert! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, your changes look good to me. Just a couple of points from me remaining, otherwise I'm happy that this meets the standards required of a featured article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been able to access the biography and made the two alterations that you suggested, AustralianRupert. Again, thank you for your input. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Robert_Mortimer_Wheeler_by_Howard_Coster.jpg: should use non-free biog-pic rather than "unique historic image"
 * Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Aerial_photograph_of_Maiden_Castle_from_the_west,_1937.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure which US tag to use. Does anyone with more experience have any advice in this instance? Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley
I'll be supporting, but a few minor quibbles first:
 * Spelling
 * "As the article is in BrEng, "enroll" (twice) should preferably be "enrol" and "panelist" should be "panellist". (In fact both the current forms are admitted by the OED, but the ones I recommend are more usual in British usage.)
 * If they are both acceptable as forms of British English under the OED's regulations, might it be preferable to incluse the present spellings, lest users familiar with American English think that there has been a spelling mistake ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.  Tim riley  talk    19:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Childhood: 1890–1907
 * "chief lead writer" – I imagine this means chief leader writer.
 * I'm not entirely sure about this one. I think it best to leave it out lest is misleads the reader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am quite certain it can only mean "chief leader writer". "Chief lead writer" means nothing in terms of an English newspaper. If your source does not cover it, I advise you to redraw the sentence so that Wheeler père      was "a senior writer" on the paper.   Tim riley  talk    19:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've (finally) been able to get the Hawkes book out of the library, and I can confirm that it does indeed say "chief leader writer" rather than "chief lead writer", so I'll make the change in the prose accordingly. Thanks, Tim. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "relocated" – twice in close proximity; the second could perhaps be "moved"
 * Good point; changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * First World War: 1914–18
 * "he maintained correspondence" – reads rather oddly. As there was a correspondence with his wife, another correspondence with his sister and a third correspondence with his parents it would probably be best to write "he maintained correspondences".
 * Changed to the plural. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * National Museum of Wales: 1919–26
 * We might allow Sir Flinders Petrie his title.
 * Do we have a policy here at Wikipedia governing this sort of thing. Something in the back of my mind is telling me that there is a policy that recommends we do not use such titles in the text, but that may of course be absolute nonsense... Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think what you have in mind is perhaps the guideline that we are sparing in our use of academic titles, such as Dr John Smith or Professor Wilfred Thyng. But for titles such as knighthoods, peerages etc we certainly do give them (and pipe them properly, for preference, as e.g. "Sir Flinders Petrie" rather than the slightly scrubby "Sir Flinders Petrie" though being careful not to give them before they were bestowed.
 * I checked and it appears that Petrie was knighted in 1923, so we can indeed include the "Sir" in the prose; I have now done so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * London Museum: 1926–33
 * "outside of London" – we could do without the unnecessary pronoun
 * Removed "of". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Corporation of St. Albans" – the WP article on the city doesn't use the full stop, and nor, I think should we do so here.
 * Fair enough - full stop removed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Institute of Archaeology: 1934–39
 * "to convince the University of London … to support the venture" – either persuade to or convince that it should. You can't convince to in BrEng.
 * I've changed this to "persuade". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "100 assistants per season" – on the sound basis of preferring good English to bad Latin, I'd make this "each season" or even "a season"
 * I've gone with "each". Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "was be published" – "was published"?
 * Ah, a silly error. Perhaps this was once a "would be" that was only partially converted. Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments Tim! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good. All fine with me now. Adding support, above (but do look after the leader writer and Sir Flinders).  Tim riley  talk    19:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "earlier research on Romano-Rhenish poetry": the only research you mentioned earlier was on Romano-Rhenish pottery.
 * Well spotted! I have corrected the error. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've replaced "subsequently" (but not subsequent) throughout, most often by "later", because that seems to be the most common meaning in history articles on Wikipedia, but sometimes I deleted the word, or guessed at other meanings. If something else was meant, please fix it.
 * "With Wheeler focusing his attention on potential Iron Age evidence, Tessa concentrated on excavating the inside of the city walls; Wheeler had affairs with at least three assistants during the project.": Feels like a non sequitur.
 * " northwest": check to make sure hyphenation is consistent in compass points.
 * It's all consistent throughout the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Dank. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Has this had a source review? And I see an unresolved item from the image review. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't do anything with this until you resolve the image concern above. Please ask, , or find guidance on File copyright tags. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone else has already fixed this. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . And apparently I pinged the subject of the article instead of . -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Source review – this is my first attempt at doing one, so please be indulgent. I don't think I have ever seen an FAC with so many book refs and so few web ones. Impressive, but: And that's all I can find to quibble at. –  Tim riley  talk    20:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are more than 200 refs to Hawkes, but, I think, enough to others such as Carr, Guha, Moshenska and Pigott to make the referencing adequately wide.
 * In the list of sources I could have done with an OCLC for the 1960 Clark book (3465005, since you ask).

So a month has now passed since I initiated this FAC, and we now have five editors expressing their support, another expressing support on prose, and none expressing opposition. That's a pretty good result, so I would like to thank everyone who offered their comments. It is appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  00:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.