Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nancy Mitford/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, 24 January 2014 (UTC).

Nancy Mitford

 * Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Nancy Mitford made her name as a writer of substance and wit with her postwar novels of upper class life and love. She was also an historical biographer of flair and originality, though it seems that her main joy in life was teasing—perhaps to deflect herself from the failure of her own pursuit of love. The eldest of the famous (infamous?) Mitford sisters, she fooled just about everyone in the 1950s with her notorious "U" and "non-U" division of the English language; there are still people who take that seriously. The Mitfords were interconnected to most of the main aristocratic families of the day, and there was plenty going on in the background (read the footnotes). Altogether, a rather interesting life, with equal measures of success and sorrow, and the books aren't so bad, either. Many thanks to Mr Riley for drafting the family diagram; comments welcome on all aspects. Brianboulton (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support I had my say at the peer review, and the version as brought to FAC shows my (minor) concerns were addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Image review The lead image is fair use and there is an appropriate rationale. All others show appropriate free licenses.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the peer review and the image check here, and for your support, much valued. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support – after declaring a minor interest, viz the family tree which, as noted, I perpetrated. I had nothing to do with the text, apart from peer reviewing it, and in my view it clearly meets all the FA criteria. It is well proportioned, comprehensive but focused, extensively sourced and a pleasure to read. Tim riley (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am reliably informed that to "perpetrate" is to be responsible for a deception or a crime, etc. You did no such thing – I am very grateful for your input and other PR suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support indeed. I was another player at the peer review where my comments were satisfactorily addressed. A second read through this evening confirms to me that this article is of FA quality and I fully endorse its promotion to such.   Cassianto Talk   20:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. I've never cared for Nancy Mitford or her family, but this a great piece of work, easily meeting the FA criteria in my opinion. Eric   Corbett  20:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Eric for the numerous small prose and punc tweaks. I agree with them all. I've also followed your lead and amended all the ODNB subscription templates to the specific for. Your input and support are much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't be the first time I've been told that all I'm good for is moving a few commas around. Anyway, I hope you won't be cluttering up FAC for much longer with Nancy, as I've got a nomination of my own on the boil. Eric   Corbett  21:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Support; another PRer coming back to support an excellent article. Just one small comment on note 6, the "Pilot Officer" should be in lower case, as per WP:MILTERMS, as it's not being used as a proper name here. (If it was as a proper name, it would be "Pilot officer", with a lower case o). Another excellent and informative piece - thanks for a very enjoyable article. - SchroCat (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected on this, will try and do better in future. Thanks for the support and (I suspect) for fixing the ellipses. Brianboulton (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment. With so many rapid supports, I decided to look. The one concern I have is possible editorial additions, which is linked in some instances to how sources are given. For instance:

a. "His article, in a learned Finnish journal and complete with an illustrative glossary, used The Pursuit of Love to exemplify upper-class speech patterns. In a spirit of mischief, Mitford incorporated the U and Non-U thesis into an article she was writing for Encounter on the English aristocracy.[112]" The first sentence has no specific source, so I assume it either doesn't need one, or takes 112 from the next sentence. My questions are: 1. by whose assessment is the journal "learned" (if, indeed, a journal can be)? 2. Does Mitford (in the source) state that she wrote "In a spirit of mischief" or similar? I haven't seen it in a quick skim of the linked article, but perhaps it is there. b. "Mitford was one of the few who was not intimidated by him, and saw the kindness and humour concealed behind his hostile public image.[24]". I see "Nancy saw past Waugh's persona of irascible old buffer" in the source, but is there something about being "one of the few who was not intimidated by him"? c. "It is unsurprising that Mitford should first attempt to write a novel in the early 1930s, since many of her friends were doing the same thing. What is surprising, according to Thompson, is the ease ". The surprising thing is according to Thompson, but the unsurprising thing is just unsurprising. If they are from the same source, then linking them with a semicolon would help, as the current structure implies that the article's author, not Thompson, is the person who found something unsurprising. d. "At times, however, a more serious undertone, entirely absent in the early works, becomes evident; Olivia Laing in the Guardian, discerns "a faint and beguiling pessimism about love's pursuit and its consequences" beneath the light superficiality.[145]" I see no text justifying "entirely absent in the early works" in the source given. In summary, and just using some of the sources that are available online, the largely admirable content of the article appears not to be wholly sourced. Perhaps some of these examples are attributable to the location of citations in the text, or to some information being obvious to those close to the matter. I'd like to see a comment on this, though, as not many of the sources are available online, and finding the above examples from them was not difficult. EddieHugh (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The term "learned journal" comes from the source (Hastings). Frankly, it is such a common description that I didn't think it worth specifically citing, but I have added a citation to the sentence. The "spirit of mischief" is my paraphrase of Hastings: "Scenting in the subject a superlative tease...", and of Nancy's own description of the article as "an anthology of teases". I agree that the positioning of the citations has  not made the sourcing entirely clear, and am looking at ways of dealing with this without too much disruption of the text. Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This was my interpretation of the source, based on a considerable knowledge of Waugh and the effect he had on people; for example his son wrote: "I have seen generals and chancellors of the exchequer, six foot six and exuding self-importance from every pore, quail in front of him". Nancy obviously wasn't one of these. However, I agree that the quoted source doesn't go far enough to justify my interpretation. I've modified the wording and added an appropriate reference. Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Thompson is responsible for both the unsurprising and surprising aspects discussed, and I have slightly modified the wording to make this clear. Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The first part of the sentence should have been cited separately, to Hastings p. 129. I have reworded and cited. Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am grateful for these comments and for any more you care to add. Finally, with regard to your mention of "rapid supports", I would just point out that most of these come from reviewers who paid due attention at the article's peer review – they are not drive-by or reflex supports. Brianboulton (talk) 11:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Source review:
 * Ref 5 formats the "online edition" for the ODNB in a different way to the other ODNB citations in refs 11, 12, 13, etc.
 * Done by another hand, now standardised. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ref 10 (Soames ebook): Is there any way to be more precise than "Chapter one"? I know various ebook readers have some sort of "location" number to allow for finding particular parts of the book, but I notice that the google link does not have this facility. If the information came from the google version, I imagine we're stuck with just the chapter.
 * Regretfully, that is the case. If I come across the print version I can transfer the cite to that and include a page no. while still keeping the link. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ref 26 has pp for one page.
 * Be consistent in using (ed) or (ed.). Ref 37 uses the former, the others the latter.
 * Refs 111 and 113, which are to periodicals, do not use p or pp but just give the numbers. But 115, 116 and 151 also periodicals, do use pp. Possibly a template issue?
 * All small fixes made. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Everything else looks fine, and sources of high quality. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this review. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The article is fine on prose and sourcing; I am not sure if the huge family tree is an asset. It overwhelms the early part of the article and breaks WP:ACCESS. I would just get rid of it. --John (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think your view is probably in a minority on the chart, but thank you for your comments and ce. Brianboulton (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support, notwithstanding my dislike of the huge family tree image; this is an aesthetic preference and I accept I am in a minority. It's a good article, well written and well-sourced. --John (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment you should upload a better photograph.—indopug (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree the original was a little fuzzy. I have replaced it with a sharper image - please cmt if necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's tons better! A most Mitfordish portrait. Spot on. Tim riley (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 12:45, 23 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.