Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neville Cardus/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 GrahamColm 16:07, 23 January 2013.

Neville Cardus

 * Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC) and Tim riley (Talk)

Neville Cardus was a widely-read writer on music and cricket, who graced the pages of the Manchester Guardian and its successor newspaper for more than half a century, on and off. He was entirely self-educated, without connections or any advantages other than his self-belief and determination. His style was personal and discursive; his music criticisms wer sometimes blunt enough to cause offence, while his cricket writings were renowned for putting colour and character before scores and results. He acquired many honours from the music and cricket worlds, and the Queen gave him a CBE and a knighthood, the latter enabling him always to get the best tables at the Savoy. A famous bon viveur, he would have liked that. A joint effort, crafted by Tim riley (who once saw Cardus) and me (who didn't). Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Support had my say at the PR, all concerns were addressed. Well done on an unusual topic.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work at the PR and for this support. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Support - I also played a hand at the peer review and the article has only grown in quality since. I fully support its promotion to FA status. --  Cassianto Talk    21:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work at the PR and for this support. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda Arendt

Very immpressive article, excellent reading, very minor comments:
 * infobox: I would expect parameter "years active" rather than a period, and I would like to see his major papers listed, with a link, also a few significant books
 * I will let Tim decide about this. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Tim is away, and has asked me to respond. I can't find a "years active" parameter in the writer infobox template - perhaps you know how to arrange this. I have added details of his Manchester Guardian/Guardian activities. We don't think it appropriate to add a selection of his books; any such selection would be subjective, and might misinform as to the range and nature of his work. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Understand. I use Infobox person, rather than composer or writer, as more flexible. Gerda Arendt (talk)


 * Family background and early childhood: I find the mentioning of his nickname Fred in brackets, before he is even born, a bit strange. - Perhaps it's only me, but when Robert Cardus appears at the beginning of the second paragraph, I had forgotten that he was mentioned before. Adding "Her father" would have helped me.
 * I have adjusted the mention of his nickname. I can't see why you should forget who Robert Cardus was; he is mentioned just four lines earlier when his stsus as Ada's father is fully described. I have made a few other prose tweaks for further clarification. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * quoting: how about 'the "boy who ..."' instead of '"[T]he boy who ...'
 * I know it's a little pedantic, but the [] brackets indicate a capital T in the original, which becaomes a small t in the text to maintain the prose flow. It is quite a common practice in these circumstances. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I know what the practise is, therefore I suggested to get the "the" before the quote, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * was 10? was ten? something else?
 * Point taken, and adjusted. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Australia: "including The Marriage of Figaro and Der Rosenkavalier" - was Mozart sung in English, Strauss in German?
 * For Tim. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Tim explains, and I agree, that he has used the names by which these operas are best known in England, and which are indeed the titles of their Wikipedia articles. Elsewhere in the article, for the same reasons, you will find a reference to The Magic Flute. The use of an English name for a foreign-language opera is fairly arbitrary; for example, we say The Bartered Bride, but also Così fan tutte - no real logic, but there it is. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Understand. My logic is to use the language in which the performance or recording actually was (if known, that's what I was asking), with a piped link to the common name on the English Wikipedia, for example use Die verkaufte Braut ( Die verkaufte Braut ) for a 1950s recording in German. Gerda Arendt (talk)


 * "He ends his autobiography by declaring: "If I know that my Redeemer liveth it is not on the church's testimony, but because of what Handel affirms"." - we know that "I know that my Redeemer liveth" is an aria from Handel's Messiah, but will the average reader?
 * We don't normally use links in quotes, but I have found an appropriate piped link for "I know that my Redeemer liveth" which I think is the best way of dealing with this. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I love the many quotes! Do we have to improve Barenboim's English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Barenboim's prsose has not been "improved". One again, the [] indicate a slight alteration from the original "these" which would not be appropriate in the detached quote. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these points, Gerda. All very much to the point, and I'll enjoy going through them tomorrow. Tim riley (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My thanks too, Gerda. I have preempted Tim on a number of points but he is at liberty to disagree with me. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I liked your responses so far, thank you, gentlemen ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Support from my limited point of view, only minor points left for thought, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Support My minor points were addressed at PR and the article has been further improved since then. Great work - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work at the PR and for this support. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Wehwalt, Cassianto and SchroCat for their support, and for input with PR. Tim riley (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Support: I contributed to the PR as well, and my points were addressed or answered without any problems. This is simply brilliant. Just three remaining points from that PR which do not affect my support if the authors would prefer to tell me politely where to go. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My reading of his early life is that he lived with his mother's parents when he was born (before her marriage), but we are not actually informed of this fact until being told that he and his mother "returned" to live with them after the break-up of her marriage. This then explains why we are given details of his grandparents early on, which a biography would not usually include. (I hope this makes sense; I made rather a hash of explaining this at the PR!) So it may be worth explicitly saying that he lived with his grandparents a little earlier in the article.
 * I have changed the prose around a little, and hope that this makes the position fully clear. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * On the point of when he went from "just another cricket writer" to something more than that, I think it would be worth putting a timescale on that. Tim riley noted at the PR that he was already feted as something special in 1922; is it worth putting this in the article? My preference would be yes, but not a problem if the authors think it is too much.
 * One for Tim I think. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm attracted by that suggestion, and will ponder and report back. Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On further reflection I think that point is made plainly in the existing text, though I am quite ready to entertain views to the contrary. Tim riley (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I also mentioned at the PR that while we have some nice juicy cricket quotes (including one of my favourite about the greatest cricketer ever to draw breath), we are a little lighter on music quotes. There is one on Delius, but nothing on music itself. A suggestion made at the PR was to include his quote about the Magic Flute (it may be obvious that I would approve of this one too!); is it worth adding that? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well. I've added it experimentally. If Tim agrees, it stays. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy with that. It does seem to me that his cricket writing was more sheerly memorable than his music work, and the Flute quote will serve as an example faute de mieux. Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your generous comments and suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I join in those thanks. Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Minor confusions throughout.
 * comments
 * i think "known as Neville Cardus" is extremely unnecessary, obvious and redundant to article title/infobox. It also makes for a clunky lead sentence. See Mitt Romney.
 * This has come up before. You are the second editor to comment to this effect. If BB, my co-nominator, agrees, I think we might prune it. Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed Brianboulton (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * must the Rusholme pic be so filthy? A dumpster is front and centre...
 * If a better one comes to light we shall be glad to use it, but this one was not chosen at random: it's partly a question of what is publicly available. Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * writing of Wilfred Rhodes: Autobiography—I found the syntax very confusing. Why not simply "in his autobiography"?
 * Why not, indeed. BB, what say you? Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find I've done it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * similar for he Trumper caption. I think a full sentence would be clearer, with Cardus' name mentioned.
 * Candidly, the caption seems clear enough to me. Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And to me, too. Brianboulton (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably not so for other readers, but I automatically assumed the Harty doodle was by Cardus. Could you change the caption to something like "Cardus's lack of deference sometimes led to friction, as with Hamilton Harty (sketch above)"? (Or anything about Cardus and Harty both) Otherwise a glance at the pic and caption gives no indication to its relevance, leading the reader to assume that it must have been created by the article's subject.
 * We used this image as the only public domain one we could find. A photo would have been preferable, but there we are. Perhaps "Anonymous" before the existing wording would remove any confusion about the authorship? Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked the caption for clarity. Brianboulton (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * surely there must be a case for a nonfree photograph of Cardus in his youth/prime/middle-age, for identification?
 * I very much doubt it. (Anyone who has taken an article through FA candidacy knows how particular the image experts are on this sort of thing.) It might be more plausible if NC had changed much in appearance over the years, like, e.g. Ravel - bearded in youth and clean shaven later - but NC looked pretty much the same across his decades. Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On the basis that we are allowed one non-free pic for identification per article, I can't see any images in Brookes or Daniels that are obviously better than thisBrianboulton (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * question: is it ok by MoS to refer to well-known musicians and artistes by surname alone on first mention? (Elgar, Gilbert, Blake etc)
 * It is customary. The MoS, as far as I know, is silent on the point. Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Books by Cardus—why not just Books? Or Bibliography? the Beatles doesn't have "Discography of the Bealtes"...
 * Bibliography would be equally acceptable, I think, but perhaps just Books wouldn't flag up that we are looking at NC's books not books about him. Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Bibliography" wouldn't clarify for every reader that this is a list of books by Cardus. The present heading should stay. Brianboulton (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. I don't think I have ever run across contributions to an FAC by an anonymous editor before. These are very welcome. Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * seeing that all his books—without exceptions—were published in London, can "London" be removed throughout, and instead add a mention of this in the para on top?122.172.14.75 (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This follows the WP book citation template and I think we ought not to muck about with it. Tim riley (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Added thanks Brianboulton (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Be consistent in whether you use title or date for disambiguating shortened citations to works by the same author
 * I think (touch wood) I've dealt with this now. Tim riley (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Compare FNs 4 and 168
 * Comma added. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * FN88: formatting
 * The format looks incomplete. It is, I think, one of Tim's, as I don't immediately recognise the source. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Mended Tim riley (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * FN89: this work is not in the Sources list
 * My fault. Now attended to. Tim riley (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FN44: parentheses
 * Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * FN114: page formatting
 * Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * FN102: title formatting
 * What's the problem? (same format as ref 68, i.e title, journal, page no., date) Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, use of double quotes within double quotes


 * Be consistent in how you punctuate shortened citations to more than one work in the same footnote
 * I think this is fixed. If you can spot any remainining inconsistency, please notify. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Special:BookSources/251816130 returns an error message
 * ISBN corrected Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can find no inconsistencies in the page ranges. Please be specific about your query. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * FNs 144 vs 148 was where I noticed it. There's also an issue where two non-consecutive pages are being referred to: "pp. x and p. y" (where x is a single page), which could be either "pp. x and y" or "p. x and p. y" (I see some instances of the latter). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Tim riley (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is my fault again. My own style is pp. 120–128, which I failed here to adapt to Brian's preferred 120–28. Now fixed. Tim riley (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Support: At PR I added a few odds and ends and queried a few things, all sorted to my satisfaction. (There were even whole sections about which I had nothing to say!) I've spent much more time on various other PRs and/or FACs, which indicates to me that a lot of good stuff was put into this enterprise by the co-noms over a long period of time - thanks to them for all the hard work and congratulations on a very meaty article. --GuillaumeTell 22:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this support and for your PR comments, too, which led to many improvements. Tim riley (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My thanks, too. Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Image check The lead image is fair use, appropriately so for a man most of whose career was post-1923. All other images seem appropriately licensed or in the public domain and properly tagged.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Wehwalt, for that check. Tim riley (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support – Went through the entire article and didn't see anything worth complaining about. A pleasure to read. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 02:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for kind words and support. Brianboulton (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support – Couldn't site issues, I appreciate your work. Zia Khan 01:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


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