Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Olivia Shakespear/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 15:20, 6 May 2011.

Olivia Shakespear

 * Nominator(s): Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A minor novelist and playwright, Olivia Shakespear was W.B. Yeats' lover, Ezra Pound's mother-in-law, and a interesting Victorian/Edwardian woman. Enjoy and thanks for reading. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Source review
 * "The False Laurel was the least successful of her books, selling fewer than 200 copies. It received a poor review from The Bookman but a good one from The Athenaeneum" - source?
 * Missing bibliographic info for Hassett 2005
 * Because it doesn't exist. Sorry about that, fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Some punctuation inconsistencies in both References and Sources - for example "qtd. in" vs "qtd., in", "Oxford University Press. 1997" vs "Oxford University Press, 2010", etc
 * Why do some Reference entries omit dates, and why does the Reynolds entry omit page numbers and instead have the author's full name?
 * Reynolds is an html file with no dates; from what I can tell the sources have dates. Am I missing something? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * St. Martin's or St. Martin's Press? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed these. Thanks for the review. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All issues adequately addressed. Good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Olivia_Tucker_Shakespear.png - I'm not sure that this has the correct licensing tag, given that the author (and therefore his/her date of death) is unknown
 * File:Maud_Gonne.jpg - what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is fact has had a couple of image reviews, with User:J Milburn a few months ago. Do you mind if I ask him to have a look again, and I'll remove anything that can't be used. File:Maud_Gonne.jpg was published in 1896, fwiw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As Truthkeeper mentions, I've been involved with the images on this article before. It's much better now than it was, and it's great to see you've taken such care researching the copyright status of the images, and the issues are mostly minor ones. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Olivia Shakespear.png and File:Yeats Celtic Twilight.png are PD in both the UK and the US, and could be moved to Commons. (I have added some info/licensing tags to both images). I don't have any objection if you want to keep them locally- tag with KeepLocal (or, if they're already on Commons, NoCommons)
 * Without the date of death of "E. Braur", the licensing of File:Maud Gonne.jpg is questionable if someone's being really picky. However, if you cannot find the date of death, it could be uploaded locally under PD-US-1923-abroad, as it was published so long ago.
 * I've searched for the photographer and can't find any information. I'll follow your recommendation and delete if we can't use it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It needn't be deleted altogether- if we cannot find a death date, upload it on enwp licensing it as PD-US-1923-abroad, noting that it is probably PD in the UK, but as we do not know the author's death date, we cannot be sure. J Milburn (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Was File:Ezra Pound.jpg first published in the US? It's clearly public domain there, but it is not PD in the UK, so far as I can see, and I worry that the UK may technically be the "source country", meaning that it's not kosher for Commons, only enwp.
 * The photophraph was in Alvin Langdon Coburn's 1922 Men of Mark, published in the UK  in 1922 - see this WorldCat entry. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If it was first published outside of the US, it will also need to be PD in the source country to be hosted on Commons. It is clearly PD in the US, and so can definitely be hosted here if it can't be hosted on Commons. J Milburn (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Olivia Tucker Shakespear.png is the most questionable one. Claiming the author died over 70 years ago (though it is almost certainly true) but that the author is unknown is very strange. There is Anonymous-EU, but that is no help in this case because of how recently the image was published (so far as we know). I think a little more digging is going to be needed on this one.
 * What I know about this is that John Harwood, her biographer, was given access to family photographs. He does not indicate who took this image - I do know that her father, mother, and husband died before 1940. But if you think, to be safe we should delete, that's fine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Tricky one. I've done some digging, and this is definitely verging into IANAL territory, but I've found something interesting. See this- in UK law, certain "provisions apply to works existing on 1 August 1989", including "published photographs and photographs taken before 1 June 1957". Specifically, they remain governed by the Copyrict Act of 1956, which I have reason to believe gave "a uniform period of protection of the lifetime of the author plus fifty years thereafter". If that is the case, the only way this would not be public domain is if the author lived for at least another 77 years after it was taken. I'm inclined to say that we can safely call this public domain in the UK, but finding the right tag for it is a little difficult. If it was PD in the UK in 1996 (see PD-URAA)- that is, if the author had died by 1946, 63 years after the photograph was taken (which I think it is safe to assume)- then it is PD in the US too. I'm out of my comfort zone here, but there you have it. J Milburn (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Replies:
 * I don't actually know how to move an image from Commons to enwp - can you point me to a guide, perhaps, to I've moved File:Maud Gonne.jpg which is now File:Maud Gonne .png and licensed with
 * File:Ezra Pound.jpg seems to already exist on enwp as File:Ezra Pound 2.jpg (uploaded by another editor). I prefer the clarity of File:Ezra Pound.jpg but can use File:Ezra Pound 2.jpg. Also, am not clear which license to add to update that the book was published in the UK and in the US in 1922]]. Add: I didn't realize the copyright in the UK belongs to the author for 70 years after death, regardless of date of publication. In this case, this image shouldn't be on Commons because Coburn lived until 1966. I've replaced File:Ezra Pound.jpg in the article with File:Ezra Pound 2.jpg which another editor uploaded some months ago (I didn't realize two images existed until tonight).
 * I've deleted File:Olivia Tucker Shakespear.png.
 * Thanks very much for the good review. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts- all images are now well documented and verifiably free by enwp standards. J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Question - I don't see how this is even possible - Olivia introduced Yeats to Georgie Hyde-Lees, her 18-year-old stepdaughter, and Dorothy's best friend, whom Yeats would eventually marry. If Olivia is married to Hope in 1885 and Dorothy is born in 1886 and Georgie is born in 1892 how on earth can Georgie be Olivia's stepdaughter?..Modernist (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The answer I think is that Georgie Hyde-Lees wasn't Olivia's stepdaughter but her niece, the daughter of her brother. I've made that change anyway, but if I'm mistaken then I'm sure that Truthkeeper will put me right. Malleus Fatuorum 13:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that error. I've fixed, clarified and added an explanatory note. It is a bit confusing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected; I was never any good at understanding family relationships. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * support...Good job with Georgie!...Modernist (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reading and for the support - and good catch on an error that resulted in a new article! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's punctuation around her parenthetic birth name and dates. Also, ensign is wikilinked, while adjutant general is not. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I linked it...Modernist (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Drmies, nitpicking
[BTW: SUPPORT Drmies (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)]
 * I'm not quite sure why Valentine Fox (or, Elizabeth Valentine Fox, nee Ogilvy, daughter of Captain David Stewart Ogilvy--so Google Books informs me) is mentioned here. She doesn't have an article, there is very little on her that I could find (she doesn't strike me as notable), and don't see what having her and her unhappy marriage to a Kent brewer adds to the party. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Does note 9 (Harwood (1989), 31) verify the disruptively drunk behavior? If so, shouldn't the superscript note be inside the parentheses? Drmies (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for these choppy remarks and questions. But this, "...continuing his correspondence with Olivia—he wrote about Maud (who had recently given birth to Iseult)", I don't think I understand content and/or punctuation. Does this contrast correspondence with literary writing, or that he wrote about Maud in his letters to Olivia? If the latter, the dash doesn't seem to be the most applicable mark of punctuation. I'd suggest "in which" (or something like that) and removal of the parentheses. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "...to visit Valentine Fox of which Harwood says ...": "of which" requires a noun as an antecedent. Perhaps the sentence was revised before?
 * "Ezra Pound biographer, Jay Wilhelm, suggests...": remove commas; not parenthetic.
 * Why no wl for grimoire?
 * The second paragraph of the "Later life and death" section needs a reference, maybe more, for three reasons: "likely", the quote, and "continued to correspond".
 * The following paragraph, "and continued to have many friends", is not of the same high level as the rest of the prose (and it's an awkward parallel with "to socialize").
 * A somewhat general question: is it worthwhile expanding the Pound connection in the lead, if her financial support for Pound was indirectly also support for Eliot et al.?
 * Thanks for reading and comments. I think Valentine Fox was important enough in Olivia's life to warrant keeping, though I've trimmed out the bit about her husband, and will swing through and tweak that section a bit more. The rest of the issues are resolved, I believe. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not done yet. I'm looking at the bibliography--some publishers are named "completely", such as W.W. Norton & Company and Greenwood Publishing Group, and some are shortened, such as Faber (& Faber) and (Basil) Blackwell. In my opinion (and I borrow from the MLA), shorter is better--Norton, Greenwood, Pantheon, Temple UP, etc. (If you don't want to go for the UP abbreviation, that's fine, but there should be consistency.)
 * Pound was a pretty goodlooking guy, wasn't he! He does look like a terrible son-in-law.
 * Both notes should really end with punctuation--or move the reference to the footnotes.
 * I was wondering about the "circus drawings." It sounds like it's a well-known term. Is it? I looked at the source. Is it worthwhile mentioning they're in the Hamilton Art Museum? (Not that I know what that is, of course.)
 * Made references consistent per MLA 6th edition and added punctuation to the notes. I think the information about the Picasso drawings is better in the Dorothy Shakespear page, but a good point. The image of Pound isn't the best - yeah, he was surprisingly attractive, but of course crazy. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean to say it wasn't a good image or it shouldn't be there--I was merely expressing my admiration and inserting some levity in my slew of comments. Did I already tell you that I think it's a good and interesting article? Support. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, there was a clearer version of that photograph which I'm a bit disappointed not to have been able to use, that's what I meant. Thanks for reading, for the comments and the support. And now I have to ask you to move the support up to the beginning of the comments or to the front of the sentence, so the delegates can easily see it! Thanks again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. SandyG's eyes aren't as good as they once were. Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Got that right, but now we have two supports :) Debolded one.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments Support: Very interesting! I know little of Yeats, so you can imagine how much I knew about his lovers; namely, nothing.  Just some comments/suggestions (mostly regarding to the prose) until I'm ready to support:
 * Locations are needed for the book references.
 * Repetition in lead: Her six novels show stylistic similarities to other female novelists of the period, and are described as "marriage problem" novels.
 * Her last novel, Uncle Hilary, is considered her best, while she wrote two plays in collaboration with Florence Farr. -- I'm not sure these two thoughts (her last novel and the two plays) are connected. Can these two thoughts be split into two, with perhaps a little more said about Uncle Hilary?
 * and had little formal education. But she was well-read, and developed a love of literature. -- Perhaps I'm old school, but beginning a short little sentence with the word "But" makes my skin crawl.
 * Again in the lead: After her death -- "her" is ambiguous due to the previous sentence mentioning Georgie and Dorothy.
 * Olivia's death is mentioned twice in the lead, so the chronology is a bit off for me. I understand the need to keep things together by subject (Yeats in one paragraph, Pound in another), but the two deaths is somewhat off-putting for me personally.
 * In 1877 the family moved to London and raised their daughters in a social world that encouraged the pursuit of leisure. -- What of Henry, who we're told in the previous sentence was born eleven years earlier?
 * The source only mentions the daughters, not Henry. He was likely at boarding school. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. María ( habla  con migo ) 13:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "I noticed opposite me ... a woman of great beauty ....She was exquisitely dressed... -- These two sentiments are already mentioned earlier in the paragraph, so it reads as somewhat repetitive.
 * In his Memoirs Yeats referred to her as 'Diana Vernon'... -- Is there a reason for the single-quotes?
 * This was unexpectedly, and he took another absence. -- unexpected?
 * Ezra Pound biographer Jay Wilhelm suggests Hope Shakespear knew... -- Earlier in the article Henry Hope Shakespear is simply referred to as "Shakespear", so consistency is needed.
 * Repetition: Olivia opened her home once a week for a salon, opening an important period in her life.

That's about it. Overall a very good treatment of a little known figure. Nice work! Let me know when the above has been taken care of, and I'll gladly support. María ( habla con migo ) 13:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Maria for catching the errors. One response above - the rest have been taken care of. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! I've changed to Support above. María ( habla  con migo ) 13:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support and for reading! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.