Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Diary of a Nobody/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, 17 August 2013 (UTC).

The Diary of a Nobody

 * Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The Diary of a Nobody is a seminal work in comic English fiction, much imitated over the years in terms of format and characterisation. The putative diarist, Charles Pooter, is the epitome of all who take themselves and their small lives too seriously; Adrian Mole and Bridget Jones are among his more recent  descendents, though arguably somewhat less engaging. It's comedy without malice; the book has never been out of print, and if you haven't read it before I hope this article might inspire you to do so (free, online of course). Particular thanks to the peer reviewers for the improvements they have engendered, especially to Ssilvers for lending his Grossmith expertise to the task. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support had my say at the peer review. Excellently done and I plan to read it if I ever have time.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

'''Image review. Mostly OK
 * File:Grossmithsor01.jpg I'm not convinced by the license tag. It is surely not a US work.  No evidence of publication but this is plainly a publicity shot.
 * That's it. Other images look good.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the Grossmith image with one that has  incontrovertible pre-1923 publication information. Per Tim's point below, I will see wheter it's possible to squeeze Weedon in (there is a photo from the same source). Thanks for your help with this, and with the review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Support – I too took part in the peer review. I have known and loved this book for more than forty years, and the Grossmiths are home territory for me. Despite this I could find precious little to quibble about at peer review and can find nothing now. I learned a fair few things, as well. The nominator has shrewdly avoided (as I wouldn't have done) falling into the trap of overloading the article with an excess of quotations; the choice of three of Weedon's drawings is similarly judicious. (I did just wonder on rereading if there might be room without too much of a squeeze for a picture of Weedon, as we have one of George.) The balance of the article is good, the content comprehensive, the referencing thorough and widely-sourced, and the prose a pleasure to read. Meets all FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your review help and these comments. As you will see from the above, I am investigating the possibility of squeezing an image Weedon in. Can you suggest where, in the article, you think it might best fit in? Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What about this one? Just uploaded. Could go where GG is at present on his own. Tim riley (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a superb image and entirely appropriate. I have replaced the GG pic with this; many thanks for finding and suggesting it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Support: I also participated in the peer review and was pleased to be able to suggest a few changes, mainly to the background section about the authors. The article is a neat and efficient, yet readable, description of the novel, its literary reputation, cultural influence and adaptations. It is well written, well organized, nicely illustrated and covers its subject throughly. May I also say that this is the type of article that shows Wikipedia in its best light: there is nothing like this on this topic elsewhere on the internet or even in print encyclopedias. Well done to Brian Boulton and the other contributors to the article! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help in getting the article up to standard; I needed your and Tim's particular knowledge of the Grossmiths to polish up the background detail – and as you can see, above, Tim is still on the case! Your support and encouraging words are much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Support per Tim and Ssilvers. I had meant to participate in the PR on this but I'm sorry to have not got around to it. Looking at it now the article is in really fine shape. As is typical of Brian's work, the prose is excellent. The article is well organised and discusses the Diary thoroughly. I see no problems with sourcing, neutrality or anything like that. I've made a few tweaks here and there but nothing major. Here are some very minor nitpicks, which don't affect my support: I can't see anything else to mention right now, but I will be looking over the next few days and if there is something I will add it. Well done Brian and everybody else who helped with this! —Cliftonian (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In the plot section maybe make clearer for international readers where some of the places being referred to are: while we don't want to unnecessarily clog up the prose (and it is clear from the context that most of them are in or around London), it should perhaps be mentioned that Oldham is in Lancashire and that Broadstairs is a seaside town (hence the Pooters spending their holiday there)
 * Maybe find a replacement for the word "engaged" in "engaged with theatricals" as it directly follows "engagement" at the end of the previous paragraph
 * Shouldn't the image captions have wikilinks in them?
 * Thank you for your support and positive comments. On the points you raise:
 * Oldham: it is wikilinked; I'm not sure that adding "in Lancashire" will be any more helpful to international readers, who would probably need to use the link anyway.
 * I have added that Broadstairs is a seaside town - it also is wikilinked
 * Replaced "engaged" in the theatricals context
 * Where the caption is directly adjoining linked names in the text, as is the case with the Grossmiths, Birrell and Waugh, it does not seem necessary to link again in the captions, and I don't normally do it. If someone else thinks otherwise, I would not make an issue of it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, all that looks good to me. Well done again on this really admirable piece of work. If there's something else I can help with please do let me know —Cliftonian (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments by the Dr
 * Lead


 * City clerk. Not sure why it is capitalized, if it's London I'd say London clerk.
 * Capitalisation of "City" as shorthand for the "City of London" is commonplace, but may not be obvious to non-British readers so I have followed your suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "a City of London clerk" -- can this be changed to "a clerk ... in the City of London? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Inconsistency in number form, fifteen, 12. Should be 15 I think seems as you adopt the over nine digit form elsewhere in the article.
 * Done Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * " mature collaboration" -what is meant by a mature collaboration?
 * I think it is clear that this means that it was their only collaboration as adults, in contrast to the youthful collaboration that we mention above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  09:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Repetition of the word modest.
 * Fixed Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Authorship and origin


 * My opinion is that this is a little excessive and some of it isn't really relevant to the book. I understand that some of it is relevant to the artistic development and influence, but I'd expect a relatively short summary for their career backgrounds and context, or a higher percentage of material directly related to the book's development. For instance I'm not sure sentences like "In May 1888 he played alongside Henry Irving at the Lyceum Theatre" do much to help the article about the actual book. I'd condense this section a bit, the middle paragraph especially. Just a suggestion anyway, there's obviously a reason why you thought it was all relevant.
 * I feel that background information on the lives and activitiies of the authors is useful, particularly as both led interesting lives, though obviously we don't want to overdo it. I see that Ssilvers has trimmed this section a little, and I have trimmed and polished it a bit more. I hink that should do. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * BB, I think that your additional trimming left the Weedon information unbalanced, so I removed the Tony Joseph quote, which I believe would be misleading without the Findon quote to balance it. I'd rather have them both back, as I had left it -- your choice.  Also, I think it is necessary to make clear that George continued his piano career "at the same time" as he was starring in the Savoy operas.  Finally, if the clause following the conjunction is an independent clause, then you need a comma before the conjunction.  If you remove the "he", then you need to remove the comma, which I have done in two places.  Finally, there is a long sentence in the middle of the George paragraph (that you formed by combining two sentences) that includes too many thoughts and causes a little problem with chronology.  Here are the facts: George prolifically wrote his own piano sketches and songs.  Separately, he wrote operettas that were performed as curtain raisers at the Savoy and also some other comic operas, including Haste to the Wedding (1892).  George "became" the greatest comic entertainer in two ways - first, as the G&S leading man from 1877 to 1889, and second as a phenominally successful piano sketch entertainer from 1889.  Any thoughts about how to clarify?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have restored the middle of the George paragraph to what you wrote before my further trimming, except that I have replaced "At the same time" with "While appearing in the operas...". I am slightly bothered about the close repetition of "writing", and may find an alternative, though I don't have time at the moment. Please feel free to tweak further for clarity, though I don't think we need add any significant material. Brianboulton (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks ok to me. To eliminate one "writing", you could make "writing and composing" just "composing".  Or "penning"? "creating?".  Similarly, you now have the word "operas" in two sentence in a row.  How about "while starring in these..."?  But none of these is essential.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it for the moment. One can fiddle about for ever (I often do) without any real improvement. Fresh eyes in a few days might provide inspiration - we'll see. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Synopsis


 * I see City linked this time. Can you change both to London?
 * See above. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "keen anticipation" Both words have the same meaning, much anticipation?
 * I must disagree here. One can anticipate events with a dull dread, e.g. a looming visit to the dentist, a performance of Bartók's Violin Concerto, a discussion about infoboxes... (you name it!). Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, just never heard of anticipation being anything but keen!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  09:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What is meant by ""fast" habits"?
 * It means vaguely disreputable, the sort of thing that "respectable people" don't do. I would have thought the term was clear in context, but I'll see if an alternative might do the job better. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly not! One used to have fast habits oneself, though regrettably they've slowed to a standstill nowadays. Eheu fugaces! (Anonymous edit by Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC))

Lower sections look flawless to me.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  11:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review and suggestions, most helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Looks a sound article now to me. Nicely done.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  09:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks again Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support – unreservedly. I have read the book and believe this article to be a true, accurate and through account of the subject matter.  Flawless! --  Cassianto Talk   10:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I've made some very minor tidies: please feel free to revert anything you think weakens the article. Only one further minor comment: the British Library have the Christopher Matthew's book as first published in 1978, rather than the 1979 you list. An excellent piece, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * To the above two, many thanks. The Matthew date was my error, as the source clearly shows the initial publication as November 1978. As to "flawless", I don't honestly think that could ever be applied to any WP article, but hopefully we can aspire to produce work without significant flaws. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Support, although this nomination is hardly suffering from lack of support. Interesting, thoroughly prepared, and of the quality I have come to expect from Brian. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Andy, it's always good to hear from you. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Source Review - as requested, I have reviewed the sources used in the article. The sources are fine with two minor possible exceptions. PS In the interest of full disclosure, I cropped the image of Daisy used in the article. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Current ref 12 (to abebooks.com) is used to cite the sentence "Audiobook versions have been available since 1988.[12]" While I like the used book website, I think that WorldCat is a better source, and it shows a 1982 audiobook version as the earliest one (not 1988). See here
 * Is this a typo? Should it be "p. 32" (not "p. 3.2"?) Current ref 19 is "Untitled". The New York Times. 19 December 1892. p. 3.2."
 * I have altered ref 12 source to WorldCat per your suggestion, and have corrected the year to 1982. The NYT page no 3.2 is correct. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Support - I have also read the article and find it fully meets the FAC criteria. Well done, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sources review and for the support, also for earlier images help. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.