Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tom Driberg/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 02:05, 3 April 2011.

Tom Driberg

 * Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Tom Driberg, mainly forgotten now, was a well-known political figure in Britain during the 1950s and 60s. Originally a gossip columnist, he became a left-wing Labour MP and rose to be chairman of the party. He was also a competent biographer of, among others, Lord Beaverbrook. He may have had a sideline going as an MI5 informant, and after his death he was accused of working part time for the KGB. As well as all this, he was an active homosexual who, in the graphic phrase of his biographer, enjoyed a lifetime of "lavatorial philanderings". Because of his bizarre lifestyle, no Labour leader ever offered him the ghost of a ministerial job, which is perhaps just as well. However, he kept the good opinions of many of his parliamentary colleagues, and spent the last months of his life as a peer of the realm. I wouldn't fancy his chances in public life these days, though. Link to a very thorough peer review is here


 * Quick comment – very interesting article, but why are the pub years in the harv cites inside brackets, like "Wheen (2001), p. 10"? Isn't "Wheen 2001, p. 10" shorter and better? -- Eisfbnore  talk 22:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a question of personal preference, really. I've always bracketed years in this way, from the days when I used to compile academic bibliographies, and old habits die hard. Maybe it's a Brit thing - see Tim riley's comment below. Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh, nevermind, I just thought they were redundant. -- Eisfbnore  talk 07:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Support – I took part in the peer review of this article, and the few points I raised there have been fully addressed. All the FA criteria seem to me to be fully met in this case. The article is well balanced, judiciously proportioned, impressively referenced, and a pleasure to read. (On the matter of the brackets in references mentioned above, "Bloggs (2000), p. 1" is my own preference and practice, and seems to me easier on the reader's eye than "Bloggs 2000, p. 1".) Tim riley (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support and for the helpful peer review suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Support Like Tim, I participated in the peer review and all my concerns were taken care of promptly. I take no position on Tim's concern on parens versus brackets. Whatever gets the job done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's not actually Tim's concern; he takes the same position as me. I think we're all rather relaxed about this, and the important thing is to be consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But there seems to be an inconsistency in the harv cites: Some include pub years, some not. For consistency reasons, oughtn't pub years to be included in all footnotes, not simpy on those which require 'disambiguation'? -- Eisfbnore  talk 07:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Source review
 * Ref 113, 130: which Wheen? Also, you've got no references to Wheen 2010 unless that's one of these
 * The line to which Wheen (2010) refers had got accidentally deleted during an earlier edit. It's now restored. The others are fixed.
 * Volume/issue number for Hilliard?
 * These are not shown on the online PDF version


 * Page number(s) for Goulding?
 * Not provided in the online version


 * Check formatting for ref 127
 * Publisher for London Review of Books?
 * It's an independent journal


 * When including "Originally published by...", be consistent in whether it includes publisher location
 * Hutchinson or Hutchinsons?
 * Publisher for Carpenter?
 * "Pehguin Books"? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All fixed, subject to the notes above. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * Nitpick, but I'd italicise Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, especially as you italicise Hansard. I leave it up to you to decide on BBC...
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Support I peer reviewed this and all of my concerns have been addressed since. Very nicely done, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Image review There is one Fair Use image - File:Tom Driberg 1930s.jpg - the use of which seems entirely justified. It is a scan and was at pretty high resolution (1,130 × 1,485 pixels) so I resized it to only 400 px wide. All the other images are freely licensed and all are properly sourced. No alt text (but that is not a FA requirement). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support, the peer review and for your help with the non-free image. Much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. I've been reading this through the last couple of days, and it's really excellent. An enjoyable read, beautifully written, and just the right length and level of detail. Some minor things: (a) I would add what he stood as, the first time he was elected to parliament. I looked it up and found "Independent" and "Independent Labour," so I didn't feel confident adding it myself; (b) I would also say what he read at Oxford, e.g. Greats; (c) I would change "witnessed the liberation of Buchenwald concentration camp," because it implies he was there during liberation on April 11, whereas I believe he went there as part of a parliamentary delegation on April 21. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 06:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support and kind words, also for the bit of polishing you did on the prose. As to your points above, (a) it is I think made clear in the lead and in the text that he originally stood for Maldon as an Independent, free of all party affiliations; (b) as stated, he gained a classics scholarship to Christ Church. The sources don't specifically state that he studied classics, but I think this is inferred; (c)I have altered per your suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering what the name of the course was; I assume it was Greats (Literae Humaniores), and I was thinking you could link directly to it, rather than to classics in general. But it's a minor point. SlimVirgin  TALK| CONTRIBS 03:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Support. I took part in the peer review, and all of my concerns have been addressed. An enjoyable read, beautifully done. Finetooth (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


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