Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Beach Thomas/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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC).

William Beach Thomas

 * Nominator(s): Sitush (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a war correspondent of WWI who gained both fame and infamy for his efforts and was also prominent as a writer of articles and books concerning rural affairs and nature. He was imprisoned for his activities in the early part of the war and also much parodied in the Wipers Times trench newspaper. He was later knighted by both the British and the French. It has been suggested that he may have been the inspiration for the character of William Boot in Evelyn Waugh's Scoop. -Sitush (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Why are you italicizing the titles of periodical articles?
 * That is to be how citation does it when |newspaper and |journal are used. It does so even in the examples on at the template documentation page as of right now, although elsewhere in the documentation it suggests otherwise. Bizarre but I will ask around; perhaps the template has changed recently or perhaps I've misread things. - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a recent bug affecting the template. See this at the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This has been suggested as a fix but surely a template that is used on so many articles is not going to remain broken? - Sitush (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've had a chat off-wiki about this issue with citation suddenly causing problems. The issue in this article will be resolved by amending the citation style but there are probably a lot of FAs and GAs that will require changing unless the bods who are into templates manage to fix this issue. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * has helped me enormously with this, for which I am grateful. We've now converted all of the citations affected by the recent bug in citation so that they use r instead. There is one outstanding issue, which is my dislike of how citation #35 appears. That should hopefully be fixed shortly, whether I am here or not. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Auden includes a location, most other books don't - be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed by removal. - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey

 * although it was also met with criticism and parodied by soldiers: was the criticism restricted to the soldiers?
 * No. With hindsight, I think that the lead needs a bit of work. The body makes it clear that the criticism continues to the present day. I'll update this point when I have modified the lead, although I'm really not very good at writing those things. IIRC, Drmies wrote up this one, at my request. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Beach Thomas's real interest was countryside matters however.: I don't think the "however" is adding anythign here, and the "real" seems to imply his war correspondence was a "false" interest. Perhaps something like "Beach Thomas had a greater interest in countryside matters." or "Beach Thomas's primary interest was in countryside matters."?
 * Yes! Done, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * in the county of Huntingdonshire, England on 22 May 1868: Looking throughout the article, you appear to be one of those who disagree, but many would insist on a comma after "England". You could move "on 22 May 1868" earlier in the sentence and not have to worry about people "fixing" it.
 * Done, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 *  played football, rugby union : any reason you'd shorten "association football" but not "rugby union"?
 * I seem to recall many discussions about football/"soccer". IMO, "football" is globally recognised as meaning association football, with the possible exception of the US and just maybe Australia. "Rugby", on the other hand is a less popular sport and can be confused with rugby league. That said, I'm easy: if people think it would be better to say "association football" then just do it. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't trying to say I thought anyone would assume an old English country gentlemen would ahve played something like Canadian football. Rahter, I meant that I thought there was no reason in the context not to shorten "rugby union" to just "rugby".  Although, I say that as someone who knows nothing of rugby.  Or football, football, or football. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. I've removed all doubt by using "association football". - Sitush (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ?? Um, okay. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * His exhibition was superseded by a scholarship but he was not academically successful: an "exhibition" appears to be a type of scholarship—can you clarify this second scholarship?
 * At Oxbridge, an exhibition is not a scholarship. I held an exhibition during my first year but it was replaced with a scholarship for the remaining years. At least at my college, an exhibition is an award of money (a tiny amount, nowadays - £60 in my case) but carries no other privileges or responsibilities: it is an award recognising ability and can be gained or lost in later years. Oxbridge scholarships generally do carry responsibilities, eg: reading grace at meals, playing the organ at chapel services, "officiating" in various other aspects of college life. I think this is something that would require elucidation at the relevant technical article rather than in this one. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * assisted him in getting his first job at a public school: the way this is worded, it seems to suggest that it helped him get a job at a public school rather than another kind of school; unless that's what you intended, I'd move Public school (United Kingdom) to the next sentence, qualifying Bradfield School.
 * Done, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * his duties while he holidayed: if you're much interesting in WP:COMMONALITY, you might want to choose something like "took time off" instead of "holidayed".
 * Not sure about this one. Someone could take time off because of illness or bereavement or something similar. Holidayed means what it says. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, "holidayed" means what it says where it means what it says. In the US, they "vacation" rather than "holiday"—there, "holiday" is restricted to the sense of "national holiday".  It's hairsplitting, but if there's an appropriate common term, it would be best to use it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 14:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll change it to suit the US audience. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * published by Ward Lock in 1901, following his 1900 contribution: ou might want include the "& Co"—otherwise "his contribution" could appear to the contribution of a man named Ward Lock.
 * Yes, fixed. My familiarity "bred contempt" there. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * To his delight the newspaper's owner, Lord Northcliffe, recognised that for him to perform his duties well it would be necessary for him to live in a rural environment and thus limit his visits to London.: Lord Northcliffe appears the antecedent of those hims
 * It is a clumsy sentence. I'll work on it. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this any better? - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that works. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * he explained that ... We could not run: not a fan of changing from one voice in the main sentence to another in a "that" clause (read it aloud and you may hear why); perhaps change "explained that" to "expalined:"?
 * OK, I've changed it. I don't pretend to understand why it jars but the change is minor. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Compare these sentences: "He said that he saw her."—"He said, 'I saw her'"—"He said that 'I saw her.'" A direct quotation is a direct object of "say", "explain", and thus cannot come after "that"; if it comes after "that" the quote must be indirect.  Read "He said that 'I saw her.'" aloud and you'll hear that it parses very differently from how it reads. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 14:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Dank has copyedited the various lead-ins to quotations. I seem to have a general problem in writing those and will have to be more discerning in future, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * He described the episode as "the longest walking tour of my life, and the queerest.": again, a queer switch in POV when read aloud
 * I do not understand the problem here, given that it is a quotation. sorry but could you elaborate or is it one of those things that is can really be appreciated only if spoken aloud? - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * downplayed the unpleasant aspects of the conflict such as the nature of death: surely not the actual "nature of death"?
 * I imagine Beach Thomas' war correspondence is in the Public Domain—would it be possible to have a snippet to show what people were criticizing and parodying?
 * Someone asked this on the talk page ages ago. I have thus far been unable to find anything of decent length. It might necessitate a trip to a copyright library, which is a significant effort for me. I've seen very brief snippets and I've seen longer snippets on TV programmes but neither are much use in this context. However, I'll take another look at it. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * NB: my ideal was to have his 18 September report side-by-side with the parody. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is something from the Daily Mirror here. It looks very similar to the version I saw on the TV programme and to this cut-down version of the same story as printed in the Daily Mail at least for the section subheaded "Fantastic Monsters". - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have just added this. I made a bit of a hash of it and I am walking away from it for a few hours but will it suffice once the formatting and citations are fixed? - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's hilarious! Personally I'd arrange it so the real thing came before the parody, though.  I don't think it matters if it comes close to the parody, but I do think it would be best if it came earlier. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. I've moved it. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The parodies of Beach Thomas in the Wipers Times were under the by-line of "Teech Bomas".: why shunt this into a footnote?
 * Moved it inline, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * somewhat contrary to the official line that tried to emphasise that this was a British war rather than an English one.: this'll be lost on non-British readers, especially us colonial-types who were taught that when Empire went to war, we were all automatically on board. Is there perhaps an article on this issue that can be linked to?
 * Not that I know of. I suppose we could link British Empire and England but I cannot see anything that might be more specific. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Improved with this. - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not really important, but what I was getting at was not that people won't understand the difference between Britain and England, but why non-English Brits would see this as an English war rather than a Brtitish one (Canadians certainly saw it from a British Empire perspective). If there isn't something to link to, don't worry about it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I do understand your point. British people encompasses the old empire thing as well but I suspect that British Empire is just colonial. The quote says "the Scot, the Irishman or the Colonial". No easy answer and, while I'm not worrying about it, I would be grateful for input because your overall point is valid: a lot of people confuse the "Britain" and "England" terms (even within the UK). - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In 1918 Northcliffe asked Beach Thomas to travel to the US.: Did he go?  What happened if he did?  The way it's worded, we have Beach Thomas being asked to go to the US and then suddenly accompanying the King to France.
 * Yes, he went. Details of what he actually did there are scarce but I will see if I can pump it up a bit. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added this. Ford and Roosevelt are also mentioned in the prior source used in that paragraph (a book review) but that source is less clear regarding whether he met them or was telling an anecdote. Other than this, I would have to rely on Beach Thomas's book itself and, well, we already know that he was not the most reliable of sources and was prone to self-promotion. I could always get the thing out from the library again, though, if that is what you need. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * including that "comparative wealth [there] is admired, not envied": I had to read this several times to figure out what appears to be its sense—could this be "stating" (or somesuch) rahter than "including"?
 * Is this any better? - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * that catered both for those pursuing: is "cater for" (rather than "cater to") a BrEng thing?
 * No idea. It has always been my usage but I'm no expert. for this one. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, I just have to double check these things—when something comes across as odd to my NAmEng ears it's sometimes hard to judge whether I'm dealing with a typo or an ENGVAR. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Later, in 1946, he harked back to a lost world, perhaps even a world that was more of his imagination than it ever was fact.: in what way did he "hark back" in 1946? Everything that follows is rather general and vague.
 * I'm not sure that it can be improved. I don't understand your stress on 1946 and the entire issue seems clear enough to me (perhaps this is a failing attributable to me being a Brit? Some sort of innate understanding?). In large part, the rural revivalists seem to have engaged in invention of tradition but we'd need an explicit source to use such a loaded term. Perhaps we really need is an article that deals with the subject of rural revivalism itself, and that is a pretty big topic that encompasses art, architecture, philosophy, politics, economics, etc. It is also not limited to the inter-war years: for example, compare Oliver Goldsmith's The Deserted Village to Thomas Gray's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What I'm asking is: what happened in 1946? Giving us this year makes it seem like you're about to follow up with something concrete—an event, the publication of a book, a declaration of something-or-other ... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This was in his book, A Countryman's Creed. I have requested a copy of the paper by Malcolm Chase - This is no claptrap: this is our heritage - in the hope that I can improve on the "invention of tradition" element. That paper is already cited but, rather stupidly, I didn't retain a copy after using it. Chase's paper was published in The Imagined Past: History and Nostalgia, a review of which in Victorian Studies journal (JSTOR 3828139) does say that the collection's theme is "pasts invented by the Victorians to serve their present needs" - is that too tenuous a connection to permit us to use the "invented tradition" phrase? - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I think that's fine—the only issue I had was what conretely "hark back" was intended to mean, which you've clarifying by naming the book. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the sons predeceased the parents, serving as a naval officer during the Second World War.: is this all we get? No date or cause of death?
 * Not known, although he was killed rather than died of natural causes. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * who died at home: no cause of death?
 * Not without a copy of the death certificate, if someone wants to spend money on that. He was an old man. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Among the obituaries to Beach Thomas were those published in Nature and The Times.: short, one-sentence paragraphs are generally frowned upon, and I don't see anything in this one that one grant it an exception. In fact, I might merge all three paragraphs in this section.
 * Merged and rephrased. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * you might want to find a way to fit in links to National parks of England and Wales and National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.
 * I've managed to link the second in a footnote but I think it might be difficult to link either or both in the body text without making it look contrived. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You could throw it into a "See also" section. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it into the lead. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Support on prose, although as I wrote above I think the article would benefit enormously if an appropriate quotation of Beach Thomas's writing style were added. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sample added, as per our discussion above. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "he harked back to a lost world": Agreed with Curly. That means he turned back to an earlier topic; how did he do that? Did he write something? Say something?
 * I've just left a comment about this in Curly Turkey's section. Thanks for the copyedit. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Thanks to both of you (Sitush and Curly) for making this easy. - Dank (push to talk) 02:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Image review

 * All images fine & properly tagged—one under a Creative Commons licence and the others Public Domain. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie
Support. All my concerns have been addressed. I reviewed this for GA and am glad to see it here at FAC. A couple of minor points:
 * "preferring instead to control the media through the issue of official press releases": I think "issue" should be "issuance", but that sounds a little pompous. How about "control the media by issuing official press releases"?
 * Yes, that is better and I've done it, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "between 1992–2002": per MOS:ENDASH this needs to be changed to avoid mixing "between" with an en dash.
 * Fixed. - Sitush (talk) 23:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Another potential model for the character of William Boot was Bill Deedes": this is uncited, and I think really needs a citation.
 * Thanks, Mike. I'll work through all of these points. Regarding this particularly one, you'll recall that I said Deedes told me of this connection in person. I've found this as a potential source - would it suffice? - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I remember, and was hoping there was a source; I think what you've found is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Added. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Beach Thomas had worked under James Louis Garvin at The Outlook and it was he who brought him to The Observer": I can't tell whether Garvin is "he" or "him" here.
 * Fixed. - Sitush (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "In 1918 Northcliffe asked Beach Thomas to travel to the US": this paragraph says nothing about what Beach Thomas did for Northcliffe -- presumably he wrote dispatches, or articles?
 * ODNB says "he was sent on an American tour". He certainly filed some stories, eg: this, but I'm not sure that was necessarily his primary purpose. Northcliffe had himself been a special emissary to the US from the UK in 1917 and it is possible that Beach Thomas was furthering Northcliffe's work with meet-and-greets etc. I'm afraid that we would have to rely on what Beach Thomas himself says in his book if further elaboration is needed ... and BT is far from being a dispassionate documenter of his own activities. If you believe WorldCat, the nearest library to me that holds a copy of that book is 800 km away, in Germany (!), but I did find a copy in the university library at Cambridge. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Struck; if you've covered what the source says, I don't think we need Beach Thomas's own work to support it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "a situation he considered analogous to that of Henry II and Thomas à Beckett": does the source actually say "analogous"? I can see "reminiscent" being reasonable, but "analogous" seems to go beyond the humour of the situation.  Unless the photographer were subsequently killed, of course....
 * Fixed. - Sitush (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it a little; revert if you wish. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No need, your tweak is correct. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * 'considered writers such as him to be "so fond of the past that': I think this should be "such as he", though the usage is rather formal and it might be worth rephrasing to avoid it altogether.
 * Rephrased. - Sitush (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "and in part echoed the concerns raised by Clough Williams-Ellis": you don't say what these concerns were -- the following sentence talks about national parks.
 * Modified with this. - Sitush (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * 'The new government, according to Robert Hemmings, saw the countryside "as merely a giant dairy and granary for the city."': is this Beach Thomas's opinion, or just a colourful background quote illuminating the general position? I think there needs to be some connection between Beach Thomas and this opinion; if his own published work says the same thing less pithily then that's fine.
 * I will do some reading for this point. "Less pithily" will probably be an understatement, though: everything that I have read of BT tends towards the long-winded. It may well turn out to be better just to dump the Hemmings quote. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, a more complete rendition of the Hemmings quote would be: "The tensions and anxieties of the present that shape Thomas's construction of this past include not only the aftermath of the war, its physical, psychological and moral destruction, but also the sweeping victory in 1945 of the Labour government, and its ideological threats to the rural English social tradition, in which the countryside is figured as merely a giant dairy and granary for the city." The "construction of this past" is the "invention of tradition" point that I've raised elsewhere on this page. - Sitush (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The longer quote makes it clear that Hemmings is using this in the context of Thomas's opinions, so I think there's no problem with the quote. It might be a bit easier on the reader to add an explanatory phrase, making it clear who Hemmings is and the relationship of the quote to Thomas.  How about 'The new government was a threat to Beach Thomas's view of the world because, in the words of literary critic Robert Hemmings, it saw the countryside "as merely a giant dairy and granary for the city."'?  (Not sure if "literary critic" is the right description for Hemmings.)  How does that sound? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a very brief bio of Hemmings here that would support "literary critic", although the book is pretty heavy on cultural history/psychology. I think your suggestion for rewording is great and I'm going to use it now. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a couple of minor points left; I will support once those are cleaned up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've supported above. The article is a pleasure to read. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.