Wikipedia:Peer review/Evelyn Waugh/archive1

Evelyn Waugh
This peer review discussion has been closed.

I am presenting this for review, although I'm still working on aspects of it. The images need attention; Jappalang advises that the "old man Waugh" in the Decline section will probably have to go, which is a pity. There is a great dearth of relevant free pictures and I have struggled to find appropriate images. Maybe others will have ideas. The "List of works" subarticle is very much "under construction" at present, but I'll be working on this as the review proceeds. Meanwhile I'd be grateful for any comments on this attempt at a fair portrayal of a remarkable, though difficult man. Brianboulton (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Tim riley comments – This is good stuff! First batch of comments: That's my lot for tonight. More tomorrow. (I am enjoying this!)  – Tim riley (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Second and final consignment of comments:
 * Lead
 * "Catholic " tout court in first para – you'll get the Anglicans agitated unless you add "Roman". And oughtn't the blue link, at present later in the lead, be from this first mention?
 * Family background
 * "...The Rev" or "the Rev" – does one put a capital T in the definite article here? (Question expecting the answer No.)
 * Golders Green and Heath Mount
 * "usually written by himself" – is the reflexive really wanted here?
 * Lancing
 * "editor of the College magazine, president of the Debating Society" – are these caps needed?
 * Oxford
 * "a poor third class degree" – is this a poor degree (viz, a third) or a poor grading within the thirds, and if the latter, who told him?
 * I have redrafted this part and added a footnote to cover possible confusion of the award/non-award of Oxford degrrees. Brianboulton (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Heatherley's" with apostrophe or "Heatheleys" (as in next section) without?
 * Early career
 * "his homosexual phase now behind him" – I'm terribly sorry about this – exposure to Round the Horne and Carry On films in my youth, no doubt – but I can't help seeing a double meaning in the conjunction of "homosexual" and "behind him". Perhaps better to head off other ageing fourth-formers among your readers by redrawing. Yes, yes, I know, sorry!
 * "He-Evelyn" and "She-Evelyn"
 * I was so tickled by the "Miss Waugh" clanger that I looked out the original TLS review, which you are welcome to as a footnote or some such if you think it of interest: "Miss Waugh approaches the 'squalid' Rossetti like some dainty Miss of the sixties bringing the Italian organ-grinder a penny, merciless in spite of the best intentions." "Dante Gabriel Rossetti", TLS, 10 May 1928, p 342. Written, so the archive reveals, by one Thomas Sturge Moore.
 * Yes, I've seen the review, and Waugh's magisterial reply: "My Christian name, I know, is occasionally regarded by people of limited social experience as belonging exclusively to one or other sex..." etc. Great fun, but with Waugh one has to learn to ration the wit.
 * Writer and traveller
 * "a parody of Deedes" – can one parody a person? Not sure, but it looks a bit strange.
 * I think you can; my Collins English Dictionary gives the second definition of "parody" as: "mimicry of someone's individual manner in a humorous or satirical way". Brianboulton (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Second marriage
 * "Laura Herbert was a cousin of Evelyn Gardner's" – possessive necessary?
 * Fame and fortune
 * "Waugh was, however, prepared to exploit his celebrity" – not sure what the "however" is referring back to.
 * Sentence emoved, unneceeary. Brianboulton (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ""... selectively deaf"" – does this need the elliptical dots?
 * Breakdown
 * "His was increasingly dependent on drugs," – Either there's a word missing or "his" should be "he". Medicinal or recreational drugs? (I see you say later that it was the former, but a word of explanation at this first mention might be helpful)
 * Noel Buxton and Nancy Spain – this incident inspired P G Wodehouse to write a piece of light verse, of which, if you are interested, I'll send you a copy. (Waugh revered PGW, and broadcast a famous "Act of Reparation and Homage" on the BBC)
 * I's like to see what PG said, it might make an interesting footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've temporarily uploaded a scan to my webspace - here. I'll remove when you've downloaded it.
 * Decline and Death
 * Basil Seal Rides Again –" a nasty little book" – If you care to cite the original, the TLS review (headed "A Rake Raked Up") was by John Willett, and was published on 14 Nov 1963, p. 921.
 * Reception
 * The ending of Vile Bodies – I had an idea that Waugh tagged the (to me chilling) ending on after the book was supposedly finished (perhaps even after the first edition was published) but memory may be playing tricks. I just mention it.
 * The book undoubtedly changed course in mid-writing; Stannard has much to say about this, though he doesn't mention a "tagged-on" ending. Waugh revised most of his books for later editions, so maybe he did add something then. Brianboulton (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Chapman and Hall need a word of explanation - I know they were his publishers, but that isn't obvious in the present context
 * " fixed image of Waugh–"stout, splenetic" – ought this en dash to be an em dash?
 * Reputation
 * "Some of this picture, it was claimed by Waugh's supporters…" It was drilled into me as a youth that one uses "claim" only when some actual claim (e.g. to a right or title) is being referred to, not as a mere synonym for "assert" or "allege".

That's all I can contribute (though point taken about the images, and I'll give that matter some further thought). I haven't enjoyed an article so much for quite some time. It's a very fine piece of work and should breeze through FAC. Tim riley (talk) 13:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these comments, and I'm glad you enjoyed the article. Except where I have commented above, you can take it that I have adopted your suggestions, for which I am truly grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Image review concerns : Of the above, the Lancing College photograph is the most concerning. The Spears-de Gaulle image would be next since it seems the photograph was not obtained through online means. Waugh's old age photograph is a subjective affair (per most NFCC items on this project) but I think if the text has critical commentary on his appearance (and the fair use rationale written to specifically point this out), that could suffice. Jappalang (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * File:24 lancing college.jpg: There is no assertion that this photograph was created by nor that he owns the copyright to the work.
 * The following two photographs can be uploaded and used instead if Samwaters is unable to help/respond. Jappalang (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1012415
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/elsie/2938195630/
 * File:Shoreham-Tollbridge.JPG
 * File:CropSelassie.jpg: How does this 1934 photograph published in Switzerland qualify to be in the US public domain?
 * Found a little peculiarity with Swiss copyright law. This photograph is public domain in Switzerland and in the US (because it was PD in Switzerland before 1 Jan 1996 and never published in the US).  Jappalang (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * File:General Spears and General de Gaulle.jpg: Neither Reference Number or Collection Number is supplied. This could be a non-compliance with WP:CITE because it would not help re-users to verify details of the photograph with the IWM (especially since this image is not in the digital collections of the museum).  This also means one would be unable to verify authorship (Royal navy photographer Lt L C Priest) and copyrights with the lack of information.
 * File:EvelynWaughatSixty.jpg: I think the commentary on Waugh's late age appearance should be in the main text rather than a caption to justify significance on using this photograph (WP:NFCC #8). Furthermore, the significance could be substantiated further if there are more reactions (from others) to his aging.
 * File:Castle Howard from Jones' Views (1819) - north west view.JPG: Not a concern but why are File:CastleHoward01.jpg (although we would need a local administrator to verify which license it was uploaded initially) and File:Castle Howard, Yorkshire.jpg not considered?
 * I have replaced the Lancing photograph with http://www.flickr.com/photos/elsie/2938195630/, but I'd still be glad if you checked the licence
 * I think you meant Simon Carey's photograph at geograph (here at File:LancingCollegeChapel.jpg). I tweaked it so it is fine.  Jappalang (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed Spears/De Gaulle. It is marginal to the article, and frankly, not worth the time and trouble involved in chasing the IWM for further details.
 * I have replaced the ancient Castle Howard image with a bright modern photo which I didn't spot on my earlier trawl.
 * On the elderly Waugh, I will add a little more critical commentary to the text and will strengthen the rationale. My worry is that if I add too much textual description on Waugh's decrepit appearance, reviewers might say that there is no need for the image. But let us see how that pans out.
 * I left the elderly Waugh image unstruck as it is a subjective matter and more opinions could help to establish a consensus that this is fine. Jappalang (talk) 03:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed for this help with image issues. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments. This is very good, hard to fault. A few minor things:


 * Rather than saying in the lead that he was educated at Oxford University, the usual thing is to say which college, as you do with Arthur Waugh in the next section. But if you're going to mention the university only, it would be the University of Oxford.
 * You have to wade through the first section a little to find his father's name. I would have both parent's names in the first sentence of Family background.
 * ... the couple's second son was born, "in great haste before Dr Andrews could arrive". Who is being quoted?
 * "In 1907 the family left Hillfield Road for a house, "Underhill", which Arthur had had built in nearby Golders Green ..." Suggestion: "In 1907 the family left Hillfield Road for "Underhill", a house Arthur had had built in nearby Golders Green ..."
 * "attached to his elder son Alec by an 'unbreakable bond'" again, who is being quoted?
 * Hastings, but the quote is not exact ("the bond forged between them was unbreakable") so I have reparaphrased.
 * "in a house lit by oil lamps that Waugh recalled with delight, many years later": no need for the comma after delight
 * "after being caught in homosexual activities": I wonder if there's another way to say that. It sounds as though we have clothes pegs on our noses. :)
 * Why did Alec's book mean Evelyn couldn't go to Sherbourne?
 * The school took offence - now noted
 * The Oxford Union motion would be "This House would welcome prohibition," minus "that".
 * " ... an onerous but not honorific post": is that Waugh being quoted?
 * Yes, now clarified. Brianboulton (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "provoked a "haughty" response": again, who is being quoted?
 * Waugh, now made clear and cited to "A Little Learning"
 * I'm confused about the nine terms, and can't see it mentioned in the source. Why would he be sitting his finals without having completed nine terms? I take it things were different then. I wonder it if could be clarified without going into unnecessary detail.
 * I have, I hope, clarified this in the text and a rewritten footnote which includes the correct citation.


 * Will stop for now. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 07:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these comments. I have generally adopted your suggestions, and have made clarifying adjustments where necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. They're all just niggles, because the article is excellent. A few more:


 * "As a best-selling author Waugh could now command larger fees for his journalism, but there was no shortage of offers." Would "and there was no shortage" be better? That he could command larger fees implies there was no shortage of offers.
 * I wonder whether you repeat "Waugh" a little too often. For example:
 * "Waugh had known Hugh Patrick Lygon at Oxford; now he was introduced to the girls and their country house, Madresfield Court, which became the closest that Waugh had to a home during his years of wandering. In 1933, on a Greek islands cruise, Waugh was introduced by Father D'Arcy to Gabriel Herbert, eldest daughter of ... When the cruise ended Waugh was invited to stay ..." And quite a few more. It's usually clear enough that it's Waugh you mean.
 * Thank you for pointing this out. I have reduced the number of "Waughs" in this paragraph, and have attended to a few other name repetitions. In my final editing pass I will check for other cases of this problem. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "his unmilitary and insubordinate character": I would say insubordinate is enough there.
 * Well, they are quite different things. It is possible to be, say, awkward, untidy and not very good at reading maps, without being insubordinate. Waugh was unmiltary and insubordinate. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Shortage of cash led him to agree, in November 1953 to be interviewed on BBC radio, where "[t]hey tried to make a fool of me, and I don't think they entirely succeeded" ... Peter Fleming in The Spectator likened the interview to "the goading of a bull by matadors". Could you say why the interview was problematic?
 * The article doesn't say what he died of. Is it known?

SlimVirgin talk| contribs 08:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Other matters dealt with per your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * '''Images
 * File:Evelynwaugh.jpeg: Although this is on the Commons, it hasn't been explicitly released. It's listed here on the Library of Congress site—taken in 1940 by Carl van Vechten, who died in 1964. His estate has asked that the image not be changed (e.g. cropped), which is an unacceptable restriction in WP's terms; the estate apparently disputes the Library of Congress's view that the collection is PD. So this arguably shouldn't be on the Commons. It might be better to download it to WP, claim fair use, and add a "keeplocal" tag, because it might suddenly disappear from the Commons.
 * The issue is about the validity of Mauriber's right to give the photographs away (copyright ownership of the photographs). The LoC believes he does and that per the instrument of gift, the 20 years of restriction has ended (gifted in 1966).  Kellner disputes the decision but so far the LoC is satisfied that legal documentation points to the validity of Mauriber's rights.  I believe Kellner's concern is a moral right rather than a legal right (Right to Integrity) granted to "works of visual art" since this work is not a "still photographic image produced for exhibition purposes only, existing in a single copy that is signed by the author, or in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author."  Moral rights are not a usual part of Commons policies (see the implementation of commons:Template:Insignia and commons:Template:Personality rights).  Note that the Van Vechten collection was discussed in commons:Template talk:PD-Van Vechten and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Van Vechten.  Jappalang (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Jappalang, I personally wouldn't oppose an FA over this image, but others might. It fails all the usual criteria: not published before 1923; not created by an author who died over 100 years ago, and not even 70 years ago as required by the European Union; not created by a USG employee; not unambiguously released by the copyright holder; and the free use of it contested by the photographer's estate. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not say it "fails all the usual criteria": Mauriber gifted the image to the LoC on the a restrictive condition that elapses after 20 years, upon which the image is available to all for whatever use. The issue is the dispute over the copyright ownership, which the LoC has decided with whatever legal advice it had is with Mauriber.  I agree with you that others might oppose over this dispute, although my personal belief is in line with the LoC (unless Kellner provides evidence of or the court decides that copyright is in his hand instead of Mauriber).
 * That said, if we go with submitting this image under the non-free content policy, then this article either would have to use this or the image of Waugh in his sixties. If we go with that, the sixty-year old Waugh would be better.  However, those who see Vechten's image as "free" could then oppose on the ground that there is a free image available.  I liken this to the "devil and the deep blue sea" (either case could face opposition)...  Jappalang (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * People might argue that the fair-use image can't be used regardless, because it's not hugely different from the first one (no matter the status of the first). Waugh may have thought he looked old and awful, but I think he looked almost the same. It will depend on how tough the reviewers are on the day, and how much Brian is willing to pay. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * File:EvelynWaughatSixty.jpg. Strictly speaking, we shouldn't use a fair-use image if another image is available. I realize you want to show him as an older man, but I wonder if this is sufficiently different. It'll depend on how strict the FAC reviewers are about images.
 * As you will see, I have had discussion on this image with Jappalang. I know for certain that at least one reviewer will oppose it at FAC; I think there is a case for its use, though perhaps not an overwhelming one. FACs are stressful enough without inviting trouble, but I'll decide later whether to risk it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The other images are fine. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 12:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, many thanks for your attention and advice. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Continuing comments (and this is the last bunch):
 * I wonder whether enough is made, particularly in the Oxford section, of his belonging to the middle class, feeling he went to an inferior school, then hanging around with Etonians at Oxford—the class difference that was the basis of Brideshead. Being a scholarship boy at Oxford would have been a major issue in those days.
 * I think the class difference thing may be exaggerated. Waugh belonged to the professional upper-middle classes. His father had been to Oxford, he and his brother were public schoolboys (Evelyn's view about Lancing being "inferior" was not rational, it was fed by Arthur's besotted regard for Sherborne). In other words, Evelyn was far from being a "poor scholarship boy"; he was received without difficulty into the social circles to which he aspired, and his snobbery was largely a self-inflicted wound. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think if I were writing this I would weave the character issues throughout the article, rather than in a separate section, given how central they are to his work and the perception of it.
 * While I agree that would have been a reasonable approach—and to some extent character issues do occur through the article—I decided that a short section summarising Waugh's character would have more impact. Rather in the same way that "reception" issues are incorporated into a separate section instead of being dealt with as we go along. Your suggestion may work as well, I agree, but this is the approach I have taken. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Book of the Month: I think you need to say which book of the month.
 * American B of the M now clarified (there is a link, too). Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "During his lawsuit in 1956 against the Daily Express, which had misrepresented the levels of his sales": this is the first time this is mentioned outside a footnote. Can you say more about it? Did he win it? It should be linked back to the interview that made him sell Piers Court to make clear it's the same piece.
 * I've absorbed the footnote into the text, so that the details of the lawsuit appear in the right chronological place. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not link newspapers, the BBC, and Granada Television.
 * I have always believed that these links should be made. Any reason why they shouldn't? Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just a preference issue. I'm not keen on the blue, and I'm not sure anyone would click on the BBC because they find it in this article. But it's a minor issue. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One final point: the last sentence of the article, the quote from Nancy Mitford, seems to sum up best, for me, what Waugh was all about. "What nobody remembers about Evelyn is that everything with him was jokes. Everything. That's what none of the people who wrote about him seem to have taken into account at all." I wonder whether this article expresses that sense of the absurd. Would it be possible, or too difficult, to add examples of it throughout? Maybe too much to do at this late stage. But I think examples might help to bring out his personality more.
 * Nancy's view of Evelyn is a personal rather than an accurate one. "Everything" wasn't a joke to him - his Catholic faith wasn't, for a start. I think her exaggeration was pardonable and that the point she makes is valuable - that not everything about him was serious and that he should not be judged as though he was. I think the article already acknowledges this point to some extent – his "war correspondent" role in Ethiopia, his "crusty colonel" assumed persona, his mock belligerence to strangers, etc. I would rather not, at his stage, look for further examples to illustrate Nancy's particular viewpoint. Waugh was a complex character; he should not be thought of merely as a joker who took nothing seriously. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's reasonable. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Having said all this, it's a wonderful article, which I enjoyed reading a lot. The above are just suggestions, which I hope you'll ignore if you disagree with them. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * These are in the main excellent suggestions, that I will work on over the next few days. I may ask you for a final check-over before sending it to FAC (which won't be before late next week). Brianboulton (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, I'd be glad to look at it again. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)