Wikipedia:Peer review/George Bernard Shaw/archive1

George Bernard Shaw
and I have been overhauling the article over the past weeks, and we hope to take it to FAC after this peer review is concluded. It has been a challenge to cover Shaw's 94 years, 62 plays and innumerable opinions in a little over 11,000 words, and we'll be grateful for input on any aspect of the text as it now stands – prose, proportions, balance, structure and anything else colleagues feel moved to comment on. We are hoping for a really rigorous peer review, and look forward to your comments. –  Tim riley  talk    15:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Ssilvers

 * "Predatory" widow? Do you mean that she was sexually aggressive, or what?  The metaphor is not encyclopedic here.
 * I also do not see any need for an infobox. The image of the signature could go elsewhere.
 * I entirely agree, but you know what the info-box lobby is like, and I don't feel up to a pitched battle; besides, I'm not even sure that such a battle would lead to a consensus to change the status quo in this regard. At least the I-B here doesn't look quite as amateurish as those inflicted on, e.g., composer articles.  Tim riley  talk    10:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The article has borne an infobox since early 2007, and I don't think we have the right to remove it on the basis of personal preferences. Nor do I think that in its present form it is in any way detrimental to the article. The time to take up the cudgels will be if or when the box becomes the target for adding trivia. Brianboulton (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is lots of excess white space throughout the edit screen of the article, which makes it harder to edit, because it reduces the amount of text that one can see on a screen. I just removed some of it, but there is a lot -- even between words.
 * Generally speaking, if a comma precedes a conjunction, there should also be a pronoun following the conjunction: "He went to Amsterdam, and HE did this or that." Alternatively, remove the comma so that the second object is related to the subject: "He went to Amsterdam and did this or that."  -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting view of punctuation, but comma usage varies on the two sides of the Atlantic.
 * One more thought: In the Lead it says: "Shaw became the leading dramatist of his generation".  Nothing in the Legacy and reputation section really says that, although assessments vary from "2nd best playwright in English" to "he sucked".  Can you add something to the Legacy section that more clearly supports the statement "leading dramatist of his generation"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point, and now addressed.  Tim riley  talk    10:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld

 * It has an infobox? ;-) As infoboxes go it's tolerable I suppose, I can imagine you really don't want a dispute now after that majestic expansion effort though. Will look at this later.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See my comment in the thread above. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Lede
 * "such as Man and Superman, Saint Joan and Pygmalion. " -the years in brackets would be most useful here
 * Done.  Tim riley  talk    19:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure "rigorous process of self-education." is the right wording, is there a way it could be reworded and give the reader a bit more of a clue what he was studying?
 * The list would be long: philosophy, politics, Georgeism. Marxism, economics, socialism and anything else that was on offer. You get a clue from the following sentence which begins: "He discovered socialism..." etc. I'd rather not extend the lead wording." Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Do we know roughly the time he discovered socialism?
 * I've made that "By 1883 he had discovered socialism..."


 * " it was some years before he was successful as a dramatist. " and "Having achieved recognition, " a bit vague, some idea roughly of when he achieved that recognition or/and by whom would be useful I think
 * I've made the first part "it was not until the turn of the 19th–20th century that he became successful as a dramatist", but I'd like Tim to vet that wording. I don't think "Having achieved recognition" requires further explanation.
 * v. happy with that wording.  Tim riley  talk    11:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "for which he received an Academy Award. " -in 1939?
 * The dates are in the detailed text below. I'm not sure they are wanted in the overview.  Tim riley  talk    19:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Early years
 * " 3 Upper Synge Street,[n 1] Dublin, th" -do you know the district of Dublin?
 * "Near Harrington Street" is all I can find in the sources.  Tim riley  talk    19:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Shaw's biographer Michael Holroyd records that in 1689 Captain William Shaw fought for William III a" -not clear how all this immediately relates to Shaw until you mention his father being a descendant. Is it possible you could find if it was a great grandfather or whatever so you can address William as such?
 * I am having second thoughts about the gallant Captain. I originally put him in to point up Shaw's own frequent comment that he was English by descent, but I may blitz him and just mention the Protestant Ascendency.  Tim riley  talk    19:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * " who in Holroyd's view married Shaw to escape a tyrannical great-aunt. If as Holroyd and others surmise, George's motives were mercenary, he was disappointed, as Bessie brought him little of her family's money." -this waffles a little bit in my opinion, is there a way you can shorten the last lines of that opening paragraph?
 * We could leave out "of her family's" but I'd prefer to keep it in.  Tim riley  talk    19:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Between 1865 and 1871 Shaw attended four schools," -do we know any of them? Possible you could add a footnote citing them for those who want to know if you don't want to bloat the text.
 * I think you may have overlooked the existing footnote which lists all four.  Tim riley  talk    19:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed I did overlook it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * London and Fabian
 * Edison/Bell Telephone Company -links?
 * I thought of that when drafting, but the EB link takes one to a record company label. Alternative suggestions for the link welcome.  Tim riley  talk    19:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Shaw then read" -why then? Why not just "Shaw read"? Or did you include "then" to indicate that he read it after the main speech by Henry George?
 * Yes, that was the intention. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "The project foundered, but Shaw returned to the draft as the basis of Widowers' Houses in 1892,[36] and" -"but" and "and" in the same sentence grate a little.
 * We could replace one conjunction with a semicolon if preferred.  Tim riley  talk    19:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "September 1884" -just "the September" will suffice after mentioning May 1884
 * Done. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * To avoid too many dates you could reword January 1885 as "the following January" as you also mention 1885 at the beginning of the next.
 * As the sentence continues "in January 1885, and later that year...", I think the present wording is better left. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "In Shaw's new version, readers were assured that "socialism can be brought about in a perfectly constitutional manner by democratic institutions"." -attribute the quote?
 * Attribution is provided by "In Shaw's new version", and the citation is to Shaw's pamphlet. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Playwright
 * "In 1897 a playlet about Napoleon called The Man of Destiny had a single staging at Croydon." -this short sentence affects the flow a bit I think, a bit too "notey", can you elaborate a little here?
 * Merged with previous sentence.
 * Chronologically wouldn't it make more sense to place the "In January 1893, as a Fabian delegate, " paragraph before the Candida one or is there a good reason to not to?
 * This is not the only point where we had to choose between strict chronological order and keeping the themes together. Arguably the entire Fabian and Critic sections could be swapped round, but on balance this order seems to flow as we envisaged.  Tim riley  talk    19:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "By the later 1890s Shaw's political activities lessened as he concentrated on making his name as a dramatist.[75] However, in 1897 he was persuaded to fill an uncontested vacancy for a "vestryman" (parish councillor) in London's St Pancras district. " -can be avoid "however" somehow? Perhaps merge sentences and replace with "though"?
 * I don't share the view among some WP editors that "however" needs to be avoided at all costs. Certainly its overuse needs to be corrected, but its proper limited use is surely OK. I see it occurs six times in an articleof 11,000+ words, which soes not seem excessive, but I will look carefully at the other uses. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think it is quite a word to avoid at all costs, but for that example I thought is could be altered slightly and sentence merged without it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "broke down" -perhaps "deteriorated" would be better here
 * It was worse than a mere deterioration. He really was in a hell of a state, and could hardly walk.  Tim riley  talk    19:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * " The previous year she had proposed that she and Shaw should marry.[78] He had declined, but when she insisted on nursing him in a house in the country, Shaw, concerned that this might cause scandal, agreed that they should marry." -rep of "should marry", can you reword this to avoid the repetition?
 * Suggestions for rewording - avoiding the twee archaism "wed" - will be gladly received. I was uncomfortably aware of the repetition when I drafted the sentence, but I struggle to find another verb for "marry".  Tim riley  talk    19:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Having pondered further: would "proposed marriage to Shaw" work for the first "marry"?  Tim riley  talk    20:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "In 1906 they found a country home in Ayot St Lawrence, Hertfordshire; they renamed the house "Shaw's Corner", and lived there for the rest of their lives, maintaining a London flat in the Adelphi and later at Whitehall Court.[85]" -the punctuation and the "and" a little too much for me here, perhaps it could be reworded as "In 1906 they found a country home in Ayot St Lawrence, Hertfordshire, which they renamed "Shaw's Corner". They lived there for the rest of their lives, maintaining a London flat in the Adelphi and later at Whitehall Court."
 * That is better. Will adopt.  Tim riley  talk    19:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Now I come to put it in, I realise it is ambiguous: it was the house, not the location, that they called "Shaw's Corner". I have stayed nearer the original wording, breaking the sentence up instead.  Tim riley  talk    19:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Stage
 * "Man and Superman followed," -year?
 * Written in 1902, but this staging is later. It might be confusing to add 1902 here, do you think?  Tim riley  talk    19:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added both dates: what do you think?  Tim riley  talk    19:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "and in Robert Loraine's New York production. " -what was the theatre in NY?
 * The house is not named in the sources to hand. As Holroyd doesn't mention it in his 834 pages we can, I think, get away without mentioning it here.  Tim riley  talk    19:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Now prosperous and established, " -I think by this stage it would be good to see a few more reviews from critics of his work during that 1895-1907 era, which can be used a bit more to illustrate how he gained esteem in the eyes of the critics.
 * Indeed, but alas, and to my regret, I have cut a lot of press comments that I originally put in the article: with this and other painful prunings we have managed to get the total length down to a little over 11,000 words. I'd love to put more in, but we have to take notice of the guidelines for maximum length.  Tim riley  talk    19:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Fanny's First Play, a comedy about suffragettes, had the longest initial run of any Shaw play—622 performances." -that's a heck of a long time, I'd expect to see a little more detail about it, perhaps a quote or two, some very brief background info elaboration on it.
 * The statistic is correct, but it was a small house (see below), and it wasn't like filling the Coliseum for 622 perfs. It would be tempting to expand, but we have struggled mightily to keep the article within hailing distance of the recommended maximum length, and anyone who is interested in this piece can click on the link.
 * "The British production opened in April 1914," -what theatre was this?
 * A now-vanished fringe theatre, the Little Theatre in the Adelphi. I looked it up when drafting the para but didn't think that mentioning it would be helpful to the reader.  Tim riley  talk    19:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Fabian
 * "the Memorial Hall conference" -link to hall/conference?
 * No useful links available, but I've clarufied the location of the conference. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "Nationally, the January 1906 general election, produced" -a stray comma after election
 * The comma is in the link – doesn't show up om the text. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "Although less active—he blamed his advancing years—Shaw remained a Fabian. " -don't like the way you word this, can you reword? Perhaps "Shaw remained an Fabian, though became less active due to his advancing years".
 * That would miss the point. At the time Shaw was in his mid-fifties, not by any means old or advanced in years. He used the phrase in the way that old/young gits like me and Tim might say "I'm too old  for this", as a way of avoiding work we don't feel like doing. Shaw was in fact very active outside his Fabian commitments, but he'd got fed up with that crowd. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * WWI
 * " In How to Settle the Irish Question (1917), he envisaged a federal arrangement, with national and imperial parliaments. However, as Holroyd records, by this time the separatist party Sinn Féin was in the ascendency, and Shaw's and other moderate schemes were superseded" -can "however" be avoided?
 * Under consideration, per above comment. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * " In April 1917" -just "April" will suffice here
 * As the two events described in the paragraph (Shaw's visit to the trenches and America's entry into the war) are quite separate, I think "April 1917" has to remain.


 * " it was performed in 1916 in Birmingham" -worth mentioning the theatre? For all me know if could have been Pig's house ;-)
 * It was the Birmingham Rep, which is certainly worth mentioning. Will do.  Tim riley  talk    19:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 1920s
 * "1922 civil war" -link?
 * Indeed. Added. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ""Mr Shaw on this occasion has more than usual to say and takes twice as long as usual to say it"." -the critic and paper would be useful here
 * The Times reported this comment from the New York press but did not say which paper it appeared in.  Tim riley  talk    19:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * " The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism." -if it was his "magnum opus" you might place a bit more weight on it and elaborate on the contents a bit
 * Shaw described it as such, but I've yet to see any critical opinion that endorses that view. There's a bit more about the book in the "Works" section (under "Political and social writings"), including Ramsey Macdonald's laughable opinion that it was the most important book since the Bible, but I don't think more needs to be added here. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "s "obsessed" about Mussolini"  -with or about? The context and chronology does seem a little odd here. I wonder if it would be more feasible to have a different section dedicated to his Fascist/Nazism sympathies? Unless they went hand in hand with his work path?
 * Definitely "about", per Beatrice Webb. Yes, the location of this paragraph is a shade problematic, chronologically, as it jumps back to 1922. But it's hard to see where it would fit elsewhere, without some dislocation to the text dealing with the plays. With a multi-faceted character such as Shaw, the chronology tends to get a little fracured at times ( Weintraub's ONDB article has the same problem) – but I will give the question further thought.

Phew! This is quite a magnificent effort you've put into this seeing how much is still left to read! I'll continue tomorrow with works.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1930s
 * " The Manchester Guardian)" -pipe redirect with direct link to The Guardian

Rest of it looks fine, good luck.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I add my thanks to those of Tim. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Additional comments
 * Perhaps "popular success" in WI works could be reworded? You say "enormous success" a bit further up.
 * Pipe the link to Daily Mail to avoid the redirect.
 * Correct link to Vaccine controversies
 * "The Guardian's theatre critic Michael Billington " -didn't you link The Guardian further up?
 * " Richard Rodney Bennett for The Devil's Disciple (1959)" -delink the film, it's already been mentioned
 * Above four suggestions actioned - thank you!  Tim riley  talk    11:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "London School of Economics" -link? Or is it already linked somewhere else?
 * Linked on first mention, Playwright and politician section Brianboulton (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt
Up to 1900 and very few comments other than to note how well you've done this work:


 * "whose influence on Western theatre, culture and politics extended from the 1880s to his death in 1950" I would think beyond.
 * agreed Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "The two figures in the contemporary art world whom Shaw most admired were William Morris and John Ruskin, and he sought to follow their precepts in his criticisms" I might make it clearer that what Shaw (I suppose) most liked about them was their views, rather than artistic techniques.
 * Indeed. Done.  Tim riley  talk    11:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You may wish to add the year for Man and Superman
 * Done.  Tim riley  talk    11:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

More to follow.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Done to the end of the biographical sections:
 * "January 1906 general election" why is the month needed?
 * Removed Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "He later speculated whether the Fabian Society" can you speculate a whether? Possibly "wondered"
 * I think you can speculate about whether such and such an event might happen, or might have happened in different circumstances. but I have reworded the sentence anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wasn't Shaw spoken of as a possible peer if the Liberals had packed the House of Lords?
 * I would very much doubt it – do you have a source that suggests he was? No mention of this in Holroyd, Weintraub etc. Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I recall reading it ... if I come across it I will let you know.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "which argued that the warring nations were equally culpable" Just the UK and Germany or also France, Austria, etc?
 * Shaw's text refers specifically to "England" and Germany, but the sense in each case is "and their allies". Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "and Shaw's and other moderate schemes were superseded." Possibly ignored for superseded unless they were in place originally.
 * "Forgotten" is probably the best term. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "The Anglo-Irish Treaty of December 1921 led to the partition of Ireland between north and south, a prospect that dismayed Shaw" as partition has taken place by the time we get to Shaw's dismay, it is no longer in prospect.
 * OK, "prospect" → "provision" Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Possibly this image may be of help to you, or this or others in that collection with suitable rights. Playbills and programme books were not copyrighted in the US until quite late, a great help to me with the Rodgers and Hammerstein (which I have not abandoned, by the way)
 * Most interesting - Tim may have a view on how/whether these could be used. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I particularly like the second. Let's see how the text and layout look after we've redrawn the text in the light of the PR and see whether and where we can make use of the images.  Tim riley  talk    11:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "In Ervine's view," we are as yet unacquainted with him. Is he the gentleman with the saintly name mentioned under the 1920s?
 * He first appears in the "Playwright and politician" section and I've fully introduced hom there. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be interesting to learn of Shaw's view of Hitler and Naziism after 1933, at least as a bridge to the war years.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not much there, I'm afraid. The "polite and just to Hitler" comment is not dated in the source, and could have been later in the 1930s. At the time of the 1938 Anschluss Shaw prentended to be delighted, but this was a bluff to help a Jewish friend in Vienna whose escape he was arranging. That's about all before 1939. There is a bit more in the Second World War section, and in the Political and social writings subsection in "Works". Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the review to date. Tim may chip in on points I've not covered.

Here is the remainder. Not very much to quibble with.


 * "As a music critic he had frequently been able to concentrate on new works as much as on their performance, " I'm not sure I completely make out what is being said. Possibly rephrase with fewer "as"'s.
 * Since pruned.  Tim riley  talk    11:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "He was continually drawn back to Shakespeare, and wrote three plays that directly relate to him:" I wouldn't have mentioned this had there been more to question ... but there's some minor risk of ambiguity in the "him".
 * Indeed. Redrawn.  Tim riley  talk    11:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "In a 2001 analysis of Shaw's Shakespearian criticisms, Robert Pierce concludes that Shaw, who was no academic, saw Shakespeare's plays, like all theatre, from an author's practical point of view:" I'd do, if possible, with fewer commas.
 * Repunctuated mildly.  Tim riley  talk    11:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * " and developed them further in Back to Methuselah in the 1920s. A 1946 Life magazine article " I'd move the 1920s forward in the sentence a few words to avoid the dates clashing.
 * Done.  Tim riley  talk    11:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "that Shaw once estimated they would take up;" possibly "occupy" for "take up". Also, the sentence seems to have more than its share of semicolons.
 * Redrawn (though the semicolon quotient remains unchanged).  Tim riley  talk    08:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "and privately submitted notes to the Royal Automobile Club" Not sure what the purpose is. If they were published anonymously, or under a pseudonym, I would so indicate.
 * Deleted "privately".  Tim riley  talk    08:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Excellent article. Worthy of the man.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added my few bits. Many thanks, Wehwalt.  Tim riley  talk    20:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto
What a great article! My comments will be drip-fed I'm afraid as my time on here is quite limited at the moment. Typically, with you two at the helm, problems are far and few between. Here goes:


 * Early Years
 * "In 1852 he married Bessie Gurly, who in Holroyd's view married Shaw" -- Shaw or George? Consistency has "George" in place here, if you mean the father.
 * True. In fact "married" will do very well without an object, so poor old George is deleted either way.  Tim riley  talk    20:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "The Shaws' house was often filled with music, with frequent gatherings of singers and players" -- Tim introduced me to this being an American apostrophe. Is that the case here?
 * No, it's just that here, "Shaws" is a plural, in the same way that you might refer to my family as "the Boultons". With plurals the possessive apostrophe follows the "s", otherwise it would be "the Shaw's". Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * affection affected... Too close?
 * Indeed. Now redrawn.  Tim riley  talk    09:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fabian Society
 * "...meeting, on 16 May 1884. He became a member in September 1884" -- do we need two "1984"'s?
 * Amended per an earlier review comment Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Playwright and politician
 * I see that the first para ends with note 9, but no cite is given for that para. Note nine uses foot note 61; does this also cover the para?
 * Yes, that's covered.  Tim riley  talk    20:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * " The previous year she had proposed that she and Shaw should marry.." or even that she proposed marriage?
 * I'll stick with the wording as it is, I think. Changing to "proposed marriage" would make it theoretically ambiguous; the present wording makes it clear who was marrying whom.  Tim riley  talk    20:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Stage success: 1900–14
 * "Antony and Cleopatra, seen in New York in 1906 and in London in 1907" -- in London the following year?
 * "Pygmalion, written in 1912 and staged in Vienna in 1913" -- in Vienna the following year?
 * Both done. The second is particularly smoother now.  Tim riley  talk    20:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks thus far. Mostly these are for Tim to deal with. Brianboulton (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Schrocat
There are a few others working on the prose at the moment, so I've busied myself over the last day or so in going through the extensive references. I've made a few tweaks to a couple of minor bit of formatting (mostly putting pp instead of p), but a few others too. I'll carry on with the refs for a while yet, just to let the others sort themselves out, but one comment for you to deal with in the meantime:


 * There is a journal entry (Berst, Charles (1999). "Two by Shaw". Shaw: The Annual of Bernard Shaw Studies) which isn't used and should probably be removed
 * Now gone Brianboulton (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

More to come, on this very impressive work. – SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Footnotes
 * FNs 46, 232: needs italics
 * FNs 108, 109, 263, 266, 292, 311, 312: needs commas for consistency with other newspapers refs
 * All fixed now Brianboulton (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Books
 * Feinberg needs a state
 * Griffith needs a location
 * Kamm's location could be clarified a little more
 * Ditto Tyson (Not sure is that's in the US or elsewhere)
 * Kaufmann needs a location
 * As does Tyson
 * All fixed (plus one or two more problems I spotted) Brianboulton (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Shaw's writings
 * Common Sense: It's odd seeing the NYT in unitalicised form: were they acting as publishers here?
 * Yes, they were. The template doesn't italicise publisher when there's a "work" field, but I've adjusted manually


 * "Irish nonsense about Ireland" would be good to have a page number, if possible
 * No page no. given in the source, but we have the link. Brianboulton (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "On the Rocks" should be italicised
 * Done Brianboulton (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry these are all petty and nit-picky, but that's the nature of the beast! More to come soonest. – SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for carrying out this tiresome chore –further comments welcome of course. Brianboulton (talk) 14:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Finishing off the nit-picking around the sources...


 * Journals
 * Something has gone wrong with the characters used in "Dukore, Bernard '; et al."
 * I've got rid of the stray apostrophe, but the semicolon seems to be a function of the template, and I can't get rid of it. Perhaps you can? Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Newspapers
 * There are several without page refs which could probably be dug up (particularly the UK press)
 * Well, as Tim added all these, I'll leave that one to him! Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The page numbers were all there when I wrote those bits, with straightforward citations. It's that damned, clodhopping, vile sfn system of persecution and torture that has buggered them up. Never again! I'll try to add the page numbers again if I can penetrate the horrible barbed wire entanglement of the templates. John XI:35!   Tim riley  talk    21:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And now done.  Tim riley  talk    08:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Is the title of the newspaper "The Standard 1894" for the "Avenue Theatre" reference? I think a location may be useful for this – I presume London, but may be worth a little clarification
 * No, just The Standard. Year deleted, location added. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Some of those for which you've provided links have Retrieved dates, others don't. The MoS doesn't proscribe either way for dated news reports, but it should be consistent throughout.
 * The (supposed) consistency is to provide retrieval dates when the link goes to a copy of the article, rather than to a facsimile of the original. I will check that this has been done. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * A location for "Fun" should be provided (so to speak…)
 * Done. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Online
 * Is there a reason the Gove "Shaw, Bernard" is not in italics, but in quote marks, but the various DNB works are without the marks, but with italics?
 * The Grove "Shaw, Bernard" is correct and the others were wrong, now fixed; these are articles in online publications where the titles are nmot italicised. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll be back soon to make a start on the prose. Cheers – SchroCat – &#39;&#39;Hapus Dydd Gŵyl Dewi&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your efforts. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Sadads
Generally, I agree with most of the comments above: great article, a number of small moments of fixing. I will focus mostly on two major critiques from my perspective:
 * 1) First  the critical discussion about Shaw is largely tied to the genres and the historical progression of his work -- but there are passing reference to macro-themes in his works which go across his works, but your coverage is almost purely on his beliefs (primarily in "Beliefs and opinions", though hinting at themes in his works ) or sporadically throughout. Part of me really wants to understand "What are the major ways in which critics talk about either the clusters of works that you already talk about as natural thematic/historical groupings?" or "How have critics made sense of Shaw's works as a whole or in groups?"
 * 2) Related, but slightly different: the Legacy and reputation section feels very superficial, he is both important in literary education, and far as I can tell, has had a lot of influence over literary figures in both the Irish and the American context -- at the very least, I would like to see more about strategies for teaching about him --- but I get the impression there has to be a sense of both how his works have been performed (what strategies are common in the theatre when doing performances of his works) and "how" they have adapted or appropriated (what strategies do they use in other genres, or different styles of work, how they recieved, to what extent they were influential). Right now this section feels very listy, not giving me the deep answers I want.

Having not read much of the scholarship, I cannot say if these patterns exist -- but considering the visibility and importance of Shaw, I would think there is a good bit of material working towards both of these points. Let me know if I need to clarify, Sadads (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for these thoughtful comments, to which Tim and I will give careful consideration. I this point I'll just say a couple of things: I am dubious about his long-term influence influence on Irish literature, since he was never part of the Irish tradition in the way that, say, Yeats, Joyce or O'Casey were. We can certainly say more about Shaw's general influence over British and American drama, but to discuss "strategies for teaching about him" is possibly beyond the scope of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Later: Apologies for the delay in providing a detailed reply to your comments, which Tim and I have been discussing.


 * We had some difficulty in interpreting your specimen question "What are the major ways in which critics talk about either the clusters of works that you already talk about as natural thematic/historical groupings?" which seems syntactically incomplete, but in any event our article is written primarily for the general reader, rather than for the literature specialist to whom your question seems primarily relevant. This article seeks to describe who Shaw was, what he did in his various fields of activity, and to summarise his legacy in broad terms. No doubt there are many subarticles that could be written about aspects of Shaw's life and works, in which a greater degree of in-depth analysis would be appropriate. But this summary has to be kept within certain bounds, to avoid undue length – a real problem when the subject's prolific career extended over 70 years.


 * Your comment that the Legacy section seemed superficial has been accepted and addressed. We have substantially increased the material dealing with Shaw's literary legacy, and have reduced or eliminated  less important material. I'm afraid that a certain amount of "listiness" in such summaries is inevitable; you can't write about Shaw's influence on later playwrights without saying who these people were. But we hope the section as rewritten gives a more balanced appraisal of Shaw's importance, while remaining accessible to the general reader.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Closing review
I add my thanks to Brian's for the comments from Sadads, above, and those from the earlier contributors to the review. The article has been substantially strengthened as a result, and we are now closing the peer review and nominating the article as a Featured Article candidate. Comments on that page will be most welcome. –  Tim riley  talk    12:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)