Wikipedia:Peer review/Hugh Walpole/archive1

Hugh Walpole
This peer review discussion has been closed.. Hugh Walpole may possibly be the English author of the 20th century whose reputation with critics and the public has fallen from the highest to the lowest point. Immensely popular in the 1920s and 30s, his appeal seemingly died with him in 1941. In truth though I have enjoyed, and been impressed by, some of his works when reading up for this article, some of his stuff doesn't leap off the page. But the man himself seems to me uncommonly interesting and well worth a Featured Article, whither I hope to get him. All comments on prose, pictures, balance, comprehensiveness or anything else will be gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: I have not added an info-box, as I think it would be otiose, but comments pro or con would be gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto comments
I'll make a start but in bits and pieces I'm afraid, lede comes last, oh, and no to the infobox as it's use will add nothing that the lede can't convey.

Cambridge, Liverpool and teaching
 * "As an undergraduate he met, and fell under the spell of, A C Benson, formerly a greatly-loved master at Eton, and by now a don at Magdalene College. Walpole was distressed at finding his religious beliefs slipping away..." "Walpole was distressed at finding his religious beliefs slipping away", who? Walpole or Benson?
 * Good point. Redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "...Cambridge in 1906 he took a post in 1906" -- Year given twice.
 * Done. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "...and on his mother's Richard Harris Barham, author of The Ingoldsby Legends. It was as an author that he felt..." -- Walpole presumably?
 * Indeed, and amended. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "He moved to London and found work writing book reviews for The Standard, writing fiction in his spare time..." -- Is there a way of using "writing" only the once?
 * Done. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Early literary career
 * "The novelist and biographer Michael Sadleir writes that though some others of the six novels..." -- Could we do without "others" here?
 * Done. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

First World War
 * "As war approached, Walpole realised that his poor eyesight disqualified him from serving in the armed forces." -- Why does "As war approached, Walpole realised that his poor eyesight would disqualify him from serving in the armed forces" feel more natural to say?
 * Your version is much better, and I have adopted it. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Legacy
 * We call Kenneth Clark a Sir, but according to the quote this would have been 1941. Clark's WP article states he was knighted in the 1950s, so his title here maybe a little premature.
 * I haven't looked at the WP article but Clark was definitely given the KCB in 1938, and was "Sir Kenneth" from then till he was made a life peer much later. (I'll check his WP article later to make sure it's accurate.) Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC) (Later: checked the Clark article, which has a not very helpful list of titles, but correctly has his KCB as 1938. No remedial action needed. Tim riley (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC))

Reputation
 * ""We see Mr. Walpole grappling with the truth of things spiritual and material with his characteristic earnestness, and we can discern the characteristics of this acute and sympathetic explorer of human nature." -- Firstly, was this quote taken from an American source, as suggested by the full stop between "Mr" and "Walpole"? Secondly, we seem to be missing closing quote marks.
 * Added closing quotes. The full stop was the usual BrEng style until the mid to late 1960s when we started to get rid of them in titles and initials. I have left them in place for all quotations that contained them in the original, as in the block quote from A C Benson at "Cambridge, Liverpool and teaching".

Notes
 * Note 2 – Missing a closing full stop and citation.
 * Note 5 – Missing a closing full stop.
 * Note 10 – Missing a closing quote mark.
 * Note 14 – Missing a closing full stop.
 * All punct amended. I don't think Note 2 needs a citation, as the work one would cite is mentioned in the text of the note, but I can certainly add one if wanted. To speak truth, I lifted this note from the Benjamin Britten article where it survived FAC without challenge for lack of citation, so I think I may be all right. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

References
 * 35 – replace hyphen for endash.
 * 108 – We use a semi colon and "and"
 * 116 – Keep closing full stops consistent.
 * You have eagle eyes, and I'm most grateful. Duly amended.

Wonderful stuff as always Tim, ping me when you arrive at FAC. --  Cassianto Talk   03:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for those points. I'd never have spotted some of them if I'd reread my text a hundred times. Many thanks, Cassianto. I'll certainly let you know when I go to FAC. Tim riley (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

SchroCat
I've made a few minor tweaks here and there: feel free to revert anything you don't like. A few suggestions for you below—accept or ignore as you wish:

Early literary career First World War Reputation Riveting reading, as always. I'll give it another read in day or two, just to see if there if anything I've missed. All the best – SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Walpole's biographer Rupert Hart-Davis": we already know this, with the same wording used in the "Early years" section.
 * Good point. Done. Tim riley (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "He volunteered for the British army, but, as expected, failed": expected by who? Jampton or others?
 * Everyone, really. I think I'll leave this unless others also boggle. Tim riley (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Walpole gained credit for being one of the few literary figures": who gave such credit?
 * Very good point indeed. I must research or redraw. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Later: checked against the source and lightly redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "defence of The Well of Loneliness": perhaps a footnote to stop readers going off to visit the page and interrupt their reading of this page?
 * Excellent idea. Will do. Tim riley (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for these points. I shall go and rummage in the sources in re your googly. Tim riley (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton
Excellent and informative work. I have a few comments:


 * Lead


 * Perhaps the one thing missing in an otherwise excellent summary is the fact that, for all is lifetime success, HW is now almost totally forgotten (I believe that my parents' generation were probably the last to rate him as an author). His slide into obscurity is hinted at in the "Reputation" section, but a line would be appropriate here.
 * I think the last line of the lead probably makes this point clear. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Early years


 * "two years after the birth of the couple's daughter" – perhaps name Dorothy here rather than later?
 * Yes. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder how much of the following is actually necessary: "The family returned to England, where Mildred Walpole and the children remained throughout the winter while Walpole senior took up his post in America. In 1890 his wife and children joined him". Nothing lost, in my view, by moving the narrative straight from Auckland to New York.
 * Good point. Expunged. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The last sentence of the second para is more naturally an introduction to the third para, after a little rephrasing.
 * Done. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "In 1896 Somerset Walpole discovered the truth about the Marlow school..." You might modify this slightly presumptive wording, as the school still exists and might dispute quid est veritas
 * Done. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Cambridge, Liverpool and teaching


 * Perhaps a few words as to why/how HW was such a failure in Liverpool?
 * Done. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * First World War


 * It's uber-nitpicking, but four successive sentences in the final paragraph begin "He..." – some variation should be possible.
 * Not at all uber - just what's needed. Done. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Post-war and 1920s


 * You don't give a date for HW's meeting with Hitler, but if it was post 1924, Hitler was far from "unknown" then, following the failed Beer Hall putsch and his imprisonment for almost all of 1924. Also, was he really a "protegé" of Winifred Wagner? Hitler first met the Wagners in October 1923, just before the putsch, when he was already leader of the NSDAP. Also she was nearly 10 years younger than Hitler. It seems more likely that the Wagners fell for the charm and charisma of a young leader who was clearly "going places", and had no need of their patronage.
 * Redrawn, but with a different angle from the above. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Brackenburn", as a house name, should be in quotes
 * Really? Looks very odd when I try it. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Was the relationship with Cheevers chaste?
 * Pass. If you see through my cunning smokescreen of innumerable one-hit citations you will detect that the whole article is based on Hart-Davis's 1952 book, which is exquisite in its discretion, but leaves one at a loss about the nature of Walpole's relations with the (then) unmarried Melchior, and at least two others before Harold. Not that important, perhaps. They were devoted to one another, so...
 * 1930–41


 * It would be interesting to know how HW became a bit-part Hollywood actor; I'm surprised that the studio would award a role to an untrained non-actor when there must have been hundreds of real actors desperate to break into films. Is there some story behind this?
 * The whole of Hollywood seems to have operated on the whims of a few moguls. Harold Cheevers was given a bit part in a different film while they were there. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Advancing age"? The bloke was mid-fifties, for God's sake! Where does that put the likes of me (and you)?
 * Pipe and slippers, and quite right too. Such undignified shenanigans should be left to the young. But redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nice to see old Driberg getting a mention. His own account of the "sexual encounter" is rather more lurid than yours, I must say.
 * Quite so. I sent my draft of this article for comment to a non-Wiki literary friend, who blue-pencilled my line, "He was frustrated at his failure to enter the military", saying it would have been quite the other way about if Driberg is to be believed. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The reference to the "Herries" novels in the last paragraph is the first mention in the article of this series. Bearing in mind that they are among HW's more notable works, perhaps an earlier mention of when the series began would be appropriate.
 * Definitely. What can I have been thinking of? Now done. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Influences


 * There is no citation for Priestley's view in the first paragraph concerning the influences of Trollope and Dostoyevsky.
 * Done. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The implication that there were no historical novels after Scott until Walpole revived the genre seems a little far-fetched
 * Redrawn
 * Reputation


 * "Wodehouse was not a great admirer" – need to specify of whom.
 * Done.
 * The reference to The Well of Loneliness needs a little further explanation.
 * Done.
 * Biographies


 * Dedication to "Dorothy, Robin and Harold", Walpole's sister, brother, and long-term companion – earlier you name the brother as "Robert".
 * Clarified at first mention - Dorothea/Dorothy and Robert/Robin - family names.
 * List of works


 * Just a thought: the list is extensive enough to form a subarticle, which would provide the opportunity to include publisher information. Maybe worth thinking about?
 * Very well worth. An excellent idea, which I'll put into practice before going to FAC. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This already has the hallmark of a future FA, and I see few hindrances to its elevation. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Postscript: I mentioned at some earlier stage that Cardus had Walpole as a member of Sir John Squire's "Author's Cricket XI". Cardus's account of a particular match is hilarious – I dare say you have it, but in case not: Squire informs Cardus "Old Hugh Walpole is in my team, and although his latest novel is hardly up to form still he's done some good stuff in his particular school, though personally I think his books are too long". The match itself proceeds chaotically, and eventually "even Hugh Walpole was asked to bowl, and after trying his right arm discovered he could do better with his left". I think Cardus probably made it all up, and I'm not suggesting any of this should be in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is Walpole on HC in 1932: "Only one human being in my time has won public renown by writing about Cricket. Mr Nevil (sic) Candus (sic), and even his mellifluous phrases are by now a little monotonous perhaps." (A privately-published book that plainly suffered from the lack of Macmillan's eagle-eyed Walpole editor.) Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your many suggestions, above, all of much benefit to the article. I am in your debt. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Loeba
Right, I think you wanted a thorough review?! Most of these are matter of personal taste, the article is very good as it is, and it's entirely up to you whether you adopt them or not. Stopping there for now, back soon... -- Loeba (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * Personally I think the first two sentences of the final paragraph would be useful in the first paragraph (introducing readers to the sort of writer he was), and then maybe the current first sentences could be moved down to the second para...it's entirely up to you though. I know some people prefer the lead to follow the article's structure. I always like a clear introductory paragraph, but it comes down to a personal choice.
 * Worth pondering. I'll experiment. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Russian-Austrian front" > link Eastern Front (World War I)?
 * Yes, I think so. I'll read the article first, but it looks relevant. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "In the 1920s and 1930s Walpole was much in demand" > "in high demand"?
 * A matter of personal style, I suppose. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be worth clarifying what he lectured in (I'm guessing literature?)
 * Mostly literature, yes. Will mention. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Having as a young man eagerly sought the patronage of established authors such as James, he was in his later years a generous sponsor of many younger authors" > A bit of a mouthful, is some rewording possible?
 * I want to make the contrast clear, but am open to alternative suggested wording. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Patron" and "patronage" come rather close together.
 * So they do. Shall amend. Tim riley (talk)
 * Should probably spell out Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
 * Not persuaded, but don't object and will do. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Early years
 * Para 2 currently ends without a citation.
 * So it does. I moved a sentence pursuant to an earlier suggestion. Will attend to. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "In 1896 Somerset Walpole discovered what his son felt about the Marlow school" - Maybe "...Walpole learned of his son's hatred for the Marlow School"?
 * Shall redraw. "Horror of", I think. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "He drew on aspects of them for his cathedral city of Polchester in Glebeshire, the setting of many of his later books" - Would be clearer to mention that this was a setting before hand, or maybe just inserting "his fictional cathedral city".
 * "Fictional" will do. I dithered about this when drafting, and am happy to add it. Tim riley (talk);Cambridge, Liverpool and teaching
 * "and by now a don at Magdalene College" - Personally I'm really not keen on jumping to the present tense like this.
 * "then" would read rather oddly, I think. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "by then a don" would read far better IMO, everything else is in the past tense after all. But it's up to you. -- Loeba (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Redrawn in past tense. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Walpole was undergoing a crisis of faith; his religious beliefs, hitherto an unquestioned part of his life, were fading. Benson helped him through that personal crisis." Is there a way to avoid the repetition of "crisis"?
 * Good point. Shall ponder. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The first quotation from Benson is perhaps longer than necessary? I wonder if the final sentence could be trimmed, especially since we are told immediately after, "Benson gently forbade Walpole's advances."
 * Yes. I have been thinking rather the same myself. Shall prune. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "It was as an author that Walpole felt impelled to make his career." I found this wording a bit awkward.
 * Turning it about would shift the emphasis too much, I think. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Erm, something like "Authorship was Walpole's career aspiration"? I don't know, just a suggestion! -- Loeba (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "to whom he was intimately attached for a while from 1910 onwards." - "for a while" feels a bit casual.
 * True, but the snag is that HW usually remained good friends with his exes and we don't know when he and Anderson ceased to be an item. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "for some time"? -- Loeba (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, good. Done. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Early literary career
 * If you'll allow me to get really nitpicky, we have two consecutive sentences that start similarly: "A correspondence ensued..." "A close friendship developed..."
 * Good. Will amend. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "resembling a father and son relationship in some respects, though not all" - A bit tautologous - I think the fact that it was in "some aspects" already tells us that it wasn't in all aspects.
 * I tried it without when writing this para, and concluded that without the extra words here the later statement about HJ's expressions of ardent devotion would come as a bit of a facer. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "are of interest as examples of the author's developing style" - Suggest "are interesting as examples of"
 * Not sure one is better than the other. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well just to tighten the wording... -- Loeba (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I'll pass on that one, I think. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Could one of the reviews for Mr Perrin afford to be cut?
 * I think each tells a different story: pro, con and overseas. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally I would just state outright that the book was based on Epsom school, rather than introducing this fact through the Guardian review.
 * I originally did, but this way round flowed better, I found. Otherwise one has to mention the school twice. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was suggesting that the Guardian reference doesn't need to be made, but no worries if you like it. -- Loeba (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "but it was an early illustration of his capacity, noted by Benson, for unthinkingly giving offence though being hypersensitive to criticism aimed in his direction" - Would benefit from being simplified, I think.
 * Will do. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "It was a huge article, so long that it had to be spread across two issues of the Supplement in March and April 1914.[n 7] James said that agreeing to write it had been "an insensate step"" - I wonder if this is necessary? Perhaps this could all be condensed to "In early 1914 James wrote an article for The Times Literary Supplement surveying the younger generation of British novelists and comparing them with their eminent elder contemporaries. The four new authors on whom he focused were Walpole, Gilbert Cannan, Compton Mackenzie and D H Lawrence. The article was of great benefit to Walpole: one of the greatest living authors had publicly ranked him among Britain's finest young novelists."
 * It isn't strictly necessary, but this was a key point in HW's career and I think it is helpful to give plenty of background. Someone who kindly read the draft offline actually suggested I move the Priestley footnote into the main text. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * First World War
 * It would be useful to give a brief description of Konstantin in the image caption (like all the other images have) so that "scanners" can glean his connection to Walpole.
 * Good idea. It will have to be circumspect, though, as once again we can guess but don't know the nature of their relationship. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Link Cross of Saint George?
 * Excellent. Shall do. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On account of all the information here, I wonder if he should be introduced in the lead as "an author and civil servant", or something similar? Seems like a major part of his life.
 * I think that would be giving the reader an unbalanced picture of HW's career. He was only a wartime civil servant, and for just over three years in total. Tim riley (talk)
 * Yes you're right, that's fine. It's just as I was reading the section that it all felt very important, but it's true that 3 years in the role isn't much in the long run. -- Loeba (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Post-war and 1920s
 * Again, we aren't told what he was lecturing in.
 * The first mention will cover this. Shall do. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The plot summary for The Cathedral is a bit long, I think we could lose "while at the same time the downtrodden Mrs Brandon rejects him and takes a lover" (I know you're trying to convey the gloominess of the novel, but I think the first part of the sentence is enough?)
 * You're right, I think. I'll redraw to tighten this up. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would hurt to give Wagner's full name. Hitler gets his full name, after all.
 * "Richard Wagner" would look odd here, I think. Not sure why; probably because he was dead and Hitler wasn't (unfortunately). – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The image caption could be nicely extended to mention the scenery's influence on Walpole's writing.
 * Good idea. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "The critic James Agate commented that one might think from some of Walpole's stories that their author had created the English Lakes, but that he was probably only consulted about them." - I find this comment a bit odd? The meaning of the last part is lost on me...
 * Just Agate's little joke. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we know if Cheevers was a sexual partner? This is implied but not said outright. Maybe no-one knows for sure, given how secretive they needed to be, but if they were definitely lovers I think this should be said explicitly.
 * Alas, we have no idea. They were certainly devoted to one another, but the only contemporary biographer, Hart-Davis, was totally discreet about HW's private life. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Some really excellent points there. I look forward to the rest of your comments in due season. – Tim riley (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I admit that I'd never heard of this Walpole, but he was a very interesting man and I really enjoyed the article. Great work Tim! -- Loeba (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1930-41
 * Again, we give the acronym "MGM" without giving the full name first, which goes against MOS:ACRO. (As a sidenote, I've been meaning to watch that David Copperfield for a while, and now feel that I definitely need to check it out!)
 * MGM expanded. I haven't seen the film for years, and certainly don't recall HW's cameo. I remember having an occasional desire to clip Freddie Bartholomew round the ear, and (hush!) I think the great W C Fields was miscast as Micawber, lacking the faded gentility of Dickens's character. But it's about the best Dickens film I know, for all that. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC) Afterthought: No it isn't. Lean's Great Expectations is, but David C is a runner-up. Tim riley (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen Freddie Bartholomew in Captains Couragoues and he certainly is annoying! But I've always been intrigued to see Fields in a Dickensian role...the Walpole cameo sounds amusing. I vote for Lean's Oliver Twist by the way. -- Loeba (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Legacy
 * Could be nice to name a few of the most prominent writers that received Walpole's help?
 * Yes. I'll add a footnote. Good idea. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Influences
 * "in much of the later writer's fiction" - Is this meant to be "latter"?
 * No, "later" is what I meant. Trying to point up the apostolic succession, you know. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reputation
 * "write works the equal of those of Trollope" - Again for the sake of tightening, suggest "write works equal to those of"
 * Redrawn. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much indeed for your time and hard work on this review. You realise, I hope, that the more you do such top-notch reviews the more people will be banging on your door asking you to do yet another? I know I shall. Bless you! Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well it's nice to know that what I worry is "being picky" is construed as "top notch"! Let me know when the article is at FAC. -- Loeba (talk) 17:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Closing peer review, with grateful thanks to the contributors, above. Tim riley (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)