Wikipedia:Peer review/Talbot Baines Reed/archive1

Talbot Baines Reed
This peer review discussion has been closed.

Although little known today, until the 1950s Talbot Baines Reed's name was well-recognised, particularly in English middle-class households, as the sine qua non of school story writers. My father would have known all about him, and my grandfather certainly did – I have some well-thumbed, inherited books which grandpa must have read lovingly in the 1900s or thereabouts. Reed is typical of a kind of Victorian Englishman – industrious, high-minded, multi-talented, successful – that today evokes either admiration or a desire to deliver a sharp punch on the nose. See which way you feel, by reading about him, then tell me how I can improve the story. With many thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments from Jappalang


 * "The Earlsfield Chronicle", "Old and New Fashions in Typography", "On the Use and Classification of a Typographical Library"
 * Should these not be in italics instead?
 * The Earlsfield Chronicle was a family magazine, not a regular periodical, but I have now given it the honour of italics. However, WP:ITALICS does not list academic papers among the titles requiring italicisation.


 * "... was supported by the leading London printers ..."
 * I think the definite article is redundant.
 * Removed


 * "... retired from the business through ill-health."
 * "... retired from the business because of ill-health."?
 * Agreed


 * "... by no mean ..."
 * "... by no means ..."?
 * Yup, well spotted.


 * "In a recent biographical sketch, ..."
 * Be precise (ten years later, how "recent" would it be?).
 * Now dated, 2004


 * "... the boating accident, the group rivalries, the noble friendships.", "... the popular games master, the dry pedant, the generally comic domestic staff."
 * No "and"?
 * I think in this context (a partial listing) the "and" is optional. The same issue arisies in the next sentence; my stylistic preference is to omit the "ands".


 * "From Reed onwards the fictional boarding school, peopled by such as these, was almost invariably represented in terms of "dark passages, iron bedsteads, scratched desks, chill dormitories and cosy, shabby studies"."
 * Might I suggest "Reed established a theme in literary circles where the fictional boarding school was peopled by such characters and was almost invariably represented in terms of "dark passages, iron bedsteads, scratched desks, chill dormitories and cosy, shabby studies"."?
 * I would not include "in literary circles", which has an inappropriate high culture connotation. Also I think "tradition" rather than "theme". Otherwise I have adopted your wording.


 * "... at the foundry, and his prolific ..."
 * The comma seems redundant.
 * Agreed


 * "The grave in Abney Park was eventually surmounted by a memorial stone in the style of a Celtic cross;"
 * Any source on when this happened?
 * Unfortunately not; none of the biographical sources seem to mention it. I only knew about it because of the Find-a-grave information and image that were on the stub article. I will see what I can find out, but I'm not very hopeful.

The above are mostly minor issues; this article is a most fascinating read and FA-worthy. Jappalang (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments which I have very largely taken aboard. Most helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments from Laser brain
 * The Richards URL just goes to the Oxford DNB main page. Is that deliberate? I'm not sure of the convention, but do we normally indicate for the reader that they would have to enter credentials and then search for the subject?
 * The convention is to indicate in the reference that a subscription is required to access the article page. I have now added this to the ref. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly the smallest nitpick of all time, as it involves one pixel, but is it "B.O.P" with or without the terminal period? I see it both ways here. In the publication's own article, no period. In other sources, it's variously referred to with all periods or none (BOP).
 * Good point, actually. I followed the convention used by Cox in his history of the paper, which includes the terminal period (though I slipped up on a couple). I have now rectified this
 * Same comment for "M.P." really. In any British press, I've always seen it written "MP" as it is in the caption for Charles Reed's portrait. (This may have been Jappalang's addition?)
 * I think you are right; "MP" is the normal format, and I have changed to this.
 * "Eventually he became Hackney's Member of Parliament" Why continue to write out when you've given us "M.P." above? (Jappalang?)
 * Amended
 * "The Earlsfield Chronicle": why quotes and not italics? Where can I get a copy? I'd like to peruse "Is total abstinence a moral duty?"
 * I have italicised the Chronicle, per Jappalang above. As to where you can find a copy, well, it wasn't a magazine in general circulation. Maybe the Reed library at the St Bride Foundation has some copies. From what I have gathered about Reed, I imagine his take on the abstinence question would have been "No way, José!", though expressed in suitable Victorian language. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "The connection with Ireland was of enduring importance to Reed, and the family's annual holidays were regularly spent on the shores of Lough Swilly in County Donegal." Would you object to removing the passive in favor of "and the family regularly spent annual holidays on the shores"?
 * Good suggestion, adopted. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "As well as his heavy schedule of duties at the foundry" I think "In addition to" may flow better.
 * I hate "In addition to"; I don't like "As well as", either, but what can a poor fella do? I've changed it to "Alongside..." How does that sound? Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Works for me. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  16:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Some smoothing over is needed of your strategy for logical quotation. Overall, it looks like you only favor the "inside" period when the quotation is a full sentence ending in a period, but the last sentence of "Private life" betrays that.
 * Another fine spot, corrected.
 * "Reed generally enjoyed vigorous good health." What is "generally" modifying?
 * I meant it to mean that Reed was usually in good health. Does it not convey that meaning? Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine after reading it again this morning—no worries. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  16:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You never link to school story that I can see—editorial decision? The term is virtually unknown in the States.
 * Now linked in the lead and the School stories section. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Overall a very nice page. Thanks for the opportunity to read it—I enjoyed learning about "school stories" and will be off now to read a few. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  01:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thnks for your comments. You can read all Reed's school stories if you use the links in the article's Bibliography section. Happy reading. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments from Kudpug
 * Opinions are split across several MOS and essays on inline sourcing of lead sections. I  came across some items where  I  would have wanted to  check  the source immediately, even though  they  receive further attention  later:
 * •and was dismissive of those school story writers: (perhaps also adding 'early school story  writers…)
 * •was widely imitated by other writers in the school story genre. (explained in ref 33)
 * •and was hailed as the standard work on the subject (probably  explained in  ref 34)
 * I have always followed the practice, favoured by the great majority of featured articls, of not citing summary statements in the lead which are cited in the main text. As you say, opinions differ on this; I would cite a direct quotation, but not otherwise. I have adopted your suggestion that the word "early" be added. Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Family background: Grammatical  inconstancy; The family  were descendants…  The family  was based in…  your choice, but  perhaps one or the other.
 * Reworded, thanks.


 * Death and Legacy: I'm  not  sure about  this,  but  isn't  consumption  just  another word for TB?
 * No, "consumption" was an all-embracing Victorian term which was used for all respiratory diseases and other undiagnosed illnesses including cancer. The term does not have a specific medical meaning. Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I also  found it a very  nice reed (pun intended) and I'm glad you brought it to my attention,  BOP  was a firm favourite in  the library  of my  boarding  schools. I wonder if Buckeridge or Hamilton  took  their cues (clues?) from Reed.--Kudpung (talk) 02:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have deliberately avoided the pun ("Please reed this article" etc) and now you have done it. Ah well... Yes, Richards/Hamilton's stories are close relations of Reed's (the first Magnet appeared in 1908, only 15 years after Reed's death), and TBR would probably have enjoyed them, despite their irreverence. Buckeridge's "Jennings" stories are much more distantly related since they were still appearing in the 1990s. Many thanks for your comments. Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I greatly enjoyed this article. My modest gleanings:
 * Comments from Tim riley
 * Family background
 * "also a hymn-writer of some note" – it may just be me but I find "note" in this sense breaks flow when used about songwriters et al. (One wonders for a instant – well, I do – what the note is, until the brain catches up with the eye)
 * OK, it's "repute" now, and I've absorbed some of the footnote into the text. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Early life
 * The information that his schoolmaster was a Mr Alderton seems a touch gratuitous. I wonder if knowing the chap's name adds anything here?
 * Just using info from the sources, but you're right, it doesn't add anything, therefore deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "claiming that one of his few successes" – I have been Fowlered into using "claim" sparingly, and only when some assertion of right or status is in question (i.e. not to use it as a synonym for "assert")
 * OK, altered. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "and had an engaging style of writing" – could this perhaps do with its own citation?
 * It is covered by ref 7 at the paragraph's end. Since [7] is also the immediately preceding citation, to include it again might look like over-referencing. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "continue for the rest of his professional life" – later (second para of next section) you just say for the rest of his life, which is shorter and better, meseems.
 * Fine, done.


 * Boy's Own Paper
 * "under the selected title of Boy's Own Paper"- oughtn't this to have the definite article?
 * Absolutely, done.


 * "who had not himself attended boarding school" – without wishing to be too Nancy Mitfordish about it, I think "attended a boarding school" would be preferable
 * Again, done.


 * School Stories
 * Pace Isabel Quigly, I don't think you'd get a majority for the proposition that Reed was a better writer of school stories than P. G. Wodehouse.
 * I don't think Quigly considered Wodehouse a "follower" or "imitator" of Reed. He was in a different class. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I find, on skimming through the inordinate number of books about Wodehouse on my shelves, that the maestro praised Reed, having read him avidly when young. The great PGW authority, Richard Usborne, cites Reed as one of the influences on Wodehouse's first major character, Psmith. Details to hand if you're interested; not in the least miffed if you aren't. Tim riley (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Private life
 * "his elder brother, The Rev. Charles Reed" – upper case T needed for the definite article?
 * I think you fixed this.


 * Death and legacy
 * "what was identified at the time as "consumption", but was probably pulmonary tuberculosis" – isn't that what consumption always meant? Whenever I read of a Victorian's suffering from consumption I always assume it's TB, but perhaps I assume too much. (Later: I've just spotted Kudpung's comment and your response, above. I leave my comment as drawn, because if two of your peer reviewers both make the same assumption, perhaps most of your readers will too. Changing "but" to "and" would do the trick, I think.)
 * OK, but = and. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Fortune – I have lately been told on what looks to me to be good authority (User_talk:Fifelfoo) that wills etc are better compared with present values using the average earnings index rather than consumer prices.
 * This is contentious, and I am not always in agreement with Fifelfoo's take on present values, but I will give the matter some further thought. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That's my lot. – Tim riley (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review; as you can see, I have adopted almost all your points. Brianboulton (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Just one quick comment: I don't know what they're doing at FAC these days, but I don't think it makes sense to have a heading "References" followed by a subheading "References" for the in-line footnotes. How about "Sources" instead of the 2nd "References"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * From Ssilvers
 * Good point; I should have spotted this. The main heading should be (and now is) "Notes and references", with the two subheadings following. I have used this format over umpteen FACs, so I reckon it's acceptable. Thanks for noticing. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I enjoyed reading this and have a few nit-picky suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps and please let me know when this is at FAC. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In the lead, "only" may be seen as POV in  Reed died in November that year, aged only 41. (I am OK with it, but have seen similar comments in FAC recently)
 * In Family background, I know Hackney is linked, but would it be helpful to somehow indicate it is a part of London for those not as familiar with British geography?
 * In Early life, would it help to add the year to  Instead, [in YEAR] at the age of 17, Reed left the school to join the family firm at the Fann Street foundry, ...
 * I somehow expected there to be a bit more about his History of the Old English Letter Foundries. We are told it became a standard work and that it is "a memorial in a class by itself". I am not sure what else could be said of it, but I somehow reached the end of the article and was surprised there was not more on it.


 * Thank you for these comments, all of which I have attended to, in particular your request for more information on the Foundries book. There's not a lot to add, but I have included a brief description of the b ook's content/style. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)