Wikipedia:Peer review/The Temple at Thatch/archive1

The Temple at Thatch
This peer review discussion has been closed.

This rather slender specimen is in a new field for me, and I am anxious for any general feedback I can get. Some may think the subject-matter too slender, but I believe that Evelyn Waugh's first mature attempt at a novel, and the fate of this attempt, are matters of interest. I have included all the details that my research (mostly here, if you're interested) has revealed, and I don't think there's much more to be said that's relevant. However, I'd like other views on that, so please be unsparing. Thank you. Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Firstly, I don't believe EW ever met Eric Blair until long after this, or that they knew each other at all well at any point - see the Letters, where it is still "Dear Mr Orwell" until he is on his deathbed. Robert Byron would be a better substitution. Some of the notes repeat the full details in the references. Otherwise I expect you have squeezed all you can out of this. Next stop Philip Larkin's early schoolgirl epic?  Johnbod (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Blair (Orwell) was a mistake; he was an Eton contemporary of Acton, Connelly & Co, but he wasn't at Oxford and as far as I know never met Waugh, though they corresponded. I've dropped him. No, I won't be doing the Brunette Coleman stuff, though it's fun and I wish someone would. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd think they must have met at literary parties at some point, but it is hard to document. Sykes calls him a "friend" of EW, which seems excessive. Johnbod (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments It's nice to do an article where you're sure you are covering all of the material, isn't it? I looked around at the published material on this story and I only found what you found. If there is anything else, it is obscure. :) Here are the few thoughts I had.
 * After his friend Harold Acton commented unfavourably on the novel in June 1925, Waugh burned the manuscript. By his own account he then made a half-hearted suicide bid before returning to his senses. - What is the connection between these two events? The sentences don't explicitly lay it out.
 * I have linked the two events (depression caused by this rejection and other plans going wrong)


 * he produced a parody of Katherine Mansfield - "a parody of Katherine Mansfield's style of writing"?
 * "style", yes; "of writing" seems a bit heavy.


 * At Oxford, while leading a largely dissolute life, Waugh contributed regular articles, reviews and short stories to both the main university magazines, The Isis and The Cherwell - What made Waugh's life any more dissolute than any one else's at this time? Perhaps explaining what he did rather than labeling it "dissolute" would be better?
 * Reworded, "dissolute" removed.


 * The letter from Acton has not survived. The wording is as recalled by Waugh in A Little Learning - I would include these facts in the main body of the text - this seems quite significant to me as people often misremember criticism.
 * Good idea, done.


 * Is there any more information about the plot that you can give, perhaps in a tiny "Plot summary" (or "Plot reconstruction") section?
 * Not really. The longest "plot summary" we have is Waugh's one line in A Little Learning, which isn't really a plot summary at all. We have no idea of the plot that he was constructing around the basic premise, as given.


 * Which of Waugh's other works should be redlinked in the article?
 * I doubt whether any of Waugh's juvenila or undergraduate stories will ever acquire articles of their own, although Early works of Evelyn Waugh would make a great article, and I'd even consider doing this myself. An article on "The Balance" would I think be merged with this one. I have added a (blue) link on Vile Bodies; that's about all. No redlinks justified, I'd say.

I did a teensy bit of copyediting while reading. Please revert anything you don't like. Awadewit (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for giving your time to this review, which has helped significantly to improve the article. Your copyedits are fine, too. Brianboulton (talk) 10:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking this over.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments. Not many.  This is very plainly an article in which the author has very limited information to work with.  That's not a detriment, it is simply invevitable under the circumstances.

I notice that a number of Waugh's contemporaries, as he had forseeen, went on to careers which were at least prominent enough to make them notable on Wikipedia. I would give some thought to the occasional "future so and so", just so the reader knows who some of these people are without clicking, especially if they had an effect on Waugh's actions. Acton, for example, though that might be tough given that he is best known for what he was not.
 * Acton et al are already described as "future writers and critics of eminence" which is I believe enough to identify them in readers' minds. As to Acton, what can you say about a man who writes a book called The Indian Ass?
 * "The first indication that Waugh was contemplating a novel appears in a letter dated May 1924," Indication?  I'm not sure if that is the best word but I'm not coming up with a clearly better alternative.  This is merely the earliest known references.  Perhaps consider striking the first indication language and beginning with the fact about the letter.
 * Reworded


 * If Waugh was in the final weeks of his Oxford career as he contemplated the novel, some more exposition on what was going on "in real life" for Waugh as he wrote the fragment might be helpful to the reader.
 * I dare say that what was going on was what went on for much of Waugh's Oxford life: parties, drink, sodomy – but I don't think the detail is particularly required here. He started the book because, in his perception, his friends were making names for themselves and he wasn't.


 * " he confides to his diary that it is "in serious danger of becoming dull", and expresses doubts that it will ever be finished." I would put these clauses in the past tense.  I would doublecheck to ensure that similar clauses and sentences are also in the past tense.  I've done the same thing and then had people complain at FAC.
 * This is always a tricky one. The "literary present" can be difficult to justify sometimes. I'll do a check.


 * "It was a misfired jeu d'esprit." Should not the French words be in italics?  And is translation in order?  I understand enough French to understand the words, but I'm guessing this is an idiom.
 * I've italicised, and added a definition in the footnote.


 * You might want to say if he successfully withdrew his resignation at Arnold House, although that is small beer to the rest of his career.
 * He left the school, and returned to London. Material added to that effect.


 * I would consider merging "The Balance" into either the preceding or following sections.
 * It was initially part of "Aftereffects", but that made that section rather long. I think the story is worth its own section, and will leave it thus unless there are monumental objections.

A good effort. Comprehensive and shows little sign of the thinness of the sources it is based on. It is hard to write cohesively on a subject where sources are meager and not really concentrating on this, I think you've done it well.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time for these comments. I'll leave the article for a few days before deciding whether it's worthy of FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it will pass. Somewhat shocked to hear that you were having trouble getting reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was particularly looking for reviews from Eng Lit bods, but they are in short supply at present, mostly either retired, semi-retired, blocked, depressed or bored. The WikiProject Novels people, who I thought might be interested, simply awarded it a C-class without comment or explanation. But Awadewit stepped up, and with  hers and your own wise comments I reckon the article has been well served. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have an Eng lit degree if that makes you feel any better, and you have got a lot more reviewers than most articles here. Johnbod (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies: you were the first to respond and your remarks were very helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I did minor in English at a well-regarded university. Probably more relevant than my degree in math, much of which I've totally forgotten, not having used it getting on for a quarter century!  I think it is worth running up the flagpole at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)