Talk:Clement Scott

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Journalism

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Now Is the Hour[edit]

Claim of authorship needs credible citation. Also, "Now is the Hour" was not based on traditional NZ melody. This is established fact.Theodore D (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it was not, in fact, based on a traditional Maori melody, and I've clarified that issue, based on the Time (magazine) article. As to authorship, I understand that there is someone who challenges the authorship, claiming to be related to someone who used the pseudonym "Clement Scott", but the New Zealand folk song website entry does not read as rigorous research and also seems to be copied from elsewhere on the web. I originally put this information here based on the Scowcroft "Garland". Scowcroft is usually reliable, but I agree that here his research does not seem persuasive. Is there a newspaper article, or scholarly article, or anything in a WP:Reliable source that clarifies that it is not this Clement Scott? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To have conclusive evidence my be out of the question, for now. The best we can do is make it clear in the relevant articles that authorship is questionable, or at least open to debate. There is this [1]Theodore D (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I added your new ref and described the disputed authorship, and also tried to clean up the issue at Now Is the Hour. See if you agree with my edits. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opening lines[edit]

"His style of criticism, acerbic, flowery and (perhaps most importantly) carried out on the first night of productions, set the standard for theatre reviewers through to today." - perhaps most importantly what? There's a word missing. It has been missing since the article was first written. Perhaps most importantly accurate? Perhaps most important witty? What? 143.159.185.234 (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is correct. What was most important was that he reviewed shows on opening night, which was not usual for critics in those days. This is expanded upon in the second paragraph under the heading "Style, controversies and influence" below in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]