This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Will review. Hope to start tomorrow. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I have some suggestions about the wording here and there (nothing major). Would you prefer me to list them here or on the article talk page? Tim riley (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Here will be OK unless of course you feel up to fixing them yourself out of the kindness of your heart :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm. Not sure about getting involved before doing the GA review. Rather undermines one's impartiality. I'll list the main things here and then dive into residual editing afterwards if that's OK with you. Tim riley (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I was kidding...♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
A few minor comments for your consideration:
Early life and education
"in the nearby town of Beckenham" – the WP article on the place says it was a village and is now a suburb
Should I change to village and add a foot note that it is now a suburb?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't know that I'd add the footnote. The blue link will surely suffice, as long as you change town to village. Tim riley (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
"educating Enid on nature" – does one educate on? "about" seems more natural
Quite right!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
"In 1910 Blyton was baptised at Elm Road Baptist Church, and was devastated when her father left the family to live with another woman." – The two halves of this sentence don't seem to have anything to do with each other
True, changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
"a small independent boys school" – theoretically ambiguous (though probably not in practice); still, perhaps better to say "a small independent school for boys".
"In 1920 Blyton moved to Southernhay" – "she" would suffice for "Blyton" here, and help the flow of your prose
Early writing career
"she lived on Hook Road" – Americanism wanted here? "she lived in Hook Road" is the traditional British form (same in caption of picture alongside). I see you use the British form later on, for "in Ondine Street".
Nightmare in Elm Street :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
"she met up with" – she met?
"Teacher's World" – I see from the Times archives that the possessive is plural: "Teachers' World"
Well-spotted!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
"children's page in Teachers World" – missing the apostrophe altogether this time
"Blyton was asked to provide the text…" – and did she?
"her first contribution to the Sunday Graphic" – you are inconsistent about the definite articles in the titles of magazines/papers: earlier you have The Morning Post (with cap) but here the Post and the Mail aren't capped. Your blue link to The Mail on Sunday is incorrect, by the way. The Mail on Sunday wasn't launched till 1982. I think there was a Scottish paper called The Sunday Mail, but I don't vouch for it.
Removed mention of them to avoid confusion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
"and it wasn't until 10 years" – "wasn't" is hardly encyclopedic language
"the Evening Standard, which lasted until December 1953" – The Evening Standard lasted long after Dec 1953, and indeed is still being published. "…which she did until December 1953" would be better.
Could someone tell me where automatic writing is linked and cited in the article (see edit summary)? I don't see it. Maybe it was reverted at some point in the history. If the article is saying Enid Blyton wrote using this method, it's a startling enough claim that it should be made explicit in the lede. Thanks. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
It now looks like there is a misunderstanding and the article doesn't make any allegations about automatic writing (it says Blyton used a typewriter). So the use of "automatic" in that sentence is IMHO an unfortunate turn of phrase, that tripped me up while reading the paragraph. I don't want to get in an edit conflict by re-reverting (I'll leave it up to Eric or whoever) but I still think the sentence should be re-worded because of this issue. It's confusing enough that I'd flag it in a review. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
So who's is the misunderstanding? Yours? EricCorbett 23:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I wrote in my edit summary that a claim that Enid Blyton used automatic writing should be linked and cited, if such a claim was being made. You reverted, with your edit summary saying "it is linked and cited". So I looked through the rest of the article for where the link and citation might be, didn't find it, and asked for specifics. Checking even further, it became clear that we weren't referring to the same thing. I still don't know even now what referent you had in mind, when you wrote "it is linked and cited". Anyway I know that you are a good writer who values clarity and smooth writing. Confusion over edit summaries is inconsequential, but the article itself has a malapropism as mentioned, which I'd have thought you'd want fixed. I think the change I made was an improvement. If you didn't like my edit, then fine, but in that case I think you ought to fix it some different way. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll spare you from telling you what I think. EricCorbett 00:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
As I'm certain you know, WP makes it impossible for me to say what I really think, as you're an anonymous IP who can't be punished no matter what you say or do. EricCorbett 01:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed Eric. He's now editing as an editor, I reverted him. I don't want to see an edit war.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
"Him?" Can you be careful with your accusations, please? I've been watching this page since last year at least. Vashti (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I presumed you were the same person as the ip. Wrong or not, there was no "per talk" to justify changing it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, changes don't require justification or prior discussion; the "per talk" purely referred to the discussion here. Also, one edit is not an edit war, more than one other editor exists, and honestly, I don't see anything the anon editor said that required being met with such venom. I am genuinely shocked to see a polite bugrep treated that way on Wikipedia - "punished" for politely raising a problem with the article? It is outrageous that anyone should be treated that way. WP:DONTBITE
You've done sterling work on this article since I last checked in, and gained GA status for it, but you do not own it, and you shouldn't be shouting down people who raise questions. Automatic writing refers to a pseudoreligious concept. That sentence in the lede is not good. Two editors have now told you here that it could use revision. You're at liberty to disagree, of course. /hattip Vashti (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree that sentence in the lead was referring to automatic writing at all, but for the sake of a quiet life I've rewritten it. EricCorbett 13:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Vashti (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
These character names have indeed been changed in modern editions, see here which mentions the change from Jill and Mary to Zoe and Pippa and here which mentions the changes from Fanny and Dick to Frannie and Rick. Paul Austin (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
The body of the article is correct; she was educated at St Christopher's School in Beckenham, but taught at Ipswich High School, so I've removed that parameter. This duplication of information, sometimes done inconsistently, is one of the problems with infoboxes, which I'm beginning to hate. Or at least hate the brain-dead way they're currently implemented. EricCorbett 13:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I've just been looking at the Telegraph story given as a citation, and from this it is clear the article has poorly represented the material there (e.g. it was not Pollock, but Crowe who was nearly killed in an air raid). I will attempt a rewrite of this section checking other sources. (I know it's in progress as an FA candidate, but I haven't the time to go through the entire article and it seems simpler to deal with it directly.) Alfietucker (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The article states that her books were banned from libraries, and even that she enjoys the dubious distinction of being the author with the greatest number of banned books. Can anyone explain WHY the books were banned? Was it simply because the books were considered to have been poorly written, or was this the result of the percieved racism/sexism, etc? This does not appear to be made very clear in the article. It is one thing for an institution like the BBC to decide not to give air time to an author whose works it does not consider good -- that is fair game -- but it does seem surprising for libraries to take the positive step of actually banning a popular author's works on the grounds that they do not feel they are "good enough", particularly given some of the drivel that makes its way into libraries. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I expect that different libraries had different reasons, including pressure on their budgets resulting from the sheer volume of Blyton's work. But the article already gives the generally accepted answer: "Some librarians felt that Blyton's restricted use of language, a conscious product of her teaching background, was prejudicial to an appreciation of more literary qualities." EricCorbett 18:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)