This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.
Waugh also wrote that "there is an aesthetic bugger who sometimes turns up in my novels under various names - that was 2/3 Brian [Howard] and 1/3 Harold Acton" (cit. in Patey The Life of Evelyn Waugh Blackwell, 1998). That seems to make the first sentence of the article not entirely accurate, because there is some correlation. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The lede I assembled today was from the article content, and so was by a non-expert (scientist, and American), and was done without checking sources. It therefore needs thoughtful, expert and scholarly attention, from Wikiproject Universty of Oxford, or the other Wikiprojects listed above, for the way in which the different facets of this person's life are covered.
In particular, the lede content needs to be checked against the body, the sourcing of it all needs to be assured, and then the lede needs distillation (with perhaps a bit of augmentation on his work and influence), and the whole of the article needs rewriting, with a view toward reliable sources (i.e., before the article can become GA eligible). As well, specialists in LGBT sources and reporting should review the available sources, and the current way in which this information is presented, for its suitability. FInally, between the references and further reading, every possible manifestation of citation irregularity appears in this article, including rampant bare URLs, every sort of citation presentation, and every imaginable truncation—missing publication authors, dates, titles, page numbers, etc.
In short, the poor quality coverage of the work and life of this subject despite solid available sources, and the fact that recent work (mine), however well-meaning, was done by an inexpert editor—these together call for scholarly attention. Le Prof 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)