Talk:William Beach Thomas/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 16:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this; I'll add comments below as I go through the article. I've made a few copyedits; please revert if I screwed anything up. I'm glad to see this article improved, by the way; I've read Scoop a couple of times and wondered about the model for Boot.

The picture of war correspondents doesn't identify Beach Thomas, as there are five people in the picture and only three named in the caption. If this can't be clarified I think the caption shouldn't pretend the ambiguity doesn't exist.
The identification seems clear to me - he is the one looking down, just to the right of the shell. The names come from the source, which is the Imperial War Museum. That the leftmost two men are unidentified is unfortunate but not confusing.
OK, I think "right to left" does make it unambiguous as to which one is Beach Thomas. I suspect that Captain LaPorte is actually the second from left, because he's wearing an armband, and the article mentions that correspondents wore armbands. Not an issue for this article, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Public opinion at home may have been mollified, even uplifted, by the efforts of the correspondents but the troops were not": "public opinion" and "the troops" aren't parallel here, so I think this needs some restructuring.
I'm probably being dense here but I cannot see the problem. Would changing it to "troops abroad" resolve it, thus contrasting attitudes in Britain with those on the Western Front?
What was bothering me was you have "mollified" and "uplifted" applying to both "public opinion" and "troops"; one is an intangible, the other is not. Mollifying an opinion and mollifying a person are slightly different uses; it's a zeugma, I think, (type II in our article on it). Rereading it I think it's OK, though I probably wouldn't write it that way myself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Northcliffe's brother, Lord Rothermere, had expressed frustration": I don't think you need "had" here.

Done

"a present-day war correspondent": not sure this is a good idea, given WP:ASOF, but I don't see a good way to fix it. Maybe just "War correspondent John Simpson", and let the reader click through to find out more about Simpson if they want to.

Done

"With some short breaks between 1935 and 1941, when H. E. Bates took responsibility, Beach Thomas was also a regular contributor of notes on nature, gardening and country life in The Spectator for almost 30 years": a bit clumsy and difficult to read. How about: "Beach Thomas was also a regular contributor of notes on nature, gardening and country life to The Spectator for almost 30 years, with some short breaks between 1935 and 1941, when H. E. Bates took responsibility." I'd also add the date range of this work, if you have it, after (or instead of) "almost 30 years".
Your phrasing is better, thanks. The archives for The Spectator are available online. A date-ordered search for his name is here, from which it seems that the first article written by him (rather than just mentioning him) was in May 1926 and the last was around September 1950. This analysis is somewhat at odds with the obituary, being nearer 25 than 30 years if one wants to round it. Given the problems of searching scanned archives (OCR text recognition etc), I'm not sure how reliable those results may be, and some might consider the analysis to be a step too far in the WP:OR department.
Fair enough; I agree you might as well leave it as the source has it in that case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"during the World War II period": why not just "during World War II"?

Done although I think the author missed a trick: you'd think that with Britain being bombed, a way of life generally under threat, the countryside being turned into a series of military bases etc, well, those sort of things would form part of any nostalgic sense.

When you quote Malcolm Chase, I think you should give him an epithet so readers know why we care about his opinions: "Historian Malcolm Chase" or whatever word best describes him.
Done Historian it is. I've also tried to do something similar for John Musty but it is more difficult & I've ended up using a construct that I really don't care for when I see it in other articles. I think he was an antiquarian/archaeologist who specialised in English rural areas (Wiltshire, in particular) but I'm not 100% sure and have mislaid the journal article somewhere on one of my hard disks. I'll try to find it again and see if it provides a synopsis.
I think what you did for Musty is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything I can see; I'll place the article on hold until these are fixed. The article is in good shape; the items above are all minor. One thing I noticed while looking at some possible sources: according to an interview with Beach Thomas in the NY Times on 11 February 1923, titled "BRITISHER'S VIEW OF WHY OUR ATHLETES BEAT HIS", Beach Thomas was responsible for "instituting the first series of international university contests between the two countries". I'm not sure that the passing mention there is enough to add anything to the article, but it sounds like this might be worth tracking down and sourcing, if it's true. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on, Mike, and for your comments. I've addressed some and will return to deal with the others. Some additional points:

I'm not sure how to do it yet but Bill Deedes told me that he was the model for Boot and I'd be surprised if our article on him (or on the novel) doesn't mention it because I've seen that written in a few places. Might need a footnote for it.
I'll have to see if I can track down the NYT article and work from there. It sounds slightly unlikely to me but I spent much more of my time at the Other Place sampling beer rather than running round tracks! It is certainly worth following up.
Hm. I've just noticed this. His seems to have been almost a Malthusian position. I might see whether this line goes anywhere, certainly if I were to take this to FA in the future. I suspect it is an obscure one but there is no harm in delving.
FWIW, this is one of my creations, not an improvement. Maybe someone will take on the task of creating/improving some of the other guys who are mentioned because several seem to have been discussed in detail in sources. - Sitush (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re your various points above: yes, I wasn't clear; I knew he was thought by some to be the model for Boot by the time I found this article. I didn't realize you had created the article; thanks and/or congratulations. A nice little niche in our encyclopedic coverage to have filled. The NYT article and Sydney Morning Herald article are both interesting but I suspect will be little use unless you can find other sources; they both seem like celebrity interviews rather than any substantive analysis, though they could both be used to support statements of his views covered in secondary sources, of course. One other thing I thought I'd mention: I fixed a couple of indents (asterisks and colons) you made and thought I'd pass on a short explanation I got which clarified for me how indents work: one is supposed to simply repeat the indent format used by the previous editor, and then add a colon or an asterisk. So "*" should followed by "*:" to get an indent, and by "**" to get a sub-bullet.

I'll keep the article on my watchlist in case you take it to FAC. It's GA quality, so I'm going to pass it now; thanks for a very enjoyable read. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your review and comments. I'd be interested to see how you would write the zeugma thing - it might sound better and, certainly, it would be an education for me! - Sitush (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]