Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guy Burgess/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2018 [1].

Guy Burgess

[edit]
Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I first thought of expanding the Burgess article a few years ago, the lack of up-to-date sources deterred me. Since then there has been something of a deluge: three biographies, another of Kim Philby, another of Maclean, a monumental new study of the Cambridge Five, and more besides. I've done my best to absorb much of this material, to provide a neutral account of this enigmatic figure. The article had a more than usually active peer review, with eight participants, and also benefited from a robust discussion on its talkpage with one of its source's authors. My thanks to all these, whose help has been significant. Further comment here would be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:SSburgess.jpg: is anything more known of the provenance of this image?
  • It's a much used image, appearing in various newspapers, websites etc, especially in reviews of the recent spate of Burgess books. It is the dust-cover illustration for the Purvis & Hulbert book. Unfortunately, none of these indicate its original provenence. I don't believe that there are any available free images of Burgess, although there are some online which have provenance (date, photographer's name etc). It would be possible to change to one of these, but I see little benefit in doing so. Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – from another peer reviewer, very happy with the current text. I agree with Wehwalt that this is outstanding work. Tim riley talk 16:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as always. Brianboulton (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
This is of course excellent and it is seriously to be doubted if I can make a constructive, prose-based criticism. I wondered about images, slightly, although not particularly critically. It has plenty of them, nicely placed, but, of course only one of Burgess himself. Understandable enough—I assume there's very few of them extant?—but I did see on commons, File:Burgess-maclean.JPG which in a small way might fit nicely somewhere in the 'Departure' section. Just a thought.
The one you suggest might well be added appropriately – thank you for pointing it out. I'd like to be sure that it its licencing meets US-PD criteria. Nikkimaria can you confirm? Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Need more information. The image is tagged as lacking author information, and while the source is an FBI link, looking at what it actually contains it appears to be a collection of newspaper clippings, which wouldn't fall under the US PDGov provisions, and I can't see enough detail in the poster itself to tell who put it out. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That being so, I think that rather than instigate an investigation which may prove fruitless, I'll leave it for the moment. If other information comes to light we can always reconsider. Brianboulton (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw your discussion with M. Holzman—very, very interesting. I wonder if I should ask them to look over Percy Glading—and prepare for a 50% content-removal!  ;) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap shit room 12:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly worth asking Holzman to look at Glading, though as a professional writer he may be reluctant to give it much time. But I'd recommend you give it a try. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Belatedly supporting this great article. Apologies for absence, but in order to try and fulfil my own request, I got completely bogged down in an attempt to trace the photo's provenance. Originally, I assumed it would be automatically OK to use it here since it's hosted on Commons (which I thought had much stricter criteria for inclusion than we do). However: I stand corrected, said the man in the orthopaedic shoes. I didn't achieve anything in any case, except to get distracted from everything else! Happy to support this piece though. (And apologies again for spamming your FAC with my stuff, Brianboulton.) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Having looked at this when it was peer reviewed, I give my full support to this one.--DavidCane (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Midnightblueowl

[edit]

Lede:

  • "and Soviet agent" - I'm wondering if this should be rephrased to "and agent for the Soviet Union". "Soviet agent" could easily be misunderstood as referring to possession of Soviet nationality. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Born into a wealthy middle-class family, Burgess " - we could add "in Devon" or something like that after "family". Not essential, but might be of interest to some. I have always put place of birth into biography articles here at Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the British Embassy in Washington" - perhaps a Wikilink to the embassy? And might be worth stipulating "Washington D.C.", lest someone think we are referring to Washington state. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to his Soviet masters." - Really think we should use different wording here. "his Soviet masters" feels a little like something from a pulp novel or sensationalist tabloid! "to the Soviets" should suffice, or "to the Soviet intelligence services". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "controllers", perhaps a little less pulpy?

Life:

  • I think this is a matter of personal preference. In my view, shifting to the right brings it too close to the Trinity image in the next section, and I'd prefer to leave things as they are. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as a boarder" - I'd Wikilink this; I can imagine quite a few readers not being particularly familiar with the concept of a boarding school. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the note, it states that "At this time, Dartmouth was run as a public school," but I think that the use of "public school" here is likely to cause confusion, given that for American readers it will be interpreted as "state school". "Private school", although not really part of the British lingo at the time, would at least be more easily understood by all English speakers, and not just the British. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a tricky one that I've encountered before – the perverse British habit of referring to elite private schools as "public schools" against all logic. But in Britain, the term "public school" has a very distinct meaning from "private school", and refers to the particular ethos of these establishments, not to the fact that they are private institutions. There are hosts of British "private" schools which aren't public schools. I've amended the note to read "British public school", and introduced a link, which I hope will clarify the position for most readers. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "involved himself in every aspect of student life" - "every"? I think that that might be stretching it a little, even if it was the language of the original source. How about "many different aspects"? And I think it would be best to have a citation at the end of this sentence as the next sentence moves on to a somewhat different subject. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the brightest" - perhaps "from the most accomplished"? I appreciate that this may again derive from the original source, but statements like this do seem to be making assumptions which may not be objectively correct. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am pretty sure that Hitler will remain in human awareness for rather longer than this Wikipedia article will! Nor do I see the need for a forename – there aren't other Hitlers with whom he might be confused. But on the other hand, simplifying to "the rise of Nazism" is perhaps the better solution. Brianboulton (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's usual to refer to governments in this way, e.g. "the Reagan administration" rather than "the Ronald Reagan administration", or in the UK, "the Thatcher government", not "the Margaret Thatcher government". The forename is irrelevant, but the link provides the information if anyone needs to know. Brianboulton (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "homosexual bar" could be linked to Gay bar. Readers in many parts of the English-speaking world may not be familiar with such establishments (I'm thinking in particular of parts of Sub-Saharan Africa). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " applied twice to the BBC without success" - best to be clear that he "applied for employment twice" here, lest someone think he was applying for something else (to star in a reality TV show, for instance!) Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "went to Chartwell " - perhaps "went to the latter's home at Chartwell"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout the article I'm noticing an inconsistency in the grammar of "British Intelligence" - sometimes the latter term is in upper case, sometimes lower. Ensure that this is standardised; I'd recommend using lower case, but I don't really mind either way. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "current Whitehall thinking" - I'd generally avoid using place-names as references to governments (same goes for "Washington" in place of the U.S. government, or "Moscow" in place of the Soviet/Russian government). I know it's common form in much journalism and other writing, but I think that on Wikipedia it's best to be more precise as we are going to be reaching out to many non-native speakers. I would suggest "current government thinking" in its place. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reinforced Stalin's suspicions" - this is the first mention of Stalin in the article. Add a link, give the forename, and mention who he is (briefly). Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the outbreak of war in September 1939," - Which war is this? I jest, of course, but some readers may genuinely have no idea what war we are referring to. Best to be precise. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lines in Occupied Europe" - no need for the capital O here. Also, best be clear what we mean; so perhaps go with "German-occupied Europe". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "found himself at the end of the year out of a job". We can do better than this wording. How about "found himself unemployed at the end of the year"? Cleaner and shorter. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Burgess was tasked by the BBC with selecting speakers who would show" - quite a few editors have called me up on the use of passive voice over years, so it might be best here to switch to active voice, thus "the BBC tasked Burgess with selecting speakers". Might also be an idea to replace "show" with "depict". Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whose talk in the recollections of listeners was pure Soviet propaganda (no transcript survives)" - I don't understand what is being described here, could it be reworded to give greater clarity? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure we have to remove all vestiges of colour from the language, but I'll see if I can think of an equally appropriate phrase.

Support for your excellent work, Brian. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help and support, much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

From a peer reviewer. Outstanding work. Ceoil (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and Support by KJP1

[edit]

Shall begin this today, but it is likely to take a few days, given the extent of the sourcing and my inexperience. I'll also have to do it in batches, having just lost the first set of comments. KJP1 (talk) 14:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Online sources
[edit]

I'll list all of these, as part of reviewing, but I'll embolden any that I may have a query about.

  • Source 7 - should we not give the author? She's named and we do in other cases.
  • Source 45 - I wonder if we should record it was the "Tyneside" contingent, rather than just "a contingent" that took this route?
  • Source 203 - supports the content. The story of the tape's filing under Edith Sitwell is so good, I might have made it into a footnote!
  • Source 207 - slightly surprisingly, I can't access it as it's ProQuest. Do we need to indicate it's inaccessible, as we do with the ODNB?
  • Source 227 - my query here is about the source within the source. Given that you give Annan in full, would it not be clearer just to put him whole into the published Sources section? But you'll know what MoS says better than I.
  • Source 238 - I'm not quite sure about this. I'm assuming the Dobbs is fictionalised, in that it builds speculatively on the meeting between WSC and GB. The Telegraph reviewer seems to have his doubts about whether the meeting took place at all, hence his qualifying Driberg's "verification". It clearly did, and you mention it. Turning to the monument that is Sir Martin Gilbert, I find a full account on pages 990-992 of Volume 5. The meeting took place on 1 October 1938. As an aside, the earlier mention here says "September 1938". I wonder if there's some way of making it clearer? Something like "which builds on the pre-war meeting between Burgess and Churchill in October 1938"? The reference is Gilbert, Volume 5 1922-1939, pp=990-992, 1976, Heinemann. As a further aside, YouTube also has this, [2] which may be an interesting External link. Burgess also places the meeting in September 1938. It is fascinating to hear him speak, or rather drawl!
  • I don't think we need add Gilbert. The DT source merely confirms that Dobbs's play builds on the Burgess-Churchill meeting. I've clarified the 1 October date in the main text, confirmed by the existing sources. Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources 61, 64, 126, 180, 187, 204, 211 & 239 - all support the content.
  • Sources 118, 196, 231, 235 & 237 - can't access them but no reason to doubt the ODNB.


Published Sources
[edit]

The published sources are all of impeccable quality and the isbns all check out. Just a few queries, questions below.

  • Bennett, Alan - the ISBN gives me 1994 as the UK publication date with 1995 as the US date. It was reissued in 1996, with a revised edition in 1998.
  • Card, Tim - the full title is Eton renewed : a history from 1860 to the present day. I'm not sure it really matters but you have given full titles elsewhere.
  • Driberg, Tom - should we give the OCLC number, 560708673, in the absence of an ISBN?
  • Macintyre, Ben - Oddly, the most recent version gives the authors as Macintyre and John le Carré. I don't have the book but I'm assuming le Carré wrote a forward?
  • Modin, Yuri - while the 1994 edition lists Modin alone, every subsequent edition gives Jean-Charles Deniau and Aguieszka Ziarek as co-authors?
  • I don't think that's quite the case – the ABE listing here has several of the 1995 Headline edition, isbn 978-0-747-24775-3, which don't bear the additional names. I used a library copy which I no longer have, but I don't remember seeing those names. The point doesn't seem to be key, and I'm inclined to leave this. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-checks of offline sources
[edit]

This isn't necessary, given the experience of the author and the fact that all the online sources do check out, but as I have access to some of the sourced books, I shall do a few for completeness. I'll look to complete Monday. KJP1 (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton - First, apologies for the delay. Second, despite my university library continuing apace with their policy of replacing the books with computer terminals, I have been able to spot-check the following:
  • Holzman, Michael, Guy Burgess: Revolutionary in an Old School Tie;
  • Lownie, Andrew, Stalin's Englishman: The lives of Guy Burgess;
  • Purvis, Stewart & Hulbert, Jeff, Guy Burgess: The Spy Who Knew Everyone.

They are, of course, all fine.

FAC source criteria
[edit]
  • 1c - well-researched
The sources are all of high quality, the article is thoroughly researched and covers the relevant literature, including the recent additions to the study of Burgess. The article is very well supported by a wealth of inline citations.
  • 2c - Consistent citations
The citing is consistent throughout.

Brian - the above comments are all absolutely fine. I'll wrap up with the offline source checks but shall need to drop by the university library so it'll be Tuesday/Wednesday before I finish. Hope that's ok. KJP1 (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of the above, I'm pleased to wrap up the Source Review. Also, having read it through carefully on a number of occasions, I think I'm also entitled to Support the article, which I do as it's a very fine piece of work. KJP1 (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your meticulous review and the trouble you took. That, and the support, is much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above rigorous source review put me in mind of Kings 12:11. Tim riley talk 17:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton, Tim riley - Brian, my apologies for the time taken and my laborious approach. As you know, I'm new to source reviewing. Tim - you can take your biblical allusions and....! KJP1 (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I retreat, tail between legs. Tim riley talk 20:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz

Hello Brian, just a few gnomish observations...

  • played for the school's football team - do sources say which code ie wlink association or rugby? (for readers outside UK)
  • the Set construction| stage sets for - broken wlink
  • a fruitful sources of high-level gossip - singular/plural
  • a young Fellow of All Souls' College - no apostrophe needed?
  • Rees - first name Goronwy is given three times
  • Burgess had previously promised Philby that he would not go with Maclean – a double defection would, Philby said, spell the end for him. - maybe ambiguous, spell the end for Burgess or Philby?
  • given a safe-conduct to visit - wlink safe conduct?
  • of Imperial General Staff meetings. [217] - remove space
  • the diplomatic service suffered what Lownie calls - Lownie not introduced, insert researcher and author Andrew?
  • Granada TV's 1987 drama Philby, Burgess and Maclean (1977), - 1987 a typo?
  • 'sad' there is nothing relevant re his brother - eg Nigel flew to Moscow to attend funeral (maybe to escort ashes back?)

Thanks for your work, JennyOz (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you, Jenny, for these useful catches, all remedied now. The sources don't specify that Nigel went to Moscow to bring the ashes back, and I think this doubtful, given that the interment in Britain didn't take place until October. I have added a note of Nigel's presence at the funeral - this is covered by the Lownie ref. Brianboulton (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Brian, pleased to see his brother acknowledged. (Poor fellow must have had much to cope with!) Maybe now need to insert 'Nigel' at "A second son was born" to identify? I am very happy to support. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done re Nigel, and thanks for thwe support. Brianboulton (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Guy_Burgess/archive1&oldid=1138462028"