Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/H. C. McNeile

H. C. McNeile

This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 28, 2013 by Bencherlite ^Talk 11:37, 18 September 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

H. C. McNeile MC (1888–1937) was a British soldier and author best known for his series of Bulldog Drummond novels. McNeile started writing short war stories during the First World War; when these were published in the Daily Mail, they were under his penname, Sapper, which was based on that of his regiment, the Royal Engineers. After the war he left the Army and became a full-time writer, changing from writing war stories to thrillers, and from writing short stories to move increasingly to novels. In 1920 he published Bulldog Drummond, whose hero became his best-known creation: nine further Drummond novels followed, as did three plays and a screenplay. McNeile also wrote works that included two other protagonists, Jim Maitland and Ronald Standish and sales of his books ensured he was one of the most successful British popular authors of the inter-war period before his death in 1937 from throat cancer, which has been attributed to damage sustained from a gas attack in the war. Although seen by his contemporaries as an "upstanding Tory", his work came under criticism after the Second World War for its fascist overtones, xenophobia and anti-semitism. (Full article...)

2 points for his 125th birthday (I presume we've had another author on the front page in the last three months).

Franz Kafka ran in July.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am realizing you may be doing me a favor since Whaam! would have such a good shot at 100K on a weekday.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Also noticed that the last work of art was 5 months and 30 days prior (Crucifixion and Last Judgement diptych, March 29).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, this has nothing to do with the McNeile article. Thanks also for the chortle over Kafka: I suspect you may be the first person in history to have compared McNeile and Kafka! - SchroCat (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. Hope you are enjoying my template Template:Bulldog Drummond. Thanks for the help cleaning it up.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nom - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Whaam! is at WP:FAC with 5 supports, 1 neutral and 1 oppose. This date is the 50th anniversary if its first public exhibition. 50th anniversaries are more important than 125th anniversaries according to our point scale.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I appreciate you would like your article to be on the front page on that day, but opposing another article simply because it stands in your way does not seem to be the best way to approach it. You will get your chance to vote on Waam! when your article reaches FA. Could I suggest you strike your oppose and leave it as a comment to advise others instead? - SchroCat (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought if two things were aiming for the same date you could oppose the one that you don't prefer. Isn't that standard.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support on the basis of the merits of an individual nomination, and oppose because a nomination (or article) is poor or problematic, rather than as a mechanism to promote one over another. To support one article and oppose another for the same date is double voting, imo. If there are problems with the above text or the article then I'd be happy to deal with the reasons behind it, but I really don't want to go down the route of a tit-for-tat oppose simply to force my opinion: I'll listen to the wider community in a straight comparison. - SchroCat (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Whaam! has not passed, and is not nominated, there is no grounds for oppose (as done above) in the rules. It allows for direct competition based on points, and right now Whaam! has zero points (after all, it's not an FA). If it passes by the time the date rolls around, nominate it. Otherwise, this oppose is going to be seen as "if I can't have it, you can't have it". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'd be happy to see this as TFA on that date.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Yes, absolutely. This is a perfect choice and I see no better for TFA on this date. -- Cassianto ^Talk 00:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Solid article on notable author. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a more interesting article than I expected, and worth putting on the front page. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agree with above, but just any possibility of a relevant free-use image to go along with the blurb text, perchance? — Cirt (talk) 03:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly none of the man himself, but I've attached a cover of his best-known work: does this cut the mustard, or is it a little too far off the subject? - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: the book cover certainly works for me. Any chance you could add another couple of hundred characters to the blurb? It's a bit on the short side (991 characters vs 1,200 target). Thanks, Bencherlite ^Talk 21:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - now added a line about his changing career and writing focus after the war - it's at 1138, so a little more to play with if needed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Following rather inappropriate talk page postings regarding an alternate nomination for the 28 September date, this nom has now been moved to a non-specific date. - SchroCat (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support—for the specific date originally requested. The inappropriate actions of others shouldn't be rewarded by ceding the date to them. Imzadi 1979 → 09:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for 28 September, compare below, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support a very well written article that meets notability. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for 28th. An anniversary as long as 125 years should certainly be one to take advantage of, GRAPPLE X 21:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]