Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arnold Bennett/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 30 April 2022 [1].

Arnold Bennett edit

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 22:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most prominent English novelists of the first decades of the 20th century. Contemporary and later modernist cliques recoiled from his determination to make literature accessible to everyone, but he was a regular best-seller. He turned out some potboilers but he also wrote at least four novels now widely recognised as masterpieces. The article has had the benefit of a peer review, and in the last week or so a favourable GAN review by Gog the Mild. I haven't taken an article to FAC for ages – years, I think – and I look forward to seeing what colleagues think of my current offering. – Tim riley talk 22:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass licensing look ok (t · c) buidhe 23:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • I commented on this article at peer review but I will go through it again.
  • "now part of Stoke-on-Trent, but then an independent town". Shades of Passport to Pimlico? I would prefer "separate".
  • "He was clear-eyed about his literary talent: he wrote to a friend, "I have no inward assurance that I could ever do anything more than mediocre viewed strictly as art – very mediocre"" The praise of some critics suggests that he was being over-modest rather than clear-eyed?
  • "Bennett's lack of a theatrical grounding showed in the uneven construction of some of his plays. A successful first act followed by much weaker second and third acts was noted in his 1911 comedy The Honeymoon". You have already said this.
  • "a regular contributor to T.P.'s Weekly". If this is the name of a journal it should be in italics.
  • "Inspired by those of the Goncourt brothers, Bennett kept a journal throughout his adult life." "those of" is clumsy.
  • This is a first rate article. My only serious criticism is that it has nothing on the location of his manuscript journal and other papers. Do they still exist and if so where are they? Dudley Miles (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are collections of Bennett manuscripts in various locations in Britain and America. I have listed the main ones in the Legacy section, and (see comments below) will prune the External Links accordingly to avoid duplication. Thank you, Dudley for these points (as well as for those at peer review): I agree with all of them and have acted on them accordingly. Tim riley talk 08:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments received edit

A kind friend has sent me these comments off-Wiki:

  • One thing I notice: the long Archives subsection in the external links section at the bottom. Is this list encyclopedic? Are these certainly the most important archives for him? Would anyone really find this list useful (I imagine a serious scholar of his life and works could easily compile a better one), or is it really advertising/spam by enthusiastic young archivists at these particular institutions?
  • As suggested above by Dudley, I have incorporated the main archives into the body of the text, in the Legacy section, and removed them from the External links along with the lesser collections. Tim riley talk 08:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you need to refer to Wood and Grigson in Note 11?
  • I think they put the matter in context, making it clear that other celebrated people had to adopt the same strategy, and as the information is in a footnote it doesn't get in the way. Tim riley talk 08:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early years: I think it would help to repeat "Enoch's" instead of "his", to clarify that it was Enoch's father who died four years later, not Arnold's father. Yes, a careful re-reading helped me be sure, but I think it is worth the repetition here.
  • Lead section:
  • the start of his career in 1898. Later you say that he finished his first novel in 1896 (though it was published in 1898), and you imply that he began writing for the magazine in 1894, so should the start of his career be a slightly earlier date?
  • Born into a "modest" family. Does modest mean middle class, poor, or something else? Was his father just starting out as a solicitor after having "served a term as office boy to an attorney's firm"?
  • I'll look again, but at first glance this looks all right to me. Tim riley talk 08:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Always a devotee of French culture ... relaxed milieu -- your later section about his moving to Paris doesn't really say this, and your early years section only mentions that he liked French literature and language.
  • You refer to "the Potteries". Though you previously mentioned his native Staffordshire Potteries, I think you should repeat "Staffordshire" here to assist confused foreigners.

I hope there will be more in due course. Tim riley talk 08:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, this looks about ready to close, do you want to check if our friend has anything further...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Ian! Without wishing to breach anonymity I can say that my unnamed off-Wiki commenter later looked in, logged in, at the review below. So, no, I'm confident he has no more to add. Tim riley talk 21:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

I went through this thoroughly at PR. More recently I assessed it at GAN, but against the FAC criteria (just to be nasty to Tim) and all I could find to pick at were two bits of trivia. Hence I have no reservations in wholeheartedly supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Gog! Reviewing the article three different times was a remarkable work of supererogation, and I am in your debt. Tim riley talk 21:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Just reserving my spot.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, interesting that Bennett and Earl Russell both died in March 1931.
  • Is it tap water or tap-water. You use both.
  • Hyphenated according to the OED, and now consistently so here. Tim riley talk 07:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he knew he could "turn out things which would be read with zest, & about which the man in the street would say to friends 'Have you read so & so in the What-is-it?'"[16] " What-is-it is, I assume, intended as a publication, so should it be italicised?
  • It isn't in the source, but I see your point. I'll try it and see how it looks. Tim riley talk 07:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eleanor Green, a member of an eccentric and unreliable American family living in Paris" What is an "unreliable family", even if American?
  • I would move the passage that is presently the second paragraph of "Novels ..." into the first paragraph to join it with the rest of your discussion of the Five Towns, and at its conclusion, have a paragraph break before discussing characters.
  • You give, in parentheses, the date of Clayhanger, twice.
  • "Universities of Texas and Yale" Since it's Yale University, not sure that this works.
  • Redrawn.
Not many quibbles to be gleaned from this well-written article about a writer I'm not familiar with but will take pains to read some of.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for these points, all of which I agree with and have attended to, I hope satisfactorily. Tim riley talk 07:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Wehwalt, for your kind words and support. Tim riley talk 19:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1 edit

Very pleased to see this here. Life, and a prior FAC commitment to The Cenotaph, are holding me up, but shall certainly get back to this as soon as I can. KJP1 (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have read this through twice, and I really can't find anything to quibble about. It is a first-rate article and I can only Support its promotion. It is good to see you back here, Tim, writing to your usual high standard. In compensation for my feeble reviewing, I have created a little Start class for Bennett's last home, Chiltern Court. KJP1 (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, KJ, for your support and kind comments; I hugely appreciate them. Tim riley talk 13:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • Shapcott (2015) looks like it's a chapter in a work; if so it needs the editor's name added.
  • Done (it is Shapcott, but we can certainly name him twice in his capacities as contributor and editor). Tim riley talk 08:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In [51] you need "pp." for the cite to The English Review.
  • You're inconsistent in how you show the date where a source name needs it for disambiguation; compare [33] to [61].
  • Amended, along with another unbracketed year in later ref. Tim riley talk 08:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [96] is "Watson and Willison, columns 429–431": this is a little unusual -- can you confirm that a reader can find this material unambiguously with this as the reference? It appears a hardcopy was consulted, so I was expecting a page number.
  • Yes, it's a strange format. There are two columns to each page and instead of page numbers there are only column numbers. It looks odd, but one must admit it makes the entry quicker to find than a page number, covering two columns rather than one, would. Tim riley talk 08:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [36], [89], and [94] refer to Lucas -- in one case to "Lucas (ODNB)". I see the ODNB entry is cited as [3], but if for some reason you don't want [89] and [94] to just be more instances of [3], I think Lucas has to be put into the sources. For [36] you could split it into two cites to avoid the issue.
  • I think the ref was clear enough, and neater bundled like that but have separated the ODNB citation from the other three. Tim riley talk 08:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That takes care of 36, but the concern I had was that if a reader clicks through [89] or [94] they will find a citation that says "Lucas, p. 153" or "Lucas, p. 305", and to find out what source this refers to they'll go to the "Sources" section, which doesn't include Lucas. I was suggesting that you could either (1) add Lucas to the list of sources, in which case you could also rebundle [36] if you wish, or (2) you could leave [36] split as you have it now, and change [89] and [94] to re-use cite [3] instead. Looking again I now wonder if, given that you have explicit page numbers for [89] and [94], you consulted a physical book for those two? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good gracious me! I omitted the Lucas book from the list of sources. Now hastily inserted. Apart from the ODNB references all the reference to Lucas are to this 1974 book. I'm so glad you spotted this – thank you. Tim riley talk 09:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That explains it! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest expanding "NJ" to "New Jersey" in the sources.
  • I've removed it, as we don't give the American states for the other American publications listed.

The sources are impeccably reliable as far as I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All attended to. Thank you very much for the review. Tim riley talk 08:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. All issues addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ssilvers edit

Early years:

  • "...but then a separate town". Does this add anything to the reader's understanding?
  • I think so: without it it isn't clear that it was no mere borough but a fully-fledged town in its own right. Tim riley talk 08:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest that you wikilink draper, a term that American readers will find unfamiliar.
  • "the family moved, within the space of five years". Can you say what time period this refers to? Late 1870s? Early 1880s? Or "when Bennett was in primary school"?
  • Instead of the link to the vague "undergraduate", how about something like "...could have led to his [entering] or [a degree at] that prestigious university"?
  • I'm loth to editorialise. There are some Oxonians who might baulk at describing Cambridge as prestigious. Tim riley talk 08:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Tim riley, if you look at the link to undergraduate, I think you will see that it is distinctly unhelpful. Even if you don't say "prestigious", what about simply "...could have led to his [entering] that university" or "...could have led to his becoming an undergraduate there".
I see what you mean. That's a strange article! I've rewritten to make it "could have led to an Oxbridge education". I'm tempted to make "could" "would" here, and will ponder further once I've refreshed my memory of what the sources say. Tim riley talk 16:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is very good. I guess I prefer could, as "would" presumes certain knowledge of an alternate universe. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. I'll only change "could" to "would" if the sources justify it. Tim riley talk 20:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1891, aged 21. If he was born in 1867, then he was aged 23 or 24 in 1891. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typo (apols!) It was 1889 (March - two months before his 22nd birthday). Now amended. Tim riley talk 08:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these comments − most helpful, and any further thoughts will be most welcome. Tim riley talk 08:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First years in London:

  • He ... won a prize of twenty guineas for a contribution to a magazine, and ... he submitted it successfully to The Yellow Book -- can you give an approximate time frame either/both of these events? The paragraph covers his 5 years of employment at the solicitors' office.
  • I can put the years in if wanted, but as you say, this bit covers just five years and I'm reluctant to fill it up with particular dates. I don't think readers will particularly care if the prize was in 1891 (which it was) or a year either side but I'll add the year if you insist. Tim riley talk 20:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't insist, but I think "in 1891" would help readers with their mental timeline. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, all right! Added. Tim riley talk 23:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Americans will not be sure what "making ready and running round" meant to readers of Woman magazine, so if there is a wiki-link that explains either term, it may be worth linking to, unless they literally mean getting ready for one's day (dressing, brushing teeth, etc.) and running around (doing errands?).
  • I don't know either. I'm guessing your interpretation is correct, but I really don't know. In a way that points up the value of Drabble's quote: AB got a grip on a lot of obscure stuff that most male writers would not. Tim riley talk 20:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • How to bath the baby -- does the quote say "bath" or "bathe"?
  • The former. It's curious how the two forms cause confusion within the Anglophone world. When in Australia Johnners swam in the sea and told his hosts it was the first time he'd bathed for years: they were nonplussed, as to them the daily ablutions were where one bathes, whereas to an Englishman they are where one baths, and one bathes in the sea or the swimming pool. Tim riley talk 20:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • very mediocre" but he knew -- should there be a comma before "but"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be, if desired. Sixty-something years ago I was taught that one had to have a comma before a conjunction, but such arbitrary superstitions have, thank God, died out; nowadays the tendency is to put in a comma where it helps the flow and the sense, and to omit it when it serves no definable purpose. One wouldn't hurt here if you'd like one, but I wouldn't myself. Tim riley talk 20:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since you don't seem prepared to do me bodily harm for it in this instance, I've done it. You overstate the punctuation rule -- we only argue that the comma ought to go before the conjunction where the conjunction begins an independent clause. I know you have often argued that this is not a rule you think useful, but to educated American readers, the failure to so separate independent clauses is seen as simply an error. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, and I don't presume to tell Americans how to write American English: I was talking about how I was taught to write the Queen's English back in the 1950s, and the pointless, arbitrary and illogical rules our half-baked pedants (quite as bad as yours) sought to propagate. But quite happy with your added comma if it pleases you. Tim riley talk 23:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freelance; Paris:

  • Instead of "Enoch" and "widow", how about Bennett's father and mother ... and sister?
I don't feel strongly about this, but one additional potential point of confusion you might consider is that the subject's given name is also Enoch. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use the term pot-boiler twice. That is not a huge number, but check to see if you wish to use the same word in both places. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pot is boiled in three places in the article, which I think is about right, given how often the term crops up in the sources. Tim riley talk 20:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage; Fontainebleau:

  • eccentric and unpredictable American family -- still not clear what "unpredictable" adds to eccentric. Do you mean capricious? Unethical? Disloyal or fickle? Untrustworthy? Whimsical? Mentally unstable? Deceptive or deceitful? Undependable? Meretricious? Unfaithful? Corrupt? Dishonest?
  • Most of those. My summary of the sources would say selfish, arbitrary and unreliable. They were, in short, an absolute shower. I toned down "unreliable" to "unpredictable" in response to Wehwalt's comment, above, but I like your "capricious", and will adopt that with thanks. Tim riley talk 23:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...south east of Paris. Southeast, the direction, is one word here in the New World. Not so in your land?
  • Well, well! According to the OED we're both wrong and it should be "south-east". I'll add the hyphen. Tim riley talk 23:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metropolitan -- Many readers will only know of this name as a cocktail, rather than the long-defunct publication, so I've added the word "magazine". Feel free to delete if it offends your prose instincts.
  • I know nothing about alcoholic drinks, as you know, but as to the publication I have not the smallest objection to your addition. The magagzine was from your neck of the woods, after all. Tim riley talk 23:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Come bumpers, aye, ever so many! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to comment on something else, but it was just a smudge on my computer screen. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are not we all merely smudges on the computer screens of eternity? So be it. Tim riley talk 23:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Return to England:

  • The only thing I see in this section is two more of those rascally missing commas prior to an independent clause, both in the first paragraph (prior to "but his inexperience" and "and they collaborated"). May we add them?
  • Certainly not. I spend far too much time removing otiose commas inserted into the Queen's English by well-meaning AmE writers under the influence of the half-baked "rules" propagated by their beaks. Tim riley talk 06:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, also, do you want to mention The Great Adventure? You discuss it below, but it seems strange to discuss Milestones but not TGA. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the mentions in the lead and the stage and screen section suffice, but we could add third mention if wanted. Tim riley talk 06:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last years:

  • Lecturer is not a term we generally use on this side of the pond. I suggest linking it.
  • It isn't a precisely definable term. If he had been a reader or possibly even a professor a link would be useful, but I think anyone from any Anglophone country will be able to work out that a lecturer is somebody who lectures.
  • [comma] and Marguerite had taken up
  • No.
  • [comma] and his ashes were interred -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No.

Novels and short stories:

  • John Eland was the source for Mr Aked. Perhaps "model" instead of "source"?
  • I wonder if "model" might be a bit too definite. I think Bennett drew on Eland for Aked, but I'm not sure the character was a complete representation of the man. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then "the source" is also too definite. How about "a" model or at least "a" source? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Tim riley talk 17:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added/deleted a couple of paragraph breaks. See if you like it.
  • I deleted a couple of Oxford commas for consistency with the rest of the article and added a comma at the end of a parenthetical clause.
  • One of these days I am going to beat you to death with a bag full of commas, but I haven't altered your alteration here. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His chosen locations ranged widely"... Do you prefer "locations" to "settings"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stage and screen:

  • I combined the last two paragraphs about film scenarios.
  • Perhaps some of this should go in Critical reputation section?
  • I know what you mean. More than once I've had to ponder where a sentence should go, being relevant to more than one section. I think this is currently the way I prefer it, but will review. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jounalism and self-help books:

  • [Literary Taste: How to Form It|Literary Taste: How to form it] -- If the title is wrongly capitalised, we should move/change the title of the article, although the capitalisation of the article seems consistent with the capitalisation of other titles, so perhaps better to simply write it as Literary Taste: How to Form It?
  • Yes, I think you're probably right. It is annoying that WP insists on altering the published titles of work to fit a restrictive capitalisation policy. I can't remember which literary figure said "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" but whoever it was, I agree with him or her. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was Emerson. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. I used have several of his albums on LP. Tim riley talk 18:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were neither EPs nor LPs, but ELP's. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 1910 the figure was "probably about 80 other articles". What period of time do you mean? In a year? The previous sentence is also about a year of output?

Journals: No suggestions -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reputation:

  • Should anything from the Works section about his plays go in this section instead?
  • On balance, no, I think, as they are so seldom staged now that their reputation is really only of historical interest. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archives:

  • Beyond the two main archives at the Hanley Museum in Stoke-on-Trent and at Keele University, is it really worth listing the others? My experience has been that the librarians at Yale University are extremely aggressive in trying to get us to list them in every Wikipedia article. Do serious researchers benefit from our listing them, or is it already obvious to them? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right about that singular anomaly the manic archivist (from Yale or elsewhere), as we both know from many another article! I'll consult my expert adviser about which archives really need a mention. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omelettes:

  • Can we say the year when it was introduced? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid not. I don't know that I could even, hand on heart, mention a decade, though my guess would be early 1920s. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Support the promotion to FA. I have left comments, but they are all merely suggestions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support and for your careful scrutiny and helpful suggestions. I am much in your debt. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dmass edit

The Old Wive's Tale has been on my reading list for a while, and is now a priority after reading this excellent and lively article. A few, very minor, observations from me.

  • To my ear, it sounds repetitive (although strictly it isn't) to have 'author...novelist...writer' within a few words of each other at the very start. Maybe something like: 'was a prolific English author, best known as a novelist; between the 1890s and the 1930s he completed 34 novels etc.'
  • Lightly redrawn, cutting the number of nouns down. Tim riley talk 18:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should there be a comma before 'and French literature in particular'?
  • Does it need 'Bennett is best known for his novels and short stories' again in the lead, as the point has already been made in the first sentence? Could it go straight into: 'Many of B's novels and short stories are set...'? The same phrase is repeated at the start of the Novels sections below.
  • I think it might be fairer to clarify at the first mention (as you do later) that VW and co. belittled his novels not only because they were popular (and they were snobs) but because of his adherence to realism.
  • In 'Freelance; Paris' you've repeated a phrase used in the lead ('always a devotee of French culture in general and French literature in particular') - is that deliberate?
  • It was intentional: the wording succinctly says what I want it to say, but I can tweak it if the exact repetition troubles you. Tim riley talk 18:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I particularly like the fact that you've identified the streets he lived on in Paris (what a pity you don't give the precise house numbers...)
  • Oho! I hardly felt the stiletto going in between my ribs. Just you wait till you get M. Boulez of 14 rue Oudinot to FAC! Tim riley talk 18:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel a bit short-changed not knowing (however briefly) why Drabble thought him well rid of Eleanor Green. Reference to her 'eccentric and capricious' family only makes me more curious. Of course, you may think this would take up more space than is warranted.
  • Apart from anything else I think I'd feel well rid of someone so selfish and unreliable as to cause me public humiliation by deserting me at the last minute before our wedding was due to take place, and then, if you please, immediately taking up with someone else. Drabble suggests that one explanation for her involvement with AB was that she was after his money, or that her parents, short of cash, put her up to getting engaged to him, but there's no firm evidence for either and I don't feel I can fairly pursue either point in the article. Drabble calls her "spoiled and opportunist", which seems a fair judgement, and I'm inclined to leave it at that. Tim riley talk 18:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pound quotation at the end of Last Years works very well.
  • Towards the end of Stage and screen what does 'of or in the period' mean (I know it's not your phrase)?
  • Pruned. The bit I've left unpruned makes the point quite clearly. Tim riley talk 18:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are all small points. I also Support the promotion to FA. It's a superb article, wide-ranging, rich in detail and very engaging for a general reader (like me).Dmass (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Dmass, for your support and the suggested tweaks, most of which, as recorded above, I have duly twuck. Please let me know if you would prefer me to follow up the point about the repetition of "always a devotee of French culture ...". Tim riley talk 18:02, 30 April 2022 (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/Arnold_Bennett/archive1&oldid=1085517188"