Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Neville Cardus/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Neville Cardus edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Any British reader of relatively mature years and a passing interest in music (classical) or cricket will know who Cardus was and will almost certainly have read him. He considered himself primarily a music critic, but it is likely that he reached a far bigger audience with his cricket writing. For someone who wrote so prolifically and with such erudition, it is a surprise to find that he was entirely self-educated and had no musical training. Yet he was at the top of both his professions for many years, and was awarded the rare honour (for a critic) of a knighthood. This article is a joint effort from Tim riley and me. Comments welcomed from all quarters on all aspects. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(s) from Cassianto

This looks fantastic. I feel there won't be many from me here, but I will list them as I go:

*"Cardus's opinions and judgments were often forthright and unsparing, which sometimes caused friction with leading performers" -- of cricket, music or both?

  • I think the context is clear that this refers to his music criticism, which is what is being discussed here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"Cardus spent the Second World War years in Australia, where he wrote for The Sydney Morning Herald and gave regular broadcast talks." -- Whats a broadcast talk? I'm making a presumption that these talks were for radio?

  • Your presumption is correct, but I have clarified. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"He also wrote books on music, and completed his autobiography."

*"He began going to the Hallé Orchestra's concerts at the Free Trade Hall, and was present at on 3 December 1908 for the premiere of Elgar's first symphony, under Hans Richter". This sounds strange. Maybe say instead: "He began going to the Hallé Orchestra's concerts at the Free Trade Hall, where, on 3 December 1908 he was present for the premiere of Elgar's first symphony, under Hans Richter."

*Would it be usual to link Trumper and Shrewsbury School in the image captions?

*"...mainly out of admiration for Bernard Shaw"- Is there a reason why he is referred to this and not George Bernard Shaw, the name by which he is more commonly known according to his article? The disambiguation page shows four other Bernard Shaws, all are closely related professionally inasmuch that two are footballers and one is a journalist. Granted, to you and I it would obviously be GBS, but visitors may assume otherwise. Is there any reason for the piped link on this occasion?

  • Shaw is, I believe, known as "George Bernard Shaw" in American usage but not in English. He hated the name George and didn't use it. You will find his collected plays and his three volumes of music criticism are by "Bernard Shaw", without the George. The film of Pygmalion has the title screen "Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion". The National Theatre's current season includes "The Doctor's Dilemma by Bernard Shaw". Cardus himself wrote of the older man as "Bernard Shaw" - no "George": rather pleasingly the first example that came to hand refers to another contributor to this very page: "Bernard Shaw wrote of Sarastro's music that it could be put into the mouth of God" ("An evening to cherish", The Guardian, 3 May 1961, p. 7). I think Shaw should be allowed his own preferred form of name. Tim riley (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue later. -- CassiantoTalk 14:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these. Anything further will of course be welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else from me. The article is superb! . -- CassiantoTalk 10:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All your contributions, above, gratefully received. Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro: What a fantastic article! There was so much about the man that I never knew. Very easy reading. A few points and questions, any of which you may feel free to ignore.

  • "he became The Manchester Guardian newspaper's cricket correspondent": Do we need to say it is a newspaper?
  • Non-British readers may not recognise it as a newspaper, but I'll leave it to Tim. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've rejigged it a bit, to include the word "newspaper" later in the sentence. Tim Riley (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His contributions in these two distinct fields in the years before the Second World War": Perhaps "contributions to" to avoid "to…to"?
  • I think you mean "to avoid in...in". Done as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah yes. Late night editing. Apologies! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although he achieved his largest readership for his cricket reports and books, he considered music criticism as his principal vocation.": Lots of "his" here, and is there a way to reduce it to one "he"?
  • I can't see a way of doing it, without mangling the sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Without any formal musical training, he was initially influenced by the older generation of critics, in particular Samuel Langford and Ernest Newman, but he developed his own individual style of criticism...": Again, is there a way to cut the second "he"?
  • "Cardus's opinions and judgments were often forthright and unsparing, which sometimes caused friction with leading performers.": Is the comma needed?
  • "Cardus spent the Second World War years": Sounds a little strange. Is "years" needed? If so, what about "years of the Second World War"?
  • "Years" is I think necessary. I'm not sure that your suggested rewording is necessary, but I'll leave that to Tim. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I very slightly prefer Sarastro's wording; I suggest we leave it as it is for now and see if anyone else has a view. Tim Riley (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neville's mother was Ada Cardus, one of several daughters born to Robert and Ann Cardus": Maybe make it clear earlier that these are the people they lived with?
  • Ah, my fault; must stop writing after midnight! What I meant was that these two are introduced, but it does not become clear until later on that Cardus and his mother lived with Robert and Ann; at first I wondered why we were being told who his grandparents were. Perhaps explain it here? Not a huge deal, though. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was supplemented intermittently by his daughters' earnings from part-time prostitution.": This is a little different to what is stated in the ODNB, which does not mention "intermittent" and specifically mentions Cardus' mother.
  • True, ODNB doesn't say "intermittent", though this is can be deduced from other sources. However, I have withdrawn the word. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1902 he saw the Test match against Australia in which Victor Trumper scored a century before lunch and thereby won a permanent place among Cardus's heroes.": Why "the" Test match, as the general reader (and even specialists) may not be familiar with that match.
  • The phrasing is "the Test match against Australia in which Victor Trumper scored a century before lunch", as one might say of a TV programme "the episode in which George Costanza's fiancee dies" etc. So I think the wording is right. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the Attewell point, I may be able to help on one of the references. Of the two Attewell profiles on Cricinfo, the one for William is not his Wisden "profile", rather a frankly rubbish review written in 2000 before the site became a little more "professional". The same page links to his actual Wisden obituary here. Walter's page has his actual obituary which was published rather later and is perhaps more reliable. Doesn't quite clear it up, but perhaps not worth claiming that Wisden says they were both the coach.
  • Thanks. I have removed the references to Wisden. As you say, the confusion remains. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The standard story that I have seen elsewhere is that he had a "breakdown" in 1919. While I suspect the version here is correct, can any more details be added?
  • Cardus in Autobiography says he suffered a breakdown but gives no medical details. I have relied on Brookes's more precise account. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other old chestnut is that he was a sensation as a cricket reporter, and people bought the paper just to read his reports, etc. Here we have "Nevertheless, he developed a style of cricket reporting that quickly lifted him to the forefront of contemporary sports writers." Can any details be added; e.g. when was he first noticed, when did he become "famous"? Although I suspect this may not be possible to elaborate on.
  • As early as 1922 the Australian writer of the quote at ref 95 was calling Cardus "one of the most interesting writers on cricket of this or perhaps any other generation" – Tim Riley (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tending to treat the actual scores as secondary": I may have to disagree with the source here. If you have a copy of "The Roses Matches 1919-1939" which collects his reports, he does quite a lot of factual reporting as well as his character stuff. They are quite good just as cricket reports in themselves.
  • Well, the source is Cardus himself. On the page that I have cited from Full Score he adds: To look at the scoreboard while Hobbs was on view, as master batsman, was as unimaginatively pedantic..." etc etc. Also, treating the scores as "secondary" does not imply that he ignored the figures, rather that he looked beyond them. I am sure that as a good reporter he made sure that his readers knew the state of the game, but he made certain that they were informed of much else, besides. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The MCC tour of Australia under G.O. Allen was the occasion of Cardus's first visit to the country.[101] During the tour": Tour…tour
  • Unavoidable, I fear, without undue contortion. Also, the repeated word is in two separate sentences. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Fry in Australia: Don't know if you've heard the story about the outward journey when Fry was talking everyone to death. Paraphrasing a little here, but the gist is that immediately before a 2 minutes silence on the ship (I think) Cardus said something like "This will be your biggest ever challenge", leaving Fry no time to reply. (I'm not suggesting including this, by the way!)
  • He said (according to himself) "This'll irk you, Charles". The story is in Cardus on Cricket, and I've read it elsewhere. Nice story, but as you say, not really appropriate in a summary encyclopedia article. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there are a couple of cricket quotes in the article, is there room to include a famous music quote or two?
  • A possible runner: NC on The Magic Flute – "The opera in fact is the only one in existence that might conceivably have been composed by God". ("An evening to cherish", The Guardian, 3 May 1961, p. 7)
  • "—though his rationalism was shaken, he confesses, when he came to understand the late string quartets of Beethoven.": Sorry to betray my ignorance here, but not quite sure what this means here! Probably just me…
  • I think he means that the beauty of the late quartets was such as almost to convince him of divine inspiration, of powers beyond the rational world. That's how I read it, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that several of the references are given as "Cricinfo" (which technically should perhaps be ESPNCricinfo). My personal preference is to give the reference to Wisden, which originally published it, and keep the link to the Cricinfo page, as I find this more accurate and perhaps "respectable".
  • I agree with you, and will attend to it
  • A couple of composers are mentioned whom Cardus liked but whom were not widely revered at the time. The obvious inference is that general opinion later changed, but could this be made more explicit.
  • I understand you mean Mahler, but who is the other one? Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other point about music: while it is made clear what he achieved as a cricket writer, maybe the same could not be said for the coverage of his musical writing. Basically, was he any good?
  • I would have thought that the tributes quoted, of Menhuin and Colin Davis among others, answer your question adequately. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a final cricket point: It may be worth making the point that some of his match reports were lacking in … well, truth. For example, he (according to him) once reported on a Test match at which he was not present. The point is made about his cricket "characters" but could it be extended slightly?
  • Perhaps a tweak in this direction is possible - I'll work on it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is alluded to in the Australia section: "Mr. Cardus mingles fancy with fact. The latter is preferable.". (Inadmissible evidence: at the Festival Hall, circa 1971, I saw him comfortably holding forth in the foyer to a bevy of young ladies: he was there throughout the second half of the concert but reviewed it all.) Tim Riley (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be able to find a better quality copy of the picture of Trumper if it helps, but I would have thought that MacLaren was a greater hero of his. Or Ranji. (Not worth including, but he was just about the only person to rate MacLaren as a captain) Sarastro1 (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rather like the Trumper picture. If you can improve the quality, that would be welcome. Thank you for your thorough review and the many helpful points that you raise. Much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands the article looks to be an obvious FA candidate. It looks flawless to me, an excellent account of the critic and thoroughly enjoyable to read. Unlike many wikipedia editors I get the impression that the authors have actually read his article many times to ensure it is satisfactory; it represents the very highest standards of writing through much experience on wikipedia. I'm afraid my critical eye is unable to detect anything major. I suppose the only thing which was a little tricky to read was registering his constant post war movements between Sydney and London, anybody would think that Sydney was Oxford!! I don't think its a writing flaw though. I'll have to scrutinize this a lot later if I'm to be of any critical use to you, it's that good Brian and Tim! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, dear Doctor! Praise naturally lapped up gratefully, but if on later consideration you find any faults, we'll be glad to hear. Tim riley (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the Doctor says above, this is positively first-class in all departments, and truly a credit to the whole project. I can find only a few very minor nitpicks in what is a marvellous article. The prose is particularly fine; well done to you both! Anyway, here are my contributions to this peer review.

  • "Robert Cardus was a retired policeman; to augment his small pension the family took in neighbours' washing, and the household income was supplemented by his daughters' earnings from part-time prostitution." I'd break this up myself: "Robert Cardus was a retired policeman; to augment his small pension the family took in neighbours' washing. The household income was further supplemented by his daughters' earnings from part-time prostitution."
  • Caption: "Albert Square, Manchester, (1910), where Cardus and his self-educated friends met regularly for discussion and debate" The brackets and the commas are not necessary, either one is fine. I would put "Albert Square, Manchester (seen in 1910), where ..." myself.
  • Other captions have dates and so on (such as "modern photograph") in brackets; I would italicise all of these
    • I don't think that's the usual practice, and having just experimented (without saving) I don't think it looks as good with the itals as without. Brian – your thoughts on this? Tim riley (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitelly not a case for italics. The Albert Square view is "depicted" rather than "seen", as it's a panting. Brianboulton (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He concluded that he could not satisfactorily review concerts for an evening newspaper, and joined the staff of The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH)." I can't help but think a word is missing at the juncture of this sentence. Perhaps change to "and so joined", or similar?
  • Caption: "Cardus's friendships in Australia included C. B. Fry, Sir Thomas Beecham and Donald Bradman". There should be a full stop at the end here as it is a full sentence, and I'm not sure the word "friendship" is used correctly. Perhaps "In Australia, Cardus developed friendships with C. B. Fry, Sir Thomas Beecham and Donald Bradman."?
  • Box quote: "Reader's letter to The Sydney Morning Herald". Is this letter dated in the source? That would be helpful. Is there a reason for the space between Herald and the reference?
    • Alas, Brookes quotes but gives no date for this letter. I have searched the Herald's online archive, and I cannot find it there. I conclude that it was not written for publication and is somewhere in the paper's old files. It must remain undated, here, I'm afraid. If you don't leave a gap between an italicised title and the <ref> it looks uncomfortably squashed. But I'm happy to go with the majority on this. Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Box quote: "Daniel Barenboim's tribute to Cardus:" is the colon at the end here necessary?
  • The eulogy should probably be either indented or boxed.
    • I concur (indented rather than boxed, I'd say). I have experimentally added indents: Brian, what think you? Revert if you prefer, natch. Tim riley (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done again on a fabulously good read, and I hope you both have a wonderful weekend to kick off the new year. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are gratefully received. Thank you very much. Tim riley (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat
A fascinating and beautifully balanced read. These are some very minor points and may not even be worth mentioning (or at least you may have considered the alternatives and have reason to do things the way you have).
Ellipses Two of the ellipses used are in the un-favoured shortened version (…), rather than the others, which use the MOS-favoured, slightly longer version (...) These look different in the background text, rather than on the screen. The first is in the first quote ("a war game … with an intensity"); the second is in the final para of the section ("mercury bubbled in the blood … The issue was here a very ache of intensity".

I note that you don't use a   before the ellipses: is this a conscious thing? I find them useful in ensuring a line doesn't start with the full stops, although I appreciate it's just a matter of opinion.

I have standardised the ellipses into the MOS-preferred format. As to the no-break spaces, you are right, these can be useful. It's just that I am too bloody lazy to put them in place. You have strirred my conscience and I will do so. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quote boxes I notice you have a space between the sources of quotes in quote boxes and the citation (Wilfred Rhodes: Autobiography [63]; October 1929 [86]; The Sydney Morning Herald [111]) As it appears in all the boxes I presume there is a reason for this?

I don't see these spaces; can you clarify the problem?

::Now highlighted by use of bolded asterisk:

  1. Wilfred Rhodes: Autobiography*[63]
  2. October 1929*[86]
  3. The Sydney Morning Herald*[111])
These are the sources in the quote boxes. - SchroCat (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I have fixed the problem now Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music critic "prewar": surely "pre-war" would be the better BrEng variant?

No, either is acceptable as BritEng, which has tended increasingly to do away with hyphenated forms though some still remain. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final years "Howat describes his appearance in this years as": these years?

Fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only two other minor points, of which I am unsure of one:
Manchester, 1901–12

  • "As a small boy he had begun to visit Old Trafford cricket ground": the Old Trafford? I'm not sure your version isn't the correct one, but it's worth a check at least.
    • It's curious how the idiomatic use of the definite article for venues differs on each side of the Atlantic. The article would look odd here to an English eye, yet contrariwise we should never dream of referring to, say, "Philharmonic Hall" without the article. Tim riley (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sure you are right and I've tried to mull over why I think it looks odd: the only thought I had was I would say that "playing at Old Trafford is fun"—sans article, but "playing at the Old Trafford cricket ground is fun". I don't know why I would make the distinction, (apart from not paying sufficient attention at school) but I know I'd be wrong at least 50% of the time! - SchroCat (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interesting! Our Test grounds cover the whole range: you couldn't say anything other than "the Oval cricket ground", but equally you could definitely not say "the Lord's cricket ground" (even when the Rev David Sheppard was batting). I think perhaps Old Trafford, Headingley, Trent Bridge and Edgbaston are betwixt and between. What a pleasing point you raise – thank you!

Cricket correspondent

  • writing on 5 March 1933,: "[h]ad [Jardine]: comma and colon both needed?

Very minor stuff. A top-drawer article and one I am sure will acquire FA status in the near future. - SchroCat (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some very helpful comments there: thank you very much. Tim riley (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Initial comments from GuillaumeTell (it's a long article and will take me some time to get through the lot, nitpicking as I go)

Lead

  • (para 1): “His contributions to these two distinct fields [cricket and music] in the years before the Second World War established his reputation as one of the foremost critics of his generation.” – I know about music critics, but what is a cricket critic?
    • Interesting. One recalls the famous tongue-twister, "A quick-witted cricket critic" (don't try this when sober) and the phrase is used widely, but I take the point and will ponder. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (para 2): “He is widely considered [by whom?] to have influenced every subsequent cricket writer.” Every??
  • I am leaving Tim to deal with most of your comments as I am somewhat preoccupied at present. But I'll pick this one up. I agree that "widely considered" is too vague, but as to "every", Howat and Gibson, to name but two, certainly thought so. See the "Reputation" section. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (para 3): “produced books on both his specialisms”: “both of his specialisms”? What is a specialism? Discipline (specialism) looks like a rubbish article to me. How about “specialities”? Oh, no, Wikipedia says it’s a specialty…
  • I can't help the "rubbish" nature of the linked article, But I think anyone but an idiot would know what a "specialism" is, and I far prefer it to "speciality" or indeed "specialty". Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Family background and early childhood

  • “commonality of their forenames” Must we be so orotund? Commonality in Wikipedia redirects to Fleet commonality …. How about “apart from their sharing the same forename”
    • This comes of writing in committee. The phrase was perpetrated by me when tinkering with BB's earlier wording. Your phrasing is much better and I'll adopt it. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final para: do we need the comma after “schoolmates”?

Manchester, 1901–12

  • End of first para: Beatrice “remained a potent inspirational force" throughout his later life as a writer. Really? I bet she didn’t live until 1975.
  • Well, it's a quote. It simply means that her inspiration continued to influence him during the remainder of his life, in the same way that some current Tories might claim to be inspired by Winston Churchill who's been dead these 50 years. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4th para: “Manchester league cricket” doesn’t link anywhere and might puzzle some readers (including me). Lancashire League (cricket) doesn’t mention Manchester. Might club cricket help in some way?
  • Neither Cardus nor Brookes are precise here - Brookes refers to "local Manchester leagues". Probably linking club cricket as you suggest is the best we can do. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shrewsbury

  • "to finance his winters' studies": I'd go for "winter studies"
    • I see what you mean, but there's a tiny hint of natural history about the latter, I think. On balance I think I'd prefer to leave it. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His application was successful, and in May 1912 began his duties." Surely, "in May 1912 he began his duties". ["And don't call me Shirley"] Sorry about that!
  • "the nascent Labour Party" - really, who knows what "nascent" means? I suppose you could direct the word to Wiktionary. And incidentally, the Daily Citizen (British newspaper) article isn't very enlightening (sorry, Doctor).
  • "Nascent" is hardly such an obscure word as to invoke raised eyebrows or a Wiktionary link, but I've made it "early". The Citizen article is a stub, which anyone is welcome to develop, It was either that or a redlink. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #44: what on earth is the Tom Webster Biography doing here, and why?
  • This is the only reliable source I was able to find that confirmed the closure date of the Daily Citizen in 1915. This is relevant because, according to Cardus, he was writing for it in 1916-17 (see footnote at end of paragraph) Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Brookes, the influence of Shrewsbury School affected Cardus to the extent that "[t]he playing fields of an English public school..." What's with the "[t]he"?
  • It indicates that, in the original, the letter was a capital. In this context the flow suggests a lower case; the brackets show that I have altered the original slightly. This might be thought pedantic, but it is commonly done. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have dealt with these, rather than Tim, because I wrote this part of the article. If I have not commented on a point, you may assume I've adopted your suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Wehwalt
It's extremely well written and fairly seemless in that I'm not sure who wrote what.
Lede
  • "and the same newspaper's" Perhaps "and that newspaper's"
    • To my eye (and ear) the latter is rather more formal than the former: useful sometimes, but I think the existing version is less stiff. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He is widely considered" Given how sweeping the sentence is, I think you can do without the "widely".
    • This has already provoked comment from Guillaume Tell above, and I think BB and I will need to put our heads together and decide what to do about it. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his specialisms." Is this better than "specialties"?
  • See an earlier reviewer's comment. "Specialties" is mainly US/Canadian. As between "specialisms" and "specialities", I won't headbut an editor who prefers the latter, though it carries with it the hint of restaurant dishes (" Today's speciality" etc). Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • "His birth certificate, however, confirms the earlier date" Surely it is a later date? 3 April rather than 2 April?
  • You have cafe both with and without the accent (or whatever the thing over the e is)
    • Excellently caught! Thank you. Will fix. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC) (Later: Too late! Already attended to by Brian) Tim riley (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Manchester Guardian
  • I assume anyone inclined to read this article is going to get the reference to Twelfth Night in the first paragraph without prompting?
  • I fear your assumption is optimistic. I asked four acquaintances, one a literature graduate, to place the quote; none did so correctly. The lit grad at least knew it was from "somewhere in Shakespeare"; otherwise it was two votes for Winston Churchill and one for Jesus. I will add a footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all the energy of Larwood" What's a Larwood?
    • BB is ahead of me and has explained in the text. Tim riley (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cardus was unemployed," I gather, then, he was paid by the piece and not on salary?
  • Unemployed in the sense of have no work to do. Suggest another word/phrase? Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(I have pondered and can't think of anything better. Tim riley (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Australia
  • "The MCC tour of Australia" Year?

"With no financial pressure" The structure of the sentence, with the semicolon between two dashes, could use some work.

Both done. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reputation
  • I draw your attention to your using the present tense referring to Cardus in his writings in the fifth paragraph (not counting blockquote). I do not say it is wrong, I simply draw your attention to it.
    • I think we generally follow the convention that even the deadest of authors “says” in his book So-and-So…” rather than “said”, and I think I prefer it. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More comments by GuillaumeTell (hoping to finish today)
Australia
  • "For ABC Cardus presented a weekly hour-long programme, "The Enjoyment of Music", which enlarged the audience for classical music across the country." Does Brookes have any concrete proof of this or was he just guessing?
    • The Australian Dictionary of Biography concurs, and the excellent Trove archive of the Australian national collection of newspapers makes it pretty clear that NC's broadcasts did much to popularise music in Australia. I could add a newspaper ref or two if wanted. Tim riley (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Up to you, but I think it would be worth doing.
Years of uncertainty
  • "Newman, whose retirement as The Sunday Times chief music critic was assumed to be imminent." Seems to me that this should read either "as The Sunday Times's" or (better) "as the chief music critic of The Sunday Times".
  • "the London Evening Standard": WP:overlink - linked previously further up (I noticed this after finding that the Free Trade Hall in this section only has one wikilink in the article).
London critic
  • "The Queen might have been any nice shy young lady in D.H. Evans or Kendal Milnes": Note 11 tells us that these were department stores - but why not just link D H Evans and Kendals, let readers read about these shops and skip the note?
    • We're not encouraged to put blue links within quotations. We all do it, but one tries to keep it to a minimum. I'll be interested to see what reviewers think at FAC. Tim riley (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rule about not linking in quotes is not absolute. Within the FAC review system I have sometimes been advised to do so when alternative explanation is longwinded and likely to disturb the prose flow. In this case I think GT's suggestion is preferable to my cumbersome footnote and its attendant source websites. I suggest we adopt the suggestion and defend it at FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Final years
  • Flora Robson & Wendy Hiller were actresses (or actors, per The Guardian) who don't seem to belong to any of Cardus's worlds of cricket, journalism or music. Was Cardus friendly with either of them? If so, maybe this should be mentioned.
    • Not that I remember from the sources. Any thoughts, BB? Tim riley (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reference to them in biographical sources is in connection with the memorial service. Daniels mentions Hiller's fondness for Cardus, but there is no other information to work with. I can well imagine them within Cardus's circle of artistic/intellectual acquaintances. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reputation, honours and influence
  • Elsa Mayer-Linsman? No, Else Mayer-Lismann (1914-1990), who was Director of the Mayer-Lismann Opera Workshop and gave explanatory lectures with musical examples on the operas to be performed during the Glyndebourne Festival at the British Institute of Recorded Sound in Exhibition Road, South Kensington. The Cardus photo in the (ahem) infobox was taken by her.
    • Thanks for spotting the typos. As to the info-box, both BB and I considered it par for the course, having checked other FA biogs of authors. Having striven to uphold the consensus agin the things for composer articles it seems only proper to respect the consensus in re authors. Tim riley (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that's it from me. Very comprehensive article which I'm sure will pass FA with flying colours. Can't say that I warm to Cardus, though. --GuillaumeTell 18:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks for your detailed and careful review. All grist to the mill. Tim riley (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to add my thanks for the time taken to provide a detailed and helpful review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Neville_Cardus/archive1&oldid=1079638386"