The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 13:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC) [1]. reply
This is Evelyn Waugh's fourth novel, a relatively early work (he was just 30 when he wrote it) yet by some accounts his best. His personal circumstances were miserable at the time, and some of the book reflects this. In places the phrasing is dated and awkward, even embarrassing to present-day ears, but generally the wit and imagination are undiminished. I hope a few readers of the article will be minded to read the book, or at least watch the film (available in its entirety on YouTube). Thanks to loyal peer reviewers, as always up to the task. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Support – I was one of the phalanx of peer reviewers, and my few and minor points were dealt with most satisfactorily then. Waugh is not a writer I generally enjoy, and it says much for BB's article that I was moved to get the novel off my shelves and dip in again. A fine article, comprehensive, balanced, clear, beautifully written, and as well illustrated as one could ask for in the circs. FA all the way, in my judgment. Tim riley talk 22:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Support most interesting, though Waugh is not my field.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
I looked at just the lead section and fixed a comma; feel free to revert, as always.
Support; I was a previously a peer reviewer, and had my small concerns happily dealt with there. Two subsequent minor tweaks from me, but the article is certainly better for the previous comments and improvements since PR. A further read through shows nothing to stop me supporting such an excellent article. - SchroCat ( talk) 20:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Support. Looked very strong from first glance, though I must admit I knew nothing of the subject. Read through with the intent of noting any quibbles and made a few very minor, mostly cosmetic, changes. This clearly meets the FA standards in my opinion. Really excellent work. Thank you, Brian, for the enlightening read. — Cliftonian (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note -- I'll leave this open a couple more days in case anyone else wants a go; if no issues will aim to close by EOM. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 22:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 13:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC) [1]. reply
This is Evelyn Waugh's fourth novel, a relatively early work (he was just 30 when he wrote it) yet by some accounts his best. His personal circumstances were miserable at the time, and some of the book reflects this. In places the phrasing is dated and awkward, even embarrassing to present-day ears, but generally the wit and imagination are undiminished. I hope a few readers of the article will be minded to read the book, or at least watch the film (available in its entirety on YouTube). Thanks to loyal peer reviewers, as always up to the task. Brianboulton ( talk) 22:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Support – I was one of the phalanx of peer reviewers, and my few and minor points were dealt with most satisfactorily then. Waugh is not a writer I generally enjoy, and it says much for BB's article that I was moved to get the novel off my shelves and dip in again. A fine article, comprehensive, balanced, clear, beautifully written, and as well illustrated as one could ask for in the circs. FA all the way, in my judgment. Tim riley talk 22:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Support most interesting, though Waugh is not my field.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 23:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Source review - spotchecks not done
I looked at just the lead section and fixed a comma; feel free to revert, as always.
Support; I was a previously a peer reviewer, and had my small concerns happily dealt with there. Two subsequent minor tweaks from me, but the article is certainly better for the previous comments and improvements since PR. A further read through shows nothing to stop me supporting such an excellent article. - SchroCat ( talk) 20:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Support. Looked very strong from first glance, though I must admit I knew nothing of the subject. Read through with the intent of noting any quibbles and made a few very minor, mostly cosmetic, changes. This clearly meets the FA standards in my opinion. Really excellent work. Thank you, Brian, for the enlightening read. — Cliftonian (talk) 09:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC) reply
Note -- I'll leave this open a couple more days in case anyone else wants a go; if no issues will aim to close by EOM. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 22:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC) reply