The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [1]. reply
The Diary of a Nobody ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
The Diary of a Nobody is a seminal work in comic English fiction, much imitated over the years in terms of format and characterisation. The putative diarist, Charles Pooter, is the epitome of all who take themselves and their small lives too seriously; Adrian Mole and Bridget Jones are among his more recent descendents, though arguably somewhat less engaging. It's comedy without malice; the book has never been out of print, and if you haven't read it before I hope this article might inspire you to do so (free, online of course). Particular thanks to the peer reviewers for the improvements they have engendered, especially to Ssilvers for lending his Grossmith expertise to the task. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Image review. Mostly OK
Support – I too took part in the peer review. I have known and loved this book for more than forty years, and the Grossmiths are home territory for me. Despite this I could find precious little to quibble about at peer review and can find nothing now. I learned a fair few things, as well. The nominator has shrewdly avoided (as I wouldn't have done) falling into the trap of overloading the article with an excess of quotations; the choice of three of Weedon's drawings is similarly judicious. (I did just wonder on rereading if there might be room without too much of a squeeze for a picture of Weedon, as we have one of George.) The balance of the article is good, the content comprehensive, the referencing thorough and widely-sourced, and the prose a pleasure to read. Meets all FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley ( talk) 09:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support: I also participated in the peer review and was pleased to be able to suggest a few changes, mainly to the background section about the authors. The article is a neat and efficient, yet readable, description of the novel, its literary reputation, cultural influence and adaptations. It is well written, well organized, nicely illustrated and covers its subject throughly. May I also say that this is the type of article that shows Wikipedia in its best light: there is nothing like this on this topic elsewhere on the internet or even in print encyclopedias. Well done to Brian Boulton and the other contributors to the article! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support per Tim and Ssilvers. I had meant to participate in the PR on this but I'm sorry to have not got around to it. Looking at it now the article is in really fine shape. As is typical of Brian's work, the prose is excellent. The article is well organised and discusses the Diary thoroughly. I see no problems with sourcing, neutrality or anything like that. I've made a few tweaks here and there but nothing major. Here are some very minor nitpicks, which don't affect my support:
I can't see anything else to mention right now, but I will be looking over the next few days and if there is something I will add it. Well done Brian and everybody else who helped with this! — Cliftonian (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Lower sections look flawless to me.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support Looks a sound article now to me. Nicely done.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support, although this nomination is hardly suffering from lack of support. Interesting, thoroughly prepared, and of the quality I have come to expect from Brian. -- Laser brain (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Source Review - as requested, I have reviewed the sources used in the article. The sources are fine with two minor possible exceptions.
PS In the interest of full disclosure, I cropped the image of Daisy used in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support - I have also read the article and find it fully meets the FAC criteria. Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [1]. reply
The Diary of a Nobody ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
The Diary of a Nobody is a seminal work in comic English fiction, much imitated over the years in terms of format and characterisation. The putative diarist, Charles Pooter, is the epitome of all who take themselves and their small lives too seriously; Adrian Mole and Bridget Jones are among his more recent descendents, though arguably somewhat less engaging. It's comedy without malice; the book has never been out of print, and if you haven't read it before I hope this article might inspire you to do so (free, online of course). Particular thanks to the peer reviewers for the improvements they have engendered, especially to Ssilvers for lending his Grossmith expertise to the task. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Image review. Mostly OK
Support – I too took part in the peer review. I have known and loved this book for more than forty years, and the Grossmiths are home territory for me. Despite this I could find precious little to quibble about at peer review and can find nothing now. I learned a fair few things, as well. The nominator has shrewdly avoided (as I wouldn't have done) falling into the trap of overloading the article with an excess of quotations; the choice of three of Weedon's drawings is similarly judicious. (I did just wonder on rereading if there might be room without too much of a squeeze for a picture of Weedon, as we have one of George.) The balance of the article is good, the content comprehensive, the referencing thorough and widely-sourced, and the prose a pleasure to read. Meets all FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley ( talk) 09:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support: I also participated in the peer review and was pleased to be able to suggest a few changes, mainly to the background section about the authors. The article is a neat and efficient, yet readable, description of the novel, its literary reputation, cultural influence and adaptations. It is well written, well organized, nicely illustrated and covers its subject throughly. May I also say that this is the type of article that shows Wikipedia in its best light: there is nothing like this on this topic elsewhere on the internet or even in print encyclopedias. Well done to Brian Boulton and the other contributors to the article! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support per Tim and Ssilvers. I had meant to participate in the PR on this but I'm sorry to have not got around to it. Looking at it now the article is in really fine shape. As is typical of Brian's work, the prose is excellent. The article is well organised and discusses the Diary thoroughly. I see no problems with sourcing, neutrality or anything like that. I've made a few tweaks here and there but nothing major. Here are some very minor nitpicks, which don't affect my support:
I can't see anything else to mention right now, but I will be looking over the next few days and if there is something I will add it. Well done Brian and everybody else who helped with this! — Cliftonian (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Lower sections look flawless to me.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support Looks a sound article now to me. Nicely done.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support, although this nomination is hardly suffering from lack of support. Interesting, thoroughly prepared, and of the quality I have come to expect from Brian. -- Laser brain (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Source Review - as requested, I have reviewed the sources used in the article. The sources are fine with two minor possible exceptions.
PS In the interest of full disclosure, I cropped the image of Daisy used in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Support - I have also read the article and find it fully meets the FAC criteria. Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC) reply