Wikipedia:Peer review/Harold Pinter/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harold Pinter[edit]

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I feel that it is time to move on to featured article status. The article is probably a little too long and has suffered from ownership issues by a now banned editor. Any useful criticism much appreciated.

Thanks, Jezhotwells (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tim Riley I was one of the Wiki-colleagues who spent a little time a year or so back trying to lend a hand with cleaning this article up. I'd be happy to make detailed comments here, if that is a proper course of action, but I don't want to stick my oar in if I am ineligible by reason of my earlier contributions. Advice, please! Tim riley (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, no I would welcome a fresh review as I do intend to take this to FAC. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Right ho! Then here goes. The ingredients of this article are excellent, and it is much more like a top-class article than it was a year or two ago. Nevertheless, it has, I think, some way to go before it meets the FAC criterion that "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". The pseudo-academic pretensions of earlier versions have not yet all been expunged, though you have certainly done wonders. It will take me several goes to complete my comments. Here is the first batch.

  • Lead: no suggestions. A good length and judicious balance.
  • Early life and education
    • "native-English parents of Eastern-European" – there are two more hyphens here than Fowler would have us use; a legacy of an earlier, American, editor, perhaps.
Done
    • Short quotations, such as "good cook" and "a solid, red-brick….": I think you'll come under some pressure at FAC to attribute within the text any quotations you include. Thus "described by Pinter as 'a good cook'" etc. Some cases are more intrusive than others, no doubt.
Done
    • "Pinter's official authorised biographer" – tautology? Can one be an official biographer without being authorised, or vice versa?
Done
    • "Spring 1947" – two things here. Wikipedia house style is not to capitalise the seasons; and to appease those in the Antipodes, WP recommends avoiding using, e.g., "spring" if one could as well write "April" or whatever the month was.
Done, left it as spring, I take the point about the Antipodes but I think the issue was entitled Spring.
  • Sport and friendship
    • Gratuitous comment by TR (to be ignored) – what in God's name was a good London lad doing supporting that shower from Headingley?
Indeed!
    • "Testosterone" quote – that one really does need attributing in-line.
Done
    • "After his death, several of his school contemporaries recalled his achievements in sports, especially cricket and running" – does this sentence add anything to the six previous ones?
Hmm, I'll think about that.
    • "Platonic ideal of male friendship" – that's a lot of blue for one link; could the blue reasonably be confined to "Platonic" or some such?
Done
    • "he worked for the Donald Wolfit Company, King's Theatre, Hammersmith" – "at the" before "King's", perhaps?
Done
    • "In all, Pinter played nearly 25 roles" – a lot of "Pinter"s hereabouts; would "he" flow better here and in the next sentence?
Changed to over 20
      • Afterthought: Is "nearly 25" a good enough measure? I might go for 23 (or whatever it was) or else "more than 20". Just a thought.
    • "as he did later as well" – stylistically a bit limp? Stronger as something like "as he continued to do throughout his career"?
Done
  • Marriages and family life
    • "most notably The Homecoming" – very likely, but it's too firm an opinion to stand without a citation
Done, notably removed
    • "on-off affair" – unclear whether the quotation marks indicate an unattributed quotation or an apology for using a slangy phrase.
Sorted
    • "seeing an American socialite" – "seeing" is a bit vague in this context (possibly an American euphemism?)
Sorted by rewrite
    • "whom he nicknamed 'Cleopatra', another secret he kept" – it was presumably the seeing not the nickname that he kept secret – the text could be misunderstood by those determined to spot ambiguities
Rewritten
    • "five days after Hall's première of No Man's Land":
      • this is the first mention of Hall. I don't think his name adds anything to this sentence, and I'd delete it, but if you prefer to keep it you need to blue-link it and give him his first name.
Deleted
      • WP prefers Anglicised versions of foreign words that are in common use, so you should lose the accent on première.
Him, this is the correct British English spelling.
    • "For all concerned" – this orphaned quote really needs to be fostered by someone. One can often guess who said some of the other unattributed quotes, but this one defeats me.
Removed
    • "after Pinter and Lady Antonia Fraser" – at her last mention she was just "Fraser" tout court. Does it help to expand her name again this time?
Done
    • He "re-drafted" and "polished" it "off" – oh, come on! Is there a special offer on quotation marks at Ryman's this week?
Done
    • "Pinter 'did everything possible to support' her" – says who? The citation at the end of the sentence is a long way away, and your reader should not be required to go to it and thence to the notes at the end of the article. I'd paraphrase this, "Pinter believed/maintained/contended that he had done everything possible to support her…"
Done
    • "she says that she 'could'" More gratuitous quotes. No rational person could maintain that omitting the quotation marks here would be tantamount to plagiarism. The source of the statement is perfectly plain without them.
Done
    • "Did Billington really write "the break-up … and the new life … was"? If his grammar was thus faulty, so be it, but it might be worth checking.
Yes he did, but he is only a journalist
    • "the new life with Antonia" – yet another way of referring to the lady. I think you should strive for consistency throughout. (I've just been pressed into doing the same for Elizabeth David at peer review and so I'm boxing about.)
It is a quote from Billington
    • "did not 'claim' to have 'some influence over' Pinter" – more otiose quotation marks
Done

That's all for now. I'll gather my strength and return with more a.s.a.p. Tim riley (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, excellent stuff so far, i will start looking at it tonight. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have made a first pass at these comments. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Ssilvers: Congratulations on your progress with the article. My main thought is that it is over-referenced. We don't need three refs for the first sentence of the Lead, and there are often two or even three refs for simple propositions in the article. Also, the "Works cited and further reading" section seems to cite too many works that are never used in the text. We are still citing 8 pieces by Susan Hollis Merritt [. . .]. But I have no idea which ones are unnecessary. Hope this helps. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes I will look at this, but will try and get the prose into shape first. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work on the Works cited section and good tweaks throughout. Your hard work on this is much appreciated. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second batch of comments from Tim riley:

  • Civic activities and political activism
    • "essays, interviews, and public appearances" – is the Oxford comma needed before "and" here?
Done
    • Third para – begins with a pronoun, which I think FAC inquisitors will want to see rendered as a name.
Done
    • "Acceptance Speech"– why the inverted commas?
Done
  • As actor
    • "Mike Nichols'" – American form of possessive. English usage would be Nichols's.
The artcile uses British English
  • As playwright
    • "Pinter is the author of 29 plays" – ought this to be "was"? I'm not sure what the consensus is on referring to dead writers in the present tense.
Done
    • "a staggeringly confident debut" – this quote really needs an attribution in the text, I think, not just a citation in a footnote.
Done
    • "despite a rave review" – slightly slangy phrase for an encyclopaedia article, perhaps?
Done
    • The Hobson review of The Birthday Party could do with a citation
Done
    • "It was not produced very often thereafter" – a rather woolly phrase; could we know, e.g., how often it was produced in London?
Reworded
    • Memory plays – this section, containing some of Pinter's greatest plays, seems to me rather perfunctory in comparison with the more detailed (and most welcome) treatment of the earlier plays. Extensive discussion of the individual plays themselves is not wanted here, but a few production details or reviews would bring this sub-section up to fighting weight. I'd be happy to dig them up if you would like them.
That would be a help. I will start drafting something tomorrow.
    • The Hothouse – "it is also highly comic" – says who?
Mmmm, can't find a precise source for this so have rewritten
    • …presented "metaphors" for "power and powerlessness," the later ones present literal "realities" of power… – all these quotation marks could be lost without for a moment obscuring the fact that the words are Pinter's.
Done
    • "a gathering place for the theatre crowd" – another slightly slangy construction?
Rephrased
    • "The ritzy loudmouths in 'Celebration' ... and the quieter working-class mumblers of 'The Room' ... have everything in common beneath the surface" – as I read the MoS, you are permitted (and if so, I think ought) silently to change the single quotes into italics.
I am not clear about what you mean here
    • "harkening back" – harking back?
British English verb form of hearken.
    • The waiter's last speech doesn't work on the page in the current formatting. I think you might try a blockquote. [Later: I've done so, but if you think it doesn't work, revert it, of course. Tim riley (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)][reply]
Done

More anon. Tim riley (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be away for a week, with little online access, so my next batch of comments probably won't be till the middle of next week. Tim riley (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Tim, Thanks for all your help. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back. Will resume review over the weekend. Tim riley (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, look forward to it. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Round three
  • As screenwriter
    • Only two comments on this section. First, a general one: there are rather a lot of actors listed against the film titles, and this somewhat clogs up the page with blue links. I wonder if you need the cast members at all? I might be inclined to give title and director and leave it at that. But if you disagree with that, you might still take the pruning shears to the cast of e.g. The Last Tycoon, where you surely don't need seven names?
Agreed, all "stars" removed, not relevant here, the details are in the articles on the original films. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other point on this section is that Pinter's screenwriting career ended with Sleuth, but it is rather tendentious (and in my view inaccurate) to say this was the culmination of that career. The OED defines "culminate" as "To reach its acme, or highest development", which if applied to Sleuth is pushing things more than somewhat and is POV in any case. And what relevance is it to this article that Olivier played Wyke in an earlier film of the play in which Pinter had no hand?
Agreed, rephrased with culmination removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2001-2008
    • Homage – is the link helpful?
No, removed per WP:OVERLINKING Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second para of this section contains a contender for Longest Sentence in Wikipedia. I'd drop the padding "As chronicled on his official website and in the subsequent editions of the "Harold Pinter Bibliography" in volumes of The Pinter Review" and chop the remainder into two or preferably three shorter sentences.
Done Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "otherwise-retrospective" – otiose hyphen. Americans seem addicted to this sort of thing but I have just checked against Fowler, who will have none of it.
Removed Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MOS gives instructions about where to hyphenate and where not to in all WP articles (It is the same for US and UK). See WP:HYPHEN. This is not a simple series of rules to apply consistently, and I agree with Tim that the ones he has identified are unneeded. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "over a 130" – intrusive article here
Removed Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "dozen … dozen" – rather a jingle, or is it deliberate for rhetorical effect?
Removed Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Productions during the Festival" – lower case festival?
Done Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "activism" – another link of (meseems) doubtful help to the reader
Done Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Some of this later poetry …." Is a reference called for at the end of this sentence? Not sure.
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "adapting such selected works by Pinter" – unclear what the "such" refers to here
Removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "premièred" – though I personally prefer to use the grave accent in this word, Wikipedia doesn't (see MoS)
My reading is that is by no means forbidden Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In an interview of Pinter" – is "of" the natural preposition here? It reads slightly awkwardly to me. Might "with" flow better? Not certain.
Yes, "with". Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Cultural Programme" – definitely need to blitz this link; it would be unnecessary in any case, and it links to an article about printed theatre booklets.
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "his friend, playwright David Hare" – this is one of many such instances of an American/journalese construction that I detest. The Guardian's style guide recommends the construction "his friend, the playwright David Hare". I know that others regard this view as very English and old-fashioned, however.
Yes, this is a difference between UK and US usage: I believe that proper UK usage is to include the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "motorized" – the normal UK English form "—ised" is used elsewhere, and I think you might adopt it here
Yes, although ized is fine in English, consistency is important. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "it was one of the most sought-after tickets" – confusion in construction here: a show can't be a ticket, even figuratively, can it? This sentence would be shorter and do the job perfectly well if, after the semi-colon you had " it sold out within minutes…"
    • "scalpers" – ? an Americanism for "touts" I assume. Some wording in neutral English needs to be found here, though I confess nothing leaps to mind.
How about "on the illegal resale market" or "from illegal resellers"? Not very elegant, but avoids colloquialisms. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It featured selected productions" – Query: does this mean that the productions were selected (whose, if so?) rather than the plays?
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "2 February through 24 March 2007" – this really must be translated into English.
    • Celebration – another mammoth cast list that could be pruned, and so could the one for Radio 3's Homecoming, below it.
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "40th anniverary" – typo
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a limited engagement through 13 April 2008" – in America, undeniably, but let's have the sentence in English.
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "during the play's break" – do you think this perhaps reads a bit oddly?
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Man's Land quote – are the three references necessary? A touch of overkill, possibly.
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funeral
    • "Pinter's tearful widow, Antonia Fraser" – I question whether the adjective is either tasteful or helpful here
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • the death of Prince Hamlet – might be easier on the reader's eye if you piped this as [[Prince Hamlet|Hamlet]]
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Memorial tributes
    • "to support residents' campaign" – missing an article?
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "most-accomplished " – another howler with hyphens
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the year that he" – would "the year in which he" read more smoothly?
  • Being Harold Pinter
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The paragraph fails to tell the reader the name of the country and city where this event took place. The blue links point to New York venues, but the location should be in the text too.
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "public media" – blue link of doubtful usefulness
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "due to a government crackdown" – "owing to a government crackdown" in good UK English
Too idiomatic, IMO. How about "because of a gov..."?
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • " Public Theatre" – the article to which the blue link points is entitled "Public Theater". I know not which is correct, but there is an inconsistency here.
I think it should be "The Public Theater", since it is describing a performance at the venue of that name. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More to come in due season. Tim riley (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim, will check these out this evening. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead:
    • individual identity oppressed by..." Is "oppressed" being used correctly? Not sure. "subjected to"? Or maybe "being oppressed"?
I think that is OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try that. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the third paragraph, we mention his Tony Award, but not his Olivier Award. I would add Olivier. Indeed, the infobox mentions some awards not mentioned in the Lead. I think the infobox should either match, or list a subset of the awards mentioned in the Lead; please consider.
I agree, will look at this later. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the title role of Samuel Beckett's one-act monologue". I think this should be "the title role in..." -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We progress! I'll carry on reviewing tomorrow and post another batch in the next day or so. This is going to be a top notch article. Tim riley (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last batch from Tim riley
  • Honours
    • "In 1995 and 1996…" – the "respectively" at the end of the sentence is a long way from these dates and one has to go back and refresh the memory on reaching it. Easier on your readers' eyes if you redraw, perhaps.
    • "critic Michael Billington" – as before, good UK English requires the definite article here. (Billington's own paper agrees: this is from The Guardian's style guide: "Avoid the 'chancellor Gordon Brown' syndrome: do not use constructions, beloved of the tabloids, such as 'chancellor Gordon Brown said'.")
  • Nobel Prize and Nobel Lecture
    • "Pinter joked" – I think it possible that readers may realise, without being told, that Pinter was joking.
  • Scholarly response
    • "results from this astute scrutiny" – the adjective looks a touch POV unless specifically taken from the cited source.
    • "…Jones and Henry Woolf would remind analytically inclined scholars…" does the subjunctive add anything here?
    • "The trap with Harold's work…" It is confusing here, after the introductory sentence on the line above seems to promise a quotation from joint authors, to read "I have always tried…"
  • Notes and references
    • There seems no obvious rationale for the listing of online sources. Some are listed only in the Notes section as and when they appear, but others are also listed again in the "Works cited" section. For example, the source at note 2 is not listed again under "Works cited" but those for notes 5 and 6 are. I wondered if it might be that works cited more than once are listed under "Works cited" and works cited only once are not, but no, that doesn't apply to notes 192 and 208. I ask because I can think of one (excellent) FA reviewer who is habitually very hot on consistency of style and format in referencing, and has put me through the wringer good and proper on the subject.
    • Note 81 – Mbeki, but no first name for the author.
  • Works cited
    • I can't recall seeing elsewhere in WP the long dashes used here for repetitions of authors' names in a list. It's familiar from printed books, of course, and it doesn't bother me here, but don't be surprised if you get some flak at FAC.
    • This is an unusually long list of sources, but I did a ten per cent check and all the works listed do indeed seem to be cited somewhere in the course of the article.

That's my lot. There was always a fine article in here waiting to be rescued from the impenetrable fog of academe, and you have done wonders in revealing it. To my mind, the almost certain circumstance that a previous editor did a fair bit of self-quotation throughout the article is not a problem. The content of the article was never a difficulty – just the presentation.

At 16,700 words, this is on the long side for a WP featured article, but I think you can point to the existence of no fewer than six sub-articles to demonstrate that only the essentials have been kept in the main article, and I'm blest if I know what you could prune from it as it stands.

I have not forgotten my promise to dig out some details to flesh out the "Memory plays" sub-section (further swelling your word count) and will go away and do so now. I'll post them to the article talk page, rather than here. Tim riley (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim, will look at this during the week. You are right about the references, i plan to address the consistency there when the prose is in better shape. I shall be travelling a lot during May so progress will be steady but slow. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment – The dates in the web citations are a bit ambigious: How can the reader know what is the retrieval date and what is the publication date in, e.g. ":–––. "Passionate Pinter's Devastating Assault On US Foreign Policy". Guardian.co.uk, UK News. Guardian Media Group, 8 December 2005. Web. 1 February 2011. ("Shades of Beckett as ailing playwright delivers powerful Nobel lecture".)", without clicking on the link? Of course this is only nitpicking, but it would perhaps do with a "accessed" or "retrieved" note in front of the retrieval date. --Eisfbnore talk 21:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Harold_Pinter/archive2&oldid=1143116159"