Talk:Durrell family

Does Margo deserve a separate article?

In light of the AFD of Leslie Durrell - it was killed after many people agreed he wasn't notable enough for an article - the question is whether Margo deserves a separate article, also. I'd say no, but that posthumous autobiography raises the bar slightly. Any thought? Please add them at Talk:Margaret_Durrell - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems in this article

• The family is introduced without any explanation to who they were, other than they wrote about themselves. The article needs much better context in the lead.
• "best known for and through its two celebrated writers, Lawrence and Gerald." - Unsourced claim. Who determined how they were best known, and where is the cite to this? It's also completely unnecessary. Just say who they were without guessing about how undefined people might know them.
• How were they "English", when the entire family were born in India and spent most of their lives outside of England? They even later had some issues being admitted to the UK. They were either Indian or expatriate members of the British Raj, originally in India as a family in the British Army. So "British" seems a much more accurate description. This would also bring the article in line with how the individual members are described in their personal articles.
• "numerous" is inexact and voicing an opinion. How many is "numerous"?
• "were in fact" - pointless verbiage. The whole article is in fact.
• "Best remembered for" - an opinion and needless. Just say what he had without telling the reader what to do or how other unidentified people remember him.
• "who had never ceased to love Leslie" - largely irrelevant and merely the opinion of a third party
• "mourn his passing" - Wikipedia avoids euphemisms. He died.
• "A popular naturalist" - voicing an opinion
• "best-selling writer" - peacocking, the reader has no idea how this was measured or determined.
• "credited with redefining the modern zoo" - unattributed claim. Who credits him this? Source?

Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This really is fatuous nitpicking. You made several changes. A couple introduced factual errors, a couple introduced confusion and the rest were nugatory, so I reverted all of them. My time has value. Here is a list of Wikipedia articles that need improvement. Here is a list of Wikipedia articles that need updating. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Revised the Leslie section, in particular clearing up the sequence of his later years thanks to an excellent contemporary Guardian article (the Wikipedia Library is your friend). Added another source for Maria Condos. Both sources are themselves fully documented and neither is expressing an "opinion" — they are reporting the evidence of contemporary eye-witnesses. I've also gone for less mushy language, even if it waters down what the sources say. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"Nitpicking" is what copy editing is all about. As long as "nitpicking" improves the article, bringing it in line with Wikipedia policy, then I don't see why you'd revert it. You also don't explain what factual errors I introduced. The lead sentence is poor and fails to give the reader clear indication what makes the family notable (it seems to assume the reader already knows). Telling the reader they were a family who wrote about themselves isn't particularly informative. The lead controdicts itself (they were all born in India, the children three generations away from England, but they are introduced as English), and the article contains a number of unsupported and vague opinions on their notability and work. (Who credits Gerald as redefining zoos? What makes him "popular"?) I urge you to stop wasting your valuable time preventing improvements to the article.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 05:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I have deleted the word "English" — not introduced by me — from the first sentence and the short description. The cursory entries for Lawrence and Gerald here serve primarily as pointers to their main pages. The details about Gerald have been on the page since it was created and you seem to be the first editor disturbed by them. If you think they are controversial, you should certainly add citations. Out of genuine curiosity, what drew you to the page — to which you have never previously made a single edit — at this time? Utilisateur19911 (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Utilisateur19911 Who added it, and how long it has been there isn't really the point, is it? What matters is it can be improved. If there are unsourced claims, they shouldn't be here. If the wording is voicing an opinion, then it should be made neutral. The lead sentence could be improved by adding some basic historical and geographical context. The notable members of the family should, of course, be mentioned, but if the article's position is that their family itself is notable, then it needs to make clearer what and why. Notability is not inherited, so having an article of this kind is not usual. The writing, books, subsequent TV and film make the family notable, but the reader needs some indication, sooner, to what they were about. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

As I said, my curiosity is genuine. It sometimes happens that when an editor starts doing the heavy lifting to improve a forgotten page, others who have never been anywhere near it suddenly take an interest. This could just be coincidence. If not, what is the process? Utilisateur19911 (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)