Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horatio Bottomley/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2014 (diff).

Horatio Bottomley

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Horatio Bottomley was one of those public figures whose private activities beggar belief. Behind the mask of the bluff, honest man of the people, the crusading journalist, the fiercely independent parliamentarian was a preternatural swindler who blithely appropriated to himself hundreds of thousands of pounds of other people's money, over many decades, repeatedly demolishing the forces of law that tried to bring him to book. He gained such a hold on public opinion during the First World War that many expected him to join the government, and the writer D.H. Lawrence thought he would become prime minister. He lost everything in the end, went to prison and died in poverty, but for a while was one of the most popular and admired men in Britain. Thanks are due to the faithful peer reviewers, and to Bencherlite for providing free legal expertise. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I was one of the peer reviewers, and my few quibbles were dealt with there. This article meets all the FA criteria, in my judgment. I think BB's morbid addiction to scandals calls for counselling, but nonetheless this is a brilliant piece of work, comprehensive, well sourced, fair and mightily entertaining. – Tim riley talk 21:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Also one of the peer reviewers, generally agree, counseling unnecessary where alcohol will serve, ditto, ditto.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support A third peer reviewer, and a third happy punter from that process, where my small points were adequately covered. A very entertaining read, and happy to regard this as FA-worthy. - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a fascinating article, I'm glad I read it. But I do have some minor concerns with language that I don't think translates well. For instance, "trenchant populist views" appears to mean "insightful", which I think makes more sense on both sides of the pond. Is it OK if I go in and make minor GR edits like these? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be a bit chary of that. "Trenchant populist views" doesn't mean "insightful", but is a sober, Wikipedian way of saying that he was a tub-thumping would-be demagogue. Tim riley talk 18:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Trenchant" can mean "incisive" rather than "insightful". In this context it stands for "vigorously expressed", which I think is the more generally understood meaning. Thanks, Tim, for your demotic translation. To Maury: thanks for your interest. However, I'd be pleased if you raised your suggestions here rather than just going ahead, to avoid possible later argument.Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The Little Phoebe of the peer reviewers, I too am fully satisfied with this article's quality. This is a thorough, concise, and extremely well written piece of work and one I happily support to FA status. Cassianto ^talk 20:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all of the above for these kind comments, supports, offers of counselling and alcohol. All gratefully accepted. Would someone please explaine the Phoebe reference? Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmph! See here for Phoebe. Something may have to be done. Tim riley talk 15:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was something to do with Friends (or The Yeomen of the Guard) Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. What a beautifully crafted piece. Found nothing with which to quibble. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most grateful for your kind words and support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately captioned and licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nikki, if you could undertake the source review as well when ready, that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Some short cites with dates have parentheses, others don't - be consistent
FN82: spelling doesn't match other refs to that work
Moner or Monger?
FN143: which Searle? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All these fixes made. Thanks, Nikki, for the two reviews Brianboulton (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.