Wikipedia:Peer review/Private Case/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Private Case[edit]

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

The Private Case is an interesting matter. Set up by the EdwardianVictorian-minded and rather strait-laced administrators at the British Museum, the Private Case was the place they stashed the erotica and pornography. The BM denied its existence to the public and didn't list the works on the main public catalogue until the early twentieth century. As social mores changed in the 1960s, the museum began to liberalise their approach, and the collection is now entirely open access. From being a hidden dirty secret, it is now considered a superb resource to study the attitudes held by previous generations on sexuality, gender, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Comments after a quick skim:

  • The History section is quite long. I suggest splitting this with level 3 headings.
  • Any information about this collection's influence, legacy, or depiction in pop culture?

I hope this helps. I think it is almost ready for a GAN. Z1720 (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KJP1[edit]

Blurb

  • "Set up by the Edwardian-minded" - given the date of its establishment, would Victorian-minded be more accurate?

General

Private Case
Housed atBritish Library
Size (no. of items)c. 2,500 items
Funded byHenry Spencer Ashbee, Eric Dingwall, Charles Reginald Dawes, Beecher Moore
WebsitePrivate Case
  • It didn’t have one when I arrived, so I didn’t even think of it. Looking at the other examples, they are active collections, but this is a historic one with many of the fields unknown, so I’m not sure it would be beneficial. (If there were valid fields to include it may be worthwhile, but I’m not sure with the current status). - SchroCat (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I agree it's whether there are features that could be usefully included. {{Template:Infobox collection}} might work. KJP1 (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the collection template (sans image, to avoid clutter). It’s limited in terms of available parameters (I’m surprised there is no start and end dates, for example, although we don’t know the start date for the PC). The fields I’ve left blank are “curators” (none I can find) and “funded_by” (possibly “the BL”, but I’m not sure, as I don’t think they invested much in the way of funds, although we could add a list of the major benefactors of material, which is allowed by template’s documentation). Is this beneficial, do you feel? Feel free to populate the other fields here if you want to see what it looks like with the other info added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I quite like it. I agree that it's not got the parameters to add much/anything that's not in the lead, but I think it usefully summarises the major donors. Anyways, not a big deal, and your call. KJP1 (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've held my nose and added it. The image is smaller than before, so some of the detail is lost (I can't get the image size parameter to work on this one), but it's there and it'll keep the activists from buggering around and wasting time later!
No, that's odd, and irritating. Leave it with me. Were Rex still around, I'd ask him. KJP1 (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And with very helpful advice from User:MartinPoulter, I think the sizing issue is sorted. KJP1 (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just so it's clear if people look back on this, the template used on the British Library Sound Archive is not the right one to use I think. That uses {{Template:Infobox library}}, which is wrong to my mind: the PC (and SA too) are not libraries in their own right, but collections that began within the British Museum and then moved to the British Library in 1973. - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "held initially by the British Museum, but by the British Library" - not sure why it's "but"? Just, "and/then by the BL"?
  • "from requests made to police following seizures" - perhaps, "from requests made to the police following their seizures"?
  • "into the Suppressed Safe collection while, the erotica and pornography was placed in a locked cupboard" - is the comma serving some purpose of which I, a comma-imbecile, am unaware?
  • "Access to the material was limited and restricted" - is the "was limited and" superfluous?
  • "There is no restriction on access of the Private Case material, except for some which are in a fragile condition" - "except for some items which are"?

Background

  • "The library later also incorporated the British National Bibliography, the Office for Scientific and Technical Information, the India Office Library and Records and the British Institute of Recorded Sound" - I could well be wrong, but to me this reads like they incorporated the institutions themselves. Perhaps, "The library later also incorporated the holdings/collections/records of the British National Bibliography...".
  • "six legal deposit libraries in the UK and Ireland" (footnote a) - just as an aside, I was initially puzzled by why Trinity Dublin was included. It is, of course, for historical reasons, and dating from the Union of 1801, as explained here, [1]. Worth a footnote?
  • A footnote from a footnote? How very recherché! I like it and will add shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now added - SchroCat (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "works that could later be deemed by the courts as libellous" - the "could later" bit, which also appears in the lead, puzzles me. What is it trying to say? I think laws of libel pre-date the establishment of the PC, and its history goes back to the medieval period.
  • No books are libellous at the point of publication, only when they are published and the author/publisher is then taken to court. So these books are available for open access from point of publication to the point the courts decide they are libellous - which could be several months later. I struggled with the appropriate wording of this, so any suggestions are welcome! - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about “works that were potentially libellous”? KJP1 (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Until the 1960s to obtain access to Private Case material, the procedure used was described by the historian Alison Moore as "particularly labyrinthine"" - so's this sentence! Perhaps, "Until the 1960s, the procedure to obtain access to PC material was exacting, the historian AM described it as "particularly labyrinthine""?

History

  • The above reviewer perhaps has a point re. length. 19th/20th/21st centuries as a split?
  • I've added 19th and 20th-21st. 21st is less than a paragraph, and as it's a closed collection there is unlikely to be much more movement - although if there is, that section can be split further. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Whore's Rhetorick (1683) by Philp-Puttanus" - The "Early works" image box attributes this to Ferrante Pallavicino. A pseudonym? Needs an explanation.
  • "the pseudonym Pisanus Fraxi" (footnote d) - I had always understood this as a simple rendering of ASH/BEE. Someone with a better grade than I achieved in O-Level Latin will need to explain what is "scatological" about it. This, incidentally, is a nice little article, [2]. I like "an orgy of bibliographic fetishism".
  • A straight translation would be Fraxinus Apis (unless you're talking ash from a fire, which is "cinis"), so it's been made to an anagram and the use of "pis" and "anus" in the mix is the scatalogical aspect being referred to. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the time the book was published in 1836, Rose had died" - typo for 1936?
  • "The last of these was French translation of the English novel My Secret Life" - "was a French translation"?
  • "In 1967 he negotiated with the police to obtain what they what described as" - "what was described as"?
  • "Associated with the sex shops of Soho, the centre of London's sex industry, but also sold under-the-counter by provincial bookdealers." - I think this sentence is missing something but I'm not sure what?
  • "a bequest of 246 works of erotic literature from Charles Reginald Dawes" - do we need a little on who Dawes was? A sentence or a footnote? There doesn't seem to be much on him but your Edwards article gives a little flavour - an independently-wealthy scion of a metal broker, he was a book collector and author, or some such? This, [3], has a quote "England's last great collector of erotica", which would be good to source. This, [4], suggests the author of the quote was Peter Fryer, but I can't access it.
  • "five editions of works by the de Sade" - drop the "the".
  • "Also included was Dawes's copy of My Secret Life (1889–1995)" - is the latter date right??
  • "He was a friend of Stephen Ward, one of the central figures in the Profumo affair, who was investigated by police" - not sure I get what the last bit is saying?
  • "the illustrated pillow books in the Private Case" - what are "pillow books"? Not this, The Pillow Book?
  • More pillowbooks, although there is a possibility the source is talking about Shunga, although it doesn't make it terribly clear. SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historiography

  • "in 1962 that the library stopped denying that all its holdings were on the main general catalogue" - is it not "asserting"?
  • "was not raised in the public's consciousness until 1963" - not certain a debate in the TLS could really be said to impact on the public's consciousness. Perhaps, "was not discussed more widely"?
  • "One of those involved in the correspondence was Fryer" - Fryer was introduced a long time back, in the opening para. of History. Does he need his full name here?
  • "given the work only details the works that were in the Private Case at the time, and not the numerous works that has previously been in the case, but has since been reclassified. Edwards also highlights flaws in attribution of some works to anonymously produced works; in this way, Edwards says, it is "very hard for the user of this work" - we've got six "work/works" in rapid succession. A bit of variety?

Similar collections

  • It's linked in the section above. I would have preferred to keep all the links in the one place, but someone is bound to whip it as a duplicate. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Widener Library at Harvard University used to class it's pornographic holdings as "Inferno"" - "its".
  • "permission is obtained from the minister of justice" - bluelink Minister for Justice (Ireland).
  • "There is also the specialist research collection of Kinsey Institute" - "the Kinsey Institute".

It is indeed an interesting topic, and well-covered here. Hope these jottings are of some assistance. KJP1 (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • These are hugely helpful - thank you so much, and I look forward to working my way through them shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is looking good! Have made a suggestion re. The libellous wording that may, or may not, work. And I think the image size is sorted. Let me know when you roll it on to FAC. KJP1 (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks KJP1. Your comments have been great. I’ll swap over the libellous wording, and hopefully a couple of others with do a bit more polishing. Cheers. - 19:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serial[edit]

This version reviewed, apologies in advance if I duplicate anything KJP1 has already raised! And, to clarify, I must disagree with Z1720 in that, no, I don't think this is 'almost ready for a GAN' :D SN54129 15:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • SN54129 - no rush, but any comments you have would be much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the delay SchroCat, but I am suddenly reduced to proto-medieval connectivity on a decade old-machine, so I also have to keep everything brief. I read and re-read the article thoroughly, though, and see nothing bothering me that KJP and Tim haven't already caught. It's a fascinating article on a definitively bijoux topic  :) I am extremely proud to make my last edit at FAC to be to support this article's promotion. (Apologies, forgot to say, copy this message to FAC when you nominate, if I'm not back by then!) All the best, SN54129 18:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Only one point from me about the content, which seems first rate. Rather more points on the prose, but nothing to cause alarm and despondency:

  • "The Private Case is a collection of erotica and pornography held initially by the British Museum and then by the British Library from 1973" – ambiguous. Clearer if rejigged as "... pornography held initially by the British Museum and then, from 1973, by the British Library"
  • "the erotica and pornography was placed" – two nouns but a singular verb
  • "There have been no new entries onto the Private Case since 1990" – but later you use "in" as the preposition for the Private Case, which seems more logical. Same for the repetition of the statement in the main text.
  • "There is no restriction on access of the Private Case material" – strange preposition: I'd expect "access to"
  • "purchase of the Collection of Sir Hans Sloane" – not sure about the capital C
  • "legal deposit libraries" – blue linked here, rightly, but not in the lead, where perhaps a link should be added.
  • shelfmark" – the OED hyphenates the word. (And according to the OED "pillowbooks" later on should be two unhyphenated words.)
  • "the publishing houses on Holywell Street" – do you do this with malice aforethought to raise my blood pressure? In Holywell Street, dammit! (Same for footnote d.)
  • "in 1836 Reverend Henry Baber" – needs a definite article before Rev.
  • Picture caption: is it usual to call a book-plate of this kind an "Ex Libris"? The OED can't offer many examples of such a usage: there are just three (and all, en passant, are lower-cased and hyphenated.) Personally I'd just go for plain "book-plate".
  • "and Teleny … attributed—in part at least—to Oscar Wilde" – this needs the caveat beefing up. Barbara Belford in her 2000 study of Wilde says "but there is nothing in its style or content to suggest that he wrote any passages", and Ellmann in his classic 1987 biography of Wilde does not even mention it. I think "speculatively attributed…" is a bare minimum of a caveat here.
  • "moving items onto the general catalogue" – "onto" looks a bit odd rather than just "to"
  • "the material does contain flaws" – perhaps just a plain "the material contains flaws"?
  • "scion of a metal broker" – doesn't seem quite idiomatic. I think in this figurative sense "scion" is used of a family or group rather than of one person.

That's all from me. You'll let me know when you get to FAC, I trust. – Tim riley talk 15:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim; all done, bar one (see above). Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing now. Many thanks to all who took part. This should be the next one I put up for FAC, hopefully in a few weeks time. - SchroCat (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Private_Case/archive1&oldid=1157426386"