The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:36, 6 July 2010 [1].
The Temple at Thatch ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
Not much is known about this lost Evelyn Waugh novel, partly because Waugh said nothing about it for 40 years. Most of the details have been pieced together from diaries, letters and the recollections of friends. This makes for a shortish article, but it's interesting to find that Waugh's writing career started so hesitantly. There is also speculation as to how much of the lost book found its way into his early fiction. An intriguing footnote for the Waugh-mongers, and my first endeavour in this field. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Source check All sources seem reliable, and everything checks out. I've added a couple of (subscription required) tags and corrected a title. All looks good.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 12:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Support One of the most difficult things to do on Wikipedia is to write an FA when the sources are thin and really concentrating on something else. Brian's done it seamlessly, as far as I can see. I gave the article a peer review, but frankly it didn't need much. Well done as usual.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 19:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Support Nothing I can fault. I'm surprised that a few jellyfish stings seemed worse than death by drowning! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Support nicely done and meets all the FAC creiteria - my only question is what does the title refer to (is that known)? My guess is that the folly was a temple of some sort and so he was living in "The Temple at Thatch". Just curious, but assume it is not known or it would be in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Support. An enjoyable read. I tried hard to find something useful to contribute but settled for changing one letter, "R" to "r" in a head. Bonus points for the jellyfish story and for mentioning Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, in a footnote. Finetooth ( talk) 16:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Support this strong article. All appears clear and correct. My only suggestion (and a very minor one) to improve the article's clarity is to refer to Alexander by a single name throughout. -- Wragge ( talk) 16:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC) reply
Support. I think it remarkable how much Brianboulton has found – and documented – about a lost work. This article, in my judgment, satisfies all FA criteria, and indeed is a credit to its creator – and moreover to Wikipedia. – Tim riley ( talk) 17:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC) reply