Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Enid Blyton/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 00:49, 1 May 2014 [1].

Enid Blyton[edit]

Nominator(s): Dr. Blofeld (talk), Eric Corbett (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been one of the toughest articles I've ever worked on. As a kid I loved Enid Blyton's books, and I remember in my second year at primary school, when I came top of the class, being allowed to choose my prize, which was a Noddy book. Blyton died in 1968, yet she's still one of the world's most popular authors, but her story isn't an easy one to tell. I hope you'll find that Dr. Blofeld and I have made a decent fist of trying to encapsulate one of the most prolific authors ever into the space of a Wikipedia article. Eric Corbett 19:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments (delegate, don't take this as either support or oppose at this stage)
  • I'm fairly certain the dog in the Famous Five was just Timmy, not short for Timothy as currently stated.
    I believe you're right, now changed. Eric Corbett 17:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't Georgina refer to him as Timothy when he'd done something wrong? I see even Famous Five books refer to it as Timothy the Dog looking in google books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this illustrated with a picture of Thatcher Rock in Devon, which has no connection to Blyton other than the fact that the uploader of the photo has said it "looks like Kirrin Island"? Kirrin Island is set in Dorset in the books but based on Elizabeth Castle Island in the Channel Islands ("It was an island I once visited several times when I was in Jersey, it lay off the coast and could only be reached either by boat or by a rocky path exposed when the tide was out. It had an old castle there and I longed to put the island and castle into a book. So I did, as you know!"), while Whispering Island is a very thinly disguised Brownsea Island, off the coast of Poole.)
I suspected that photo might bring some comments. I thought it looked like something out of a Blyton novel (which the photographer obviously also did too, calling it Kirrin Island) and was a good way to place emphasis on that sort of location in her novels which is discussed in the text. You could argue though that it is POV in imagining what a Blyton location might look like so I agree it should probably be removed. If we weren't so restrictive as a source over copyright obviously we'd have the cover of the Kirrin Island Famous Five book instead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They continue to be very popular among children in the Commonwealth nations too such as Malta, India, Pakistan, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Singapore, and Australia but also in Japan and the former Yugoslavia and around the world" is a very awkward sentence—if she's popular around the world why single out Japan and Yugoslavia, and why list the Commonwealth countries?
Because Japan and Yugoslavia aren't commonwealth nations and I thought it was worth mentioning the commonwealth nations which her works are popular in. I'll split the sentence.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mordaciously"? I understand (while disagreeing with) the thinking behind using obscure words to avoid repetition and using unfamiliar terminology to encourage the reader to learn new words, but doing so on an article likely to be read overwhelmingly by children and people for whom English isn't a first language, especially when there are numerous widely-understood synonyms ("caustically", "sarcastically"…) just comes across as pretentious at best and obnoxious at worst.
    I've never been happy with "mordaciously", so I'll let Dr. Blofeld respond to that. Eric Corbett 14:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was a perfect word to describe the critic. Oxford dictionary defines it and it seems to be an accurate description. Does expanding one's vocabulary make one pretentious? Should we write the whole article in simple English then because the readership might be young children? "Scathing" I suppose you could use instead but there is something onomatopoeic which I liked which implies "biting" or "stinging". I hadn't realized it would be considered problematic to use a word in the Oxford dictionary. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that "mordaciously" is probably one level too far in obscurity to be the best choice for an article that will likely have a younger than average readership as well as one where English is often not the reader's first language. We are urged in MOS:JARGON to "not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do" and that's probably just as true here. --RexxS (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • HarperCollins is an American company founded in 1989 by Rupert Murdoch as a single corporate identity for the various publishing houses News Corporation had acquired over the years—they couldn't possibly have been Blyton's publisher in 1961. Their predecessor Harper & Brothers did exist, but was an American magazine publisher and very unlikely to have been publishing children's books in the UK. Was it actually William Collins, Sons of Glasgow?
    You're right, it was William Collins. Now fixed. Eric Corbett 16:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted yup. I believe the source is referring to the company as it is called now, they merged in 1990.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate that "in an age marked by the invasion of American culture, Blyton's works continued to be considered by many as a "savoury" alternative to the likes of Disney and comics, which Blyton was able to exploit as criticism mounted" does reflect what's said in the source, but verifiability not truth is no longer with us and this is a highly dubious claim, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone slaps an {{who}} tag after "by many". The great surges in the influence of American culture came between the birth of motion pictures and the end of World War II and following the introduction of satellite and cable TV from the late 1980s, and there was no particularly strong US influence on British culture in the 1950s and early 1960s (the period under discussion)—if anything, this was the golden age of uniquely British culture, from skiffle to Carry On Sergeant to Ealing comedy to Listen With Mother. The idea of popular culture being an either/or choice between Noddy and the Famous Five or Jerry Lee Lewis and Tales from the Crypt (which is essentially the claim being made in the source) is such an extraordinary claim, it needs an extraordinarily good source.
 – iridescent 21:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure, and I think the source is a reliable one. I remember myself being fascinated by Superman comics in the late '50s for instance. Eric Corbett 14:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Britain did have a strong cultural identity in the 50s and 60s true, but it's hard to think that people like Elvis didn't have an influence on people like Cliff Richard and the Beatles and British music etc. I watch a lot of films from that period, British and American and I often detect a strong American influence in British films with hairstyles, music and youth culture. The source I believe discusses the invasion of Mickey Mouse and others. We should probably avoid narrow statements though I agree but as Eric says, the source seems credible..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only anecdotal, but my recollection agrees with Eric here - the 1950s for me were the heyday of Superman and Batman in DC comics; Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels as the Lone Ranger and Tonto; and Efrem Zimbalist, Jr in 77 Sunset Strip. They had a much more profound cultural impact on my youth than The Famous Five ever did to a working-class kid in Tipton. --RexxS (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'll try and work through them as time permits. Eric Corbett 14:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments from Stfg (now supporting; see below)
  • Last sentence of 1st para: dangling modifier. Child Whispers isn't best remembered for the Noddy character etc, of course.
    Of course it isn't, and that sentence doesn't say that it is. Eric Corbett 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's dangling, whatever you think it says. --Stfg (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not. Eric Corbett 20:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My view of such "rules" is that their purpose is to remove ambiguity, much like the "rules" of hyphenation. But after some reflection, even though I don't agree with the point being made, as I don't see the ambiguity, I've rewritten the sentences around that area to resolve an issue that I don't think is worth going to war over. Hopefully we can put this to bed now. Eric Corbett 18:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks. I agree there was no ambiguity of meaning, and I was more pushing a "rule" (one which someone else once pushed at me at FAC, by the way). I think your new version reads better anyway. Thanks for doing that and explaining your take on it, which I now understand. --Stfg (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I agree with you, I think the new version does read better, so all's well that ends well. Eric Corbett 19:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life and education, last sentence of 1st para: is "ultimately" doing any work here?
    Possibly not, removed it anyway. Eric Corbett 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early writing career, 1st sentence: minor, I know, but why the comma?
    Why not? Seems fine to me. She didn't move to "Chessington and somewhere else", she moved to Chessington. Eric Corbett 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "began writing in her spare time" isn't somewhere else, and it isn't an independent clause either. --Stfg (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I think the sentence is fine as it is. Eric Corbett 20:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early writing career, 3rd para: They were followed by The Enid Blyton Book of Fairies, Songs of Gladness and Sports and Games in 1924, and the Book of Brownies in 1926. Someone hearing this read aloud might wonder if "in 1924" and/or "in 1926" are parts of the immediately preceding titles. Maybe instead "... followed in 1924 by ..." and "... and in 1926 by the Book of Brownies." ? Also, some listings give "Book of Brownies" as the complete title; others give it as "The Book of Brownies". I think you should either include the definite article in the title or omit it entirely.
  • New series: 1937–48 section:
  • Blyton's first full-length adventure novel, The Secret Island, featuring the characters of Jack, Mike, Peggy, Nora, and Prince Paul of Baronia was published in 1938. Punctuation a mess: commas not needed after novel and Nora. Comma required after Baronia. In the next sentence, why the comma after Gillian's? Same sentence: "the The Secret series". Next sentence: "the The Circus series". Next sentence: "In 1939, Blyton ..." inconsistent with your punctuation style elsewhere.
    Fixed. Eric Corbett 18:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still in the same paragraph: is there an Amelia Jane series, as opposed to just Amelia Jane stories. If there is, italicise consistently with the other series, and perhaps it should be added to template {{Enid Blyton}}, which doesn't have it yet. The source for this sentence (currently FN16) doesn't need the paywalled link, as it's available in full here. It doesn't support the statement that Blyton published Naughty Amelia Jane! in 1939, though.
  • Following paragraph: Here you have "the St. Clare's series", whereas in the previous paragraph you italicised "series" as well. In para 4, you have "the Mary Mouse series" with no italics at all. Likewise "the Famous Five series" later on. There are more later still, which I'll not enumerate.
    I don't believe that any of the series names should be italicised, and they should be consistent now. Eric Corbett 17:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4th paragraph: "provided" is redundant in the first sentence. Enid Blyton's Book of the Year a collection of 129 stories, poems, plays and puzzles published during the 1930s in Teacher's World, with illustrations by Harry Rountree, was also published, with a common nature theme. needs a comma after year. That it was published is a tautology; the point is that this time it came in book form. The word order leaves it unclear where Rountree's illustrations were used: in Teacher's World, in the book or both. The final phrase is misplaced: it is the 129 stories, poems, plays and puzzles that have a common nature theme, not the act of publication.
  • "... a mouse exiled from her mousehole who becomes a maid at a dolls' house". Dangling.
    There's nothing wrong with that sentence, as the preposition "who" can clearly only be referring to the mouse, not to the inanimate mousehole. Eric Corbett 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Preposition? Anyway, Fair enough.--Stfg (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I meant pronoun. Maybe one day I'll be as clever and well educated as you are. Eric Corbett 22:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blyton had an interest in biblical narratives, and produced retellings of Old and New Testament stories." -- why the comma?
    The comma is necessary because without it the sentence would be saying that she had two interests: biblical narratives and producing retellings. Eric Corbett 13:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence has "produced", not "producing". How can her two interests be "biblical narratives and produced retellings"? What is a produced retelling, anyway? --Stfg (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point; changed it to "retold". Eric Corbett 22:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of Blyton's works during this period had seaside themes, among them John Jolly by the Sea (1943) – a picture book intended for younger readers published in a booklet format by Evans Brothers,[29] the books The Secret of Cliff Castle and Smuggler Ben attributed to Mary Pollock in 1943, The Island of Adventure, the first in the The Adventure Series of eight novels from 1944 onwards, and The Brown Family. London to the Seaside, and Building a House (1945), aside from various novels of The Famous Five series which dealt with the sea and exploration such as Five on a Treasure Island (1942), Five on Kirrin Island Again (1947) and Five Go Down to the Sea (1953). The picture book parenthesis is inconsistently punctuated. The "the first in the The Adventure Series of eight novels from 1944 onwards" is presented as if it were one of the list elements. "the The". Full stop after Family should be a comma. Sea theme stated twice.
    Fixed now I think. Eric Corbett 19:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. --Stfg (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1945 she published A Book of Magic, The Caravan Family, with illustrations by William Fyffe, and continued to produce picture books ... Where does the list start and end? Shouldn't there be an "and" after Magic?
    Fixed. Eric Corbett 18:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave off here. It doesn't seem quite ready. The prose as far as I've seen it seems to me to be below FA standard at present, and imo it needs copy editing. --Stfg (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC) Redacted --Stfg (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that we should withdraw the nomination then? Or are you saying that the bar at FAC has risen so high that only perfect articles should be submitted? Eric Corbett 14:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those. I'm making constructive comments suggesting where the prose could be improved, and saying that the quality of prose I'm seeing here isn't yet professional, much less "brilliant". --Stfg (talk) 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in here, the prose doesn't have to be brilliant at FAC, that's the whole point. This article has received a peer review AND a GAR, so surely the natural progression would be FAC, no? I admit, the article isn't perfect and neither of the editors assume it so. I think you are being a little harsh at such an early stage. Cassiantotalk 19:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continued on talk page.

  • Support (further comments from Stfg)
I've just re-read the whole article, and unlike four days ago, I find the article very well written and engaging. I only found the following:
  • There are still one of two cases of "the The" when the capitalised "The" is part of a series name.
    We've hopefully got them all now. Eric Corbett 18:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a few more. All gone now, I think. --Stfg (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Simplicity section, "she seemed untroubled by presenting a different world to reality to them" seems a bit awkward. Would something like "she seemed untroubled by presenting them with a world different from reality" be better?
    It would indeed, but I've slightly amended your suggestion to "she seemed untroubled by presenting them with a world that differed from reality".
    Even better. --Stfg (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--Stfg (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Paul Austin
  • There are a number of factual errors in the text. One part of the article, for example, refers to "Imogen's death". Imogen is still alive, it's Gillian who is dead. If something as important as this is wrong, what else is?
  • As i mentioned on the talk page, There is no mention of the modernisation of duodecimal money, the changing of foods and drinks to more modern items (the kids in some of the books now drink things like Coca Cola instead of tea), the altering of names that are now offensive (Nigger and Darky in the circus books, unfortunate (Fanny and Dick in the Faraway Tree), or seen as old-fashioned (Mary and Jill in the Adventurous Four). Paul Austin (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's rather unfair to imply the article is full of grave errors purely because the name of the other daughter was there. That sort of thing is very easy to introduce and not always easy to spot. Kudos for spotting it though. Please do mention any of the other factual errors you claim to see. Yes, we could further mention some of the changes, good point. I don't think we need to document every change ever made though. Can you suggest some good sources which document those which you mentioned? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You claim that there are a "number" of factual errors Paul, yet you quote only one, now corrected. Let's remember that zero is also a number. Eric Corbett 20:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also such a thing as "error by omission". I still think that more of the "blue pencil" changes to Blyton's works should be added. Paul Austin (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We could certainly expand on that, but how many would be enough for you? And by no definition is it a "factual error" to omit your favourite revisions. Eric Corbett 19:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, can you provide sources to reveal these "errors in omission"?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the textual changes I mentioned have occurred but have not been mentioned in newspapers, both because of lack of space, and because some of her books are more famous than others and thus get mentioned more. That's why relying on a narrow range of sources as "reliable" is problematic. I've been a registered user here since July 2002 and Wikipedia's systemic problems are still very apparent. Paul Austin (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be demanding that we include every revision to the texts, even those for which no sources exist. But that's completely unreasonable, would lay us open to charges of original research, and would give undue weight to the Revisions section. That's just not going to happen. Eric Corbett 14:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

I have watched the articles progress over the last month or so and I am impressed with what I see now. I don't think the article should be withdrawn as suggested above and with a peer review and GAC under its belt, FAC is the natural progression. I will offer some comments, but at a drip-fed pace owing to real life. Lead will come last.

Early life and education

  • Enid Blyton was born on 11 August 1897 in East Dulwich, London, England, the eldest of three children, to Thomas Carey Blyton (1870–1920), a cutlery salesman, and his wife Theresa Mary Harrison Blyton (1874–1950). -- Rather long. Could this be broken in half?
  • Her younger brothers... -- Whose, Enid or Theresa?
    Enid's, now clarified. Eric Corbett 20:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For our non geographically minded, and foreign readers, could Beckenham be mentioned next to a more recognisable location (i.e Bromley or Kent etc..)
Added "then in Kent".♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...but was nursed back to health by her father, whom she adored. -- Can we not take the fact she adored her father as a given? Or did their relationship exceed all expectations compared to other daughter/father relationships?
    • A lot of sources indicate that her childhood relationship with her father had a profound impact on her life and career. A lot of people seem to think that she remained the girl who longed for her father as a child all of her life and that a lot of her books reflected a deep desire to return to that period in which she was happy and were in a way therapeutic for her. I think it's pretty important to state it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We say Enid was devastated by Thomas' infidelity and naturally so. But why didn't she attend her "adored" father's funeral? If the affair aggravated their relationship, I think we should say as it answers this question which I inevitably found myself asking at the end of the sentence. I think it is possible to see your parents have an affair, but still adore them afterwards.
    Her brother Hanly has speculated that Blyton didn't attend her father's funeral because she didn't want to have to meet her father's new partner, but she never gave an explanation herself. I might add a note to that effect. Eric Corbett 20:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From 1907 to 1915 Enid attended St Christopher's School... -- Why do we refer to her as "Enid"? We then go onto call her Blyton. I prefer the surname, but I think we should at least be consistent.
    I think that was a carry-over from the preceding paragraph, where she's identified as Enid to avoid confusion with the other Blyton family members, but we can can certainly switch to "Blyton" here, which I've done. Eric Corbett 20:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enid's mother disapproved of her writing... This could read that her mother disapproved of her own writing. Might I suggest: "Blyton's mother disapproved of her daughters writing..." or similar. We could even get away with a pronoun instead of "Blyton" at the start I reckon.
    Slightly rewritten to address this issue. Eric Corbett 20:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blyton moved out of the family home to live with her friend Mary Attenborough. She then left Beckenham ... -- Blyton or Attenborough?
Done.
  • She then left Beckenham and stayed with George and Emily Hart at Seckford Hall in Woodbridge in Suffolk... in →in, also a link to Suffolk would possibly be helpful.
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a house whose haunted room... POV. I would insert "allegedly" or "reputed" before haunted. Also, do we use "whose" for an inanimate object? I would have thought this applied to persons only? I note WP:ALLEGED, but feel something should be put in here to avoid the POV. Alternatively, we could blame Blyton and say that she thought it was haunted.
    I've added the word reputedly. As for whose, I think we do use sometimes use that inanimate objects. Eric Corbett 23:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "kindergarten" an American term? Would we not say pre-school or something?
    • Yes, it seems like it, but the source and others I believe all say kindergarten. Should we really state something other than what the source says to avoid sounding American? I'm not sure. Eric?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Were the authors American? I could be wrong, but "kindergarten" strikes me as either being German or American. When I hear it I think of KinderGarten Cop lol, which makes me think of America. Cassiantotalk 19:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I believe that the British Enid Blyton Society refers to it as kindergarten too! Changed to nursery school though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it not be better to mention her publishing rebuffs before her success? I'm thinking here: In March that year her first poems were published in Nash's Magazine. Blyton had been rejected by publishers on many occasions...
    Good idea. I've moved a few bits around. Eric Corbett 23:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the definite article of "nursery governess" be better? Or was she one of many?
  • Same with "architect Horace Thompson"?
Both have been addressed.

Early writing career

  • On the Popular Fallacy that to the Pure All Things are Pure. -- What was this? A poem, short story, novel?
    Actually looks like an essay [2] Appendix 2 of the biography. Eric you might respond to that one and confirm what it is. Can you replace the chrono source with Appendix 2 of the Stoney biography also? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It was indeed an essay, and I've replaced the citation with one from Stoney's biography. Eric Corbett 11:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph is missing a closing citation.
    Seems to have been added now? Eric Corbett 19:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know the year of publication of Pictorial Knowledge. Compared to the others, this is the only one lacking.
Well spotted! 1930.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second from last paragraph is missing a closing citation, as does the final one.

New series: 1937–48

  • Like her The Wishing-Chair series...
Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing citation end of first para.
    Did add sources, but as Eric said in the removal, plot-like information doesn't need to be sourced, and I think he's right.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Secret Island, described as a "Robinson Crusoe-style adventure on an island in an English lake" -- Described by who?
    The Herald, added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Gillian, the main character was based on a large handmade doll given to her on her third birthday by her mother. -- Who, Gillian or Blyton?
    By Enid. Added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the 1940s Blyton not only proved how prolific she could be as an author, but demonstrated a "marketing, publicity and branding that was far ahead of its time", contributing to her major success during that period. -- The quote written here feels awkward when read with the rest of the sentence. I think the problem here is with the letter "a" just before it. Should it be there?
    @Cassianto: Would you be happier with "During the 1940s Blyton became a prolific author, and her major success during this period was accelerated by "marketing, publicity and branding that was far ahead of its time". ?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think that reads a lot better. Cassiantotalk 12:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The explanation of the pseudonym "Mary Pollock" could be moved to a note. It interrupts the flow, and tells us of a marriage which hasn't been mentioned yet.
    I disagree, I think it's important.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So popular were they... -- The eleven novels or the two Pollock ones?
  • Many wrote letters of complaint →"Many readers complained"?
Reworded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same year she published The Naughtiest Girl in the School about the exploits of a mischievous schoolgirl, Elizabeth Allen – "The same year she published The Naughtiest Girl in the School which followed the exploits of the mischievous schoolgirl, Elizabeth Allen."?
Reworded as suggested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Twins at St. Clare's, about twins Patricia and Isabel O'Sullivan. – Could we avoid the repetition of "twins"?
changed to twin sisters.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1941 Blyton published The Adventures of Mr Pink-Whistle, about a half-brownie and half-human character who had the ability to make himself invisible
Yes, but I think it should be "has" rather than "had" when referring to a book or film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1941 Blyton published The Adventures of Mr Pink-Whistle, about a half-brownie and half-human character with the ability to make himself invisible, with illustrations provided by Dorothy M. Wheeler,[22] who also worked on Five O'Clock Tales, released in the same year. -- I feel that this could be broken up. "In 1941 Blyton published The Adventures of Mr Pink-Whistle, which featured a half-brownie and half-human character who had the ability to make himself invisible. The book featured illustrations by Dorothy M. Wheeler, who also worked on Five O'Clock Tales, released in the same year."
Agreed, done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its popularity →"The series' popularity"?
Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This para is lacking a closing citation.
  • A number of Blyton's works during this period had seaside themes, among them John Jolly by the Sea (1943) – a picture book intended for younger readers published in a booklet format by Evans Brothers,[28] the books The Secret of Cliff Castle and Smuggler Ben attributed to Mary Pollock in 1943, The Island of Adventure, the first in the The Adventure Series of eight novels from 1944 onwards, and The Brown Family. – Again, this seems an overly long sentence for comfortable reading.
  • The Brown Family. London to the Seaside, and Building a House (1945), as well as various novels of The Famous Five series dealing with the sea and exploration, such as Five on a Treasure Island (1942), Five on Kirrin Island Again (1947) and Five Go Down to the Sea (1953). – just doesn't make sense. This needs rewriting or t may be a case of sorting the punctuation. Is the lurking full stop between "family" and "London", there intentionally?
The book is called The Brown Family. London to the Seaside, and Building a House. Yes it's correct, but on second thoughts I don't think it's notable enough to mention to I'll remove it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lack of closing citation.
  • Capitalising on her success, with a loyal and ever-growing readership, Blyton managed to produce a new edition of many of her series -- are missing an apostrophe on "series"?
    Why do you think there ought to be an apostrophe on "series"? Eric Corbett 12:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we not talking of more than one series? "Many" indicates that we are. Or is "many" meaning each individual book within a series? If the former, are we are missing the plural form of series? (not sure which is correct: series' or series's). Cassiantotalk 12:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a variation on the grocer's apostrophe to me. Eric Corbett 13:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We had this problem on Peter Sellers if you remember Doc. I now know, cheers. Cassiantotalk 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is. Here is the OED entry for series. It states: "Plural unchanged, (rare) serieses". --Stfg (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • By 1948 Blyton had reached her seventh The Famous Five novel – "By 1948 Blyton had written her seventh novel in the The Famous Five series"? Also, could we get away with a pronoun here?
Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peak output: 1949–59

  • "The series centred around..." "centred around" – some people (probably the same people who cringe at the sight of a split infinitive) insist that "centred around" is a logical impossibility, and that the phrase must be "centred on".
Changed. Tim's influence rubbing off on you there!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Cheekily lifted from elsewhere, but for the benefit of both articles I think! I'll be wearing a bow tie next!!! -- Cassiantotalk 10:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "French author Evelyne Lallemand..." -- Definite article?
  • "Dutch illustrator Harmsen van der Beek." -- and again here?
Both addressed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing citation at the end of the second paragraph.
Added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She completed the sixth and final book of the Malory Towers series, Last Term at Malory Towers, in 1951, and by 1955 Blyton had reached her fourteenth Famous Five novel, Five Have Plenty of Fun, her fifteenth Mary Mouse book, Mary Mouse in Nursery Rhyme Land, her eighth book in the Adventure series, The River of Adventure, and her seventh Secret Seven novel, Secret Seven Win Through." -- Phew! Perhaps a bit too long and could do with cutting in half. Also missing a closing citation.
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine and newspaper contributions

  • "That same year she was given her own column in Teachers World, entitled "From my Window". Three years later she was given..." -- She was given →She was given. Repetitive?
Well spotted! Reworded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They proved to be so popular that in 1933 they were published in book form as Letters from Bobs, selling ten thousand copies in the first week alone, but her most popular feature was "Round the Year with Enid Blyton", forty-eight articles covering aspects of natural history such as weather, pond life, how to plant a school garden and how to make a bird table." -- A bit too long. Might I suggest: "They proved to be so popular that in 1933 they were published in book form as Letters from Bobs, and sold ten thousand copies in the first week. Her most popular feature was "Round the Year with Enid Blyton", which consisted of forty-eight articles covering aspects of natural history such as weather, pond life, how to plant a school garden and how to make a bird table."
Better, agreed. Reworded. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Writing style and technique

  • Could "blurred the boundaries" be attributed?
I'd rather not as the book was written by three authors and it would affect the flow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course, sorry I hadn't realised. Cassiantotalk 10:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Blyton was very unwilling..." -- This would work just as well (if not better) without the adverb IMO.
Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Enid Blyton Magazine Club itself was formed in 1953." – This would work better with "itself" omitted.
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She agreed, on condition that it also had some useful purpose, and suggested..." – She agreed, on condition that it serve a useful purpose, and suggested..."?
  • "The club was duly set up in 1952..."
  • "had raised £35,000 in the six years of the Enid Blyton Magazine's life." I would delete "had" and swap "life" with run.
  • "By 1974 the Famous Five Club had a membership of 220,000, and was reportedly growing..." – is "reportedly" in this context a little bit weasily?
All addressed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jigsaw puzzles and games

  • "The Secret Seven, and the following year a Secret Seven card game..." -- Is there a reason why we italicise The Secret Seven and not Secret Seven? I wouldn't italicise either of them unless the jigsaw was a picture of the book. We later on in this paragraph refer to it as "Secret Seven jigsaw puzzle" without the Itals.
Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

  • What a beautiful cottage! No comment, just an observation which added a few minutes onto this review with me gawping at its magnificence.
  • I take it both children were from the relationship with Pollock?
  • "In 1941 she met Kenneth Fraser Darrell Waters, a London surgeon with whom she began a relationship." -- Did they start the relationship in 1941? If so, and in the interests of copy editing, would it perhaps read better as "In 1941 she formed a relationship with the London surgeon Kenneth Fraser Darrell Waters." If they didn't meet in that year, then feel free to disregard this comment.
They met in 1941 I believe as it says.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The state of her marriage worsened after Pollock rejoined The Royal Scots Fusiliers and narrowly escaped death in an air raid, after which the couple argued until Pollock demanded a divorce." -- Did they argue after he joined up, or as a result of the air raid?
  • How well known was the lesbian affair? Was there any truth to it?
    The only evidence for the claim is that Hugh Pollock discovered Blyton and her nursery governess locked together in the bathroom, and refused to come out when he challenged them. So who can tell how much credence it can be given, but certainly Pollock's second wife Ida (née Crowe) repeated the allegation in her own autobiography. Eric Corbett 00:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the divorce proceedings Blyton blackmailed Pollock into taking blame for the failure of the marriage..." -- taking "the" blame perhaps?

I hereby take umbrage at the pair of you for shattering my idyllic illusions of this author with revelations of heterosexual and homosexual promiscuity, divorce, blackmail, alcoholism and bankruptcy! Good grief, I had no idea!

Death and legacy

  • We don't need to be reminded so soon that she was suffering from Alzheimer's.
  • "From 2000 to 2010, she was listed..." -- back to the noun here to avoid confusion with the other prolific female writer in the previous sentence.
  • We use a comma for "In 2003," but elsewhere when starting a sentence with a year, we don't. Which is correct?
Addressed all.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critical backlash

  • "...are very much of their time," -- POV creeping in there.
    I don't think the sources are strong enough to support that statement, so I've removed the sentence. Eric Corbett 22:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Great work all round and very interesting! -- Cassiantotalk 18:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cass for the positive words, comments and time you've put in here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all points have been addressed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by J Milburn

  • "Some libraries and schools banned her works, which the BBC had refused to broadcast since the 1930s because of their perceived lack of literary merit." The tense here leaves me wondering when precisely the BBC refused to broadcast. Do they still refuse?
    Note f explains that Blyton submitted her first proposal to the BBC in 1936, but I've clarified in the lead that the BBC's ban was lifted in the 1950s. Eric Corbett 20:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are Saturday Westminster Review or Home Weekly worth redlinks? What is On the Popular Fallacy that to the Pure All Things are Pure? If an essay or poem (or even short story) it should probably be in speech marks rater than italics- either way, it would be good to clarify.
    I think I went through and created a few missing articles and concluded that it wasn't worth linking them before I couldn't find anything substantial about them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We've now clarified that "On the Popular Fallacy ..." was an essay, and changed the formatting accordingly. Eric Corbett 12:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:ChildWhispersEnidBlyton.jpg- A tedious point, but this probably isn't PD in the UK- if it was first published here, it'll need to be uploaded locally and deleted from Commons. While PD in the US, which is all that's needed for enwp, Commons needs it to be PD in the source country too.
  • There's nothing particularly controversial that I can see, but I am struck by some paragraphs ending without citations (though they have citations within them).
  • "and Heyo, Brer Rabbit![18] In 1939 Blyton published her initial book in the Amelia Jane series, Naughty Amelia Jane!." Inconsistency- if the title ends in an exclamation point, do you follow with a full stop or not?
    On reflection I think there ought not to be a full stop at the end of that sentence, so I've removed it. Eric Corbett 22:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was also the first in her boarding school story genre of books" Is it her genre? How about "also the first of her..."
    Good idea, done. Eric Corbett 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Night The Toys Had A Party"- Per MOS, should probably be "The Night the Toys Had a Party"
    You're almost certainly right, so I've changed it. Eric Corbett 22:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Malory Towers series" Why have you italicised this series name in particular?
    It's just one I missed when I was going through earlier, fixed now. Eric Corbett 22:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Sampson, Low, Marston and Company worth a redlink?
  • What's a "strip book"?
Blyton published quite a lot of books which featured comic strips mixed with things like short stories, poetry and other features. I thought strip book was an apt description of such books rather than referring to them as purely comic strips.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a term I've ever heard before- I wasn't really sure what was being referred to. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not finished yet, but I have to dash. I'll take another look soon. J Milburn (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "Blyton was very unwilling to conduct any research or planning before beginning work on a new book, which coupled with the lack of variety in her life[c] according to Druce almost inevitably presented the danger that she might unconsciously, and clearly did, plagiarise the books she had read, including her own.[61]" I found this sentence a little difficult to follow. What are you attributing to Druce?
    All of it I think. I'll dig it out and double check. Eric Corbett 22:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that there have been more recent jigsaw puzzles and games. At the very least, there are some video games. Could you perhaps expand on why you've included these particular spinoffs?
  • "In 1938 Blyton and her family moved to a house in Beaconsfield, which named Green Hedges by Blyton's readers following a competition in her magazine." Missed word?
    Indeed, now fixed. Eric Corbett 22:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Enid Blyton award, The Enid, was given" I don't think award names need to be italicised
    Neither do I, so the italics have been removed. Eric Corbett 22:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " They continue to be very popular among " "They" meaning "Blyton's books", presumably?
    Yep, slightly rewritten to clarify. Eric Corbett 22:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and that the world in which she was living in with her books was "too important to her to embrace those who intruded on her"." Needs tweaking
    I've rewritten that sentence to paraphrase what the quotation is trying to say a little more elegantly. Eric Corbett 12:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was looking at this source because the mention of animal rights seemed slightly out of place, and there seems to be no mention of the swansdown slippers; I'm not sure how much of that paragraph is actually covered in the source. Perhaps other sources have been removed at some point by accident?

A very enjoyable read. I hope my thoughts are helpful. J Milburn (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you enjoyed it JM, and thanks for your constructive input here, I'm sure there's many good points to address.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments/image review

  • Most of my comments were addressed during PR, and changes made since then make the article better. I just have one comment, and an image review, for you.
  • Stage, film and TV adaptations has many short paragraphs, some of which may be worth merging. Is it possible to rework this a little bit?
  • File:Enid Blyton.jpg -- This looks like a painting rather than a photograph. Is there any reason for selecting this over one of the old revisions (which need to be deleted later)
I did mention this to Eric very recently. I think I prefer [3] and it seemed more informative with her books in the background. I switched it purely because I found the colour of her sweater drab at the time! Do you prefer it?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The other one is more an iconic image of her though which appeared on a lot of the books I think. Does it really need to be changed?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other one being the pastel-coloured portrait? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Enidblytonsig..jpg - The source needs to be fixed. There is no "own postcard" template. I think this falls under the UK's threshold of originality, meaning copyright-wise it should be okay.
  • File:Seckford Hall - geograph.org.uk - 1000225.jpg is fine copyright-wise, but one wonders if there is anything without so many blown highlights. Also, the description should have an architect and/or year of completion, if known. If the structure is still in copyright, it would be best to have {{FoP-UK}} on the description page.
Added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:ChildWhispersEnidBlyton.jpg - Phyllis Chase died in 1977, and thus this is not PD in the UK. This should be uploaded locally to Wikipedia, as the English Wikipedia does not require an image to be out of copyright in its source country.
I see one has already been uploaded locally at File:ChildWhispers.jpg. It shouldn't be fair use though. Can you fix Crisco?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Enid blyton books.jpg - Although the individual works may fall under de minimis, I don't think this image is free (and will be nominating it for deletion). The focus is clearly the numerous copyrighted covers, and thus de minimis doesn't quite apply for the work as a whole.
    I've never been fond of that image anyway, so I'm quite happy to lose it. Eric Corbett 19:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too keen on any of the images in the article to be honest!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source doesn't say. I've never been keen on that image admittedly so have no problems with it being deleted, I had often wondered about that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on this and the geograph source, it appears that this fence was an official installation of the town. Thus, I think it is safe to assume that they had permission to install Noddy and Big Ears in that location (and thus this is FOP). Just needs an FOP template. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does, at the bottom of the page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:OldThatch-0491.JPG is fine, copyright-wise. The description should have an architect and/or year of completion, if known. If the structure is still in copyright, it would be best to have {{FoP-UK}} on the description page.
Can't find architect or year. Added template.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Note that {{FoP-UK}} is not a redlink on Commons, where these images are held). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image review, much appreciated. Eric Corbett 19:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all sure about the argument for File:Beaconsfield Themed Fencing - geograph.org.uk - 1386378.jpg. As per the wording on the tag, FoP in the UK does not apply to 2D artwork, such as the 2D cut-out characters depicted here (it would apply had this been a 3D statue of Noddy or similar). The images are still under copyright, and thus protected. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not quite "2D", as there is comparable depth to coins (which Commons has held to be 3D objects), or even more depth; this is evident from the edges of the metal plaques/decorations. Furthermore, case law quoted at commons:Commons:FOP#United_Kingdom includes "wrought iron gates" as an example of a work of artistic craftsmanship which may be covered by the FOP laws in the United Kingdom; wrought iron gates would have similar depth to these decorations. Assuming that the city did license the characters, previous consensus appears to be that FOP is acceptable (see this deletion discussion for an example where a licensed derivative work of a copyrighted character was kept under FOP provisions). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dr. B., Eric: please note, if possible, when all have been addressed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • An iron gate could be FoP, but the copyrighted graphic image painted onto them is clearly 2D - have a look at [4] for an alternative view of the painted image. The FoP provisions don't cover "any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work." The photograph of Arnold was a photograph of a piece of sculpture, which is covered the FoP legislation. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • They do if the object is on public display. Eric Corbett 21:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eric, the UK FoP tag used on the file states "This does not apply to two-dimensional works", which the cartoon pair would appear to be. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you've nominated this image for deletion, let's focus the discussion at the deletion nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed all except the one I asked you to change the license for and the main Blyton image which needs reuploading provided Eric is happy with it and then to delete the old ones. I have no problems with the Noddy image being deleted but the problem is the lack of images. Personally I'd rather use one or two high quality fair use images of her books. Would that not be permitted even if discussed in the text like the seaside theme etc? Ideally I'd have File:FiveOnATreasureIsland.jpg in the new series section and File:Noddy Goes To Toyland 1949 cover.jpg in 1949-59. I think the quality would much improve having those images of very important books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think, per WP:NFCC#8, there'd have to be discussion of something depicted by her books' covers in order to use them freely. What about book spines, like File:Fleming's paperback Bonds.jpg? I'll see what I can find about the Noddy fence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't own any Noddy books and if I do still have any of the Famous Five or Secret Seven books they're at the deepest part of my attic or my sister's attic storage space and unknown where they are to take photographs of them. Can you suggest somewhere in the article where as it is we could get away with a fair use image? I thought we could get away with using a book cover featuring the island in the discussion of the seaside themes. File:FiveOnATreasureIsland.jpg would really help I think and would seem perfectly appropriate encyclopedically to have an image of the first book in The Famous Five series. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Something may be arguable... though perhaps there is a specific type of island common in her works? That would be easier to illlustrate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the only thing left here is the portrait of Blyton and my lone prose comment. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda[edit]

Support. I took part in the peer review and was happy with changes made. I looked again now, 22 April, and found much to admire and only minor questions:

Lead: I love the two first paragraphs, but then stumbled: "Blyton encouraged her readers to support worthy causes, as she felt a responsibility to provide them with a strong moral framework." "Them"? Whom? the readers or the causes? Continued in the next sentence. The last phrase "have also been made" strikes me as - plain.

Rewritten as "Blyton felt she had a responsibility to provide her readers with a strong moral framework, so she encouraged them to support worthy causes", and "There have also been several adaptations of her books for stage, screen and television".

Early life and education: The last paragraph (which could be the first of the next topic) includes the first quote. I suggest to start a new sentence after that, or highlight it in a quote box. When I read the following "but" I had forgotten what it related to.

I've split the sentence as per your suggestion. Eric Corbett 21:44, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New series: "Like The Wishing-Chair series"?

Is "As in the The Wishing-Chair series ..." better? Eric Corbett 21:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's ot the "like" as much as the "The", - and in the new version we even have two. I learned that series are not italic, but that makes reading harder (nor will I understand why one book is italic, but five books a not). Boring or not, a preceding "series" would fix it. GA
I hope we've come to a resolution on that, see my reply to you below. Eric Corbett 12:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Writing style: "the opening pages of her The Mountain of Adventure"?

Removed her; is that what you meant? Eric Corbett 21:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Remove her or remove The. See above, A capitalised The in the middle of a sentence looks strange, and her The even stranger. GA
Ah! That reminds me very much of a similar (and so far unresolved I believe) discussion concerning the names of pop groups in the middle of sentences; should it be "The Beatles" or "the Beatles" for instance? In that discussion I came down firmly on the side of not capitalising "the", much for the same reasons you've given here, so for consistency I'm going to go through the article now and change the case of the series names. There's not much we can do about a mid-sentence "The" when it's part of the book title though, but at least it's formatted differently. Eric Corbett 12:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stage, film: "The Famous Five has been adapted" is probably correct but the singlar verb looks strange to me.

It's referring to the singular series, so it's probably OK. Eric Corbett 21:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As above. GA
I've rewritten that sentence as "There have been several film and television adaptations of the Famous Five ..." to avoid the issue. Eric Corbett 17:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for enjoyable reading, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adjustments!
Infobox: I think a High School is |educaton= rather than |alma_mater=.
Fixed. Bloody infoboxes! Eric Corbett 12:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I woke up thinking that perhaps removing some book titles would improve the flow. What do you think of a list of her works, such as Franz Kafka works, to not have to cite every single title for the sake of completeness? I think of the 1923 and 1930 paragraphs, for example, which seem a list of titles without pointing out the character or topic of the books, or why we should know those titles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has been an area of slight disagreement between Dr. Blofeld and I, so I'll leave him to reply to this. Eric Corbett 12:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware we were in disagreement. Gerda, Blyton published over 700 books. Are you suggesting we only mention the Famous Five, Secret and Noddy? Some years she published over 50 books and none of them are mentioned in the article. I'd say on the whole there's a fair amount mentioned although in part I suppose you could remove a few if it really does affect the flow but a better solution IMO would be to try to find more information about them which I couldn't find. For me it makes the article more comprehensive, and I don't think we've gone overboard given how many books she produced. I doubt we even mention 1/10 of them. You have a point about those in which we don't go into detail, but there was already a distinct lack of material on her earlier works, and I thought by mentioning them at least it was more informative.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the resolute bloody solution, I will wait. (Look on my talk for "The one thing I learned", find "serenely repeating "Peace be with you" against the raging of the enemies", and still 10.000 eggs) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a list of Blyton's works at Enid Blyton bibliography, which like most stuff here is in need of some work. It was listed in the See also section, but I've moved it up to the beginning of the Early writing career section to make it more prominent. In her way Blyton is just as difficult to write about as Kafka, partly because of the sheer volume of her work, and sorting the wheat from the chaff hasn't been easy. Have we got it right? I don't know. Eric Corbett 17:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the replies which I answer together. Kafka: I only mentioned him as an example, never intended to compare complexity, - this probably is worse, his output is neat ad compact. - I like the early mentioning of the bibliography! (I confess that I had misunderstood that as a list of books about her, and - shame on me - not even looked.) I still encourage to go through the 1923 and 1930 paras and see if you can drop a few titles or say a bit more about single ones. As it is - title after title - it's boring ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That section has little enough coverage as it is IMO. I can see what you mean though, largely a reflection of how little material exists about them. I'll look into it, it might be worth reducing a few. I've fleshed out some of the material and removed mention of a few, I think it looks better now. In looking at it I agreed with you actually.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your comments and support Gerda. I think the early career looks much more encyclopedic now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ferma[edit]

  • ODNB - Unfortunately some of the text in Enid Blyton#Personal life seems to be rather closely based on her ODNB entry. I can provide examples if you like, but the text has survived relatively unscathed since it was added in a series of edits by an IP about eight years ago - which also included additions to Enid_Blyton#Early_life_and_education - taken from the ODNB entry. (Not so much these two - [5] [6] - but these ones: [7] [8] [9].) I'm sure this can be easily fixed. Incidentally, her first husband is quite interesting: I'm sure you know, he was also remarried, just a few days after Blyton, to another author, Ida Pollock, who also became very successful. No doubt her memoir Starlight can add more colour in this section, if desired. -- Ferma (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that's one of the pitfalls of inheriting an article rather than writing it from scratch. I'll compare the ODNB entry to what's in the Personal life section asap. One of the interesting things in Ida Pollock's autobiography is that she reiterates her husband's claim of Blyton's lesbian relationship, but how far to push that I'm not sure, as I doubt she had personal knowledge of it. Eric Corbett 21:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, did you check the language against the ODNB? I think most of passages that looked problematic have been changed to some extent now, but there are still a few that are very closely based on the ODNB. This, for extract from the ODNB is almost identical to a line in the article: "...second marriage was very happy and, as far as her public was concerned, she moved smoothly into her role as a devoted doctor's wife, living with him and her two daughters at Green Hedges."
    I've now checked every ODNB citation, and everything seems to me to be in order. Eric Corbett 19:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure I don't need to say it, but this article is generally very good indeed. Agatha Christie next? -- Ferma (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John[edit]

These were my copyedits; I'll return tomorrow and consider supporting. Nice work. --John (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. Eric Corbett 01:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyediting and comment John.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Thank you both for your work on this. --John (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --John (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question How many Mary Pollock books were there? Was it two, four (both of which the article talks about) or six? Were all of them reissued under the Blyton name? --John (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Barbara Stoney, Blyton's definitive biographer, two books were initially published under the name of Mary Pollock, followed by another two, all four of which were republished under Blyton's name. I'll take a look at your link to see if I can discern why the Enid Blyton Society thinks there were six. Eric Corbett 20:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's as well to be clear about this. This was interesting too. --John (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, it appears that the Enid Blyton Society is correct and Stoney is wrong. Six books were attributed to Mary Pollock, two in 1940 and four in 1943, so I've tweaked that area to try and clarify. I think you're right in suggesting that a note to explain the Mary Pollock subterfuge would be in order, so I'll come up with something shortly. Eric Corbett 21:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do Stoney a disservice. In the text she suggests there were four Pollock books, but in her bibliography she lists all six. Eric Corbett 21:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. I have added her pseudonym to the infobox as well. --John (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sagaciousphil[edit]

I just have one very minor suggestion - in the Commercial success section, sub-heading New series: 1934–48, middle of 3rd paragraph:

  • So popular were Pollock's books they that one reviewer was prompted to observe that "Enid Blyton had better look to her laurels", but Blyton's readers were not so easily deceived - needs 'they' removed and possibly one of the 'that' taken out?

I have thoroughly enjoyed watching the way this article has been developed through the GAN and peer review processes. I'll give it another read through again later today but I feel this is a really well written article supported by very good sources. I'm sure it's not been an easy task as Blyton was a prolific writer. Thanks to both the main editors for such an interesting article on a fascinating subject. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well seen. I took the liberty of fixing this. --John (talk) 11:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Thanks for the fix, John; I realise I could have changed it myself but felt mentioning it here showed I had diligently checked the article and wasn't just randomly supporting. An absorbing read and kudos to the main editors for a job extremely well done - I never knew anything about the lesbian relationships etc! SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words and support SP!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody find who the Michael Woods is who is referred to in the simplicity section, I think we need to know who he is. George Greenfield also in the racism section. Also I believe later on we use words for numbers of books in series even like twenty-four, shouldn't the numbers in the early life section be in words too for consistency? Also, elitist, sexist, racist, xenophobic are linked in the lede but not in the critical section, shouldn't they be linked? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Woods is a psychologist who attempted to analyse Blyton through her books. George Greenfield was Blyton's agent, and was introduced as such in the preceding Personal life section. Eric Corbett 19:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, when I looked at the name George Greenfield in the section for some reason it didn't register.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "both attributed to Mary Pollock in 1943" - source?
    Added citation. Eric Corbett 22:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the Society name include "The", or no? Some of each in citations
    It's Enid Blyton Society, no "The"; fixed two occurrences. Eric Corbett 20:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN12, 33: article title, issue number?
    Fixed by rewriting. Eric Corbett 22:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN95-96: missing italics
    Fixed. Eric Corbett 20:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes enidblyton.net a high-quality reliable source?
    I don't think we need the material that's supporting anyway, so I've removed it. Eric Corbett 22:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN129, 133: why does title appear twice? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably an error introduced by me when I was trying to get the citations formatted correctly, now fixed. Eric Corbett 21:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

I reviewed this article at GAN. It is plainly of the highest standard, and I look forward to adding my support for its promotion to FA. A few very minor quibbles, none of which affect my support, but possibly worth a look by the nominators. I'll take more than one go at this, and here is my first batch, covering the sections down to the end of "Final works":

  • Early life and education
    • "Cutlery" – link really needed?
      I didn't think so, but someone else did. Eric Corbett 23:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Her mother Theresa considered her efforts" – not sure why we need to be told mother's name again here
      I'm not sure either, but earlier in this review it was suggested that without giving the name of Blyton's mother it might look as if Blyton's mother was critical of her own efforts, not her daughter's. Eric Corbett 23:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Cassianto suggested it. I thought it was obvious enough as it was originally.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the aunt of a school friend, Mabel Attenborough" – is Mabel the aunt or the friend?
Switched order.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Two months later Blyton received a Teaching Certificate" – there are a lot of capital letters in this sentence, none of which (after that in Blyton) seem necessary.
Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early writing career
    • "in Punch magazine" – worth a blue link, perhaps?
Done.
    • "with illustrator Alfred Bestall" – the omission of the definite article gives this an AmEng or tabloidese style.
Well spotted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commercial success
    • "Described by The Herald" – I think it was called the Glasgow Herald in those days
Piped.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "first book in the Mary Mouse, Mary Mouse and the Dolls' House" – is a word ("series"?) missing here?
Well spotted!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "became household names in Britain" – a citation for this claim would be helpful
Added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "around schoolgirl Darrell Rivers" – another example of what I believe is technically known as a "preposed descriptive appositive with a zero article", as with Bestall, earlier.
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "between 1983 and '87" – unusual to have 1987 abbreviated to '87. "1983–87" is one norm, but "between 1983 and 1987" is the usual form for "between x and y", I think.
Agreed, I did wonder how '87 got in there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "with illustrator Grace Lodge" – as with Bestall and Rivers, above.
Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope some of these points are helpful. More tomorrow, I hope. Tim riley (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim, yes, very helpful!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Concluding batch of comments from Tim riley
  • preposed whatsitsnames: I don't want to make a song and dance about this, but there are some more later: "to psychologist Peter McKellar", "to author Ida Crowe", "and Chinese publisher", "Children's literary critic Margery Fisher", "that psychologist Michael Woods", and "by author and books editor Phyllis Hartnoll".
All addressed I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing style and technique
    • "Blyton's daughter Gillian noted" – two paras earlier she is just Gillian without "Blyton's daughter". Probably safe to omit the two words here too.
Done.
  • Death and legacy
    • First sentence: "her husband's death … her death". Perhaps "after her husband died"?
I can't see too much wrong with it as it is.. Eric?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stage, film and TV adaptations
    • "Its popularity resulted in the show running for five or six years" – I think you need to make it clear that this wasn't a continuous run: the show ran in Dec and Jan only, and then shut, being revived for the following Xmas season. E.g., from a quick dip in theTimes archives, the first run closed on 22 Jan 1955 and the second one opened on 22 Dec 1955 and ran till 21 Jan 1956 and so on every season till Jan 1960. It was revived, after a two-year break, for the 1962-63 Christmas season.
Good point.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a purely personal basis, and wholly ultra vires, I'm sorry there's no mention of Joyce Grenfell's wicked satire of Blyton, a snippet of which can be heard here. No reply needed on this point, or indeed on any others except perhaps the one immediately above, about the run of Noddy in Toyland, which does, I think, need a bit of adjusting.
Perhaps Eric can look into that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – nothing above prevents me from adding my full support to the promotion of this fine article. It is greatly to the credit of the main authors that the reader has no idea how they feel about the controversial aspects of Blyton's life and work. As well as being a model of impartiality it is most readable, and formidably researched and referenced. – Tim riley (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your excellent points and support Tim.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment from Brianboulton[edit]

I intended to review this article, but got sidetracked. Many reviewers have added comments since, to the benefit of the article, which looks in generally good shape. The one point that I did note, and which hasn't been picked up as far as I can see, concerns "Southernhay" (Early life section).

The text reads: "In 1920 she moved to Southernhay in Surbiton, as nursery governess to the four sons of architect Horace Thompson and his wife Gertrude" (note: it should be clear that "Southernhay" was the name of a house, not a place). It says later that, also in 1920, Blyton "relocated to Chessington". This wording suggests that her sojourn at Southernhay was very brief, yet according to the Enid Blyton Society, she spent four years at Southerhay, teaching not only the Thompson children but those of neighbours in a kind of "experimental school". The EBS sees the Southernhay years of some significance: "The accounts of lessons at 'Miss Brown's School' in Enid Blyton's Book of the Year (1941) surely owe something to her years as a teacher at her own little school in Surbiton, which she later said was 'one of the happiest times of my life'." I'm not suggesting all of this goes in the article, but assuming that the EBS details are accurate, I think a little more than the present fleeting mention of Southernhay is called for. Brianboulton (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Chessington is very close to Surbiton but I agree at present it looks misleading. Can you provide some sources which state it was the happy time and she was there for four years and I'll see what I can do?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got the details from the Enid Blyton Society biography, here paragraph 13. Another EBS page [10], gives the address of Southernhay as Hook Road, Surbiton. Per Ian, I'm happy for this issue to be resolved after the article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded slightly on Southernhay to include a mention of Blyton's little school there. Eric Corbett 15:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A very pleasant read. Nice level of detail for someone who produced an excessive amount of material, and I think you've probably got the balance just about right. - SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Schrod, much appreciated, and Brian for looking at it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Several paragraphs, incl. in Early writing career and Commercial success end without citations, so could these be added pls? Other than that I'm ready to promote this (if Brian has no objection I think his point could be actioned post-closure). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

I've added an additional sprinkling of citations and hopefully also addressed Brian's point about Southernhay. Eric Corbett 15:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Not sure what the "several" paragraphs you're referring to are Ah I see Eric had already added citations when I saw this. I can now only see "As in the Wishing-Chair series, these fantasy books typically involve children being transported into a magical world in which they meet fairies, goblins, elves, pixies and other mythological creatures." and Eric and I agreed that general plot doesn't need a citation. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the second paragraph of the "Death and legacy" section has this uncited sentence: "Blyton's eldest daughter, Gillian, remembered their mother rather differently; Imogen's biography of Blyton contains a foreword by Gillian stating that her memories of childhood with her mother were mainly happy ones." At present this biography is only listed as "further reading". It ought to be included in the sources, with the appropriate page ref to the foreword. Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 30 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Enid_Blyton/archive1&oldid=1089817599"