Talk:Curzon Street Baroque

A fact from Curzon Street Baroque appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 August 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the 1920s–1930s interior design style Curzon Street Baroque (example pictured) was also known as Buggers' Baroque?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Curzon Street Baroque.

Wikipedia

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Dining room at Sandringham House

~~... that the 1920s–1930s interior design Baroque revival style Curzon Street Baroque (example pictured) was also known as Buggers' Baroque?~~ this is online

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/"Away with the learning of clerks, away with it!"
Comment: Arguably nom is a tad late, due to creator's unfortunate tennis addiction, & Wimbledon. Does the clock start at first edit (4 July) or reaching 1500 chars (5 July)?

Created by Giano (talk). Nominated by Johnbod (talk) at 13:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Substantial article on excellent sources, and I think to create such a beauty, you may take a few extra days, especially with tennis in the way of writing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the timing, neither particularly matters—even the 5th July deadline would be five days ago. But I suggest that this is what WP:IAR was written for.
-Article relatively recently created (but see above), obviously long enough, neutral, hook is cited in the article, no copyvio/closeparaphrasing (excepting quotes and bald facts), the hook is well within character limit (115 chars), accurate, sourced, probably of interest, both to students of architecture and the bizarre. Not sure if the image "how up well at small size" though. Awaiting QPQ. ——SerialNumber54129 13:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I say I have no problem? - (ec): I accept the offline sources AGF, no copyvio obvious. The image is licensed, but I think this one might show even better in small size. Can you please have a ref at the end of each paragraph, for formality's sake?

Some suggestions for the article, take or not:

The reasoning of "Decorators' Baroque" and "gay" is not clear, and the quote a bit not as elegant as some design's ;)

I didn’t write the quote, blame its inelegance on Osbert Sitwell. Giano (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure we need "true Baroque".

Yes, we do need it, otherwise it confuses with all the many revivals.Giano (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure we need so many commas.

English grammar is what it is. Giano (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"formed a ... clique around themselves" - what does "around themselves" add?

These were extremely self-indulgent people, quite deliberately excluding other. Remove if you don’t like, but that’s why it says around themselves. To provide emphasis and the almost cult like behaviour. Giano (talk)

I'd prefer simpler image captions, and the context rather go to prose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I am writing for the clever 14 year old, who looks more at the pictures. Each image has been carefully chosen and it MUST explain why. Giano (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you got two reviewers now ;) - me first ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Yeah, we edit-conflicted; so I'm a mini-reviewer :) ——SerialNumber54129 14:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, all points taken, - as I said, just questions, which have nothing to with approval or not. The refs, however, are needed, or we will have problems later. - Take your time, and happy travels. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think that must be sufficient refs now? Giano (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! The Benton ref is not there yet, but I trust that you will add it. Go for GA, anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Benton reference is already there and linked: "Benton, Benton and Wood & Art Déco (1910–1939) 2010, pp. 13–28."

It is called (Sfn), but not defined, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No Gerda. It is defined. There is no such message on the page. All sfns are defined. Dr. K. 20:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added Benton to references. Dr. K. 20:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate it, - was approved anyway ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Greda. I know, but I don't like loose ends. I replaced the sfn template with a normal Gbook ref anyway. That was the only sfn in the article, so I thought it would be ok to be replaced with a regular cite book template. Dr. K. 20:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I approved a bit up already, but am happy to repeat: exquisite! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I came by to promote this, but "Baroque" is mentioned three times in the hook. Yoninah (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah: Thank you Yoninah. How about ALT1:

ALT1

... that the 1920s–1930s interior design style Curzon Street Baroque (example pictured) was also known as Buggers' Baroque?

Dr. K. 19:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Restoring tick for ALT1 per Gerda Arendt's review. Yoninah (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Return from prep per discussion at WT:DYK#Curzon Street Baroque. The article has been tagged for insufficient referencing. Yoninah (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN STATED MUCH MORE CLEARLY by the tagger for an article in a prep queue, is given in his hidden comment, and obliquely referred to in his edit summary - there are two Tinniswoods in the references & the notes don't distinguish which is used. No wonder both Giano and I missed this at first. @Giano: or someone has now sorted this. The rest is personal style quirks and can be ignored. Johnbod (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah: Reference issues have been resolved. Please see Talk:Curzon_Street_Baroque#Full_citations_needed. Thank you. Dr. K. 03:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now a bot is telling me this is not on the main DYK - presumably because it was removed to the prep queue. Do I need to replace it on the main list? Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I re-listed it at WP:DYKN. Yoninah (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, but I must call for another reviewer to sign off on the references. Just writing "Charlish" or "Woods" in the citations, and just the author's name and name of work, without any publication or publishing date, does not help the reader understand the reference. (BTW Churlish is also a dead link for me.) Similarly, citation 4, "The Evelyn Waugh Society", tells me nothing about the title, author, date, etc. Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Re references: I have added some information (publication titles, dates) to some of the references, but there are still problems. I am unable to open the Charlish source. There are two citations to "Lucie-Smith, p.146", but Lucie-Smith is not in the Bibliography (nor given in full in the Citations, as some sources strangely are). Another citation is "Stamp, p.44"; again, the full reference for Stamp is not in the Bibliography or Citations. One of the citations simply states "The Times Literary supplement; 17 October 2018", with no author, article title or page number to indicate where in that issue the cited information can be found. I think this is going to need some more input from Giano to fix the issues with the sourcing. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    
    (edited to add DYK?, and I have notified the article creator and the nominator, again.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i have added the two missing books and clarified the Times Lit Supplement ref. Regarding the seemingly unobtainable www.culturewars.org reference, I’ll try and source that from elsewhere, it’s hardly a controversial view. I still can’t help wondering, though, if this is a suitable subject for the Main Page. The disparagement of Homosexual decorators is not everyone’s cup of tea, especially when written for fun rather than with a serious agenda. I do hope it doesn’t upset anyone if it’s ever allowed on the Main Page. Giano (talk)

@Yoninah: I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. Wikipedia commonly uses short references which refer to a full citation in a Bibliography section, for example. It is transparently clear to the reader that "Charlish" refers to the full citation given in the bibliography by Nicky Charlish, for example, and the same for the others. I've used the Internet archive to recover an online version of the Charlish source. Have you any other concerns? --RexxS (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giano, I take your point. What about focusing on features of the style, for example:

ALT2 ... that in the Curzon Street Baroque style, old hymn books were sometimes repurposed as cigarette boxes, and gilt prie-dieux became gramophone cabinets?

ALT3 ... that features of Curzon Street Baroque included trompe l'oeil murals and Canalettos of doubtful provenance?

Re the Charlish references: I think we do need another reference for "the ornate Baroque style then regarded as vulgar and excessive" (which is an opinion), and for "The painter Rex Whistler developed a Baroque influence to his work, while the society photographer Cecil Beaton has been described as full of "Baroque playfulness"." Even if a direct quote isn't used, again, they are opinions about Whistler's and Beaton's work, so should be sourced. Hope you can find some! (Or maybe RexxS has - I'll check now.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While we are at it we might work in the well-known quip about Beaton, that his "Baroque is worse than his bite". Is there a pressing need for a new hook? Otherwise this has been chewed over enough already, I think. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, Giano's concern about putting a disparaging term about homosexuals on the front page. Would we put a hook saying, eg, something was painted "nigger brown"? That was a term used for a colour (actually not disparagingly, just descriptively); this was a term used in a way that was intended disparagingly at the time, and still is. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing issues have been resolved, we now need a new reviewer (and Giano the article creator) to consider the ALT hooks. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Heavens!(can one still politically say that?) I think people need to know how homosexuals were disparaged in the 20th century. My view is that it’s truthful history and people need to know that. “Buggers Baroque” in the hook will drag in the 14-year-olds and educate them. I just question if such a hook won’t be too much for some of our more politically correct editors. I’m glad you are now happy with the references, if only all life’s problems were so easily sorted.Giano (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giano I see, I did not understand who you were referring to when you said you were concerned that it wasn't suitable for the front page. ALT 1 still stands, though, and there are now also ALT2 and ALT3, so hopefully another reviewer will choose one of them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about: DYK George V famously said “Bugger Bognor”, but his wife, Queen Mary, preferred to bugger Baroque? Giano (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: (new reviewer) ALT1 , ALT2 , and ALT3 all good, but I prefer ALT1, which I think will have broader appeal due to its content and it being less jargon-y than the other two hooks. IARing on the newness (12 days, nbd). Concur with the above suggestion to take this to GA, an interesting article, well done. – Levivich 18:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Full citations needed

I've just removed {{Full citations needed}} from the top of the article page for the following reasons:

The template documentation states "This is a banner template to flag an article as having numerous incomplete reference citations" – one reference has a missing page number. That's not "numerous" and I've flagged the cite with {{page needed}}.
The template documentation states "It should usually be placed at the top of the References section (or Sources, or Bibliography, etc. – whatever the section is named). It can also be used inside {{Multiple issues}}. It is best not used as a stand-alone template at the top of the article, as it is a cleanup tag not a dispute tag. – the tag was placed incorrectly at the top of the article.
The added hidden comment states "two Tinniswoods in references" – so what? One Tinniswood referred to the author of a source; the other was simply part of the title of an article by a different author. It's obvious that the former was the source cited.
The added hidden comment states "citations needlessly split between citations and references". – I really do object to editors telling article creators how they must format their citations. If they have a problem with it, then start an RfC to overturn WP:CITEVAR, which is an established content guideline and guarantees the creator's right to use whatever citation format they choose as long as it is "sufficient to uniquely identify the source, allow readers to find it, and allow readers to initially evaluate it without retrieving it".

If anyone thinks that there are further problems with the citations used in the article, please discuss them here, as slapping tags without discussion is rarely a productive means of improving articles. --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right, & thanks for your help here. Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the missing page number for Sitwell and provided an inline citation with direct link to that page. Dr. K. 03:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it’s the same page number in the book too. However, I was using the ref there as the name of the poem rather than the book of the same name. Hence, no page number. Giano (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stevenson and Tinniswood

Last year, Oxford University Press publish Jane Stevenson's Baroque between the WarsAlternative Style in the Arts, 1918-1939. It sounds relevant, and might be worth a mention in this piece – even if it's in a "Further reading" section. In fact I notice that the reference:

Stevenson, Jane (March 2018). "Adrian Tinniswood: Not a Straight Line in Sight (review)". Literary Review.

Has it the wrong way round. It is actually Tinniswood's review of Stevenson's book cited by me above. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 07:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]