Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gerald Durrell/archive1

Gerald Durrell

Featured article candidates/Gerald Durrell/archive1

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most influential people in the history of conservation biology. Durrell became famous for his books, and used the money from them to found Jersey Zoo. As recently as the mid-1970s there was still opposition at the highest level of the zoo world to the idea that zoos could help with conservation of endangered species. Durrell's work is one of the main reasons that that's no longer the case. One point that reviewers will notice: the article depends heavily on a single source: the only book-length biography of Durrell, by Douglas Botting. There are other reminiscences, and I've cited some material to them, but they are essentially books of anecdotes rather than of encyclopedic material. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Gerald_Durrell,_Askania_Nova_(cropped).jpg: source link is dead, and I note the uploader has had a number of uploads deleted for permissions issues - is there anything to confirm the release of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that I can find. The picture is from Durrell's time in Askania Nova, in the mid-1980s; I have the book of that trip and this picture is not in that chapter, so it's at least possible that it was taken separately as claimed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

Saving a spot. 09:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Gerald Malcolm Durrell, OBE (7 January 1925 – 30 January 1995) was a British naturalist : as MOS:COMMA warns, don't let other punctuation distract from the need for a comma. As we've got a comma before OBE, we need one after it as well -- in this case, after the brackets. However, a perfectly acceptable alternative, which plays better with the previews you get when mousing over a link, would be to remove the preceding comma instead.
Comma removed.
Per WP:INFONAT, I think it would be worth clarifying his British nationality in the infobox, as it is not obvious from his place of birth and death.
Added "British" to the infobox. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
animal collecting trips: consider animal-collecting trips per MOS:HYPHEN, but it's arguable either way.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
he married Jacquie Rasen: better as he married Jacquie (née Rasen)?
I think this is better as is, unless you feel strongly about it -- she was Jacquie Rasen at the time they married, and although I know the locution is common, just using the first name in this way always strikes me as odd. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem -- to me, it's equally odd to use a name that became wrong through the act we're describing, but there's pros and cons either way and this is very much a matter for editorial taste. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 1957 he visited the Cameroons for the third time, and on his return attempted to persuade Bournemouth and Poole town councils to start local zoos...: a very long sentence. It reads better if cut in two after zoos here.
Done. Long sentences are one of my besetting sins. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
continued to mine his past for autobiographical material: I think MOS:CLICHE applies here.
Trimmed, though I'm not sure if that flows well now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He received an OBE in 1982: this is me being very pedantic, and probably more so than even most HQRS, but OBE is technically ~~an institution~~a personal title. The Gazette uses "appointed as an Officer of the Order of the British Empire" vel sim.
I used "became"; does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does, though I'd still be tempted to spell it out, as many people will (mis)read OBE as "Order of the British Empire". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll leave it as is, if that's OK -- I rarely object to pedanticism but the technically correct formulations are a bit unwieldy and will surprise most readers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Durrell's father insisted that Louisa conform with conventional expectations, but she was more independent than most women of the era. She spent much time with her cook, learning to make curries, and had trained as a nurse.: the tone here just feels a little off to me: a bit like it was written by a Victorian rather than about one. Anyway, is all this really that unusual in this time period? This is the 1920s, not the 1820s -- flapper culture is in full swing, and people like Virginia Woolf, Emmeline Pankhurst and Jane Ellen Harrison are getting well into middle and old age, and of course many women worked as nurses and in traditionally masculine roles during the First World War. I need a bit of convincing that having a trade and chatting to the servants was really all that exceptional.
I think the Anglo-Indian (that's always the adjective I've seen, regardless of the ethnicities) community in India at the time was more determinedly British than the British themselves -- shades of Passage to India and Burmese Days. That's certainly the impression that Botting gives: he says of Louisa "As an Anglo-Indian, she was less mindful of her exalted status than the average white memsahib who passed her time in the subcontinent in a state of aloof exile. As a young woman she had defied convention and trained as a nurse, and had even scrubbed floors (unheard of for a white woman in India then)." Botting goes on to mention talking to the servants and learning to cook curries. Haag quotes an interview with a woman who knew the Durrells when she was a girl on Corfu in the thirties; she is quite stiffly disapproving of them, saying the Durrells did not behave as an English family in a colonial environment were expected to behave. I don't think Botting is an expert on Anglo-Indian social mores, but it does seem reasonable to me that the Durrells were not typical of their community. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No quarrel with that, but I think we need to make a bit more of it clear. At the moment, we suggest that most women of the 1920s were not independent, would not have trained as nurses and would have had nothing to do with the servants, which is hard to wear. It sounds as though Botting contextualises this in a very specific aristocratic Anglo-Indian context, which we don't (yet). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to make that clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anglo-English: something is awry here. "Anglo-Irish" would be the obvious correction, but doesn't make much sense -- it sounds as though we mean "English parents living in India" or "English parents of a certain social class".
This was just absent-mindedness; I've switched it to Anglo-Indian, which is what I meant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the household included an ayah (a nursemaid) who helped raise the children: I think it's worth clarifying that an ayah is specifically an Indian servant, which helps explain the (presumably European?) Catholic governess.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
his father bought a house in Dulwich, near where both the older boys were at school: at Dulwich College? If so, worth including, I think: that's quite an elite school which says something about the social standing of the family.
Lawrence was at St. Olave's Grammar School (where I went myself, as it happens); I don't know where Leslie went, and Botting doesn't give more details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
while out with his ayah one day: italicise ayah consistently.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald was scarcely affected, having had little emotional connection to his father: perhaps more to the point, he was only three years old!
Well, yes, but Botting's point is that the elder Lawrence did the Victorian father routine and only saw Gerald for half-an-hour a day. Botting quotes Durrell: "I must confess my father's demise had little or no effect on me, since he was a remote figure", followed by some minor reminiscences and Durrell saying he was closer to his mother and his ayah. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that latter detail would be nice to include: at the moment, we present this almost as a deficiency on Gerald's part (as if he was himself aloof or disconnected), rather than as a natural consequence of Lawrence's parenting. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see It was usual for Anglo-Indian parents to see little of their children a little further up, and Gerald was scarcely affected, having had been much closer to his mother and his ayah than his father. Those are both much weaker than what you said here, about Lawrence having chosen only to see Gerald for half an hour a day, and the latter still places the weight on the child rather than the father. Do we have the sourcing to say that Lawrence chose to be barely involved in Gerald's life? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. Botting says he "by all accounts was a decent but rather distant and often absent figure to his children, for his work as an engineer took him across the length and breadth of British India ..." which ascribes the distance more to his work than his inclination. Botting also says "though he was a straightforward servant of empire, he was not an entirely conventional one; he did not live like the British but like the Anglo-Indians, and he resigned from his club when an Oxford-educated Indian doctor he had proposed for membership was blackballed", so I don't think we can say it was conventional Victorian behaviour. Margaret is quoted: "In those days children only saw their parents when they were presented to them at four o'clock for the family tea ... our lives revolved around the nursery and our Hindu ayah and Catholic governess. Gerry would have had more to do with the ayah than we older children did". The half hour is from a quote from Gerald: "I would see him twice a day for half an hour and he would tell me stories about the three bears. I knew he was my daddy but I was on much greater terms of intimacy with Mother and my ayah than with my father." I don't see anything there that speaks to the elder Lawrence's motivations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, indeed -- and we can hardly assume that the four-year-old Gerald was timing these interactions to the minute. I think we do have enough to say that he was often absent, though. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added. I put this in with the account of his death, which has the slight disadvantage of forcing the sentence into the pluperfect. I could move it earlier, to where I give Lawrence's job, but since the relevance is to his death's effect on Gerald I think it's better there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She began to drink: This is a bit of a euphemism: I think we should be more direct. Likewise, later, temporarily freed of her drinking habit is a little on the flowery (and possibly moralising?) side.
I am hamstrung by Botting's language here. He quotes Durrell, who says his mother began "resorting to the bottle more and more frequently", and then Botting says "Eventually, matters reached a crisis", and quotes Durrell again, with the "nervous breakdown" euphemism. I don't think I can use this to say either that she was an alcoholic or was being treated for alcoholism. I agree with you that Durrell's language is euphemistic, but I don't want to go beyond what he actually says. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The usual solution here would be to lean into Botting: something like "Durrell later wrote that his mother "began resorting [..."]; in Botting's words, "matters reached a crisis" in 19XX, when..." UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found it tricky to navigate between overquoting and over-interpreting but I've had a go at this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When he was nine he was spanked by his headmaster, and his mother took him away from the school: this I find interesting: it would have been completely normal in those days, and indeed much later. Any indication as to why both Durrell and Louisa reacted so strongly here -- was it simply the last straw?
I think Louisa spoiled him, and he was unused to school discipline anyway -- at age nine he had not lived through four years of school life, as most children would have, and I imagine he was used to getting his own way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrence and his partner, Nancy, moved in with Louisa and Gerald at about the end of 1934 when the friends they had been living with, George and Pam Wilkinson, emigrated to Corfu: clarify the antecedent here.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a house in Perama: in looking up a potential ILL, I discovered that there are (or were) two villages on Corfu by that name: I think this one [sv] is the most likely candidate, as the second wasn't known by that name until the 1960s.
That seems to be the right one -- not far south of Corfu town fits with the description. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greek-British doctor: endash here, I think, as he was jointly Greek and British, rather than being primarily British but also sort-of Greek (as in "African-American" or "Swiss-German").
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stephanides spent a half-day every week with Gerald, walking in the countryside with him: could cut with him as implied by the previous clause.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Henri Fabre: seems to be fairly universally Jean Henri Fabre in sources: Henri Fabre is the aviator.
Done, with a hyphen rather than a space as that's what our article uses; no objection to changing it to a space if that's the usual form. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His call-up for the war came in late 1942, but he was exempted from military duty on medical grounds: was this because of bad sinuses? Seems a rather light ailment on which to reject someone from military service, given the pressing situation.
Durrell tells an amusing story about this; it sounds like his sinuses were truly spectacularly bad, but he also gives a conversation with the doctor who exempted him in which he admitted to the doctor that he didn't want to fight and the doctor said that was fine by him. Since Durrell was sometimes faithful to narrative interest rather than accuracy in his recollections I decided to skip this detail in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was given the option of working in a munitions factory or finding work on a farm: I would clarify, here, who gave him the option: it sounds like he was being conscripted to do this?
Apparently the way it worked was that after the medical, one received a letter giving the results, and it was this letter that gave him the options. I've rephrased to make this clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Durrell's biographer, Botting, says Durrell broke his hand while separating the African buffalo calf from its mother, but in Durrell's own autobiographical account it happens while caging the gnu: we've chosen Durrell over Botting here, which is a little dangerous: people's autobiographies are frequently inaccurate, for all sorts of reasons. Unless a published source has done the same, I think we need to avoid passing judgement: we can say that he had both tasks, and that the hand was broken, but not discriminate between the two stories of which one broke it.
Yes, fair; I said above that Durrell's own recollections aren't automatically truthful and I should have been more cautious here. Rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. It's undoubtedly an excellent article, though I must admit that my niggles about the tone remain: I worry that it's just slightly too far towards the sort of writing that Durrell himself would have put out about his own life, rather than a dispassionate encyclopaedic treatment of it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply to your points later, but just a quick note to say that as a longtime reader of Durrell's work I shouldn't be surprised that I am writing a little under his influence. When I go through with your points in mind I will see if I can also sweep away some of that tone. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have now replied to all points; have not yet gone through for tone. I think I'm going to find it hard to spot but will do my best; I'd appreciate any pointers to the problem you can give while you read through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a major issue, and I wouldn't want to take away the article's sparkle. I'll go through and pick out the bits where the distinctive voice is strongest. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading the parts on which I commented yesterday, I think I'll retract what I said about the tone -- maybe thanks to recent edits, it seems to be just about right. Will pick out anything that stands out as I move forward. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

was invited to the zoo to meet the Superintendent, Geoffrey Vevers: good old MOS:PEOPLETITLES - decap superintendent here.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the interview, Durrell "prattled on interminably about animals, animal collecting and my own zoo", as he later put it: not totally clear whether he is Durrell or Vevers.
Made it "as Durrell later put it" -- I'm not too keen on the repetition of "Durrell" but I don't see a less clumsy way to do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The extinctions of animals such as the dodo, the passenger pigeon and the quagga appalled him, and he realised that zoos had little interest in addressing the problems of endangered species: I wonder if we're being a little unfair here, particularly with the last part. None of those animals went extinct because of zoos: it's not so much that the zoos were sitting on their hands, as that nobody thought of conservation as something that was within a zoo's remit. It's a bit like someone being appalled that museums are doing nothing to address childhood obesity: the fact that we now believe that zoos should try to stop species from going extinct is in large part a consequence of what Durrell did later.
I made it "he realised that most zoos considered themselves showplaces for animals, rather than scientific institution which might have a role in addressing the problems of endangered species". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I've ever seen the word showplace before! Googling around, its primary meaning seems to be a place that is itself to be shown off (i.e., a particularly fancy building), rather than a place whose contents are interesting. Not immediately thinking of a good synonym, but I'm sure you'll be able to. We need a plural on institutions too. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised, but I took a look at an ngram of it vs. showroom, and it does seem to be falling slowly out of use, so perhaps other readers will also not recognize the word. I've rephrased (and fixed the plural). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
many of whom were unwilling to pass on what they knew in any case, in order to protect their jobs: I think this could be smoother. Suggest cutting "in any case", and rephrasing to make in order less ambiguous (are we saying that, in order to protect their jobs, they refused to help others, or that they refused to help others, even when doing so would have protected their jobs?). It seems like there's two points being made: the staff didn't know very much, and they didn't talk about the little that they knew. Might be clearer to disentangle the two a little more?
Reworded; I dropped the point about why the staff were unwilling to pass on their knowledge, as presumably it's Durrell's speculation and doesn't really matter anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good (I made some minor CEs here). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Durrell had good friends among the women keepers: in many style guides, "female X" is preferred to "woman X"; the latter reads as antiquated and sometimes patronising (cf. Woman police constable). Here, there's the unfortunate possibility that a "woman keeper" is like a "lion keeper"...
Changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a woman in London that he refers to in his writings only as Juliet: consider "Juliet" per MOS:WORDSASWORDS, and to be clear that this might be a pseudonym.
Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in a boat acquired from the Germans because of the war: a few things here. Which Germans? As written, this phrase doesn't quite mean what it should: we've said that he acquired it because of the war, but surely the war was the reason these Germans lost it (was it commandeered/captured/confiscated?), presumably at least two years earlier, rather than why Durrell got it?
I've cut those details; I originally included names and descriptions of the ships they took for these early expeditions, but cut them to reduce the article's length. This was left over and I don't think is needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
learning pidgin: consider "the local dialect": pidgin covers a lot of mixed languages in a lot of places, and is often seen as derogatory.
I changed it to "Cameroonian pidgin"; as far as I can tell it's the local name. See Cameroonian Pidgin English, which gives other names "for what Cameroonians call Cameroon Pidgin English", and cites linguistics texts from 2008 and 2017 that use that name. I know what you mean about the negative connotations of the word, but it wasn't a dialect, technically. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good compromise -- likewise, I see your point about calling it a "dialect" (sans army or navy). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the return to Mamfe required sixty carriers to bring them all: is a carrier a person or a box?
It's a person. I was trying to avoid both "porters" with its associations with Great White Hunters on safari, and "native carriers", which would be unambiguous but might be the best solution despite a risk that "native" would offend some readers. Would "local carriers" work? Or "on the return to Mamfe he had to hire sixty carriers to ..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about "sixty people to carry..."? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, done, though I realised that there is a reference in the previous sentence that also had to be changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
while he was there a hunter brought in an angwantibo, one of the animals he was keenest to obtain, as he knew London Zoo were looking to acquire them: lots of hes here. Suggest untangling a bit: did Durrell or the hunter really want to obtain an angwantibo?
It was Durrell; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On which -- we are not well served for images of these creatures! Did you consider this drwaing at any point? The black and white photo doesn't really do the animal great justice, but then I can see a strong argument for a photograph over a drawing in principle.
I did look at it but I think photos are of more use to a reader if they exist, and the angwantibo picture is quite clear, though it would be better in colour. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A thought: how about using a multiple image template to have them next to each other? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I like how it looks, but I might have made it too wide at 400px; let me know if it looks odd on your screen. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a tweak-y edit here, please revert if not an improvement (size to 300px and a footer instead of two captions, which means that we have a greater proportion of image overall). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; mostly fixed, with a couple of queries above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Cecil Webb, a well-established animal collector, arrived in the Cameroons intending to catch angwantibo shortly afterwards: as far as I can tell, the plural of angwantibo is angwantibos (see e.g. here. p. 209.
Changed -- I did check, and Durrell and Botting both independently use "angwantibo" as the plural, but as the form with the "s" is accepted that's the less surprising choice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
he considered Durrell and Yealland to be amateurs: this was, strictly at least, true. Is there a better way of putting it that comes closer to the intended "incompetents"?
I'm not sure it's strictly true -- they had negotiated with zoos beforehand, and although the zoos would not give them money up front, they were doing it for pay. As you say it's the connotation I'm looking for. Botting's wording is that Webb considered them "novices and upstarts"; I think "incompetent" is a bit too strong to be sourced to that. I've made it "inexperienced and amateurish"; does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works very well. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The expedition had been successful but not profitable; it had absorbed half of Durrell's inheritance: I assume this is after any income from selling the animals? Perhaps worth reminding us how much money we're talking about here (I think it would be a routine calculation as permitted by WP:OR).
Yes, after selling the animals. I agree re the routine calculation, but it seems simpler to just repeat the inheritance amount: "half of Durrell's inheritance of ₤3,000". I didn't repeat the inflation conversion since there's one in the very next sentence with a simple ratio to this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ken Smith agreed to partner Durrell: not sure I've seen that verb used in that way (rather than transitively: "to partner someone with someone else"): be Durrell's partner, unless I've just missed a common usage?
Changed to "join"; I think it's a valid usage but as elsewhere I think if it sounds odd to you it will sound odd to others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
where the Fon, Achirimbi II, the king of the area: this isn't quite phrased right. If Fon means 'king' (more or less), we don't want to then gloss it with "the king of the area". Could do Achrimbi II, the local Fon ('king')?
The Fon's name is not really needed inline, since I don't use it later in the article (Durrell and Botting never use it at all; he's just "the Fon" throughout.) I've made it "the Fon (the local ruler)" and added a footnote giving his name. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
augmenting what he was obtaining from the hunts he went on: again, a lot of "he"s here. "From his own hunts"? Even then, might not be clear if "he" is Durrell or the Fon.
Clarified, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the two men emptied it over the course of the evening: consider drank or finished: this is slightly figurative language that might confuse a non-native speaker (are we talking about some kind of libation ritual?)
I made it "drank". This is one of those "tone" moments you mentioned; for lifelong Durrell readers such as myself, the night that Durrell meets and drinks with the Fon is a memorable event, and I mentally slipped into a literary rather than an encyclopedic state of mind. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
requiring an emergency trip to Bemenda: where was that?
Forty miles away; I added that. It was a five-hour trip in the Fon's kitcar, and Durrell would have been at serious risk of death if they had not obtained the antiserum, but I cut the details as being colourful and not strictly necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They knew that obtaining one of the high-value animals would immediately resolve their financial problems: well, not immediately -- they would have to get the thing safely back to the UK first.
Yes, fair enough. Cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As they came ashore Durrell and Smith were already planning another trip: possibly getting a bit poetic here. Literally as they were stepping off the boat, or around the time of their return?
Almost literally: Durrell tells the press about the plan as they are interviewed while docked at Liverpool, just before getting off the boat. But I agree it's not necessary to be so poetic, so rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to include that detail -- it's a nice one and can be conveyed quickly. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the animals survived the journey, but the last flying squirrel died just one day from docking at Liverpool on 25 August: didn't we have dozens of these things a few paragraphs ago? We've been pretty cavalier about what sounds like a very dark day in flying-squirrel history.
Yes indeed. The story of these flying squirrels (known now as flying mice, though that wasn't true back then, I believe) is one of the more memorable episodes from the book of the trip. He had 42 of them, if I recall correctly and I could easily expand this section to tell more of the story -- capturing them was an adventure, and then finding something they would eat was difficult. They eventually showed a willingness to eat avocados and Durrell had to persuade the ship's cook to give him some of the avocados that the ship's captain had brought on board for his own diet. They died in twos and threes on the trip home, despite his best efforts. Again I omitted this for length reasons. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem like we have two different stories here -- the trip home was pretty safe if you were a wildebeest, but pretty deadly if you were a flying squirrel. Perhaps something like "Most of the animals survived they journey, but all 42 of the flying squirrels died during it, the last just one day..."? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went back to the The Bafut Beagles to source these details, and discovered I'd misremembered the sequence; they began dying while still in Mamfe, and only four even made it to the ship. I've added a sentence abuot the difficulty of keeping them alive, but at the first mention rather than in the paragraph about the voyage home. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the expedition had brought back several species never previously seen in Britain: would be nice if we could specify some of these.
Botting says "London [Zoo] took some of the rarities of special scientific interest, many of them never before seen alive in Britain, including the hairy frog and a large number of insects". Then there's a quote from a news story citing the hairy frog as "the first creature of its kind ever to be brought into this country". Durrell caught a hairy frog on the previous trip, though perhaps it didn't survive the trip home -- Durrell doesn't mention it in The Overloaded Ark; Botting's details come from Durrell's diary. I think this is enough to mention the frog, and have done so, though now I wonder if a reader will recall that the previous trip mentioned the same animal. Perhaps it would be better to delete the earlier mention? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
where he visited Tiny McTurk at his ranch: ...who?
The McTurks, as far as I can tell, were a well-known British family in the area -- googling "mcturk guiana" (or "guyana") finds a lot of references. I think the McTurks are likely to be notable, but perhaps this is not the place to worry about that, so I've cut the reference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking you would give some kind of explanation like "a local British landowner" or similar? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see -- I misunderstood. I'll stay with the removal; the reader just needs to know where they went. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a long quote from Jacquie Wolfenden in the paragraph of her introduction. I think it could be better integrated into the prose of the paragraph, but we certainly need to be clear about when she wrote this and in what context. It looks from the citation that it's a quote from her 1967 autobiography?
Yes, now attributed directly. I like the quote and I think paraphrasing it would rob it of its emotional directness. Do you think it should be shortened, then? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David Attenborough, another rising figure in the world of natural history: was this quite right in 1950? He would only just have been out of the Navy and not yet properly working at the BBC; I think his first natural history programme was in 1953.
Attenborough's comment was later; the wording was clumsy in that it wasn't intended to imply that Attenborough made the comment at the time. Checking Botting's citations I see in fact it was much later, so I've cut it; we don't need to have Attenborough's affirmation that Durrell was right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
she was free to marry without her parents permission: apostrophe needed here. I was surprised to discover that this remained true until the late 1980s.
Apostrophe added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Durrells began their marriage in a tiny flat in Margaret's house in Bournemouth: perhaps remind us who Margaret was; it's been a while.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jacquie joined him there and began "learning about animal keeping the hard way", helping to feed and care for the animals.: quotes always need to be attributed inline: whose words are these?
Attributed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jacquie knew Gerald was a marvellous storyteller: how about considered G. a marvellous storyteller, which is verifiable, whereas the current formulation is not?
Yes, my own biases coming through there. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fee was a welcome fifteen guineas: how much was that? I would cut a welcome for tone.
Cut, and an equivalent given. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
equivalent to ₤120.00 in 2023: don't think we want the decimals here (false precision).
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to make the book entertaining and humorous rather than tediously factual: I don't think any writer wants to make their work tedious, though I know I usually manage it with my FAC reviews.
Durrell did actually say "I have tried, firstly, not to be boring", but I take your point. Changed to "simply factual". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The completed typescript, titled The Overloaded Ark, was posted to Faber & Faber with a covering letter mentioning that Lawrence was Gerald's brother: better the other way, I think: "that Gerald was Lawrence's brother" (because F&F would have known Lawrence, but not Gerald).
Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Curtis Brown, Lawrence's own agent, in late 1952. They read...: is there a way to do this so that Curtis Brown doesn't sound like a person's name, and so that we're not surprised by the plural they? Get the word agency in there somewhere?
It was actually Spencer Curtis Brown, son of the Curtis Brown who founded the agency. I wrote it referring to the agency but it's confusing, I agree. I've tried to finesse this by giving Spencer's full name and removing the link to a footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a galley proof: I had to look this up: wikilink at the very least, I think.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sold to Rupert Hart-Davis: who was that? Incidentally, do we mean the man, or the company?
This is tricky for the reverse reason to the issue with Spencer Curtis Brown. Our article, Rupert Hart-Davis, is about the man; the publishing house is Rupert Hart-Davis Ltd, but the "Ltd" is rarely used in discussing the publisher, so it can be confusing. I've linked it and added "a London publisher" (though technically "London" is uncited, if that matters), but "publisher" can also refer to either the man or his company. At least it's clear we're talking about a publisher now. Does that do enough to resolve it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it works, but why not "a London publishing house", if we're definitely talking about the company? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At that mention it is the person, not the publishing house, being referred to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! So "owner of a publishing house", maybe? However, there might not really be a problem that needs solving here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book's dialog used pidgin: BrE prefers dialogue. Are you still happy with pidgin, with the discussion above in mind?
Changed. I think we do need to keep "pidgin"; there's a later quote from Jacquie that refers to "comic pidgin" being seen as offensive (that is, the reported speech of the Fon, not the word "pidgin"), and I don't want to change that, so it makes sense to keep it throughout. Given that it is the Cameroonian name for the language (although it's a creole, I think, technically, rather than a pidgin) I don't think the word itself needs to be avoided. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No -- that was a genuine question; if you're happy, I'm happy. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An occasional review questioned: do you mean "a small number of reviews"? The phrasing makes it hard to be sure how many we're on about here.
Changed to "Some reviews". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A secretary, Sophie Cook, was hired to help with preparations, all made from the tiny flat in Margaret's house in Bournemouth. Their ship left Tilbury: did Cook go on the trip? The use of "Their" makes it sound as if she did, but everything else in this section points the other way. Suggest, if not, "the Durrells left Tilbury by ship..."
Clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in the event the accommodations were cramped and unpleasant, the boat filthy, and the food appalling: at least the last of these is a matter of opinion, so we need to couch it as such, or use a verifiable statement like "Durrell found the food appalling".
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When starting a new paragraph, it is best not to use a pronoun (like "they") whose antecedent is in the previous paragraph: restate the noun(s) instead.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as they were making plans for the thousand-mile journey back to Buenos Aires they discovered there had been a revolution in Asunción, the Paraguayan capital: I'm struggling to cross-reference this and find out what we're talking about. Is it the 1954 Paraguayan coup d'état? If so, "revolution" is probably not the right word.
Both Botting and Durrell call it a revolution, and neither one makes it completely clear what they're referring to, but from the timing I agree it has to the 1954 coup. Changed to coup d'état and linked to the relevant article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One reason I found this exercise a bit tricky is that it's hard to tell, in the relevant bit of Durrell's article, how much time has actually passed. Do the sources give any steer here? Otherwise, we could say "received news of a coup d'état in the Paraguayan capital, which took place in early May 1954" -- if that's not chancing our OR arm too much? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added "in May" to the sentence about their discovery of the coup. Durrell's account doesn't give the month, but I cited the pages where he describes the coup, as he mentions it's a few weeks before their scheduled departure from Buenos Aires, and I think that nails it down sufficiently. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jacquie and Sophie had to nag him constantly: I would find a better word than nag, which is very gendered and quite contemptuous.
I agree the noun is contemptuous and gendered; I think of the verb as being non-gendered, but I've changed it to "pester". The source has "cajole" and "bully". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link the Savoy hotel?
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
illustrating the talk with lightning cartoon drawings: what's one of those -- do you mean that he produced these drawings ex tempore?
I thought this was a general term, but Google is not supporting me on this so I guess I was wrong. Yes, drawings produced at the time. Changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Still) more to follow, I'm afraid. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who should apologize! For having so many flaws in the article for you to find. I really appreciate the detailed review; thank you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

"He attempts no explanations ...he passes no moral judgements; he is absorbed wholly in particulars ... [he has] no recipes for the future of the dark continent": make sure there's a space after ... (and an NBSP before it). Did Durrell ever respond to this? I must admit I can't work out if it's a compliment or a complaint.
Botting doesn't record any response from Durrell. I think it must be a complaint. Botting suggests that the relationship between animals and zoos can be a metaphor for the relationship between natives and colonies and then says some critics were surprised that Durrell expressed no opinion on the morals of what he was doing. I haven't seen the Spectator review; the quotes are taken from what Botting quotes. I don't think the metaphor is a good one, but I can't tell if it's Botting's or the Spectator's. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I might say is "missing" from this article (under c.1b, I suppose) is a "Reception/Assessment/Legacy" section. You mention in the FAC blurb that he was one of the most influential figures in his field, so it's odd that we don't, in any systematic way, discuss the impact that he had on that field. Above, you have said that people opposed his view of zoos until the 1970s -- presumably there were arguments in print, at conferences and so on about what Durrell was doing, and then somehow he persuaded those people to change their minds? Here I'm echoing some sage advice I received when preparing my first FAC, which was to look at Eduard Fraenkel and the quite extensive way that that article answers the question of "why should we be interested in this guy?".

The reason I bring this up here is that, so far, we have no sense in the article that Durrell's ideas, methods or actions were ever meaningfully criticised: we have some hint that the others involved in Jersey Zoo tried to sideline or insure against him, but only implications and insinuations as to why they might have wanted to do that. I'm not going to insist that all this become a standalone section -- how you solve the problem is, as ever, your prerogative -- but I do think it needs some thought. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the first of the bomb attacks from EOKA began: consider glossing EOKA as a Greek-Cypriot nationalist guerrilla organisation. "The first of the bomb attacks" slightly begs the question: it assumes that we know that there were bomb attacks.
Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In June they returned to the UK: does they include Lawrence here?
No; clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Durrell had given a talk in 1952 called My Island Tutors: I think MOS:MINORWORKS applies to unpublished talks, so deitalicise and use double quotes. We also need a comma after tutors (outside the quote marks) to fit with the syntax of the rest of the sentence.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the landscape; the inhabitants and animals; and his family's eccentricities: why semicolons here, not commas? Semicolons are normally used when the listed items themselves contain commas.
Not sure why I did that. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He planned the sequence in which every character (human and animal) would be introduced: consider order rather than sequence, as the latter can also mean passage of text, implying that he introduced all of them in one go.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link Scilly Isles?
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The manuscript was read by his family: minor, but why not use the active here? "His family read the manuscript, and were more bemused..."
Yes, better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have dates for Lawrence and Louisa's comments on My Family?
No -- Botting doesn't use footnotes; he just lists sources for the chapter as a whole. I've tried various searches to find these phrases without result. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It immediately became a bestseller, going into a third printing before it had even been published: I don't really understand this, but then I don't have much background knowledge of how the publishing industry works.
A publisher orders a print run based on how many copies they think will sell. If pre-orders come in from bookstores that make it clear they need to print more, they'll order another printing from the printer. In this case that happened twice, a sign that the orders from bookstores were much stronger than the publisher had expected. I could probably source something to this effect and put it in a footnote if you think it's necessary? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be nice to help answer a few readers' questions, but it's hardly essential. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there were so few gorillas left in the area that Durrell realised it would be wrong to capture one.: per MOS:SAID, we need a more subjective word than realised: moral truths are only ever subjective, however much most of us would agree with Durrell. Presumably the missing link here is that he didn't previously appreciate how rare they were there, so perhaps that's the realisation, after which he decided (vel sim) that it would be wrong...?
Yes, changed to "decided". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they should keep the collection and "use it to blackmail the Bournemouth Council into giving us a suitable zoo site in the town", : I love the implication that they might have just released all of these creatures into Bournemouth.
So do I. I can't imagine what Jacquie thought would happen; perhaps she assumed that the sight of all the animals would convince the Council what a good idea it was. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in a local department stores: should be singular, surely, but consider something like "in the premises of a local department store", unless it was actually operating as a shop at the time.
The plural was a typo; fixed. I'm not sure what you mean by the latter point -- Botting describes Allen's as a "huge emporium" that had room in the basement for the animal display, along with things like the ceremonial robes the Fon had presented to Durrell. If I understand you correctly, yes, it was in the premises of the shop and so would have been seen by the shoppers -- presumably the point since they advertised it. Is this not clear? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is clear: I had taken away the impression that they converted the store into a temporary menagerie (so it wasn't working as a shop while the animals were there), but the text more naturally points towards what you say here. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
J.J. Allen, : usual form is to put a space between initials with points.
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the reviews were mixed: just checking that this is not a euphemism for "bad"?
Botting uses "mixed" and quotes a couple of comments, including a couple of positive ones and one negative one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jacquie suggested turning the talks into a book, a much easier task than writing a new book: I would be tempted to cut the second part: I'm not sure what it adds, and it surely depends on your writing skills and style?
The talks would have already been written up as typescripts so that they could be read live on the radio. They would only have needed to be assembled and copyedited to be sure they flowed together reasonably well -- the book is not a consecutive narrative; it's an anecdote per chapter. No doubt there would have been some rewriting, but probably not much. Durrell hated writing, as mentioned earlier; he was under contract to deliver a book that year so this was a welcome idea to him. Botting doesn't give all these details -- he just says "This was a relatively easy task, and at a stroke solved the problem of delivering a new book to his publishers for 1958, as required by Gerald's contract." I was hoping these implications were clear, since we've already mentioned that Durrell disliked writing. Or is it more than it isn't clear why this was the easier option? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps something like "compiling the talks into a new book" would get the point across more clearly -- namely, that little work would be involved in the "turning" process? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the expedition sailed from Plymouth in the English Star: is in quite correct here -- I know it's the usual form in naval writing to say that someone served in e.g. HMS Ardent, but does it apply if you're merely a passenger?
Changed to "on". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Durrell hired Ken Smith as Superintendent: lc as above.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Durrell returned to Buenos Aires, where he met David Attenborough: is it worth introducing who he was at this point in time?
Botting describes him as "still a relatively junior BBC producer". I could make it "at that time a producer for the BBC". Having taken out the description of Attenborough per your earlier comment I'm now thinking that it isn't necessary to mention his later career; the link is there if the reader is interested. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on both counts. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added the description of him as a BBC producer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the Durrells's belongings: lose the second s, as the first one makes it plural.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and again Jacquie had to pester him repeatedly to write: I am still a bit uneasy about the word pester and similar -- to me, the implication is that she was being annoying and ultimately asking for something pointless, rather than pointing out to him that he had tied up/spent both of their livelihoods on the promise of writing profitable books, and wasn't following through on that. If we were talking about a female writer and her husband, would we more naturally reach for words like remind, encourage, motivate or similar?
A difficulty is that Botting and both Durrells describe it as having conformed to the cliché -- Durrell complains about the "two hags" (Sophie and Jacquie), insisting that he write. Botting uses the word "nagging". Jacquie describes A Zoo in My Luggage as having been written after "a tremendous struggle on my part". I don't want the implication that Jacquie was asking for something unimportant, nor that she was unjustified, but I do want the reader to understand that she and Sophie had to go beyond encouragement and reminders. I could give Bottings "cajoled and bullied" in quotes, at least for the first instance of "pester". Then for the second instance I could do something like "once again found it difficult to get Gerald to complete ...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sounds like an excellent solution. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was followed in 1962: I'm not sure what exactly this was -- the commissioning? The broadcast of Zoo Packet? The summer of 1961?
Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A financial manager was hired and given iron control of the budget: MOS:CLICHE, I think.
Changed to "complete control". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In July 1963, the Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust was created: can we give more detail on what this was and why its creation was significant?
Added a bit. The main point was to make the management of the zoo not dependent on Durrell personally. He wanted it to become an independent scientific organization. I don't want the article to spend too long on the Trust, since it's already long, and the details can go in that article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
from this point onwards Jacquie withdrew from many of the activities related to the zoo and the Trust.: I get a feeling here that we may have things backwards. We present it as Louisa dies -> Jacquie withdraws -> Durrell becomes more miserable -> the marriage breaks down, but I wonder whether the second and third need to be swapped around?
Louisa's death happens at the same time, and no doubt her death's effect on Durrell didn't help the marriage, but it was also the pressure of the zoo finances and daily management that Jacquie hated. I've rewritten those sentences to try to remove the implication that it was just Louisa's death that led to the marriage problems. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
began drinking a crate a day: sounds like a lot -- a crate is normally 24 bottles, so that's about 12 pints, isn't it? Can we give an idea of that amount without going into OR?
I don't know what a crate consists of -- if it's a standard measure and would have been so in 1964, then I could add a footnote
It's normally 24, or sometimes 12, bottles, and a bottle is usually half a pint. Either of those would be a lot to consume in an evening out, let alone on a daily basis. However, I can only really find that by looking at people selling them: I have so far failed to find a source that says "a crate of beer in the UK is usually twelve pints", so I think you've probably gone as far as you can. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link Guinness?
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jacquie, who had not enjoyed her time in the Cameroons: is there anything to be said on this point in the section about the Cameroons expedition?
Botting quotes Jacquie as saying (in deciding not to go to Sierra Leone): "I don't like West Africa, either the sticky heat or the tropical forests, and as you know I get exasperated with the Africans". The account of the earlier expedition quotes Bob Golding, who accompanied them to the Cameroons, as saying it was obvious to him that their relationship was under strain; I didn't include that in the article as I already describe Durrell's mental and physical problems. I don't think anything there is necessary detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Jersey must be George Child Villiers, 9th Earl of Jersey, looking at the dates -- suggest linking to the man rather than the title, and briefly explaining who he was. Contrary to what we might expect, I don't think he spent much time on Jersey itself: the family seem to have been quite resolutely English.
I've updated the link -- do you think an inline explanation is really needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking something like "a local aristocrat" or similar: just enough to get a sense of why this person might have been a) in a position to give him a load of money and b) interested in doing so. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mexico 1968 & Australia 1969–1970: I think the MoS discourages ampersands except under dire duress, and then they should only really be used in proper nouns, trademarks and so on.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hunt for the rabbits brought in five rabbits: do we need the second rabbits? Perhaps a synonym would be better, if a noun is needed?
Oops. Shortened. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was still on the tranquillisers once released: once doesn't read right here to me: when released is more idiomatic, I think.
Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
which wiped out all of Durrell's indebtedness to the Trust: similarly, debts would be the usual form here, wouldn't it? Mind you, we haven't actually said that Durrell borrowed any money from the Trust.
Changed to just "debts". I was trying to convey that his debts were largely incurred because he borrowed from the bank to give money to the Trust, but I don't think it's necessary -- the loans are mentioned separately and the main point is that he became solvent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although officially the trip was to learn about conservation activities on the reef and Australia, it was also intended to give Durrell a long recovery period: what does officially mean here -- who needed to be told this?
Changed to "ostensibly"; giving Durrell recovery time was not the declared purpose of the trip. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better, though I'm still a bit confused: declared to whom? Durrell? His publishers? The media? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In late 1969 Durrell was still in something of a mess; he went to Corfu for a rest and came back but, in Botting's words, "dreamed up a reason for going back" to Australia. Botting gives some details and then says "In reality the trip was a kind of purposeful stretch of R & R designed to put Gerald and his shattered psyche back in order again". In other words, Durrell planned the trip as if it was the same sort of enterprise as his other trips, but his real intention was to get a long rest. I was hoping "ostensibly" would convey this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it works: I'm taking the implication that Durrell wasn't really ready to admit to himself quite how bad things were. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they eventually returned home in the spring of 1970: I'm not usually one to get overly excited about MOS:SEASONS, but here it's relevant, as "Spring 1970" was not the same time at either end of this journey.
Yes, changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lease on Les Augrès Manor, the zoo's home, was scheduled to run out in 1984, at which point the Trust might be forced to close down: might have been, as it's no longer in the future.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The State of Jersey: The States of Jersey are plural (it's the same idea as the Estates General in France), but it would also be worth explaining what they are.
This was my mistake; Botting had it right. I've made it "Jersey parliament" and linked to the appropriate article, so as to avoid having to add an inline explanation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think that’s really a term that gets used – the proper name is the ~~Jersey Assembly~~States Assembly, I think, or something very similar, though on the island it is universally called the States. Edit: I think the "States Assembly" seems to be more common when talking about it specifically as a legislative chamber, rather than as the island government. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to avoid using a term that, though technically correct, I have to explain inline. I had a look on the Jersey Evening Post's website to see what language they use, and found this page, which uses "Jersey's parliament" (in the title) to refer to the States Assembly. The body has "... the States Assembly became the first parliament in the British Isles to ...". I think this would let me say "Jersey's parliament" instead of "the Jersey parliament", so long as the link goes to the right place. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that solution (with all the capitalisation, apostrophes etc exactly as you have them here) works. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the Mazet: just checking that the the is lc in HQRS?
Botting always has "the Mazet", and I've checked some usages in books about or by Lawrence Durrell -- it's sometimes "the mazet" so I gather it's a French word that was capitalised to indicate the particular one Lawrence owned -- e.g. "the Villa". It seems to mean "farmhouse". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a new Gorilla Breeding Complex was opened in Jersey: lc, as we're using the indefinite article, so this is a description of it rather than a proper noun.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was the first conference to focus on captive breeding: needs to be preceded by a full stop, rather than a semicolon. These "firsts" are dangerous from a WP:V point of view (how do we know for sure that there wasn't a conference on captive breeding at the University of Northern West Virginia in 1969?): what's the sourcing like here?
Botting is the source; I've had a look for supporting citations and have found some that relate to the conference itself -- e.g. the Proceedings of the 1975 conference. If those are sufficiently independent I could add one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think leaving this to Botting is dangerous (he is clearly an authority on Durrell, but I am not sure he is as qualified to pronounce on the history of academic conservation studies). More more. specialist publications make the same claim, that would be reassuring UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did find some Google snippets that seemed to support this, but further searching uncovered a mention of a 1966 San Diego conference on "The Role of Zoos in Wildlife Conservation", in which captive breeding was certainly a topic, if not the only focus. The claim that the Jersey conference was the first to focus on captive breeding might still be true but I've cut it to be on the safe side. My sister is a retired conservation scientist who had some involvement with the world of captive breeding so I'll ask her in case she knows an authoritative source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link Princess Anne?
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
had agreed to be the Trust's Patron. lc "patron".
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fell into a black depression: WP:TONE here.
Removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After three months, Jacquie returned to Jersey to clear out her possessions and make the separation permanent. Before the separation was permanent: can we do anything about the repetition here?
Changed to "During the separation she had suggested ...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
he left as planned in March, visiting Mauritius, Round Island, and Rodrigues, and returning to the UK in May: this seems to be chronologically out of order, unless this is March 1976? On another note, Jersey is not in the UK.
It was May 1976; added. I hadn't realised Jersey is not part of the UK; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS generally discourages bullet points where prose can be a good substitute. The Honours section looks to me like a case where this applies.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone gone so far as to call Durrell an alcoholic? We certainly seem to be gesturing in that direction, and turning up drunk to an operation intended to save your life from alcohol damage seems hard to explain through anything else. In turn, thinking of Durrell as an addict puts quite a different spin on his relationship with (especially) Jacquie.
Botting never uses the word of Durrell, and I suspect it's because this is an "authorized" biography, but he doesn't pull his punches with regard to Durrell's behaviour, and it's clear that he was one. The word does get used elsewhere -- for example in reviews of Botting (here is an example). I thought about this while writing the article and I think the label is less important than the behaviour. I don't think one could read this article without concluding that Durrell was an addict. I also think it would be hard to find a good place to add it, since it's unlikely I can find a source that gives a date at which point it was clear he was an alcoholic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Here I will defer to your knowledge of the sources – particularly whether you think we can avoid explicitly discussing alcoholism under WP:DUEWEIGHT. If it has any significant presence in the published sources on Durrell, I think we are in very dangerous NPOV territory if we decide to keep implicit a judgement that good sources make explicit, particularly when, as you allude, doing so could be read as trying to sanitise or protect Durrell’s reputation. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no hesitation in using the word in describing Durrell, based just on Botting, who never uses the word. If the fact that he showed up drunk to his own liver replacement operation is not sufficient to cite it, I do have examples of others using the word. David Hughes, in his reminiscences of Durrell, quotes Jacquie as saying that when Durrell went into the sanatorium in 1969, a "bright spark of a doctor told him he was an alcoholic, which I violently disagreed with: an alcoholic is someone who can't live without it, and Gerry can and does". Beyond that I can only find descriptions of Durrell as an alcoholic in reviews of Botting's book -- in multiple good quality papers. After thinking about it I think citing Hughes is enough and have done so in the paragraph about him being in the clinic. I could add a cite to the page in Botting that mentions him showing up drunk to the operation, as circumstantial evidence, but I'd rather leave it at Hughes as that's the most direct. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: I don't think we need to labour the point, but we do need to make it if other good sources do. I would suggest getting it, or at least his drinking, into the lead somehow: knowledgeable readers will join the dots to liver cancer and cirrhosis, but at the moment it's not explicitly mentioned. Under MOS:LEAD, I think a lifelong condition that effectively killed the subject needs to be in the lead. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"for their contributions to the conservation of global biodiversity": who said that?
It's from the cited paper (as is the similar quote for one of the other species). I'm a bit reluctant to insert an "according to", here, as it would make the sentences unwieldy. I was hoping it would be self-evident that the quote would give the reasoning of the person who chose the species name. It's not necessarily the exact wording of the original namer -- for the glass-frog, the citation is to a survey, and that paper cites the IUCN redlist which doesn't include the comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would work better if you could give the name of the, well, namer: "named after Durrell by SoAndSo for...". At the moment, the quote marks seem on the wrong side of WP:QUOTEPOV to me, but I think putting the name in would flip that. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. In two of the four cases I had to cite "and others" to avoid listing names. In one case (Arnold & Jones) I wasn't able to get access to the original paper, but found a reference to it that gives the full citation to the paper so I used both. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note 210 is missing a space.
Note 122 has an emdash where an endash is required.
Note 92 has a hyphen where an endash is required.
All three fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note 209 should have "New Species a Little Nipper" as the title, and I think we really ought to credit Rachel Ehrenberg as the author.
Yes, cleaned up -- I guess I just missed that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:18, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's my lot. It's a very substantial article, and I hope that will be taken as the main explanation as to why this review is, in turn, on the long side. As ever, I hope it is useful. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've caught up, I think. Thanks for the very substantial effort you've put in to this; I really appreciate it and would be glad to do a FAC or pre-FAC review of one of your articles if there's something you'd like another pair of eyes on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more (though see replies above): Dodos stand guard at the gates of the Durrell Wildlife Park: it's now Jersey Zoo again, as it was (I think?) during Durrell's lifetime. That article needs a bit of work: I've had a bash at some of the easier bits there. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed everything except for the need to discuss his legacy, and the suggestion to mention his alcoholism in the lead. I agree re the legacy; that will also have to go in the lead so I'll add the mention of alcoholism when I do that. I'm going to be busy IRL for a day or two and may not get to those things this morning but will post again when I've made the changes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just discovered that there was a new biography of Durrell published in June; I did most of my reading for the article last year so wasn't aware of it. Obviously this article can't be promoted until I take a look at the new book; I should have it in my hands in a couple of days. If there is significant disagreement with Botting on anything I will have to look at withdrawing this nomination, of course, but I won't know that till late this week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3

UC, I've now added mention of his alcoholism to the lead, having found a more direct source. I've added a short section on his legacy: his writing, and his influence on zoo conservation practices, are the main things. I asked my sister, a conservation scientist who worked at ZSL, what she thought Durrell's most important contributions were, and she said he didn't really influence conservation biology: he was not a scientist. She summarized it by saying "it was his insistence that the aim of zoos must be to help protect and where possible replenish the natural world that had the big influence". That email's not a usable source, of course, but it does confirm that that's what should be covered in the legacy section.

And I've now read the new biography of him. It turned out to be unusable, as it takes Botting as a reliable baseline and doesn't add any biographical details. Instead it focuses on the evolution of Durrell's opinions as seen in his writing, and similar topics. I used it for one citation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff. A few points on the new material:

In Durrell's early career, London Zoo was opposed to his work: I don't really see this in the earlier part of the article. We have that Cansdale (incidentally: his title is given as superintendent, but his Durrell-trained successor as the director -- is that all correct?) personally disliked him and wrote a snotty review about him, but I don't think we can necessarily extrapolate that to the whole institution.
He was also opposed by Solly Zuckerman, who was Secretary and then President of the ZSL from 1955 to 1984. In 1976, at the second World Conference on captive breeding, Zuckerman gave the closing address, arguing that "the purpose of zoology, in his view, was the promotion of the interests of the zoological scientist, not the zoological animal" (this is Botting's wording). He argued that some species didn't deserve to be saved -- monkeys, for example, which were pests. There was more in this vein; to be fair to the zoo world, many of the attendees were furious about the speech, not just Durrell (who was there). When describing the financial mess London Zoo was in in the early 1990s, Botting recaps the feuds and adds that Durrell had lost faith in the Zoo's council as well, though Durrell did his part to help them out of their mess, writing to a friend that "he felt London Zoo's future ought to lie in the hands of zoo professionals of calibre who could 'invade this fossil to give it life and intelligence'" (from Botting; latter part quoted from Durrell). I've cited this part of Botting in the legacy section; the material about Cansdale and Zuckerman is cited via Conniff, but I could add a citation to the relevant parts of Botting too. Cansdale did more than write a bad review -- he actively tried to prevent Durrell from working in the field. I did not include the story about Zuckerman in the body of the article for length reasons -- it would take several sentences to sum up and put in context, because Zuckerman's view was becoming a minority one by that time. Re the titles, I'm following what the sources give, but I'll ask my sister if she recalls whether the titles changed as they seemed to have. I am pretty sure "Superintendent" has fallen out of use, and Zuckerman was president of the society, not the zoo, but the title I recall from reading about zoos is "Curator", not "Director". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the length concerns, but there's also a WP:DUEWEIGHT angle here; we don't want to give the impression that opposition to Durrell entirely consisted of one very personal feud. I still don't really see the story of how Zuckerman's view became a minority one, and how far Durrell played a role in that: were there debates, conferences, articles and so on about what a zoo should be, and did Durrell participate in them? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone argues that Durrell was the reason that London Zoo changed; the narrative is that London was opposed to Durrell's approach, which was that zoos should be scientific institutions, but Durrell's was the viewpoint that won out, with London a late hold-out against it. The appointment of a Jersey-trained Director of the zoo was evidence of the change in the zoo world's approach that Durrell helped bring about -- Conniff calls it a "moment of triumph and vindication". Botting also mentions that appointment as a shift in zeitgeist. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Durrell's was the viewpoint that won out, with London a late hold-out against it. The appointment of a Jersey-trained Director of the zoo was evidence of the change in the zoo world's approach that Durrell helped bring about: I worry that I'm not making myself very clear, but this is the bit I'm not yet seeing in the article. That change of culture must have happened somehow -- how? Did people in the profession start seeing/visiting Durrell's zoo and emulating it? Did he have early supporters in other zoos that adopted and refined his methods? At the moment, this all happens in the background of the article: one minute he's a misfit iconoclast, the next almost everyone agrees with him, but I don't really see how we got from A to B. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does clarify what you're concerned about; thanks. I'm in an off-wiki conversation that I hope is going to give me some more sources that will let me address this and your other remaining points, but it'll be at least a few days before I can do so. For now I can say that I don't think there's going to be any source that gives a chain of events which shows the culture change as traceable to Durrell. It's his viewpoint that took over, and he was an influencer of opinion (both the public and the zoo world), but it's not like Wegener and the theory of continental drift, where one can trace how the evidence accumulated that Wegener was right and the conversion of the scientific world's opinion. There's no "evidence" for Durrell's view. It's possible that there are anecdotes to be found that trace individual conversions, but I doubt those can be assembled as a narrative of how Durrell's view became the establishment one. That leaves the question of whether the change is due (at least partly) to his influence or if the establishment simply swung around to his view independently. At the moment the article doesn't assert that he was the partial cause of the change, and focuses on the influence the Trust had (though the quote from Princess Anne does tend in that direction). I wouldn't be surprised if I do find sources that assert that, but I've tried to avoid that direct a claim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK - let me know what you find in this search. As you say, if it's not there, it's not there, but if it is, it's certainly worth including. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a note to say I've had confirmation from a couple of contacts that the titles varied over the years; they don't recall specifically what those titles were but I don't see a reason to doubt the source here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The expertise in captive breeding acquired by the trust and zoo are unmatched: firstly, which zoo -- we've just been talking about London Zoo. More importantly, I worry about this from a WP:V perspective. On a surface level -- really? Jersey is a lovely place and it's a lovely zoo, but is it really the unquestioned world-leading master of its art in 2024? It sounds like this is David Attenborough's perspective, quoted in Pollock: I'd like this to be presented as such and to know the context of Attenborough's remarks. They sound like an obituary or retrospective, which would naturally tend towards a positive spin.
I believe it's really true. It was certainly true at one time; there's even a 1992 book, Gerald Durrell's Army, about a trip to visit various conservation projects around the world, each one tended by a graduate of the Academy. Attenborough's comments came at a speech in Jersey in 2009; not a eulogy, then, but I can see why you would like more support for the very strong statement he makes. I've asked my sister for her professional assessment of whether Attenborough's view is the current one -- I know her opinion is not citable, but I've asked her to give me sources, if she can, to support whatever she says. I'll keep looking for other sources that could be used in this paragraph as well and will ping you again when I have more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
organizations: AmerE.
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several species have been named for Durrell: we have a Durrell in the previous sentence: for him?
Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dug out Laubacher's first name (Gérard) and added it. Ditto for Arnold (Edwin Nicholas Arnold) and Jones (Clive G.) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing I should mention: I asked my sister whether the 1972 Jersey conference was the first to focus specifically on captive breeding. She enlisted an ex-colleague and in addition to the 1966 conference at San Diego I found, they came up with a 1964 conference at London Zoo about the role of zoos in conservation. However, captive breeding was only part of the agenda there. They both think the 1972 conference really was the first and are going to see if they can find the sources to prove it. No change to the article, but if they do come up with the sourcing I'll re-add the claim. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good. Looks like everything's in your court at the moment, so I'll wait for news on how those different threads play out. Appreciate your forbearance with what has turned into a many-staged review! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, will report back when I have more information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

The Corfu Trilogy is a perennial favourite of mine. Comments to follow.

I mean, the main thing, as noted in the nomination, Botting: has his work any irregularities, or received negative reviews, or anything of the sort? I think he would have to be regarded as essentially inviolate for FACR 1b) and c) to be met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only inaccuracy I'm aware of in Botting is commented on in note 9, and that's very minor. Botting was given access to all of Durrell's files and the papers at the zoo, and interviewed all the relevant people who were still alive, as far as I can tell. I agree the article has to stand or fall on whether Botting is accepted as a top-quality source, but I'm not aware of any problems with it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had only read a couple of reviews of Botting, which is remiss of me; I've now read everything I can find on newspapers.com, which is most of the good British papers and a couple of Canadian and Australian ones, and those are all positive. A couple praise Botting, but most simply talk about Durrell. However, there is a negative review in the NYT. Some of the points the reviewer makes aren't really relevant to the article, but you may think some are. Here they are:

Botting "falls short of Durrell's voice as a storyteller. We never learn the background of Cansdale's feud with Durrell, for instance, and the account of the fierce opposition to captive breeding by a later head of the London Zoo is also garbled. When one of Durrell's own trainees ultimately becomes director of the London Zoo, what ought to be a moment of triumph and vindication turns up instead as a footnote."
I think the first two of these are odd complaints -- Botting quotes Jacquie Durrell on the background of Cansdale's feud with Durrell, and quotes the head of London Zoo in detail (an incident I didn't include in the article as it's already very long). These are not stories only told in Botting's own words, that's to say; he's quoting, not just citing. The third point, about the emphasis on the victory of Durrell's point of view, is one of emphasis, not of accuracy; again it's not something I've included in the article since if I stray too far into the world of conservation politics the article would balloon even further.
"Botting also bungles the poignant story of Durrell's second marriage": here the reviewer's complaint is that Botting simply quotes the relevant sources rather than tells the story of the complex emotions of those two years. That's valid for readability but for me it doesn't raise doubts about accuracy.
"The real frustration of this biography, however, is that Botting seems not to understand or care much about Durrell's work with animals". I agree with this, but I'm not sure it makes much difference to the validity of what is cited to the book. I did use some of Durrell's own books to add mention of some of the animals at a couple of points, but I refrained from going into detail about the breeding successes at the Jersey Zoo, for example. That could be an article in itself and perhaps should be. I could see adding a little more about that if reviewers think it's necessary.

Let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

From a first canter-through for spelling etc:

"died of a cerebral hemorrhage" – the usual BrE spelling is "haemorrhage"
"a few days, househunting" – the OED and Chambers both hyphenate "house-hunting"
"handrear four newborn Père David's deer" – ditto for "hand-rear"
"parents permission" – lacks a possessive apostrophe
"he traveled with the animals" – American spelling; the usual English form is "travelled".

More later after a proper read-through of the content. Tim riley talk 23:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed; thanks, Tim -- my eye for British English has been hopelessly corrupted after decades in the US. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second batch of comments

Comment singular, in fact. I was taken aback to see the article weighing in at 9,650 words, which seemed on the lengthy side given that, e.g., Shakespeare's FA is only 7,000, and Darwin's is 500 words less than Durrell's, but after a slow and careful perusal I can see no excessive detail, and I found the text no hardship to read, length notwithstanding. I saw nothing in it to quibble at, and I am happy to add my support for the elevation of the article to FA. It meets all the criteria, in my view. (And it sent me back to Durrell's own works. He may have hated writing but he nonetheless wrote wonderfully. "'That bloody boy's filled the sodding bath full of bleeding snakes', said Leslie, making things quite clear", made me laugh in the 1960s and still makes me laugh sixty years later. Marvellous stuff, and thank you to Mike for reminding me how well Durrell wrote.) Tim riley talk 19:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim, and I appreciate the support and compliments to the article. And that's my favourite line too; I probably read it first in around 1971, and am likewise still laughing at it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]