This has been a problem I've seen brought up for many years. One of the things about FA is that they give certain people a wonderful defense. Two, Bishonen and Giano, have been going off of theirs for a very long time. When the pages are properly put to FAR, they throw a fit. One of the reason why there are so many horrible FAs is exactly what this individual matter can exemplify.

This current FAR is a latest example. Last time, they tried to destroy Mattisse for pointing out that the Emperor lacks clothes. Now, they just say "everything is good".

Just look, every paragraph has major problems:

Original research: "with the baseless suggestion sometimes made that he had been studying architecture in France (stated as fact in the Dictionary of National Biography)"

Essay: "Downes' example of one sugar baker's house in Liverpool, estimated to bring in £40,000 a year in trade from Barbados, throws a new light on Vanbrugh's social background, one rather different from the picture of a backstreet Chester sweetshop as painted by Leigh Hunt in 1840 and reflected in many later accounts."

Pure high school paper bs: "Vanbrugh is remembered throughout Britain, by inns, street names, a university college (York) and schools named in his honour, but one only has to wander through London, or the English country-side dotted with their innumerable country houses, to see the ever present influence of his architecture."

Horribly unencyclopedic exaggerations: "With the completion of Castle Howard English baroque came into fashion overnight."

Wonderfully vague: "Vanbrugh's reputation still suffers from accusations of extravagance, impracticability and a bombastic imposition of his own will on his clients."

Unfounded generalizations: "As was common in the 18th century, personal comfort was sacrificed to perspective. Windows were to adorn the facades, as well as light the interior."

Inability to cite direct quotes properly (along with horrible unencyclopedic POV): "Unsurprisingly under these circumstances, Vanbrugh's management of the Queen's Theatre in Haymarket showed "numerous signs of confusion, inefficiency, missed opportunities, and bad judgment" (Milhous)"

Most of the sources (when used, which is almost never) are old and outdated, obscure, or not really credible.

Hell, there are five major sources that should be included just to have real scholarship: 1. Gerald Berkowitz Sir John Vanbrugh and the End of Restoration Comedy (1981) 2. Susan Owen A companion to Restoration drama (2001) 3. Arthur Huseboe Sir John Vanbrugh (1976) 4. Deborah Fisk Cambridge Companion to English Restoration Theatre (2000) 5. Bernard Harris Sir John Vanbrugh (1967)


Does anyone have the balls to call them on it? No. Mattisse was partly destroyed by them over her mentioning the obvious. Even when Sandy Georgia was emailed about some of the majorly obvious OR and pure bs in the Legacy section, she didn't correct her claim asking for specifics. It is obvious that people want to have FA standards no longer apply to a select privileged few.