Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Formby/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2014 [1].

George Formby edit

George Formby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC) & Cassiantotalk 21:26, 13 August 2014 [reply]

George Formby was a music hall star, singer-songwriter, comedian and film star—and an unlikely one at that. While still trying to find his place on screen, one film producer thought him "too stupid to play the bad guy and too ugly to play the hero". The producer reckoned without the cheeky grin and the ingrained need of the British to have double entendre and smut in its cultural output, not forgetting the thinking man's violin, of which he was a maestro, his playing still revered by amateurs and professionals alike. – SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC) & Cassiantotalk 21:26, 13 August 2014[reply]

Support Ah, here it is. I reviewed at the peer review. It seems well written and comprehensive, and my concerns were answered then.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Wehwalt! Your time and thoughts at PR and here are very much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Wehwalt. Cassiantotalk 17:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in when you provide accessdates
  • FN211: location?
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate state names. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for your time and diligence, NM: I think I've covered all of these now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comments Support

  • South Bank Show is linked for a second time in the article under legacy. Same with Isle of Man in this sentence → "He returned to the mainland by way of the Isle of Man..."
  • No need for location parameter where places are in the title of the source (eg: Ref 220, 228) Lemonade51 (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Lemonade51. The second SBS link has now been removed. I'm slightly ambivilent on the MoS guideline on the location perameter, as I've had people complaining about a lack of consistency in providing some and not others, so opted to go down the route of including all locations on the basis that as its not misleading it does no harm to leave them there. I'm happy to take the advice of other reviewers on this point, and if they agree to remove it, then I'll be happy to comply with a consensus here. Does that sound OK? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Licensing tweaked. I need to check on another screen before I move them round, as on a small screen (iPad) there is no sandwiching; on my widescreen there is, but there's so much text in between it isn't an issue (there's more text between the images than there is on any one line on the iPad); I'll check on a laptop tomorrow to see. Moving creates other issues, like nudging up against other images, knocking stuff away from pertinent text and interfering with section titles, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unknown: I've tweaked the text to leave as that, and moved the dates into the description field: is that OK? - SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Formby in Boots! Boots!.jpg: this file appears to be under copyright and lacks a FUR; the copyright belongs to Mancunian Film Company, but it was posted to Flickr with a cc-by-2.0 licence by University of Salford. What evidence do we have that they had the right to do that?
  • As it's an academic institution, I've taken on good faith their knowledge of the IP behind the image, and their ability to release it into the public domain. Do we need to question sources to see if their release is justified? - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a legal one, a procedural one here: I'm not sure I've ever been asked to question an academic source before. - SchroCat (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I'd call it an "academic source"—it's Flickr, and happens to be from a university account. For all we know it was posted by a student who was in the habit of just slapping a cc-by-2.0 licence on uploads—most of the photos there appear to be from university events. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point: I've removed until we can clarify the licence. - SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks CT: I'll work my way through these shortly. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I was another of the peer reviewers, and my few comments were dealt with then. The present text seems to me a model of its kind: a really good read, comprehensive, fair, and widely and thoroughly referenced. Super stuff. – Tim riley talk 13:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your help and encouragement Tim. Cassiantotalk 17:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Despite my strenuous nitpicking at peer review I've still found a few more opportunities to tweak (see edit history), but I think enough is enough. A fascinating story, which I believe meets all the necessary criteria for promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/George_Formby/archive1&oldid=1138461461"