Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michael Hordern/archive1

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 via FACBot (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2016 [1].

Michael Hordern edit

Nominator(s): Cassianto ^Talk 17:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For nearly 60 years, the English actor Michael Hordern appeared on stage, television, and film. He was as frequent in Shakespearean plays as his more famous contemporaries, Olivier, Richardson, and Gielgud. The title role in King Lear was perhaps Hordern's most notable role for which he sought the advice from Gielgud on how best to play King Lear. Gielgud told him: "All I can tell you is, get a light Cordelia." Hordern was as comfortable playing straight roles as he was comedy. He was, as one critic put it, "one of the great eccentrics of his profession, perched perilously somewhere half way between Alistair Sim and Alec Guinness."

Having worked on this article since Christmas, I feel that this article now meets the desired criteria for it to become a featured article. It has had an extensive peer review and now I'd be most grateful for any comments anyone has to offer here. Cassianto ^Talk 17:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Has undergone significant change since the beginning of the PR. Much improved overall, I've been monitoring progress and it definitely meets FA criteria. I was initally concerned (and more fussy than I'd usually be!) that it didn't have enough detail on his film coverage, but I believe it now highlights most of the ones worth mentioning and Cassianto edited it deftly to balance it within reason. It's really a great article on one of Britain's best actors and deserves to be promoted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Read this a few times (copyediting as I went) during PR, which I followed closely. Comprehensive, very well written, very well sourced, nicely illustrated. I was drawn in and delight to see it here. Ceoil (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I had my say during PR as well. Very well put together article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support having watched Hordern from an early age I was happy too read his life and career so well presented. I was also delighted learn things that I had not known before. MarnetteD|Talk 00:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Another happy punter from PR. The article was excellent at PR, and I see it's got even better since. – SchroCat (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This had one of the longest and most thorough peer reviews that I can remember – here it is, yards and yards of it. Cassianto dealt with the myriad comments and suggestions calmly and positively. I'm not saying that the multiple reviewers picked up everything, and that no further improvement is possible, but I am confident that the FA criteria are fully met. The fact that so many were prepared to pitch in is a compliment both to Cassianto and, most especially, to Hordern who, nearly 20 years after his death, is most fondly remembered by those who grew up when he was a staple of film and theatre. I look forward to an appropriate TFA in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support—I had been intending to have my say at the PR stage but didn't get to it until we were already here at FAC. I've had a look through and I could find nothing to quibble about except for a missing comma before a footnote. Excellent work about a subject I had known very little about previously—and as an added bonus my neck of the woods gets quite a few mentions along the way. Very well done, Cassianto, a pleasure for me as a reader. — Cliftonian (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on comprehensiveness and prose. an engaging read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Prose comments moved to talk)

Support Looks good. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Prose comments moved to talk)

Supporting now. Excellent job. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 10:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Prose comments moved to talk)

Support - looks to me like it meets all the criteria for FA. Good work on the article. Jack1956 (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

FN58: which Wearing? Same with 114
- Any advice on how I would differentiate between the two? They are the same person with the same year. Cassianto ^Talk 08:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could use 2014a and 2014b, or include the year range alongside the author as a form of shortened title in the footnote. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I opted for the year ranges, thanks. Although, I may change to former in the future as I'm pretty indecisive about formatting issues. Cassianto ^Talk 22:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FN77: formatting doesn't match other newspapers
- Done. Cassianto ^Talk 08:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hand-formatted citations are fine, but they've got to be consistent - for example, FN22 has the punctuation as part of the link, 78 has it outside, and 82 and 91 have no punctuation at all
- Fixed all. Cassianto ^Talk 08:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do FN111 and 155 differ in publisher?
- Good catch, fixed. Cassianto ^Talk 08:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FN163: author/editor? Where full book citations are included in footnotes, they should be formatted the same as those in Sources
- Ive deleted this and have put in a better source. Cassianto ^Talk 10:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FN185: is that the spelling of the work used in the source?
- Corrected. Cassianto ^Talk 17:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why are FN158 and 191 formatted differently?
- Ammended to 191's version. Cassianto ^Talk 17:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: North Carolina is a state, should include city. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Cassianto ^Talk 10:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking the time to conduct both this and the image review, Nikkimaria. Cassianto ^Talk 10:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.