Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Le Mesurier/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 23:41, 27 January 2013 [1].

John Le Mesurier[edit]

John Le Mesurier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC), CassiantoTalk 19:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC) and ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With appearances in over 100 films, plus an extensive stage and television repertoire, "Le Mez", as he was known to his friends, was a tireless character actor who appeared in some of the most well-known films of the twentieth century, but is perhaps best known for his portrayal of Arthur Wilson in Dad's Army. We hope that you enjoy reviewing this article as much as we have enjoyed writing it, and we look forward to all comments and suggestions. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice article, well done to all. Rothorpe (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – first batch:

  • Lead
    • Could we have a phonetic guide to pronouncing the surname? I believe it properly rhymes with "treasurer" rather than with "leisure-ee-eh", but it would be nice to have authoritative guidance on this point.
    • "Born in Bedfordshire, England" – it is unusual to put town of birth in the lead and then repeat it in the text. I don't think we need it here.
    • "a John Gielgud production of Shakespeare's Hamlet" – I think most readers will know who wrote that particular play
      • My colleague caught that one. I found another lurking beneath which I deleted too. -- CassiantoTalk 21:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "an actor who took only minor roles" – I wouldn't call Sgt Wilson a minor role
  • 1934–46
    • "he returned to London and re-joined Croydon Repertory Theatre" – it would be pushing it to call Croydon "London" in the pre-war years (or even now, really)
      • He lived in London and travelled down (and back) for each performance. It meant he stayed close to the theatres and jazz clubs he preferred to frequent. - SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The reviewer in the Manchester Guardian" – lower case definite article here, but upper case later for The Times and The Sunday Times. Much better to capitalise and include the article in the piping, I'd say.
    • "he returned to London where he was employed by the Brixton Theatre in London" – two "Londons": one too many.
    • "Private's Progress" – I'm not sure that the longish crit of the whole film is all that relevant to this biographical article
  • 1960–68
    • "in a recording of excepts from R v Penguin Books Ltd." – excerpts from the transcript of ….
    • "a Sidney Gilliat-directed" – you use this construction throughout the article, and to my eye it looks like journalese. What's wrong with "Sidney Gilliat's film of…"?
      • Nothing wrong with it - now adopted - SchroCat (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "portrayed Reverend Jonathan Ives" – "the Reverend…", please
    • "assumed the role of" – played?
    • "In 1971 a Dad's Army feature film was made under the helm of director Norman Cohen" – suggest active rather than passive voice: In 1971 Norman Cohen directed a feature film of Dad's Army
  • 1968–77
    • "The Guardian's sister paper, The Observer – not in 1971 it wasn't!
      • A mistake I frequently make and never learn not to do! - SchroCat (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. – Tim riley (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim—much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second and final batch of comments from me:

  • 1977–83
    • "In January 1980 Le Mesurier played The Wise Old Bird in the BBC Radio 4 adaptation The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" – ah, you youngsters! The Radio 4 series in my (relative) youth was the original HHG, from which the books, TV series and film all derived. Just change "adaptation" to "series" and all will be well.
    • "and appeared on the same channel" – "channel" doesn't feel right here. For TV yes, but for radio I think "station" is wanted.
    • "David Bliss alongside Constance Cummings as Sorel Bliss" – It is simply impossible that Connie Cummings, who was as old as the hills in 1980, played the pert young daughter Sorel. I am willing to bet a substantial sum that she played the grande dame Judith Bliss. Where was this production, by the way? I don't recall it in London, and I haven't missed many Coward productions in the West End over the last forty years or so.
      • The Lyric, Hammersmith and then on tour. Details of dates and some locations towards the end of the table in the "collected works" article. You are entirely right about it being Judith, which The Guardian review spells out for us. Not sure where the Sorel ref came from—possibly my sub-conscious. - SchroCat (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Sellers's last film before his death in July 1980" – and how many did he make after it? (Afterthought: perhaps "S's last film, made x months before his death in July 1980".)
      • I have left my colleagues a note. It appears this was not his last. -- CassiantoTalk 21:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hasten to add that I was only quibbling about the prose, and I don't cast doubt on the facts as set out here. Over to you. Tim riley (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • It was the last released during his lifetime (and Sellers' last overall), so I've tweaked accordingly. There is a double "Sellers's" in there, but "his death" was too uncertain. - SchroCat (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Passionate Pilgrim – may I say (wholly irrelevantly to this review) that I had never heard of this film and am grateful to learn of it. I shall seek it out soonest. But you have again implied (to a peculiarly perverse reader, e.g. me) that the star made posthumous films.
  • Personal life
    • "When the condition relapsed – I don't think conditions relapse: I think conditions recur and patients relapse

That is the sum total of my comment, quibble and complaint. A very meagre haul. The article is excellent and I look forward to adding my voice in support of its elevation once these minor matters are dealt with. Tim riley (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, Many thanks indeed for your observations: they are all much appreciated and I hope we've done them justice! - SchroCat (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This article is well constructed, balanced, comprehensive, fully referenced and a most enjoyable read. I congratulate the principal editors, and am very pleased to add my support for the promotion of the article to FA. Tim riley (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Though citations usually aren't needed in the lead, they should be included for direct quotes, even those repeated later
  • "After a long run of small roles in second features, his 1955 portrayal of the registrar in Roy Boulting's comedy Josephine and Men, "jerked him out of the rut", according to Philip Oakes." - need cite
  • FN17: check formatting of quotes within titles (FN26 is correct)
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books
  • Don't abbreviate months
  • It was the last one, (a reference was taken out earlier on, so the numbering moved up one). I've now compared 168 and 169 and tweaked the latter accordingly - SchroCat (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Nikkimaria, it's very much appreciated and I think we've sorted everything out. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs sorting and we'll cover it. - SchroCat (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. Thanks for taking the time to look at this NM. -- CassiantoTalk 15:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to delegate (and to all): if a source spot-check is wanted I shall be happy to do one, but n.b. (1) declaration of interest: I have worked closely with two of the three nominators on other articles, though not this one, and (2) I shall be away from 15th to 24th of this month. Tim riley (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro1[edit]

Comments: No major problems so far, just a few prose nit-picks from me. Feel free to disagree with any of them. I've read down to the end of Early life so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do we have a reference for the pronunciation of his name? It is not immediately obvious, so I think something is needed to support it.
  • "He is best remembered for his comedic role as Sergeant Arthur Wilson in the BBC situation comedy Dad's Army (1968–77), but appeared in a range of roles across many genres, normally in smaller, supporting parts.": Comma overload! Do we need the comma after smaller? In fact, do we need to say both smaller and supporting? And a minor point: my personal preference would be to swap range and many: "many roles across a range of genres".
    • Thanks for the review Sarastro. Right, I agree mostly with what you say here and have shuffled the lead about. I have adopted everything you mention, but have kept "smaller and supporting". My reason being is that simply saying "supporting" does not indicate the size of that role, only that it supported the main actors. I suppose saying "smaller" would do this, but it would not indicate that it is a supporting role, so could be presumed as being a small part, such as an extra (actor). Le Mez was somewhere in between; unfortunately the in between role had no descriptive name. Fellow co-nom's, what do you think here? -- CassiantoTalk 18:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. He had a range of appearances, from the uncredited 10 seconds in Ben Hur upwards. Some were second-supports (Carlton-Browne of the F.O. springs to mind here). - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He returned to make his film debut in 1948, where he starred in the second feature comedy short Death in the Hand": Returned to where? And "where" does not make too much sense given that we have just mentioned his debut. Perhaps "in which he starred"?
  • "He undertook a number of roles on television in 1951": We skip from 1948 to 1951 in the lead; did he not work between these dates? (Not that we should list everything here, but it reads as if there was a gap)
    • We already mention a couple of the other films he appeared in: I've added a reference to the theatre work as well. - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also appeared in Hancock's two principal films, and many episodes of Hancock's television series Hancock's Half Hour.": This reads as if we should know what these two films are; perhaps name them? And we have three "Hancock's" in the same sentence. Perhaps some rewording to avoid this.
  • Rewording complete. We can't get away from the surname usage within the television series but I have since cut it down to two. -- CassiantoTalk 18:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the award, this was one of the few lead roles he played during the course of his career.": Why do we need "Despite the award"? Probably better without.
  • "Le Mesurier took a relaxed approach to acting and considered himself "a jobbing actor",[1] who felt that his parts": Do we need a comma after "actor"?
  • The rejig of the lede sorts this out. -- CassiantoTalk 18:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On his death, critics reflected": Perhaps "After his death"?
  • "While John was still an infant the family settled in Bury St Edmunds, in Suffolk": Redundancy?
  • "He was sent to school, first to Grenham House in Kent, and later to Sherborne School in Dorset": Why not simply "He first attended Grenham House, a school in Kent, then Sherborne School in Dorset"?
    • Because the latter sounds like the family were moving around and he went to a local school. Being sent to school shows what actually happened: that he was sent away to prep/boarding schools. "Went" also implies some form of active consent from JLM: he hated both places, and it was sort of against his will that he attended. - SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as a child he had frequently been taken to the West End of London to watch Ralph Lynn and Tom Walls perform in the Aldwych Farces at the Aldwych Theatre": Who took him? And we have two instances of "Alywych" in the space of a few words. Is there a way of avoiding this?
    • No, the sources don't specify who it was that accompanied him. I'm not sure about how we would remove the double Aldwych, without piping in some clunky wording using "eponymous" or similar. Has anyone got any good ideas? - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • This wording gave me slight pause too, though I let it pass. You could pipe it, perhaps: "…the popular series of farces at the Aldwych Theatre. Tim riley (talk) 19:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Many thanks, Tim! Change now made. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After leaving school, while nursing this ambition he was initially persuaded to follow his father's line of work, as an articled clerk at Greene & Greene, a firm of solicitors in Bury St Edmunds; in his spare time he took part in local amateur dramatics.": I think we can cut "while nursing this ambition" as that is implied by the previous sentence. And why is there a comma after "work"? Sarastro1 (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trimmed the "nursing" part. There does seem to be a natural pause after "work"? - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be inclined to leave it out personally, but my comma use is all over the place, so I'm happy to go with your preference. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: Up to 1934-46, only minor stuff. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Millicent Ward repertory company typically staged evening performances of three-act plays which changed each week": What changed? The company, the times of the performance, the number of acts, or the play?
    • Tweaked. Cass, can you check it reads OK? - SchroCat (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, looks good. I have delinked the Shakespeare plays as per possible OVERLINK. -- CassiantoTalk 18:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then accepted an offer to appear with his friend Alec Guinness": I think we've already established that they were friends.
  • "later toured in the provinces": And the provinces in this sense were…?
  • English. Is this enough elaboration or do you want it more so, i.e, Northern, Southern etc.. -- CassiantoTalk 18:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reviewer in The Manchester Guardian considered that Le Mesurier gave "a faultless performance", and went on to say that, "the character is not overemphasised. One may praise it best by saying that Mr. Le Mesurier gives one a really uncomfortable feeling in the stomach".": Not quite sure that we need the second part of the quote. It seems more about the character than LeM.
    • I'm not sure about this: I think it shows more about how well Le Mez portrayed the character than anything else? - SchroCat (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of productions is just starting to teeter on the edge of dull. I quite liked the summary comment ("In his time in repertory, Le Mesurier acted in many different roles across a range of genres, his biographer Graham McCann observing that he covered "comedies and tragedies, thrillers and fantasies, tense courtroom dramas and frenzied farces, Shakespeare and Ibsen, Sheridan and Wilde, Molière and Shaw, Congreve and Coward. The range was remarkable".") and wonder if this could stand in for some of the list of performances?
  • The war: I take it he was called up? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was: I've added a line about the call-up papers being lost. - SchroCat (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing: Mainly nit-picks still, but a few broader points. Down to end of "1968–77" now. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "After wartime service, Le Mesurier returned to acting...": As we have just had a section all about his war service, I think the first part here is redundant. What about just "In [year], Le Mesurier returned to acting..."?
    • Tweaked slightly. We don't have a definate year as he was looking at some point before he got his first role in July 1946. - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with Croydon rep": Pompous as it may seem, should we be keeping it as "repertory" rather than going for a slightly informal abbreviation?
  • "he made his radio debut on the BBC Light Programme in a November 1946 adaptation of Just William, where he played the part of Uncle Noel.": Not a place, so perhaps "in which" rather than "where"?
  • "Hattie Jacques": We read that the pair had married, but we never hear what happened to his first wife, which is slightly jarring.
    • Full details of his private life are in the appropriate section lower down, but your point is a good one and I've tweaked their (Jacques and Le Mez) wedding info accordingly. - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they would often go for drinking sessions ... and end up..." → "they often went ... to end up"?
  • "he kept up his friendship": Informal? Perhaps "maintained his friendship"?
  • "The cast featured many leading British actors of the time, including Ian Carmichael, Richard Attenborough, Dennis Price and Terry-Thomas.": I think this could be cut back a little; at most I think I would name one or two of these people rather than four. And in general, do we really need to know his co-stars?
    • On some ocassions it does serve a purpose, but as a general rule of thumb I agree. - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "1946–59" and "1960-68" sections: Again, I think we are drifting very slightly into turning a filmography into prose in these sections. If possible, a more general comment (as in the previous section) which summarises this would be preferable, but if, as I suspect, this is not possible, I suppose we are stuck with this list. But, to be honest, it is a little dull to read; in effect we have two sections which basically list his films with little or no commentary on them. (This issue would not lead to an oppose, nor prevent my support, but I think it should at least be raised)
    • I've tweaked the 46-59 section to drop (for example) his 1959 films into a footnote. This has made the text easier to read, but the info is still available if people want to know just what the 13 films were. - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dad's Army: It's possible I've imagined this, but... I seem to remember that the original idea for the series was a soft captain and a disciplinarian sergeant, and it was only later (for reasons I forget) that this idea was inverted for the series. Perhaps worth checking? I'm afraid I can be no more specific than that, and I can't place where I read it.
    • I've read that somewhere too, but the issue was decided before the casting of Lowe and Le Mez, so it's not germane to this article. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the two would dine together in a local cafe while watching horse-racing on television": Perhaps "and the two dined together"?
    • "the two dined together" seems like a one-off event, rather than the nightly occurrence it was. let me think if some other wording for here. - SchroCat (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1971 Norman Cohen directed a feature film of Dad's Army.[98] Le Mesurier also appeared as Wilson in a play of Dad's Army, which toured the UK in 1975–76.[99] Following the success of Dad's Army, Le Mesurier recorded ": Dad's Army...Dad's Army...Dad's Army
    • I'm re-worded so the middle one is dropped. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In between the annual filming of Dad's Army, Le Mesurier acted in films": filming...films
    • No longer: now shooting...films - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1971 Le Mesurier gave an award-winning performance in Dennis Potter's television play Traitor, in which he portrayed a "boozy British aristocrat who became a spy for the Soviets";[105] his performance won him a British Academy of Film and Television Arts "Best Television Actor" award.": Do we need to set up that he got an award, then list the award in the same sentence? Either "gave an award winning performance" should be cut, or the name and description of the award should be moved to the start of this sentence. Having both seems a little much.
    • It does seem too much, and I've tweaked the opening to remove award-winning. - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need a whole paragraph citing reviews of his performance in Traitor? There seem to be a few superfluous quotes; we get the idea! The section on this one-off role is roughly half the length of Dad's Army, a role he performed for nearly ten years, which seems excessive. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed one of the quotes. As this was his sole award in a long career the attention to it seems OK and reflects the attention of the critics (and obit writers, who all mentioned it): it is one paragraph only, compared to the two and a half paragraphs for Dad's Army, which gain seems to be OK. - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments: Having read to the end, just a few more comments. I think the problem persists that we are still buried in a list of performances, and it is not until the "personal life" section that he comes alive as a man. But unless you have a source which summarises chunks of his career, I suspect your hands are tied. Having said that, this is an impressive article on a famous actor about whom I knew little. I look forward to supporting, but I will have a final re-read before doing so, as my concerns over list-y-ness may come from having read this in instalments. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just realised: the last paragraph in the 1968-77 section is a little repetitive: "In 1972... In 1974... The following year... That year" in the four sentences. A little more variety perhaps?
    • Re-worked the paragraph so it's not quite so obvious - SchroCat (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sergio Angelini, writing on Le Mesurier's portrayal": Writing about, maybe?
  • "after his demobilisation in 1946, he discovered that his wife had become alcohol-dependent in the intervening years": Redundancy?
    • Yes - now stricken from the article - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Le Mesurier allowed Jacques to bring a divorce suit on grounds of his own infidelity, to ensure that the press blamed him for the break-up, thus avoiding any negative publicity for Jacques." I think we are saying the same thing twice here, about the press blaming him, and her escaping publicity, but I can see why it has been written this way. Perhaps this could be improved slightly (although I have no immediate suggestions myself!)?
    • I'm not sure it's the same thing (publicity could have been escaped without any blame etc), but the two points are certainly related. I agree that it could be better worded and I'll try and draw something suitable up. - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After a year together, with Hancock's violence towards her worsening and after attempting suicide, Joan realised that she could no longer live with him and returned to her husband.": Slightly untidy here; who attempted suicide: Hancock or Joan? Perhaps there is too much going on in one sentence.
  • "Le Mesurier was a heavy drinker, but was never noticeably drunk": Presumably, in public as we have no idea what he did in private.
    • We do know something about what he was like in private, and he disliked drunkenness in himself and others: cite now added to support. - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Until his collapse he had not considered himself an alcoholic": Perhaps just "until then" as we have just mentioned his collapse.
  • "His self-penned death notice in The Times of 16 November 1983 stated that he had "conked out" and that he "sadly misses family and friends"": While undoubtedly true, I think we need a reference to show that he wrote it; I don't think the notice itself is enough. (It's easy enough to do: page 1 of the same issue of the Times!) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your thoughts and I'll see if I can trim a few more films from the list. None of the sources summarise bits of his career, which was largely a long string of supporting parts without any really definable phases (apart from the "Dad's Army years"), so getting an overview of a particular timeframe is a bit awkward here. Thanks again for your help: it's much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few further points:

  • The lead does not mention his marriages. I would suggest that these were important enough (and interesting enough) for the lead.
  • There is a mention to Hattie at the end of the second paragraph. I don't feel it necessary to mention the other two wives in the lede. Hattie was the more famous of the three. -- CassiantoTalk 13:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that a lead needs more than a passing mention of a substantial aspect of his life. Not a major sticking point, but valuable for the reader nevertheless. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is one unanswered point about "provinces" above.
  • There is currently a rather ugly error message in the reference section, which really needs to be fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they would often go for drinking sessions around Soho, where they would end up in jazz clubs.": I'm still not sure why we are using "would" here; is it not better to use the straight past tense: "they often went for drinking sessions around Soho, where they ended up in jazz clubs"? Sarastro1 (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For similar reasons, I don't think "the two would dine together" is necessary, and could be better phrased. But not a big deal. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: OK, I'm happy to support now. I still think that some of the film list could be cut, but as the sources are limited I'm not sure much more could be done; either way, I don't think this would prevent the article being a FA. Well done to all concerned for putting this together. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, probably the most thorough review I have participated in. There is no doubt at all that JLM has benefitted hugely from it. Thank you for investing the time in reviewing and for your show of support Sarastro! -- CassiantoTalk 15:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with comments:

  • I did a fair amount of copyediting during the article's development stage, and also made critical comments. These can be seen on the article's talk page. The main problem, I thought, was overdetailing; individual appearances laboriously listed with irrelevant cast lists, etc. I'm glad to say that there is now much less of this, though perhaps there is still a tendency to include redundant detail. For example, what is the relevance to this article of Eric Morecambe's death date?
  • Straightforward comments by critics such as "well cast" and "extraordinarily well" don't need quote marks, which should be reserved for rather more distinctively phrased comments.
  • unquoted and slight adjustments made. -- CassiantoTalk 15:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British India" is a geopolitcal concept rather than a place; I'd leave this as "India".

These are small points. In its present form the article is an enjoyable read, and the subject sympathetic. Well done to all concerned. Brianboulton (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, you really have gone above and beyond the call here: I think today's efforts have been your third copy edit (although I may have missed one somewhere along the lines). Thank you so much for all your efforts, they really are very much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An echo of above from me. Your time invested in this has greatly improved the article. Thank you so much. -- CassiantoTalk 15:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amazes me how "less is more" so to speak, this article actually seems longer than it was at 80kb because it is better balanced.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes

  • I seem to recall that it was once frowned upon to lead off with "such-and-such award-winning". Is it standard procedure these days? Personally I can do without it but will go with whatever's the current consensus...
    • I agree—especially as we discuss the BAFTA award in the third paragraph
  • Harv errors for Mustazza and Pym in the Bibliography.
    • Now removed
  • Image review?
    • I'll ping a couple of people and see if we can sort something out

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Ian - much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK, fair-use and PD-images (own work, geograph, OTRS-ticket), sources and authors provided. However i see some minor problems with fair-use images.

  • I fixed NFCC#1 parameter for File:John_Le_Mesurier.jpg, please tweak the other 2 non-free images aswell. There is no need to repeat all 11 arguments for the complete rationale, just those referring specifically to replaceability. Other arguments are already listed in separate fields.
  • Fill missing NFCC-parameters with a brief argument, why this criterion is met. Strictly speaking, if a NFCC-criterion is filled with "n.a.", it violates that point (NFCC requires all criteria to be met).
  • Make sure, each rationale matches the image behind it. For example, you have "The image is needed to identify the person for educational purposes in an encyclopaedia entry and significantly improves the quality of the article." for the Times image (no person to see in that image).
    • Image now removed (based on your further advice, below). - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:John_Le_Mesurier.jpg - fair-use OK for identification.
  • File:Dad's_Army_cast_-_1971.jpg - fair-use OK (assuming, no free image of him in character is available).
    • We're fairly sure there isn't a free Dad's Army character image, having done some fairly good searches for it. if one comes up later, it will be used in this one's place.
  • File:Lemesurier.png - i am not convinced, this meets NFCC#1 "not replaceable with textual coverage". It's an iconic notice and important for the article, but it still consists of 100% text and could easily be replicated as quote box. This usage should be reconsidered.
    • Replaced by text box (sadly!)

Frankly i'm not completely sure about the Times image, feel free to get another opinion on this somewhat unique situation. GermanJoe (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks GermanJoe. I've replaced the Tines image and see if I can get another opinion in the mean time, but I suspect that you are right on the basis that it is text and therefore replaceable, to some extent. Thanks again: it's much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All concerns addressed, thanks (updated status). If there is a better solution for the Times notice, it can still be changed later. GermanJoe (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the review Joe, it was a shame about The Times snippet, but if it has to go, well then it has to go I suppose. -- CassiantoTalk 21:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Fantastic news: thanks very much Ian, and to all who took the time to read and comment on this article. - SchroCat (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, thanks to one and all for your comments and reviews. Congratulations to SchroCat on another great article! -- CassiantoTalk 06:31, 28 January 2013 (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/John_Le_Mesurier/archive1&oldid=1079645478"