Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/George Robey/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image review by Crisco 1492[edit]

  • Question - Have you had an image review yet? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have just this hour listed, so no I haven't. Would you be willing? Cassiantotalk 10:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering the extent of discussion regarding images during the PR, I thought you may have had one. K, will do soon. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reviews have been an essential part of the process and have made it all possible. Thank you! Cassiantotalk 16:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jimfbleak[edit]

  • which he performed in the revue The Bing Boys Are Here (1916) with Violet Loraine.— makes better flow to name his duet partner before the review which he performed with Violet Loraine in the revue The Bing Boys Are Here (1916).
  • established comedian worth naming the comedian here?
  • I would say no. Although the professor was established in the 1890s, he is completely unknown today. He was not as "established" as the likes of Leno, Tich, Chevalier, Lloyd etc, but just enough to secure a booking at the Royal Aquarium. Not worthy enough of a name-drop in the lede IMO.
  • You could add the location to the Royal Aquarium caption, could be anywhere as it stands
  • ENSA is certainly better known by its acronym, so worth at least parenthesising after the full version

Thanks for this Jim, all adopted apart from the one where I have commented. I shall pop over to Yellowhammer in the next couple of hours. Cassiantotalk 14:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GabeMc[edit]

Lead
  • Maybe its considered overlinking these days, but consider linking to the world wars.
Yes, I'd say that is overlinking, except in an article so concerned with the war(s) that you want readers to click over to it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's good enough for me, although when I think of how formative those wars on his life I'm tempted to re-think that position. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He made the successful transition from music hall to variety theatre
Is that the right article? → "He made a successful transition"?
Done. Cassiantotalk 00:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third paragraph: war
The word appears in three consecutive sentences; maybe avoid one or two of them if possible.
The last one, done. Cassiantotalk 00:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robey raised money for charities and promoted recruitment into the forces
Consider: "armed forces" or similar if its not too AmEng.
Armed forces does to me smack a bit American English. Cassiantotalk 00:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the 1950s, his health had deteriorated, and he entered into semi-retirement.
There is a comma separating the two verbs of a compound predicate.
I will hold out on this and others like it for advice if that's ok. Cassiantotalk 00:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • Robey was born at 334 Kennington Road
I'm used to Wikipedia articles using the full name upon the first mention in the article body.
I'm not sure about this. All of my previous efforts have avoided this without much concern. Cassiantotalk 00:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also never do this in my FA articles. Is there any consensus on it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should summarize the article, but if Robey's birth name is not included in the article proper then the lead contains information that the article does not. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that maybe taking things too literally :) Cassiantotalk 17:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elizabeth Mary Wade née Keene
Is "née Keene" a parenthetical?
I don't think so, as the template doesn't automatically give parenthesis when it is added. Cassiantotalk 00:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, I usually do use parens. Cassianto, you might check what Tim riley does, as he is the master of "née". -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charles Wade moved the family to Germany in 1880, and Robey attended a school in Dresden.
There is a comma separating the two verbs of a compound predicate. I don't claim to be an expert on comma use, but I noticed that these are usually omitted, such as in the sentences "He enjoyed life in the country and was impressed with the many operatic productions held in the city and the Germans' high regard for the arts" and "To earn money, he taught English to his landlord's children and minded them while their parents were at work."
I have left Rothorpe a note which I'm hoping he can answer. It seems odd that I have continued to do this throughout the article with no mention at the peer review. Cassiantotalk 00:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the comment. I pretty much do claim to be an expert on comma use, and this reference has it right: "When the second independent clause in a sentence begins with a coordinating conjunction, a comma is needed before the coordinating conjunction." -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, it's not a compound predicate: Charles Wade moved. Robey attended a school. Rothorpe (talk) 03:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the moving to Germany certainly compounds with attending a school in Dresden – not? How about: "Robey's turn was a great success, and as a result he secured a permanent theatrical residency at the venue.[20]"? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the subjects are different, and same subject is how I interpret 'compound predicate': he did A and also did B. And in your example, again we have two subjects: first the turn and then the man himself. So the commas are correct in both cases. Rothorpe (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soon, they were hired to play
Maybe its just me, but it seems odd to use a one-word introductory phrase with a comma. Consider: "Soon afterward, they were hired to play" or "They were soon afterward hired to play" or similar.
Swapped. Cassiantotalk 00:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The performance led to more local bookings.
This seems a bit abrupt; consider combining it with the preceding sentence ala: "Soon afterward, they were hired to play at a charity concert at the local church, St Mary and St Ambrose in Edgbaston, a performance that led to more local bookings" or similar.
Yes, I hadn't noticed this until now. Done. Cassiantotalk 00:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto, why did you de-link the name of the church and village? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that I had. Something strange has been going on with my computer today. Cassiantotalk 09:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a charity concert at the local church, St Mary and St Ambrose.
Was it the only local church so that a isn't a better choice of article?
There is/was only one local church, so "the" seems correct. Cassiantotalk 00:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • abandon the mandolin and to concentrate instead on singing
"abandon the mandolin" is a bit of a twister. Consider: "give-up the mandolin and instead concentrate on singing".
Done. Cassiantotalk 00:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
London debut
  • I noticed that, despite the fact that he didn't adopt the name Robey until aged 22, you refer to him as such throughout. I'm sure this is ultimately a matter of editorial discretion, but I thought that the proper convention would be to use Ward until the article explains his name change to Robey, which would be used from that sentence on.
    • I see where you are coming from but no, I feel this would become too confusing. I have adopted this for both Marie and Tich both of whom used stage names. I also think that the name for which they are best known (and the articles name incidentally) should be the name of choice when referring to them throughout the article. Cassiantotalk 00:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robey gave his first major performance in 1891 at the Royal Aquarium in Westminster where he was employed as the stooge to "Professor Kennedy"
The clause that follows Westminster is non-restrictive.
Fixed. Cassiantotalk 00:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robey's turn was a huge success he appeared as a solo turn at the
1) It would be nice if we didn't use "turn" in such close proximity and 2) Consider swapping out "huge" with something that sounds more encyclopedic.
Omitted the first "turn" and swapped "huge" for great. Cassiantotalk 00:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, this change did not stick, so I did it for you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • pretty sense of humour
What's a "pretty" sense of humour?
Your guess is as good as mine. It was a descriptive comment by a theatrical critic. I would suggest "good" or something similar! Cassiantotalk 00:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The engagement introduced Robey to Stoll, and the two became lifelong friends.
Maybe I'm missing something, but at times you avoid using a comma in this type of construction. I.e. between the two verbs in a compound predicate.
Can you point those out? The comma is required where an independent clause is introduced after a conjunction. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're right Ssilvers; I just wanted to double-check. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • By 1890 Robey had become homesick and returned to South London. He took employment in a civil engineering company and joined a local branch of the Thirteen Club, whose members, many of whom were amateur musicians, performed in small venues across London.[n 4]
The first clause of the second sentence seems more related to first sentence. Consider: "By 1890 Robey had become homesick, so he returned to South London, where he took employment in a civil engineering company. He also joined a local branch of the Thirteen Club, whose members, many of whom were amateur musicians, performed in small venues across London" or similar.
Done. Cassiantotalk 17:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Music hall characterisations
  • Consider liking to drag.
Good thought, but not drag queen surely; rather travesti (theatre). I did it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's my point; the article had "drag roles" and drag has a specific meaning, as does travesti. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Success in pantomime and the provinces
  • bad back-stage atmosphere
Consider adding a specific detail, as this reads a bit vague at the moment.
The source is equally vague and does not go into detail about this unfortunately. Cassiantotalk 17:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • They then moved
This is jarring, IMO.
Doesn't seem jarring to me. Do you have a suggestion for improving it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about: "Later that year, they moved to 83 Finchley Road"?
"They then" seems more suited to a short sentence such as this. Maybe I'm alone in thinking that. Cassiantotalk 10:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sporting interests
  • I noticed that you link inside forward but not inside right.
Inside right is one of the inside forwards. But this reminds me that I meant of a question that I meant to ask at PR: Do we need to specify his position? Will football enthusiasts want to know? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, but it may save a question from one later on down the line. Cassiantotalk 10:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then the link should come at the first mention. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. Cassiantotalk 10:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oswald Stoll
  • Soon afterwards, the comedian appeared for the first time before royalty
Another nit-pick, but I've been told on several occasions that "afterwards" should be singular in formal writing.
Afterward is usually preferred in the US, but when describing time, I understand that "afterwards" is preferred in British spelling. However, in both the US and UK, afterward is used for the order of objects: the book was placed first, and the bookend followed afterward. It is true that "afterward" is not wrong, even in Britain. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resident BrEng/Am/Eng what are your thoughts? Cassiantotalk 10:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidentally, I've just altered some of these. 'Afterward' always sounds American to me. My Oxford dictionaries don't have it, but Collins includes it as an alternative. Rothorpe (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with the lead, consider linking the great war.
Film debut and The Bing Boys Are Here
  • Robey's first experience in cinema came in 1914 when he tried to emulate the success of his music hall colleagues Billy Merson and Charlie Austin.
Consider setting-off the non-restrictive clause with a comma.
Sorry to disagree again, Gabe. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revue appealed to wartime audiences, and Robey decided to capitalise on the medium's popularity.[67]
Is that comma necessary?
Maybe not. Cassiantotalk 17:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, it is! Replaced. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • occupied the Alhambra for over a year
"over a year" → "more than a year"
Agree with Gabe, and done! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Zig-Zag to Joy Bells
  • in the Italian newspaper La Tribuna commented
I think you need a comma before "commented", or consider "In the Italian newspaper La Tribuna, the writer Emilio Cecchi commented" or similar.
Agree, but I'll leave it to Cassianto to choose which order - both are correct. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Opted for the latter. Cassiantotalk 10:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robey left the cast of The Bing Boys during its run, in January 1917, to star at the London Hippodrome
Consider: "Robey left the cast of The Bing Boys during its January 1917 run" or similar.
No, he left in January, but the run extended for a year. We already explained this in the prev. section and linked to the show's article, so I think it's clear. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marriage breakdown and foreign tours
  • The chorus dancer Marie Blanche was his co-star
Appositive?
  • a partnership which caused the gossip columnists
"which" → "that"?
Agree with Gabe. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cassiantotalk 10:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a fact largely attributed to the general strike which was occurring in the United Kingdom at that time
Ibid
Agree. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Venture into legitimate theatre
  • including an actors' strike which was caused by Robey's refusal
Ibid
Agree, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shakespearian roles
  • and had he been frequently engaged in playing the Bard's works
Unnecessary use of the passive voice?
This is not passive voice. It is written in the subjunctive mood to match the quote. However, I've removed the inversion (by installing the word "if") to simplify the phrase. I do think, however, that Cochran's statement is either rather silly hyperbole or ridiculously dubious. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Radio and television debut
  • The press were impressed
Reword
Not ideal, but the best of a bunch: impressed →pleased. Cassiantotalk 17:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "commented favourably". What do you think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The normally reserved Robey admitted
normally → usually?
Done. Cassiantotalk 10:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • but was largely unenthused
largely → mostly (or similar)
Yes, especially as the article seems to overuse "largely". -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cassiantotalk 10:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it with fresh eyes today, it seemed to me that the adverb was not needed at all, so I took it out. Either you're enthused or your're not, since enthusiasm is a matter of degree anyhow. He could be "not very enthusiastic about....", but shorter is better. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second World War
  • While he was appearing at the Tivoli Theatre in Sydney
That strikes me as an odd use of the progressive verb form in encyclopedic writing. Consider: "During an engagement at the Trivoli" or "While engaged at the Trivoli" or similar.
Disagree. The article currently overuses "engagement". I think the past progressive tense is correct here. We could say "During his appearance at the Tivoli", but the article also overuses the word "during", so I don't think there is much to be gained by changing it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a review of the film in 1944, Robey was described as
Consider: "In a 1944 review of the film, Robey was described as" or similar.
Yes, better. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adopted, thanks. Cassiantotalk 10:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Decline in health
  • In December, he opened Lansbury Lodge, a home for retired cricketers
Consider: "In December, he opened the Lansbury Lodge home for retired cricketers or similar.
Adopted. Cassiantotalk 17:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • a home for retired cricketers in Poplar in East London"
Appositive?
The previous comment fixed this. Cassiantotalk 17:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following month Robey undertook a long provincial tour in the variety show Do You Remember? under the management of Bernard Delfont.
Consider: "the variety show Do You Remember?, which was under the" or similar.
IMO, it ain't broke; don't fix it. Indeed, shorter is better. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's usually true, but it feels like a run-on, IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's ok as it is. Cassiantotalk 17:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tributes and legacy
  • the press, who printed illustrations
If "the press" is inanimate then "who" should be avoided here in favour of "which".
This may be one of those things that is different on the two sides of the pond. Cassianto, you should check with riley or Rothorpe on this one. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to personify the press, journalists being people. Rothorpe (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Cassiantotalk 17:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprisingly, its a great article that's a pleasure to read. I'll list any minor nit-picks that I find in the next couple of days hours. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a jolly nice surprise to see you drop in! I was going to leave you a Robey-themed note on your talk page tomorrow once I had started your Beatles review. Thanks for the excellent suggestions! Cassiantotalk 00:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Oldelpaso[edit]

Comment I was curious when I saw this article pop up in the automated alerts for FACs at Wikiproject Football, so thought I'd take a look. The article mentions that Robey played football for Hull City in 1902. This must be mistaken, as the club only formed in 1904. I'm struggling to find evidence of him playing for Millwall in anything other than benefit matches, so "scored many goals for the club at national level" seems unlikely - the only national competition Millwall were involved in at the time was the FA Cup. Scoring many goals in that would leave a big footprint in football sources, but I'm finding nothing under either Wade or Robey. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dropping by Oldelpaso. The main problem I have had with this article is the biographers annoying habit of flicking from one year to the next with no particular interest in sticking to chronological order. I have checked the source again and there is no definite year given in the short paragraph where Hull is mentioned. The paragraph that gives the Hull FC information starts with "That September..." In the paragraph before that, Wilson talks of "1902" and goes into some detail about a cricket performance where Robey appeared on the same team in a benefit match alongside Jack Hobbs. Therefore, it would be reasonable for one to safely assume that "this September" was 1902's. Now, in the previous paragraph to that, the year 1904 is mentioned when Robey was given a cricket bat signed by members of the MCC. If we are saying that Hull opened in 1904 and not 1902, then by the process of elimination, this must be the year he is talking about. I have now changed 1902 to 1904 based on your helpful comment, thank you. In relation to the "national level" claim, I have looked again and you are correct. The "national level" was an aspiration of Robey's had he have not been a comedian. It was also a belief of various football club managers who felt that he was capable of playing at a national level. This is mentioned in the following sentence. Cassiantotalk 22:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the changes you've made. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Only a couple of comments I would make now—both minor and they will not affect my support one way or t'other.

  • in "Oswald Stoll", you refer to "Prince George V", which jars. Perhaps "George, Prince of Wales ([[George V|George, Prince of Wales]]) would suffice?
  • Just seen that BB has also picked up on this: his version may be better, but it's your call either way!)
I've suggested a sort of combo of the two above under Brian's. Do you like it, SchroCat? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Second World War" section, "he appeared in various types of shows": shouldn't that be "he appeared in various types of show" singular, with the "types" carrying the plural, rather than "show"? I think the double plural is not quite right, but am happy to be over-ruled by better grammarians than I! (putting up the bat-signal for two of them... @Tim riley and Brianboulton:)
    • I concur. I can't think of any authority from Fowler downwards who would recommend plural "shows" here. Indeed, so unthinkable is it that as far as I can see Fowler doesn't so much as mention it as a possibility. Tim riley talk 14:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. "Show" would look very strange indeed to an American reader. Google this: "types of shows". Then google "types of show" and note that you get different kinds of responses. @Tim riley: can you think of an alternative formulation? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
God bless and save us! Colonials! Perhaps, since my dear friend Ssilvers insists, "he appeared in a wide range of shows", or "he appeared in shows of many sorts". Tim riley talk 21:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Divine inspiration! Both of those look good to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchroCat for all of your support on and off wiki over the last few months. Your comments have been very much appreciated! Cassiantotalk 19:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

Incomplete as yet, but something to be getting on with. Very interesting and informative article, with a few bits that need sorting out. Thus:

Lead trivia
  • "at age 21" i an AmEng formulation. BritEng is either "aged 21" or "at the age of 21"
    • I can comment that "at the age of 21 works on both sides of the pond, so I'd prefer it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pedantic, but one is appointed a CBE – one does not "receive" it.
  • The plural of "mediums" is "media"
  • Give a date for Robey's appearance in Henry IV Part I and clarify that this was a stage role.
General points
  • Since the claim that he studied at Cambridge is almost certainly false (as evidenced by the footnote), it might be wiser to reword in the main text, along the lines: "His and others' claims that he studied at the University of Cambridge have not been substantiated".
Brian, I think that sounds like he attended, but that we don't have good research. I'd rather say that his claims that he studied there were "apparently untruthful". Howzat? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interjections such as "The year 1892 was busy for the young comedian." are a bit magaziney, and I would omit.
  • "starting at Chatham then in Liverpool" – Chatham was then in Liverpool?? Probably: "which began in Chatham and took him to Liverpool..."
  • "The engagement introduced Robey to Stoll" → "Through this engagement Robey met Stoll"
  • Would it not be appropriate, when first describing Robey's signature costume, to indicate this as the uniform of the "Prime Minister of Mirth" – as you appear to do in the adjoining caption?
    • Ok. I added it onto the end, or would you prefer it at the start? Cassiantotalk 22:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the 1895–96 pantomime he appeared in Manchester, and then in Birmingham the following Christmas..." – not clear what is meant by "the following Christmas"
  • "The matter went to court, and after a lengthy hearing the judge found in Robey's favour, awarding him a weekly fee of £200 a week." But the point at dispute was apparently not Robey's fee, but the requirement to perform during the spring and autumn seasons between 1910 and 1912, so I don't follow the judge's decision.
  • "By 1903 Robey was a semi-professional player". This implies that they paid him; footballers' wages then were pretty small—a pound or two a week at most, for a part-time pro at a non-league club. Given his earnings, would he have accepted that? Or would it be more accurate to say that he "played at a semi-professional level"?
    • Done. Cassiantotalk 22:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no difficulty in believing that he accepted the pound and was proud of it. I am a lawyer, but I am always tickled when someone offers me a fee, however small, to sing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The sources make no mention of him ever receiving a payment. Cassiantotalk 22:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the "Sporting" section doesn't relate to sports, and perhaps belongs to the next section.
    • Now remedied thanks to an extended sub header name. Cassiantotalk 08:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt that King Edward personally booked his entertainment – perhaps reword slightly?
  • "Prince George V" doesn't make sense; "the future King George V", perhaps
  • The link on "Volunteer Motor Transport Corps" goes to an American army organisation. Can this be the unit that Robey worked for? Also, saying he "reached" the rank of lieutenant implies that he worked his way up. It seems more likely that he was appointed to this rank, e.g. "in which he served as a lieutenant".
    • Done both. Cassiantotalk 22:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The link is now piped to Mechanised Transport Corps, which was a women's unit in the Second World War! I don't know what the source says, but in view of the uncertainty it may be advisable to avoid naming a specific corps and just refer to a "volunteer motor transport unit". Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I read the linked article beforehand, but the title of the article is that which is given in the source. Odd that they should be different corps but with the same name. Anyway, I think your right about not naming them specifically, I will use "volunteer motor transport unit" instead. Cassiantotalk 08:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure about Fred Emney co-starring with Robey in 1914? Emney was 14 at the time, which seems abnormally young for a pantomime dame.
    • This was Fred Emney Sr. I don't want to call him that as he performed as Fred Emney (without the Sr). I have unlinked. Cassiantotalk 22:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you'll have to differentiate somehow. Many readers will know about the younger Emney, far fewer about the older. To avoid confusion in the minds of your readers, I suggest a brief footnote. If you don't do anything, it's a fair bet that someone, sometime, will restore the link. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More shortly Brianboulton (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next batch
Zig-Zag to Joy Bells
  • "Stoll again secured Robey for the Alhambra in 1918 for a sequel, The Bing Boys on Broadway, which was written to mark America's entry into the war." America entered the war in April 1917, so the 1918 production was a little late. I suggest slight rewording: "which was written" → "which had originally been written"
    • Or, since this is pretty tangential to Robey's article, how about just deleting "which was written to mark America's entry into the war"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some syntactical problems with the extended sentence that begins: "He interpolated two music hall sketches". Suggest: "No, No, No, which centered on...", and "The Rest Cure, which told..."
  • It's a bit odd to find an Italian newspaper commenting on Robey's performance, when he had never performed in or even been to that country. Do we have a date for this comment – it would be interesting to know what generated it?
    • It appears that the reporter from the Italian newspaper was in London commenting on the capital's theatrical output. The year would obviously have been the same as the play, although no exact date was given. Cassiantotalk 22:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "received the CBE" again (see earlier comment)
Films and revues of the early 1920s
  • Superlative adverbs (extremely, enormously etc) are best avoided in featured prose
  • "and Robey completed the successful transition" → "and Robey had completed the successful transition" – change necessary, following from "By 1920"
    • Got the first part of this, but confused from the hyphen onwards Cassiantotalk 21:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry I confused you. All I was pointing out was that my "had" amendemnent follows naturally from the wording "By 1920". Nothing further required from you. Brianboulton (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emile Littler deserves a redlink: I'm quite surprised that there's no WP article for him, as he was quite a distinguished impresario. Incidentally, he was born in 1903, so I don't think he can have been producing Robey's shows at this point.
  • Any reason why "two hundred and fifty" is spelt out?
  • No, changed. Cassiantotalk 21:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "increasing popularity": surely, he was very well established in popularity by this stage. His depiction on stamps might be a sign of his increasing "stature", perhaps?
  • Any clue as to why Robey en Casserole was a failure?
Marriage breakdown and foreign tours
  • "The year 1926 was lacking in variety entertainment, a fact largely attributed to the general strike which was occurring in the United Kingdom at that time": you make it seem as though the General Strike lasted throughout 1926, instead of 10 days in May. Suggest redraft accordingly.
  • "in droves" – bit slangy?
  • What was the reason for the censor's interventions in Bits and Pieces?
  • "Mr and Mrs Littler": we don't usually use this format. Some research via ONDB reveals that they were Frank and Agnes, the latter being the mother of the aforementioned Emile, Frank being her second husband (all her children took Littler's name). I got this information from Sir Prince Littler's ODNB entry and can supply full ref details if necesary – but if I were you I would simply replace Mr and Mrs with Frank and Agnes.
    • Great! The source omitted their first names. Would you mind providing the ref details while I tip my house upside down and look for my now lost library card? Cassiantotalk 22:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despised" is surely the wrong word to describe Robey's view of the French climate. "Despise" implies contempt rather than mere dislike.
Venture into legitimate theatre
  • Jolly Roger was by Walter Leigh (ref here)
    • Did you want me to attribute this to Leigh in the text? Cassiantotalk 13:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shakespearian roles
  • The words "In any case" at the start of the last paragraph seem unnecessary
Radio and television debut

I'm nearly through – just the few final sections to go. Brianboulton (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final batch
Radio and television debut: wife as "Littler"
  • I don't think it's a great idea, at least initially, to refer to his second wife as "Littler", as there are others of this name mentioned in the article. There is something rather odd about the sentence: "That November, and with his divorce from Ethel finalised, Robey married Littler." She should be called "Blanche Littler" at this point; thereafter it's a matter of judgement, but I would personally keep the "Littlers" to minimum. Thus, "co-produced with Littler" could be "co-produced with his wife"; other variations may be possible, but I'd probably stick to Blanche, even if this contravenes some interpretations of the WP style guide. It would read much more naturally.
    • Yes, I agree with you. I will now go through and change them all Cassiantotalk 23:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second World War
  • "Aware of demand for his act in Australia, Robey conducted a second tour of the country..." No mention that I can see of a first tour.
    • I will look into this as I am convinced I saw two tours of Oz. Cassiantotalk 23:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was "cine-variety"? Also: "Cine-variety introduced Robey to the Astoria in Finsbury Park, London..." Shouldn't this be the other way round? A man introduces a thing; a thing does not introduce a man.
    • Again, I will look into this. For the benefit of the review, it was various variety acts which were recorded and played onto a cinema screen for the entertainment of the live audience. The recordings ran simultaneously with live acts. See this for a more detailed explanation. I'm not generally a fan of introducing red links into FA's, but I think this would be a perfect red link as it is a notable subject with plenty of sources; in fact, I'm surprised an article doesn't already exist! I shall create it post FAC. Cassiantotalk 23:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Henry V: "The film was generally well received by audiences but high production costs and Entertainment Tax prevented it from earning a profit until 1949." Since Robey appeared in a cameo that lasted less than two minutes in the film, I can't help feeling that the above sentence is a bit superfluous to his biographical article. It was hardly one of his films.
    • I think some readers would be interested in the comparisons between the stage play and the film. Would it not be pertinent to mention that the film failed to equall the kind of instant success that the stage play received? Cassiantotalk 23:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Brian's right - I don't think we lose anything by deleting the sentence about the film's reception. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The stage play was Henry IV Part One, in which Falstaff is a major character. The film was Henry V in which Falstaff's single blink-and-you've-missed-it scene was a cinematic add-on that doesn't occur anywhere in Shakespeare. So there would have been no valid comparisons between Robey's respective performances. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Last years
  • "the games fund" seems a bit anonymous. What was this in aid of?
  • Sorry to be pedantic about these honours things, but knighthoods are not "presented to" but are "conferred on"
Tributes and legacy
  • "provoked" tributes? I suggest the less aggressive "brought"
  • Redundant "alone" after "First World War"
  • (aside) I don't understand what Wee Georgie Wood was talking about. Maybe I'm slow on the uptake, but to me his analogy falls completely flat.
    • Someone else had a problem with this, so I have deleted it altogether. Cassiantotalk 23:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...some disagreed about the level of hilarity". I'm not sure what this means – they disagreed about how funny Robey was?
    • Yes. Would "Robey's comic delivery influenced other comedians, but some disagreed about the level of his hilarity" be any better? Cassiantotalk 23:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is with the word "hilarity", which is something caused by humour rather than the humour itself. E>g."I find that hilarious". I would simplify: "Robey's comic delivery influenced other comedians, but there were disagreements about how funny he was", or something like that. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Wilton "acknowledged", rather than "admitted", which sounds too confessional

That concludes my review. Don't feel you have to adopt all my suggestions; I have confidence in your judgement. I see no barriers to the article's promotion; let me know when you're through with my comments. Brianboulton (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have added a cited footnote re Frank and Agnes Littler. I'm still worried about your earlier mention of Emile Littler, who can't possibly have been involved in Robey's career in the early 1920s. His brother Prince Littler's ODNB article has Prince hiring Robey to tour in the late 1930s, no mention of Emile's involvement. I don't know what your sources are saying, but it might be an idea to remove the reference to Emile; there are obvious uncertainties, and it is not adding anything substantial to the article. Brianboulton (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the Emile reference but have left in "for Robey the festive entertainment continued to be a lucrative source of employment." Would you agree with this? Cassiantotalk 13:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for investing the time to review this Brian. Your comments here have helped improve it greatly! For the ones I haven't answered, I will, it's just that I need to be at the books but for the minute, I'm not. I will answer these final few comments ASAP -- Cassiantotalk 19:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Lede
  • Any reason why you refer to them as the dame roles?
    • I would prefer to use the definite article as it is good BrEng. Cassiantotalk 12:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't the MoS guidelines advise against linking major cities? Personally I prefer linking them but I know people have said that to me in the past.
    • I don't think Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester and Brighton would be known the world over (especially Brighton). Thanks to the ambiguity of the MoS and the fact that it doesn't define "major", I think we could get away with keeping these. Cassiantotalk 12:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not going to argue with that!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • FWIW, Manchester and Liverpool are borderline, but American readers would have no idea where Birmingham or Brighton are. I'd keep all of them linked. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he used the Prime Minister of Mirth" Not sure "used" is the right word here.
    • I don't see the problem with it at the moment, what would you suggest as a replacement? Cassiantotalk 12:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you reword it? I can no longer see a problem in the lede.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Laurence Olivier's 1944 film of Henry V" - "of" should be replaced with a comma I think.
    • I don't know how that slipped in there, done. Cassiantotalk 12:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading the sporting interests and violin making section I'm surprised to see no mention of his cricket/football in the lede, it seems pretty notable to me.
    • Cassianto, I added cricket and football to the Lead. Please check my changes to see if you like how/where I put it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
London debut
  • "In mid-December, he travelled to Brighton, where he appeared in his first Christmas pantomime, Whittington Up-to-Date." Do we know what theatre?
    • It was the Alhambra. However, this is a minor theatre which I don't think is worth mentioning here. Ssilvers suggested I omit these minor theatres which I agreed with, and still do. Cassiantotalk 17:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it was only a minor theatre he's probably right that it's not worth mentioning.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, this was in response to an earlier comment that there was too much listing of performances and theatres, so we slimmed down the text by deleting the names of provincial theatres that were not blue-linked. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Success in pantomime
  • "Despite the show's success, Robey and his co-stars disliked the experience; the actress Ada Reeve felt that the production had a bad back-stage atmosphere and was thankful when the season ended,[36] while the comedian Barry Lupino, who played "Miffins" in the production, was dismayed at having his part considerably reduced, perhaps, in part, according to Cotes, because of his own theatrical inexperience.[33]" Rather long and heavy to read especially with the commas towards the end, can you split it somehow?
    • Not without introducing a second semi-colon as the entire sentence is all related. It think would be grammatically wrong for me to do that and would have Rothorpe, Tim riley and Ssilvers breaking out into a very cold sweat. Unless I am wrong, using a full stop would also be wrong as that would signal the start of a new subject, which doesn't happen here. The only option would be to delete some of what is there (which is all pertinent IMO), or use the serial comma such as we do. Can you think of another way? I must admit, I can't. Cassiantotalk 17:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't see a way around it, nope, that why I asked if you could see a way to split it! It might have us all breaking into a sweat reading it though! I've seen longer, no worries.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've broken it into two sentences and also deleted some stuff that really was tangential to Robey. Please check what I did, Cassianto, and rv if you don't like it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They then moved to 83 Finchley Road in Swiss Cottage" - you might want to add "in Camden".
    • Done. Cassiantotalk 12:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Swiss Cottage is in the modern (post-1965) London Borough of Camden, but it's not close to Camden itself. In Robey's time Swiss Cottage was part of Hampstead. Brianboulton (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well spotted Brian. Perhaps, in what was then Hampstead and a footnote stating it is now in the London Borough of Camden then?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Great, I have corrected and added a note. Scary to think that I have worked in London for 15 years and yet my geography of the city is this bad! Cassiantotalk 17:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "earning the festive entertainment a new audience." Not sure what you mean here, how exactly did it bring about a new audience? Perhaps elaborate on how he might have different from the older comedians he was influenced by, because I don't follow how rivalling them brought about a new audience.
    • Dan Leno and Herbert Campbell were huge names in Victorian comic theatre, perhaps owing to their eccentric performances during their Christmas productions. The audiences loved their style and no other comedian rivalled them in terms of their eccentric performances. When they died in 1904, the style pretty much died with them. Robey, who was the closest thing to Leno and Campbell in terms of a dame performer, was similar in style and thus equalled their success. The audience, although perhaps a different generation, came to love the style again, and showed that being eccentric had certainly not died out. Cassiantotalk 12:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you might want to mention "with a new generation".♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have adjusted it to "earning the festive entertainment a new generation of audience". Does this make grammatical sense? Cassiantotalk 17:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, IMO, this is not helpful (in fact awkward), and I took it out. I think the meaning is clear. If you wanted to add anything, it could be "earning the festive entertainment a new audience in the new century". But I'd leave it alone. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The show was considered risqué by the theatrical press. " A citation might be a good idea here as it's a strong claim.
    • The citation follows the two examples given in the subsequent sentences. I think it's clear that Cotes, p. 69 applies to all three sentences. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oswald Stoll
  • Carlton House Terrace. You might want to add in Westminster.
Film debut
  • I think it would be useful to mention the directors or co-stars in the films, something like in Edwin J. Collins's The Anti-Frivolity League (1916) and Doing His Bit the following year. Both were directed by Collins. I believe that frivolity should be capitalised, it is in most sources I believe.
    • It looks odd to use a hyphen between capitals. I came across this which lays out the same format as the source. Would you like me to cite it to this to prove the format?
Ah I see, I thought in my google check the BFI had it in capitals like imdb and others did. I'd go on what BFI does, so it's fine as it is I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Films and revues
  • " In March 1922 Robey remained at the Hippodrome in the revue Round in Fifty, a modernised version of Round the World in Eighty Days, which proved to be another hit for the Hippodrome, and a personal favourite of the comedian." -repetition of Hippodrome.
    • I swapped the second Hippodrome for "London theatre". Cassiantotalk 12:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marriage
  • The first paragraph seems to be overcited, makes it look a bit cluttered, I think you could probably get away with removing one or two. "One Arabian Night was a reworking of Aladdin and co-starred Lionelle Howard and Edward O'Neill,[100] while Harlequinade[101] visited the roots of pantomime,[64] when Joseph Grimaldi ruled the London stage.[102]" I don't think you really need to cite.
    • The trouble is that they all have an online source with separate bits of information on each. I have moved some about. Tell me if this is better. Cassiantotalk 12:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't need the Grimaldi museum cite. If the other two cites there don't mention him, we shouldn't either. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don Quixote (1923 film) should be linked I think. I'll create the article once you do so!
  • "In early 1929 Robey returned to South Africa and then Canada for another tour with Bits and Pieces, after which he started another series of English variety dates. Among the towns he visited was Woolwich" When I read this I was expecting Woolwich to also be a town in South Africa or Canada. I think you could replace "English variety dates" could be replaced with something like "another series of variety dates back in England" which would make it clearer.
  • Can you find a way to mention the directors of those notable sound films? under director Graham Cutts in The Temperance Fête. Link it, I'll also start it. In fact I think I'll go through sometime and create a lot of the missing articles you haven't linked as I suspect they're notable!.
    • Again, thank you, I have now red linked this. Cassiantotalk 12:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see what it adds to Robey's articles to mention directors of films, when we have said that these films themselves were of only marginal importance to his career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shakespearean roles
  • "which caused surprise" - = "which surprised the press and worried some of his fans that he might retire the Prime Minister of Mirth".
Radio
  • Why is the first programme in italics and not "Music-Hall"?
    • I think because The Spice of Life was a series, and "Music Hall" was just a one-off, thirty-minute programme. Cassiantotalk 12:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WWII
  • Did you already link Bosley Crowther? Very notable film critic, the Roger Ebert of the Golden era!
    • He absolutely was! I have looked for a second link, but I cannot see one. Cassiantotalk 12:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you link it then? Actually I just spotted Maurice Elvey is also linked where it says "Robey starred in the film Salute John Citizen in 1942" so if you mention him directing the 1923 film you should delink it there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Crowther now linked. Which 1923 film? Elvey isn't linked anywhere else unless I'm missing something? Cassiantotalk 17:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He was linked in a 1942 in the WWII section. I've sorted it, don't worry.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography
  • Is the lower casing for Prime Minister of Mirth. The biography of Sir George Robey, C.B.E. With plates, including portraits. intentional as a book title? - biography just stands out in lower casing that's all.

♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • As per my talk, thank you for the review. It just shows how much improving can be done at such a late stage. Cheers! Cassiantotalk 18:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Source review, anyone? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked about a few days ago, but so far my requests have fallen on deaf ears. Cassiantotalk 10:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, numbers as of this revision

  • FN17: what source does this refer to?
  • Why is the format for full book citations different between References and Sources? And why is FN49 different again?
    • This is consistent with lots of other FAs, including Noel Coward, Thespis (opera), etc. It is the style that Tim riley always uses, as it makes all the book sources' format consistent while giving the "references" more flexibility. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that the book sources' format is not consistent within this article, and doesn't appear to be more flexible - can you explain? Looking at the examples you mention, Coward doesn't have any full book citations in its reflist; Thespis does, but they aren't consistent - some are the same as the bibliography, others not. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare FNs 36 and 42
  • Generally GBooks links don't need accessdates
    • I took out the accessdates -- see below re: fn 49, 72 and 165. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN66: publisher?
  • FN72/165: this is included in the Sources list, so why include an almost-full citation here instead of a short cite? Same with FN49
    • Yes, these should be short format. Should the link point simply to the page number? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now using the short format. Cassiantotalk 18:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good, but it is still helpful to include the googlebooks link, right Nikkimaria? Or not? I put the link back in pending advice. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN79: missing closing quotation mark
    • I saw no reason to have a quotation mark there in the first place; now removed. Cassiantotalk 18:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN80: should include original citation details - archive.org is a convenience link
  • Compare FNs 86 and 88
  • Compare FNs 110 and 1
  • Be consistent in whether italicized titles for websites also include quotation marks - compare for example FNs 75 and 142
  • Compare FNs 117 and 158
    • Done, although I note the below comment from Nikkimaria. I will delete "online". Cassiantotalk 22:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare FNs 44 and 160
    • Done. Cassiantotalk 18:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nikkimaria, does it do us any good to say that something is an "online edition"? I'd delete that as obvious/irrelevant. If a subscription or registration is required, we should say that, but the fact that it is the online version is obvious from the link, right? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • In cases where the online and print versions are known to be different or to have different publication information, it's okay to include but is not required. Otherwise, I'd say redundant. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, I think I caught them all. Cassiantotalk 22:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looks good. Nikkimaria, what about the ones that say "website"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Again, optional not required. Personally I wouldn't do it, but if you want to that's not a big deal. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • If we are deleting "online" etc, then it seems pointless keeping this. I have only seen one so I deleted it. Cassiantotalk 17:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare FNs 172 and 173
  • Compare FNs 19 and 182
  • No citations to Mcnab or Thomson
  • Can we give a more specific location than "Canada" for Fazan? It's a big place ;-)
  • Since AuthorHouse is a self-publishing company, what makes Stone a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All concerns have been addressed Nikkimaria, do they meet with your satisfaction? Cassiantotalk 19:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just missing a location for Fisher, then we should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/George_Robey/archive1&oldid=1137411652"