Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stanley Holloway/archive1

Stanley Holloway

Stanley Holloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Stanley Holloway/archive1

Cassianto (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... Having worked on the article for over two years, taking it from a stub to GA, I now feel the article is ready to be considered a FA. Advice was given in relation to various points that would need addressing before Stanley Holloway could go ahead for WP:FAC, as per the WP:GAN process. I have now answered these points and feel confident that this article meets all the relevent criteria needed to be considered a WP:FA - Cassianto (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- Really good article. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, excellent. I've made a few small copyedits. Rothorpe (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou. That is much appreciated! -- Cassianto (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - a well written article which deserves FA status. Jack1956 (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

thank you for your kind comments -- Cassianto (talk) 10:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• "After this, Holloway joined the Royal Irish Constabulary but left, a year later, shortly before its disbandment in 1922" - source?

This has now been fixed. Unable to reliably cite so deleted pending this -- Cassianto (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Holloway deeply regretted that Henson never got to see him in the role of Alfred P. Doolittle" - source?

This claim has now been elaborated on slightly with reliable source added. -- Cassianto (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? this? this? this?

I can speak to the Oakapplepress one (the "Gilbert and Sullivan Discography"). This has been accepted as a reliable source in the G&S FA's, including H.M.S. Pinafore. The list of reasons why it is a RS is here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

this has now been replaced with a RS. I will work on the others shortly --Cassianto (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Getting print alternative sources marshalled to replace or back up the free genealogical site ones. Query: the print sources so far examined all corroborate the free online site, and assuming they all do so once we have finished checking, can we leave the free online refs alongside the new printed sources? It could be useful for readers who haven't got access to the printed sources, and we would know the online refs to be accurate. Tim riley (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that having both the online reference and the print reference would be helpful to readers of this encyclopedia and the fact that they are shown to be entirely accurate could help establish, in the future, that the website is an WP:RS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Having it as a convenience link is fine, so long as it's clear that's what it is. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

FreeBMD

I consider FreeBMD to be a WP:RS. Free BMD is a UK charity founded in 1998. It is an ongoing project to transcribe the General Register Office Civil Registration index of births, marriages and deaths for England and Wales, and to provide free, searchable Internet access to the records. It is a part of the FreeUKGEN family, which also includes FreeCEN (Census data) and FreeREG (Parish Registers). The recording of births, marriages and deaths was started in 1837 and is one of the most significant resources for genealogical research. The transcribing of the records is carried out by thousands of volunteers and contains index information for the period 1837-1983. See Christian, P., The Genealogists Internet, 3rd Edition, The National Archives (2005), pp 50-53. ISBN 190336583 The site now contains 209,323,684 distinct records; on 5 Dec 2011, FreeBMD users made 188,657 searches. In 2007, FreeBMD was awarded the Prince Michael of Kent Award by the Society of Genealogists. Also, Over 600 books mention FreeBMD. The main researchers, historians and quality control staff, including the founders, are:

Executive Director - Nick Barratt, a genealogist. Dr. Barratt has written many books and other publications in the field of genealogy.

General Manager - Graham Hart. He provides consultancy on genealogy issues. He has been in IT for 15 years and a genealogist for the same amount of time.

Project Founders: (1) Ben Laurie - technical consultant for the operational system. He is Technical Director of A.L. Digital Ltd., a founding director of the Apache Software Foundation, author of many publications including Apache: The Definitive Guide, Apache-SSL, the basis of most SSL-enabled versions of the Apache HTTP Server, and is a co-author of OpenPGP:SDK; (2) Camilla von Massenbach - Scan Co-ordinator for FreeBMD, she has been a genealogist for many years; and (3) Dave Mayall - another General Manager for FreeBMD and provides database support expertise. He is a Syndicate Co-ordinator.

Quality control: The Corrections Co-ordinator is Kevin S. Howell. He records and reviews submitted corrections, before forwarding validated corrections/changes to transcribers for action. He has worked in the IT industry for over twenty years in computer networking. The Web Proof Reader is Anne Cruise. She performs web-page proof-reading and has assisted in the wording of entries.

Further evidence which suggests Free BMD is a Reliable Source is The Guardian which selects FreeBMD as one of the best "family history" websites. -- Cassianto (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic info for Gale, no citations to Gaye - unless those are the same?
  • My fault, sorry. Now fixed. They are indeed the same. Tim riley (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• Be consistent in how you cite web sources - for example, compare the various BFI citations

Consistancy for BFI refs now complete. [Nikkimaria, did you see any others? I don't. -- ssilvers]

• Check for consistent italicization

Article italicization now completed. -- Cassianto (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Still finding a couple of errors here - for example, FN 107, or 78 vs 79. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. I just fixed these. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Identical citations should be combined. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

One merger to Who was Who source - stage references -- Cassianto (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, it looks like Cassianto has now addressed all your concerns, except two of the RS issues. Did you see any other consistency issues? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we're just about good to go. One nitpick: compare punctuation on FNs 71 and 72. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of fixing this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comments: More references are needed in the Recordings section, as marked. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

done -- Cassianto (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. On another topic, should we make it clearer that Holloway spent a considerable amount of time in the army in WWI? It seems that he was in the army for three or four years. I find the dates around this part of the bio to be a little vague and so it appears that he spent less time in the army. Can you add which year he enlisted (1915?) and which year he was demobilised (1919?) with a good ref? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to elaborate but his autobiog is still very ambiguous as he states he was 25 and no year was given. My suspicions are that it was 1915 as he returned back from South America in the Jan of 1915 and it certainly would not have been long into the year before he was called up. He states "By twenty-five I was very grown up. I met a young man in uniform whilst walking around Clacton on sea. I was thinking of various ways in which to enlist in the army so I invited him for a drink and he suggested I join his boys in the Connaught Rangers. So there I was a fully paid up cockney serving in an Irish regiment" I refed this all the same. re my second ref see the attachment I sent you. Best regards -- Cassianto (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

In terms for FreeBMD, if you want to source that information, I suggest that you call the source the "GRO Register Index", and give the FreeBMD scan of the page as the link, rather than the FreeBMD transcription. However, the trouble is that the index itself does not support the information in the article. In particular, it just says that the birth was registered in "West Ham Registration District", rather than in Manor Park, which is part of East Ham parish, which is part of West Ham RG. The index also doesn't support the full date of birth, merely the quarter of registration. My suggestion would be to use his birth certificate as a source, quoting the reference for it (which you can take from FreeBMD, without attribution). Bluap (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent thanks for the advice! I do have copies of births, census, death, registers which are being worked on at the moment which I intend to use in conjunction with the BMD refs. I have replaced the first reference with the births register for months oct-dec 1890 scan found courtesy of your helpful link. The other BMD scan is not that clear so have not used at this stage, pending the success of the scans I have given to Tim riley. Thanks for your help -- Cassianto (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I have copy-edited this article over a period of many months and have assisted (pestered?) the nominator with suggestions about prose, balance and structure. He has certainly brought the article a very long way, and I believe that it now meets the criteria for a Featured Article. I just did a fresh read of the article, and I support the nomination. The only question that comes to my mind is very minor: why do we mention (in a footnote) where Michael O’Leary worked after the war? Is this necessary to understand Holloway's life? In any case, congratulations to Cassianto on an excellent job with this biography. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have addressed this issue now (forgot it was there to be honest) and have ref'd accordingly. -- Cassianto (talk) 12:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Supportive comment – At the pre-GAN stage I extensively copy edited and added info and refs to this article, and so I think any formal support here from me would be ultra vires. But having added nothing much to the article since my pre-GAN additions, I feel at liberty to say that Cassianto has taken the article on very considerably since then, and if I were a disinterested party I should certainly be registering my support for its promotion to FA. Tim riley (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That's understood Tim thank you for your comment -- Cassianto (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Very impressive and with a mind-boggling amount of detail. Congratulations to everyone who worked on it. I've been a Holloway fan since I first heard Albert and the Lion (as my family knew it), My Word, You Do Look Queer and Brahn Boots and I've seen a lot of his films (most recently the cameo in The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes), but have never read anything about his life before, and it's all very interesting and an enjoyable read. Small niggle: I realise that this FA candidacy doesn't include the numerous blue-linked pointers but a) I'm rather surprised that SH doesn't appear in either dramatic monologue or monologist or (perhaps) one-person show, and b) the discography needs more work - at the very least it should say whether each item is a monologue, poem, song, etc. A sortable WP:Wikitable (I can help, if required) would be good. --GuillaumeTell 12:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank's for your gracious comments. I'm glad you enjoyed it. -- Cassianto (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see an image review and a spotcheck of the sources on this article. Ucucha (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes not a problem. Anybody in the know when it comes to reviewing images? -- Cassianto (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose on Image concerns:

• File:Stanley Holloway 1904.jpg: Fails NFCC #8, no contextual significance evidenced. His childhood appearance is needless for us to understand this man (no critical commentary whatsoever).

  This image IS necersary as it helps illustrate the biography of a famous person of notable stature within the field of acting. A biography, according to the Collins dictionary, is defined thus: "an account of a person's life by another". Note life; this covers from birth to death. This picture is an illustration of his early life and is therefore as important as any picture taken during his life whatever age that would be. The image also serves a purpose in terms of his clothing and his age. Fourteen was the age Holloway started his long and successfull career as a performer and the garb illustrates the fact he was in a choir as mentioned in the article, which in itself acts as a reference. I have elaborated slightly on the image page as to my findings re the above source entry. -- Cassianto (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  The photograph does not show his garb (I cannot believe a collar is a unique representation of his garb); neither do we need an image of him at the age of fourteen when nothing in the text describes his youth or appearance as critical in his life at that stage. The existing text of his exploits at the age of fourteen is perfectly comprehensible without the need of an image (failure of NFCC #1). Jappalang (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  I absolutely disagree. The article states "He began performing part-time as Master Stanley Holloway – The Wonderful Boy Soprano from 1904, singing sentimental songs such as "The Lost Chord". This was the start of his career which in itself was notable, due to the kind of career he had and what it became as a result. The picture is from 1904, the caption is that of what has been described in the source and I'm confident that this picture is a visual representation of his first professional performance. We ARE talking about his early life and and nothing compliments words more than pictures. This is a picture of his early life. -- Cassianto (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

  All of what you say does not require an image to further reader comprehension. "This picture is a visual representation of his first professional performance" is untrue to me. It is just a headshot; it definitely does not show his acting ability or any critical opinion of it. What you are doing (and with the other non-free images below) is simply using the image as a "proof" that he performed in a certain show. That (using a picture as visual confirmation for participation) is not necessary since words are perfectly adequate. Jappalang (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

• File:Millie holloway aged 18.jpg: What is the copyright status of this image in the US?

  copyright status in US has been updated and rationale improved. -- Cassianto (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  The first rule in determining US copyright status is of first authorized publication. When was this photograph published? Creation (1906 in this case) is not publication, which is defined in US law as the authorized distribution of several copies of the work to the public. This is a private photograph, hence, it would be considered unpublished till reproduced and given to the public. If the photograph has not been done so before its appearance in the book from which it was taken, then first publication (assuming the Holloways are the copyright holders) would be considered in Wiv a Little Bit O'Luck (1967), which runs into the problems detailed below for File:Stanley Julian and Violet.JPG. If the Holloways are not the copyright holders, the photograph could still be considered unpublished and still be copyrighted (120 years since creation, so that is till 2027) in the US. 03:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• File:Leslie Henson.jpg: We need more information from the uploader. Ideally, the back of this image (if a postcard) should have been uploaded to allow verification. How was it determined this was a card published in 1920? The uploader used ca (circa), which is unlikely to be printed as a publication date on such a material. If it is the uploader's guess, then on what reliable basis was it made?
• File:Stanley-Holloway-as-René-in-a-night-out.jpg: Is this a personal scan or taken from somewhere online (note: this is a just a query for improvement, not quite valid for grounds of opposition) ?

  Uploaded by me. Happy to expand details if wanted. Tim riley (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

  Is the photographer/copyright owner credited or identified in the publication? Jappalang (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• File:The Savoy Follies 1931.JPG: What is the copyright status of this image in the US?

  I have now corrected the licence to this image and have elaborated on the rationale, giving all the information possible. -- Cassianto (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  This has now been changed into a non-free image. The size should be reduced; at the moment it would violate NFCC #3b. The rationale is that "it is a historic photograph of a famous production that closed long ago, ... being used as an example of a famous production of the work that is written about in the article; ... to illustrate the article about Stanley Holloway." That fails NFCC #8 per above: there is no critical commentary of the scene in this photograph. The closet relevant passage talks of Holloway's part in the production, but not of his role as the constable, nor of his fellow actors' mien. Neither is the mood or atmosphere conveyed in that shot discussed of. A more relevant photograph that could likely be used and compliant with NFCC would be one that illustrates the quoted "the understated look-on-the-bright-side world of the cockney working class. ... Holloway’s characters are [mischievous, like Albert, or] obstinate, and hilariously clueless. He often told his stories in costume; sporting outrageous attire and bushy moustaches", but that is not what this photograph is showing. Jappalang (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• File:Fine and dandy with Holloway and Henson.JPG: Why are there declarations of public domain and a fair use rationale on this image page? Where and when was it published to warrant using {{PD-1923}}, especially when Fine and Dandy was produced during the Second World War? If we are going with it as a non-free image, then what critical commentary in the text is describing the scene in this picture that warrants the image's inclusion for further understanding?

  This image has now been relicenced with an extended rationale added giving all possible information known. -- Cassianto (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  Now totally a non-free image with the rationale of "a historic photograph of a famous production that closed long ago; ... used as an example of a famous production of the work that is the subject of the article; ... to illustrate the article about Stanley Holloway". A cookie-cutter reasoning (untouched and no different from the above), this does not tell why it has to be this image and why. The closest relevant passage simply states that Holloway starred in the production. Without critical commentary on his portrayal, the use of this image violates NFCC #8 and #1 (since words alone are perfect substitutes for simply stating his role). Jappalang (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

  I boldly rewrote the fair use rationale;[2] these rationales should be specific on why the image would be useful to the reader. Jappalang (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• File:Stanley Julian and Violet.JPG: What is the precise date Frewin published the first edition in London? What is the date Stein and Day published the book in New York? As far as I can tell from the Frewin, Stein and Day did not publish as of yet (searching to see if a match occurs between "Frewin" and "Stein"; copyright information is on p. 4, which has Frewin and 1967). If Stein and Day published within 30 days of Frewin (thus qualifying to be judged as a US publication), then a simple copyright notice would be sufficient to give this image 95 years of copyright protection. Since this image was taken from Frewin's, where is the proof that Stein and Day did not put a copyright notice?

Please note that copyright status of media in the US is a must for consideration when uploading to Wikipedia or Commons. Uploaded items not in the US public domain violate policies (their copyright status in their countries of origin are irrelevant if such violations exist). Jappalang (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Where are we now with this? It seems to me that there is no serious suggestion that there is any actionable copyright infringement, but that we haven't satisfied WP's rules for some images. Tim riley (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Tim, there are "actionable copyright infringements". No one has been able to explain why certain images taken from Wiv a Little Bit O'Luck are supposed to be free of copyright. The use of non-free images and failing to abide with all ten criteria of WP:NFCC is also an actionable item. Jappalang (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The nominator has evidently resigned from the project, but that shouldn't mean the end of this FAC. On the image issues: there are 12 images in all, of which Jappalang has raised problems with 6. Of these problem items I would say that two of them ("Stanley Holloway 1904" and "Millie holloway aged 18") are relatively unimportant and could go. It may be possible to justify use of a couple of non-free performance pics (probably not more), subject to some minor elaborations in the text. That would leave the article with eight images; does that seem a practical way of ending the image impasse? Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with that. It is a very great pity that the nominator, Cassianto, has withdrawn from contributing to Wikipedia (and I hope a few of us who have worked with him will eventually persuade him to return) and I agree with Brianboulton that the FAC should go ahead. If there is a consensus for Brian's suggestion, I will volunteer to add some elaborations to link text to images for two of the pictures. Thoughts on which two would be welcome. Tim riley (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I recommend removing File:Millie holloway aged 18.jpg, File:Leslie Henson.jpg, and File:Stanley Julian and Violet.JPG unless more details are provided and proven on why they are public domain in the US and UK. I do not think there is any way to justify the inclusion of File:Stanley Holloway 1904.jpg. Unless there is specific commentary about File:The Savoy Follies 1931.JPG, that would have to go in my opinion too. I am more interested with File:Fine and dandy with Holloway and Henson.JPG, since to me, it sort of illustrates that quote about Holloway's character, which does include Sam Small ("most famous"). The photograph does show Small, and in a pose that, to me, seems to be of the "understated look-on-the-bright-side world of the cockney working class". That would also mean moving this image to near that quote. Jappalang (talk) 07:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Right back to the business in hand. I have removed both File:Millie holloway aged 18.jpg and File:Stanley Holloway 1904.jpg as I think thier rather unfortunate fate is inevitable. I have replaced File:Fine and dandy with Holloway and Henson.JPG nearer to the quote "understated look-on-the-bright-side world of the cockney working class" as advised by Jappalang. As a result of this, I have had to move File:The Savoy Follies 1931.JPG, up slightly up until we know where this image is going. -- Cassianto (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone checked with Jappalang re outstanding image issues? Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have left a message on his talk page. -- Cassianto (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Copyright concerns: The claim of File:Leslie Henson.jpg and File:Stanley Julian and Violet.JPG as being in the US public domain (and/or in the UK) have yet to be proven. Non-free image issue: It is still unexplained what salient critical comment requires File:The Savoy Follies 1931.JPG, which is also too large a size to comply with NFCC, to illustrate. I am striking my oppose not because the issues are resolved but because I am not participating anymore in the projects (so it will be terribly bad of me to raise an oppose I cannot come back to strike if resolved). I leave my concerns to highlight the possible issues; with regrets, I have to leave it to others to take up the concerns if they decide to. Sorry. Jappalang (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Limited Spotcheck – please explain required Out of the main references I only have ODNB. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• This sentence also needs to cite A Wee bit, read the ODNB again, you'll see why. "Looking back in 2004, Holloway's biographer Eric Midwinter wrote, "

It isn't clear to me what is being sought here. As far as I can see, this quote from the ODNB is adequately cited. Am I missing something? Tim riley (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please explain:
  • Source: " was awarded the Variety Club of Great Britain special award in 1978"
  • Wiki: " was awarded the Variety Club of Great Britain special award in 1978."

Is the suggestion that the wording amounts to plagiarism? The statement seems so wholly factual that it would seem perverse to rephrase it, IMO. Tim riley (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)