Talk:Irene Vanbrugh/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Mertbiol (talk · contribs) 18:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pleasure to review this very interesting article and to return a favour to User:Tim riley, who has kindly reviewed three of my GA nominations. Mertbiol (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has recently received a Peer Review, during which the text was fine-tuned.
My only suggestion is to repeat the full name of Herbert Beerbohm Tree (and possibly Arthur Bourchier) in the final paragraph of the "Early 20th century" subsection. ("Tree" caught me a little by surprise and I had to look back to remind myself!)

I have reviewed the following references and have found no issues: [5], [22], [23], [27], [32] [33], [36], [38], [44], [52], [53], [54] and [56].
Reference [1] (ODNB) does not appear to support "gained a thorough practical grounding" ("Early years" subsection) – the reference says "had a spell of training", which is a little weaker. I would suggest omitting this phrase.

Reference [1] (ODNB) does not appear to say that Vanbrugh joined Toole's company in 1889 ("Early roles" subsection).

Reference [1] (ODNB) does not appear to support "[The Tempter] was not popular and was soon taken off" (also not stated by [13]) ("First West End successes" subsection)

Reference [1] (ODNB) says that the RADA theatre was "partly completed" rather than "planned" ("First World War" subsection)

Reference [3] is from Who Was Who the use of which may be problematic at an A Class or FAC review (see WP:WHOSWHO) – I think it's OK for GA.

Interesting. I wasn't aware of WP:WHOSWHO and I've cited Who's Who in several successful FACs. Tim riley talk 09:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting this. I found this article in The Spectator. It questions the selection of those included, and, moreover, with respect to those who *are* included, "there are sometimes serious errors and omissions in ... entries, even though they are nearly all written by the subjects themselves. James Gulliver lied about having a degree from Harvard Business School. ... The entries for Nicholas Parsons, Susan Hampshire and Ken Dodd all knock four or five years off their age. [A spokesman for the publisher] insists they can only go by what people tell them. ‘We’ve got 32,000 people in the book.... It would be impossible for us to check every fact.’ If an error is pointed out to Who’s Who they will raise it with the biographee [but] what if Jeffrey Archer insisted that his entry was correct when it wrongly states that he became a member of the Greater London Council in 1966? ‘We would have to take him at his word' [said the spokesperson]. Lester Piggott, Gerald Ronson and Ernest Saunders don’t mention their time in prison." So, treating it like an SPS, we cite it twice: I think it is fine, the first time, for stating what high school she attended, but it would be better to have a different ref for the acting credits. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference [3] (Who Was Who) does not appear to say that Vanbrugh "created" the role of Catherine of Braganza. ("Inter-war years" subsection) (The ODNB also says that she "played" the role, but doesn't say that she "created" it.)

Reference [9] (The Times obituary) does not appear to state the roles Vanbrugh played in Ibsen's Ghost and Walker, London ("Early roles" subsection).

Reference [39] (The Times - 8 March 1916) does not appear to say that The Real Thing at Last was Vanbrugh's "first" movie. ("First World War" subsection)

According to IMDB it was her first, but we avoid IMDB, the BFI website has been upgraded from excellent to completely useless, and so I've left "first" to be inferred. Tim riley talk 09:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference [50] (The Times - 21 June 1938) – I cannot see a reference to Seymour Hicks.

It's there all right, but the sub-section header may have misled you. I've expanded the citation to emphasise the point. Tim riley talk 09:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All images have the appropriate PD-US tag and have been correctly uploaded to Wikipedia rather than Commons.

I think that's everything – just a couple of minor queries on a few of the sources, but otherwise a very well-written and enjoyable article! Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a helpful and thorough review, Mertbiol. All points above now addressed. Tim riley talk 09:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a very good and helpful GA review! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Congratulations and thanks to @Tim riley: for a very enjoyable and well-researched article, which I am delighted to promote to GA status. Mertbiol (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]