Talk:John Le Mesurier/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's great: many thanks! - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to working with you again Pyrotec! -- Cassianto ^Talk 18:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments (both of you). Realistically, not a lot is going to happen here today, I'm going to quietly read through the nomination tonight, and I got another review under way, but we should have some progress tomorrow. Pyrotec (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I've now done a quick read of the article and in general it appears to be about or about GA-level, but I do have a few concerns about what is being claimed and what evidence is being used to support those claims they are inconsistent in parts.

Biography -
- Early life -

Its claimed that Le Mesurier was born at 35 Chaucer Road, Bedford, Bedfordshire in 1912.[1]. Well that information might be found on a birth certificate but ref 1 is not a reference to birth certificate, its an incomplete GRO index reference. The full index reference is: Births, June 1912, Bedford, Volume 3b, page 519 and all that states is: that the child was indexed as John E Le M Halliley (note only the first Christian name is given in full, subsequent names are written as first letter only) and the mother's surname prior to marriage was Le Mesurier. The index record can be found on freeBMD here.
The next claim is: His parents were Charles Elton Halliley,[2]. Ref 2 is given as volume 3b, p. 305, but no year (well 1837–1915) and no quarter are given in the citation. I assume that the citation is for the birth of the father Charles Elton Halliley which is listed in September 1881, viewable on freeBMD here, that index does not confirm that Charles Elton Halliley is the father, merely that a birth of that child was registered in Bedford in Q3 of 1881 (but the reference does not cite 1881 nor Q3).
Note since ref 1 gives the mother's (pre-marrriage) surname as Le Mesurier and the father's name was Halliley, I would look more kindly on a Bedford marriage between a (female) Le Mesurier and a (male) Halliley - such a search could be done on freeBMD. The result is:

Marriages Dec 1906

HALLILEY Charles Elton Bedford 3b 683

Le Mesurier Amy Michelle Bedford 3b 683

READ Walter Bedford 3b 683

WHEATLEY Jane Mahala P Bedford 3b 683

...stopping for now. Will be continued on Wednesday. Pyrotec (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pyrotec: I've altered the refs to other availble sources, for clarity. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pyrotec, I physically have the copies of the certificates at home and have formatted the citations based around where I have found them. Is it their use which is a problem, or is it more to do with the fact there is a missing link between birth name and stage name, and father verses son etc? -- Cassianto ^Talk 19:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The certificates may held at home, and it has been stated that they are, however those certificates were not listed as citations (or cited as references - the same thing). The citations being used were the GRO birth indices and if you check the web links I've given above, particularly the images that are viewable by clicking on the "view original" link, the information claimed was not verifiable. Citing, e.g. Births, June 1912, Bedford, Volume 3b, page 519, only provides the information that the birth of a child named as John E Le M Halliley, whose mother was formally Le Mesurier, was registered in Bedford Registration District between Apr and June 1912. I'm happy for information from the birth certificates to be used, but it should be clearly stated in the references that the birth certificate is the citation (not the GRO indices). There are only two ways of getting a birth certificate, technically known as a Certified Copy of an Entry .... (the words after "entry" differ depending on who supplied the copy) either from the General Register Office or from the Local Registrar. (It does not necessarily have to be a Birth Certificate, if the Baptism entry is held it has most of the information, but not the mother's unmarried name and (mostly) not the birth date). Pyrotec (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Career -
  - 1934–46 -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC) - I understand it, and it makes some kind of sense: At this juncture in his career he was still billed as "John Halliley"[15] and he made his stage debut in September 1934 at the Palladium Theatre in Edinburgh in the J. B. Priestley play Dangerous Corner, along with three other newcomers to the company.[16] The reviewer for The Scotsman thought that Le Mesurier was "well cast"...., but it would read better if the first sentence had a minor edit: there is one "his" and a "he" before the name of "his"/"he" is given. It also states still billed as, well the second paragraph of Early life does mention plays that "he" was in, but it did not state that he was named as "John Halliley" (Le Mesurier seems to be implied). Note: "his" name and the change of name is fully explained in the second paragraph of 1934–46 (the one following this one), perhaps the still billed as could be removed from the first paragraph, or relocated elsewhere, as it does not add to the clarity of the article?[reply]

I have copy edited it slightly and now reads "At this juncture, Le Mesurier appeared as "John Halliley" and made his stage debut in September 1934 at the Palladium Theatre in Edinburgh in the J. B. Priestley play Dangerous Corner, along with three other newcomers to the company. The reviewer for The Scotsman thought that Le Mesurier was "well cast". -- Cassianto ^Talk 08:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works. Pyrotec (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - 1946–59 -

Looks OK.

- - 1960–68 -

...stopping for now. Will be continued, later. Pyrotec (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK.

- - 1968–77 & 1977–83 -

These two subsections look OK.

- - Personal life -

Looks OK.

Approach to acting, Portrayals & Filmography and other works -

These three sections look OK.

WP:Lead -

Compliant.

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An interesting and informative biography of John Le Mesurier, a well known actor.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm delighted to be able to award this article GA-status. It was a "strong" candidate at WP:GAN and I suspect that it has the potential of making WP:FAC, but I would suggest WP:PR as a next step so as to gain a wider view on its potential as a FA. Congratulations on producing a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Pyrotec and great news—your efforts here are very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic news. A great review as always Pyrotec! -- Cassianto ^Talk 23:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good job folks. Shame Tim isn't still here though. Yes I intend making improvements to this over the next few weeks as I've sure Schro and Cass do and we intend taking it to FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope FAC goes well. I certainly believe that this article has the potential of making FA. Pyrotec (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]