Talk:Mimi Smith/Archive 1

I don't know if this site is still open , but I just give it a try.

Is anyone aware of the possibility that Harriet Stanley (1916 - 1972) was pregnant and gave birth to a child (boy) after the death of her first husband Ali Hafez (with whome she had a daughter , 1937) and before her marriage with Norman James Birch (who gave her a son David, 1948). That child could possibly have been born on a (navy) ship taking Harriet from Egypt (Suez) to England (Liverpool) during the early part of WW II.

Mimi Stanley/Smith

This woman was not a nice human being. andreasegde 07:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has a citable book, then feel free to add anything to this page. The truth needs to be told about this woman - who helped Lennon as much as she hindered him. andreasegde 02:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She ran to the hospital to see John (during an air-raid) but wasn't interested in Julia's first child (who was later given up for adoption). What a strange woman. andreasegde 19:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the "citation needed" bits are from Lennon's biography by Ray Coleman. I'll fill them in when I can get my hands on my copy.--Crestville 12:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, Crestville. I'll add Coleman's biog to the References list. This is fun. andreasegde 20:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA

It's quite possible that we could turn a stub into a GA article. "That would be nice", said the bishop to the actress. :) andreasegde 20:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi

There's a lot more to go in this (from Cynthia's book) about Cyn's experiences with Mimi. Mimi rented the ground floor rooms to Cynthia and lived upstairs - using John's former bedroom as a kitchen - for example... andreasegde 21:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there's a more objective source available to add to the piece - Cynthia seems to have a bit of an attitude about old auntie. Tvoz | talk 01:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George

"Mimi would later say that George was a gambler". This is new. andreasegde 19:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it ain't (Spitz). He gave up the milk trade and opened a bookies. andreasegde 18:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia

I've done with 'Cyn', so I will start looking through Miles and Spitz for further citations. Oh, what a lovely war... andreasegde 23:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B article

I rated this as a 'B' article. If it's not, you can slap me until I'm daft. andreasegde 20:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liela

Liela al Hafiz/Birch - Relationship: Cousin of John Lennon - Born: 1937 Egypt. Liela is the daughter of Harriet Stanley and her first husband Ali Hafez. Harriet Stanley - what a dark horse, ay? andreasegde 22:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the other reference to her that had misspelled her name as "Leila" - I gather "Liela" is correct?Tvoz | talk 01:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you're right. I put one version in (I couldn't help thinking of Layla, by Eric Clapton) but then I was confused about it, so it was "My bad", as the boys upstairs are wont to say. I would say it was "My lazy sod - so get it right you dipstick". Thanks, eagle-eyed Tvoz. andreasegde 20:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leila - not Liela. I've changed it. andreasegde 21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for GA

I have nominated this article for GA. Call it impetuous, naive, or blatantly idiotic, but I truly think it deserves to be. 90% of the article deals directly with Mimi Smith and her life, as well as having more about George Smith than was previously available. It does not (unfortunately) have a photo of Mimi, and Mimi's comments about Yoko are a bit thin, but that is being revised as I write. andreasegde 01:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello McTavidge

Thanks. You have gone for flow of prose, which I got out of the habit of doing when we were viciously cutting down the McCartney article to get it under 10,000 words. I thank thee kindly. Fancy a pint? andreasegde 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andreasegde

Next time you're in Kentucky, drop by. Pints on the house.McTavidge 21:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take you up on that one day... :) andreasegde 17:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commas and full stops

I suppose the article must be not bad if we're getting down to this :) What about this: She said, "It's cold." She said, "It's cold". What say we, editors? (I always go for the first one, but 'Pedians do otherwise...) andreasegde 20:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is looking pretty good. You must sit there with Spitz and company open all the time (you've done a lot of work, in other words). I think British custom is to put the full stop/period outside the quoted material; US usage (except among programmers, I've observed -- and they base it the technicalities of programming) is generally to put it inside the quote. Since policy for Beatles-related articles is British usage, I guess we should go with "outside." -- make that "outside".McTavidge 02:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. I was told that when it's a direct quote: She said, "It's cold." (In) An indirect quote: The weather was said to be "bloody cold". (Out). In reality, I don't really mind either way. It's simpler to keep it out, and English is changing all the time. Ho-hum... andreasegde 17:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the books: I find it much easier, faster, and definitive (for citations) to read through them. A quick bit of paraphrasing and "Bob's your uncle," as they say. I'm going on to Julia and Freddie Lennon, and Jim and Mary Macca after this. Jim and Mary don't have a single page/stub as yet, BTW. andreasegde 17:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good -- I forgot about Julia/Freddie and Jim/Mary. See you when you get there.McTavidge 18:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wives and girlfriends

This section seems a bit below the standard of the rest of the article. Anyone willing to spruce up the organization and do a fact check? Raymond Arritt 05:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are A-OK. (All are from books, with one or two web pages.) What organising can we do? andreasegde 15:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, you're right, the standard is verifiability rather than "truth." Some of the things taken from Cynthia's book just don't seem right -- admittedly I haven't read her latest book, but I have her earlier one A Twist of Lennon and it contains some dubious stuff. Carry on... Raymond Arritt 17:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She did make some mistakes in "John" about the leather/suede coat, and what Lennon said after Epstein's death, but I ignored those. She admitted that "A Twist of Lennon" didn't tell the whole truth. Considering that Mimi's last words were, "I'm afraid of dying—I've been a wicked woman", lends some credence to her story. Ho-hum. andreasegde 17:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article pass

I have reviewed the article and believe it more than meets the criteria for a good article. You may find it worth putting the article up for peer review and subsequent featured article candidacy, it really is that good. Well done to all involved! Wikiwoohoo 15:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High Importance?

The article is well put together, but does she really qualify as 'high importance'? Lennon was important, she is surely just a footnote. No offense intended:) Malick78 11:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that she was almost a mother to Lennon and raised him, I think yes... it's not "Top", after all... andreasegde 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that Lennon's involvement with a strong-willed woman like Yoko Ono was due to Mimi's influence (being the woman that Mimi was). In effect, no Mimi, no Beatles, due to her influence and Lennon living at her house across the golf course from McCartney's home. If Lennon had lived with Julia, he might have become too much of a rebel to succumb to Epstein's requests. Mimi knew best... (as she was wont to reiterate). andreasegde 19:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rating is for importance within WikiProject The Beatles, so I don't think High is too far off the mark nor that it matters a huge deal. --kingboyk 13:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Flag

I moved this comment to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mimi Smith, I hope you don't mind. Please continue dialogue there and thank you for your assistance. --kingboyk 10:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I probably would have worded my comment a bit differently for the FA-reviewing public if I was going to place it over there, but the sentence is out of the current version so I don't expect it will be a problem. Tvoz |talk 14:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does one have an FAC tone of voice and a talk page tone of voice then? Reminds me of Keeping Up Appearances ;) Ahem. --kingboyk 15:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The andreasegdeeEEEEEEEE residence, the lady of the house speaking..." Raymond Arritt 03:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I try to be mindful of my audience. Over here I think it is understood that my comments are offered with a supportive attitude even if they are in short-hand - in a possibly more adversarial environment, which a FAC may or may not be, I would have taken the time to spell it out a little more, that's all. It's ok, I don't think there's any problem - there's just a difference to me between an article's talkpage where I may be known to the group and a FAC. No worries, just a comment. Tvoz |talk 15:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand, and hope I didn't inconvenience you. If you have any further comments please do let us know. --kingboyk 16:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playing the guitar is all very well John, but you'll never make a living at it

Mimi famously voiced words similar to the above. I think it really ought to be in the article, and perhaps even given a billing in the lead too. Do you have the exact quote Andrew, with a reference? --kingboyk 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will try and get the main one, but it is referenced on (solcomhouse.com) on the page as ref 37. I'm on the case as we write, so to speak... andreasegde 13:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Music is for teddy boys, and of no worldy use" (to John). Spitz. p.45.

"She [Mimi] had told him [John] so often that playing the guitar was all very well but he would never earn a living at it that he was sick of hearing it". pp70-71 Cynthia Lennon "John"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A285095 Mimi's ideas about music and money bbc.co.uk. Retrieved: 12 April, 2007

Have put the Cynthia ref in the article.andreasegde 13:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In My Life

Love the song, but does it really belong in an article about Mimi? It's not about her and it kind of interferes with the flow of the article in its present position. For that matter, the passage before In My Life (about the Chicken and the Coat) seems out of place in a section about Mimi and John's music. I think it would work better in the section on Cynthia just below. I'd move it myself but I've never worked on a FAC before! --Butseriouslyfolks 21:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - I was thinking of moving it - maybe to the Mendips section? Done it. andreasegde 21:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another good point, "Butseriouslyfolks" - I moved the suede coat as well. andreasegde 23:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chuffin' eck - where was Mimi buried? or George for that matter. andreasegde 22:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC) George was buried at St. Peter's - Woolton (where John met McCartney). andreasegde 23:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I much prefer the current treatment of In My Life, and the coat anecdote makes a lot more sense now. Great job! --Butseriouslyfolks 02:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No comments for oppose or support as yet. We can only wait and see... andreasegde 01:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One "Support". andreasegde 13:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How long can Mimi be on the FAC? Can she pass with one vote, or does she need more? How many? andreasegde 17:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No set number. The FA Director uses his discretion. A handful of supports, with no opposes, from well known reviewers would be good enough. Erabee who has given us a constructive oppose; if we can work on his objections and get that into a support we're well on the way. --kingboyk 19:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Lane (street)

Penny Lane (street) is technically a perfect fine link, as was discussed on the FAC. The reason is that, although there's no article there at the moment - just a redirect, a seperate article could be written. That makes it a "redirect with possibilities", something of a special case.

All that said, the prose says "9 Newcastle Road in the district of Penny Lane". Penny Lane isn't a district as such so "in the vicinity of" would be better. The article Mossley Hill says that Penny Lane is in Mossley Hill; if we can verify that Newcastle Road is in Mossley Hill too, we ought to be linking there if anywhere.

So, technically valid link, but might need to be reworded and/or replaced with Mossley Hill. --kingboyk 19:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did it, and changed the wording. andreasegde 21:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

em-dashes

I don't remember there being this many em-dashes in the article. I just took a quick look and they jumped out at me. Do we have too many? --Butseriouslyfolks 19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you could be a sport and look at WP:MOS and WP:MOSBIO - the manuals of style - and fix it up to comply with those that would be great. "Mary Elizabeth "Mimi" Smith (née Stanley) (1903–6 December 1992)" is formatted correctly; I can't vouch for the rest of the article. --kingboyk 19:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guilty of that, because the Macca reviewers went on and on about it, and it was burned into my brain. If Butseriouslyfolks wants to change it, I will be more than happy (can there be such a thing? Hmmm...) andreasegde 20:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further changes

I think I've got them all, but let me know if any slipped through the net. (I'm working on a picture of Mimi as well, BTW). andreasegde 20:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Mimi Smith Notable?

I don't see why/how Mimi Smith meets WP:N. She is only mentioned as a relative of a notable person. If being a relative of a notable person confers notability then we are in a never-ending regress. NBeale 09:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't just any old relative, she was Lennon's guardian, and looked after him after his father left and after his mother died. She was probably responsible for Lennon's rebellious nature, as she often criticised him and his music. Lennon kept in contact with her until his death and she is regarded as being more important in The Beatles' story than any other parent/relative. Just because she wasn't a composer or a professor doesn't mean that she is not worthy of a place here. egde 11:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite prepared to accept that she was an important relative of an important Beatle. But do we have articles on the parents of every other Beatle? And more to the point, how does she meet the notability criteria of WP:BIO? Because if she doesn't then perhaps these criteria need to change? NBeale 15:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the criteria says and frankly I don't care (WP:IAR). We have here a well-written and more importantly a well-referenced article about a person who clearly has some notability, and there's no reason at all why we would want to delete it. If you want to find stuff to delete, start with the thousands of unreferenced vanity articles on living people! I just wish the average biography was this good. Clue: it isn't. --kingboyk 15:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's notable because someone has taken the time to note her notability. If you didn't know who she was, she wouldn't be notable, but loe and behold, there's pages and pages written about her in books and on the internet. Thus she is noted, notable, not able, notorious, not a Beale and so on and so forth (do I win £5?)--Crestville 16:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respect NBeale's questioning of Mimi's notability, but I politely request him to review his own list of biographical contributions, as I have never heard of most of them (excepting Einstein, of course). I understand the difference between well-known/popular/scientific and professorial, but defining notable is something only history (and the writers thereof) can be accused of. I would only ask one question: How many other popular composers were contributing to culture when Vivaldi was alive? Should they be included? I think they should, but who remembers them? egde 18:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: I have just checked the first seven of NBeale's list of biographical contributions and they are all "Start" or "Stub-class". I would suggest that if one wants to improve the quality of Wikipedia, one should start by cleaning (and improving) one's own back yard. It's all very well to complain about other articles, but one must first have a substantial catalogue of articles that one has taken to (at least) GA status. Mimi Smith was a Stub, a B-class, a GA, had a Peer review, and is now up for an FA. That was a lot of work. I wish you the best. egde 18:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to suggest that Mimi should be deleted - but it's still very unclear why she is notable. Perhaps we should change WP:BIO to include "people who have made an unusually major contribution to the development of a person of exceptional historical importance (NB this does not mean that spouses and children of notable people are per se notable)". There may be lots written about her in books about Lennon/the Beatles, but we need some clarity about this otherwise everything and everybody that is mentioned in a book about the Beatles would be notable. (PS the fact that I start articles as well as working on improving others is, frankly, irrelevant to this discussion!) NBeale 20:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is being looked at the wrong way. It's not whether any of us have heard of her, whether she has done anything noteworthy in her own right or what she is primarily famous for. She meets WP:N because she has received significant coverage (and is in fact discussed at length) by multiple reliable sources. On another matter, these pages are for discussing content, not other editors and their contributions. There is no requirement that an editor contribute in any particular way before opining on another article. Everybody here has his or her own strengths. Some of us are writers of encyclopedic content, some of us are great copyeditors, some of us code and some (like me) are primarily wikignomes. There is a place (and a need) for all of these skills here. --Butseriouslyfolks 22:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I like working on The Beatles' pages; a decent conversation/debate without malice, although I would like to make a few points (don't we all? :):

Mimi is (at the time of writing this) 3-3 for FAC. It's not sure that she/the article will pass. That says a lot for both sides of the debate, does it not?
I agree with NBeale that she is not notable in the normal sense of the word, but had a definite impact on Lennon's life. Without her, Lennon may have followed his mother's advice and just enjoyed a Rock 'n Roll lifestyle without working for success.
As nasty as she was (and she was) it was her criticisms of Lennon that made him want to prove to her that he was "worth something". This is explained with her comments about McCartney and Harrison (whom she both loathed/hated because they were "working class").
I truly believe (call me what you want) that without Mimi, we would not have had The Beatles. egde 19:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest NBeale read this again:Article for deletion. It shows that his own article about himself (and mostly written—if not entirely—by himself) was deleted as he was not notable enough. Sour grapes, maybe?... egde 15:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA review

Mimi is now 3-3 (discounting NBeale's comments that were viewed as "Irrelevant to FAC and not actionable" by Kingboyk). egde 21:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it won't pass unless it's improved drastically, I'm sorry to say. FAs pass if they have broad support and generally no reasonable and significant actionable objections. In other words, whilst the notability dispute isn't actionable, the others are, and it will likely fail if the FA director thinks they're reasonable objections. Basically, you have to decide if you can fix it up to satisfy those people - and ask them to come back and change to support - or you can let it go. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings yet again, but I'm sure it'll be helpful for you to know how FAC works :) --kingboyk 10:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, I don't think it will pass. I had an inkling of that when the heavily negative comments started. I could see no way around them, apart from finding out that Mimi had taught Einstein maths or something. Never mind, it was a good crack. egde 11:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I thought we were gonna make it at first, but I agree with you it looks bleak now. Chalk it up as experience (and savour the GA). I wish my KLF writing partner would come back, though, as I need to get another FA! We have so many articles which are nearly there... :( --kingboyk 21:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi

Mimi has not had the last FA laugh over John Lennon, but she still has a Good Article, which is two steps ahead of John, and where she can "entertain the dignitaries of the Wikipedia GA society". egde 17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Changes

My changes have just been reverted on the grounds that John Lennon should be referred to as Lennon rather than John. However, Mimi, George, Julia, Yoko, Cynthia, Julian, etc. are all referred to by their first names. Why should John be different? What do you think? The Stickler 18:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a difficult one. Look at Jim and Mary McCartney. It's almost impossible to not use their first names. --andreasegde 12:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi

I was the nurse who was with Mimiwhen she died (my name is on her death certificate) and I attended the funeral. I think I know how Mimi was in her later years better than anyone. I will be more than willing to discuss this futher if anyone is interested in the truth. Lynnev 00:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Lynne[reply]

As you do not have a page Lynnev, how is it possible? One might think you are telling porky-pies. --andreasegde 15:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a liar

Okay Andreasegde - my name is Lynne. I lived in Poole most of my life. My mother owned and operated the Varcoe Nursing Agency - and she provided caregivers for Mimi for the last few years of her life. I was one of them in my spare time. Mimi died when I was there - I was the only one there (not a pleasant experience, I have to say since she died on the toilet - akthough I did not tell anyone that at the time). Her last words were, in fact "Hello John". I went to the funeral and the reception afterwards. Yoko and Sean were there. Cynthia was there. Julian was NOT there. The other Beatles sent flowers. They played "Imagine" (just the tune) at the funeral. She was cremated at the crematorium on the Wimbourne Road (near Poole Grammar School). The reception was at the Harbour Heights Hotel by Sandbanks. My name was in the paper (Evening Echo - I believe it's now called the Daily Echo). And my name is on her death certificate since I was the only one there. Why should I have a page? - I am not - nor was I ever - a Beatles fan - I wasn't born until 1963!! And I would appreciate you not calling me a liar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynnev (talk • contribs) 13:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology given, even though I said "porky pies" :) Do you want me to put all that information in the article? --andreasegde 13:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One question, Lynne: Who paid for the nursing care of Mimi? --andreasegde 17:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is fascinating stuff, but still original research. Even if it's all 100% true and valuable information, it has to appear in reliable sources before we can use it here. -- But|seriously|folks 16:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If she can dig out the paper, or get a copy, she has as much right to whack a reference in as any of us. I'm keen to know if it can be verified. --andreasegde 17:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, to the extent it was reported in the paper. But adding information beyond that is verboten. -- But|seriously|folks 01:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read this:Julia Baird. The money that John got to go to Paris.... --andreasegde 21:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoko paid for the nursing care. She arranged it through Michael Cadwallader - a cousin (?) of John's who lived in London. I have a letter from him thanking me. She had a different agency at night (sorry, I can't remember the name)- and Varcoe Nursing Agency during the day. I have a copy of the paper somewhere - it states how I was the one with Mimi when she died. I don't really care if stuff is put in the article or not - but I don't think the article should have untruths - such as Mimi's last words being about her being afraid to die. Mimi was not afraid of anything - and she certainly never expressed anything about being a wicked woman. I don't know where that resource came from (I'd like to know)- but it is obviously not correct - I was the only one there. Hope that helps. Lynne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynnev (talk • contribs) 02:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. Thank you. -- But|seriously|folks 02:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last words

Sorry Lynne, but I had to take out both statements, as they are now disputed, but at least the one you disagree with has gone. --andreasegde 11:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least it's more accurate now - thanks!Lynnev 13:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fishwick

This whole story by Julia Baird in her book about Mimi still being a virgin at 50 years old and then having an affair with her 24-year-old lodger (Michael Fishwick) is a bit too hard to swallow. I am considering putting it in, but only as an aside, and not too prominently. What does anyone else think? --andreasegde 10:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you'll never make a living at it

I can tell you something about that quote. Mimi had a plaque that read "the guitar's alright as a hobby John, but you'll never make a living out of it" It was about 12 inches by 9 inches. Mimi said that John had it made for his Uncle George after he became famous. When Mimi died, Yoko gave it to my mother. It was sold at auction along with some other things that were given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynnev (talk • contribs) 15:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Mimi - she had to say it was for poor old George, and not her, even though she said it a hundred times. She also lied because George died in the mid-fifties - way before Lennon got famous. --andreasegde 00:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

Any edit made without a verifiable reference will be deleted, including edits that are slipped into referenced sentences, BTW. --andreasegde (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

This GA article should be deleted? What a waste of time. --andreasegde (talk) Mimi is more important than a playground/a piece of grass (which the editor in question wrote an FA article about). How sad. 18:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

interview about Mimi

If anyone is interested I was recently interviewed by the British Beatles Fan Club about Aunt Mimi http://www.britishbeatlesfanclub.co.uk/features/2008/0328_lynn_varcoe.html Lynnev (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm supposed to be on a break, but I will come back sometime soon and put this in the article. Thank you, Lynnev.--andreasegde (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did put it in awhile ago, but forgot to leave a note here. A really interesting paragraph, with many thanks going to Lynnev.--andreasegde (talk) 11:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be very anal here, but the article says the plaque reads "Music's all right John, but you'll never make a living out of it" but Lynn Varcoe quoted it as "the guitar is all right as a hobby, John, but you'll never make a living at it". Lynne, since you're apparently here, and maybe have access to the plaque or can otherwise confirm one way or another, might you chime in? It's basically the same thing, but hey- might as well get it exactly right... Also, if there's a Wikipedia-friendly licensed picture of the plaque, and the family doesn't mind, it might be cool as well :) --Replysixty (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion regarding the year Mimi Smith passed away. In several places it is listed as 1991 or 1992. Also, her calculated age at the time of her death is listed as "89". Considering that she was born in 1906 this would actually make her at least a couple years younger. I'd make the corrections but came to Wikipedia to find out the year of her death for myself. A Fields 13 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.103.95.56 (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi died in 1991 according to the General Register Office. Brakn (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very grateful if someone could tell me how they know Mimi's birthday was April 24, 1903. shearndog, July 2/09

Mimi was born in 1906 and died in 1991. Her date of birth on her death cert in 24th April 1906. Mimi's parents, George Stanley and Annie Jane Millward, married in 1906 months after Mimi was born. According to the 1911 census they were living at 36 Lydia Ann Street. George must've been at sea. It also states that they had had 2 children who were both still alive. Brakn (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Brakn, thank you very much for that. Have you actually seen the death cert, and if so how did you do that? shearndog July 23/09

Hi Shearndog. It is a matter of public record. If you look up deaths for 1991 in your local records office it will give you details. If you subscribe to genealogy websites such as www.findmypast.com the information is there without having to actually get a death cert.

Also in the article it states that Mimi's mother had two children, that died, before having Mimi. According to the 1911 census it notes that Mimi's mother had two children and does not mention any children that had died previously. Another reason to doubt that fact is that it would've mean't another two children born out of wedlock; I don't think so but I wouldn't rule it out. Brakn (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Mimi Smith/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: On hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a GA. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that need to be addressed.

There are a few dead links that should be fixed. The Internet Archive may be able to help.
~~There are a few dabs that should be fixed.~~
Although it is not required by GA criteria (so it will not be a requirement for the review), it would be beneficial to add alt text to the images. See WP:ALT for assistance.
The article makes use of three non-free images, and I think only one or two of them are necessary for the article. I'd recommend dropping File:Lennon Stanley Parkes.jpg since it does not cover the subject. For the other two images of Smith, perhaps choose one for the infobox and drop the other. I'm not going to be too picky since this is only GA, but I don't think that the images' use can be justified if the article heads up to FAC at some point.
~~I have tagged File:Mimi Smith and John Lennon.JPG to be reduced in size. Although not a requirement for this review, it would be beneficial to reduce the non-free image's size.~~
The lead needs to be expanded to better summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
Throughout the article there are several one or two-sentence paragraphs. Either expand on these or incorporate them into another paragraph.
"According to Lennon, the Stanley family once owned the whole of Woolton village." It may be best to start off this section with a different sentence, as well as clarify where Woolton village is for readers who may be unaware.
"Despite this, Mimi wore sensible dresses, and always looked as if she was on her way to a weekly garden club meeting." This sounds like a quote, if it is, add quotation marks and indicate who said it. Otherwise, it would best to reword the statement.
~~"Mimi and "John"" Is there are a reason John is in quotation marks? In addition, the subsection within it should be renamed as it is similar to this title.~~
"Mimi phoned the Oxford Street Maternity Hospital that evening and was told that Julia had given birth to a boy" Although it may be obvious to many, it would be beneficial to mention John's name here as some readers may skip the lead and jump straight to this section.
"He called her one night from New York asking her to check behind the bush for a surprise...The bush had to be cut down as it was overgrown and there stuck to wall was the plaque saying" Music's all right John, but you'll never make a living out of it"." The ellipses is not necessary. The spacing should also be fixed for the initial quotation mark.
~~The subsections within "Lennon's girlfriends and wives" don't need to include her name again, just list the names.~~ Also should it just be named "Lennon's wives"?
Some of the citations only consist of a title. Expand on these to include parameters such as author, date, website, etc. The citation templates at WP:CITET may be helpful.

I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. Once the above issues are addressed, I'll help do a final copyedit of the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite surprised no one has jumped in to the rescue this article. As you can see, I've made some technical tweaks, but, sadly, I do not know this article very well, and cannot address some of the issues above (e.g., the "garden club meeting" sentence). I hope someone who is more familiar with it will post here soon. - I.M.S. (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job addressing some of the issues. I have struck the completed ones above. Since some progress has been made, I'll leave the article on hold for another week. It would be great if progress could be made on the other tasks so the article could remain a GA. Again, if there are any questions, please let me know. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps: Delisted

The article has been on hold for another week and the remaining issues were not addressed. As a result I have delisted the article as it still has a way to go before meeting the GA criteria. Continue to improve the article, addressing the issues above. Once they are addressed, please renominate the article at WP:GAN. I look forward to seeing the further improvement of the article, and don't hesitate to contact me if you need assistance with any of these. If you disagree with this review, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]