Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hattie Jacques/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Hattie Jacques

Featured article candidates/Hattie Jacques/archive1

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC) and Cassianto ^Talk[reply]

Oooh Matron! The inimitable Hattie Jacques was a much-loved figure in British comedy from her work with the Players' Theatre in 1946 through to her appearances in 14 Carry On films and many appearances with Eric Sykes on television and stage. A woman who was conscious of her weight problems, she spent much of her career typecast into roles that played on laughs at her expense, from Sophie Tuckshop in Tommy Handley's It's That Man Again, to Griselda Pugh, Tony Hancock's secretary in Hancock's Half Hour. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC) and Cassianto ^Talk 10:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Riley

Support – I was one of the peer reviewers and my (very minor) quibbles and suggestions were all dealt with there most satisfactorily. As a lifelong admirer of Hattie Jacques I was astonished and gratified to find from this comprehensive article how much more there was to her career than I had realised. This is just the sort of article that gets Wikipedia a good name: it is much the best biography of HJ that I can find on the web, free or subscription. (It is six times the length of the ODNB article, without wasting a word.) Full, fair, proportionate, well illustrated and excellently referenced. Clearly FA standard in my judgment. Tim riley (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks once again for your extremely helpful assistance at PR, and your further comment here: both are much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, kind words and support Tim. Cassianto ^Talk 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review – NikkiMaria

Source review - spotchecks not done

FN176, 187: page?

None given, unfortunately. I used LexisNexis to search, and the results show all the details of the article, except page number. - SchroCat (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given discussions like this, can you briefly justify the use of the first Daily Mail citation? (The second is fine)

I've swapped it out for something more reliable. -SchroCat (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FN180: formatting

Tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the placement of London in the Sources list?

Nope! Now moved to a sensible location. - SchroCat (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent in whether books include locations

All now included, I think. -SchroCat (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Historical Dictionary author Cathy Hartley or Hartley Cathy? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The former: now corrected. -SchroCat (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All now sorted: thanks very much for picking up on this one: it's much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Cassianto ^Talk 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Boulton

Support: I did a long peer review. My various concerns were properly addressed, and I am satisfied that the article fully meets the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Brian for all the time and effort you put into both the PR and here: all very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492

Comments From Crisco 1492

Joseph Rochester Jaques (?–?) - what's the point in having a range if it's unclear when he was born or died?
- I have just renewed my ancestory subscription so I hope to find this. On a second glance, I can only see (1897–1923)? -- Cassianto ^Talk 19:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was looking at the grandfather. Or has this already been changed? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - There were two occurrences: I've removed them both for the present. We can always add back later if the dates come to light. - SchroCat (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ventriloquist's dummy Archie Andrews - per WP:SEAOFBLUE this should be trimmed a bit
- lol, I had no idea of this guideline. Propose to delete "dummy", which appears deleted. -- Cassianto ^Talk 19:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Later that year the short film The Pleasure Garden was released: filmed in 1952, she appeared alongside Le Mesurier in the 38-minute "movie-masque" which won the Prix de Fantasie Poétique at the 1954 Cannes Film Festival. - "filmed in 1952, she appeared" ... I don't think this matches up very well
A lot of sentences beginning with "she", I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Crisco: the first three points covered, with the final one still to be sorted. Thanks very much for taking the time and effort: we'll sort the final point shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto thanks very much. -- Cassianto ^Talk 19:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're down to eight sentences starting "She" across the whole article. The recent tweaking of the lead has lowered the count I think. - SchroCat (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

from Wilfrid Hyde-White's bottom, - is "bottom" the best (most encyclopedic) term here?
Sykes and a... went on to run for sixty episodes over nine series over the next five years. - Over over?
destined for a major part in the film - destined? Didn't know encyclopedias recognised destiny as real.
Did Jacques release any albums or records? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All now covered, I hope! - SchroCat (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly, though her as a singer still appears to come out of nowhere. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a minor tweak to try and help, but it still sticks out a little. I'm hoping Cassianto may come up with a smoother way to include. - SchroCat (talk) 07:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Solid article. If Cass smooths it out a bit better, awesome, but I'm already satisfied. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Cass has done some good smoothing there, so it now reads much better than my awkward prose. Many thanks for taking the time and effort on this: it's much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loeba comments

I'm getting quite nitpicky here, please consider them only as suggestions.

Lead

I'm surprised there's no mention of the Carry On films in the first paragraph? Realistically (I'm afraid), lots of visitors to the article won't read beyond the first paragraph, so I always think it's best to give an overall summary of the subject here, and make clear what they are known for. Treating the first paragraph this way also draws readers into the article, IMO.
- Great point! I had a go at this. What do you think? -- Cassianto ^Talk 18:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"whose career spanned from 1946 until her death. She started her career in 1946" - Spot the problem :)
- I do, fixed. Cassianto ^Talk 18:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally merge the third and fourth paragraphs.
- Done. Cassianto ^Talk 18:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"a separation caused by her five-year affair with a younger man." - Definitely necessary for the lead?
I also kind of question the inclusion of the sentence about her overeating. Soon after it we have "caused by her increasing weight", which I kind of think would be sufficient (you could put the 20 stone fact here).
"which were a result of her" - Suggest "as a result of" or "owing to her".
- I think I caught all of these with this edit. Cassianto ^Talk 19:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

"a serviceman in the British Army and latterly the Royal Air Force" - Change "latterly" to "later"?
- Fixed. Cassianto ^Talk 19:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"As well as being an aviator who attained the rank of flight lieutenant, Robin Rochester Jaques was a keen sportsman and became a semi-professional footballer." - Jarred a bit for me (the opening of the sentence is a complete change in subject), I'd prefer it to be reworded so that we open with Robin's name or an explicit reference to her dad, so that we know we're moving on to him.

Now tweaked to open with the name. - SchroCat (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I need to stop there for now but will be back later! --Loeba (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more sections...

Early post-war work

I'd rearrange the material regarding how she came to be called Hattie, e.g. "While appearing at the Players' in 1946, she acquired the nickname "Hattie" after appearing in the minstrel show Coal Black Mammies for Dixie. A member of the backstage staff compared her "blacked up" appearance with the American actress Hattie McDaniel, known for her work in Gone with the Wind, and Jacques adopted the name for the rest of her professional career." Summin' like that.
I feel that the quote box caption should probably give the full name of the show ("It's that Man Again")?
"the scriptwriter of the BBC radio show..." - Can we link to the specific radio station (eg, BBC Radio 1)?
"Later that year Le Mesurier divorced his wife" - We haven't heard about this wife, were they already separated or not?

All sorted, tweaked and altered. - SchroCat (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing fame

Second para: we have "In the show" and "It was on this show" close together.
"The reviewer in The Times thought that Jacques was "as appealing as last year", - Hmm, I don't find this a very interesting or useful review quote..?
I'm not sure about including the cast members of Scrooge...George Cole doesn't have a very big role, he's surely only mentioned because Jacques appears on screen with him, but then because he is mentioned it feels like Alastair Sims is tagged on as a necessity... I would, however, mention that the film was a big success.

Yes on both guesses! The reason I mentioned Sims was that there are so many versions of A Christmas Carol, that this is a good shorthand method of identifying which one it is. It's also (probably) the best-regarded version. - SchroCat (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How about, "including appearing in the successful film Scrooge, starring Alastair Sim"? --Loeba (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like she had the lead role in The Pleasure Garden? If that's the case, I think it should be stressed.
"who came rollicking and laughing into the world in October 1956, a trifle before his allotted time" - quote seems a bit unnecessary?

Slightly unnecessary, but I think it gives an insight from JLM and adds a little colour to the rather plain prose of the alternative. - SchroCat (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All now dealt with, apart from the commented two. - SchroCat (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a general comment, I feel that there's a slight overuse of semi-commas? Great stuff though, I'm enjoying this and will be back soon --Loeba (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably! That's one of my perennial weaknesses: I'll try and weed some of them out. - SchroCat (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you dare! Semicolons are not a vice but a virtue. They prevent staccato short sentences. This is Wikipedia, not the The Sun. Tim riley (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carry On

"When the first Carry On film was made in 1958, Jacques was part of the cast." This sentence seems to be made for people who already have some knowledge of the series. I think a brief description is in order, especially stating the type of comedy that it uses.

I'll leave this one to Cass to sort out: he's the resident Carry On expert. - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Private turmoil

The lead mentioned that her affair was with "a younger man", but I can't see any mention of this in the main text. Unless he was a lot younger, I wonder if this point even needs to be made?

i've taken out the "younger man" tag: lots of reliable sources (and the Daily Mail) refer to him as younger, toy boy etc, but I can't fine his age at the time shown anywhere, so I've taken it out instead. - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"and allowed Jacques to bring a divorce suit on grounds of his own infidelity. This was to ensure that the press blamed him for the break-up, thus avoiding any negative publicity for her." - So Mesurier allowed Jacques to blame him because he didn't want any negative publicity going her way, is that right? I'd try to make this absolutely clear, something like "He made this decision to protect Jacques from any negative publicity."

I've reworked this a little. - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So did Schofield's relationship with the Italian woman mean the end of his relationship with Jacques? May be worth clarifying.

It did: any ambiguity now removed. - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Carry On

"citing an inability to achieve the kind of success that Jacques had experienced in Carry On Nurse" - A bit wordy, how about "claiming that Jacques' performance of the role in Carry On Nurse could not be repeated/surpassed."

Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we get too long a description of Sims' character? I'd trim it to "with Sims accepting a smaller role as the doctor's timid assistant."

From memory she wasn't a doctor's assistant: I'll leave to Cass to work on. - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final appearances

A bit too much detail about the British Rail advert?

Now tweaked back. - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"where on 6 October she died from a heart attack at the age of 58; she was also suffering from kidney failure." - The kidney failure fact here feels very "tagged on".

It was a major condition when she died, so we have to mention it, but it wasn't the direct cause of death, which is why we have the current form. - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two close-together paragraphs end with "according to Merriman." It would be better to vary this a bit.

Removed one of the instances, which is still supported by the citation. - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation

I would link the image caption to the text, something like "Hospital matrons continue to be closely associated with Jacques, who first played the role in Carry on Nurse (1959)."

Yep, now altered. - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a few too many quotes here?

Possibly, but as this is the section given over to how others viewed her, I think we're just about in the bounds of propriety here, unless anyone else also thinks this should be cut? - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "See also" section is a bit problematic...I thought these were frowned upon in FAs? It also means that someone hoping to find a quick link to her filmography won't necessarily know where to look. How about renaming it "Filmography and other credits"? Then you could give a couple of summary statements as well, maybe the number of film, theatre, television and radio programmes she appeared in?

I've not heard of any FA-related guidelines against something so specifically outlined in the MOS? If we have a section there is would, in effect, summarise much of what has preceded - and is on the attached page, so I'm not sure it's the best approach to take in this instance. - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's not an MOS thing, just something I've read before (people complaining that FAs shouldn't need "See also"s because they should be comprehensive). I still think titling the section "Credits" or something would be better.. I know it's essentially just a repeat of what's come before, but I wouldn't worry about that - it's very standard practice in actor, musician and author articles. We do it so that people wanting to find a simple list have that available and can find it easily. Anyway, I'll leave it with you two. --Loeba (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very comprehensive and well-written article, congratulations! Having read through it all, I would suggest emphasising in the lead that she was a very prolific performer, particularly on television. This isn't quite communicated at present. --Loeba (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In light of my own comments about the lead, I have but together an alternative here - basically some changes to the opening to stress Hattie's prolific nature in several mediums. I felt this was too bold a change to make without letting you see it first, so put it in my sandbox. No obligation to adopt it for the article, or you can alter it as you please! --Loeba (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your version now in place, give or take the "younger man" tweak. Many thanks for all your time and effort here Loeba: it's very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, I hope you genuinely like it that way - if not please change it back! --Loeba (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent stuff, meets all the FA criteria. --Loeba (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great: many thanks Loeba: much obliged for the time and effort you've taken here! (and I do prefer the new version of the lead, honest!) - SchroCat (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Much thanks Loeba, your review has been invaluable. --Cassianto ^Talk 10:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I've asked German Joe to have a look: he's having a break over the holidays but will help out when he returns if no-one has stepped up Inge meantime. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Hattie_Jacques_in_Carry_On_Nurse.jpg: can the "n.a." fields be filled in? "Not replaceable" in particular is certainly applicable, and is partially covered by the current "purpose" statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked the FUR, so it should be more focused towards where it needs to be (I hope!) - SchroCat (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Ian, and for the time and effort of everyone who took part. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. I echo SchroCat in thanking everybody for their help and time in making this FA quality. A great new year's gift! -- Cassianto ^Talk 14:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.