Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Little Tich/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492

[edit]

All comments addressed, thank you for a great review! -- CassiantoTalk 00:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Loeba

[edit]

I enjoyed reading through this! Very nice, engaging prose. My one criticism is a slight tendency to overly-detail matters, some specific examples of which I've given below, but it isn't a major problem... Right, suggestions - don't feel obliged to act on any you disagree with:

Lead
  • I personally wanted to know his height as soon as possible, since it's relevant to his notability. Could it possibly be included in the first couple of sentences?
    • I have spent ages with this trying to best place it. I have gone for this: "...born Harry Relph, was a 4 feet 6 inch tall English music hall comedian and dancer during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Crisco asked in his review to give metric alternatives for his height, which I did in the lede. Unfortunately, giving this in parenthesis such as I did, rather ruined the flow of the prose somewhat in the opening of the new line, so I have footnoted this. I have moved "diminutive" to later on in that paragraph. Does this look ok? -- CassiantoTalk 21:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where he established the Big-Boot Dance, which impressed audiences due to his ability..." - I've been told that "due to" is not proper British English? I also think it could read better without the comma, ie it could be, " established the Big-Boot Dance and impressed audiences with his ability..."
Early life
  • "enabled him to purchase his first public house" - Did he later buy another pub? Because this phrasing implies he did. If not, I suggest just "enabled him to purchase a public house".
  • "Little Tich was the youngest of the Relph children" - We were already told this in the second sentence of the section.
  • "noted for his academic abilities, excelling particularly in art" - This read weirdly to me, since art isn't considered an academic subject. I think it needs to be mentioned as an additional fact, not an extension of the first fact (ie, "...academic abilities and also excelled in art.")
Gravesend
  • "day-trippers, holidaymakers and fishermen often frequented the streets and occupied the plethora of public houses which adorned the port and neighbouring roads." - Nice prose, but I wonder if it's necessary information?
    • Thanks for the compliment. I chose to include it to try and highlight just how busy Gravesend was back in those days, thanks largely to its geographical location (I really don't want to force the link). There is also a huge irony inasmuch Tich, who was a shy and lonely child, moved to one of the busiest places in England at that time. I suppose today we would have called him "agoraphobic". -- CassiantoTalk 22:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also wonder how important all the school information here is...
    • According to the source, he was a very clever lad and was educationally advanced for his years; it was also evident that his school years were the happiest times in his life. Which bit are you meaning specifically? -- CassiantoTalk 22:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well since we've already been told that he was clever, I'm not sure the point needs repeating (and then again, with the assembly - which is very specific detail...) If I was editing the article, I'd have it, "He looked forward to resuming his education, and he was enrolled at Christ Church School, where he spent the next three years [brief comment about continuing to be academically successful]. In 1878, his parents told him that their money was running out..." I think that's all we need. But again, it's up to you. --Loeba (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1878, he had saved enough" - New paragraph, shouldn't use a pronoun.
  • Is "busked" definitely a word? It sounds wrong to me, but never mind if it is!
  • "News of his performances travelled," - "spread" might be better?
  • I've never come across the phrase "star turn" before and it threw me a bit - can we perhaps have "popular draw", or something, instead?
Early London
American success
  • Was he based in one city with Pastor (if so - which)? Or touring? I'd clarify this.
  • "and he threw the boots onto the stage causing the star to run back out in front of the waiting audience to put the boots in front of them." - I had to read this about four times, and I'm still a bit confused about what happened (do you mean "put the boots on in front of them"?). Could you maybe have a go at rephrasing it?
  • Any reason why the London audience didn't like him?
    • Just a friendly nod that you may have missed this one!
      • Oops sorry, I think it was just that they were favouring variety as music hall was becoming out of date. LT was never a variety star, despite his attempts at it with Lord Tom Noddy. That play was his baby as it was produced by his own theatre company, and he never really forgave the London audiences for shunning it. He could not accept that tastes were changing and that he was not part of that new form of entertainment. The audiences in London saw him as a one-trick pony, whereas the French and the English provinces loved him for it. -- CassiantoTalk 00:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Little Tich was also billed as "Little Titch" (with the second "t") which he had omitted from the spelling a year earlier" - Could maybe be cut as unnecessary detail.
  • Not very keen on "Said production", simply "The production" would be fine.
    • I have ABSOLUTELY no idea why this is here?! I can only imagine that it was a mixture of tiredness, distractions from my holidaying (and frankly very bored kids) or a glass too much of the old Pinot Grigio which has allowed this to adorn the Tich page. Nevertheless, please accept my humble apologies and be rest assured that I have changed this immediately. -- CassiantoTalk 22:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Return to London
Drury Lane
  • I'm afraid most of the stuff in the first paragraph didn't seem important to me...It could quite comfortably go into a footnote, after "lavish sets, ambitious scripts and big budgets" (this statement alone summarises everything that a reader of this article needs to know)?
New theatrical ventures
Marriage troubles
Recording career
Last years
  • Not sure we need to know about the governess either?
  • "The performance proved too strenuous for the ageing comedian, who decided to retire it that year" - Actually, I think it would be useful to explicitly state his age here.
  • It seems like the association with Mistinguett was very brief, which makes me question the inclusion of her picture.
    • She was the last person who he appeared with professionally, and became a great friend in later life. I think I'd rather have an image there than not, until a more pertinent one arises (which I am working on). -- CassiantoTalk 10:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The following March, they.." - New paragraph, so clarify "they".
  • Can we make clear exactly how long after the accident he had the stroke?
  • "He became mute" - Hmm, the problem with this is that people often "become mute" as a psychological, rather than physical, problem. "lost his speech", or something, would probably be better.
  • "The author Naomi Jacob thought" - Would be nice to add the year, ie "Writing in 1972, the author..." This shows that people still considered him important long after his death.
  • On that point, are there any other comments we could add about his status today? Any lasting legacy we could mention?
    • If the word "titchy" did indeed come from Mr Tich, we should definitely include that in the article. The more I think about it, the more I think it would be nice to have some sort of brief "Reception and legacy" section, which indicates the level of prominence and esteem he had during his lifetime (ie, where he ranked among the music hall bunch), what he was particularly known for (ie, the lead mentions what was so impressive about the big boot dance, but I don't actually think we have this info in the article) and includes any comments made about him in more recent years. This would round off the article very nicely and really give it another level, if you're able to whip something up? --Loeba (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I will work on this. -- CassiantoTalk 22:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have included an explanation around "titchy" in a footnote and the body and have spoken about the ironic contrasts between someone so small wearing boots that are so big. -- CassiantoTalk 15:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it's a bit of a shame for the "titchy" fact to be relegated to the end of a footnote, where few people will notice it. It's a pretty big deal that he managed to inspire a new, now common, word in the English language! Not many people can claim that. If it were me, I'd even include it in the lead. I do still think it would be really nice to have a concluding section that summarises his status and how he was received etc, but I guess it's not essential...you do get a sense of this if you read through the whole article (I'm just thinking of the people who won't be doing this, which is about 99.5% of browsers, heh). And I have to ask, why was the "Writing in 1974.." part removed from the Naomi Jacob quote? Like I said, that's a good way of clearly showing that he was still highly regarded long after his death, so I think it's useful. --Loeba (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have reinstated the mysterious deletion of "In 1974..." and added a brief mention of "Tichy" to the lead. I have also added "In November 1884 he changed his stage name for the third time to Little Tich, which derived from Tichborne, and "Tich" or "Tichy" became a common term meaning small" to the text in the relevant section. I will get round to the Legacy section (which can be found here in its early stages. --CassiantoTalk 04:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was always taught to put a comma after a date. Sometimes this is done (ie "By Christmas 1884, Little Tich) but more often it is not. Personally I much prefer this, but whatever happens I imagine the approach needs to be a consistent.
  • Some of the paragraphs are very big and a bit daunting...I suppose this largely comes down to stylistic/aesthetic preferences, but maybe play around with halving some of them.

Really great job though Cass, I'm sure I'll be supporting in due course! --Loeba (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking the time to supply this truly excellent review. -- CassiantoTalk 17:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Brianboulton

[edit]

Brief comment: I am reading this with interest, and will post further comments shortly. For the moment, can you clarify something that arises from the following sentence in the lead: "...he adopted the stage name "Little Tich", which he based on his childhood nickname of "Tichborne", owing to his diminutive stature and physical likeness to the suspected Tichborne Claimant Arthur Orton." The inference here is that he owed his childhood nickname of "Tichborne" partly to his small stature. In fact, according to my dictionaries the English word "tich" (more usually spelt "titch") for a short person derives from Little Tich himself, and only came into use after he rose to fame. I think this sentence needs revision. Incidentally, the Tichborne Claimant, as you will know from the excellent WP article on that case, was a huge man, the exact opposite of "tichy". Brianboulton (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Brian, thanks for dropping by. According to the authors of the source, "Tichbourne" was a common nickname at around the time of the famous case. The name was often given to those who were "overweight" or "rotund", similar to Fatty Arbuckle years later. When Little Tich appeared on the Kentish stage as a youth, and thanks to his fat build, audiences often shouted out "come on little Tichbourne" when he was about to come onto the stage, or indeed if he was on it and struggling with his act. For him the name stuck, even though by his mid-20s Little Tich had lost almost all of his excess puppy fat. The Tichbourne name then became ironic thanks to the giant stature of the more famous Mr Orton, compared to the diminutive one of LT. The name "Tichbourne" then became shortened to "Tich" (for ease I suspect) and the Tich name was then used to describe things (or persons) who were small. Would you be happy with this explanation to be included in a footnote, or in the main text somewhere? -- CassiantoTalk 17:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now added to a footnote, but can me moved if desired. -- CassiantoTalk 17:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am happier with the sentence you now have in the lead – but now that I re-read it, "owing to" is a problem. May I suggest you replace this with "acquired through", so that the sentence reads: "Later that year, he adopted the stage name "Little Tich", which he based on his childhood nickname of "Tichborne"—acquired through his portly stature and physical likeness to the suspected Tichborne Claimant Arthur Orton". It's still a bit clumsy, but at least it is grammatically sound.

Here is my first batch of comments:

Lead
  • Is it necessary to give examples of his comic characterisations twice in the lead, in the first and third paragraphs?
Family background and early life
  • It isn't necessary to mention twice in the first paragraph that LT was one of eight children, particulary with the added confusion that Richard had eight children by an earlier marriage. Try and find a way of simplifying this information.
  • The phrase "at the age of 60" is not really arresting enough to deserve enclosure in mdashes.
  • "differences to" → "differences from"
  • "he was noted for his academic abilities" - probably better to say that he displayed considerable academic ability. "noted" rather implies public recognition.
  • "These experiences prepared Little Tich for his future career and he, like his father, became a strict teetotaller in later years, showing a deep loathing for boisterous and intoxicated people." I don't think a simple "and" connector is appropriate here. Suggestion: full stop after "his future career", then "As a result of what he saw he, like his father..." etc
Move to Gravesend and early performances
Early London engagements
  • The assumed stage name should be in quotes
  • "and graduated to the open air theatre..." That sounds as though there was only one open air theatre; perhaps: "graduated to the world of open air theatre"?
  • Was he still an amateur when he "took up a residency at the Rosherville Pleasure Gardens", and joined the "blackface troupe"? Surely, "residency" implies a professional engagement?
  • Do we need the wiktionary link on "troupe"? It's hardly a rare term.
  • "He enjoyed the success at Barnard's": If audiences soon diminished, and LT's pay was more than halved, how was this a "success"?
  • "He despised the experience of provincial touring...." Strange choice of verb; it implies scorn and contempt, rather than dislike.
    • The source uses "hated" which is equally strong. It donates two pages in describing the awful conditions in which he lived. That said, he quite liked touring when he became a bigger name as the conditions improved somewhat (as you'd expect). I have clarified further by saying: "He despised his early experiences of provincial touring". -- CassiantoTalk 00:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We jump from 1881 to 1884 rather quickly. Was his life as described unchanged during that period of time?
  • I must say, appearing at hourly intervals in four different theatres not that close to each other – how on earth could he do it? (It would be quite impossible now)

More will follow Brianboulton (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next batch

  • First instalment done
American success
  • Close repeat of "burlesque version". And I think "he wowed audiences" is too informal a term for an encyclopedia
  • La Esmeralda": I would introduce this as "Louis Bertin's opera La Esmeralda, so that when, later, you refer to "the opera" readers will know what you're talking about.
  • "he wowed audiences" is too informal for an encyclopedia article
  • I think dogs get a "which" rather than a "whom"
  • "who secured him a two-year contract for a fee of $150 a week": they offered him the contract, they didn'y secure him the contract
    • I have kept this but added "on". It now reads: "Little Tich's success under Pastor brought him to the attention of the Chicago State Opera Company,[1] who secured him on a two-year contract for a fee of $150 a week." Is this ok? -- CassiantoTalk 00:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allowed to return home" and "He returned home..." are close together. The words "to London" are probably unnecessary.
Return to London and West End debut
  • "their praise was largely due to his success in America, which annoyed him greatly as he thought it hypocritical." There are problems here with the determiner "which" and the pronoun "it", which are too detached from their subject, "their praise". I suggest amending the whole sentence to something like: "This time, he found his English critics to be complimentary about his talent, but as their praise was largely due to his success in America, he considered them hypocritical."
    • I have adopted your version, but swapped "due to" (which I have on good authority that it is bordering AmEng) to "about". It now reads: "This time, he found his English critics to be complimentary about his talent, but as their praise was largely about his success in America, he considered them hypocritical." --CassiantoTalk 18:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the theatre manager Rollo Balmain..." What theatre did he manage? Also, the date information is a little vague; when, and where, was The Hunchback being staged?
    • Clarified to: "Following on from his success in Babes in the Wood which culminated in April 1890, the theatre manager Rollo Balmain cast him as Quasimodo in a production of The Hunchback of Notre-Dame at the Theatre Royal, Plymouth; the show featured a burlesque centrepiece which required Little Tich to dress as a ballerina. The show also gave the comedian the opportunity to perform two of his earliest songs, "Smiles" and "I Could Do, Could Do, Could Do with a Bit", both written for him by Walter Tilbury." I have also had a rejig so it all now sits chronologically. -- CassiantoTalk 00:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I imagine that the opening of the Tivoli music hall was a single event, not something that took place "During the later months of 1890..."
Life at Drury Lane
  • ambitious scripts? Odd adjective – meaning not clear
  • Clumsy phrasing: "The shows were frequently co-written by Harris, with main writing duties by Edward Blanchard up until his death in 1889." I suggest something like: "The main writer, until his death in 1889, was Edward Blanchard, with Harris often acting as co-writer".
  • "It was during the latter characterisation that he introduced his Big-Boot Dance..." I think "introduced" is the wrong word here, as he had done the dance years previously. Perhaps "revived".
    • Now swapped.

One final chunk to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. -- CassiantoTalk 00:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My final batch

New theatrical ventures and international engagements
  • "In the early months of 1891, Little Tich travelled to Germany with his London agent to complete a tour". Why not simply say that in the early months of 1891 he toured in Germany? To say he travelled to Germany to complete a tour is verbose, and I don't think it matters whether his agent was there or not.
  • I'd also say that the next sentence: "The German theatrical press identified him as being the first comedian to appear in two music halls a night" hardly deserves its place in the side.
  • Judging by the rest of the paragraph, it seems he made several further European trips in the next few years, though this is not explicit. Are there details of where he went, and when? The languages give a hint, but a clearer picture of his movements would be helpful
  • "In the early months of 1895, he moved from music hall to variety theatre, which many of his contemporaries had already successfully achieved": "which" is meant to refer to the move, but reads as referring to variety. You need a small insertion, e.g. "a transition" before "which", to resolve this.
  • The information about Lord Tom Noddy is confusingly presented, divided between two paragraphs. It would be better to begin the third paragraph with the formation of the theatre company that staged Lord Tom Noddy. You don't need "also" in "He also formed..." It's also not clear whether the September 1896 performance at the Garrick was the premiere, or the first London performance.
    • Shuffled about. The source does not say whether it was a premiere or not but did say it that it experienced little success. I have am ended this by saying: " Lord Tom Noddy was showcased in September 1896 and ran at the Garrick Theatre, London for two months. The production had minimal success in the capital but achieved well in the provinces." --CassiantoTalk 16:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you check your citations? The unattributed report of "bursts of laughter" etc is cited to an Edinburgh Evening News report. The next sentence attributes several comments to the EEN reporter but doesn't cite them. The only citation appears to relate to the William Archer comment.
  • You should make it clear that the "Olympia Music Hall" is in Paris (many readers will assume it's in London unless they use the link, which they may well not). That being so, what was "the American contract" that fell through?
    • Now made clearer. It appears this was old information I forgot to delete. The source gives the year "1901", but we are still talking about 1898. I very much doubt – now checked and confirmed – that a newspaper would be harping on about a three year-old story. I have copy edited this section and added a quote from the source. --CassiantoTalk 16:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You refer to the failure of Billy in London, but according to the previous paragraph the show didn't make it to London.
    • Nice spot. I was meant to say "Failure in reaching London". Now reads: "With Billy failing to reach London and the unequal level of success in the English capital compared to France made him shun the English variety theatre scene altogether in the final years of the century."
Marriage troubles
  • A more specific intro to the section is necessary, given the switch of topic. I suggest something along the lines: "In (date) Little Tich and Laurie established the family home in the rue Lafayette, Paris. During 1897, while Little Tich was away on a tour of England, Germany and Austria, Laurie eloped to Berlin with the French actor François Marty, leaving her husband responsible for their young son Paul. Unable to care for Paul..." etc
  • "In the later months of that year, Little Tich rented an additional house at 1 Teignmouth Road, Kilburn, with the sole purpose of escaping his mundane life with Julia." Is this "additional" to the Paris apartment, or did he already have a London house? Also, concerning Julia, I suggest: "escaping his life with Julia, which he was finding increasingly mundane".
    • Changed. He already had a house in London and France. I have simplified this by saying: "Little Tich rented another London property at 1 Teignmouth Road in Kilburn, to escape his life with Julia, which he was finding increasingly mundane.[2] Despite their troubles, he married Julia in a discreet London ceremony on 31 March 1904 at St Giles Register Office[3] and rented a further address at 44 Bedford Court Mansions." --CassiantoTalk 16:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1907 Little Tich travelled to South Africa, where he appeared in a successful, nine-week engagement for a fee of £500 a week." Are there no details – town? theatre?
  • As an example of a "glowing review", describing a performance as "up to date" seems rather cold and bloodless.
    • Changed to read: "Little Tich's performance was described by a reporter for the Evening Telegraph and Post as being "up to date" and declared the Serpentine Dance was "next to the Big-Boot Dance in popularity." --CassiantoTalk 18:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recording career and new family
  • Re the adoption: "The youngster moved in to the Relph residence in France..." Can you clarify the position between Tich and Julia at this time? Otherwise who was in Paris to look after the 11-year-old boy?
    • Their relationship was frosty, but tolerable. Julia always lived in London, whereas LT divided his time between France and the other address's in England. Effectively, they lived separate lives and she remained with him for the status and the money. To coin Mrs Merton: "What first attracted you to the wealthy, famous music hall star Little Tich..." Precisely that!
  • As a general rule, direct quotes should be reserved for the more arresting comments, or when it is required to record the source's precise words. In my view, commonplace cliches like ""nearly brought down the house" and "laugh[ed] so much that tears ran down their cheeks" don't qualify and would be better replaced by a brief paraphrase in your own words. (There could be other similar instances in the article)
    • I was worried about compromising the encyclopaedic prose by simply removing the quotes for this, so I have removed them and gone for two others. It now reads: "His performance was described by a theatre reviewer for the Evening Telegraph as being "downright genuine fun" and "very entertaining". Would you suggest the last is unquoted? --CassiantoTalk 18:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "without being recognised" – probably more accurately: "with less chance of being recognised" (his height would have been a problem)
Last years and death
  • "By 1920, relations between Little Tich and Latimer's parents had improved..." No previous indication that relations were poor.
  • "Annual income" rather than "annual wage". Would it be an idea to put these sums into perspective with a footnote giving the average UK wage in the early 1920s? It should be possible to find a source.
  • "the family took up residence in September 1925." Need to clarify what is meant by "the family"
  • Second paragraph: I am becoming increasingly confused about who was living where. From the previous paragraph I imagined that Tich was living in Shirehall Park with Latimer ("Immediately after moving in, Little Tich went on a successful tour of Europe..."). Now, we are told he "moved in with Latimer where he arranged his wife's funeral..." So can we sort the various addresses out?
  • The "actually" is not required.
  • Constance: you need to explain in the text that she was Paul's daughter, rather than requiring readers to use the footnote. Constance was 14 in 1925; that seems very young to be bought a house.
General points
  • Present-day equivalents: Maybe rather too many of these (together with the spurious accuracy of figures such as "£2,817,301")? Personally I'm dubious about the value of these calculated comparisons, which often give a rather distorted picture. There are vastly different spending patterns between nowadays and the pre-First World War era. Given the scale of his earnings (close to equivalent of £1 million a year around 1910, and similar sums post-war) I'm surprised that Tich wasn't a much richer man – even the £2000 he earned in 1926 would, on your figures, equate to a senior professional's salary today. How did he get rid of it all? A posh London flat in those days could be got for £100 or so a year. These are just observations: I'm not really asking that you do anything, except perhaps a bit of rounding, e.g. £2,817,301 becomes " around £2.8 million", etc.
    • Don't forget that Julia was a vast drain on his income. He rented three London properties and one in France for many years. Paul was also on the beg and borrow and he had to support Win and Mary too, as well as house them in Hendon. He was ripped off by Julia who stole money off him and she wasted the cash which she received from him legitimately. Would I be best in deleting these equivalents altogether?
    • Well, I see no other editor has objected to or commented on these figures. My view is that trying to represent incomes and expenditures of 100+ years ago in today's terms is never a straightforward business and often, I find, leads to sharp differences of opinion. You seem to have decided to get rid of most while leaving a few; that is, I think, a wise course of action. Brianboulton (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the footnotes are a bit excessive, e.g. in f/n 5, it's only necessary to say that the Tichborne affair was a famous legal case, and to leave the links to provide the details. These details are not relevant to a biographical article on Little Tich. I'd maybe look at some of the other footnotes, too, to see if there are further opportunities for slimming down.
    • I have trimmed some of this and will go through the rest tomorrow. --CassiantoTalk 18:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have deleted several now, mostly conversion templates, but some irrelevant information. I have left conversion templates at the start, middle and end of his career, just show how much he was earning at each stage in his career. If you would like me to delete further then I would be happy to. -- CassiantoTalk 04:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That concludes my review. Many of the points I've raised are trivial and easily fixed. A few others may require a little more thought. Please ping me when you are through with addressing them (preferably before Tuesday evening (15th) as I shall be away for a while thereafter. Brianboulton (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from GermanJoe

[edit]

After one more readthrough, i only have two additional, optional suggestions:

  • lead first para "He was also a popular performer in the annual Christmas pantomimes at London's Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, from 1888." => The intro is OK, but this sentence seems a bit disconnected, almost like an afterthought to the article start. Is it possible to replace this with something more "interesting" about his career or to add another notable detail about Drury Lane here? The fact itself is interesting of course, but not fully in the same league with the first 2 sentences, maybe the 3rd sentence can be made more captivating to read on.
    • How about: "Aside from his music hall appearances, he was also a popular performer in Christmas pantomime and appeared in them annually at theatres throughout the English provinces. He repeated this success in London, where he appeared in three pantomimes at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane between 1891–93 alongside Dan Leno and Marie Lloyd."? --CassiantoTalk 09:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Don't shoot me). After some more thinking you probably should replace Tich with "Findlater & Tich" in the references (the same goes for the single references to Holloway and Short respectively, list both co-authors). As discussed on talk, the "main" author is apparently Findlater and multi-author works should list all authors anyway imo (assuming both authors are listed as co-equals). "Find and replace" should make switching the references (relatively) easy. GermanJoe (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Rohmer, p. 48
  2. ^ Tich, p. 106
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Tich102 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Little_Tich/archive1&oldid=1151014426"