Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Little Tich/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, 19 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Little Tich[edit]

Featured article candidates/Little Tich/archive1

Nominator(s): Cassianto ^Talk 16:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The music hall comedian Little Tich was as well known for his music hall acts as he was for his physical disabilities. He used these "peculiarities" as an enhancement to his act which included his acrobatic and comedic "Big-Boot Dance" for which he wore boots with twenty-eight inch soles. He also created many comic characters including The Spanish Señora, The Gendarme and The Tax Collector, and was a popular performer in the annual Christmas pantomimes which were held at London's Theatre Royal, Drury Lane from 1888. I have worked on this for the last couple of months, and with peer review now archived, I think it is now ready for FA consideration. I hope you enjoy my efforts in trying to explain the complex life of the English music hall's biggest but smallest star. – Cassianto ^Talk 16:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I participated in the peer review (and – full disclosure – provided one image) and had my few comments satisfactorily dealt with. This is a fine article, fully matching all the FA criteria in my view. Once again Wikipedia knocks spots off the online competition: the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography gives Little Tich just over 1,000 words. This comprehensive Wikipedia article at 8,500 words – all of them to the point, balanced and well sourced – shows how it should be done. Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I was a fellow traveller from PR, where it was an absolute delight to read such a fine article. A subsequent read-through shows it has been strengthened even further since then, and I have no hesitation in giving my support to such a fine article. - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks chaps! Your comments at PR were fantastic and have helped a great deal. -- Cassianto ^Talk 19:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For clarity, where the reference is made to his blackface performances in his early career, perhaps this should be changed to say "It was here that he discovered the art of blackface, a type of entertainment widely performed around the British Isles at that time". I'm pretty sure that blackface is not widely practised in Britain these days! RomanSpa (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perish the thought! Now added thanks for that. -- Cassianto ^Talk 23:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco comments[edit]

Prose comments moved to talk

Support on prose and images (see below). Solid article. Easy for even me to follow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Nikkimaria[edit]

Spotchecks not done

Why include both authors for Holloway but not Short or Tich? And why the different ordering in Sources?
- Holloway only now given. In hindsight, I wish I had of gone for both authors with Tich! Oh well, consistency is the name of the game I suppose so I opted for the easier fix. Secondly, you may have to elaborate with the "ordering in Sources" as I am clearly to stupid to work this one out for myself. -- Cassianto ^Talk 18:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, compare "Holloway, Stanley; Richards, Dick" (last name first for both) with "Tich, Mary; Richard Findlater" (last name first then first name first). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah ok, done. Thanks for the review! -- Cassianto ^Talk 18:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Gillies publisher laid out like that, or is there a missing space? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What a meticulous eye you have! Done. -- Cassianto ^Talk 18:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Crisco 1492[edit]

~~File:Little Tich, 1893.jpg - When did Sharp die?~~

It's actually an "E." Sharp (image is a bit fuzzy) and could be father or son of the same name. Father died 1934, son in 1939. Added details to summary. GermanJoe (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Little Tich blue plaque, Cudham.jpg - That's really, really small. Do you have a larger version?
- I did have, but it has since found its way into my recycle bin after the upload. I was never really happy with this image and I intend to take better (I live thirty miles away from Cudham). -- Cassianto ^Talk 18:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Little Tich Sketch.jpg - Should clarify in the description that Harry Relph = Little Tich
- Fixed. -- Cassianto ^Talk 16:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Rosherville Gardens in Kent.jpg - Do you have proof of prior publication?
- As this is a piece of art from 1841, could I use an art tag on this? -- Cassianto ^Talk 16:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - After some more research, Harwood is "John & Frederick Harwood", a well-known (in 1841) producer and publisher of engravings (see f.e. http://www.ashrare.com/hastings_prints.html). Added some info to image summary and a PD-art tag. Admittedly i am only going by evidence here (after more than 160 years), but it's pretty unlikely, that professional engravers wouldn't sell their work. Per US copyright this would be a valid "publication". GermanJoe (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Little Tich blackface.jpg - Was this previously published?
- It may have been, but I can find no record. -- Cassianto ^Talk 16:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then (at the very least) the templates are likely wrong. First, the date needs to be fixed (certainly not 2013!). Then the template could possibly be commons:Template:PD-US-unpublished, which does not rely on a date of publication. If published (with a source) we can stick with the templates you already have. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now updated. -- Cassianto ^Talk 22:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Little Tich on stage.jpg - Who did the colour? That could have drawn a new copyright (and most certainly would have in the UK)
- Swapped for this File:Little Tich in Paris.jpg. ~~Sorry, it's not great in quality but it's the closest I could get to the colour version. -- Cassianto ^Talk 16:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - Found better and uploaded. -- Cassianto ^Talk 18:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~File:Little Tich in The Serpentine Dance.jpg - Sharp's death again~~

Information added, see above. GermanJoe (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~File:Leno, Danvers and Campbell.jpg - Proof of publication?~~

See NPG source info (noted as published). "Rotary Photographic Co Ltd" is a postcard company. GermanJoe (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Odd shape for a postcard, but the source does say it was published. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~File:Little Tich and his Big Boots - 1900.ogv~~ - Who did the sound? That most definitely can have it's own copyright. I don't doubt the video is free, but the sound is a question. Cameras from 1900 didn't have the ability yet.

Looking into this - probably easiest to rip the sound from the video and have it silent. The AFI lists the film as silent, so reverting our version back to silent is OK. - SchroCat (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can do it, if you need any help. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything but the video looks taken care of. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Images are okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loeba comments[edit]

Prose comments moved to talk

Support Thanks for acting on my comments, you've done a great job and this deserves to be a featured article. --Loeba (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great news. A wonderful review as always, and I am glad my responses have satisfied you enough in order to gain your support. -- Cassianto ^Talk 04:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, appears to have already had a very thorough going over. Loeba brings up some great points but I'm sure they'll be swiftly sorted. Excellent job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Doc. -- Cassianto ^Talk 17:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments[edit]

Prose comments moved to talk

Support: My issues have been dealt with appropriately and with sensible good humour. Happy to support for FA. Brianboulton (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your invested time Brian. As always, I thoroughly enjoyed responding to your comments and to have your support is much appreciated. -- Cassianto ^Talk 04:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I commented at some length at the PR, and have seen nothing but improvements here. I am happy to support, presuming that all Brianboulton's comments are addressed. Nice work, as usual. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sarastro for your excellent comments at the PR. These have helped improve the article no end. -- Cassianto ^Talk 04:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GermanJoe comments[edit]

Prose comments moved to talk

Support: Having commented during the very constructive PR, the article has been improved even more and is another great read about music hall comedy. Prose, structure, images and sources are well within FA-guidelines. GermanJoe (talk) 09:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help at PR and your continued support during this FAC Joe. -- Cassianto ^Talk 04:24, 15 October 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) 12:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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