Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/John Le Mesurier on stage, radio, screen and record/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 00:09, 26 January 2013 [1].

John Le Mesurier on stage, radio, screen and record[edit]

John Le Mesurier on stage, radio, screen and record (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC) and CassiantoTalk 10:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With appearances in over 100 films, plus an extensive stage and television repertoire, John Le Mesurier was a tireless character actor who appeared in some of the most well-known films of the twentieth century, but is perhaps best known for his portrayal of Arthur Wilson in the BBC television comedy Dad's Army. This record of his professional work has recently been split away from the main "Le Mez" page as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. Aside from that, we are now nominating this for featured list status because we believe that it now satisfies the criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments just a few quick ones, I hate to see nominations without any comments...
  • Check for Peter Sellers copy-and-paste errors....(!)
  • Lead image caption, very rare to see it centrally aligned. (But a perfect photo...)
  • But not disallowed right? Not to sure about FLC, but for FA I have done it with all of my FAC's which have passed without so much as a mention. -- CassiantoTalk 22:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check WP:YEAR e.g. 1912–1983 should be 1912–83...
  • I have chose to use the full date of birth as it is more precise. -- CassiantoTalk 22:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can that be more precise? He's unlikely to have lived until 2083 is he?! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precise inasmuch that the full dates are there. It was not an attempt to clarify that he was 71 and not 171 years old, obviously. Aesthetically, it is better IMO and, who knows, it may prevent someone clicking off to the main article to find an *exact* date when they could stay here to find out that information should the wish to know it. Would you prefer the year range version?
  • Well, full dates weren't there, but now they are, leave them as is. Looks better. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He is best remembered for his role" reference or just your opinion?
  • Link BBC first time in the lead.
  • Palladium Theatre (Edinburgh) isn't even mentioned in our dab page, perhaps that needs updating.
  • Link "captain" appropriately.
  • You explain what BAFTA means two paras after using it. Seems arse about face to me.
  • Removed the first reference to it: it was too cumbersome to expain it fully in the opening sentance, so the full info is now the first one. - SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of blank cells for "Role"... why?
  • Because the sources don't provide details. The main source, plus Le Mez's autobiography plus an extensve media search didn't fill in the blanks at all. - SchroCat (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be nice to have tables with same column widths rom section to section where same/similar headings apply.
  • Done where appropriate: there is some difference between the 4 and 5 column tables, but these should now be more uniform - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure you need his own valedictory jammed in the discog section.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did test putting under the lede image but it looked too info boxey and repetitive with the last paragraph. SchroCat is likeminded with its deletion. -- CassiantoTalk 23:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well since you've mentioned it in the text anyway, I'm not sure it's required. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all keen on references being attached to the table captions, but I suppose without introductory paras for each section, you have little choice........
  • Would small introductions be more preferable? -- CassiantoTalk 22:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a personal preference, yes. But I'm just one reviewer. I think it's always better to introduce sections rather than just have table after table.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this. We will draught some things up. -- CassiantoTalk 23:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you also be happy if they appeared at the top of the first column title (as we did with Sellers)? - SchroCat (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great: now changed as above. (I don't know why io varied from the Sellers format for that - seems a bit obvious in hindsight!) Cheers RM, and thanks for your always-appreciated thoughts. - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 17:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Shouldn't the dates be sorted chronologically?
  • You could centre his name in the picture's caption
  • See above for the previous reviewer's comments not to centre it. - SchroCat (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an odd error next to "Don't Bother to Knock"
  • In the discography section, shouldn't "Warner Bros." link to "Warner Bros. Records"?
  • "Dr." or "Dr"?
  • Likewise "Mr." und "Mr", or was it made intentionally?--Tomcat (7) 00:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Dr & Mr are written correctly in British English in not carrying the full stop. Where the films or the roles are shown in the sources in the American form we have followed them. (Thus the film Mr. Topaze carries the full stop because that's how it was released). - SchroCat (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--Tomcat (7) 17:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks Tomcat - your thoughts and support are much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes thanks a lot for the great review. -- CassiantoTalk 18:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)
Comments from Crisco 1492
  • Image's current FUR is inadequate. This is not "at the top of his/her biographical article". I question the need for an image at all, to be honest, if we don't have a free one (I didn't use one at Chrisye discography or List of songs recorded by Chrisye, for instance)
  • "light entertainment" - The article light entertainment gives a very different definition. Double check which is correct.
  • It's an awful and uncited article. I'll try and get a good back up for this one, or at least drop a better definition into the other article. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See this academic study for a more appropriate definition of LE. (Just by way of background, the definition is vague and originally covered what came under the BBC Light Entertainment department, which seems to have covered most things! It has since broadened into general use). - SchroCat (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And sadly I can't view it. It appears common enough in British English, so no problems here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including film, radio and theatre. Le Mesurier's career on stage, radio, film, television and record ..." - Repetition much?
  • Certainly is: I've trimmed accordingly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Marvellous History of St Bernard" - Marvelous... but can you tell us anything about the production? Stage drama or TV show? Who's the author?
  • Citation needed tags.
  • "... in over 100 films, all of which were in supporting roles;" - The films were in supporting roles? I've offered an alternative
  • That's a lot of info about his death when it has very little to do with his career. Perhaps instead of that you could offer us some of his best-received works.
  • Being a supporting player most of the time, he didn't come to the attention of the critics most of the time (not really with anything workable for the lead). I could offer some of their words that appeared in his various obituaries, around his style of acting and place in cinema. Would that suit? - SchroCat (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be much more appropriate, I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-worked final para in lead to bring out Le Mez's approach to acting, and how he was viewed by critics on his death, while still covering basic details of death. Please feel free to ce if you think it's too much. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • References look fine to me (no action required) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for your thoughts Crisco - it's much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great news to hear of your support. Your review has been much appreciated as always! -- CassiantoTalk 18:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Seems to be on a par with the Sellers list, nice work. Just have a few comments:
  • The first sentence of the second paragraph mentions twice that Le Mesurier portrayed Seigneur de Miolans – I'd get rid of the second mention.
  • I'd put colons after "saying" and "were", then move the full stops inside the quotation marks.
  • An Inspector Calls needs to sort under I, and The Hanging Judge needs to sort under H.
  • "Dad's Army Special," or "Dad's Army, Special"? The former makes more sense to me, personally.
  • "Got To Go" -> "Got to Go"
  • Much as I hope I'm wrong, I'm assuming that that's a typo next to "Series 9"?
    • Thanks for the horrible image that is now seared on my mind! ;) Thanksfully six is now in place - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, it all looks good. Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: HMV's Poll of Polls. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • A thousand thanks, a thousand doors. I'll pop over to HMV shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been a bit vacant on this for which I am sorry. Too many tasks, not enough time in the day. Thanks for your review Thousand Doors, your support here is much appreciated. -- CassiantoTalk 18:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth wikilinking "light entertainment". It might also be worth linking "wartime service" to something, although I can't offhand think what an entirely appropriate target would be. Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II, maybe?
    • Done the first - I'll have a hunt to see if there's a better page for the second, but use your suggestion if not. - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • On second thoughts, ignore my suggestion – I don't think that link would work well at all. Perhaps just linking "wartime" to World War II would be sufficient.
  • WP:ISBN suggests using the 13-digit ISBNs, which, for A Jobbing Actor, would be 978-0-241-11063-8.
  • "Fifty Years Of Hancock" -> "Fifty Years of Hancock"
  • Any particular reason why Quinlan's illustrated directory of film character actors uses sentence case rather than title case?
    • Only my inattention to detail! Now sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support No other issues that I can see. Obviously some images would be nice, but if there are no suitable free images available then there's not much that you can really do. Nice work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's great: Many thanks indeed! I's also love to see some images there, but the relevant ones aren't free and the free ones aren't relevant, sadly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't like how the paragraphs are organized, but that's me being nitpicky. And by the way, why a picture of John Le Mesurier (Like this one) is not used? it can be of great value to have a picture of him there. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 19:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That picture is being used under fair use and it wouldn't apply to this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Fair enough. — ΛΧΣ21 20:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your support. I'd love to have that pic on the page - and a few others dotted throughout, but without supporting text to discuss etc, it doesn't get over the threshold of fair use. Unfortunately Le Mez is in that time period where his works are all still well within copyright, but before people took decent pics on cameras or phones at premieres, or in the street etc. I've left a begging note with Allan warren to see if he has anything, but unless something crops up later it'll be an image-free zone unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 22 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/John_Le_Mesurier_on_stage,_radio,_screen_and_record/archive1&oldid=1079643746"