Talk:Stanley Holloway/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 22:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

I've now done a very quick read through of the article, but I've not checked any of the citations. On this basis, the article appears to be at or about GA-standard: it appears to be well referenced. I'm now going to work my way through the article in more detail.

I'll be going through the article, at this section, section by section but leaving the WP:Lead until last. This should take a day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I was wrong about the "Day or so" bit. I'll try and do this weekend. Pyrotec (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

At this stage of the review, I'm only highlighting "problems", so if I don't have much to say on a particular section/subsection then that means that I regard it as being OK.

Overall, at this stage of the review, this appears to be a well referenced article, but I think that the ancestry citations are a bit too vague & possibly the results have been misunderstood. Pyrotec (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Life and career -
  • Family background and early life -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC) -

(If you need help on the following please ask. If you don't ask, I'll just assume that you know what you (collectively) are doing.) Pyrotec (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• A number of comments below refer to the ancestry.co.uk: firstly its a subscription only site (for the detail), there are two other uses of subscription only sites and they are marked as such i.e. (subscription only) so for consistency the Refs using ancestry.co.uk should also be marked (subscription only); secondly, its not clear what you are using that site for, but if its BMDs the information is available without a subscription/registration at FreeBMD, so why not use it instead?
• The link in citation 5 takes me to a subscription only site (www.ancestry.co.uk) with 7,288 "hits", so as given it hardly verifies anything at all. I don't have a subscription so I can't use that pay site to check the details; however, there could be a possible "match" on The England & Wales National Probate Calender, and if so that would provide the date of death and the place of death (exact place in many cases)(the article only gives a year of death). Alternatively, the GRO Indices (see comment below) give the Registration District, year and quarter in which he died - probably this one: Deaths Dec 1884 HOLLOWAY, Augustus, 55, Poplar 1c, 392.
• The link in citation 7 takes me to a subscription only site (www.ancestry.co.uk) with 17,767 "hits", so as given it hardly verifies anything at all. I don't have a subscription so I can't use that pay site to check. However that is likely to take me to the GRO Indices and I can check his birth, marriage, death and birth of all his children for free at FreeBMD (at [1]) (provided that the records have been transcribed): I think the marriage is to Amelia Catherine Knight, in Poole Registration District, between 1st July & 30th September 1856 (see [2])
• I also checked the claim supported by ref 9, which gives "61,622" hits, but using FreeBMD - I assume that its this one for Millie (actually Amelia Florence Holloway) W.Ham, 4a, 93 ([3]). If it is, the the record is not saying that she was born in December 1887: what is is actually saying is that the birth was registered in Quarter 4 of 1887, which finished on 31 December 1887. The birth should have been registered within 42 days and registration took place sometime between 1st October and 31 December 1887.
• I've also found Stanley Augustus Holloway - birth registered West Ham 4a, 172 (between 1 Oct & 31 Dec 1890) (here [4])

... stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC) Note: The above comments have been updated. Pyrotec (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Early career and First World War

• This subsection looks OK.

• • Inter-war years -

• YY Pyrotec (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC) - Ref 44 & 45 used in nb_7 link to citations based on the use of IMDB. There is much discussion as to whether IMDB is a reliable source, or not. As this is a Note: I'm not going to pursue this line.

• Would it help to add this ref?: http://www.britishpictures.com/stars/Holloway.htm or this one?: http://live2.radiotimes.com/servlet_film/com.icl.beeb.rtfilms.client.simpleSearchServlet?frn=5009&searchTypeSelect=5 -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've dug out some replacement refs from The Guardian archives, and will add. Tim riley (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Now done. Tim riley (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• • World War II and post-war -

• This subsection looks OK.

• • 1950s and 1960s stage and screen -

• YY Pyrotec (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC) - Ref 67, 68 & 69 link to citations based on the use of IMDB. There is much discussion as to whether IMDB is a reliable source, or not: I think that it is now not regarded as being a WP:RS.

• Again, would it help to add this ref?: http://www.britishpictures.com/stars/Holloway.htm -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have found Guardian refs for 67 and 68, but can't find anything about the Poppins offer. Will add the other two. Tim riley (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Now done. Tim riley (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

... stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Last years -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) - ref 75 is our "old friend" IMDB.

• Does this help?: http://www.britishpictures.com/stars/Holloway.htm -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Personal life -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC) - OK, well there is an IMDB ref.

• Same. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have a Guardian ref for the film, and a separate one for Ms Dahl's lineage. Will add pronto. Tim riley (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Now done. Tim riley (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Honours, memorials and books -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC) - ref 75 is our "old friend" IMDB

• Same. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've got a printed ref for this and will add. Tim riley (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Now done. Tim riley (talk) 09:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Stage shows , Film and television appearances & Recordings -

At GA, these three sections are OK, but if this article were to go to WP:FAC (see below), they are completely unreferenced.

• Can we at least add a couple of refs to the Recordings section? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• At the end when I award GA I'm going to state that I believe that this article has the potential to progress to WP:FAC, but the week point is likely to be referencing and WP:RS. I'm not reviewing against WP:FAC. Pyrotec (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• WP:Lead -

• This is intended to both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points. As such, it appears to do both of these: I'd probably suggest a slightly longer lead, but I'm not going to insist.

Pyrotec (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

At this point, I can concerns over the verifiability of some of the claims, mostly those using www.ancestory.co.uk - 7,000 or 17,000 "hits" on a subscription only site that prevents the indexes from being viewed without a subscription is hardly verification (I'm willing to help here provided it does not comprise the review) and IMDB seems to be a problem. These should be fixable in a day or so (possibly much less), so I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Response to common questions above. I tend to avoid reviewing films, etc, GANs but this one caught my eye, so I'm not too sure about what are regarded as reliable sources for films other than IMDB is regarded as being questionable. I guess that if you are claiming that Stanley was in a film called "Rain in Brighton" made in 1952, you need to show that a film of that name was made and/or shown in 1952 and Stanley was in it, it might also be claimed that he played that part of Joe Brown. I regard BFI as a reliable source, as is the National Biography; but I don't know about www.britishpictures.com. A contemporary review from a newspaper or specialist magazine would be reliable: I don't know whether The Radio Times has been digitised, The Times has, my public library membership gives me free access. I believe The Telegraph is on-line but it is subscription only. The British Library has digitised some national and local 19th century newspapers, a subscription-only site, but I've not raised any non-compliances for that time period. Pyrotec (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The Radio Times", alas, is not digitised. The Guardian and Observer archives are, and I find them invaluable. I haven't run across the Telegraph archive. I don't think the British Library subscribes, at any rate. Tim riley (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. I've not tried the Guardian and Observer archives yet: only Times & London Gazette (free). The British Library and (Bright-"something") the owners of "FindMyPast" are starting a big 10 year digitisation programme for newspapers and specialist journals, but I think that will be also limited to 19th century (i.e. pre-1900) publications. Pyrotec (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected all ancestry refs on SH as per GA review, swapping from Ancestry.co.uk to FreeBMD. All points raised by Pyrotec, I think, have now been fixed for that section. A point was raised by Pyrotec regarding Augustus' wife being called "Knight" prior to marriage. I have rechecked the ancestry info via my subscription at Ancestory.co.uk and it appears that this is correct. This, I have found, is a typo on my part for which I apologise. Amelia Hicks was the maiden name of Augustus mother who died of TB when Augustus was very young. His father was already deceased. I have not added this to the article as this really is not relevant and is deviating somewhat from the subject. Cassianto (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A generally well reference, well illustrated and comprehensive article on Stanley Holloway

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

In the light of the corrective actions completed, I'm pleased to be able to award this article GA-status. I think that this article, in due course, could make WP:FAC, but not without citations for the Stage shows and Film and television appearance sections. It would also suggest that a second opinion, or WP:PR to obtained in respect of my views on Reliable Sources for films and television appearances before moving towards a WP:FAC nomination.

Congratulations on producing an informative article and on gaining GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful comments, Pyrotec! Congratulations, Cassianto! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)