Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/It's That Man Again/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 via FACBot (talk) 21 July 2022 [1].

It's That Man Again edit

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 14:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some while ago, together with a cherished and respected but now-retired colleague, I brought a celebrated BBC radio comedy series – Round the Horne – to FAC, where, I am pleased to say, it was successful. Before my collaborator retired we worked together on the article of an earlier BBC radio show, ITMA, which was a much-loved feature of British life during the Second World War, and did quite a bit to keep people's morale up during the darker years of the war. Looking at it again I think the article is of similar thoroughness and readability to our earlier effort, and I present it for FAC. Tim riley talk 14:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

Only a few quibbles thus far:

  • "government departments and the ostensibly petty wartime regulations" it's a bit jarring to recognise exact phrasings from the lead in the body.
  • "Foster and Furst observe that averages a laugh every eleven seconds" Do we need inline attribution for mathematics?
  • "Worsley began experimenting with the size of the audience to see which worked best" I'm sure it's an EngVar thing, but I would say "what" for "which".
  • Yes, EngVar: "what" would seem odd here to my eye. It's "which size" rather than "what audience" we are emphasising. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The premise of the show changed again with Handley now dismissed as the mayor of Foaming-in-the-Mouth, and now the manager of a munitions factory." Are both "now"s necessary?
  • "Before the sixth series began recording, a film version It's That Man Again was released." should there be an "of" after "version"?
  • I've put in a pair of commas, making the title non-restrictive, rather than restrictive, which I think clarifies the point. Alternatively we could make it "also called It's That Man Again" but the blue link might then look a bit odd to the casual reader. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Handley's health was beginning to decline by the end of the 38-week series, and it was suggested that series 12 was delayed." Again likely engvar but I would conclude "be delayed".
  • It is indeed an EngVar thing, and in my younger days we thought the subjunctive was dying out in such constructions. But now, rather to my regret, it seems to be making a comeback, no doubt under the influence of American English. Nonetheless "suggested that series 12 be delayed" strikes an inappropriately ultra-formal note here, to my ear. I have made it "suggested that series 12 should be delayed".
Remainder soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All excellent so far; looking forward to the rest at your leisure. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A prototype of the character appeared in the third series:" perhaps "unnamed" before "prototype"?
  • I might move up the wiktionary definition of twerp to the first referent of Handley's office.
  • "The phrase "It's That Man Again" was originally used by members of the American Republican Party when referring to President Franklin D. Roosevelt as he introduced another element of the New Deal," the source no doubt says what it says but FDR was more likely to be called "That Man in the White House". (probably no action required)
  • I'll follow this up and tweak the note if the sources allow. Thank you for the pointer. Tim riley talk 20:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. There's so little that I'll Support now. I'm glad to have made my acquaintance with this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wehwalt, for your support and helpful comments. I'm so pleased you enjoyed making the acquaintance of ITMA. My collaborator and I certainly enjoyed researching it and writing it up. TTFN. Tim riley talk 20:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild edit

Recusing to review. It looks as if you and you retiring collaborator had fun.

  • "around whom all the other characters orbited." Is the "all" necessary?
  • Strictly no, I admit, but I feel the "all" emphasises Handley's centrality with everyone else revolving round him. I'll remove the "all" if you insist, but I'd rather keep it. Tim riley talk 17:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't insist. I merely pose the question.
  • "Parts of the shows were re-written in the hour before the broadcast, to ensure its topicality." "shows" → 'show'. (Or "its" → their".)
  • The singular pronoun relates to "broadcast"; the syntax stands up and I think I'm happy with the wording, but if you press the point we could go full-on plural: "Parts of the shows were re-written in the hour before the broadcast, to ensure their topicality" (or perhaps, though I don't think it flows well, just "to ensure topicality".)
It reads a little oddly to me, but if you are content with it after further consideration, then fine.
On further pondering I think just "to ensure topicality" is probably the best phrasing. Thanks for this point. Tim riley talk 18:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Parts of the shows were re-written in the hour before the broadcast, to ensure its topicality. The show broke away from the conventions of previous radio comedies, and from the humour of the music halls. The shows used numerous sound effects in a novel manner, which, alongside a wide range of voices and accents, created the programme's atmosphere. The show presented more than". "... the shows ... The show ... The shows ... The show ..."
  • Good point. Duly tweaked. (The show must go on, but not necessarily on and on.)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it, and thank you for what we have so far. Tim riley talk 17:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was recorded at the Criterion". Is it known where the Criterion was located?
  • Well, yes: at Piccadilly Circus, as we say in the text.
  • "but the show failed". In what way?
  • Worsley's phrase (p. 45) was "a near-'flop' ... it simply did not come off". He doesn't enlarge on the reasons. Should we perhaps say "the show was not well received", do you think? Tim riley talk 19:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind that would be much better.
Done. Tim riley talk 21:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sources - Books: I don't think Gaye (1967) is cited to.

Priceless. Such a gem of an article that I shall IAR a couple of MoS points. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gog, for your review and kind comment. It's so pleasing when other editors give the thumbs-up to an article one has worked on and is fond of. Just wondering if in your current FAC for the Second Punic War you can find room for a mention of Radio Cunctator's show Hic Est Homo Iterum? Tim riley talk 21:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Absolutely! Done. Can't think how I came to omit it. Tim riley talk 06:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like IWM linking has changed - all images except File:Sam_Costa_2_radio_personality121.jpg include a dead first source link
  • So it does. Thank goodness the second source links are all fine. Should I delete the first links in the Commons pages of all those images?
  • Would suggest doing so if they are not needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sam_Costa_2_radio_personality121.jpg has a warning template - is there any evidence to support that the image was released by the copyright holder under the given license? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the absence of further information, would suggest so. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (as ever), Nikkimaria. Where would FAC be without your indefatigable image reviewing! We are in your debt. I'll follow your advice on both outstanding points. Tim riley talk 12:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC) Afterthought: if I may further impose on you, may I ask for your thoughts on the sizing of the three images remaining in the article? I'd rather like to make them a bit bigger, but I don't want to overdo it, and your comments would be most welcome. Tim riley talk 12:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could go up to 1.3 or even 1.4 on the images in the body; for the lead image suggest switching over to upright scaling instead of using fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, with grateful thanks for the steer. Tim riley talk 18:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose edit

Looks good. I might not have much in the way of comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC) Broadcasts[reply]

  • "The writer and comedian Barry Took writes..." - shouldn't this be "The writer and comedian Barry Took wrote..."?
  • This construction is of long standing and widely used. It's a variant of the historic present, so that even with long-dead writers we might say, e.g. "In Hamlet, Shakespeare makes extensive use of the soliloquy". You'll find it in the standard style guide, Modern English Usage: "Meredith writes…", "Swift writes…", "Stevenson writes…" and so on. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leading characters

  • "Some of the best known are described below, in order of first appearance in the show." - not directly sourced. How do we know that they are some of the best-known, and, for example, that Cecil and Claude did not appear before The Diver?
  • We're following the main sources here: these are the ones particularly mentioned in Foster and Furst, Kavanagh, Took, and Gifford. Citations added after the end of the introductory para of the section. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catchphrases

  • "These are among the best known of the catchphrases from the show. Some became common currency among the general public for many years; others were more ephemeral." - not supported by the cited source, as far as I can see.
  • I've added an additional citation to confirm the statement. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It's being so cheerful that keeps me going" also remains in use, seen in British newspapers more than 100 times in the first two decades of the 21st century." - isn't this WP:OR?
  • I only get 70 results since 1990 for "It's being so cheerful that keeps me going", which includes some duplicates. I think you used a different search term, or perhaps the sources indexed vary depending on who the NewsBank provider is. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha! You have the advantage of me here, as my access to Newsbank went phut not long after we wrote the present text. 100 was right enough then, but from what you say, perhaps we should change "more than 100 times" to "on numerous occasions"? Tim riley talk 12:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think that proposed wording is safer. I had a quick look in the British Newspaper Archive, which has limitations of scope (e.g. very few national papers) and often-appallling OCR transcriptions, and found only 38 instances since 1950. By coincidence, PressReader also gave me 38 results, all since 2008. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation

  • "In the show's early days critical response was not enthusiastic." - this seems to be based only on a single review.
  • Redrawn. Took (p. 26) quotes other less than laudatory reviews, but I don't want to overload our text with quotations, and have footnoted one example of them. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox & Lead

  • "more than seventy regular characters" - I make the count of Leading characters and Other characters mentioned less than 70.
  • I've just run through them again, adding the "regular roles" in the Performers table to those listed in Leading Character and I make the count very nearly 100. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "half-hour show"/"30 minutes" doesn't seem to be explicitly cited in the body, although there is "... between 8.30 and 9 p.m. on a Thursday night..."
  • No harm in spelling out the duration in the main text: done. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whats the support for "305, plus 5 specials"
  • Took, p. 29 and Foster and & Furst p. 27 (total) and pp. 28–39 (stats per series). I've added this in the main text, avoiding having citations in the i-box, which I think looks clunky.

Sources

  • "Eric Egan". British Film Institute seems to be unused.
  • Indeed. An editor added some excellent information about Egan in November 2021, and removed my somewhat despairing statement "he is not mentioned in Who's Who in the Theatre or on the British Film Institute's website", but he/she omitted to remove either Who's Who or the BFI site from the sources. Both now removed. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could see for now, Tim riley. I enjoyed reading the article, thank you. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BennyOnTheLoose, Thank you very much for these really excellent points. I think I've attended to them all – satisfactorily, I hope. And I'm so glad you enjoyed the article. – Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. TTFN. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, BennyOnTheLoose for your suggestions and your support. The article is decidedly improved and I'm most grateful. Tim riley talk 17:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment edit

I'll try to do a full review in due course, but one thing that jumped out at me is that in the "catchphrases" section, there is absolutely no reason to have a full stop after each character's name in the second column...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By a curious coincidence the same thought struck me earlier this morning when looking again at the article. I blush to say I thought "Oh, the Hell with it!", but your comment has spurred me to action. Thank you, and I hope to see further suggestions if you have time. Tim riley talk 12:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda edit

Thank you for the detailed article about a subject I know nothing about. Curious. I'll write as I read, leaving the lead for last. At the moment I could only say that it works well as an introduction, but not if a good mirror of the article. I insert comments hear, to leave Tense to general attention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tense I didn't know the guideline, and it makes no sense to me. It reads like recommending: "ABC is a comedian who lived from then to then." Why not indicate by the tense that we talk about something that doesn't exist anymore. It's not like a book, read again, or a sonata, played again.

For a show from a later decade, Round the Horne, we used the customary formula - the present tense - which seemed sensible for a programme of which every show is preserved on record and is frequently re-broadcast even now, but for ITMA, of which only a few shows survive and even they are seldom heard, I agree with you that the past tense is more helpful to the reader. The discussion on this point is inconclusive, I think, and unless there is a further drive to use the present tense I'll leave it as it is. Tim riley talk 13:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • I wonder why Bristol and Manchester are not linked.

TOC

  • brief and efficient

Background

  • I'd have a comma after London, but am never sure about UK commas (nor others). Actually, instead, I'd probably say "in London".
    • "in" would be equally idiomatic, but the comma is fine. Tim riley talk 13:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ministry of Universal Gratification" tells me nothing, - does that matter?
    • It is what it is, I think. We shouldn't get into OR glossing it. Tim riley talk 13:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it might help to add when (which year) the phrase was used for Hitler in the English press.
    • The book sources don't, as far as I can find, give a firm date beyond "the late 1930s" (Rees). I'll add it to my to-do list for my next trip to the British Library where I can search the press archive. Tim riley talk 13:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Format

  • "... their own catchphrase or phrases. The catchphrases ..." - I'm sure that can be said with less repetition.
    • we could compress it to "their own catchphrase(s)" but I think that construction a touch informal (and in my view a bit clunky) for an encyclopaedia article. Tim riley talk 13:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S 2

  • "The writer and comedian Barry Took writes ..." - another repetition, and how about past tense for this also?
    • I don't see a repetition - am I overlooking something? The use of the present tense for reporting an author's words is a long-standing convention, vouched for by Fowler. Tim riley talk 13:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see: "The writer writes" but it's fine as explained. --GA

S 3 and 4

  • "George VI and his queen" - I'd prefer to be fair and call her by name
    • I think it's clearer this way: to write "George VI and Queen Elizabeth" presumes that the reader knows the latter was the former's wife. "The King and Queen" would be a possibility, if preferred, though possibly a touch anglocentric. I have no strong views either way. Tim riley talk 13:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S 5 and 6

  • "but thought Forde "manages his difficult task extremely well"" - I feel a tense clash here and believe it's not an unusual wording requiring exact quotation.
    • The value judgement "difficult" calls for the oratio recta, I think. I shouldn't object to "manage[d]" but I don't think it really necessary. Tim riley talk 13:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Mopp

  • TFN puzzled me until I read the dialogue. Extra thanks for all that entertainment!
  • General for Characters: Do we have to repeat the word Catchphrase in each box?
    • I have just experimented with omitting the word, and I think it looks v. confusing. The reader might well be puzzled by e.g.
      Funf
      Played by Jack Train
      Series 2–6
      This is Funf speaking       – Tim riley talk 13:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it would be clear by italics or quotation marks, but it's fine. --GA

Need a break. - I have to tend to a FAR, Duino Elegies, - all help wanted. The author of the 2013 article is gone, and we need to track down the mostly offline sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing my mistake of a comma. - Yesterday I was too busy - Percy Grainger was born OTD, and I heard a great concert conducted by the new Thomaskantor. Back here:

Performers

  • That's an amazing table, thank you. - I'd not have the names bold, because they stand out enough by position, but install the links right in the first column, instead of having to turn eyes rather far to the right to see if a person has an article. I think the second column would be better right-aligned. I find a bit strange that some are singer and others Singer, and found no explanation. In the fourth column, some have their names repeated, some not, some just the surname, some the name with a link, some with added "further information" and another link.
    • I've added forenames to surnames where missing in the fourth column. In general we have only added "further information" where there is no WP article for the performer. The only exception, I think, is Maurice Denham, where I was keen to add the information about the two charladies, which would perhaps be WP:UNDUE in Denham's own article. Tim riley talk 13:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catchphrases

  • "These"? - "The following phrases"?
    • Yes. The "these", is rather far from the table. Changed. Tim riley talk 13:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation

Thank you for these points. I shall work through them tomorrow, I hope, and reply here. Tim riley talk 15:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Behind schedule, I'm afraid, but will get to this as soon as I can. Tim riley talk 18:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further apologies for delay: typing is going to be difficult for some days while I have my right hand in plaster, dammit. I hope reviewers will forgive a delay in this case. Tim riley talk 16:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No rush whatsoever, and best wishes for your hand. RMF in full swing (just returned from Voces8, and a FAR in (slow) progress: little time on my side as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With apologies for the delay, replies above. Tim riley talk 13:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for changes and detailed explanations. Support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense edit

An IP has objected to our use of the past tense for the show. For our earlier FAC, Round the Horne, we used the present tense, because the series was recorded in its entirety and is regularly rebroadcast to this day. Few recordings of ITMA survive and those that do are not often heard, for reasons we explain in the text, and so from the outset we thought it sensible to use the past tense. If any editors have views on this I'd be glad to hear them. Tim riley talk 16:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is MOS:TENSE, which would seem to support use of present tense for that situation. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, as always, Nikkimaria. I hope the other editors who have also commented in the review will feel able to comment too. Pinging Wehwalt, Gog the Mild and BennyOnTheLoose. Tim riley talk 17:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I read the article, going just on my vague memory of the guideline, past tense seemed appropriate. Rereading it, it still does - "use past tense only for past events, for subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist". I can see how either view could be argued, but past tense seems both most naturally appropriate and the best binary-choice fit to the guideline. I write this in opposition to Nikkimaria's view with some trepidation. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I don't have a personal preference, and if writing off-wiki may have made the same choice. But the guideline as written - "By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering...works that have been discontinued" and the example of Earth: Final Conflict - IMO more supports present. (I don't know the background of why the peculiar division of print vs non-print media was set up, so that might be worth looking into or revisiting). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. That's a good point. I am tempted to reverse course. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For works that still exist (including Round the Horne, which is still broadcast on occasion and which can still be purchased) “is” is appropriate. There is only a little left of ITMA, it’s never broadcast and I think I’m right in saying that it’s not available for purchase any more. As the guideline says to use past tense when subjects “no longer meaningfully exist”, “was” seems far more appropriate in this case. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:E160:3432:925D:975C (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, present tense seems correct, but your use of past tense makes sense, especially since the work no longer exists in its entirety. If I were reading the entry, I would have no problem either way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer the use of the past tense being retained, but would still support if the tense is changed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this. I too prefer the past tense, but would be OK with the present if the consensus interpretation of the MoS were to go that way. No clear verdict either way, so far, I think. Tim riley talk 18:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass edit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • The formatting is generally excellent.
  • I do find the linking of The Canberra Times odd, when no other news publications are linked
  • A very minor nitpick, but 'and' is used in refs 130 and 160, when otherwise there are only commas used. Suggest sticking with the latter for consistency's sake.
  • The perils of a collaboration! The "ands" were mine, as I failed to clock my co-writer's eschewal of them elsewhere. Now standardised. Tim riley talk 14:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability
  • No issues that I can see—though given the amount of sources, I may give this another pass. Aza24 (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability
Repeating my apologies, above, for the delay in responding: typing is going to be difficult for some days while I have my right hand in plaster, alas. I hope reviewers will forgive a delay in this case. Tim riley talk 16:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've attended to the outstanding points above. My grateful thanks to you and your fellow reviewer, above, who have waited patiently while I was temporarily out of action. Tim riley talk 14:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim, and no worries at all for the delay, I hope your hand is doing better! I've gone through the sources again for the sake of thoroughness, and found no issues of reliabillity. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am very much obliged for your careful review. Source reviewing seems to me a hard slog and I am all the more grateful to colleagues who are willing to do it. Thank you! Tim riley talk 17:20, 21 July 2022 (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_article_candidates/It%27s_That_Man_Again/archive1&oldid=1099661800"