Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marie Lloyd/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 GrahamColm 10:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Marie Lloyd edit

Marie Lloyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): CassiantoTalk 09:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Lloyd was an English music hall singer, comedienne and musical theatre actress during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. She was perhaps best-known for her Cockney songs including "The Boy I Love is Up in the Gallery", "My Old Man (Said Follow the Van)" and "Oh Mr Porter What Shall I Do". Lloyd had a controversial act which relied heavily on innuendo and double entendre which caused mixed reviews from the theatrical press. However, she had a long and successful career, during which she became known as the "Queen of the Music Hall". Having spent the last few months researching this subject, I am now pleased to be able to bring this to FAC, and would be most greatful for any comments, thank you. -- CassiantoTalk 09:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat edit

A couple of minor tweaks made, but feel free to revert if you disagree. I had the pleasure of reading through this at PR, and a subsequent reading post-GA brings only one question to check:

  • The MacQueen-Pope quote that Lloyd was "going down hill of her own volition": does he use "down hill", or the more correct "downhill"?

This minor query won't affect my support for what is a truly excellent article. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your excellent reviewing skills at PR and pre-GAC. -- CassiantoTalk 12:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton edit

  • Support: This article received a lot of attention at peer review (I was one of the reviewers). This, combined with the diligent research of the primary editors, has resulted in a delightful article which I'm happy to support, subject to clearance on images and sources. I am doing the sources review now, and will post shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: A couple of minor queries:

  • Refs 12 and 186 appear to be one and the same
  • Ref 60: does this The Era article have a title?

Otherwise all sources look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for all your hard work at peer review and here Brian. It is much appreciated. --CassiantoTalk 10:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro edit

Comments: Read down to the end of "Drury Lane and success" so far. Looking good generally, but a few little errors in places. Also, a few other minor nit-picks. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Offstage, Lloyd had a turbulent private life that was often the subject of much press attention: she was married three times, divorced twice, and frequently found herself in court giving evidence against two of her husbands who had physically abused her.": A few misgivings about this sentence. Firstly, I don't think we need "offstage" at first, as we then mention her private life. Second, it is quite long and perhaps a new sentence would be better after attention. And "she was married three times, divorced twice, and frequently found herself in court giving evidence against two of her husbands who had physically abused her": seems a little inelegant. Maybe "Married three times and divorced twice, she frequently appeared in court to give evidence against two of her husbands, who had physically abused her". (And I wonder how frequently this was… But I have no better word)
  • I have deleted "Offstage" as of course you were right on this point. However, your version of "Married three times and divorced twice, she frequently appeared in court to give evidence against two of her husbands, who had physically abused her", differs only very slightly from the current "she was married three times, divorced twice, and frequently found herself in court giving evidence against two of her husbands who had physically abused her." It appears that just "she" is swapped around. Do you think it would be better to replace the colon with a full stop? --CassiantoTalk 10:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would work. The other change in my suggested version was to tighten up the court part, but not a big issue. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per Gabe below, I fixed this. Sorry I missed this. --CassiantoTalk 02:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a little off-putting in the early life section to read about the Wood family and have her referred to as "Lloyd". It jars a touch. But if this is the convention in these cases, no problem, and not a big issue in any case.
  • I am worried that If I used "Wood" when referencing her, then it would become confusing. Also, she was only very briefly referred to by her birth name when she was a child and was known as Lloyd. --CassiantoTalk 10:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be better to crop the family picture to remove the text, and add a caption which states who they are, and where Lloyd is to be found in the picture.
  • Done, although the caption maybe formatted incorrectly. Could you check this? --CassiantoTalk 10:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks fine to me, but I'm rubbish at captions. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should it be "well cared-for"?
  • "Along with her sister Alice, she helped arrange family events where the Wood children often put on performances at the family home": Perhaps "Along with her sister Alice, she arranged family events in which the Wood children performed at the family home"?
  • "called the Fairy Bell troupe comprising of her brothers and sisters": I always thought it should just be "comprising" and not "comprising of". But I may be wrong.
  • Grammatically, you are correct but "comprising of" IMO reads better. Still, it would be incorrect for me to use the latter so I have changed it. --CassiantoTalk 10:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John secured her unpaid employment as a table singer at the Eagle tavern in Hoxton, where he was employed as a waiter.": Employment … employed.
  • "Although happy to have her performing in her spare time, her parents initially objected at her desire to commit to the stage full-time.": I think this should be "objected to".
  • Reworded. "Although happy to have her performing in her spare time, her parents initially objected to her desire to commit to the stage full-time" just didn't sound right. --CassiantoTalk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We use both "Eagle tavern" and "Eagle Tavern".
  • "Her performances were a success, despite her singing other artists' songs without their permission,[16] a practice which brought her a threat of an injunction from one of the original performers": I think this is a bit of a runaway sentence and should be split. In addition, I don't see the connection between her success and any legal issues, so the latter would not necessarily impact the former.
  • I would rather keep this. She built her early success on the back of songs composed by and for other performers and composers. Obviously that was not on as she had not bought the rights to the songs, thus earning her a warning for using them. I think this early indication that she showed blatant disregard for the rules helps shape Lloyd into what she became famous for; a rule-breaker. --CassiantoTalk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where she met her agent George Ware": Presumably not her agent at the time!
  • "George Belmont, the Falstaff's, proprietor, secured her an engagement": I think we have a stray comma here.
  • "and one she continued to use[d] for the rest of her career"
  • "By the end of 1886, Lloyd was playing several halls a night[30] and was earning £100 per week. She was now financially able…": Lots of "was" going on here.
  • "She was now financially able to purchase new songs from established music hall composers and writers": Financially able does not sound quite right to me.
  • "Unlike her West End audiences, her reputation as a "blue" performer did not impress her fans in the East End.": A bit baffled here. Starting "Unlike her West End audiences" leaves me wondering what these audiences did. And why would her reputation impress them, rather than a performance. And surely if they were fans, they wouldn't need impressing.
  • Oddly, her posh West End audiences loved the dirty humour, while the working class lot loathed it. Tweaked. --CassiantoTalk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "working close to home for a solid two months": Why "solid"?
  • "The engagement also gave her much needed experience": I think this should be "much-needed", but I wonder do we actually need this phrase at all? Needed for what?
  • Well before this performance, her engagements often only catered for relatively small audiences. This performance was notable for being one of the first shows where she played to a large audience. I have since hyphenated "much needed". --CassiantoTalk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The following year, she found herself appearing": I think just "appeared" is enough here.
  • "more Bohemian venues": Bohemian how?
  • Bohemian inasmuch that the theatres were very stylish, dripping in gold leaf and plush carpets and scenery. They were of a more grand design than she had been used to up until that point. --CassiantoTalk 02:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Successive sentences begin "the following year", and this expression appears seven times in the article.
  • Deleted one, more to follow when I come accross them. --CassiantoTalk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which further exacerbated her deteriorating relationship with her husband": I don't think you can exacerbate a relationship. Perhaps "exacerbated the deterioration of her relationship"
  • "He paid her the greatest compliment": Perhaps not entirely neutral here. Reads like editorial voice.
  • "She received mixed reviews from her opening performance": I think "for" rather than "from".
  • "with much skill": hints at POV.
  • "she toured the northern provinces": A bit grand? Why not just the north of England? And it looks like we are calling Liverpool, Birmingham and Manchester "provinces".
  • "in a scene that required her to instead climb out of bed to pray": Split infinitive! Alert! (If you are of the school which doesn't mind, please ignore this one)
  • Generally: watch out for overusing "Lloyd" (and obviously, I'd never be guilty of this!). I also wonder if there is some slight over-detailing. For example, do we really need to list what seems like every song she ever sung? And perhaps one or two of Courtenay's escapades are not needed, such as that at the theatre door? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that dreaded noun/pronoun problem. I think at the moment it looks just about balanced, thanks to Tim going through it at peer review and blitzing her name. Secondly, I want to convey just how physically bad her relationship was with Courtenay. Sure, I may have over cooked it so I will go through and see what I can lose. --CassiantoTalk 09:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: I've read to the end now, and have only found minor issues. This is a splendid piece of work and a very entertaining read. I'd heard of Lloyd, but knew little of her life. Just a few last suggestions, then I'm happy to support. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Lloyd's risqué songs were frequently receiving criticism from theatre reviewers": I'd prefer "…were frequently criticised by theatre reviewers", but no big deal.
  • "Upon the expiry of the entertainments licence, the Licensing Committee tried to use the lyrical content of music hall songs as evidence against a renewal.": The licence of the Empire Theatre, presumably?
  • No I think this was generally speaking. I have elaborated slightly. --CassiantoTalk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and his calm and collected nature was a welcome antidote to the abusive and abrasive Courtenay": Editorial voice here.
  • "Despite the marital problems, Lloyd went on an American tour with Hurley in 1908": Should this be "despite her/their marital problems"?
  • As above, I would suggest a crop of the Dillon Vanity Fair image to remove the border and wording.
  • "were met at the American port by her sister Alice, who had long since been in the country": "who had long since" seems to be an odd phrase here.
  • Changed to "resided in the country for many years". --CassiantoTalk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and protested at her billing position": Not too sure what this means.
  • She was being egotistical I think. Back in those days (and today I think), a higher billing position is seen as being for the more important star in that particular play or performance. In this case, Lloyds was lower which she got angry about. Call it diva-like behaviour if you like. :-) --CassiantoTalk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but she still managed to maintain her reputation": The previous paragraph suggests that her reputation was on the wane.
  • "In July 1919, Lloyd was again left off the cast list for that year's Royal Variety Performance": I think we could replace "that year's" with "the" as we give the year and say "again".
  • "When Lloyd was mentioned for her efforts, she was compared to a "talented old aunt who must be allowed to have her turn at the piano even though all everyone really wants is jazz or go to the Picture Palace"": I think we need to say whose words these are.
  • There are a few more places where we list the songs she sang at a performance. I wonder how much would be lost if we cut these lists right back or even omitted some altogether. I doubt the general reader learns much from knowing that she sang a song of which the reader has probably not heard. I feel it may just help the article flow a little as the lists are a touch ponderous and I found myself skipping over them.
  • I have had a heavy trim of the non-notable ones. If there are anymore, then please let me know. --CassiantoTalk 15:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any other images of her? We just have the two at the moment, and I'm sure there must be others which are PD, as she died in 1922. For example, the Daily Mirror archive may have some more. I think it may be worth looking. (This one does not affect my support) A quick search here reveals this, this and this, for what it's worth. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My only other query is if there are any more contemporary opinions of her? She is largely forgotten, I suspect, although some people may remember the name. Without getting into a "in popular culture" theme, are there any modern opinions of her? If not, that isn't a problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have spent a good few hours searching for this, but I have failed to find this. -- CassiantoTalk 04:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This is an excellent article. The changes are looking very good. I think all my comments have been addressed, and any that haven't do not affect my support. Well done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your kind comments and excellent review are both much appreciated. On the images, I have asked Crisco 1492 to work on a couple which I have found. I agree that there should be one or two more of her, and these will hopefully be uploaded imminently. Thanks again Sarastro! -- CassiantoTalk 20:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley edit

  • Support – (Sorry to barge in in the middle of Sarastro's comments. Please feel free to move my comments wherever they seem best put.) I peer reviewed this article, and all my comments were carefully and satisfactorily dealt with then. The sources of the article are wide ranging, the prose is pleasing to read, the balance and proportions are well judged. This seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Tim and for all your work at peer review. -- CassiantoTalk 09:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria edit

Image review

  • File:Empire_Theatre_(1896).jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • I have replaced the photo, which was not possible to ascertain its original source, with an image that was released as a postcard by the Rotary Photographic Company in 1911. --CassiantoTalk 10:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Leicester_Square_with_the_Alhambra_formerly_the_Royal_Panopticon_ILN_1874.jpg: more information on Illustrated London News publication? Date, issue, page? Also, "This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was"
  • File:Laura_Ormiston_Chant.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now uploaded a new picture which should cure all the problems. -- CassiantoTalk 03:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GabeMc edit

  • My first impressions are that the article looks very tight. Well done, Cassianto. I fully intend to support after a few minor nit-picks are resolved. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
General
Biography
  • This is a matter of personal preference I think, but I don't see a need for the redundant header, "Biography", since the entire article is a biography.
  • I dont know why, but I like to work in subsections and find this a neat alternative than having headed sections. What do others think? --CassiantoTalk 03:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that it is a matter of personal preference, and GabeMc's point is entirely taken. But for myself I find that using the top level heading for Biography then allows you to have second level headings for Early years etc, which (to my eye) makes the page flow better. Somehow the font of the second level headers smacks you in the eye less than the top level ones. For what it's worth, my own successful FA biographies follow the layout used here, and as far as I can remember, only one editor has objected to it so far. Tim riley (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Awkward. - "she was showcased as a teenager by her waiter father at his pub". Is there a better way to word this to avoid the text string "her waiter father"? This strikes me as awkward. Consider: "as a teenager she was showcased by her father at his pub", or similar.
  • Prose. - "In 1885, she scored a success with her hit song 'The Boy I Love is Up in the Gallery'". I would avoid the phrase "she scored a success". Maybe, "she was successful", or similar.
  • Prose. - "Between 1891 and 1893, she was recruited by the impresario Augustus Harris to appear in the spectacular". Is the exact recruitment year unknown? This reads like she was recruited sometime during those three years, yet I get the feeling that she was recruited in 1891 and worked with Harris through 1893.
  • I had a go. I didn't really want to go into too much detail here as it is only the lede after all, but I can see the vagueness of it. --CassiantoTalk 10:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Word choice. - "fighting for better pay and conditions for performers". Is there a better word choice here for "fighting"? Perhaps "arguing" or "demonstrating", or similar.
  • Linking. - "During the First World War". This should be linked on the first mention in the lead and the first mention in the article body.
  • Redundancy. - "she supported other performers" is closely followed by "she supported recruitment". Maybe swap one of the "supported"s for another term of similar meaning.
  • I have changed the first "supported" with "assisted". --CassiantoTalk 11:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wordy. - "Lloyd had a turbulent private life that was often the subject of much press attention", consider: "Lloyd's turbulent private life was often the subject of much press attention", or similar.
  • I think the past participle is ok. If I used "Lloyd's turbulent private life was often the subject of much press attention", then it would look like I have already spoken of it, which I haven't. I would be suddenly springing it on the reader that she had a turbulent private life, rather than introducing it such as I do here. What do others think? --CassiantoTalk 11:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "and frequently found herself in court giving evidence against two of her husbands who had physically abused her". Consider: "and frequently found herself giving court testimony against two of her husbands who had physically abused her", or similar.
  • Word choice. - "scored a late success in 1919". Maybe its just me, but I would avoid using "scorded" in this context, as it sounds a bit slangy to me.
  • Changed.
  • Confusing. - "which earned her a new audience". Had she lost her "old" audience?
  • Excess passive voice. - "during which she was taken ill on stage", consider: "during which she became ill on stage".
  • Prose. - "during which she was taken ill on stage, dying a few days later at the age of 52." Consider: "during which she became ill on stage. She died a few days later at the age of 52", or similar.
Family background and early life
  • Unavoidable I think. It looks fine on my monitor (but then I use a tablet screen mostly). I would hate to lose either as both are integral to the article. --CassiantoTalk 03:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Putting my oar in again, I have been advised by a Wikipedia luminary that there are so many different sizes and types of screen now used to view Wikipedia that it is not feasible to lay out a page that will suit everybody. Some users will see sandwiched images; others will see an inch or more of white space between paragraphs; the latter drives me into a gibbering frenzy, but is probably something up with which we inevitably have to put. I'll shut up now. Tim riley (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your oar Tim. I don't think there is a winner here, but I would rather keep these two important images than lose one for the sake of preventing some sandwiching. -- CassiantoTalk 18:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks much for your well-regarded opinion Tim. I tend to agree and appreciate the clarity with which you've explained this point. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - I've read through the article a few times now and I can't find any problems that don't come down to editorial preference. The article is well-written, well-researched and comprehensive without being overly detailed. In fact its one of the tightest FACs I've ever read. Its a fine contribution to the project, so thanks for working on such an interesting and informative piece about an important figure. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC) In progress ... more to come. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and coming from the editor who brought the excellent Beatle biographies to FAC, this is certainly a compliment to be proud of. Thanks for you review and support Gabe! --CassiantoTalk 22:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld edit

  • Support Yup, excellent effort, you have my full support.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to everyone for the help and support! -- CassiantoTalk 20:18, 19 May 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_article_candidates/Marie_Lloyd/archive1&oldid=1086353418"