Talk:Ernest Brooks (photographer)

A couple of queries

His RNVR service reocrd already describes him as "Photographer to HM the King", thougth the article implies he didn't receive this position until after the war.

An obvious question which arises on reading the article is "why was he stripped of his British honours?" I know this usually happens when someone is convicted of a criminal offence, but is there no more info on what happened to him? David Underdown (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

a) Oh, well done for finding the service records! I forgot all the RNVR ones were online. As to that detail, hmm; nothing says he only became an official photographer after the war, but he was consistently referred to as having been an Express photographer when talking about his WWI career, nothing about royal service.

b) I wish I knew. I trawled the Times for the first half of 1925, and found nothing even remotely alluding to it. I can tell you that the Prince of Wales was in Africa at the time, and the King and Queen had only just returned to the country in late April, so it might well have been something that happened earlier and was waiting for someone to get back and sign off on it. I've drawn a complete blank so far, and I honestly have no idea where to look for minor scandals of the 1920s. Shimgray | talk | 22:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A little late, but I found this article which implies he may have annoyed the King by taking pictures deemed disrespectful of the Royal family. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1787&dat=19251227&id=tOAcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=L2QEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4440,831910 --Marjaliisa (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

That certainly sounds like it would explain it - I'll do some more digging, as having one story to hang it off makes it easier to find others, and single-sourcing it to an American paper seems odd! I wonder if there'll be any reference in biographies of George V or Edward VIII? Shimgray | talk | 19:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• The South America tour was in 1925; it was part of a longer tour involving Africa. On 5 May, the Prince was still in South Africa (and had just left Cape Town); he wouldn't arrive in South Africa for two more months. The details of the story don't quite match; I think I'll have to look into it more, and see if I can find a copy of the offending photo to nail down when it was printed. Shimgray | talk | 20:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

...although, something just rang a bell, and you're right. There is one image by Brooks held in the National Portrait Gallery; it's a formal posed Royal photograph, and it's from 1913. [1]. I'll correct the article. Shimgray | talk | 22:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Images which we could do with here

• one of his many famous skyline images; soldiers walking along a ridge, or the one with an infantryman looking at a gravemarker.
• the posed photograph of the King with Joffre, etc, in 1916

Both of these are quite widespread; it should be possible to find a high-quality image without needing to get a small copy from the IWM. (I leave this note here mainly as a reminder to myself) Shimgray | talk | 23:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ernest Brooks (photographer)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 20:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Hi, I am reviewing this article and will be adding comments below.

• In general, I am concerned that the captions to the photos have no references, as they express opinions and evaluations that go beyond a neutral statement about the photo.

I've dropped the comment from one, and I'm thinking about how to handle the other. (It is widely used, but I'm not sure how best to source that!) This ties in below, I think. Shimgray | talk | 22:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• " but many of his less conventional images - often involving a distinctive use of silhouette - have become iconic." - this statement does not appear to be in the body of the article and is unreferenced.

Silhouette's cited in the critical discussion below. The iconic thing is, as above, something that's annoying me - these images are everywhere to illustrate the Western Front, but I've not been able to find anyone explicitly saying so. It looks like it might be worth casting my net wider, so I've requested a few general works on WWI photography from the library and I'll dig through them on Monday to see if they say anything about him. Shimgray | talk | 22:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Biography

• This section should have a different title, as the whole article is a "biography".

Hum... yes and no. There's a clear split between biographical details and discussion of his photography as photography - perhaps "career"? Shimgray | talk | 22:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• "However, he later returned to royal service, accompanying the Prince of Wales on his tour of Australia in 1920 as the official photographer, and by the following year had also been appointed official photographer to the King and Queen.[11] However, his appointment was cancelled in 1925, for undisclosed reasons." - these two sentences in a row start with "however".

Tidied. Shimgray | talk | 22:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

(I may add more comments)

Xtzou (Talk) 20:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• I wouldn't worry about needing "iconic" in the article, as it makes the point about this photographer without use of that word. Xtzou (Talk) 22:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think so :-). I've dropped "iconic" for the time being, but I'll see if I can dig up some clearer commentary on this tomorrow. Shimgray | talk | 16:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think you need references for the captions, as nothing on the original photo upload says these men were "heavily laden", for example. Xtzou (Talk) 17:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've sourced them to the IWM and NLS catalogues - unfortunately I can't directly link to the IWM records, but the reference number should make it simple enough. Shimgray | talk | 17:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as you give some references, as the same photos used in different articles have more straight forward captions. At least two other captions for the photo of wounded soldiers says they are German and British wounded soldiers. Xtzou (Talk) 17:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• ok, I'm satisfied. I went through his pictures on the Commons and found that many of them are used in wikipedia articles. I labeled them as such. Xtzou (Talk) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Clearly and concisely written.

   B. MoS compliance: Complies with required elements of MoS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Reliable sources

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Sets the context

   B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic

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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 13:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What happened to him after 1936?

Does anyone know? 203.106.220.77 (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I've not been able to trace anything despite a fairly diligent search (indeed, finding the 1936 stuff was pretty good fortune). His name is common enough that there are various potential death certificates out there, which doesn't help narrow it down, and there were no signs of any obituaries. My guess is that he died sometime in the 1940s, but it's only a guess. Andrew Gray (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)