 | Tom Norman has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 25, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that P. T. Barnum named English showman Tom Norman the "Silver King" because of his gift for putting on a show? | |||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 7, 2019. | |||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
edit- This review is transcluded from Talk:Tom Norman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Susanne2009NYC (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Early life. The last two sentences need citations. Do you have more information on his encounter with the Prince of Wales? In the next section the name is spelled Noakes. Is it Knoakes (as in the lead) or Noakes? The spelling should be consistent. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Done Not sure why I spelled it like that, and a I'm a little embarrassed I didn't notice it, but that's fixed. It's definitely Noakes. The last two sentences are referenced to the last citation in that para (I usually get accused of over-citing!) I've moved it to the end to make it clearer. I've slightly added to the Prince of Wales encounter, but that's all that I have on it. There may be more in his own memoirs but they were privately published and according to worldcat, only available in two places in the world. I'm sure they would be needed if this was ever at FAC, but either way, I suspect that the Prince of Wales meeting was just an anecdotal titbit anyway.--BelovedFreak 11:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm going to pass the article. It meets the criteria. It is well-written and cites reliable sources with no OR. I only find it has too few sources for my taste but those cited are reliable, especially the Oxford. The article is broad in coverage (about as broad as one could expect on this topic); is certainly neutral; and uses and tags images appropriately. Congratulations! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)