Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hattie Jacques/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 10:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Hattie Jacques

edit

Hattie Jacques (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC) and CassiantoTalk[reply]

Oooh Matron! The inimitable Hattie Jacques was a much-loved figure in British comedy from her work with the Players' Theatre in 1946 through to her appearances in 14 Carry On films and many appearances with Eric Sykes on television and stage. A woman who was conscious of her weight problems, she spent much of her career typecast into roles that played on laughs at her expense, from Sophie Tuckshop in Tommy Handley's It's That Man Again, to Griselda Pugh, Tony Hancock's secretary in Hancock's Half Hour. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC) and CassiantoTalk 10:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Riley

edit

Support – I was one of the peer reviewers and my (very minor) quibbles and suggestions were all dealt with there most satisfactorily. As a lifelong admirer of Hattie Jacques I was astonished and gratified to find from this comprehensive article how much more there was to her career than I had realised. This is just the sort of article that gets Wikipedia a good name: it is much the best biography of HJ that I can find on the web, free or subscription. (It is six times the length of the ODNB article, without wasting a word.) Full, fair, proportionate, well illustrated and excellently referenced. Clearly FA standard in my judgment. Tim riley (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks once again for your extremely helpful assistance at PR, and your further comment here: both are much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, kind words and support Tim. CassiantoTalk 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review – NikkiMaria

edit

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN176, 187: page?
  • Given discussions like this, can you briefly justify the use of the first Daily Mail citation? (The second is fine)
  • FN180: formatting
  • Can you explain the placement of London in the Sources list?
  • Be consistent in whether books include locations

All now sorted: thanks very much for picking up on this one: it's much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 04:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. CassiantoTalk 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Boulton

edit

Support: I did a long peer review. My various concerns were properly addressed, and I am satisfied that the article fully meets the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Brian for all the time and effort you put into both the PR and here: all very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492

edit

Comments From Crisco 1492

  • from Wilfrid Hyde-White's bottom, - is "bottom" the best (most encyclopedic) term here?
  • Sykes and a... went on to run for sixty episodes over nine series over the next five years. - Over over?
  • destined for a major part in the film - destined? Didn't know encyclopedias recognised destiny as real.
  • Did Jacques release any albums or records? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that Cass has done some good smoothing there, so it now reads much better than my awkward prose. Many thanks for taking the time and effort on this: it's much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loeba comments

edit

I'm getting quite nitpicky here, please consider them only as suggestions.

Lead
  • I'm surprised there's no mention of the Carry On films in the first paragraph? Realistically (I'm afraid), lots of visitors to the article won't read beyond the first paragraph, so I always think it's best to give an overall summary of the subject here, and make clear what they are known for. Treating the first paragraph this way also draws readers into the article, IMO.
  • "whose career spanned from 1946 until her death. She started her career in 1946" - Spot the problem :)
  • I'd personally merge the third and fourth paragraphs.
  • "a separation caused by her five-year affair with a younger man." - Definitely necessary for the lead?
  • I also kind of question the inclusion of the sentence about her overeating. Soon after it we have "caused by her increasing weight", which I kind of think would be sufficient (you could put the 20 stone fact here).
  • "which were a result of her" - Suggest "as a result of" or "owing to her".
Early life
  • "a serviceman in the British Army and latterly the Royal Air Force" - Change "latterly" to "later"?
  • "As well as being an aviator who attained the rank of flight lieutenant, Robin Rochester Jaques was a keen sportsman and became a semi-professional footballer." - Jarred a bit for me (the opening of the sentence is a complete change in subject), I'd prefer it to be reworded so that we open with Robin's name or an explicit reference to her dad, so that we know we're moving on to him.

I'm afraid I need to stop there for now but will be back later! --Loeba (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more sections...

Early post-war work
  • I'd rearrange the material regarding how she came to be called Hattie, e.g. "While appearing at the Players' in 1946, she acquired the nickname "Hattie" after appearing in the minstrel show Coal Black Mammies for Dixie. A member of the backstage staff compared her "blacked up" appearance with the American actress Hattie McDaniel, known for her work in Gone with the Wind, and Jacques adopted the name for the rest of her professional career." Summin' like that.
  • I feel that the quote box caption should probably give the full name of the show ("It's that Man Again")?
  • "the scriptwriter of the BBC radio show..." - Can we link to the specific radio station (eg, BBC Radio 1)?
  • "Later that year Le Mesurier divorced his wife" - We haven't heard about this wife, were they already separated or not?
Increasing fame
  • Second para: we have "In the show" and "It was on this show" close together.
  • "The reviewer in The Times thought that Jacques was "as appealing as last year", - Hmm, I don't find this a very interesting or useful review quote..?
  • I'm not sure about including the cast members of Scrooge...George Cole doesn't have a very big role, he's surely only mentioned because Jacques appears on screen with him, but then because he is mentioned it feels like Alastair Sims is tagged on as a necessity... I would, however, mention that the film was a big success.
  • It looks like she had the lead role in The Pleasure Garden? If that's the case, I think it should be stressed.
  • "who came rollicking and laughing into the world in October 1956, a trifle before his allotted time" - quote seems a bit unnecessary?

As a general comment, I feel that there's a slight overuse of semi-commas? Great stuff though, I'm enjoying this and will be back soon --Loeba (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carry On
  • "When the first Carry On film was made in 1958, Jacques was part of the cast." This sentence seems to be made for people who already have some knowledge of the series. I think a brief description is in order, especially stating the type of comedy that it uses.
Private turmoil
  • The lead mentioned that her affair was with "a younger man", but I can't see any mention of this in the main text. Unless he was a lot younger, I wonder if this point even needs to be made?
  • i've taken out the "younger man" tag: lots of reliable sources (and the Daily Mail) refer to him as younger, toy boy etc, but I can't fine his age at the time shown anywhere, so I've taken it out instead. - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and allowed Jacques to bring a divorce suit on grounds of his own infidelity. This was to ensure that the press blamed him for the break-up, thus avoiding any negative publicity for her." - So Mesurier allowed Jacques to blame him because he didn't want any negative publicity going her way, is that right? I'd try to make this absolutely clear, something like "He made this decision to protect Jacques from any negative publicity."
  • So did Schofield's relationship with the Italian woman mean the end of his relationship with Jacques? May be worth clarifying.
Return to Carry On
  • "citing an inability to achieve the kind of success that Jacques had experienced in Carry On Nurse" - A bit wordy, how about "claiming that Jacques' performance of the role in Carry On Nurse could not be repeated/surpassed."
  • I think we get too long a description of Sims' character? I'd trim it to "with Sims accepting a smaller role as the doctor's timid assistant."
Final appearances
  • A bit too much detail about the British Rail advert?
  • "where on 6 October she died from a heart attack at the age of 58; she was also suffering from kidney failure." - The kidney failure fact here feels very "tagged on".
  • Two close-together paragraphs end with "according to Merriman." It would be better to vary this a bit.
Reputation
  • I would link the image caption to the text, something like "Hospital matrons continue to be closely associated with Jacques, who first played the role in Carry on Nurse (1959)."
  • Maybe a few too many quotes here?
  • Possibly, but as this is the section given over to how others viewed her, I think we're just about in the bounds of propriety here, unless anyone else also thinks this should be cut? - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "See also" section is a bit problematic...I thought these were frowned upon in FAs? It also means that someone hoping to find a quick link to her filmography won't necessarily know where to look. How about renaming it "Filmography and other credits"? Then you could give a couple of summary statements as well, maybe the number of film, theatre, television and radio programmes she appeared in?
  • I've not heard of any FA-related guidelines against something so specifically outlined in the MOS? If we have a section there is would, in effect, summarise much of what has preceded - and is on the attached page, so I'm not sure it's the best approach to take in this instance. - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it's not an MOS thing, just something I've read before (people complaining that FAs shouldn't need "See also"s because they should be comprehensive). I still think titling the section "Credits" or something would be better.. I know it's essentially just a repeat of what's come before, but I wouldn't worry about that - it's very standard practice in actor, musician and author articles. We do it so that people wanting to find a simple list have that available and can find it easily. Anyway, I'll leave it with you two. --Loeba (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very comprehensive and well-written article, congratulations! Having read through it all, I would suggest emphasising in the lead that she was a very prolific performer, particularly on television. This isn't quite communicated at present. --Loeba (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In light of my own comments about the lead, I have but together an alternative here - basically some changes to the opening to stress Hattie's prolific nature in several mediums. I felt this was too bold a change to make without letting you see it first, so put it in my sandbox. No obligation to adopt it for the article, or you can alter it as you please! --Loeba (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent stuff, meets all the FA criteria. --Loeba (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I've asked German Joe to have a look: he's having a break over the holidays but will help out when he returns if no-one has stepped up Inge meantime. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Hattie_Jacques_in_Carry_On_Nurse.jpg: can the "n.a." fields be filled in? "Not replaceable" in particular is certainly applicable, and is partially covered by the current "purpose" statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Ian, and for the time and effort of everyone who took part. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. I echo SchroCat in thanking everybody for their help and time in making this FA quality. A great new year's gift! -- CassiantoTalk 14:20, 2 January 2014 (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/Hattie_Jacques/archive1&oldid=1151014704"