Talk:Mimi Smith/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Christine (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article. I'm happy to see that a great deal of work has been done since it was delisted, so it shouldn't take much to re-list it. Christine (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written: For the most, this article is well-written with a few issues here and there. (And everywhere?) ;) I tend to copyedit the articles I review, instead of wasting everyone's time with directions like, "Remove that space," when it takes more time to give the directions instead of just taking care of it myself. See below for my comments for prose issues that need more attention.
Sources. I've done a quick and random check for close paragraphing, and found no problems. This artcle depends a lot on off-line sources; I have no problem with that, but I can't check them since they're inaccessible to me. I'll assume good faith and take your word that they're reliable. I have an issue, however, with your citation format. See WP:INCITE. One example is Ref 44: "Lennon (2005) pp128-129". The correct format is, "Lennon (2005), pp. 128–129". Watch the n-dashes, please. I highly recommend WP:CT, a valuable source in ensuring that you have a consistent format. I'll have more notes later.
Broad. I don't know much about Lennon's aunt (I had never heard of her), so I can't judge. At first glance, however, it seems so.
Neutral: Doesn't go into the customary blaming of Yoko Ono for the break-up of The Beatles, so nicely done.
Stable: One regular editor, with very little edit wars or vandalism
Images: I know that was brought up in this article's GAR, and the changes made are commendable. However, I suggest that you try harder to increase the images here. For example, this image can be added to the "Yoko Ono" subsection.

That's all I can do for now. I'll try and start a "Notes" section, probably tomorrow morning. Christine (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refreshing. :) Thanks!--andreasegde (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Lead

"Mary Elizabeth "Mimi" Smith (née Stanley) (24 April 1906 – 6 December 1991) is the maternal aunt and parental guardian of the English musician John Lennon." She's deceased, so you should say "was the maternal aunt". Watch your tenses throughout, please.
Done. I'm shocked that I never spotted that, but I hate writing leads...--andreasegde (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hear ya, darlin'. Me too. ;) Christine (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something else you start in the lead and continue throughout: use of the word "she" to refer to Smith. I suggest going through and varying it. Another issue this brings up is how you refer to Smith; I also suggest that you look at Nancy Reagan as a model. That article refers to its subject, depending upon the context, as "Davis" (her maiden name), "Reagan", and "Nancy". You can do the same kind of thing here.

This is a problem, as it could be confusing. As the article is called Mimi Smith, I thought using 'she' would make it clear. The Nancy Reagan article uses "In 1967, Nancy Reagan" after the lead, which FA reviewers didn't like at all when Mimi was reviewed, and failed. :) If I wrote 'Stanley' it would confuse her with her father.--andreasegde (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tough situation, and I suspect that different reviewers would have different opinions. I read Mimi's failed FAC and looked at WP:MOSBIO. I've been sitting at my computer for the past half-hour thinking about this, and I think the solution is to always call her "Mimi" here. With the Nancy Reagan article, there are at least significant portions in which she can be called "Davis", but that's not the case here with Mimi. It's a complicated situation because Lennon's family structure was complicated. Remember that even the MOS is a suggestion, and there are exceptions. I think that this article has to be one of those exceptions. If you ever bring this to FAC, I'll go on record supporting that. To that end, here's [1] a sample of what I mean. There's still some more work that needs to be done on the prose, but I just focused on the honorifics. Use as much or as little as you wish. Christine (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is great, because the article used to have "Mimi" throughout, but I changed it to "she" before this review; expecting to get some flak for it! :)) You should look at Julia Lennon, because there are three Lennons in it... :)--andreasegde (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize. I can't control what future reviewers will say. I can say, though, as above, that I'll support this solution. It looks like when Mimi was up for FAC, that place was a bit more contentious than it is now. I think that it's improved a bit there, so it might be easier for you. Christine (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, really? I'm thankful for that! :)--andreasegde (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Stanley family

"Comments about her state that she based everything on decorum, honesty, and a black-and-white attitude: "Either you were good enough or you were not." Not a complete sentence; how about "Mimi responded to the criticism that she based everything on decorum, honesty, and a black-and-white attitude by stating..."

The problem is that she didn't respond to it; they were comments made by other people about her. I have no way of knowing if she ever read them.--andreasegde (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that wasn't clear. Now that you've explained, I see that it wasn't an incomplete sentence; the problem is that it's unclear. I don't have access to the source, so I don't know who said it. I suggest going back, finding it out, and then telling us. If the source says something like, "People said that...", you need to attribute in-line, such as "According to Spitz, the people around Mimi stated that..." Christine (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put Spitz in (even though he doesn't say who said it), and the comments made by "her nephew" on the same page.--andreasegde (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles': This is how you format this: "The Beatles'. I suspect there are other instances of it, so make sure this is done throughout.

Changed to "Lennon later bought her a bungalow", although "The Beatles' success" (with apostrophe is correct, as is "The boys' caps").--andreasegde (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)--andreasegde (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I meant. I was demonstrating how to put the apostrophe inside the wikilink. Personally, I hate the use "The Beatles's. ;) Christine (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Penny Lane": I know it's hard to imagine, but there are people in the world who wouldn't know the importance of Penny Lane. Please explain, perhaps something like, "...which is close to Penny Lane, the street in the affluent district Mossley Hill later made famous in The Beatles song."

I deleted the reference to Penny Lane as it was confusing. It is now, "where they lived in a small terraced house at 9 Newcastle Road."--andreasegde (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but I think that it's ok to mention Penny Lane as an influence on The Boys. BTW, I've had that song in my head for days now! There are worst things, right? ;) Christine (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"To help her mother, she had to take on a matriarchal role in the Stanley house..." This is something else that's done a lot in this article: It's usually not a good idea to start a sentence in an encyclopedic article with a prepositional phrase. Please take a look and see where you can improve them. In this instance, perhaps you can say: "She took on a matriarchal role in the Stanley house in order to help her mother."

I have changed this.--andreasegde (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Career

It's not a good idea to have a section with just one paragraph. I recommend moving the paragraph up to the previous section, and then since that will make the section more than about "The Stanley family", I suggest that you re-name it, to "Early life" or something simliar.

Merged.--andreasegde (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage and Mendips

"In early 1932 she met Smith, who lived across from the hospital where she worked, and to which he delivered milk every morning." This sentence sounds like Smith delivered milk to Mimi personally. Perhaps he did, but I suspect that you mean that he delivered milk to the hospital. If so, I suggest this change: "In early 1932, she met Smith, who lived near and delivered milk to the hospital where she worked."

I don't get this, because "lived across from the hospital where she worked", and "to which he delivered milk" seem clear. Your suggestion should be, "who lived near, and delivered milk to, the hospital where she worked", seems a bit too confusing. Sorry.--andreasegde (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Christine (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I errored in the missing commas, which make it clearer. It's not a deal-breaker regarding GAC, though.

That's all I have time for this morning. More later. Christine (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"They bought a semi-detached house called Mendips—named after the range of hills—at 251 Menlove Avenue..." You wikilink Mendips twice; you only need to do it once. I recommend removing the link from the address.

I have removed the second link to Mendips.--andreasegde (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you read MOS:QUOTE, especially the section "Quotations within quotations". This is an issue throughout the article.

I'll look at this right now.... Sorry, which sentences are you talking about?--andreasegde (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I can't find any instances of it, either. So just ignore me here, sorry. I did find, however, a few instances of inconsistent quotation formatting; i.e., Mimi's famous quote: "Music's all right John, but you'll never make a living out of it." Make sure you've got the period outside of the quotation marks, please. Christine (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lennon and music

"...Lennon was accepted into the Liverpool College of Art, as his aunt was insistent that Lennon should have some sort of academic qualifications..." "Academic qualifications" sounds strange to me, but perhaps it's a Briticism. If not, how about "...his aunt was insistent that Lennon earn a college [or university] degree..."

It's right, because that's how people talked back then. :)--andreasegde (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, taking your word for it... Christine (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison: I saw from Mimi's FAC that there have been some rumors about Mimi and George. Is that right? I also saw that they made you remove it. I dunno, if the sources are reliable enough, I think it's ok to put it back, even if it's in a footnote, and if you say something like, "There have been rumours throughout the years about a relationship between Mimi and Harrison..."

I think that was about George Smith (her husband), but not George Harrison. Julia Baird, Lennon's half-sister, started this, because she wanted to sell her book (but don't quote me). :)--andreasegde (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cavern and Hamburg: Timeline, please. When did these things occur? Remember, you're dealing with idiots who are ignorant with The Beatles' history. ;)

It doesn't say when in any of the references I have, but it was probably around 1962. I didn't want to state that explicitly without a definite reference.--andreasegde (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. You're right--it's best to say nothing when the sources say nothing, and not to speculate. Christine (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lennon's relationships

I wonder if you could combine this section into one, and remove the subsection headings. Then you could change the first sentence to "Mimi's relationships with Lennon's wives, Cynthia Lennon and Yoko Ono, were frosty, disdainful, and sarcastic." (The use of "either" should only give the reader two choices: "either this or that".) Then you could separate the next sentence and place the second phrase at the end of the paragraph about Cynthia.

Changed to, "Her attitude to Lennon's partners was sometimes frosty, disdainful, or sarcastic." --andreasegde (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm doing this in fits and starts, but that's my life. I'll have more later, probably this afternoon. Christine (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. :)--andreasegde (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What did we decide about this suggestion? It's ok to disagree; just explain to me why. Christine (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the 'relationships' section.--andreasegde (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In the summer of 1962, Cynthia discovered that she was pregnant with Lennon's child, so Lennon proposed marriage, but when he told his aunt, she threatened never to speak to him again to stop him from going through with it." This sentence is too long. I recommend cutting it up for clarity's sake. Put a stop after "marriage", and then start a new sentence at "When he told..."

Done.--andreasegde (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death

I'm not sure that the stuff about how Lynne Varcoe got her job is important. You could stop at "an auxiliary nurse".

Done.--andreasegde (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"During the night, carers from the Cheshire Trust were present." In the U.S., we say "caretakers". Is "carers" the British way? I don't know what the Cheshire Trust is, and you don't wikilink it. Why were they there, in the middle of the night?

I have cut that section down, as I couldn't find anything about the Cheshire Trust. Yes, the Brits use carer, who are not qualified nurses, but look after the patient's needs. Mimi obviously needed 24-hour care. Knowing how she was during her life, I'll bet she demanded it. :)--andreasegde (talk) 11:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Ref 11, 36, 57, 58: As per WP:SPS, using self-published websites isn't preferable. Of course, there are exceptions, but I advise to see if you can find the same information elsewhere, in more reliable sources. It's not a deal-breaker in GAC, but it would be in FAC.

Ahhh, they're all from the Lennons.net pages. OK, I looked at the WP:SPS guide, and as Mimi, Alfred and Julia Lennon, and John are all dead (unfortunately) there's no problem with that.

"Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves":

1. "the material is not unduly self-serving". It's a collection of family memories that connect the Liverpool Lennons. It doesn't claim to be anything more than that IMHO.

2. "it does not involve claims about third parties". As said, it's just about the family, and certainly makes no claims of any special kind, except for being related to John, which is true.

3. "it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source". True, it doesn't.

4. "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". It only deals with the Lennons, and is called "The Official Site of the Liverpool Lennons". It's credited as "© 2004 Lennon by Lennon Ltd. All rights reserved". A lot of the main facts are to be found in published books, but it goes deeper to relate minor details that are often overlooked.

5. "the article is not based primarily on such sources". It is not.--andreasegde (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, like I said not a deal-breaker in GAC. I'm somewhat certain, though, that it would be in FAC. If it's in better sources, there's no reason to use them. Christine (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 13: The link is to the B&N site, not to the book itself. Again, using the sources template I suggested above would help you with that. You need the publisher, publication city, and year when you cite a book. That would be a GAC deal-breaker, sorry.

If you click on "Read an excerpt" under the book cover on the left, it shows you the text that I looked at.--andreasegde (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. How cool is it that B&N includes that! Certainly different than the way Google and Amazon handles excerpts. It's still not clear to the reader, though, that you can do that. And your references still need to be complete. I played around with an example of what I mean this morning (see here [2]), and then my computer crashed and I lost everything here. Again, I think that if you reformatted your sources, it would avoid issues like this. I would be happy with doing the re-format, if you like. Christine (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the refs.--andreasegde (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 39, 46: I'd think that with everything that's been written about Lennon and The Beatles, you'd be able to find a better source. Again, not a deal-breaker, but right on the edge.

As I deleted the refs, the numbers changed, so I will just use the web address.

Ref: "The Lynne Varcoe Interview - British Beatles Fan Club". Varcoe actually left various notes on this page [3], saying "I was the nurse who was with Mimiwhen she died (my name is on her death certificate)", which I can't verify yet. If it's fake, it's a good one, as it could easily be disproved. She also left another note mentioning the interview. I also questioned her on her own Wikipedia page [4]. As I only used a small part of the interview, the decision is yours.

Fine for GAC, as above. If this is the only place that has the Varcoe interview, it would be appropriate to use, even if it were an FA. Christine (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref: iamthebeatles.com - now gone.

Ref 20 and 38 are the same.

Ref: solcomhouse.com - gone.--andreasegde (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref: Is Tripod a reliable source? If you can't find the same information elsewhere, I'd let it slide in GAC.

Ref: Tripod has gone and the sentences it referenced. Too trivial anyway. :)--andreasegde (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know for certain that IMBD isn't reliable in WP. If you need to, you can cite the movies themselves.

Deleted and replaced.--andreasegde (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. I'll give you a week to address these issues. Thanks for the opportunity to learn about an interesting person, and a little more about Beatles history. Christine (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you address the issues that are still pending, I'll pass it to GA. Again, if you need help with the sources format, let me know.

I worked on this article a long time ago, and I know the references are a bit weird. I'll update all of them, but it'll take me a day or so.--andreasegde (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ta-ra! I think I've done everything, but knowing how these things go, I've probably missed something really obvious.--andreasegde (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! And I went through and did a copy-edit, as threatened above. (Mostly correcting the overuses of "she".) Congratulations, I will go and pass Mimi to GA. It was fun! Christine (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thank thee kindly.--andreasegde (talk) 03:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]