Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ian Carmichael/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 30 January 2024 [1].

Ian Carmichael[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Carmichael was one of those who appeared in the Boulting brothers’ unofficial repertory company of actors that gave the cinema some wonderful and very British comedies in the 1950s - Private's Progress (1956), Brothers in Law (1957), Lucky Jim (1957) and I'm All Right Jack (1959), often appearing locked in a battle of wills with Terry-Thomas. He went on to play Wooster and Wimsey – two very different characters but with the same core that Carmichael had been honing for years. This has been through a recent re-write and had a solid PR with comments in from Tim riley and UndercoverClassicist. Any further comments are most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Not much on rereading now to add to my comments – all duly addressed – at the peer review. Very minor quibbles from a further perusal, none of which affect my support:

  • Lead
  • "from June 1944 to May 1945 saw active service from France to Berlin" might benefit if you changed the first "from" to between (and the "to" to "and")
  • Early life
  • "an optician in a family firm of jewellers" – seems a bit odd, like being a fishmonger in a family firm of plumbers or a lepidopterist in a family firm of dentists: what did an optician do in a jewellery firm?
    He opticled! The sources all say the same thing, but that means none gives any more clarity, unfortunately, except that he was a trained optician who operated a practice within the family jewellery firm. - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess the two went together -- presumably the skills/kit for cutting and setting gemstones overlapped pretty well with those needed to do the same to lenses? A bit like being a surgeon in a company of barbers? UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No further questions, m'lud! Tim riley talk 22:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early career and war service, 1939–1946
  • "he was informed he would have to wait until he was twenty—on 18 June 1940—before he commenced training" – a couple of rather refained words: a plain "told" and "started" might be preferable
  • Early post-war career, 1946–1955
  • "from October 1946, then ran at the Apollo Theatre" – in my book (being an old codger) "then" is not a conjunction and could do with "and" in front of it
  • "hits the bull's-eye" for his comic performance in one sketch" – I suspected I knew what that sketch was, and The Stage cutting confirms it – the shy young man changing on the beach (he repeated it on television in the 1960s and it was very funny indeed). I don't press the point, but it might be nice if you gave us a few words saying what the "one sketch" was about.
  • Wooster and Wimsey, 1962–1979
  • "the run ended after 23 performances, since the farce not being to the taste of New York audiences" – you need to lose the "since" for this sentence to be grammatically OK.
  • "No one was more delighted by the early close than Carmichael, who disliked his time in the US who said "I found New York a disturbing, violent city..." – should the second "who" be "and"? (And the implication that other people were also delighted by the early close seems a little strange.)
  • "they were able to start filming the first programme Clouds of Witness" – a bit of punctuation needed?
  • Semi-retirement, 1979–2009
  • "the voice of Galahad Threepwood for two radio productions Pigs Have Wings and Galahad at Blandings" – ditto

That's my lot. I greatly enjoyed revisiting the article and reviewing it again. It seems to me clear, balanced, comprehensive, well and widely sourced and a very good read. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 21:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim! All sorted where possible (only the opticlling issue unaddressed). Thank you so much for all your comments at PR and again here: they are all much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC[edit]

As with Tim, not much from me here:

  • audiences enjoyed seeing his portrayals: perhaps a slightly limp ending for the lead (and arguably unverifiable -- all of them?) Could we work in something a bit more concrete?
  • in his early years he had a "privileged, pampered existence" in a home that included maids and a cook, according to Robert Fairclough, his biographer: the according is about the privilege and pampering, not the maids and cook; suggest sometihng like Robert Fairclough, his biographer, describes Carmichael's upbringing as a "privileged, pampered existence"; his parents employed maids and a cook (I'm not sure a home can include people, though a household definitely can).
  • Would suggest rephrasing "infant education"; it sounds like this means Prep/primary school rather than actually being an infant (unless they had some very foul-mouthed toddlers in Yorkshire).
  • Speaking as a Lancastrian I have no quarrel with the end of that sentence. Tim riley talk 22:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will defer to you on Lancashire mores, though our own article suggests that "infant schools" have been considered under the umbrella of primary schools since the 1940s. There's also a MOS:COMMONALITY case that we should make concessions to our few non-Lancastrian readers. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking as a child of Yorkshire (for all of four weeks, being shipped off to Germany while still a baby), I feel one should always ignore Lancastrians and Scousers whenever possible, particularly those named Riley! - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the main point, he was four, (which I've now added) - SchroCat (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carmichael enjoyed his time at RADA, including being outnumbered by women on his course by five to one: this doesn't quite say what it means to: it's not that Carmichael was outnumbered, but that men were outnumbered. Suggest the fact that women outnumbered men on his course...
  • Given the reference to the "Worsening European situation" in the blockquote, I'd put some (re)statement of the dates of Carmichael's time at RADA in the opening to that section (not all readers will have read or remembered the preceding one).
  • At the end of training manoeuvres...: not a huge problem, but quite a long sentence. Is it relevant here that Whitby is by the sea?
  • I'd go with a full stop after "Very much the amateur", partly for cadence and partly because the semicolon looks a bit odd after the quote marks.
  • a twelve-week tour round Britain: should this be around? I can wear "a round-Britain tour", but I'm not sure that this usage works in formal writing -- but will defer if you disagree.
  • Second oar-insertion by TR: When in doubt, turn to Fowler. This is what Butterfield says in the current (2015) edition: around, round: As both adverb and preposition these words are interchangeable in some contexts but not in others. In general, British English favours round and American English around. In AmE round is generally regarded as informal or nonstandard and is only standard in certain fixed expressions such as all (the) year round and they went round and round in circles. There's a lot more (pages 64-65) for them as wants to pursue the matter, but I think the present wording is OK. Tim riley talk 22:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between 1947 and 1951...: another long sentence, easily solved by swapping the semicolon for a full stop.
  • Is it possible or workable to clarify that The Globe isn't the more famous theatre by the same name?
  • How does that look? I don't want to over-egg the point in the text, but this should make it a bit clearer. - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would change the link on "officer in the Guards" to just cover "the Guards" per least astonishment.

UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • All done, aside from the first point - I'll work on that shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That done too - how does that look? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd go with the plural rather than "an audience" (unless he only had one good performance). Might wish to phrase "nurtured his performances" to something that more straightforwardly means "tried", just to keep it encyclopaedic (it's a matter of fact that he wanted to come across as dignified; whether he did is a fuzzier and less encyclopaedic matter). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gone with the plural. For the rest, it's summarising what 'Screen persona' says. - SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now superseded by the version worked on in KJP1's review. - SchroCat (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi UC, is there any more to come from you? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should have changed to support, per discussion below. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks UC. Many thanks, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. (I like "resplendent".) Gog the Mild (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog! - SchroCat (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • Just a placeholder for now. Started reading but I'll pick up in the morning when I'm fresher.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and between June 1944 and May 1945 saw active service from France to Berlin. " the body of the article does not mention service in Berlin, unless this is meant to refer to the general Allied movement.
  • "Stone disagreed and signed the comic to perform ..." signed or assigned?
  • " They wanted him to appear in two film versions of novels—Private's Progress by Alan Hackney and Brothers in Law by Henry Cecil—with an option for five films;[40][41] the final contract was for six films.[42] " So was the contract for two films with an option for four, or for two films with an option for six? It might also be useful were you to mention at what point the contract terminated.
    Now clarified on the numbers; unfortunately the termination isn't mentioned. - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You tell us of a downturn in the sort of bumbling roles that suited Carmichael, and then mention Wooster. I think for the benefit of those unfamiliar with the gentleman that you have to make it clearer that Wooster is that sort of role. If the sources so state, of course.
  • Carmichael and Price may have made a priceless pair, but the latter is linkless.
    He was linked above, but as we're now allowed to duplicate links, I've added one here too. - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including providing the voice for Rat in the 1983 film The Wind in the Willows[104] and as the narrator for the television series The Wind in the Willows between 1984 and 1990." perhaps rather than repeating the title say "of the same name" or some such.
That's it. Very interesting. I've seen very little of his work, some of the Wimsey adaptations, but will have to look for them.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers Wehwalt, all sorted, thanks. If you like light-hearted British B&W films, you can't go wrong with Private's Progress I'm All Right Jack (although everyone was out-classed by Sellers's tour de force) and School for Scoundrels - Carmichael and Terry-Thomas as their best. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks for the recommendations.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt, as always your thoughts are always interesting to hear and very welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

  • Marking my spot. I will say, from reading the first paragraph in the lead, is his very brief and somewhat inevitable army career worth mentioning so prominently here? It's no secret that most well-heeled actors born in the 1920s were commissioned quickly, and nearly all saw active service, of sorts. His service in Europe was equally brief - lasting barely a year - and he was demobbed quietley without any notable distinction. This of course might change the further I read on, but this is on first glance. CassiantoTalk 07:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Cass (and sorry for the delay getting back to you). I've trimmed out the service details, while leaving in reference to the break in his career; does that work? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Anarchyte[edit]

Reserving. I'm slightly preoccupied at the moment, so just give me a ping if it appears I've forgotten. Cheers, Anarchyte (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the lead, I think the new ending discussed below is much better. I've linked Second World War, but that was the only thing I noticed in that section. I will continue with the remainder of the article over the coming days. Anarchyte (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • I'm not set on the way the two biographers are mentioned in the first paragraph. Jennings' work as his biographer is categorised by the mention of the DNB; Fairclough's isn't. This isn't inherently a problem, it's just something I noticed.
    I tend to do it because when mentioning "biographer", the initial thought for most is a (normally lengthy) book' the ODNB is slightly different, in that is is much more like our own one-page entry summarising. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early career and war service, 1939–1946
  • "as RADA shut down in anticipation that war was about to be declared, which it was the following day. Carmichael returned to his familial" — Consider adjusting the end/start of these sentences: "as RADA shut down in anticipation that war was about to be declared. The United Kingdom joined the Second World War on 3 September, and Carmichael returned to his familial home and completed the forms to join the Officer Cadet Reserve, hoping to be commissioned as an officer". Happy to consider other phrasings. Just not pleased with "which it was the following day".
    Reworked. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early post-war career, 1946–1955
  • "risen to sixth in the credits behind John Mills and Eric Portman." — does this mean he appeared in sixth in film's credits? Many modern films are leaning towards order of appearance, so this may confuse some readers.
    Some are, but the overall weight is still by importance, and I think it's clear from the context here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Screen success, 1955-1962
  • "and his screen presence in the US was warmly" — write out "the United States" for the first instance.
    Per MOS:ACRO1STUSE, the US is one of those where the full name does not need to be written out in full. -SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wooster and Wimsey, 1962–1979
  • Clarify how the tastes differed for those unfamiliar with the provided list of films.
    OK, clarified this. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ended after 23 performances, the farce not being" — seems like a word is missing after the comma, like "with".
  • It's fine in BrEng, but I suspect this will be one of those sentences which helpful IPs will keep adding the word in later, so I've added it now. - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The addition of "with" turns good prose into bad. If you must redraw I suggest "as the farce was not..." Tim riley talk 10:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Great article. Anarchyte (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anarchyte, that's great - thanks for your thoughts. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Support. Anarchyte (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Anarchyte; that's great. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KJP1[edit]

As I go through. Feel free to comment while I do, or I'll ping when I'm finished and you can pick them up then. I'm not expecting to find much to quibble about. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "he nurtured his performances and screen persona to gain audiences' sympathies, while retaining a measure of dignity they could relate to" - I struggled a little with this final clause. Is it saying something like; "his performances of dignified ineptitude charmed and resonated with both critics and audiences"/"his performances of dignified ineptitude charmed and resonated with audiences and critics alike"? I'm not sure that's quite right, but I'm not quite sure I get the intended meaning. I think Dennis Barker's obituary line is what it's trying to convey - he could "play fool parts in a way that did not cut the characters completely off from human sympathy"?
I've struggled over this closing sentence more than anything else in the article, trying to strike a balance that does him credit and stays within the sources. I've reworked again to try this version out. Pinging UndercoverClassicist, who thought the first version also needed ammending. - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - tricky, as there's a lot that sentence is trying to say. How's about:
  • "Although Carmichael tired of being typecast as the affable but bumbling upper-class Englishman, his craft enabled his inept but well-intentioned characters to retain a measure of dignity; audiences laughed at his antics, while sympathising with his sufferings."
UC will likely have better suggestions. KJP1 (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt it, but I'll have a go: I think the suggestion you make above would be great for an obituary but perhaps a bit too subjective for an encyclopaedia. Can we find a reviewer, or indeed an obit, saying words to the effect of in this manner, audiences laughed at his antics, but still gave him their sympathies, and then simply hand over to them: "his obituary in the Telegraph credited him with..." or similar? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Barker's pretty good: "What made Carmichael notable was that he could play fool parts in a way that did not cut the characters completely off from human sympathy: a certain dignity was always maintained, so that any pathos did not become bathos"? That could give you something like:
"Although Carmichael tired of being typecast as the affable but bumbling upper-class Englishman, his craft ensured that while audiences laughed at his antics, he retained their affection; Dennis Barker, in his Guardian obituary, wrote: "What made Carmichael notable was that he could play fool parts in a way that did not cut the characters completely off from human sympathy: a certain dignity was always maintained." KJP1 (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to you both. How does it look now? - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like it a lot. What say you, UC? KJP1 (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent solution -- well done both. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you both. I've written and re-written that line so many times it's unbelievable, so thanks to you both for your help in getting it there. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • "an optician in a family firm of jewellers" - I see it's been discussed above, but it still strikes me as rather odd. What does an optician do in a jewellery firm, make very fancy glasses? "an optician from a family firm of jewellers", perhaps? But I suppose if the sources say it, who are we to argue.
It's definitely "in"; I've tweaked this a bit, but it feels a bit laboured. - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scarborough College" - this, Scarborough College, would be a better link, I think. The article lists Carmichael as a former pupil, with a cite, so I'm sure it's the right one.
  • "the spartan and authoritarian regime at the school. He described the discipline at the school as "Dickensian"" - I wonder if the second "at the school" could be lost, without loss?
Early career and war service, 1939–1946
  • "appeared as Flute in A Midsummer Night's Dream at RADA's Vanbrugh Theatre" - if you wanted, and you may not, I can see two possible bluelinks, either Vanburgh Theatre, I see it is now officialy the Jerwood Vanbrugh Theatre, or Vanbrugh Theatre.
Early post-war career, 1946–1955
  • "he appeared in two roles in the comedy She Wanted a Cream Front Door" - a query rather than a comment, do the sources say anything about the two roles? Was it an Alec Guinness, Kind Hearts thing, or simply that he played two minor roles? I see that this 1947 production has Clive Drummond in two roles. Just out of interest.
Carmichael had the roles held by Grenville Wright had on that link - info now added. - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carmichael also appeared in The Colditz Story the same year" - this is super picky, but the year referenced in the immediately prior sentence is 1956. And the "year" in the sentence preceding that is "1954-55". Whereas Colditz was 1955. Perhaps, "In 1955 Carmichael also appeared in The Colditz Story"?
Screen success, 1955–1962
  • Footnote b: "the Boultings made films that took a 'sharp, but generally good-tempered swipes at such social bastions'" - I don't think the "a", works here as it relates to the plural "swipes".
  • Footnote c: His selection was..." - Mr Riley will likely correct me, but as he chose eight tunes, perhaps "His selections were"? Same query for Footnote g.
Wooster and Wimsey, 1962–1979
  • Image caption: "Carmichael played Bertie Wooster in The World of Wooster between 1966 and 1967" - with the first episode airing on 30 May 1965, I think this should read, "between 1965 and 1967".
  • "various factors—including money, Carmichael's association with Bertie Wooster in the public's eye and difficulty obtaining the rights". Again, more of a query, but do the sources say anything more as to the nature of the money difficulties? Was it general funding, or that Carmichael was demanding too much of it?
General BBC funding - I've changed it to "financing" rather than money - SchroCat (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life
  • Just as a general issue, and as mentioned on your Talkpage, I think it's a pity there's nothing on his funeral. I think the scattering of his ashes along the banks of the River Esk would be a nice close to to this section, but if the sources (other than the unusable Findagrave) don't mention it, then we can't. And if his house, The Priory, Grosmont, North Yorkshire was listed, I'd do a stub, but it isn't, and it being his home is my OR. Though I see that Bruce Webber's NYT obituary mentions that he died at his home in Grosmont, so I'm getting closer!
I've run smoe news searches but can't find anything that helps on this - it's only Findagrave that makes the claim - not even the Mail or Express mention it, so it's possibly not true. - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat - And that's it from me. Shall be delighted to Support once you've had the opportunity to review my, essentially minor, nitpicks. It was a very good read. He wasn't Alec Guinness, but he was a fine character actor, albeit of a "type". It's a little sad that he, and the Boultings, recognised this, but wider opportunities never arose. KJP1 (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cheers KJP1 - all sorted. Most should be straightforward, but the comment re the lead is the one which may need a bit more tweaking. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have done him proud. A fine article which I’m confident meets the FAC criteria and which I’m pleased to Support. Thanks for tolerating my quibbles, and for the prompt responses. KJP1 (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks KJP, that's great - your input is always welcome and spot on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

It seems like there is a consistent source format here. There are so many Fairclough, Robert around that I need a pointer on who this guy is. I find it a bit odd that I can't find much on Humphries, Patrick. The book sources and websites seem OK, while I can't vouch for most of the newspaper sources mentioned. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, just checking whether there is an actionable point in there? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd like to have some information on Fairclough and Humphries, mostly their credentials. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Humphries is a journalist and author. He's written works on Hitchcock, Hollywood and several biographies on musicians. A list of his works can be found here
Robert Fairclough is a writer and producer. He's written on The Prisoner, The Sweeney and Callan (TV series); he's also a broadcaster on BBC and ITV and is published in numerous magazines etc. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then it seems like this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jo-Jo. Didn't realise you wanted me to comment after your first comment - my bad. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2024 (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/Ian_Carmichael/archive1&oldid=1201124454"