Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mimi Smith/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 not promoted 16:58, 22 May 2007.

Mimi Smith[edit]

This article on the aunt and guardian of John Lennon is mostly the work of andreasegde (talk · contribs) on whose behalf I am nominating. I will also endeavour to make myself available to answer questions and criticisms.

The article is a Good Article and has undergone a peer review. I believe it meets or is very close to meeting the relevant criteria, and welcome your criticisms so we can give it that final push or indeed, hopefully, your support.

One final note: Mimi Smith is deceased, and there is no free image available of her that we know of. Help sourcing a legitimately fair use image is most welcome. --kingboyk 15:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "People that knew Mimi well have stated that she was a very stubborn and determined person." I don't think there's any way a sentence like this will stand without a reference - I don't know one way or the other about the truth of it, but is it really necessary anyway? Tvoz |talk 09:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a fair summary of her character - and a defining trait if you will, so yes it's important - from the biographies I have read (that's biographies of Lennon/The Beatles, in which she plays a prominent role in Lennon's early years). Of course, Mimi is no longer with us so we have no WP:BLP concerns, however if this article is Featured we must aim for the highest standard. So:
    • Everything in the lead must be repeated and expanded on and referenced in the body. If that isn't true of this statement, I think we need to improve the body rather than tack on some citations in the lead.
    • We might remove the statement from the lead altogether, and let the information in the body do the talking; the reader can then draw their own conclusions.
    • Do you have any further comments based on what I've written, or any suggestions as to how best deal with this concern? --kingboyk 10:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  DoneI changed the comment to mirror what is in the text, but have now taken it out, as Tvoz's concerns were correct. andreasegde 14:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very interesting read. Spelling and punctuation looks good. I'm no expert at prose, but it read quite smoothly to me. Well referenced. Cricket02 03:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The article is a nice read, but there are some portions I feel uncomfortable with. These are:
    • The lead section should conform to WP:LEAD, in particular that it should be sourced as appropriate. It should also be self-contained, but the mention of the Stanley family is definitely not self-contained, because it hints at some important info in the rest of the article. Dates of birth and death should be wikified, and the abbreviations b. and d. should be deleted (see WP:MOSNUM). Also her maiden name should be included in the bolded part (Mimi Smith (née Stanley) (see WP:MOSBIO)
    • Related to that, the text on her career does not expand what is written in the lead, and as such is repetitive. Either expand on the career section, or remove her career from the lead.
      • I've fixed the style issues, and it looks much better, thank you. With regards to your other points, I'm not sure I understand. The lead should be a summary of the article, something which can stand alone. No uncontroversial points need to be cited in the lead, provided the body is well referenced. Anything in the lead must be covered and ideally expanded on in the body. That's my understanding of how to write a lead; presuming you agree with me could you give me a little more information about what is wrong with the lead please? I'd like to fix it but I'm not seeing the problem :) --kingboyk 16:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for fixing the style issues. The only issue remaining is that I think the lead should not contain Mimi's career as that is such a minor part in the article, but could possibly be expanded with Mimi's attitude towards John's marriages, which receives far more attention in the article, but is not covered in the lead. Errabee 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

    • The Stanley family bit should be told from Mimi's perspective alone and begin by explaining Mimi's relation to the Stanley family. As it is now, this section starts rather enigmatically. Also, I fail to see the relevance of Mimi's mother hating the devil's English; it is not used anywhere. The story about Leila's friendship with John Lennon has nothing to do with Mimi and I think it should be removed (but something that needs to be included in the John Lennon article, if it's not already there).
      • I've commented out the piece on Leila. I don't think it's important; she's not a major figure in any Beatle book I have read. Whether or not the sentence belongs in an article on Mimi Smith is, I think, a little less clearcut than you believe. Mimi was the defacto matriarchal head of the Stanley family; a family who aren't covered seperately on Wikipedia. --kingboyk 16:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The other objections I pass to Andrew. Please rewrite or refactor to meet with Erabee's approval, thanks mate. --kingboyk 16:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not denying that Mimi was the defacto matriarchal head of the family, but focus on her relations with the individual members of the Stanley family instead of focusing on John's relations with individual members. I miss Mimi's relations with Mater, Nanny and Harrie, and others. Errabee 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have loved to know more, but everything that is in the article is everything I could lay my hands on. She wasn't given to being interviewed, and although she loved John, she distanced herself from his music as much as possible. I have lined through the issues above that have been dealt with. They were all excellent points, and I wish I had noticed them before.andreasegde 18:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Penny Lane now links to the Beatles song. That seems to me to be an incorrect use of wikilinks. Either remove this link, or explicitly mention the Beatles song, which can then be linked.
      • I will fix this by linking to the street, which for now will link as a redirect with possibilities to the song. This needs to be done anyway, as Penny Lane is incorrectly categorised. --kingboyk 16:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done Good enough for now. Errabee 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The section heading John is not very descriptive. Perhaps something like Influence on John Lennon would be better?
      • We can do something better than "John", but not "Influence on..." please. Remember, this woman raised him; we're not talking "Elvis' influence on The Beatles" or such things :) --kingboyk 16:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've changed it to ==Mimi and John Lennon==. How does that grab you? If you don't like it, can you suggest something else? --kingboyk 17:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Done That seems fine to me; I was struggling with constructing a descriptive title as well. Errabee 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The pictures seem to be not very specific (e.g. terraced houses, harmonica, Siamese cats (is this actually one of the cats owned by Mimi or not? The caption appears to be a contradiction), Lennon rehearsing), while I miss a picture of Mimi herself.
      • Fair point; we don't have a free image of Mimi. Andrew can you try to find a non-free image of Mimi? I'll take care of the fair use claim. --kingboyk 17:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (later more) Errabee 00:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still in the Stanley family section: why is performing a matriarchal role opposed to being dressed conservatively?
      • Good question. I've added a {{fact}} tag to the matriarchal role statement (I'm sure it's true, but let's have a citation), and I've removed the strange "dressed conservatively" juxtaposition. Andrew you might want to put that statement back, with a citation, into a better position if you think it's important. --kingboyk 17:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What changed her mind with regard to her getting married? Just the ultimatum? I got a feeling from the previous paragraph that that wouldn't be enough.
      • This is another one for Andrew, the scholarly gentleman in possession of the books. --kingboyk 19:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody has ever written about it, and Mimi never liked interviews, but Jackie Dykins claims in her book that Mimi never had sex with George, and had a long-time affair with a student lodger. I found that too ridiculous to put in. Maybe Mimi thought Mendips was the place in the suburbs where could "entertain the scholars of the day", and took George for all he had. It's just speculation... andreasegde 19:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not sure if the influence of Mendips on John Lennon should be put in this article.
      • Nor me. Anybody else care to comment? As I mention below, Mimi is notable because of Lennon and because of Lennon only, and Mendips is important in her life story. Of course we need some material on it. However, the question is "how much?", given that a seperate articles does exist (251 Menlove Avenue). --kingboyk 19:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The introduction of the section John is very unclear. It should be made clear from the start that this section is about Mimi's involvement in Lennon's life. I think it is unclear for me, because it isn't explained that John Lennon is Julia's first child. This part could use a copyedit as well for grammar. Furthermore, I think it focuses too much on John Lennon's childhood experiences with other people; e.g. when Lennon was informed about George's death is (imho) not necessary in this article, nor is Lennon's reaction to Julia's death. I would like to know what Mimi's reaction was to the acquittal of the officer.
      • I'll take a look at this now. Thanks. --kingboyk 19:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Definitely needed trimming and refactoring; which I've now started (diff for my work so far provided below). --kingboyk 21:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm still working on it, but having just removed some commentary on John's feeling about the deaths of George and Mimi, I absolutely agree that more reaction from Mimi is desirable. Andrew, do the sources help? --kingboyk 22:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Andrew says the sources don't expand on Mimi's reaction. If nobody asked her and wrote it down, there's nothing we can do, sorry :) --kingboyk 11:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose that at some time Cynthia and John moved out of Mendips. I'd like to see that mentioned in Cynthia's section, because the change from Julian's birth to Harriet's funeral is too large a mental leap for me.
    • The section on Yoko focuses too little on Mimi's reaction to Yoko.

Comment Mimi was very cagey about Yoko, and although she thought John was being stupid whilst with Yoko (in the Cynthia section) she found out that Yoko owned her house in Poole, so was understandably wary. She even said that Yoko was a good mother, which doesn't sound like Mimi at all! andreasegde 19:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Does the Beatles template really have to be included?
      • I think not, no. I've removed it and feel the article is better off without it. --kingboyk 16:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Summary of this commentary: this article's focus should be more on Mimi, and less on John Errabee 10:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mimi is notable solely because of her familial relationship with John Lennon, and most of the sources about her are from Lennon biographies. I think, then, that's it not unreasonable for the article to dwell on Aunt Mimi in Lennon's life. That said, if you have any more specific objections about material which is superfluous, or important biographical information which is missing, we'd be most pleased to hear about it. Thanks. --kingboyk 19:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll take another look soon. Errabee 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Errabee. Let nobody accuse you of being anything less than thorough! :) I will work through your recommendations now, and respond on a point by point basis where necessary. Thanks again. --kingboyk 15:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have a query/suggestion now, sorry andreasegde! I've refactored and copyedited (in part) the "Mimi and John Lennon" section
    • Do we need to have a seperate "Mimi and Lennon's music" section? Might we perhaps trim the 2 sections just a little and merge them?
    • My editing has left this sentence "stray"; it doesn't really belong where it is. "Lennon was accepted into the Liverpool College of Art with help from Mimi and Lennon's headmaster, as Mimi was insistent that Lennon should have some sort of academic qualifications." Can it be moved? Where would it fit best?
  • Oh, one other point before anybody else seizes on this. It's usual in biographies to refer to people by their surname, as using the forename is usually seen as over-familiar. However, I believe this case should be an exception. Mimi is never referred to as "Smith" in any writing I have seen; she is always "Mimi" or "Aunt Mimi". "Aunt Mimi" would the over-familiar usage in this case, I believe. --kingboyk 23:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MOSBIO is clear about this: To disambiguate between siblings or other well-known relatives with the same surname, use the surname of the article header to indicate that person, and use first names or complete names to indicate siblings or others. So Mimi should be referred to as Smith, but George should be George, and all the sisters by their first names. However, I find your suggestion quite good, and won't object to its use. Errabee 01:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, but I contend that "Mimi" is rather like "Madonna", nobody calls her "Smith" (or "Ciccone"). Contrast this to a buddy-buddy article on, say, Gwen Stefani, where calling her "Gwen" would be a clear breach of MOSBIO. --kingboyk 11:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done as much as was wanted, but I am getting confused about what more is needed. I will be more than happy to go through the comments, and I have lined through some, but could somebody point out, or Bold the worst bits? andreasegde 19:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put the tasks I delegated to you onto your talk page, and also bolded your name above where your attention was needed. If you could check all those points have been covered that would be great. I'll be back later to have another look at this article and see if I can make sense of where we've got to :) In the meantime I've just come in from outside and am a bit hot and sweaty :) --kingboyk 20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think they have been done/I have done them all. I thank Errabee and kingboyk for their much-appreciated input. If there are any more comments, or any that I have missed, I would be happy to work on them. andreasegde 21:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a bit of a headache at the moment. If I can't comment/edit again tonight I'll be back tomorrow. --kingboyk 22:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I think all my comments have been worked on, and I believe the article has improved considerably. I now fully support this article for FA-status. I just have two minor additional points, which I think are not important enough to withhold my support. These are:

  • Mimi and Stanley Parkes went to a cellar where John was playing. Stanley Parkes is later referred to as Stanley. Shouldn't this be Parkes?
  • Why did the Beatles' first trip to Hamburg shock Mimi?

I fixed those as well. andreasegde 13:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Andrew and Steve on a job well done! Errabee 23:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The article seems rather comprehensive on such a minor topic. Lead may need expansion (maybe?), but that's it. LuciferMorgan 23:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Formatting and prose issues (needs to be of a "professional" standard). Some of it is so trivial that I wonder how it can be paraded as among our best work ("she did have a stainless-steel double-drainer kitchen sink installed in 1961 that she was very proud of";
  • "Complained about Lennon sleeping in the same bed as Julia and Dykins").
  • Why are common, dictionary words linked? "Aunt", "nurse", "scholars", "dignitaries", "milkman", "marry"? We do speak English, and don't want to read blue-spattered text in which valuable links are diluted by useless ones. Needs a proper audit throughout.

I have taken the links out. andreasegde 23:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not entirely happy with the prose; there's a certain conversational aspect to it that is unencyclopedic, such as "to buy a modest house in a respected suburb of Liverpool one day so that she could entertain the ..."
  • "and before it grew too late he would burst into the back room and loudly order George home. The courtship lasted almost seven years, but George grew tired of waiting"—Ungainly repetition of "grew".
  • Needs auditing for redundant "alsos". Tony 01:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC) [1][reply]
  • Oppose. From 1940 on, the article seems to tell us more about John Lennon than about the actual subject of the article. I realize her relationship to the musician is what makes Smith notable, but that doesn't mean there should be whole paragraphs that don't mention Mimi at all. The article also is still in need of copyediting. Here are some examples:
  • "The Beatles' success later enabled Lennon to buy Mimi a bungalow in Poole, Dorset, where she lived until her death in 1992." Why not take out the "later" and instead write the year she bought the bungalow?
  • I have fixed it and have put a date in. egde 03:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...which meant that she had to look after the whole family". As opposed to looking after parts of the family? What is this supposed to mean exactly?
  • "Despite this, Mimi always wore sensible dresses, and always looked as if she was on her way to a weekly garden club meeting." Sensible is definately POV. How someone looks when they're on their way to a weekly garden club meeting also differs from culture to culture. You can't expect everyone to have the same connotation with this. It would be better to just describe the kind of clothing she wore.
  • "When other girls were thinking of marriage, ..." "her peers" or "most of her peers" would be more exact than "other girls".
  • "With help from Mimi and Lennon's headmaster, Lennon was accepted into the Liverpool College of Art as Mimi was insistent that Lennon should have some sort of academic qualifications, even though Lennon was beginning to show an interest in music" Have you counted how often "Lennon" is repeated in that sentence?--Carabinieri 01:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a, 1c, and 2. The WP:LEAD is inadequate, consisting of four sentences. Further, the TOC is nested to the third level, which would be suggestive of a very complex article — not a short article with a four-sentence lead. The prose is just not at all compelling (example: To aid her very absent-minded mother, Mimi had to take a matriarchal role in the Stanley house, which meant that she had to look after the whole family, and not just one or two of her siblings.) —and has many redundancies (example: After the birth of all of his daughters, Mimi's father retired from sailing and found a job with the Liverpool and Glasgow Tug Salvage Company as an insurance investigator.)

Several sources are missing publication dates.

  • Comment: Which book sources are missing publication dates? egde 18:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources are not reliable: examples,

  • A personal, tripod webpage and another personal webpage, home.orange.nl/robvdbijl/Im53.html
  • Iamthebeatles.com
  • solcomhouse.com
  • pocketcat.blogspot.com
  • and, it's not clear to me that lennon.net is a reliable source.

I don't think this article can make it from where it is now to FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These green check marks are irritating and misleading, and make it hard to read the FAC. It would be helpful if you would remove them, and let reviewers indicate whether they consider something done or not. No, the personal webpages have not been removed - there is still a tripod personal website, and the prose redundancy was only an example - you can't fix that one, put a green check mark, and consider it done. I made some sample edits to show you missing info that needs to be checked for on all sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I truly apologise for that, as I am fairly new to FA reviews. I will take them all out. Sorry. egde 20:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although edge has worked hard on this and should be congratulated I really don't think that she is sufficiently notable to warrant FA status. She clearly played an important role in the life of an important Beatle, but had no achievements of her own, and on this principle we'd have FAs on every parent of every notable person - and why not every child as well - and every school they attended - and every significant teacher - and indeed anyone who was mentioned in several biographies about them. I also agree with the comments above about reliable sources. The fact is the whole thing is trivia and so understandably the sources are a bit trivial. NBeale 05:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Irrelevant to FAC and not actionable. --kingboyk 10:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without wishing to be un-necessarily pedantic, one of the FA criteria is "appropriate length without going into un-necessary detail". Now the appropriate length for Mimi Smith is somewhere between a sentence and a couple of paragraphs. She has no notable achievements except being John Lennon's Aunt and Guardian. If you are interested in Beatles Trivia then there is a fair ammount of obscure stuff, but Mimi as far as I can see said and did absolutely nothing that would even be remotely notable but for the fact that she said it or did it to/about John Lennon. In fact according to the article her claim to have bought Lennon's first guitar was false and her main "contribution" to the Beatles was to be very hostile and discouraging. And much of the article is facts about Mimi that have nothing to do with her relationship with Lennon at all. Sorry, edge put in a lot of work but it would be ridiculous to make this a featured article - we might as well have one about some obscure Pokemon character. NBeale 19:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Mimi_Smith/archive1&oldid=1138467058"