Talk:James Humphreys (pornographer)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Freeknowledgecreator (talk · contribs) 10:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, SchroCat. I am willing to review the article. It is about an interesting subject and you have clearly put a lot of work into it. You may have to wait for perhaps a day or two before I can provide a full, detailed review. Something I will say now is that for an article that is so concerned with pornography, it is surprising that there isn't a link specifically to the Pornography article. I'd suggest linking "pornography" in the sentence stating, "Soho was the area of London described by the cultural theorist Oliver Carter as "the central location for London's sexual economy, with pornography and sex work being its defining feature". Maybe you haven't linked it already because of MOS:LWQ, but the style manual doesn't rule out links within quotations, it only indicates that we should link with caution, and be sure that the link is correct. A link to pornography is clearly correct in this case. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Doh! Good point. Now added. I've also linked sex work in the same quote. No rush on the review, and thanks for picking it up. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:LEADCITE, one could question whether the lead needs its one citation. I don't use them in the leads of articles myself. There is no need for you to remove it, however, and I assume it is there for a specific reason (especially controversial material?). More detailed comments soon. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend not to either, but in this case the number was unclear in the body (several policemen were taken to court at various but some were not prosecuted), so the actual number is unclear further down. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, the best thing might be to be clear about the number of policemen concerned lower down in the article. You could then reconsider whether the citation is needed in the lead. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, done - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The article is mostly very well written. There are places though where it could be criticized. The article states, "In 1969 Humphreys and his wife tried to open a sex shop, but was told by police he could not". The grammar there doesn't seem correct. There are a couple of other places where a slightly different wording might be better; eg "Soon afterwards Silver invited Humphreys to lunch with Moody at which Moody said that Humphreys could open the shop if he paid £4,000 up front, a half share of the takings and £100 a week to the OPB". Again it doesn't seem quite right; I might have added "a" before "lunch", or made some other kind of minor alteration to clarify that sentence. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Both points done. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The article states, "Silver and Humphreys began a professional relationship; Silver thought Humphreys and his wife would be a profitable investment for the future, Humphreys thought Silver could provide access and protection. Both were right." That doesn't necessarily have to be changed, but I am a little uncomfortable with it, since "right" is a term that can have connotations of moral judgment (even though that no doubt isn't what is intended here). So again I would have used a different wording in place of "Both were right". Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Tweaked, - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The article states, "The relationship between Humphreys and his wife was sometimes stormy." Again, this doesn't have to be changed necessarily, but "stormy" (although a widely recognized term) is also an informal one. So some other term could possibly be used instead. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Tweaked, - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The article states, "Mark brought in Detective Chief Superintendent Bert Wickstead, the head of the Serious Crime Squad (SCS), to clean up the pornographers and the OPB". Again, "clean up" is a term readers will likely understand, but again it is an informal term, and something else could (though doesn't have to be) used instead. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, done - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Another example: "Two years into the arrangement Humphreys threw two of the women out". Again, readers will understand what this means, but presumably it isn't literally accurate? I am not saying a figure of speech cannot be used, only that a different way of putting this would be at least possible. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In this case it is literally accurate! I've tweaked to clarify. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The article states, "as at 2019 the film remains unmade"; "as of" seems correct, rather than "as at". Freeknowledgecreator (talk)
 * "as at" is the BrEng term; "as of" is the AmEng version. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually wasn't aware of that. If the current version is correct British English, by all means keep it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Again, these are all basically minor quibbles with a generally very well-written article. More comments soon. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done all the above (bar the last) so far with this edit. Looking forward to any more. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi. I wasn't able to respond to your comments immediately (I was having a paint job done in my apartment). I will reply soon. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, no rush at all: I am just delighted that someone is reviewing it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your patience. I have had Internet connection problems among other things. I made a few replies above that you may want to look at. I'll review your edits at the article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your changes all look like improvements; in some cases, I might have used a slightly different wording, but that isn't important. One further change I would suggest would be to this passage: "Two years into the arrangement Humphreys bodily ejected two of the women from the flats. One negotiated a return, but three months later Rusty Humphreys threw her out again." I'd alter "threw her out" to something else, as there is otherwise still a slight ambiguity about whether "threw her out" is literal or not. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added "violently" to the term, which reflects what the source says. - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The six good article criteria are,

1. That the article be well written. I think the article meets this standard (though you can note the one remaining minor criticism I've made above).

2. That the article be verifiable with no original research. The article certainly seems to be carefully cited, and there was nothing that struck me as being original research.

3. That article be broad in its coverage, which means that it "addresses the main aspects of the topic" and "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". I think the article meets this standard. Although it is quite long, its length doesn't seem unreasonable or excessive. I read the article again carefully to see whether there was anything that looked as though it should be trimmed or cut back, but really, there wasn't anything.

4. That the article be neutral. There was nothing in the article that seemed lacking in neutrality.

5. That the article be stable. The article does seem stable. Reviewing its recent history, there is only a single revert, hence no evidence of ongoing edit wars.

6. That the article be illustrated by media such as images, video, or audio. The article is nicely illustrated. I have not, as yet, checked the copyright status of the images used, but I will be doing that in the near future.

Fundamentally, I don't have any objection to passing the article, unless there is some significant problem that I'm simply not seeing. However, I'm going to wait for a brief time before making a final judgment, to check some remaining things like the copyright status of the images and to allow for some further discussion. There are still a few improvements that might be made. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've taken one of the images out - there are a couple of people taking a far too narrow view of the requirements, and unfortunately they are unwilling to step away. (I work in the field of intellectual property, so I have a fairly psasable grasp of copyright legislation, but when the image people dig their heels in to say black is white, there is no talking sense to them). The others should all be OK.
 * I think I'm up to date on your comments, but please let me know if I've missed any. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am very close now to passing the article, but I do note an issue with one of the files, the Soho district map one. Clicking on it, I found a message stating, "This file was moved to Wikimedia Commons from wts.oldwikivoyage using a bot script. All source information is still present. It requires review. Additionally, there may be errors in any or all of the information fields; information on this file should not be considered reliable and the file should not be used until it has been reviewed and any needed corrections have been made. Once the review has been completed, this template should be removed. For details about this file, see below. Check now!" What is your response to this? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've swapped it for something a little more solid (I have no idea what the gibberish on the image page is asking anyone to do, so we'll go with a 'clean' one instead. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Passed article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's great news. Thanks very much . Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)