Talk:Noël Coward/GA1

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

Starting review. This is a long and detailed article so I will be reviewing it in stages:
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Could use a good going-over by a copy editor. Some of the concerns:
 * Lead:
 * TIME magazine - should not be in all caps per MOS even if the original is. Same applies to current reference 43.
 * several others continue to receive productions "Several" is a weasel word and "continue to receive productions" is awkward.
 * In addition to... Reword the sentence to incorporate this clause instead of separating it.
 * ...have also been published. He also... Repetitive.
 * as well as in the works of other authors Eliminate.
 * In addition Generally a good idea to avoid this phrase. It's rarely necessary.
 * His plays and songs enjoyed... Inanimate objects don't generally enjoy things.
 * Perhaps include something in the lead about his introduction to society and how it influenced his work?
 * Biography:
 * "Among his fellow child actors in this period" is awkard.
 * "...in the form of..." → "....in the person of..." and merge this and the following paragraphs.
 * "Coward again partnered Lawrence..." → partnered with Lawrence
 * The last years and honors section is choppy.
 * Suggest cutting "Noël Coward, who was performing in public at ten, has never stopped being in action; at fifty-three he retains all the heady zest of adolescence." from private life section.


 * Done: I have responded to the above comments and alerted User:Tim riley also to take a look. Between Maria's edits and mine, I think these have been addressed.  Let us know if there are further comments on the prose. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Article includes appropriately formatted reference section. Please conclude all book references with a period.
 * Current reference 5, the Hoare article online, is unavailable without subscription. I suggest using Hoare's biography or other sources instead. Parodies and pop culture section (which I encourage paring back so as to avoid its developing into a clutterful trivia list) needs additional references.
 * I greatly pared down the material and added references, moving what is left into the "legacy" section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Current reference 7 is not supported by the reference. The entire quote doesn't appear in Hoare. Needs to be sourced to the autobiography or pared back to what appears in Hoare.
 * There should have been two citations. I have added the Gale one, which reads in full:

"One day . . . a little advertisement appeared in the Daily Mirror," Coward recorded in Present Indicative, his first volume of autobiography. "Mother read it aloud to me while I was having breakfast. It stated that a talented boy of attractive appearance was required by a Miss Lila Field to appear in her production of an all-children fairy play: 'The Goldfish.' This seemed to dispose of all argument. I was a talented boy, God knows, and, when washed and smarmed down a bit, passably attractive. There appeared to be no earthly reason why Miss Lila Field shouldn't jump at me, and we both believed that she would be a fool indeed to miss such a magnificent opportunity." Tim riley (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Current reference 16 is apparently broken. Items should be sourced elsewhere.
 * This was contributed by another editor, and I cannot find any alternative authority for saying that Mrs A-C relegated NC to the farm, and have therefore removed it. Tim riley (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Tim, would you please address references 7 and 16? I added periods after the book references.  Re: reference 5, The DNB article is an excellent article, and I am sure that the DNB is a reliable source.  Otto, why would citations to a book that is not available online be better than references to an excellent article that is available by subscription or online at a library?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a question of verifiability and not expecting our readers to pay to access the information. Hoare's book is available online. Otto4711 (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah! I see what you mean.  But parts of the Hoare book are not available online.  The online version calls itself a "preview" and skips a lot of pages.  Doesn't that make the online version a poor source, as compared to the article in the Dictionary of National Biography, which requires subscription but is available at libraries and in hard copy?  Also, the content of the Wikipedia article are correctly referenced to the DNB article.  The points made in the DNB article might not be made in Hoare's book.  What should one do in those instances?  -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll check this out and report back on what can and cannot be referenced from Hoare's book rather than his DNB article. Tim riley (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All done except for two DNB refs which I cannot source in Hoare's book. Tim riley (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Article covers major aspects of Coward's life and career. The pop culture references series ('In this song someone said Noel Coward'-type material) is trivial and distracting and should be removed.
 * Done. See the new paragraph in the legacy section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Article represents both sides of critical response to Coward's work.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * I don't believe that the Blithe Spirit image is appropriate under FU guidelines. The DVD cover doesn't contribute significantly to our understanding of the play or the film nor does the DVD cover offer any sort of critical commentary that can't be conveyed with free (text) content. Similar concerns apply to the Private Lives poster. Unless Rodin777 is also Victor Heyfron, the sketch of the sculpture is a copyright violation as a derivative image and probably shouldn't be on Commons.
 * A number of the captions are inadequate. There is a third unidentified person with Coward and Hawtrey who should be identified. If Mrs Astley Cooper is going to be identified in the caption then she should be identified by location in the caption. The sketch of Coward as a youth should have the artist identified by full name.
 * I'll do this now. (Lydia Bilbrooke is the missing lady!)Tim riley (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. -- 20:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. -- 20:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to place the article on hold to allow for the above issues to be addressed. Please let me know if you have any questions about my comments.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Some additional comments
I'll have a look at the prose, since Otto's made some good points. I did a quick run of the lead to fix the above suggestions, but I think the intro needs to be expanded. I added one sentence about his early life, but details about his personal (not necessarily private) life are needed to make it a more comprehensive summary. What can we say that doesn't concern his artistic successes? Nothing is mentioned about The Black Book, for example, which I think of as rather notable. Just a few more sentences should help things. I'll make some more comments as I go through it over the next couple of days -- not stepping on your toes, Otto, promise! :) María ( habla con migo ) 16:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, my toes are conspicuously uncrushed. An article this size can use more than one set of eyes. Otto4711 (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha! I didn't know about this page until the GA notice went up at the article's talk page. I'll begin addressing points. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, I've forgotten how to transclude review pages. Otto4711 (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Explanations
I rather think I have mucked up the flow of the above by slotting in my comments and explanations - so sorry! I'll rehash them separately if it will help. Tim riley (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Gale references: the site is subscription only, though (in the UK at least) is available free of charge to people who have membership of some public libraries. I can devise no way of showing the link better than that now shown. (Tim riley)

I think we have now responded to all the comments. Any more comments, Otto? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Lemme look the article over again over the next couple of days. The image issues still need to be addressed. Otto4711 (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that Otto4711 is right about the Blithe Spirit poster, which I have removed. The bust of Coward is OK as it is specifically contributed by its sculptor. I have re-captioned the 1968 Private Lives poster, to make it clear that it is not just an illustration, but a demonstration of the effect of "Dad's Renaissance" discussed in the text alongside. As we are short of pictures I should like to leave the one of NC as Slightly, which I think means leaving the Tynan quote uncut, as it refers to Slightly - the pic would look a bit odd where it is without that link, I feel. Tim riley (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have two remaining concerns. One, I'm still confused about the sketch of the sculpture. I just want to be clear, the sculptor also did the sketch? Two, there needs to be something that sources the assertion that it was Coward's exposure to society through Mrs Astley Cooper that led to his choice of subject matter. It's now asserted in the lead but the relationship is not discussed in the body. I see in Hoare p. 42-3 that she claims to be the inspiration for Hay Fever but I think there needs to be something stronger. Otto4711 (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * On the image of the sculpture I don't think there is any doubt that the artist has created and contributed it. (Indeed, looking back I see that there was some slight concern that posting this image and its fellows - e.g. Olivier might be regarded as infringing the self-advertising rule, though that has evidently been resolved.) I think we can have clear consciences on this score. On the lead section, I completely take the point that there was an element of post hoc ergo propter in the existing version, and have redrafted to omit names, and merely said that NC was introduced into high society, where he later set most of his plays, which I don't think anyone would argue with. Tim riley (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)