Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noël Coward

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 Karanacs 22:02, 24 March 2009 [1].

Noël Coward[edit]

Nominator(s): Ssilvers (talk) and User:Tim riley

We have nominated this article because we believe that it is a comprehensive, well-written, well-referenced article on Coward, who was one of the most successful and fascinating playwrights, songwriters and actors of the 20th century. The article was promoted to GA and then had a peer review. In addition, since the GA review, co-nominator User:Tim riley and I have challenged each other to continue to improve the article, and we now believe that it represents some of the best content in Wikipedia and deserves to be promoted to FA. Looking forward to the comments! Ssilvers (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sourcing issues - [2] is a newly dead link. The Oxford Dictionary of Biography requires registration. I raised that issue during the article's GAN but decided it wasn't serious enough to prevent listing. I find it more serious at the FAC level that the information can't be verified by any user.
We re-sourced all but one of the DNB refs during the GA process. The single one left is one I cannot find in print form. N.b., the ODNB is available in print as well as online, and is in that respect on a par with most of our printed sources. The quote referenced on the talkinbroadway site exists in various versions: Coward used various locations at different times (e.g. Brighton and Tunbridge Wells). I'll find one in one of the published biographies in the next 24 hours and replace the ref. Tim riley (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a reference requires registration does not mean that it should be considered inferior. ODNB is a high quality source; quality trumps availability when dealing with sources. We should not get into the habit of preferring sources that offer instant gratification over high quality sources that might require some effort to obtain. I had a look at the GA of this article, and I believe you're misinterpreting WP:V, Otto. Having to go down to a library to check out a book or access online databases does not mean that a claim is any less verifiable (that is, Wikipedia's definition) than one freely available on the Internet. BuddingJournalist 16:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect issues - there are five redirects currently in the article. Otto4711 (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • What makes the following reliable sources?
John Kenrick, its author and curator, is a well-known, well-published theatre historian. At the WP musical theatre project, we cite to this extensive and excellent website frequently. Can anyone else help, who knows more about the indicia of reliability for high-quality web sources?
If he's a published theater historian, you'll need to show something that proves that. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of libraries, universities and arts sites link to musicals101. Kenrick teaches musical theatre history at New York University's Steinhardt School. BroadwayWorld/com calls him "Internationally recognized musical theatre and film authority" and mentions his York Theatre Company lecture series here. His publications include the books The Complete Idiot's Guide to Amateur Theatricals (2006), and Musical Theatre: A History (2008). His article "Theatre in New York: A Brief History" appears in the textbook Theatre Law: Cases and Materials (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2004). Here is a Daily News article citing Kenrick as an authority. Kenrick has appeared in several documentaries about musicals. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one I'll leave out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the official website of the Noel Coward Society, whose fidelity and authority I have never heard called into question. Tim riley (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced this with a quote to the same effect (Coward used this line in various forms over the years) from the Hoare biography. Tim riley (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the quote as used in Talkinbroadway (which is a good source for theatre reviews). Perhaps there is another cite with the more interesting version of the quote that we could use? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Paddington Square" (which doesn't exist) always worried me. Safer to stick with the ipsissima verba even if they are a touch less striking. Tim riley (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, is this source replaced or not? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is replaced with a source from a printed biography of Coward. Tim riley (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing we are using the cite for is to identify which episode the reference appeared in. Wikipedia has an article on Goodnight Sweetheart, as it was a popular show in Britain. Is there a more "official" reference?
I'm more worried about the site itself, not the show... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a couple of newspaper references to the character of Coward in the programme: The Independent, 20 August, 2008: David Benson sings Noel Coward: "Returning to Coward, the character he played in Goodnight Sweetheart, David Benson fulfils a dream he first had at 12, when his grandfather gave him a Coward record." And The Times, 27 December 1997: "The first step will be playing Noel Coward in a new television series of Goodnight Sweetheart, by Laurence Marks and Maurice Gran." Tim riley (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, can you add page numbers for these newspaper cites, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You CAN reference the actual episode, you know, if all you're referencing is that fact that NC appeared as a character in one episode, or however. You don't need a third party source for that info. Or you can use those press mentions. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - Press refs added. Tim riley (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This info can be cross checked against the UK daily listings of broadcast programmes if desired. I shall gladly do so if it is thought worthwhile. Tim riley (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tim riley (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a side note, there is nothing wrong with using the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. It's not only available online but in print also. Also, most UK library card holders have free access to it. It's certainly a better source than a lot of stuff that's freely available on the internet. Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tech. Comment -- Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS), and dabs/external links (checker tools) are found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 01:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I peer-reviewed this article on 27 February, and I've informally re-reviewed it more recently. I thought it was nearly FA when I first reviewed it, and it has steadily improved. All of my concerns, including a fair number involving image licenses, have been addressed. It appears that the issues raised above have also been addressed except perhaps for the Kenrick question, which I can't answer one way or the other except to say that the Kenrick tidbits seem uncontroversial. Excellent article. A most pleasant read. Finetooth (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I also peer-reviewed it; the comcerns I raised then have been properly addressed. This is in my view a first-class article which will be a credit to the encyclopedia. I have a few final nitpicks, however:-
Done - slightly differently from above suggestion as the play ran on and off for years (until the 1950s I believe) and NC was in only the 1911 and 1912 productions. Tim riley (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Francis Beaumont and his sometime collaborator, John Fletcher". I don't really see the point of "sometime"
I was trying to accommodate the fact that modern scholarship generally attributes the play to Beaumont alone, but in Coward's day it was thought to be by Beaumont and Fletcher, and he was rude about them both in connection with the play.
  • "The Vortex, Fallen Angels and Hay Fever ran simultaneously in the West End, setting a record." What was the nature of this record?
This was the first time that a playwright had three productions running simultaneously in the West End. I'm running out - Back on Tuesday. Tim, kindly revise. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will check on this: not absolutely sure if NC was the first to have a West End hat trick. Tim riley (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have checked, but cannot immediately verify that he was. On the other hand it is true to say that he had not just three but four shows on at once, and I have so edited. Tim riley (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coward's intimate-scale hits of the period included Private Lives (1930), in which Coward starred alongside his most famous stage partner, Gertrude Lawrence, and the young Laurence Olivier, and Design for Living (1932), written for Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne." Another five-comma job, and two "ands". Awkward to read, difficult to rephrase. My best shot is to say "together with the young Laurence Olivier" and make the comma after Olivier into a semicolon.
Done. (point taken!) Tim riley (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why did the success of Private Lives prompt Coward to institute the rule you mention?
Redrafted. (He found long runs boring and also needed time for writing.)
  • "During a night of bombing at the Savoy Hotel..." – was this a regular feature there? Seriously, I should have picked this up at PR; it needs a little rephrasing
Done.
  • "The Queen mother replied simply..." "Simply" is not neutral and has to go, I'm afraid.
Done. Tim riley (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless I fully concur with the opinion given above: an excellent article. Brianboulton (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oh, well done! I made a handful of minor tweaks, mostly for the dreaded logical punctuation. A few remaining quibbles:

  • "Coward encouraged his secretary and posthumous biographer Cole Lesley to be frank once he was safely dead" - Was there some sort of arrangement prior to Coward's death concerning a posthumous bio? I was struck by the (apparent) incongruity of the language here.
Thank you! Yes, NC suggested to CL that he should write NC's biography after NC's death. Shall redraft.
  • "his secretary and close confidante Lorn Loraine" - She is previously referred to as "Lorn McNaughtan"; let's connect the dots.
Footnote to cover this.
  • "His nickname, "The Master" "started as a joke and became true", according to Coward." - Either drop the first comma or add another to enclose the parenthetical, please.
Oh dear! My most persistent vice, opening subordinate clauses and not closing them! Shall deal instanter.
I don't think I've personally run across either of your work here at FAC, but I hope to see you back, and soon. Engaging prose, achieved in spite of the necessary litany of play titles, dates and descriptions? A true accomplishment. This is good writing. Maralia (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How very kind - and most encouraging! Thank you. Tim riley (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support (1a). I've cleaned up a few things in the first part. Mostly well-written. Well done.

Tweaks okay with me - esp. the one at the end of the lead. Tim riley (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we have to have the umlaut in the title. Announces that he was a poonce (I can say that only because I am also a poonce).
  • For heaven's sake: hands up anyone who doesn't know what "singer" means. Or "actor". Why are they linked? See MOSLINK. I've removed them, with one query—you piped "Theatre director" to "director"; which is better? I'd have thought the narrower item, but then I see it was broader than this in the second para. I've re-jigged the order of the sentences about his plays in the second para. Please check.
Rejig is okay with me. Tim riley (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a better word than "tryout"? Tony (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shall ponder. Tim riley (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS May I second Maralia's suggestion? It would be great if you could return here to review nominations. If time is limited, perhaps you could keep a check on the literary nominations? Sandy's talk page has a template with regularly updated alerts to nominations that need reviewing. Tony (talk) 11:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - such "terribly, terribly fine work". I have no problem with the musicals101 site; it may be the result of a personal passion - but it's a knowledgeable and informed passion written by someone with an academic reputation. I did think you might have missed a trick by ignoring the songs Coward published and performed in his own cabaret evenings and many recordings - but there it was, a whole section. The New Statesman says of Coward and the umlaut "a supercilious dandy, uttering epigrams in a voice constricted by snooty artifice; the umlaut he affected, which made no difference to the pronunciation of his name, was as otiose as a pair of strategically positioned beauty spots." I think I agree with Tony on the linking of 'simple' words; but then again, foreign - and younger - readers may be looking for an appreciation of the sense in which they are used. Kbthompson (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several image concerns as follows:

  • File:Coward with-cigarette-holder.jpg and File:Private Lives Theatre De Lys.jpg: these two images serve practically the same purpose—illustrate the trademark pose of Coward (cigerette holder). The photo has the advantage of being used solely for this article. The poster is used on three (could possibly be an issue with minimum use in Wikipedia); however, it is more indicative of the pose that is identified with Coward (after all, what is more indicative of the posture than a cariculture of it used to sell a show?). Nonetheless, one or the other should go.
  • File:Coward 1914.jpg: per above, reading Streatfeild's article, this seems more to be a private sketch or a base (for other paintings), and may not be published (publicly available) until now. It also would likely not qualify for fair use as a non-free image.

These should be are resolved before promoting the article as one of Wikipedia's best works. Jappalang (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you're quite right. If they had never been published before their inclusion in the 1995 book, then publication there creates a right of first publication. Copyright is still vested (under UK law) in the photographer (or artist), but publication in the book creates new rights over the image. Tim needs to
(a) return to the book, and see if it contains any further source information for the images;
(b) check if there was any prior publication, Coward's life has sufficiently been pawed over for any 'private' photographs to be previously published in newspapers and in public collections - although, even ownership by a public body could still defer to a right of first publication.
(c) modify the rights statement to indicate that copyright derives from its 1995 publication; and either remove the image, or develop a 'fair use rationale' to cover the image's use in the article. In the later, case the fair use might be contested, so perhaps better to consider removing problematic images - unless you feel they are critical to the article.
There was a transition period for 'right of first publication' - if the image had been used elsewhere before that law came in, then (my understanding is) the image remains 'free'. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that Wikipedia image rules were based on US law, since Wikipedia is US-based, even if the article's subject is a UK person? So, I think, the question is whether or not this is free or fair use under US law and WP rules.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia, yes, it is based on US law; however, as I stated above, creation does not equate to publication. The photos in question were obtained directly from a 1998 book, not a pre-1923 publication; hence, unless they appear earlier in a publication earlier than 1998, they are first published in 1998. Jappalang (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jappalang, that's what I thought. I think Kbthompson's steps noted above are the right way to go about demonstrating that the PD images are free. Thanks, Kb. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a further note, Wikipedia's fair use guidelines policy (WP:NFCC) does not allow for copyrighted images to be in articles simply for decorative purposes or for those that can be easily described in words. Jappalang (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the fair use images, each image is used for commentary upon the text that accompanies it. They are not being used "for decorative purposes". The question is whether "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Tim and I will review each image carefully and consider the WP:NFCC. Thanks! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted photos claimed as fair use should have the rationale written in the image pages. The rationale should not simply be "for commentary purposes" but should state in what way the photo's removal would hurt the article. Basically, it boils down to explaining why text cannot adequately replace the image (#1 of the 10 NFCC criteria) and its significance (#8). NFCC asks for all 10 criteria to be fulfilled. Compliance with #8 does not override non-compliance with #1. Jappalang (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose non-free File:Private_Lives_Theatre_De_Lys.jpg does not significantly increase the readers undersatnding and fails NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's somewhat harsh - a poster for a play is de facto something intended for publication in a public place. In UK copyright law that subverts any argument for 'diminishing exploitation rights' - the rights have been exploited at first publication - I don't know about US law, but I would imagine there is a similar argument. I must say that I agree with Jappalang though - each image needs to stand (or fall) by its own merit in expanding understanding on the part of the reader. It is better to remove problematic images than include items that detract from the quality of the article. Non-free images will not appear in other versions of this article, so fair use should be kept to a minimum - and avoided where possible. Kbthompson (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have now clarified the relatonship between the image and the text. Please reconsider your opposition. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Generally support. However the revue Words and Music is several times quoted, but does not appear in the Revues, musicals, operetta and songs section. Xandar 11:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Xandar. Yes, it does appear there - it was produced in 1932. Kindly look again. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Perhaps because it hasn't been wikilinked like the others, I searched through the list several times but didn't see it. Is there a possibility of wikilinking it? Xandar 01:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have an article. It was later revised in 1939 as Set to Music, and we pretty much say all there is to say about it there. I don't think we should link it to Set to Music though, do you? -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered a while ago about doing a separate article on the earlier version of the show, but concluded that it would be confusing for users. As long as they arrive at Set to Music, they will see back references to the earlier edition. Tim riley (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Words and Music is such an important Coward review that it should be wikilinked. Ideally it should have its own article, of which Set to Music would be a derivative, there being a seven year gap between productions. However it would not take long to link Words and Music to the existing article, and add some tweaks to make that more of a joint article. At the moment the article treats Set to Music as if that were the main production and people looking for Words and Music are lost unlss they catch on that Set to Music is basically the same show. Xandar 20:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will add a brief article with appropriate links shortly. Tim riley (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is taken about the copyright rules applying to the pictures File:Mrs astley cooper.jpg and File:Coward 1914.jpg, which we have removed. Though we have not found any incontrovertible proof, the picture File:Coward Hawtrey 1911.jpg is, we consider, so plainly a staged publicity photograph that it is difficult to conceive that it wasn't published at the time (i.e. before 1923) and is, we believe, eligible. We also believe that the use ofFile:Private_Lives_Theatre_De_Lys.jpg would have been permissible for the rationale given, but we bow to the consensus, and it has been removed. Tim riley (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the Theatre De Lys image, per the rationale given above and by Kbthompson. I also clarified the text so that the image and text together are used to explain the resurgence of Coward's popularity. We may, however, replace the with a collage of uses of this image on both the poster and an unrelated LP album of the 1960s. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Collage now in preparation. Will post tomorrow. Tim riley (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I give caution that a collage is still considered per individual copyright, i.e. two copyrights are considered. As I pointed out above, it seems that the poster and the LP album cover are used to point out Coward's signature pose. I believe the poster alone (pose still in use to depict the actor, and not simply a photo, but a derived artistic work) would best fit this purpose. The album cover, on its own, has only the advantage of sole use in this article. I am not of the belief at this moment that Coward's pose requires two non-free images to get the point of its significance across; however, if the rationale for the collage is convincing, that can easily change. Jappalang (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the 1960s illustration serves the same purpose as the 1930 photo. The 1960's image shows that Coward made an amazing comeback, reviving his popularity to the point where a revival of his early work would use a drawing (by the famous Al Hirschfeld of him instead of an image of the production or stars in it. The 1930's photo, on the other hand, is a straightforward image of coward (by the famous Dorothy Wilding) at the top of his game, in the middle of his era of greatest success, smug, suave, stylish. I think both photos are essential to show the artist at these two crucial peaks in his career. Have you re-read the text next to each image? There have been improvements since you first read it. I think that in each case there is substantial discussion and commentary that is amplified by the image. If the fair use rationale needs to be amended to better describe what we are doing, I'd be delighted to get any expert advice. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coward's cigerette pose is the common ground (rationale) between the two images. Having one picture to illustrate it once is more than enough. The other occasion can be covered with words alone (borrowing on the remaining imagery). Let me try an analogy. Imagine an article on baseball great, Riley Ketchum (fictional) [1930–1980]. His signature celebrated move is a mid-air catch, which is described by commentators as resembling that of a panther's pounce (not fully). Words would not adequately describe everything, so a copyrighted fair-use image to show this pose in action (1950) when it was first seen is likely plausible. A statue was commissioned in 1990, to represent his status in 1970, and his signature catch. The statue received reviews that commented only on its likeness to the subject, including the pose. It would not be fair use to claim that a shot of the statue is to display his catch when the 1950 photo is in the article, and on its own, the statue is simply a statue that can be easily described to be a real-life representation of the subject. Similarly, for Coward, the poster, if it is not to display the pose, is simply a poster that shows his profile alone—something that can be easily described in words without loss to the article. Jappalang (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have now clarified the difference between the 1930 image of the suave, young, hungry Coward and the "grand old man" of the theatre caricature by Al Hirschfeld; juxtaposing the two in the article gives a unique view of the two peaks in his career. Would you kindly reconsider? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see... you are using the poster to help visualise the "grand old man" imagery. Yes, personally, that is acceptable. As for the cigerrette pose, is it possible to get the first press photo where Coward in bed felt like a "Chinese decadent"? That imagery (that of the smoker in dressing gown, akin to a Chinese decadent) might be more deserving of illustration than him in a suit. Jappalang (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that photograph survives. A similar one can be seen here [3] but I have never seen the one with cigarette holder described by Coward in Castle's book. The Wilding photograph is very much the enduring image of the young Coward, and I am sure is the proper one to include in the article. Tim riley (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the photo is there—the front page of The Sketch. The cigarette holder, however, is almost indistinct against the headrest; he is holding it in his left hand with the telephone receiver. A pity this was published on April 23, 1923. Four months earlier, and it would at least be in US public domain (for free usage on Wikipedia servers). It could be acceptable to use it in place of the Wilding photo. This becomes a case of "this or the other", since the Wilding photo is used to illustrate his chic style. Anyway, either one will do, so it would be to personal preference. Jappalang (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I peripherally helped copy-edit the article during its GAC run, and thought it a great article at the time. I believe that the article has only improved since then, and certainly fulfills the FA criteria. The writing is masterful, as several others have pointed out above, the image changes have been for the best, and the article has a pleasing, clean look to it that I always appreciate. Great work, guys! One of the best I've seen come from here in a while. María (habla conmigo) 13:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely minor points:

  • "Had the Nazis invaded Britain, Coward would have been arrested and killed" is speculative – the Nazis may well have planned to, but there's nothing to say it would in fact have happened;
If I correctly understand the case, the Nazi's "black book" was a list of those to be rounded up and dealt with. Tim riley (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "was scheduled to be arrested and killed...." Is there a better word than "scheduled"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He had little in common with the modern gay scene" – does "modern" refer to the 2009 scene, or the late-1960s gay scene?;
Excellent point! Shall address. Tim riley (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the brief mention of the abdication crisis, I think Coward's "England does not want a Queen Cutie" remark should be mentioned; it's arguably Coward's best-known remark. It's easy enough to cite (sample source);
It is certainly well documented and is an illustration of the edgy and ambiguous relationship between Churchill and Coward, but I wonder if it could be slotted in without disturbing the balance of the article. I am reluctant to add it myself, but am agnostic... Tim riley (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, I don't know the history well enough to comment or help with this. If you can't see how to put it in, would you kindly e-mail me about it, so we can discuss? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Queen Cutie line added as discussed. Tim riley (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be good to have images of the Noel Coward Theatre and of Coward's grave; not only would they be potentially of interest, but would add color to a (necessarily) rather monochrome set of images. I can certainly take one of the theatre if need be, and hopefully someone at WikiProject Jamaica (why does WP:JAMAICA not point there?) can rustle one up of the grave if there's nothing on Flickr or Commons – being derived from English law, I assume Jamaican copyright law includes the same "work of artistic craftsmanship on permanent public display" exemption from copyright.
I so agree! I was proposing to take a snap of the theatre, but am not a very good photographer and will be delighted if you will do the deed! As to the Project Jamaica, how might we go about seeking help? Tim riley (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Running through the list of members of WikiProject Jamaica, it seems that not one actually lives in Jamaica! Your best bet may be to ask one of these people if they'd be willing to licence one of their photos under Creative Commons Commercial Use (the only Flickr category we can accept), which is just a case of their ticking a check-box; once it's CC licensed, it can be imported onto Commons (follow the incomprehensible procedure here). It needs to be licensed for commercial use for Commons to accept it. – iridescent 19:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have uploaded three photos of it at File:Noël Coward Theatre 1.JPG, File:Noël Coward Theatre 2.JPG, File:Noël Coward Theatre 3.JPG. None are ideal; the sky is unobligingly grey today, and some roadworks directly in front of the theatre have meant that the pictures have had to be taken from an acute angle to get a clear view (they intrude slightly into the third one). – iridescent 16:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these very minor points, I can't see any issues at all. – iridescent 18:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, Iridescent! -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's marvellous - thank you so much, Iridescent. Tim riley (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'd have supported this ever were the points above not to be addressed – I think this is an absolute model biography, covering the subject comprehensively without going into excessive detail. I've no problem with the sourcing issues or the use of a fair-use image, which seems clearly legitimate in this context. – iridescent 19:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A well-written and fully sourced article which meets all the requirements for FA status. The article is a credit to Wikipedia. Jack1956 (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I added a few caption dates, looks like a FA article...good work..Modernist (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can I make quite clear that my support for the article was not conditional on the various image problems. They have always been easily resolved, by resolving copyright issues through a strong case for fair use; or by excision. You did a great job to start with, and the process has done what it is supposed to do - improve the article still further. Really, well done. Kbthompson (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is well-written and appears to be well-researched, and it certainly gives the reader a substantial overview of Coward's life and career without including the type of trivia that permeates too many biographical articles. Congratulations to all involved with whipping it into shape. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 16:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with the comments above (that is, well-written, comprehensive, free from trivia), and want to add one more thing: I appreciate that the corresponding links to Coward's works are reasonably informative. Well done! JeanColumbia (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow, this is excellent. I love the integration of the quotes into the body of the article. Just a few comments:

  • "In the 1950s he had fresh success" I always feel that "had" is weak in this usage, maybe "experienced"?
Good idea. I put in "achieved" - good? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "criticism he faced for apparently living the high life" Looking at the context (criticism), would "allegedly" work better?
Too legalistic, don't you think? I think Tim's term "apparently" conveys that Coward was not "actually" living the high life, but rather that it seemed so to people. But to make it super clear, we could say "for the public's perception that he was living the high life". Please advise further. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like your suggestion. I was confused, as I thought Coward was living the high life. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, can you comment here - have we caught the nuances/implications right? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We inherited this sentence from a previous editor, and I don't feel bound to it with hoops of steel. I'd be happy with something like this: "His task was to use his celebrity to influence American public and political opinion in favour of helping Britain. He was frustrated by press criticism of his foreign travel while his countrymen suffered at home, but was unable to reveal that this his trips to the U.S. were on behalf of British intelligence." Tim riley (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tim, I added your new language with a couple of tweaks. See if you like it, or feel free to modify. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Relative Values (1951) deals with the culture" Shorten a bit, maybe "Relative Values (1951) addresses the culture"
Good, idea. Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to when this is on the main page. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Coward's 110th birthday is in December. Maybe that would be a good time? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't Christmas be more appropriate for Noel? (I'll get my coat…) – iridescent 14:42, 24 March 2009 (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/Noël_Coward&oldid=1138468104"