Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peter Sellers/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 GrahamColm 13:47, 19 August 2012 [1].

Peter Sellers[edit]

Peter Sellers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): SchroCat (^ • @) 19:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC) and CassiantoTalk 19:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Known for his clumsy character Inspector Clouseau and his many comic roles on radio, Peter Sellers was one of the best known comedians of his generation. Over the last few weeks the article has been expanded and has completed a peer review with three excellent editors—Brianboulton, Lobo512 and Tim riley—examining the text and one—J Milburn—examining the images. We are now nominating this for featured article status because we believe that it now satisfies the criteria. We hope that you enjoy reading this article as much as we have enjoyed writing it, and we look forward to all comments and suggestions. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – As noted, I took part in the peer review, by the conclusion of which the article, IMO, met all the FA criteria. The structure is sound, the proportion well judged, the detail full but not excessive, the prose fine, the referencing thorough. Tim riley (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your excellent PR and final support Tim! -- CassiantoTalk 21:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the article is well written and well balanced in all aspects and ticks all the boxes for FA status. Jack1956 (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support! -- CassiantoTalk 21:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article from a biographical/quality viewpoint, yes I agree its FA standard. However, what alarms me here is that as an article on an actor you've practically missed coverage of any critical acclaim or criticism of even his major roles and have failed to inform the reader about the nature of a lot of his films and actors/directors he worked with in his films. I'm very surprised actually that Tim riley did not think that important and overlooked that. I believe FA articles should be as a comprehensive as possible, and whilst the article writers have a done a fine job with the biographical information the actual content related to his acting roles and reviews is surprisingly poor. I would not feel happy voting "support" for an article which largely ignores what should be standard in actor biographies, to at least cover some of his major roles and provide information about who he starred with and quotes of his performances from film critics. Contrary to what is said above I get the impression that from 1970 onwards the article is rushing to finish and his career in the 1970s is far from as comprehensive as it should me. "Writing in The Sunday Times, Dilys Powell noted that Sellers gave "a firework performance, funny, malicious, only once for a few seconds overreaching itself, and in the murder scene which is both prologue and epilogue achieving the macabre in comedy." If you could introduce a few more quotes like that, ideally some from American critics too like the NY Times and Chicago Sun on a few more films and mention a few of his costars in more of his films/directors he worked with I'd support.

Browse his filmography at the NY Times and read some of his reviews. Also look through Roger Ebert's stuff like Dr. Strangelove. Related articles at the LA Times. A wealth of further material on Highbeam. I think you'd be surprised just how much information and perspective you are evading if you haven't done so. Also, is the infobox really essential? I'd rather see a portrait.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dr. B we will look into it and construct it in a sandbox. I'll send the link. I agree about deleting the infobox in favour of a portrait. Any other reviewers here think the same? -- CassiantoTalk 10:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Objection to removing the infobox. There's a huge no-consensus on the talk page, and the scuppering of Flemming's FAC over this same issue. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to begin working on this myself as I think with my edits I can improve the comprehension of his film work, but I just wish I had had the chance to edit this before you nominated. As a reader I personally did not know Sellers portrayed a "sexually voracious Queen Victoria", its this sort of thing the article should cover, the nature of some of his roles and their critical reception. Its the final component I think which is needed, otherwise biographically its excellent. Never mind, I will work hard on this today. I would prefer to work in the article space if that's OK as I imagine between the time I edit in a sandbox a few other editors will have edited it, I just think its easier to do so. But feel free to correct me and assist!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is much to be said for mentioning reviews as Dr B suggests. Happy to chip in if wanted. I can access Times, Guardian, FT, and a range of niche journals. Tim riley (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've become something of a co-writer but Support. I am now happy with this article as an effective encyclopedia article summarising the career and life of Peter Sellers. I think the article does justice to a comedy legend and that the article needed to be pretty long to be comprehensive. It is my idea at least of how an article on a top importance film biography should look. Very well researched, thorough but not excessive in its details of each film and issue. I think it flows nicely. I still want to do a final check this evening in google books and highbeam to ensure nothing has been overlooked, and if Mr. Tim riley is heading to the British library any time soon I'd love it if you could help out by browsing the Michael Starr biography from 1991 which aside from the Lewis book seemed to have some important details which might further improve this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be careful with the Lewis book: it's so hideously twisted against anything Sellers ever did it needs careful balancing with some on the others. Lewis seems twisted bith bile and hatred against Sellers, calling him "evil"—and yet had never even met him. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed! But the nastiness aside, is one of the best sources. The Michael Starr book looks almost as good from the snippets I've caught.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

I notice some of the sources have google book links, others not. Shouldn't they all be consistent?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only if there is an available book with preview online, not otherwise (see WP:PAGELINK) - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that under the terms of the Highbeam agreement we must attribute them in the ref with something like "accessed via Highbeam Research". I had accredited them but somebody has removed all of the attributions and they should be restored.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. There is no requirement that "HighBeam" be explicitly wiki-linked; that's unwarranted promotion. They get the actual link, which is sufficient. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • In Ref 74 The Manchester Guardian was stationed in Manchester. It was only until 1964 did they move to London. Therefore I suggest you remove the location parameter as it is obvious where the paper was printed.
  • My mistake. I've changed it to Manchester, rather than remove it altogether, purely for the sake of consistency. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sunday Express should be Sunday Express in Ref 268
  • ?Per WP:YEAR: "A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year" so wouldn't the heading years need adjusting?
  • the year headings are already shown with two digit closings, (1925–35) for example. is that what you mean, or have I mis-read you? - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, my mistake. Perfectly fine, have crossed the message.
  • Thanks very much for spotting those: it's much appreciated! - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it The Daily Mail or The Daily Mail? Personally I would go for the latter as it is stylised like that in its article.
  • It's the latter. Now changed - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under 'Being There, Fu Manchu and marital problems': "and not simply for its humor" should the word in bold be spelt in British English? Lemonade51 (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's in a quote, so the US spelling comes across with it. - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Supported below I'm reading through the article now, about 2/3 of the way through my review, will hopefully have comments tonight or tomorrow. This is a long article! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Alright, I finished my read through and came up with some comments. This seems like a very comprehensive, exhaustively detailed piece of work, and it's generally well written throughout. I have a few comments, most of which are about copy editing. I'll make some copy edits myself, feel free to revert if there are any issues with them. In my opinion, the article is approaching FA quality, but a few tweaks are needed to get there.
  • "Sellers died as a result of heart disease in 1980 aged 54." Should there be a comma after 1980 in BritEng?
  • "Peg Sellers was related to the pugilist Daniel Mendoza (1764–1836), a relative Sellers greatly revered" Some repetition here, "related... relative"
  • In the "Early post-war career and The Goon Show (1946–55)" most paragraphs start with "In [year]...", I'd suggest trying to vary that a bit.
  • Swapped a few starts to different wordings. -- CassiantoTalk 04:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a similar note, that article is inconsistent in date-related comma usage, I see "In [year] Sellers..." a few times and "In [year], Sellers..." a number of times. I made notes of most of them, so if you don't want them I can help pull them out.
  • I think most of these have been covered where necessary… - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "somebody very like Albert Herring has always been trying to escape -somebody earnest and sympathetic is behind the imbecile's mask." I think the hyphen should be a dash here.
  • "ellers himself once remarked, "I'm always playing old Colonels, actually"; the film performed poorly at the box office." The two parts of the sentence don't seem very closely connected here to me, or am I missing something?
  • I've removed the colonels section: it wasn't connected to the film at all, but a more general comment. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""The last of the great Ealing Comedies, "The Ladykillers" is a wonderfully macabre black comedy" I think "The Ladykillers" should be italicized here.
  • "The critic for The Manchester Guardian thought" I think italics are needed here too.
  • "Dr. Ahmed el Kabir" should this be "Dr" with no period?
  • "He was nominated for the Best British Actor award at the 16th British Academy Film Awards for his role as John Lewis, a frustrated Welsh librarian whose affections swing between the glamorous Liz (Mai Zetterling), and his long-suffering wife Jean (Virginia Maskell)." This seems to mirror his real life to some extent, has that been noted in the sources?
  • I've searched through the sources to hand and Walker, Sikov, Evans and Lewis did not pick up on that aspect of life-mirroring-art. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kubrick had American jazz producer Norman Granz record Sellers's portions of the script for Sellers to listen to, so he could study the voice and develop confidence, granting him a free licence to break the rules.[118] As Sellers's biographer Alexander Walker notes, Sellers" You use "Sellers" four times in two sentences here, I suggest cutting down on that.
  • Tweaked. – Can you check it still makes sense? Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sellers's last film of 1962 was a legal satire, The Dock Brief, directed by James Hill and co-starring Richard Attenborough. Sellers's" I'd suggest trying to avoid starting consecutive sentences with "Sellers" like this.
  • "Sellers accepted a fee of £90,000 for five weeks work on location in Rome and Cortina." Might want to add a contemporary equivalent here.
  • "Major TJ 'King' Kong" Should King be in single or double quotes here?
  • "The problems with the film were compounded by Sellers being unhappy" I'd suggest "by Sellers's unhappiness..." I'd suggest something similar with "despite Minnelli being engaged to Desi Arnaz, Jr., and Sellers still being married."
  • "The film was shot on location in Marrakech, Morocco, Gstaad, Switzerland (Sellers's adopted tax-free domestic haven) and Nice, France on a budget of £3 million." Might want to use semi-colons here.
  • Removed the film locations – not needed and more pertinent to the film's own article - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Janet Maslin of The New York Times noted how Sellers divided his energies between a serious character and a funny one, but that it was his serious performance which was more impressive." I see an ending quote here, but no opening quote.
  • "He portrayed dual roles, including King Rudolf IV, ruler of the fictional small nation of Ruritania." Might want to describe both roles.
  • I've corrected this entry as Sellers was in three roles, not two. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " it certainly garnered him the most critical acclaim." I'd prefer to avoid the use of "certainly" here, if that's alright.
It is: it's not certain at all and I've removed the line. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In March 1980 Sellers asked his fifteen-year-old daughter Victoria what she thought about Being There: she replied, "I said yes, I thought it was great. But then I said, 'You looked like a little fat old man'" The initial part of the quoted portion sounds like a response to a reporter's question, not her response to Sellers.
  • Tweaked to accommodate the quote flow. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might want to link "cockles".
  • Try to be consistent with how you put parenthetic explanations of worth (before or after period).
  • " A poor working relationship quickly developed between Sellers and Welles and Sellers eventually demanded" Could this be rephrased to avoid the "Sellers and Welles and Sellers"? Also you have "Sellers eventually" in consecutive sentences there.
  • "Sellers's marriage broke up shortly afterwards and Ekland served him with divorce papers" Should there be a comma here?
  • "Whilst financially Sellers was struggling at his time though" typo?
  • I think the lead is too long, they're generally supposed to be capped at four paragraphs.
  • It's unfortunate that so much is being added and revised during the FAC, that makes it easy for little issues to slip in undetected. Not that there is something wrong with the quality of the additions, per se.
  • The information has been added, streamlined and now looks a lot better. The salient points remain with a few extra bits added. -- CassiantoTalk 21:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that there's a discussion on the talk page about the length. My initial impression is that it's a bit too long, but Avery Brundage was promoted a month or two ago at about the same length, so I guess that's not a deal-breaker. It is somewhat quote-heavy, but, again, not to the point I'd oppose over it. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per above. The article has now been trimmed and is now complete. Mark, we would really value a reassessment in relation to the new additions if you have the time. -- CassiantoTalk 21:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is unfortunate and I'd preferred to have done what I've done before this was nominated which I had promised but I believe the article is now of FA standard and I personally feel more comfortable viewing an article which is very comprehensive and not missing anything of major importance. It could be trimmed a little bit in parts but I am always careful not to rant on about one issue and if you read the article fully I believe it is actually quite concise and informative and flows nicely. There is more weight on some of his more major films like Kubrick's films but quite rightly so. I'd say a lot of the quotes especially about Seller's personality by friends and colleagues are very valuable to truly understanding his personality and his highs and lows. Where possible I've tried to convert some to prose. The lead, yes it's become quite long but it needed to be to effectively summarize what has also become quite a long article. If you read the lead through I don't see anything excessive about it and I think there is a need to mention many of those films and his major award wins and nominations. I've trimmed it a little, not by much.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll try to look through your recent additions, looking at this: "Although the film was widely praised by critics, Lord Snowdon was highly critical of the film, saying "I absolutely loved Peter, he was one of my closest, dearest friends. He had a light touch, a sense of humour, I can't bear to see him portrayed as somebody who was apparently without either".[184] Sellers's second wife Britt Ekland also believed that the film left the audiences with the wrong impression, saying "the film leaves you with the impression that Peter Sellers was essentially a likeable man when in reality he was a monster. He may have been a brilliant actor, but as a human being he had no saving graces at all"." I'm not really sure this needs to be in quotes, I think it could be paraphrased without too much effort. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm done with the article now, the Olympics beckon.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It wasn't long before Sellers's insecurities and paranoia began to manifest," WP:CONTRACTION issue here, also kind of a wordy sentence, how about "Sellers's insecurities and paranoia soon began to manifest"
  • I think there's some unnecessary detail in the second to last paragraph of "Death and subsequent family issues". Do we need to know where his daughters live today? Or that one of them posed in Playboy and had a coke habit etc.?
  • No – good point. Info now removed, (although I've left the info about Frederick in the footnote). - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his entire estate worth an estimated £4.5 million while his children received £800 each" Might want to add a contemporary equivalent there.
  • There are a few WP:PLUSING issues throughout, not a big deal, but not quite optimal either.
  • "its black humour was overcooked" is there a better word than "overcooked" here?
  • I've removed the section of sentence. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with his wife telling Malcolm McDowell that she was arranging a divorce,[289] and Sellers telling his son that" Some repetition of "telling" here. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Mark - There are still a few points to cover, but we'll do these very shortly. Thanks very much for you thoughts and suggestions on this. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thankyou Mark. Sorry I have not been more involved with your comment fixes, but I was holding back until the extension/non-extension matter was resolved. I'm happy to say it now is but that darn cat has since hogged all the milk! -- CassiantoTalk 18:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alright, I believe that the problems I spotted have been evened out, and I'm a lot more comfortable with the article's length now, so I am ready to support. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much for all all your thoughts and suggestions and your ultimate support Mark. Your comments have improved this article no end. Thanks again - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I don't think that the article rambles on excessively, I find it very informative, it just needs condensing and trimming, which is currently being done as I see. I think the current version is major improvement and Dr. Blofeld deserves credit for his efforts. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 15:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportLeaning to support: I peer-reviewed this article a few weeks ago. It has enjoyed an adventurous and controversial career at this FAC; all I will say is that in its present form, I think it is sufficiently comprehensive to fulfil the FA requirements in this respect, without laying undue burdens of detail on the reader. My remaining concern is with prose matters; reading through again, I am finding quite a few prose glitches which I am fixing as I go along, and I will defer my final declaration until I've finished this. One thing I haven't fixed: the geographical area known in Britain as the "Far East" is in my experience always capitalised - I've never seen it otherwise, except in the lead of this article. Does anyone know differently? Brianboulton (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian, both for your polishing of the article and your comments here. I've capitalised the Far East, as I also know of no good reason why it shouldn't be. Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 11:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Same goes for me Brian. I'm so pleased you prefer it's current form. Your small fixes here are invaluable. -- CassiantoTalk 15:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm through with my fixes. I may of course have missed a few but I believe I've caught most, and have just a few remaining queries:

  • "Sellers took amyl nitrates as a sexual stimulant with Ekland..." I'm not sure how to interpret this. Does it mean that Sellers and Ekland both took the drug, or that Sellers took it to stimulate his sexual performance with Ekland (because she wasn't sexy enough on her own?). Please clarify.
Good point. I was also wondering this. I picked up something the other day in highbeam which actually said it was Ekland's "athletic prowess" between the sheets which caused the heartattack.. I know after the ordeal Sellers said "I didn't know if I was "coming" or going" LOL. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now tweaked to provide clarity. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text could be interpreted as meaning that Sellers was replaced in Casino Royale by Cooper, which is not the case. Perhaps: "Sellers left the film before his part was complete. A further agent's part was then written for Terence Cooper, to cover Sellers's departure". Or some such
  • Three unreleased films in the early 1970s: we only learn of these from a quoted comment; perhaps they should be mentioned briefly in the substantive text.
  • Unfortunately they are not mentioned in the text by name. Looking through the dates and film history one was obviously the dire Ghost in the Noonday Sun, but that's a bit of OR to get that one. The others are even more in the way of guesswork. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I raised this point at peer review: surely, "making him a millionaire" should read "restoring his millionaire status"?
  • It should—and now does. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of Secombe's joke "Anything to avoid paying for dinner" is missing; the remark needs a context
  • A general point: the words "notes" and "noted" are much overused, as in "Spike Milligan later noted...", "Roger Lewis noted...", "Peter Evans notes..." - and many more, at least 25 or 30 times in the article. It began to annoy a bit towards the end. It's a small point, but it would help if a few of these were changed: "mentioned", "observed", "asserted", "declared", "expressed the view" are all usable. A thesaurus is indispensable for would-be FA writers.
Mea culpa, I'm afraid. I've stripped out the worst excesses, so no single word or phrase is releated to often or in close proximity. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have upgraded to full support. A heroic and ultimately worthwhile achievement. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, you changed your tune! Thanks! Thanks for taking the time also to make the needed minor edits.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think I've changed my tune. The article has, however, changed back to something in my view eminently supportable. Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, thank you so much for all your time and effort on this article: it is very much appreciated indeed. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if at the end we don't walk away with an FA, it is still a great honour knowing we have a Brianboulton support. Thank you for all your help Brian! -- CassiantoTalk.

Delegate's comment - I have moved the discussion on the Info box to the Talk Page. Please continue discussing this there and hopefully reach a consensus. I don't consider this issue to be central to the promotion or archiving of this FAC. Graham Colm (talk) 09:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The article is being repeatedly reverted by the nominators over the addition of fields to the infobox by Connormah; |birth_place= and |death_place=. See 1(e) stable.
Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're trying to fail this based on your petty infobox dispute? Kinda pathetic don't you think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposing. As I see it, they're the ones pushing this into unstable territory. This not a petty issue; I've long advocated proper website structure. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cassianto thought I implied the word "you" instead of "I", as if I was telling others what to do, LOL. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead issues:
Unreliable sources: Use of and restoring lengthy quotes from tabloid writers in the body and lead: "The Daily Mail described Sellers as . . ."
No place of birth or death in infobox: Although Schro included this vital basic fact to his rewrite of Ian Fleming, they disallow it for Sellers;
No official website allowed: As per Ian Fleming, Sellers' official website would improve the infobox but is removed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its your right to oppose. But in all honesty I think editors of the calibre of Tim, Brian and Mark would not have supported it if they'd seen any outstanding issues with the prose. And I'm certain the closing admin would be well aware of your agenda with the article and immaturity shown here in requesting your name be removed from the editing history for embarrassment of associating your name with it and for your resentment of the article development and praise given since you edited it. The behaviour of both of you here comes across to me as pointy and intentionally disruptive and I'm sure I'm not the only one who can see this. Very disappointing. Infoboxes are irrelevant and unimportant and it astounds me why you think they are and how it has become a major source of conflict. I understand you like consistency with articles, nothing wrong with that, but your insistence is starting to grate, and I am fairly neutral in regards to infoboxes, I don't mind either way, although if I had my choice I'd go for a clean picture for a not sports biography. But please just try to dial this down a little eh? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the place for it, I know, but infoboxes are important; précis, metadata, accessibility by software systems, to facilitate automated propagation of content, so highschoolers can cheat on tests with mobiles, for casual readers... Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]
For articles with a lot of data yes, like sportspeople or cities or aeroplanes they are very useful for fact finding. But an infobox which merely says place of birth and death, and wives is hardly something to be so fanatical about.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comments - As far as this nomination is concerned, I am ignoring the debate on infoboxes. To be blunt, I think you guys need your heads banging together. I never seen such a trivial issue causing so much heat (and so little light) at FAC. I would like to see a constructive spotcheck of the sources for verification and to check for close-paraphrasing, and an image review to ensure that the – in my view – complex licences are to FA standard. As I said above, please try to reach a consensus, with regard to your disagreements over the infobox, elsewhere. Graham Colm (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images: definite problems here.
I updated the link to File:Sellers-signed.jpg which now goes to their archived auction details. Publicity stills like this one were "traditionally" not copyrighted.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Traditionally" is unfortunately not enough; the community rejected that line for one of your files, here. The file here does not show the reverse. The signature could be an issue if the file was otherwise kept, but I'll airbrush it for you if necessary. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Grandiose. There has been one change to the images used: File:Peter Sellers_-_Goldie Hawn_-_Theres s Girl In my Soup_-_1970.jpg has now been removed and File:Sellers-1971 signed.jpg has now been added. Is this new image OK with you? Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion at the Village Pump/Copyright about the need to show the back of photos. One editor commented, "While that's not a bad idea, it is by no means common practice. I've uploaded some 30,000 photos here, and this is the first time I've heard of the idea. - User:Jmabel. In any case, the Polanski image DR was based primarily on other reasons unrelated to seeing the back. Nor has this image been tagged as requiring such added proof, which would actually be creating a new standard of proof unsupported by common practice. One admin stated elsewhere that unless the back of such photos were commonly used for printing copyright notices, there should be no presumption it could be there. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) I'm a little confused. File:Peter Sellers_-_Goldie Hawn_-_Theres s Girl In my Soup_-_1970.jpg is fine, and it's still in the article. The signature on File:Sellers-1971 signed.jpg could be problematic although I could remove it for you. File:Sellers-signed.jpg is also still in the article, with the above problem. The Strangelove photographs are also still there. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
mea culpa: it had been moved, not replaced. The three Strangelove images and File:Sellers-signed.jpg have now been removed. I'll see what I can do on File:Britt_Ekland_and_Peter_Sellers_1964_crop.jpg, although images are not a strong suit of mine. I should add that I did ask the uploader of the linked image, File:Britt Ekland and Peter Sellers 1964.jpg, if they could shed any light, but their last upload was in October 2010. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed File:Britt_Ekland_and_Peter_Sellers_1964_crop.jpg until such time as a pre-1996 publication can be located. I've also tweaked the links on Commons of the two images to at least point to a page where the image can be found (the same site as previously). Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that SchroCat removed the image from the article based on your comments only, and should probably be restored. The handwriting was also removed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Grandiose, I note that yet another Commons upload has now been tagged—Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Peter Sellers - Goldie Hawn - Theres s Girl In my Soup - 1970.jpg. What is the normal procedure for such events at FAC? Do we leave the image in place until the matter is settled, or remove it first and await the outcome? Many thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really struggling to follow this all but WW, I was being a little more lenient. You're right, I shouldn't have been but on my reading of the Polanksi image your proposed presumption of non-copyright was found wanting but their was some suggestion that showing or indicating the contents of the reverse of the image was a more defensible presumption. However that wasn't the issue at hand and therefore all we do know is that some of the files will need to be deleted. What I'll do as I'm struggling to keep up is review again soon and you can more these comments to the talk page or something. As far as the image current nominated, it's nominated by MRG and I would say that was a good indication that it will be deleted (I think so as well). Probably best given that we're looking at the overall use of images here to remove it but keep an eye on the outcome anyway, i.e. plan for the minimum case. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Grandiose. I've removed as per your advice with the caveat that should the Commons discussion "clear" the image, then it will be returned. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reader's comment - I find this article hard going for someone not that familiar with Peter Sellers. Sample section heading:

  • "Early post-war career and The Goon Show (1946–55)"
I didn't know what The Good Show was, so I did a "find". It's not mentioned until the end of the fourth paragraph in that section (no links to Goon Show or explanation of it's significance or what it was.) Using "find" again, I reach the link in the image caption. (The linked article is a long read to figure out Sellers' importance.)
  • It's actually linked in the first line of the article. It's then linked in the fourth paragraph as that's the right place to put it. The section header is "Early post-war career and The Goon Show": the first three paragraphs are about other parts of his early post war career, the fourth is about The Goon Show. You are entirely right about the lack of post-lead link and thank you for picking up on that: I have now added one where appropriate. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The next mention of The Goon Show is under the section heading "Death and subsequent family issues". And there only because of "Sellers's friend and Goon Show colleague" which all the subsequent mentions seem to be. e.g. under "Legacy". Best clue of The Goon Show's importance is under "Legacy": "media historian Graham McCann states "the anarchic spirit of the Goon Show ... would inspire, directly or indirectly and to varying extents, ..."
  • Question: Why is the section "Early post-war career and The Goon Show (1946–55)" if it doesn't explain the importance of The Goon Show?
  • There is already a quote in there which says the show was "probably the most influential comedy show of all time".[54] I think that puts it into at least some form of context, but I will add some more details shortly. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the headings are confusing that way. Good, I guess, for those very familiar with Peter Sellers, but not good for those wanting to learn about him. Apparently his mental and personal problems dominated his career. It certainly sticks out more - even though I had to do a "find" for Sophia Loren after I came across her name farther down. Too many names to take it all in. There are many illuminating insights scattered about but only "Technique" focuses on his "comic brilliance". (Maybe it's just me that I can't read, or maybe all the famous wives and such should be under a "personal life" section so that it doesn't distract from the fact that he was a great comic actor first and foremost.) MathewTownsend (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thankyou Matthew. I have to be honest, I have never been keen on the section headings; I thought they were a bit too long and seem a bit scrambled. I think the "Early post-war career and The Goon Show (1946–55)" section could be broken up. I would like to see The Goon Show get its own sub section as, IMO, it was a show which shot Sellers to fame. SchroCat what are your thoughts? -- CassiantoTalk 18:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of the additional headings, there was initially a breakdown by decade until the Peer Review suggested adopting the headings such as they are now. For those unfamiliar with the titles of films, the dates are there to negotiate through the years. I'm wary of splitting the section in two as it would leave two rather short stubby sections which are innately connected: much of Sellers's early post-war work on radio was leading up to the Goons and so there is a logical flow between the two. Let me add some further detail about the programme and it may become a bit more logical to split the section after that.
  • In terms of the split between private and professional lives, there are two approaches that biographies follow on Wiki and there seems to be a roughly even split between including and separating. There are valid arguments for both such approaches and we've decided to go with the chronological approach for both because, yes, his mental and personal problems did dominate his career to a large extent. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the chrono order. We agreed to adopt this during the PR, something which I omitted to say earlier. I want to keep to this chrono order as swapping over to a "Personal life" section would be far too much work this late on into the FAC. -- CassiantoTalk 18:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response from reader - It's not so much the chronological order decision. I looked around and found Ernest Hemingway who also had four wives and a complicated personal life and whose article is also chronological. But the section headings in his article clarify rather than confuse.

I think the following headings in Peter Sellers are misleading and confusing (which don't reflect the importance of what's listed in the heading in the section):

  • The Millionairess, Lolita, The Pink Panther and divorce (1960–63)
  • Dr. Strangelove, health problems, a second marriage and Casino Royale (1964–69)
  • The "period of indifference": two marriages, two Pink Panther films (1970–78)
  • Being There, Fu Manchu and marital problems (1979–80)
  • Death and subsequent family issues

Contrast with those of Ernest Hemingway. His biography is clearly presented, but not at the expense of the focus on his work, writing style, themes, influence and legacy, selected list of works.

There should at least be a selected list of Sellers work. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We were advised to look at Mariah Carey and Michael Jackson, both of which are also FAs and have a similar headline style. In terms of the list of works, Sellers made over 50 films, a number of albums and singles, as well as appearing on television and radio. A number of these appearances are very notable, and it was decided to move them all to a separate page, Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record. The link is in a clearly signposted section on its own "Filmography and other works". Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The section headers are proving difficult to rename in order to capture that sections prominent points. I have had a go here, but to be honest I don't think they are descriptive enough. Although I am not a fan of their length, I think a descriptive header is better than a short one. -- CassiantoTalk 20:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is a focus on proper headings, note that the previous headings were based on using his most significant career appearances as dividers. That format was overturned by Schro/Cass, who redesigned the structure of the article based on their opinion, "his mental and personal problems did dominate his career." A number of editors felt that tightly intertwining his personal life with his career was unproductive and confusing. Headings with "The Pink Panther and divorce," "second marriage and Casino Royale" and "Fu Manchu and marital problems" should be fixed, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The section headers were changed per a this peer review to satisfy the concerns of a reviewer. It wasn't "our opinion". I have already said above I would prefer them shorter, but we have to oblige with the PR as otherwise it would make a mockery of the whole thing. Now it has been mentioned on here, we will work towards improving it further; but to be honest it is going to be very difficult to do as we are trying to satisfy two reviewers with differing opinions. -- CassiantoTalk 21:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, While I appreciate your concerns, the headings here do mark certain periods in Sellers's life. These are clearer than having (for example) simply a year block, which is what we adopted prior to the recent changes, and they do try and encapsulate the information in the section. In this respect they follow the same pattern of Mariah Carey and Michael Jackson. I appreciate that there are drawbacks to this approach, but there are serious drawbacks to Ernest Hemingway too. If I want to find out about, for example, where and when he wrote The Old Man and the Sea , I have to do a text search. I don't know enough about Hemmingway's life to know where he wrote each of his works and I would consider that a serious drawback. However, I note and like the way that the Hemmingway article follows a similar structure as Sellers: a single chronological run through of his personal and professional life, with an examination of his professional art afterwards.

What we have aimed for here it to highlight the main aspects of a period, both personal and professional, thus "The Millionairess, Lolita, The Pink Panther and divorce (1960–63)" A year block covers those who want to find out about his work in a particular timeframe and the title pulls out both both the major professional and personal aspects of his life. If you could suggest any constructive way of covering the periods of his life as I've outlined I would be delighted to consider them. Thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response - well, I had to do text searches to figure out the Peter Sellers article. In most, like in Ernest Hemingway, you just look down to "Selected works", whereas in the Sellers article, you have to click on another link and go to Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record and hunt for it - especially if the reader is not familiar with his work - where to look? You have to know that "Dr. Strangelove" is called Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. The reader has to work.

Also, Sellers talent is not accentuated. It feels like reading the biography of a neurotic. It doesn't really follow Michael Jackson or Mariah Carey:

  1. Biography (10 subsections}
  2. Technique (short section)
  3. Legacy (shortish)
  4. Filmography and other works (just a link to another article)
  1. Biography (11 subsections)
  2. Death and memorial (subsection: Death aftermath)
  3. Artistry (four subsections: Influences, Musical themes and genres, Vocal style, Music videos and choreography)
  4. Legacy and influence (substantial plus link to Records and achievements of Michael Jackson
  5. Honors and awards (substantial plus link to List of awards received by Michael Jackson
  6. Lifetime earnings
  7. Disography (list of top eleven plus links to Michael Jackson albums discography, Michael Jackson singles discography, Michael Jackson videography and Jackson 5 discography
  8. Filmography (list of ten plus link to Michael Jackson videography
  9. Tours (list of top four tours plus link to List of concert tours by Michael Jackson and The Jackson 5
  1. Biography (9 subsections)
  2. Artistry (Three subsections: Musical style, Vocie and timbre, Influences)
  3. Legacy (very long, about 10 times longer than Sellers)
  4. Honors and awards (long plus an additional link: List of awards received by Mariah Carey
  5. Philanthropy and other activities (longish section)
  6. Fimography (list of thirteen)
  7. Discography (list of her top twelve, plus links to Mariah Carey albums discography, Mariah Carey singles discography, Mariah Carey videography and List of Mariah Carey songs

Plus why does the article dwell on trivia at the expense of Sellers' achievements. e.g.

  • In 1949, Sellers started to date Anne Howe,[44][c] an Australian actress who lived and worked in London.[46] The couple were introduced by Sellers's agent in late 1949,[47] and Sellers proposed to her in April 1950.[48] The couple married at Caxton Hall in London on 15 September 1951,[49] and their son, Michael, was born on 2 April 1954.[50] A daughter, Sarah, followed in 1958.[51]

which could be just:

  • In 1949, Settlers started to date Anne Howe,[44][c] an Australian actress living in London,[46] whom he married in September 1951.[49] Their son, Michael was born in 1954[50] and a daughter, Sarah in 1958.[51]

Truly, I'm not trying to give you a hard time and I empathize with the difficulties you are dealing with. I was just so disappointed to be unable to make much sense of this article. But I do recommend condensing and trimming the personal info and putting more emphasis on his talent, equivalent to Michael Jackson, Mariah Carey and Ernest Hemingway articles. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hard time? On the contrary - more a breath of fresh air. Since last month, when Schro/Cass started blitz-editing the article, it's been fact-fed with a diet of lard and sour cherries. It's ready to keel over with the dead weight of factoidal obesity. If the NHS can find the time, the article now needs a good lingosuction to be usable by anyone. Not to criticize the "heroism" of Schro/Cass in their 24/7 labors, of course, but in its present state it resembles a beached whale, done in by trivia blubber. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, Thanks for your further comments, but I think you missed what I was saying initially. We were advised that the format of the section headings from Carey and Jackson were something we should follow, not the article structure. We adopted this format to move away from either the block decade (sections too large and unapproachable) or the single film title (misleading, pointless and inaccurate). If you look at the Michael Jackson section headings you see the following:
1.1 Early life and The Jackson 5 (1958–1975)
1.2 Move to Epic and Off the Wall (1975–81)
1.3 Thriller and Motown 25: Yesterday, Today, Forever (1982–83)
1.4 Pepsi, "We Are the World" and business career (1984–85)
1.5 Appearance, tabloids, Bad, films, autobiography and Neverland (1986–90)
1.6 Dangerous, Heal the World Foundation and Super Bowl XXVII (1991–93)
1.7 First child sexual abuse allegations and first marriage (1993–94)
1.8 HIStory, second marriage and fatherhood (1995–99)
1.9 Label dispute, Invincible and third child (2000–03)
1.10 Second child sexual abuse allegations and acquittal (2003–05)
1.11 Closure of Neverland, final years and This Is It (2006–09)
As you'll appreciate the Sellers titles follow broadly the same pattern of personal life and professional record as signposts for points within the article. Yes, there may be a need for some prior knowledge to get the best out of those titles, but I find it infinitely more helpful than:
1.1 Early life
1.2 World War I
1.3 Toronto and Chicago
1.4 Paris
1.5 Key West and the Caribbean
1.6 Spanish Civil War and World War II
1.7 Cuba and the Nobel Prize
1.8 Idaho and suicide
At least with Jackson and Sellers the titles of the main works flag up which section. I take your point about the filmography section and I've added a list of films for which he was nominated for awards. It's therefore based on something concrete, rather than anyone's personal choice, although again a reader will have to hunt through this article as much as Hemmingway's for the other works that don't readily sit in this list. Dr. Blofeld, Cassianto and I have undertaken fairly extensive research into Sellers, which includes aspects of legacy and technique and the results are what you see there. I will add some further information shortly, but this largely reiterates what has already been said already. As to your thoughts about this article being more about a neurotic than an actor, Sellers was both and the two sides affected each other continually – I'll leave it to Blake Edwards to explain, and there are a thousand and one other similar stories. I'll let you know when I've squeezed the last I can from the legacy/technique searches. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matthew, I've done a fairly extensive (although probably not exhaustive) search through an online academic articles library and other sources (news sources, Google books etc) and all that I have found about Sellers's technique I have added to the article. There really is very little written about his approach, with most writing being from reviewers about the outcome of the films. However, I've added what I can where I can. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are other editors allowed to improve the topic? Your Talk page comments there, please don't just go ahead and add stuff before discussing it with us first, seems to imply otherwise. There are other sources, including interviews with Sellers, where he discusses the topic. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course. But please be mindful of the FAC and it's comments from the reviewers. We would appreciate any additions going through us first whilst the FAC is in place. This is not an own request, so please assume good faith. -- CassiantoTalk 20:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Matthew, a further sweep through has taken out much of the superflous detail you mentioned and the personal information that remains is not trivial. I think that with the addition of the film/award list and the additional information in the "Technique" section, the article is in much better shape. Many thanks for your time and suggestions on this. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks - lots of subscription and offline sources I don't have, but checking a few:

  • If you're going to use HighBeam or other subscriber database links, should indicate that subscription/login/whatever is required to view full source
  • Should now all carry {{subscription}} tags where appropriate. - SchroCat (^ • @) 03:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the path to international stardom" vs "on the road to stardom" is a bit close for my taste, suggest quoting
  • Now quoted, and accredited in text to the BBC too. - SchroCat (^ • @) 03:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Ladykillers was a success in both Britain and the US" - not in cited source
  • New sourced added to support statement. - SchroCat (^ • @) 03:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sellers had a compulsive personality, and was an eccentric hypochondriac" vs "A compulsive personality and an eccentric hypochondriac" - again, should be quoted
  • "Spike Milligan on Peter Sellers" quote: it's not clear from the cited source that this whole thing is from Milligan - the bit about "madly ludicrous" appears to be by Evans
  • Quite right too. I've dropped the opening (non-Milligan) line and used a different Milligan quote from the opening paragraph of the article. The ellipsis covers a fair stretch of text, but they are both Milligan quotes in the box now. - SchroCat (^ • @) 03:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd - it appears to be okay on mine. Are you talking about the Mouse That Roared review? (It's now FN90) A couple of the other NYT links crashed on first attempt, but then worked on the second go: it may just be local disturbance on their servers?
Many thanks for your time and your comments Nikkimaria: they are very much appreciated! - SchroCat (^ • @) 03:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One more minor question Nikki, an editor has added a rather vague citation in the last paragraph of the lead. I'm not convinced by it as the information is not supported by the citation. (Peter Hall is not mentioned on the page at all, for example). Any thoughts would be welcomed, as spurious quotes from uncheckable television programmes are difficult to prove either way. Many thanks - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about that one: I'm not happy with the quote for a number of reasons and I've replaced it with something more appropriate. - SchroCat (^ • @) 13:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Great news! Can I take this opportunity to thank all of the reviewer's who took part in this review. Special thanks goes to the great Dr. Blofeld for all his late additions and the articles chief writer Schrodinger's cat is alive. It's had it's up's and it's down's, but I'm happy to say that it got there in the end. Congratulations. -- CassiantoTalk 14:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get back here in time. The article is greatly improved and I fully support. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all the support votes: it's great to see that the article is seen for being one of the best ones on Wiki. Sellers, for all his flaws, deserves just that. Thanks to all the editors who have built the article up over the years, especially the recent work by Dr. Blofeld and Cassianto. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:13, 19 August 2012 (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/Peter_Sellers/archive1&oldid=1142602619"