Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by NapHit 16:46, 27 October 2012 [1].

Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record

Featured list candidates/Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record/archive1
Featured list candidates/Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record/archive2

Nominators: SchroCat (^ • @) 09:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC) and Cassianto ^Talk 10:08, 18 October 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. This record of his professional work has recently been split away from the main Sellers page as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. Aside from that, we are now nominating this for featured list status because we believe that it now satisfies the criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks good to me. Rothorpe (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments a few more comments from another look at the list, since my last support back in August. Looks good other than this:

Add alt text to the images per MOS:IMAGES

Now done. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a pain, but not correctly. Alt text should actually explain the contents of the image, and not repeat what the caption says or could say. Like, an example, in the first caption, instead of "Peter Sellers" say "a man", or something. TBr and ley 16:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the contents are of Peter Sellers, not just "a man". Have a look at the image of Blair and Bush at WP:ALT: "The alt text shouldn't say "Two men shaking hands," because that's not why the picture was chosen; it needs to identify the men". I can tweak the text for the images, but identifying the person as Sellers is a must, I would have thought? - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but the point of alt text is to explain what is in the image itself, for screenreaders. In the alt, it shouldn't identify the man, that's what the image caption is for, alt text is to explain what is in the image, like "a man who is drinking soda" is a good one, just for example, but "Peter Sellers drinking Cola-Cola" isn't, because that's for the image. At the alt text page, it says, "Alternative text (alt text) is meant for readers who cannot see an image, such as blind readers and readers who use a text or mobile browser. It should summarize an image's purpose, and should not duplicate its caption, [or what the caption could be like]." TBr and ley 17:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree slightly, I'm afraid. Either way, the alts have now been tweaked. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the image captions, rather than saying "Sellers in 1973 by Allan Warren", etc., could you say "Peter Sellers created BBC Radio and this", that's just an example, I know that's not true, but can it be expanded upon, for all images, and their captions?

I've done that for the single portrait images; the images from Dr. Strangelove has enough text already, I think? Let me know if you think differently: I'll tweak further. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better, but I don't think the "Photographed in 1973 by Allan Warren" is necessary for the image captions. TBr and ley 16:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Warren from the captions - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that's fine. TBr and ley 16:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link BBC Radio per WP:UNDERLINK

Linked. -- Cassianto ^Talk 03:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tables don't meet MOS:DTT, add table captions to ensure it does

Done - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, instead of repeating what says, could you say like, for example, instead of "Stage credits" as a table caption, say "Stage credits of Peter Sellers", etc. TBr and ley 16:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This concern has now been addressed. TBr and ley 19:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid bold links per WP:ACCESS and WP:CONTEXTLINK

Did you mean 'Dr. Strangelove' in the image header? - if so, it's now delinked -- Cassianto ^Talk 03:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too many external links per WP:ELNO, remove some

Hmm, not sure there were that many but OK. SchroCat, I have gone with IMDb and TCM seeing as we have BFI and Screen online and BFI is generally more reliable. Maybe four EL filmographies were too much. -- Cassianto ^Talk 03:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBr and ley 23:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support TBr and ley 19:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TB—your input (for a second time) is much appreciated once again. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great news Tate. Thanks, as always, for your excellent comments and support. -- Cassianto ^Talk 22:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

;Prose comments from Crisco 1492

You guys really are on a role with these. Here are my comments.

This article is not about Sellers himself, but his work. As such, the dates of birth and death are of minimal relevance (years, on the other hand, I've used myself). Might read better if the dates are removed.

Agreed, although not removed entirely. I think keeping the years of birth and death does no real harm as somebody viewing may wish to know his life span. Would this be OK? -- Cassianto ^Talk 22:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was hinting at, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filmmakers the Boulting brothers - Perhaps this is acceptable in BrE, but that reads very uncomfortably for me. Perhaps The Boulting brothers, filmmakers (who had worked with Sellers?)..."

reworded. Does this work for you? -- Cassianto ^Talk 22:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"this country has produced" - Britain, England, or the UK, or...? This may be worth trimmming the quote.
Henry Hall's Guest Night - I'd suggest against linking like this, as this is a single grammatical unit (a title) and should not be split.

Unlinked. -- Cassianto ^Talk 22:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~as a youngster with his family. - How old, roughly?~~

Sorry I don't have Silkov to hand, but I'm guessing he was a child under the age of ten. SchroCat, would this be about right? -- Cassianto ^Talk 22:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During his career he also released a number of albums, which were collections of sketches and comic songs, the latter of which were undertaken in a variety of comic characters. - Overly complicated sentence, perhaps split like "During his career he also released a number of albums containing sketches and comic songs; the songs were undertaken in a variety of comic characters."

Better. Done. -- Cassianto ^Talk 22:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fix CN tag.

Done. -- Cassianto ^Talk 22:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that ref doesn't support anything about black humour or contrasting temperaments and styles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. How about this?. As per edit summery, the line came from the finger tips of my co-nom who is currently away. I have put this for now and run it past him when he gets back if that's OK :-) -- Cassianto ^Talk 23:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"contrasting temperaments and styles" is cited to...? Also, question about the Brothers' quote above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, both done i think. I didn't want to lose the whole sentence so I have cited what is there and lost the "contrasting temperaments and styles" bit. I must admit quotes are not my strong point, so I have somewhat ruthlessly added ellipses to make up for the loss of text as this cannot be elaborated on just yet. Can you check if this is OK? -- Cassianto ^Talk 00:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That changes the meaning a bit much, as now it's putting him above American and Canadian born comedians. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have replaced the quote and specified Britain. Both Sellers and Chaplin came from England; Sellers from Portsmouth, Chaplin from London. I don't want to say England as when we talk about something great in this country we don't really say "the greatest in England", we say "greatest in Britain". It is usual to include Wales, Scotland and Ireland when speaking of "this country" as per the "United" part of one of our many (unnecessary) titles. I'm sure this was what they meant. -- Cassianto ^Talk 08:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did a copyedit, be sure to double check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, great thanks. I have slightly jiggled around the opening so it takes the emphasis off Sellers as a person, and bringing more of a focus onto his career. I see from your copy edit you would say "He made his radio debut on ShowTime in 1948..." as opposed to "He made his radio debut in ShowTime in 1948..." I think someone appears in radio but on television. Or is the problem the two "in's"? If so, would it help putting the year in a parens? -- Cassianto ^Talk 23:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My issue was the two ins, yes. As for on/in, it may be a BrE/AmE difference. Looks like there's just one point left up there — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Looks admirably solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. -- Cassianto ^Talk 09:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on accessibility. The tables all have well-chosen headers, proper scopes, and good captions, so should be easy for a screen reader to use. The sorting is useful functionality as well. The use of colour has good contrast so the text is easily legible, and no information is conveyed by colour alone. The images would benefit from a little more work. Alt text is indeed there for the benefit of screen readers, and is read out just before the caption, so they always need to complement each other. However, on Wikipedia there is the complication that, by default, every image has a link to the description page for that image, and screen readers will use the alt text to cue the listener to where the link is going. It would be reasonable to leave out the alt text as you suggest where the caption seems sufficient, if it were not for the link (so on decorative images we use |alt= |link= ). In the three images from Dr. Strangelove a screen reader user will hear that there is a link, but will quite probably have no idea of what the link is to. For that reason it is always a good idea to add a few words of alt text, preferably helping a visually impaired reader to understand why you used those three images. For me, the contrast in Sellers' appearance is key: I'd suggest something along the lines of "Sellers with neat hair and moustache in RAF uniform", "Sellers with wild hair and dark glasses is grinning inanely", "Sellers with bald head and thin-rimmed glasses". You may have different ideas, and that's fine as well. I think the advice not to name the subject is simply wrong: not all screen users have been blind all of their lives and many may well have a good idea what the named person looks like. The point being that you don't have to write stilted alt text - just be as natural as you can. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now adjusted the alt text for all six images. I adopted your descriptions for the Dr. Strangelove images and slightly elaborated on all the others. For a task which appears so simple, it is actually quite difficult to describe a picture in such minute detail. Crazy!. All done :-) -- Cassianto ^Talk 12:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, writing good alt text is more an art than a science, but practice helps a lot! Minute detail isn't needed, but something that conveys a little of what the image represents is always appreciated by those using screen readers. I numbered the alt parameters for you in the {{multiple image}} template (otherwise the alt text doesn't work). Well done though, I'm very happy to support this FLC. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. Thanks for all your help. I have learnt a lot by your comments here today! :-) -- Cassianto ^Talk 19:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RexxS, your help is much appreciated——as always! - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)`[reply]

Support – It's comprehensive, well-sourced, can't see any reason not to award it FL status. Only one suggestion: maybe the width of the "notes" column in the filmography could be increased in relation to the other columns, since on small screens some of the entries are huge. Betty Logan (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support and comment. I've widened the notes colummn - it was my fault it looked narrow on some screens: I work on a wider screen and forgot to look at what it was like on smaller versions. It's now tweaked. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments welcome back!

lol, thank you. -- Cassianto ^Talk 19:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"1925 – 1980" not sure that needs to be spaced per WP:YEAR?

Gap closed. -- Cassianto ^Talk 17:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"conducted a survey on modern-day " wouldn't that be a survey "of"?

Yes, my fault. Done. -- Cassianto ^Talk 17:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check all year ranges per WP:YEAR.

All done (I think). -- Cassianto ^Talk 17:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the filmography, is Year the year of general release in the UK? Might be worth noting that.

As he's British, yes: it's the date of UK release. Now noted. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Won: BAFTA ..." since this is under notes, perhaps you could drop the colon?

Is that just for the one you mention above, or is it for all? -- Cassianto ^Talk 19:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's more related to the repetition of the information, and the lack of "prose" in the notes if, indeed, they are notes and not just a repeat of the info in the table below... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep the colon there, RM. The reason is consistency between the various notes fields, with "Won: (list of 2 or 3 awards", followed by "Nominated: (list of 2 or 3 awards)", appearing a few times. Doing those for which he only won or nominated for a single award in a different format would look odd? - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of repeating the nominations/awards in the filmography table and then again in the awards/nominations table?

They serve two different purposes: in the filmography people are looking for (and at) the film information and may be doing so in a chronological sequence. They may be unaware that Sellers won an award and only see it through looking at the overall picture. The awards and nominations table is for those who are looking solely at the awards. Other notable filmographies (Woody Allen filmography and Clint Eastwood filmography) have separate articles that deal with awards and nominations: with Sellers we have incorporated them into one artice for ease. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally not convinced. Not sure why you should have same fact in two different places. But I'll defer to the scrutinising public who clearly would have seen this repetition! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do take your point, but the list of nominations within the filmography section loses impact if it's not in a separate table, while not having the info in a notes section in the overall list of films overlooks crucial info about the film and role. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would prefer to see all ISBN numbers the same format.

Good spot! Done. -- Cassianto ^Talk 17:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most, if not all, of the navboxes at the bottom usually only apply to the biographies, not to related lists, they don't navigate between lists...

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nav's removed. They are all the same as the main article, so it does seem a bit repetitive to have them here also. -- Cassianto ^Talk 19:28, 22 October 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.