Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 September 2024 [1].

Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk 12:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh was a BBC radio comedy starring Kenneth Horne and Richard Murdoch; it was one of the shows that built up Horne's reputation prior to his great successes with Beyond Our Ken and Round the Horne. This has been through a re-write in 2022 and a recent brush-up and all constructive comments from good faith editors are welcome. - SchroCat (talk) and Tim riley talk - 12:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Much-Binding-Sketch-1948-small.jpg: the unique historic images tag is generally only used where the image itself, rather than what is being depicted, is the subject of commentary.
It seems entirely pukka to me: DBaK has transcribed a tune into the Western musical stave. I had a go earlier, but DBak as a professional musician has polished my attempt into proper musical notation. Tim riley talk 14:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the points all addressed. - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A transcription would at the least be a derivative work - it's copying a creative work that already existed, rather than creating something entirely novel. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions for tag invited. Tim riley talk 16:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do we know about the circumstances of composition? Would it have been considered a work for hire? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn’t have been considered as such by the writers or the BBC, as WFH is an American concept, not a British one. - SchroCat (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, I'm a bit stumped on what to do about this one: any suggestions? - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, you'd be able to make a fair-use claim since it's such a short excerpt. But I don't have enough information to say much of use beyond that. Is anything more known about the history beyond what's in the article? It's mentioned Short wrote it down in score - was this published at some point? Do we know to what extent Torch "polished" Horne's original idea? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, the Fair Use route seems to me the way to go. We don't know how much Torch altered Horne's original hummed tune (probably at most the note values, rather than the actual notes, I imagine, but I don't know) and I've never seen it in print (or I wouldn't have got it wrong when I had first go at transcribing it), and it isn't listed as published in WorldCat. Tim riley talk 09:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was published at some point and still comes up for sale on the second hand market (see this by way of example, but I’ve never seen it either. It lists Torch on the front, so we know he was somehow involved, but no idea on the extent - it doesn’t come up on any of the sources I’ve read. As DBaK was the one who recreated it from ear, he will have to be the one to upload the local copy. - SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going that route, you could simply use a score and treat it like a quotation. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, Nikkimaria. Lilypad is miles beyond my competence and I've sought help with it here. Tim riley talk 14:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And help was rapidly given, by Cremastra, to whom grateful thanks. Tim riley talk 15:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that Michael Bednarek has adjusted the Lilypad score; I have no idea which version is considered "better" in this context. Cremastra (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nor I, but I'm indebted to Cremastra and Michael Bednarek who are both miles and miles ahead of me with this program. Bless you both! Tim riley talk 16:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wehwalt

[edit]

Support. I had heard of the show because it's mentioned in one of Nevil Shute's books. Happy to review.

  • Is there a reason not to spell out ITMA in the lede?
  • "Princess Elizabeth (later Queen Elizabeth II) who was on her first public appearance since the birth of her first son—Prince Charles" I understand the need to say that she later received a promotion, but if one, why not the other?
  • Images: I'm dubious that a candy bar is really relevant to this, especially since I suspect the bar is of considerably later vintage.
  • It's really only tangentially relevant, but it's the only image in the body of the article, apart from the music. I wouldn't be too sorry if we had to remove it, but it's nicer to break up the text a little if possible. - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1947 billing reads "Richard Murdoch in 'Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh', with Kenneth Horne, Sam Costa and Marilyn Williams"; by 1954 the billing was "Richard Murdoch, Kenneth Horne and Sam Costa in 'Much-Binding'".[25]" I guess the question is why no italicisation?
That's it. Most interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt; all done, bar the image - although I'm open to being pushed on that one too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that strongly on the image having been in similar situations. Just thought I'd point it out. Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Alavense

[edit]
  • oh, my word ! - Is that space present in the original?
  • "Flight Officer Flannel"—played by Binnie Hale, Dorothy Carless or Doris Hare—according to availability, would sing, as would Costa - I'm a bit lost here. Isn't a comma missing before "according"?
  • the characters had been demobilised and, and shook hands
  • was on its way to overtaking ITMA as the most popular British radio comedy - How's popularity measured in this regard? Number of listeners or anything like that?
    Number of listeners - it's the only way (I think) that popularity of a radio show could be assessed. - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • greeted by Murdoch with, "Good morning - Is that comma needed?
  • You have The cast comprised Murdoch, Horne, Costa, Denham and Bryan but also Denham's other roles included Luigi the Italian, Winston the dog, Gregory the sparrow, Group Captain Funnybone, Lieutenant-General Sir Harold Tansley-Parkinson, and the receptionist at Much-Binding. I think there ought to be consistency as to the use of the Oxford comma. There are other instances of this.
  • There's nothing about why the show returned to the BBC.
    It's not discussed in sources. They had a one-year contract with Radio Lux, which they fulfilled, but there's nothing more about it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Costa played Prudence Gush, the radio critic and Denham added more roles to his repertoire - A comma is missing after "critic".
  • He managed to travel to Australia - I think "Horne" better than "He", because otherwise it gets a bit confusing.
  • − "Oh, jolly D!" − - I would go for the same dashes for consistency.
  • His mother - Uppercase after a semicolon.
  • Fifi de la Bon-Bon, known as Mademoiselle Fifi was - A comma is missing.
  • played by the singer Dorothy Carless. was one

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Alavense: all sorted, except where commented above, where the sources just don't cover the ground enough. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits and the responses. I'm happy with that and I think the article (a nice read) meets the criteria, so I'll support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]
lead
  • BBC Radio and in 1950–51 by does the hyphen mean somewhere between the two dates?
    No, it was the dates of the series, so it covered both years. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • radio comedy, and was succeeded remove the comma
background
  • broadcast the show Merry-go-Round,[a] originally a musical show to which remove "the show", "a musical show" does the job
broadcasts
  • second for orchestra with singer. "singer" needs an article ("a" or "the") before it
    This is common use when dealing with music ("a tune for piano and trumpet", etc) - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barker or Robb Wilton, and moving remove the comma
  • By the mid-1950s, tastes in comedy had changed for consistency with the rest of the article i'd remove the comma
characters
  • played their usual characters, under their remove the comma
  • under their own real names remove "own"
  • laugh (spelled in the script ==> "laugh (spelt in the script" is more common in BrEng
    I think both are now common in BrEng - they have both been accepted for years, and it seems as if the longer version overtook use in BrEng use at some point in the 70s. - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • many a coquettish "Ooh la-la!". maybe a hyphen between "ooh" and "la"
music

No comments here.

legacy
  • the corporation were concerned ==> "the corporation was concerned". "the corporation" would be referring BBC itself, not the people who run it
    Both are accepted - BrEng commonly treats collective nouns as plural - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No other problems. feel free to decline any suggestions with justification. well done, and thank you for the article! 750h+ 09:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, 750h+. All done, except where commented on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seen. Happy to support. 750h+ 01:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Source formatting seems consistent, but sometimes BBC Genome is mentioned and sometimes the reference doesn't say so. I wonder, are Barry Johnston (writer) and Norman Hackforth reliable as biographers? Is "Forgotten Heroes of Comedy: An Encyclopedia of the Comedy Underdog" a prominent source? Everything else seems OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've tweaked one of the Genome references to Radio Times, leaving only one mention of Genome - this is a search across multiple editions of the RT, so. can't be narrowed down to a single edition. I think Hackforth and Johnston are both acceptable as sources (they've been accepted on several FAs before), unless you know of any reason why they wouldn't be? I wouldn't say Forgotten Heroes of Comedy is a prominent source - it's used only once in the article, and the author, Robert Ross, is recognised as a historian of film and television comedy. - SchroCat (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have fine credentials in general, but I wonder about biographies specifically. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're fine. As I said, both have been used in FAs before without any problems. - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco 1492

[edit]
  • Do any of the other shows mentioned in Background warrant a redlink? Were they prominent enough to potentially get articles?
    I'm not sure they are (although only based on a very quick search). Most of them disappeared with the end of the war, and it was only Much Binding that had any legs to it. - SchroCat (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • other shows, including the Overseas Recorded Broadcasting Service (ORBS) - was ORBS a show? Or is this missing "those of" or something similar?
  • Is it worth including the "guests" section in the characters section? As it is only a few sentences, it seems a bit short.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved it up as a sub-section. Tim, what think you? - SchroCat (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Tim riley talk 08:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Chris; all sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2024 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh/archive1&oldid=1248156302"