Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Joseph Grimaldi/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joseph Grimaldi

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…after a lot of extensive research and a complete re-write, I now feel that this article is at the stage where a peer review would be beneficial. The subject, Joseph Grimaldi, was a leading 18th and 19th century performer in pantomime and harlequinade and was responsible for creating the design of the modern day white-face clown that we see today in circuses throughout the world. My intention is take this to WP:FAC as a result of this peer review, so I would welcome any comments and suggestions to help me in my quest.

Thanks, -- CassiantoTalk 02:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani's comments

This might be a little haphazard.

  • The audience participation in 'Hot Codlins' needs some explanation, even if it is a footnote.
  • 1821 onwards is a bit thin. No mention of his brief engagement at the Coburg or his trip to Cheltenham to take the waters.
  • I think you have the sale of the shares of Sadler's Wells a bit early - he certainly still had some after 1823. The lease went to Egerton but I'm not sure how many shares (if any) he got.
  • He had a second farewell appearance at Drury Lane on 27 June 1828 - this is what Cruikshank 's illustration shows. Check the memoirs and McS.
  • The last one is notable because it is the last one and is indicative of of the change in his health and fortune (there's some background on the refusal of the use of Covent Garden for the benefit) and because that is the performance shown in Cruickshank's illustration. I think the article is weak on his decline while probably too concerned with the minutiae of his stage career. Adding some detail of his difficulties in staging these farewell performances would help balance it. Yomanganitalk 00:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole family moved to Woolwich in either spring(McS) or September(memoirs) 1832 and JS moved out in November to take up an engagement at the Coburg for the Christmas season.
  • Again, I do not think this is very important. Unless it is of special significance in another way, or unless s/he spent a great portion of his/her life there, the recitation of "He then moved here. Two years later, he moved there" is too much detail for an encyclopedia article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • JS didn't die in the street, he died in bed at his lodgings.
  • Unless I'm missing something, this has already been added. -- CassiantoTalk.
  • "The strain on Grimaldi was immense; something which, by now, he had grown accustomed to" - not really; the problems he had in later life were because he couldn't become accustomed to it.
Images
  • The PD claim on the Clare Market picture is poor. Two separate bodies claim the copyright on it and neither of those is London County Council as listed in the author field. I'm sure it is PD but it will take more digging find out the details. You may be better off just using an alternative image here; it's not like you are scratching around for them. All the other images are fine - though I haven't checked the accuracy of their tags they are all certainly PD (except for the ones which are your own work which are appropriately licensed).

I'll try and look over it a little more later. Yomanganitalk 14:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: This is the first half of my review; the rest will follow in a day or so. Nothing major so far – generally informative and enjoyable stuff.

Family background and early years
  • The chronolgy is a bit confusing in the first paragraph, since the narrative seems to be going in reverse: first Grimaldi's birth, then details of his father and mother, then his grandfather (and, in note 3, information on his great-grandfather). Also, some of these characters seem to live for ever. Giovanni appeared on the stage as "Iron Legs" in the late 1600s, was imprisoned in the Bastille in 1740, and "later" defrauded John Rich and fled to the Continent. Game old bird! All good stuff, but you may consider reorganising it into a more straightforward chronology.
  • I agree with Brian and have been working with Cassianto to try to clarify this. I think it is clearer now, eh, Brian? It would still be good if we could get a birth date for Giovanni, but his performances in the 1690s must have been as a youth. He would have been at least in his 50s when he fled to the Continent. Cassianto, can you give an approximate date when he fled to the Continent? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Late 1742 or early 1743 for his flight to Europe.(McS pp.7-9) The ONDB gives his years as (fl. 1709–1741) - the end date is short by at least a couple of years (and possibly twenty or more - the only evidence we have for him after that is his absence from his father's will in 1760) and since Guiseppe's birth date is between 1709 and 1716 the start date needs pushing out a few years too. I'm not sure where the late 1600s date for his first performances comes from - not the ONDB, Findlater, McConell Stott, or Dickens - but it wouldn't be strange for him to be appearing on stage as an infant, though of course that date should be "late in the 17th century" not late 1600s unless he was pushing 140 at the time of his imprisonment in the Bastille. Yomanganitalk 16:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't mention Giuseppe's year of death; ODNB gives it as 1788. If the decapitating daughter was Henrietta, born the same year as Joseph, she would have been 9 or 10 years old when she performed this gruesome feat. Maybe it was another daughter; if so, this should be clarified.
  • Giuseppe's death is mentioned later on so I have given his death year in brackets. Mary was the decapitating daughter. She was one of numerous children he fathered but was the only one trusted enough to carry out the grizzly task. I won't go any further explaining who she was as this section is already a bit bloated with genealogy stuff. Unless you think otherwise? -- CassiantoTalk 20:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph is still problematic to me, because it is still going in reverse, back to the great-grandfather. I'm not really sure how much detail of these early Grimaldis is really necessary, but in any event I think it would be better to present it logically. This is my effort at that (I have ignored citations and footnotes):

Grimaldi was born in Clare Market, London, into a family of theatrical performers. His great-grandfather was John Baptist Grimaldi, a dentist by trade and an amateur performer, who in the 1730s moved from Italy to England where he performed the role of Pantaloon opposite John Rich's Harlequin. John Baptist's son and Grimaldi's paternal grandfather was Giovanni Battista Grimaldi, a dancer who began his career in the late 17th century. Much of his career was spent in Italy and France. According to Grimaldi's biographer Andrew McConnell Stott, Giovanni was held in the Paris Bastille as the result of a scandalous performance. After his release, Giovanni moved to London in 1742 and made his first English stage appearance. In London John Baptist introduced him to John Rich; Giovanni then defrauded Rich and fled to the European continent, where he later died, leaving his family behind in London. Among this family was Grimaldi's father, Joseph Giuseppe Grimaldi (c. 1713–1788), an actor and dancer (known professionally as Giuseppe or "the Signor"), who first appeared in London at the King's Theatre. Giuseppe was later engaged by David Garrick to play Pantaloon in pantomimes at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, where he was also the ballet master.

Good work, Brian! I made some very minor changes, added back the refs and footnotes, and substituted the paragraph into the article. It is true that the stuff about the grandfather and great-grandfather is not essential (except to describe when the family came to England), but it is interesting to note what a scoundrel his grandfather was, and it gives some background that may illuminate how his father became a crazy philanderer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great work to both. I knew what I wanted to say but didn't know how to say it. This reads brilliantly now, thanks! -- CassiantoTalk 20:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Early years at Sadler's Wells and Drury Lane
  • Some of the prose is a bit heavy-footed, e.g. "...became an established juvenile performer at Drury Lane.[16] Together with his commitments at Drury Lane, he was a prolific performer at Sadler's Wells..." This could be: "...became an established juvenile performer at Drury Lane.[16] At the same time he was a prolific performer at Sadler's Wells..."
  • "Grimaldi and his father divided their time between the two theatres" This sentence is probably redundant, given what has already been said.
  • Not all your readers will be able to place Easter in the calendar.
  • As described, the theatre seasons appear to overlap, so when was the period "between the theatre seasons"?
  • Grimaldi was 9 in 1788, so John Baptiste can't have been more than 7 or 8, yet he "signed on as a cabin boy aboard a frigate". This seems extraordinary; perhaps his age should be mentioned?
  • "Sheridan often employed Grimaldi in minor roles in Kemble's productions and also allowed him to work concurrently at Sadler's Wells." I understand he was already working in the two theatres concurrently, so perhaps "continued to allow him..."?
  • What exactly is a "low comedian"? Is this an official theatrical designation?
Last years at Drury Lane
  • "peddler" is US spelling; British English is "pedlar"
  • "notching up" is maybe a tad informal
  • Unfortunately, this doesn't make sense: "The pantomime was a great success, staging thirty-three performances..." Pantomimes are staged, they do not "stage". I suggest: "The pantomime was a great success, running for thirty-three performances..." Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maria died in childbirth; what about the child?
  • "John Philip" Kemble should be just "Kemble" after first mention
  • I think probably "dismissed" rather than "fired", which is informal
  • "shut for refurbishment" → "closed for refurbishment"
  • "one of the most important theatrical designs of the 1800s." This opinion should be attributed as well as cited.
Done. -- CassiantoTalk 21:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Times critic really wrote "truely affecting", that needs a [sic]. It may be just a typo, though.
  • Chronology is lost in the fifth para (beginning "On 21 November 1802...". We jump several years ahead to put the boy in school, then jump back to late 1802. You might get away with this if you made the "Grimaldi reurned..." sentence the first of the following paragraph.
  • I still think you need to alter "and so he enrolled him at Mr. Ford's Academy" to "and eventually enrolled him at Mr. Ford's Academy".
  • His salary was doubled...but unless we know what it was before, this doesn't tell us much.
  • I think the season "commenced" rather than "recommenced" at Easter (it was a new season)

Three more sections to do. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(and here they are):

Covent Garden years
  • Give date or year of the Dublin venture. Mention earlier than you do that the Dibdins owned the theatre.
  • I don't think "Benefit concert" requires a capital
  • Clarify that it was Astley's, not the Crow Street Theatre, that was sold
  • "Despite this" is inappropriate. How about: "Grimaldi, who considered the role of Orson to be the most physically and mentally demanding of his career, performed the part with enthusiasm, touring the provinces..." etc
  • A second "despite this", more acceptable than the first, but watch a propensity towards this phrasing
  • "continued to suffer bouts of severe depression" - this is the first mention of depression, so "continued to suffer" is a bit confusing.
  • We appear to jump from 1806 (Mother Goose) to 1812 (Cheltenham). What happened in those 6 years?
  • " Coincidently, it was in Gloucester that he met the poet Lord Byron, the writer of the poem upon which the play was based..." This is verbose. Stick to something simple, e.g. "In nearby Gloucester he met the poet Lord Byron, on whose poem the play was based..."
  • A "commission" of £195? Wouldn't "fee" or "salary" be better terms? Also, I suggest you replace the "and" with a semicolon, since the two parts of the sentence are not directly related.
  • I don't think "bittersweet" is really the term to use here; "mixed fortunes", perhaps. However, from what follows it seems that so far as his stage career concerned all went well; the misfortunes were a period of illness and the death of his father-in-law. I would cut out the emotive language ("bittersweet", "suffered a third great loss") and report these misfortunes factually.
  • "...his role as the Chief Judge and Treasurer..." I'd find an alternative to "role", otherwise this sounds like a part he was playing.
  • The word "lucrative" occurs twice in the last paragraph
Later career
  • Is it necessary to give the full and alternative titles for each production? This makes reading rather laborious.
  • For pantos, what comes after the "or" is as important as what comes before. It often gives an idea of what happens in the "transformation". If I understand the comment, I disagree with it, although I think that these comments are generally super. Of course, if the title is repeated, a short form could be used the second time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last years, death and legacy
  • Probably better to say he received half his salary from Drury Lane; I had forgotten who Charles Kemble was.
  • I am quite surprised to find that he quickly fell into poverty, given the size of his earnings (£1743 for a single tour probably equates to £1+ million today). Perhaps briefly say why he had so little to fall back on (theatrical losses, extravagance, mistresses etc)
  • "Debtors' Prison" does not require capitals. But too much of this section is focussed on JS; the whole second paragraph and two-thirds of the third. I suggest this could be condensed.
  • I agree. Cassianto, does any of this need to be transferred or repeated in (or expanded upon in) JS's article? Also the JS abbreviation and citation should also go there if it hasn't gone already. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only JS bits now remaining are his birth, the first understudy engagement for his father when he fell ill, a brief bit about his decline and the effects it had on Grimaldi and JS's death. Everything else has gone to JS's article. Ssilvers has very kindly copy edited it for me. -- CassiantoTalk 07:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did he live alone at 33 Southampton Street?
  • I don't think the somewhat trivial Dickens-centred anecdotes at the end of the section are really worth recording, in a "legacy" section. They give a distinctly anti-climactic flavour to the article's end.
  • My view remains that there is still too much Dickens stuff. To what extent does this information represent Grimaldi's "legacy"?
Dickens

Clowns aren't my thing, but I've long been aware of Dickens's admiration for Grimaldi. Way back in early September, I inserted (with CassiantoTalk's agreement) a section entitled "Grimaldi and Dickens". At some later point this got subsumed into the "legacy" section, where I agree that it doesn't look very appropriate. Suggestions:

  • Resurrect a "Grimaldi and Dickens" section in a more appropriate place
  • Put all the Dickens stuff (except the Memoirs?) into another footnote
  • Remove the Dickens stuff (except the Memoirs) into the Charles Dickens article.

--GuillaumeTell 16:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks GT, I am going to experiment with some of your kind suggestions. I have first of all gone with the second option. Does this look OK? If not I will revert and go for the "Grimaldi and Dickens" idea. What do others think? -- CassiantoTalk 23:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Brian that "Grimaldi and Dickens" would be far too much information about Dickens. I have slimmed down one of the long footnotes. Shouldn't Grimaldi's famous catchphrases go into the career section? Then this note could be slimmed down further. Also, there should be a ref specifically about the sales of the memoirs, and then the two notes about Dickens could be combined. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is all fine as far as I'm concerned. I'll look in on the Dickens talk page in due course to see what the editors there think (and whether they agree not to put all my work in footnotes ). --GuillaumeTell 15:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image issues

I have not done s full image check, but I can foresee a few problems

  • Copyright issues with the lead image. It may be safer to go for the Grimaldi portrait in his memoirs, from here, where we have full publication details
    The dispute is between WP (or a Wikipedian) and the NPG. I would say use it until the matter is resolved. I've sent Cassianto a watercolour portrait by J.E.T Robinson from 1815 anyway that would make a good alternative. Yomanganitalk 17:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not a valid copyright issue in the U.S., which is the law governing Wikipedia. I strongly disagree with removing any images based on the frivolous and inactive NPG dispute. The only question is whether this image is the best portrait. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sheridan image is not an image of Reynolds's painting (Reynolds didn't paint in b & w). It is someone's photograph of the Reynolds portrait, so its PD status is not established.
  • The Kemble portrait is described as an "engraving from painting". Lawrence did the painting, but who did the engraving, and when? The PD depends on these details
  • The Sheridan and Kemble portraits are quite marginal to the article; the d'Egville image is even more so. Rather than argue the toss over the status of these tangential pics, I'd remove them.
    The Reynolds' Sheridan is engraved by Robert Hicks (we don't know his dates but that image was published 1830 so it's fine).
    It is hard to make out because the quality is poor but the the Kemble image looks to be scan of a book plate of a crop of [2] - WP doesn't recognise any "sweat of the brow" rights involved in making reproductions of 2D artworks so that should be fine too.
    The d'Egville image is engraved by Samuel Freeman d.1857 so no worries there. That said, Brian is right: their value as illustration for this article is fairly marginal. Yomanganitalk 17:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't checked the rest.
  • I have replaced all of the images. I have used the images as suggested by Yomangani's email. I think they all uploaded OK. The JS as Scaramouche may need to be modified to extend to the borders (no idea how to do that) and the sources may need to be checked for accuracy as most of them come from websites (not sure of the books they come from). I think all are licensed appropriately. Are there any more concerns around the images now? -- CassiantoTalk 18:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you mean replace the Scaramouche image with the Cawse one or restore Cawse to the lede? I have done the latter, so any thoughts on now replacing Scaramouche with the J.E.T Robinson one? -- CassiantoTalk 20:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By and large this looks a very solid theatrical biography, and I look forward to seeing it progress, after a little more work. Brianboulton (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian for an excellent review. I have such a lot to do so I'm afraid my responses will be drip fed over the next few weeks or so. I do want it known that the current images are not permanent. Yomangani has very kindly sourced some excellent images, which I will pick through and add the best. However, it's the text I want to get right first before anything else. Once again, thanks for the review! -- CassiantoTalk 22:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK - ping me a reminder when you're done. Brianboulton (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have indicated in the above notes where I think there are still issues to be resolved. I also wonder whether, though you have adopted my suggested wording in the Family background section, if all these details of several earlier generations of Grimaldis is really necessary for the reader. This, however, is a matter of editorial judgement, and you don't necessarily have to agree with me (this of course applies to all my points). Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by the doctor
Family background and early years - I would significantly condense the first paragraph/section. I think you only need to briefly mention who is grandfather and father was. When I begin reading it I have to double check that it is about his grandfather and not about Grimaldi etc. You could create an article on the Early life and background of Joseph Grimaldi and retain it of course but I would rather that was cut in the main article and you cut to the chase to the speak.
  • Some of this has been restructured per above from Brianboulton. Non-essential information has been footnoted. I think the remainder is helpful to the reader to understand what shaped Grimaldi as an entertainer and as a individual. -- CassiantoTalk 17:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Links, Seems odd for "obsessive" to be linked and monkeys, imps, fairies and demons not. I'd probably delink obsessive or wikilink them all.

So sorry, been busy, meant to get back to this. I'll read it again tonight and see if I can spot anything else. Hope you are well.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References. Is it possible you could use sfn notes which lead directly to the book beneath, also saves ref bunching.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is a mammoth task! I know SchroCat uses this method, but I personally know nothing about that particular way of formatting. I will learn about it and adopt it on my next project, but to do it now on 160 odd references would take up a lot of time at such a late stage, unless you know of an easier and quicker way of doing it? -- CassiantoTalk 00:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that using sfn cites is a very bad idea, and I recommend reversing this change. Most people do not know how to use sfn cites, and it just makes Wikipedia less user friendly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd think only some inflexible old timers (like me) would find them any more difficult than the <ref> system. Additional references for this article are likely to be few and far between so I can't see any need to reverse the swap to the sfn system. Yomanganitalk 13:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do!
Image review
  • File:Giuseppe Grimaldi.jpg - No author (just publisher), so no PD-70. Perhaps Anonymous-EU will work better. Also, the British Museum note suggests the subject is not certain ("Possibly William Grimaldi")
per below. -- CassiantoTalk 15:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that adding the tag regarding the building is confusing and makes it unclear that the photo has been donated to the public domain. If you are certain that this is required, I have suggested language on the photo's page to make it clear that you are only talking about this grungy old building, rather than the photograph itself. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially the only reason to remove images here would be overcrowding. Copyright-wise they're all peachy, although just needs some massaging to express that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing PR. I feel all issues have now been addressed and would like to thank all editors for participating. The article, I feel, has improved tenfold as a result of your input. See you at FAC in a few weeks! -- CassiantoTalk 23:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of PR on article undertaken by Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk · contribs) in userspace prior to main PR

Grim notes:

Hi Cass, Overall an excellent article with very little needing to be done. Most of my comments are suggestions, rather than definite grammatical problems, so feel free to ignore if you see fit.

Lead

  • "modern day whiteface clown." I think "whiteface" should be hyphenated as it is a compound modifier (the OED has it so)
  • "low budget productions". Again, low-budget should be hyphenated as another compound modifier

Early Life

  • "His Italian father, Joseph Giuseppe Grimaldi [n 1] was an actor and dancer (known professionally as Giuseppe or "the Signor") who first appeared in London at the King's Theatre in the Haymarket, and was later engaged by David Garrick to play Pantaloon in pantomimes at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, where he was also the ballet master.[1]" There's a gap before the note link at "Grimaldi [n 1]" which shouldn't be there. The sentence also carries a lot of info; this about:
"His Italian father, Joseph Giuseppe Grimaldi[n 1] was an actor and dancer known professionally as Giuseppe or "the Signor". Joseph first appeared in London at the King's Theatre in the Haymarket, and was later engaged by David Garrick to play Pantaloon in pantomimes at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, where he was also the ballet master.[1]"

Early years at Sadlers Wells and Drury Lane

  • Title: "Sadlers Wells" should be "Sadler's Wells"
  • "or, Harlequin's Release,[14] As well as Grimaldi": Full stop after release or lower case A
  • "they appealed to completely different audiences": doesn't need the "completely"
  • "a prominant stage performer": prominent
  • "nine at the time of his fathers death": father's should carry an apostrophe
  • "In 1791 the Drury Lane theatre was demolished[41] and Grimaldi was loaned to the Haymarket Theatre": I've noticed a mix of capitals and lower case for "Theatre"; I appreciate the reasons why, but make sure you're happy you've got them all OK - it looks a little odd in this sentence having a cap and a lower case (with the next sentence a lower case again)
  • As you know, Drury Lane is known as such but others may not know that hence the "theatre" as it's not part of its name. I have swapped it to it's full title "Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. I'm now worried I may have to do this throughout. I kinda don't thinks so as its been explained here. --CassiantoTalk 12:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, it was as Pierrot": wikilink Pierrot

Last years at Drury Lane

  • "To help himself cope with his grief": Feels a bit clumsy. "To cope with his grief"?
  • "leaving Grimaldi to reign as resident clown": as the resident clown?
  • "Sadler's Wells recommenced at Easter 1805": again, this feels a bit clumsy. What recommenced? the theatre, or Grim's work there?
  • "co-writer Charles Farley": wikilink Farley
  • "several dancing scene's": no apostrophe needed on scenes
  • Footnote formatting: "67. "truely affecting", The Times, 21 August 1802, p. 6: Is that the right spelling and should it be a capital T?
  • Image caption: You've got a red link for "harlequinade characters": you may have meant this, which is OK, but you could pipe the link to "Harlequinade" instead?

Life at Covent Garden

  • where he retired to between seasons": not sure it needs the "to"
  • "Grimaldi appeared at the Covent Garden on 9 October": at Covent Garden, or at the Covent Garden theatre?
  • "The production was dramatised by Dibdin": the OED shows "dramatized".
  • No. There is no such word as "dramatise" according to the OED, only dramatize. The ~ize suffix is entirely proper when used with words that have come down from Greek: the dominant use of ~ise is a modern practise. According to the OED, anyway! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 02:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "earned a healthy profit of £20,000 at the box-office": a modern conversion could be applicable here This would work: (£{{formatnum:{{Inflation|UK|20000|1806}}}} in {{CURRENTYEAR}} pounds{{inflation-fn|UK|df=yes}}) and shows £1.2 million in 2012 £££s
  • "In 1812 Grimaldi travelled to Cheltenham[99] and appeared in Don Juan as Scaramouche in which he sung "Tippitywitchet".": Are the articles Don Juan or Scaramouche appropriate for linking?
  • "he felt; "...great and unbounded satisfaction": No need for the ellipsis at the start of the quote.
  • "the theatre's tickets reduced £50 in price as a result": I think you need to re-work this slightly, as I'm not too sure what you mean.
  • "Grimaldi heard good things about his": good reports?

Later career

  • "Between 1814–16": 1814 and 16, or In the years 1814-16?
  • Done.
  • "a months leave": should be "a month's leave"
  • "Joseph Samuel threatened and vocally abused the audience member for criticising his performance.[125][n 16]": This just seems to be tacked on the end and repeats the same information as the end of the previous sentence: perhaps merge the two sentences?

Retirement and last years

  • "there were suspicions voiced": by whom?
  • "last few years of his life a depressed alcoholic which attributed heavily to his failing health": as a depressed...; which he (or someone else?) attributed...

Notes

  • 2: "one of his fathers tours": father's should carry an apostrophe
  • 13: "Grimaldi's benefit show was stagtheir July": "stagtheir"? staged there?
  • 16: "fathers reputation" father's should carry an apostrophe
  • Not at all, a very, very good review. I did leave a couple out but I'm going to come back to these. I can move this review to one of my sandboxes if you like so it frees up your sandbox. -- CassiantoTalk 09:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Joseph_Grimaldi/archive1&oldid=1079638508"