This peer review discussion has been closed.

George Robey

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

The English music hall comedian George Robey was perhaps best known for his "Prime Minister of Mirth" character and his humour which mixed everyday situations and observations with comic absurdity. Robey's naturally big, black eyebrows, together with his use of clown-like make-up, wooden cane, black robes and small, bowler hat, formed the appearance of the Prime Minister of Mirth which he used to entertain audiences on both the national and international stage. He was envied by his colleagues for his ability to ad-lib and was adored by his country for his tireless fundraising which earned good causes in excess of £2 million during both world wars. For this, he was made a CBE and was later knighted shortly before his death in 1954. He was, according to his biographer Peter Cotes, "the finest entertainer of the English music hall tradition".

Together with the FA promotions of Dan Leno, Marie Lloyd and Little Tich, it would only seem right that I now bring the fourth biggest name in English music hall (IMO) to the FAC stage. The article has already benefitted from a thorough copyedit from Ssilvers and a mini review by SchroCat. At 83,000 bytes, I am keen not to extend the article any further and I would be most grateful if reviewers could keep that in mind when asking for elaboration on some of the information. I also welcome ideas on how to reduce, without it effecting the article in terms of quality. I would be most interested to see what others think and I would be happy to receive any comments and/or criticisms from any willing reviewers. Thanks, Cassianto^talk 15:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great job, Cassianto. Another question for reviewers is whether anyone has any ideas for images that could be used in the lower third of the article (of course it is harder to find free images published after 1923). -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ss. I think I have exhausted every possible avenue with having images in the lower half of the article, but have so far hit a huge copyright wall with every turn. If anyone does have any ideas for a way to get around this, then I would very much welcome them. I believe that the same copyright concerns would exist with sound files, but I would happily be proved wrong. Cassianto^talk 04:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

Tons more to follow, but two preliminary thoughts before I get stuck in properly:

• It would help the flow of your prose if you deleted "Robey" wherever it would be adequate to say "he", "him" or "his". For example: "In the early months of 1919, Robey completed a book of memoirs, My Rest Cure, which was published later that year. During the run of Joy Bells Robey was awarded the Legion of Honour for raising £14,000 for the French Red Cross. Robey declined a knighthood that same year because, according to Cotes, he was worried that the noble title would distance him from his working-class audiences, and instead he received the CBE from George V at Buckingham Palace. On the morning of the penultimate Joy Bells performance, Robey was invited to Stoll's London office where he was offered a role in a new revue at the Alhambra Theatre. On the journey, Robey met the theatre impresario Sir Alfred Butt, who agreed to pay the comedian £100 more, but out of loyalty to Stoll, he declined the offer and resumed his £600 a week contract at the Alhambra. On 28 July 1919, Robey took part in his second Royal Command Performance, at the London Coliseum. He and Loraine sang "If You Were the Only Girl (In the World)"." I reckon you should lose the second, third, fifth and sixth Robeys there. And so on.
  • I have blitzed the surname where I think it needs blitzing. I have an annoying tendency to do this. Please let me know if I have missed any. Cassianto^talk 18:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know any editor who doesn't fall into this trap. I do it all the time. It's just easier to spot when someone else does it. I'll keep my eye open for it when doing my close reading tomorrow or Tues. Tim riley (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Mondo ladro" – would you mind if I, whose favourite opera is Falstaff (not a word to Ssilvers) redrew this sentence and even expanded it a bit? Falstaff has been chucked in the Thames just before this, and his gloomy mutterings about the wicked world were utterly up Robey's street.
  • Please do. I know nothing of Falstaff so I would be only to pleased for you to elaborate where I have failed. Cassianto^talk 18:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a question of "failed", you maddening young person! It's just that I wanted to fine-tune it because it is so very close to my heart. Now done. Please check you're happy with my changes to the DID listing. Tim riley (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite happy Tim, thank you! -- Cassianto^talk 22:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. More later. I'm really looking forward to a close reading of this one. Tim riley (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First lot of comments, down to the end of Film debut and The Bing Boys Are Here

• Lead
  • Leaving till last, more meo.
• Early life
  • "he later claimed to have studied at the University of Cambridge" – I don't think this quite squares with your footnote, which says only that he played along with people's mistaken belief that he was at Cambridge.
    • Now consistent. Cotes mentions this on page 21. Cassianto^talk 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• London debut
  • "Where Did You Get That Hat" – I think this should have a question mark at the end of the title. (I googled it and the first hit is someone called Stanley Holloway singing it.) You say "by J C Heffron", but I think that though he performed the song and made it a hit, it was written and composed by someone else. The British Library thinks it was by one James Rolmaz: see here; Wikipedia thinks it was by Joseph J. Sullivan (vaudeville). Heaven knows what the facts are, but either way it doesn't appear to have been Heffron's work. I think it might be prudent just to call it "the popular new comic song" or some such.
    • Cotes reckoned it was Heffron. Yes, I think being vague is probably best. Cassianto^talk 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Robey negotiated with his co-star to sing one of the comic songs " – two points here: first, as Robey was merely the stooge, is it accurate to describe him as a co-star? And secondly, the wording makes it ambiguous about which of them was to sing it.
    • Done and done, Cassianto^talk 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where, according to Cotes" – this is the first mention of Cotes in the text, so I think we need something on the lines of "according to his biographer Peter Cotes..."
    • Now introduced. I seem to remember introducing him elsewhere, so I expect this to also come up :) Cassianto^talk 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Music hall characterisations
  • "centred around" – some people (probably the same people who faint at the sight of a split infinitive) insist that "centred around" is a logical impossibility, and that the phrase must be "centred on". Best to indulge them, for a quiet life.
    • around →on. Cassianto^talk 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Robey dressed in a top hat, frock coat and malacca cane" – one would have be very thin indeed to dress in a malacca cane
    • Haha, nice spot. Cassianto^talk 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The new garb set him apart" – this is the second "garb" in three paras. Once is all right, but it's not a word to scatter about, I feel. Perhaps "outfit" or similar this time?
    • Changed. Cassianto^talk 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several, well-established" – I'm no expert on punctuation, but I don't think you want the comma here
    • Removed. Cassianto^talk 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Success in pantomime and the provinces
  • "image: Robey's make-up design" – this is a key image for the article, and I suggest you ask the image boffins to improve the contrast, which is pretty murky at the moment, not to mention the words dimly showing through from the other side of the page from which it was scanned. I've never approached them myself, but Crisco and Loeba have been hugely helpful to me in this regard, and you might like to consult one of them.
    • I may be able to do something, but I need some resolution to work with. Any higher resolution than 250px? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alas, no. It's a clipping at 100% size by the look of it, from a newspaper. All things considered it's surprisingly good. If it's too low res to be improved, so be it, and thank you, Crisco, for looking in so quickly. Tim riley (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Crisco has very kindly had a go at improving them for me, but there has been little improvement. I will keep with the current one for the time being until that rare old beast – a beautifully photographed image which is desired AND PD comes along. Cassianto^talk 06:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "St Clement Danes church in the Strand" – probably best to add "London"
    • Removed the piped link. Cassianto^talk 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geography: Circus Road is really in St John's Wood rather than Swiss Cottage; on the other hand 83 Finchley Road is bang in the middle of Swiss Cottage, not Camden Town as your link has it.
    • Remedied. Circus Road was already linked to St John's Wood. Finchley Road is now Swiss Cottage. Cassianto^talk 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at, amongst others, the Oxford Music Hall" – I always prefer "among" to "amongst", "amid" to "amidst" and "while" to "whilst"– shorter and less archaic
    • Done. Cassianto^talk 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for a fee of £120 per week" – "per" is fine with "annum", "cent" or other Latin word, but with the plain English "week" I'd go for "for a fee of £120 a week"
    • per →a. Cassianto^talk 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only agreed on this" – I might rejig this as "agreed this only"
    • Rejigged. Cassianto^talk 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many's the squeeze she's had of my blue bag on washing day" – I bet you don't know what a blue bag was! They were still around when I was a little lad, and "can I have a squeeze of your blue bag?" was a catch-phrase of some comedian or other (clearly a Robey fan, I now realise).
    • I didn't know, no. It's surprising how many phrases come from the halls. Cassianto^talk 21:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sporting interests
  • "Marylebone Cricket Club and remained an active player for them for many years" – this looks wrong to me: members of the MCC are the old buffers in the egg-and-tomato ties, whereas the players were the England cricket team. But I may be mistaken and I leave it to Sarastro or Brian B to comment authoritatively.
    • I'm ashamed to say that I know very little of cricket or the clubs who play it. Sarastro, I believe, will be along shortly. Have yet to ping Brian, but I will do shortly. Cassianto^talk 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Members of the MCC were entitled to play for the club whenever they wanted; the MCC played many low-level games against local teams, as well as top-level matches where they were effectively the England team. So there's no problem here. Maybe say that he played in minor games to avoid any confusion. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have added the minor matches into this. Cheers. Cassianto^talk 06:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • However, this page is from an ultra-reliable cricket site. It gives some of his games for the MCC, but it contradicts the article somewhat. We say that he was introduced to cricket in 1903, but CrickerArchive has him playing in 1895, with his own team, no less. So his interest must pre-date 1903 to some extent. (I realise this is a very, very minor point in the context of Robey's career, but the cricket pedant in me felt the need to point it out!) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • We have a battle of the sources here. Cotes, as far as I can see, makes no mention of the 1890s being the decade in which Robey played cricket. I will check Wilson and report back, but if nothing, then I'm happy to use the source you provided above. Cassianto^talk 06:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Now remedied using the source you provided. Contradiction has also vanished. I have also uploaded and added a Robey/MCC image. Cassianto^talk 19:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "complimentary of" – about?
    • Indeed. Cassianto^talk 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "right-handed bowler" – I don't think our cricket experts will like that phrase much ("right-arm" bowler is usual) but as it's in a quotation it will have to stand
    • Apologies in advance. I have amended the ref to show the culprit. Cassianto^talk 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not that big a problem actually. It's a bit archaic, but there was nothing wrong with "right-hand" or "left-hand" bowler (e.g. "slow left-hand"), in the same way that we now say "right-hand bat".
  • "The match raised significant proceeds" – what did they signify? You mean substantial or considerable, I think.
    • Of course, now changed. Cassianto^talk 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oswald Stoll
  • "to which his biographer Peter Cotes attributes" – too late to give Cotes his job description here, particularly if, as suggested, you give it in the London debut section earlier.
    • This was what I mentioned earlier. Fixed. Cassianto^talk 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chronology has gone off the rails in the first para. In 1912 George V was king (not prince). His father, Edward VII died in 1910. When the latter pops up later in the para it is rather confusing. I think you need to recast this para so that the private show for King Edward comes before the Command Performance for King George.
    • OK, I think that's correct. Cassianto^talk 22:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lord Lonsdale and Carlton House Terrace" – well, I'm blest! I worked in that very building (13–16 Carlton House Terrace) in the 1980s, 90s and 2000s. If I'd known Robey had performed there I might have enlivened some of the duller meetings with the odd burst of one of his songs.
    • Haha, that would have gone down very well! Looking at who occupied the offices in Carlton House Terrace and comparing them with Robey's songs, I'm sure "A Dear Kind Doctor" could have been sung at No.2 or I'm Dotty" at No. 5 :) Cassianto^talk 19:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "organizing performances" – but you use "–ising" endings elsewhere in the text
    • I blame my spell checker. Fixed. Cassianto^talk 19:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Robey was fond of the Merchant Navy" – to the pure all things are pure, but I can't help seeing a Hello Sailor joke in that phrasing. Perhaps "Robey was a strong supporter of..."?
    • Reworded. Cassianto^talk 19:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Film debut and The Bing Boys Are Here
  • "First three sentences need a citation between them
    • Sorry, I'm being thick. What do you mean? Repeat the ref which is given after the fourth sentence? Cassianto^talk 19:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apols: it's not you but me being thick. I hadn't clocked that the ref after the fourth sentence covered the three previous ones. Tim riley (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Robey met with film makers" – this is good AmEng, but in BrEng one meets with abstract things like success or disaster, but just meets people.
    • Deleted "with". Cassianto^talk 19:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Theatrical historians blamed" – past tense wanted here?
    • Current tense added. Cassianto^talk 19:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More soon. I'm enjoying this every bit as much as I expected. Absorbing stuff, and highly enjoyable. Tim riley (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am most grateful thus far, thanks Tim! Cassianto^talk 19:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Round two, to the end of Shakespearian roles

• Zig-Zag to Joy Bells
  • "The Prehistoric Man", with Daphne Pollard playing the role of "She of the Tireless Tongue" – he clearly stole this from Hengist and Senna Pod in Carry on Cleo.
    • ha, thats nothing; the other character was called "He with the Nobbly Knees".
  • "secured the box at the Savoy Theatre" – "a box", rather than "the box" in 1917. There was, I'm pretty sure, only one box after Rupert D'Oyly Carte rebuilt the theatre in the 20s, but the original Victorian theatre had lots of boxes.
    • done. Cassianto^talk 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that the noble title" – blitz "noble". Knights ain't noblemen.
    • Gone. Cassianto^talk 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and instead, received" – another comma I'd lose (but what do I know?)
    • Nothing apparently, like us all! Cassianto^talk 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who agreed to pay the comedian" – agreed to pay him?
    • Swapped. Cassianto^talk 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Films and revues of the early 1920s
  • "did not know how to correctly apply" – stronger without the adverb, I'd say
    • I only added this the other day. Now swapped back. Cassianto^talk 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1920 variety theatre" – unexpected blue link here
    • Done. Cassianto^talk 19:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "often hired the comedian" – "often hired him"?
    • Yes, done. Cassianto^talk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at London's Alhambra Theatre" – we've had the Alhambra mentioned several times already, so perhaps "London's" is not needed here
    • Deleted. Cassianto^talk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before tossing the seeds" – when did you last eat a cherry? They have stones, not seeds.
    • Ha, swapped. Cassianto^talk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in aid of both" – I might lose the "both"
    • Deleted. Cassianto^talk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the Cromer Pier theatre where he was supported by the Beecham Opera Company" – Speaking as Sir Thomas Beecham's vicar on Wikipedia I have sprained my brain trying to imagine this. It seems highly implausible and I'd like to know exactly what your source says – every word of it, if you please, on this page or by email if you don't want to clog the review up.
    • I will mail you. Cassianto^talk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Press cutting received. I'd mention all or else none of the supporting acts. I think all would add a nice flavour. Tim riley (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Deleted altogether. Cassianto^talk 19:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Was this just a one-night concert? If so, I agree with the deletion. Just checking. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes it was just for a night. This was a very minor, one off show for the summer season with little in critical commentary, hence my deletion of the whole sentence. Cassianto^talk 22:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cardus quote box – excellent!
    • Thank you :-) Cassianto^talk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Marriage breakdown and foreign tours
  • "That year, Robey separated from his wife Ethel owing to the amount of time he was spending away from home working" – this doesn't read well, to my mind. May I suggest something like "The amount of time he spent working away from home led to the breakdown of his marriage, and he separated from Ethel in 1923." I'd then remove "As a result" from the next sentence.
    • You may, I have and I have. Cassianto^talk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was written intentionally" – I'd drop "intentionally"
    • Dropped. -- Cassianto^talk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a company of 25 artists, many engineers and support staff" – not clear if the 25 include the engineers and support staff or if they're on top of the 25
    • Added "as well as" to separate the figure. Cassianto^talk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Capetown" – Two words, I think
    • Done. Cassianto^talk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Don Quixote" – if the man playing Quixote was anyone we have heard of I think you should mention his name
• Venture into legitimate theatre
  • Why, may I ask, have you not linked to the short but serviceable article on W H Berry by the admirable Tim riley with contributions from the incomparable Ssilvers and someone describing himself as Cassianto?
    • Good grief! I shall link right away. How could I do such a great disservice to one of Wikipedia's greatest and most respected editors! It's also not fair on Ssilvers or Tim either! Cassianto^talk 21:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I laughed aloud at that! I think you win this exchange. Tim riley (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Points to Cassianto! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critic Harold Conway" – you know my loathing for this journalese/US construction. Let's have a definite article, if you please.
    • Changed, goodness knows how that slipped in. Cassianto^talk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Robey's refusal to join the actors' union Equity" – was he a member of the variety artists' union (the VAF, I think it was called), or was he a refusenik for all unions?
    • No mention of any unions I'm afraid. Cassianto^talk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when the comedian was included" – when he was included?
    • Done. Cassianto^talk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A substantial donation was made by Robey to the union" – perhaps go for the active rather than the passive: "Robey made a substantial donation to the union"
  • Done. Cassianto^talk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Shakespearian roles
  • I was going to ask for mention of other cast members, but I see from the Times archive that in Henry IV pt 1 the only big name apart from Robey was Lady Tree as Mistress Quickly. (John Laurie later of Dad's Army had a small role, but that's not notable here.) You might, perhaps, quote a sentence or two of Robey's reviews for his Falstaff. I'm sure you've got access to The Times; I can rummage in The Manchester Guardian and Observer if wanted.
    • If you could, that would be wonderful! John Laurie was a very underestimated actor and it is surprising to see how many distinguished plays he appeared in! Cassianto^talk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will rummage and send you any relevant cuttings by email. Tim riley (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The comedian Richard Hearne" – Mr Pastry was one of the greatest comic treats of my childhood (see him dancing the Lancers with a whole ballroom of imaginary people) but I can't honestly think he is so famous that mention of him is warranted here. I doubt that any reader not in possession of a Freedom Pass will have heard of him. Tim riley (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleted. Cassianto^talk 23:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now, except to report a vague feeling that from the text as it stands a reader new to the subject might not quite get the distinction between music hall and variety. (Indeed, I'm not quite certain I know it myself.) Pray ponder. Having carped at you for line after line, let me say what a treat I'm having reviewing this! A delight. More soonest. Tim riley (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. Can you give a sense of Robey's variety career? Was it all provincial tours? How much time did he spend doing variety shows, or can you give some other description of his variety career, and how it was different from his (earlier?) music hall career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will have to have a more thorough look at this. Not all of his variety shows were limited to the provinces, he appeared in London and internationally with them as well. They differed from his MH routines inasmuch that they relied on some sort of organisation and scripting, where as his MH were frequently impromptu and their sketches or monologues were often picked at the last minute. Cassianto^talk 21:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last lot from Tim

• Radio and television debut
  • "over his fifty-year membership" – of Middlesex or Surrey, and was he really a member at age 16 (if my arithmetic is correct)?
    • This is what Wilson says. "In another talk he congenially discoursed on cricket, told about the players he had met in his youth when he regularly visited the Oval, and of the famous characters he knew at Lord's during his fifty years' membership." (Wilson, p. 159)
      • Fair enough, I think. From the quote it's clear he was a member at Lords – of the Middlesex County club, presumably. The Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), also based at Lord's, was the elite and exclusive mafia that ran cricket in those days, but he wouldn't have got a sniff of membership of the MCC as a teenager. You might ask one of our two cricket sages to run an eye over this, as I don't really know what I'm talking about. Tim riley (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe Sarastro is popping along in the next few days.
          • That sounds wrong. Unless his dad was a member of the MCC, he would not have got in that quickly as there is/was an infamous waiting list for membership, and it was very, very exclusive. Especially in that period. It is ambiguous about which club he is talking: the Oval was less exclusive (and incidentally, the Oval and Lord's "crowd" hated each other with a passion) so maybe he was a member there. But it sounds like an exaggeration. Fifty-year association would be more plausible. (And I'm not sure whether Middlesex had any members as such, or if it was just the MCC at Lord's. It's not really important for the article, but I could probably check easily enough if it matters.) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • It now appears that Cotes also acknowledges Robey's membership of the MCC (he was elected in 1905 apparently). Cardus gives an anecdote and remembers Robey on the field at Lord's in 1921. Cotes quotes: "His strongest tie with cricket was his membership of the MCC; elected in 1905, he remained a member to the end of his life." Cassianto^talk 18:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not sure this helps, but this cigarette card from 1906 shows he played for them. The card shows the reverse, which states he is actually a member. - SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sydney Morning Herald – you have misquoted the paper, which doesn't mention "fun". It's not a very illuminating quote in any case, it seems to me.
    • Agree. I have deleted it. Cassianto^talk 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with his divorce from Ethel finalised" – fifteen years after he walked out on her. Do we know why it took so long to complete the divorce?
    • He never spoke of the reasons as to why he split from Ethel, nor why he omitted to get a divorce. Blanche was even kept in the dark about it. Sure, Cotes offers his conspiracies, but none are tangible enough to include in my opinion. Divorce, I believe, was a sin back then and it was better to be Mrs George Robey than Mrs Nobody I suppose. Cassianto^talk 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critic Harold Conway" – another missing "the"
    • Damn it! Done. Cassianto^talk 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Legacy
  • "of the Sir Henry Irving statue" – there are more than one, but this assuredly refers to the one outside the National Portrait Gallery. Worth mentioning, if so?
    • Yes, that one. Now given. Cassianto^talk 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A passing observation: Gielgud was a huge fan of Robey: "who paused as he surveyed the audience and had them roaring with laughter before he uttered a word". JG drew on Robey's technique when confronted with a tricky comic role in André Obey's play Noah.
    • Interesting. Is this worth giving here? Cassianto^talk 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Refs to hand if you want to include it, but I'd say not. A bit peripheral to your subject. Tim riley (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Lead
  • "which formed a basis for his humour" – not sure these seven words add much.
    • OK deleted. Cassianto^talk 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aside from his music hall acts" – I think of "Aside from" as an Americanism; to my mind "Apart from" is the English idiom.
    • Opted for "As well as..."
      • I don't think "as well as" worked, so I changed it to Tim's phrase, which I think is clear, even to those in the New World. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. Cassianto^talk 21:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a series of menial jobs" – I don't know that I'd decribe working in a civil engineer's office as "menial". Perhaps "routine" or "humdrum"? Afterthought: for many years the Yellow Pages had the splendid entry "Boring–see Civil engineers". Now removed, alas.
    • I went for "routine". Cassianto^talk 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think "routine" is too vague. I changed it to "office jobs". But was it really "a series" of them? How about "some" or "a few"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the on-stage assistant to an established comedian" – I wondered why not just "straight man"?
    • Swapped. Cassianto^talk 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for the 1944 film of the same subject" – not quite. The film was of Henry V. Better to say "a role he later repeated in Laurence Olivier's 1944 film of Henry V."
    • Done. Cassianto^talk 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the Second World War … for which he received the CBE" – but you tell us later that he got his CBE twenty years before the Second World War.
    • Tweaked. Cassianto^talk 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have to offer. This is a fine article, and how nice to read a biography of a music hall star who had a long and, it seems, generally happy life! – Tim riley (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly enjoyed that review Tim, thank you very much! Cassianto^talk 00:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

I went over chunk of this when it was still being written, but much has changed since then. I've made a few minor tweaks here and there (where it's easier to do, rather than say): feel free to revert or tweak any of them (apart from the change from an errant US spelling that had wondered in).

Early life

• "His father Charles Wade[6] was a civil engineer who spent much of his career on tramline design and construction": Commas seem to be in the spotlight elsewhere at the moment, but I think Charles's name could be dropped into a sub clause by the judicious placement of two of the little beggars here. (I wait with baited breath for TR to tell me it's unnecessary...)
  • Adopted unless I hear different. Cassianto^talk 21:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bloody hell! The bogeyman looking in here. Yes, commas are wanted, unless he had two or more fathers. More realistically, if we were talking of siblings, you'd write "his sister Susan" if he had several sisters and "his sister, Susan," if she was the only one. The difference between a describing ("non-restrictive") clause and a defining ("restrictive") one. But as the bogeyman needs to eat someone, who is it who has baited rather than bated breath? Oh, all right, I'm sorry! Tim riley (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto Ma Robey (I see you've followed the comma-name-comma pattern on the third family member, Uncle George)
  • Likewise. Cassianto^talk 21:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "the family moved back to London near the border between Camberwell and Peckham": slightly pedantic, but I'm not sure Camberwell and Peckham were actually part of London at the time... It may be best leaving as is, but someone may pick up on it at some point
  • How about deleting London and leaving "border between Camberwell and Peckham"? Strictly speaking, Cotes doesn't say London, only Camberwell and Peckham? Cassianto^talk 21:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd leave in London, or "the London area", as all your readers will understand the general location without clicking away from the article. Unless it is jarring, I'd stick with just London. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "part of their ordinary daily lives": I'd be tempted to leave out "ordinary": some may have had quite extra-ordinary lives, and "part of their daily lives" seems to cover the point well enough.
  • Deleted. Cassianto^talk 21:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "He later claimed to have studied at the University of Cambridge,[9][n 3]" Is there more to follow here, or should the comma be a full stop?
  • mea culpa, fixed. Cassianto^talk 21:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

London debut

• "returned to South London": I'm always getting the capitalisation mixed up with this, but is it "South London", or "south London"?
  • I think South London. Can anyone shed some light on this? Cassianto^talk 21:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not cocksure about this, but I think South London is widely enough taken to be a geographical name rather than a geographical description that caps are appropriate. Perfectly prepared to be told I'm talking round objects. Tim riley (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • As the holder of an English degree from a prestigious university, I can confidently say that I don't care. Also, it ain't broke - see South London. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done down to the end of London debut: more to follow in this fascinating and excellent article. – SchroCat (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Success in pantomime and the provinces

• "his position at the top of every theatrical bill": what, every bill? Even the ones he wasn't in? I'm being slightly facetious, but do you see wheat I mean?
• "However, Robey disputed": the "however" will be a red flag to some at FLC, especially at the beginning of the sentence.
  • Done both. Cassianto^talk 16:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting interests

• The para beginning "By 1903" confuses me slightly. We start with Vigoro/cricket then into Millwall, then into the MCC and cricket. Perhaps starting with Millwall, then into Vigoro, moving into cricket and the MCC?
  • Done. Cassianto^talk 16:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stoll

• "Prince George V"? Either George, Prince of Wales or King George V, depending on the year.
  • Done. Cassianto^talk 16:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done to the end of Stoll: sorry it's a bit piecemeal, but a stack of new cases in over the last day or so has squashed my free time somewhat. More to come asap. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another batch for you: sorry about the delay in getting back to this, an outbreak of rather depressing silliness delayed me somewhat. Anyhow, on with the show...

Lovely, thanks. Not a problem at all. Cassianto^talk 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage breakdown and foreign tours

• "In early 1929, Robey returned to South Africa and then Canada for another tour with Bits and Pieces. He then started another series of English variety dates." These two short sentences could move together quite happily (and lose the "then…then" repetition. Perhaps "In early 1929 Robey returned to South Africa and then Canada for another tour with Bits and Pieces, after which he started another series of English variety dates."?
  • Adopted. Cassianto^talk 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second World War

• "he appeared in various types of shows": should that be "various types of show" (singular)?
  • Done Cassianto^talk 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold on thar. If this is correct Brit. grammar, I am appalled and suggest a rewrite of the sentence. I've put it back to "types of shows" for now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "He was unspecific in his choice of venues": I'm not sure "specific" is the right word, but my brain isn't working well enough to think of a substitute.
  • I agree. I have reworked the whole sentence. Cassianto^talk 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a bit thin around the late 1940s: is there a similar gap in the source material over these dates?

Unfortunately, both sources are scarce on information from 1947 (ish) to the early 50s. This, I'm sad to say, is a ramification of that. Cassianto^talk 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline in health

• "Poplar in east London" Poor east London: only granted lower case status when South London gets all la-di-da with its capitalisation!
  • East of the river is just as good (if not better) ;). changed. Cassianto^talk 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "he starred as Clown in a short pantomime": is Clown the character's name? Fine if it is, but the definite article needed if only a descriptor
  • The character was called Clown. Cassianto^talk 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

• "charming, gracious [and] one of the few really great ones of [the music hall era]."[198] Perhaps a slight tweak to shorten the quote and remove the second set of brackets: "charming, gracious [and] one of the few really great ones" of the music hall era.[198] Your call either way.
  • Changed. Cassianto^talk 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FNs

• You may want to check the formatting here and there, as some of the italicisation has gone a little awry: compare 150 and 152 157 and 159, for example.
  • I need to go through both these and the references. Be assured this will be fixed! Thanks so much for looking in. Cassianto^talk 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very minor quibbles in all, and feel free to adopt or ignore at your discretion! An excellent article and I await its appearance at FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

Sorry for the delay, this week was slightly more chaotic than I expected.

No problem at all, thanks for popping by! Cassianto^talk 16:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

• "and musical theatre actor": Far from a major issue, but I wonder if "an actor in musical theatre" may be less abrupt?
  • Reworked. Cassianto^talk 16:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "he made his debut on the London stage when he was 21 at the Royal Aquarium, where he was the on-stage assistant to an established comedian": Again, not major, but would "he made his debut on the London stage, aged 21, at the Royal Aquarium as the on-stage assistant to an established comedian". But may not be an improvement.
  • Much the same really, I'll stick if that's ok? Cassianto^talk 16:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "a mainstay of the popular Christmas pantomime scene": Is this popular in the sense that everyone liked it, or popular in the sense that it was looked down upon by superior types?
  • The former. Pantomime was huge in the Victorian times. Cassianto^talk 16:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "and secured many private bookings for royalty": Reads as if he made the bookings for the royalty to star in! Maybe "appearing before royalty"?
  • Nice, changed. Cassianto^talk 16:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "In 1914 he debuted in film when he appeared in the comedy short George Robey Turns Anarchist, but he had only modest success in the medium": Maybe a "he" or two too many here?
  • Trimmed by one. Cassianto^talk 16:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "his first legitimate theatre role": Slightly condescending editorial voice here!!! Can we rephrase to avoid "legitimate" (does this make pantomime illegitimate? I'd agree wholeheartedly there!)
  • legitimate →straight. Cassianto^talk 16:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both "legitimate" and "straight" are ambiguous, as both are often used to mean "not a musical theatre show". But this was a musical (an operetta, in fact). To be clear, how about saying: "first theatre role other than in a revue or pantomime". -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed. Cassianto^talk 11:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the lead lacking a little summary of why he was so important? There looks to be a few things in the legacy section which could go here.
  • Its where to put it! He had such a full life, that it was a complete mission to get all the pertinent information covered in the four paragraphs. I can have a go in a sandbox somewhere. Cassianto^talk 16:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just made some edits in the first paragraph along these lines. See if you like them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early life:

• "and its tree lined pavements were flanked by large, well-kept houses." This seems a little over-described here.
  • Removed, given the articles already excessive length. Cassianto^talk 17:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• " Robey's parents both died during the First World War; his father of a heart attack and his mother as a result of an injury she had sustained during an air raid": Were the two deaths connected?
  • No, now elaborated. Cassianto^talk 07:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a way to cut a few of the "Robey"s in the first paragraph?
  • Trimmed further. Cassianto^talk 07:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "In the later months of 1880, the Wade family moved to Germany": Why?
  • Wade moved for work reasons. Now explained. Cassianto^talk 16:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "He enjoyed life in Germany and was impressed with the many operatic productions held in the city and the way the locals treated the arts as an integral part of their daily lives": A few too many ands in this sentence.
  • Deleted the last part of this sentence as it was a bit redundant. Cassianto^talk 13:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "When he was 14, Robey moved in with a clergyman's family in the German countryside": Why?
  • Explained in the next sentence. Cassianto^talk 13:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The note on his supposed attendance at Cambridge is a little confusing. Where did the claim come from? The text suggests that it was Robeys's claim, but the note suggests that he played on the "supposition" that he did so. It can't really be both. And did he really convince anyone?
  • According to Cotes, Robey himself claimed to have studied there. This set the ball rolling and the likes of Max Beerbohm carried on the rumour, long after Robey had abandoned it. Rather than correct them, he let them keep the rumour alive as I suppose it's better to have "studied" at Cambridge than any lesser university! I have tweaked it a little. Cassianto^talk 17:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Up to the end of "Music hall characterisations" so far. A good read! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Success in pantomime and the provinces

• " had signed the comedian on a £25-a-week, three-month contract": Without using any of those godawful inflation templates, or measuring worth, or anything like that, could we give a vague indication about how much this was? Perhaps how it compared to other stars at the time?
  • Now added. Cecilia Loftus was paid £80 a week that year, so it appears he was well on his way to commanding the same figures. Cassianto^talk 18:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless one of the sources mentions Loftus's salary (or compares his with anyone), this is open to the accusation of WP:OR at FAC. But, I have no objection if you want to wait until someone objects (if ever). -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting interests

• "Robey was asked by the English cricketer Harry Wrathall to take part in a charity match at the Yorkshire County Cricket Club. Robey played so well that Wrathall asked him to return the following weekend": As written, it looks at first glance like he was playing cricket; I think we need to specify that he was playing football.
  • Clarified. Cassianto^talk 18:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "By 1903, Robey was a semi-professional player and was signed as an inside forward by the Millwall Football Club and scored many goals for the club at national level.": And...and...and. Also, I'm not too sure about "at national level" here. Could we be more precise at what level he was playing? First division? Second division? Friendly games?
  • Sorted both, thanks. Cassianto^talk 18:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I think you saw my comments on the cricket in the sections above.
  • I did. Responses given above. Cassianto^talk 06:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now down to the end of "Oswald Stoll". Sarastro1 (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Film debut and The Bing Boys Are Here:

• "The show's casting was controversial with critics": To disregard your request to not ask for elaboration (!), why was this?
  • "Controversial" was the wrong word, so I have used "doubt" instead. I have also added a ref which I had originally missed. Cassianto^talk 20:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoa! It can't be what you wrote, Mr. C. I understood this to mean that the critics expected ROBEY to play the dame and were surprised. Assuming that's what you meant, I have changed it to: "Although the critics were surprised by the casting, it appealed to audiences..." If that's not what you meant, let's try again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was what I meant. I thought "controversial" was wrong to use here as it wasn't; more of a disappointment or a "hmmm, I'm not sure about this casting". Cassianto^talk 22:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Another film followed in 1916 called The Anti-frivolity League,[75] followed the next year by another film, Doing His Bit.": Film...film
  • Fixed. Cassianto^talk 20:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zig-Zag to Joy Bells:

• "The Italian writer Emilio Cecchi gave Robey a glowing review...": If you are interested in trimming, I'm not sure that this quote adds much to the sum of our knowledge.
  • Deleted. Cassianto^talk 20:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to disagree, but without this review, the reader has no idea of the reception of this major role in Robey's career. Possibly the quote could be removed or streamlined, but IMO the fact the Cecchi gave it a glowing review should stay. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • As per my edit summary, I have restored this. I agree that this helps and deliberated over deleting it for some time. Cassianto^talk 09:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is coming quite slowly, but I'm up to the end of the Zig-zag section now. On the subject of length, I'm always writing articles which are too long. There may be a few parts here and there which could safely be trimmed if you are wanting to reduce the length; personally, I think you are just about OK at the moment. I tend to take the optimal length to be around 8,000 words and try to trim to that sort of length. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all. I'm finding the breaks a big help in keeping in top of things, cheers! Cassianto^talk 20:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Films and revues of the early 1920s:

• "George Robey's Day Off (1919) showed the comedian acting out his daily domestic routines to comic effect,[90] but the picture failed at the box office. The British film maker John Baxter concluded that film producers did not know how best to apply Robey's stage talents to film.": Too many "films"! I would also suggest rewording as "George Robey's Day Off (1919) showed the comedian acting out his daily domestic routines to comic effect,[90] but failed at the box office". And (maybe Mr Riley can help here) is it box-office?
  • Done. Cassianto^talk 20:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Robey admitted that he had difficulty in differentiating between the business of film and variety theatre, with the former providing little room for his customary improvisational humour.": If trimming is required, this could go as it makes essentially the same point that Baxter did in the previous sentence.
  • Good point. Cassianto^talk 20:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "A sign that his popularity was continuing to increase came in August 1920 when he was depicted in scouting costume for a series of 12 Royal Mail stamps in aid of the Printers Pension Corporation War Orphans and the Prince of Wales Boy Scout Funds.": Maybe just "A sign of his increasing popularity ..."?
  • Done. Cassianto^talk 20:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage breakdown:

• "Robey, however, resented having to grow a beard for the role and despised the foreign climate": We state the location as being in France in the note, but not in the main body. That makes the work of the reader a little harder.
  • Done. Cassianto^talk 20:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venture into legitimate theatre:

• "although he had frequently read Shakespeare from an early age.": Redundancy?
  • Yes. Cassianto^talk 20:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• ""integrate himself with the other stars, ... to learn many pages of dialogue, and to remember countless cues."": Why the comma when we are using an ellipsis?
  • Nice spot! Cassianto^talk 20:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Down to the end of the legitimate theatre section now. Part of me wonders if some of the lists of roles and locations could be trimmed a little? Not a huge problem at all, but I sometimes find these a little wearing in the biographies of performers. But it's not really detracting so far, as we are kept entertained by various tales and anecdotes, but it is worth considering if you are still worried over length. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a good point. In general, I would mention a role if it was from an important production for Robey, but I would not mention the name of a theatre, especially a provincial theatre, unless it was a really significant venue or particularly significant to Robey's career (I would just mention the city). So, along these lines, do we need: "Paragon Theatre of Varieties", Brighton's "Alhambra Theatre", Manchester's "Comedy Theatre", Birmingham's "Palace Theatre", Vancouver's "Empress Theatre", Woolwich's "Royal Artillery Theatre", Bristol's "Hippodrome Theatre", Burnley's "Palace Theatre", Sheffield's "Empire Theatre"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I think I caught them all. Cassianto^talk 21:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespearean roles:

• "At the start of 1935 Robey accepted his first Shakespearian role, as Falstaff in Henry IV, Part I, which caused much surprise in the press and some worry by his variety fans that he might retire the Prime Minister of Mirth.": Why not just "surprise"? And should it be "worry from his fans"?
  • Done. Cassianto^talk 22:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radio and television debut:

• "The popular interview brought Robey over a thousand letters from listeners": "Popular interview" could be interpreted in a few ways, so maybe "the well-received interview"? And the interview didn't bring him anything, so what about "as a result of the interview..."?
  • Dropped "popular" and I have omitted to use "well-received" as I couldn't think of an alternative to use instead of "...receive letters". Cassianto^talk 22:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "The press were warmly impressed": Not keen on the adverb here.
  • Deleted. Cassianto^talk 22:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• In the quote following on from "The press were warmly impressed...", there is a full stop followed by an ellipsis.
  • Caught and deleted. Cassianto^talk 22:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that the full stop - space - ellipses is correct, to indicate that the omitted material includes the end of a sentence. I see that it does not specifically so state in WP:ELLIPSES, but I am sure that the punctuation mavens do it this way at FAC. Does anyone know differently? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have asked Rothorpe to offer some advice on this. Cassianto^talk 11:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. ... Looks good to me. Rothorpe (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "In the later months of 1936, Robey repeated his radio success with a thirty-minute programme entitled "Music-Hall", which he recorded especially for American audiences, to honour the tenth birthday celebrations of the National Broadcasting Corporation.": Redundancy?
  • Yes, done. Cassianto^talk 22:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "he had met on his frequent visits to the Oval and Lord's cricket grounds over his fifty-year membership.": And to return to this, and taking on board your comment above, he wasn't a member of the MCC fifty years before this interview, as he became a member in 1905. So I would still prefer "association" here. Not a big deal, but as written this is slightly inaccurate.
  • Yes, done. Cassianto^talk 22:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second World War:

• "Aware of demand in Australia": Not quite clear what the demand is for here.
  • For his act, clarified but may need checking. I have said "Owing to popular demand for his act..."
    • I think that "aware of demand" is much better than "owing to popular demand", and we certainly need to say where. I think that the only change needed to satisfy Sarastro is to add the "for his act". I've made the change. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline in health:

• "Instead, he would stay at home and draw comic sketches featuring the Prime Minister of Mirth": Why "would"?
  • Reworked. Cassianto^talk 22:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "a request the comedian was only too happy to fulfil.": I can see why this wording is used, but would "was happy to fulfil" work just as well?
  • Works fine I think. Done. Cassianto^talk 22:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy:

• Does this section really describe his legacy, or more about his comic style? Perhaps this isn't the best title for the section. Additionally, is there anything general that could be said here about his personality? (It comes across throughout, but I was wondering if there were any pithy quotes)
  • How about "Tributes and legacy"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes that's better. Cassianto^talk 10:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it from me. A great piece of work, very readable, and feel free to ignore any of my comments if you don't agree. Let me know when this reaches FAC. Sarastro1 (talk)

Comments from Crisco

After doing those images, I'll try and give some prose comments. Have you had a check of the copyright on these images yet? (BTW, if you could have a look at my considerably shorter article (PR) that would be much appreciated)

Thankyou. I have done the best I can on the images and with the exception of perhaps one or two, I think they are ok. I will happily drop in on Djajakusuma in the next day or two. Cassianto^talk 08:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Royal Command Performance in 1912 and regularly entertained before royalty. - any way to avoid repeating royal[ty]?
  • Changed to "aristocracy". Cassianto^talk 17:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Prime Minister of Mirth - should these all be in quotes, or not?
  • No I don't think so. We wouldn't say "Claudius" in Hamlet I don't think. Cassianto^talk 09:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, you've got it in quotes twice in the lede, which may require rectifying. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I've linked Henry V (1944 film) in the lede.
  • Thanks. Cassianto^talk 17:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Kennington Road was an affluent area and was mainly inhabited by successful tradesmen - do you need the second "was"?
  • Deleted the latter. Cassianto^talk 08:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see Robey's year of birth anywhere outside the lede.
  • I'm not sure it needs to be. Cassianto^talk 08:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then it should be referenced in the lede, because right now it is unreferenced. As we've seen with Hattie Jacques, YOB can be quite controversial. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have just moved the ODNB reference up. Cassianto^talk 09:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• a school in the city of Dresden - is "the city of" necessary?
  • I think for those not geographically minded among us, it serves a purpose here. Otherwise we run the risk of forcing people off the page. Cassianto^talk 08:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dresden is a fairly large city, and famous in the Anglsophere for the bombing of Dresden. Even not knowing that, most readers would understand that it's a place without a clarifier. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Is "enrol on" correct in the Queen's English?
  • I have cut to the chase and put him at the address when he undertook his studies. Source also backs this up. Cassianto^talk 17:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• He later claimed to have studied at the University of Cambridge. - wouldn't "though this has been disputed" help make it clear (to those who don't read footnotes, like several reviewers I've met...) that this "claim" is not necessarily correct?
  • I think the footnote is a suitable place to have it. If I introduce it into the text, then things will become a bit bloated.
    • I'm not saying to have the whole footnote as part of the running text. I'm suggesting that "though this has been disputed" would make the idle reader (i.e. one who does not click on footnotes) realize that the Cambridge claim may not be correct. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then that would introduce to the reader the question: "Well who did dispute it?" The onus would then be on me to explain in the text who exactly did dispute it, which in my mind is bloat and best suited to a footnote. Cassianto^talk 17:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Should you refer to Robey as Wade until he makes the name change?
  • No as things will become too confusing. IMO, the subject matter should be referred to by the name for which they were best known. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Cassianto^talk 08:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Cecilia Loftus, a well-established music hall performer, was paid £80-a-week for an engagement that year. - is this really worth having in the running text?
  • Sarastro mentioned this above and thought it would be helpful to compare Robey's wage to other performers of his day. I must say, I'm inclined to agree with him on this. Cassianto^talk 08:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not questioning the inclusion of this. I'm questioning its inclusion in the running text (i.e. not as a footnote). It's not quite pertinent to your narrative. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Footnoted. -- Cassianto^talk 17:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Ethel Haydon - notable enough for an article?
  • She was a very minor actress. I'll see how much I have in the sources. Cassianto^talk 08:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your footnote has "a star in her own right", which doesn't sound like "minor" to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Watch for too many paragraphs that start with "in (year)" or similar.
  • Swapped a few, thanks. Cassianto^talk 08:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• That weekend, while waiting in the pavilion before the game, Robey was approached by an agent for Hull City Football Club, who asked the comedian to sign an amateur form for a match that same afternoon. Robey agreed, swapped his flannels for a football kit and played with the team against Nottingham Forest as an inside right. - Did he end up playing cricket that day?
  • No he didn't. I have used "swapped his flannels for a football kit" as an indication that he shunned cricket for football. Do you suggest I change it? Cassianto^talk 17:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the reading I got, so perhaps not, though I think for the general reader (especially Americans and Americanized Canadians like me who are unaware of cricket terminology) having it explicit may be preferable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about this? Cassianto^talk 09:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough, so long as Sarastro doesn't skin me (or hand, draw, and quarter me). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• King Edward VII - If it's Sir George Robey and Sir Alfred Butt, why not King Edward VII?
  • Done. Cassianto^talk 08:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• King George V and his wife Mary were the royal attendees who - is "were the royal attendees who" really necessary?
  • I think so as it may become ambiguous inasmuch that they were delighted knowing of Robey's performance, when in actual fact they were there. Anyone else? Cassianto^talk 08:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 1am and following ... is this correct in BrE? Not even a space?
  • Changed. Fixed 6am too. Cassianto^talk 17:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Film makers or filmmakers?
  • This appears done. Cassianto^talk 17:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Hippodrome theatre or Hippodrome Theatre?
  • Likewise. The pr fairies must have visited overnight! Cassianto^talk 17:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Pollard was again cast, with Phyllis Bedells and the supporting dancers included Anita Elson and Leon Errol. - not quite clear to me. What was Bedells' role in all this?
  • Reworked. Cassianto^talk 18:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Emilio Cecchi - translation also by Cotes? Original text supplied?
  • Not sure I get this. Are you asking if this quotes is also in Cotes? Cassianto^talk 18:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a quote from an Italian critic, thus I'm assuming it was in Italian. Was the English translation provided by Cotes, and did he supply the original Italian quote? Or was this in English originally? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gotcha. No, the quote came in English. Cassianto^talk 08:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skipping ahead...

• In his lifetime, Robey helped to earn more than £2,000,000 for good causes with £500,000 of that figure being raised during the First World War alone. - Goes from the funeral service to this... kinda jumpy. Also, is "good causes" NPOV? Charitable causes, maybe?
  • I don't see why not. Done. Cassianto^talk 18:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• the honour "the music hall version" of the Sir Henry Irving statue, - not getting this reference
  • Music hall entertainment was considered by the press and theatre critics to be bawdy which appealed chiefly to the working classes, like, dare I say it, most pubs in olden day London. Henry Irving appealed to those with more class who preferred a bit of Shakespeare or Chekhov. Wood's comment was based on that divide whilst at the same time, noticing the irony that a pub should be named after a strict teetotaller. Cassianto^talk 18:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• More on the morrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great thanks! Cassianto^talk 18:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• According to our article on Prince Littler, Emile was his brother. Why link to Prince?
  • Unlinked. Cassianto^talk 16:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• first failure for the comedian under Stoll's management after their string of hits. - either the first few words or the last few are redundant; if something is a first failure, then what preceded it was successful.
  • Removed the last part. Cassianto^talk 16:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• one of the first productions to feature a film sequence that showed Phileas racing an Atlantic liner in a motor boat. - meaning such a scene was shot again and again?
  • Sorry, being thick again. Are you suggesting swapping "sequence" with something else? Cassianto^talk 16:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has now been fixed.
• Consider grouping references at the end of clauses and/or sentences
  • Will do. Cassianto^talk 16:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• embraced it fully. - is this encyclopedic?
  • Maybe not, changed. Cassianto^talk 18:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 15,000 miles - shouldn't we have convert templates here?
  • Would a footnote do? I'm not keen on giving it in the main text. Cassianto^talk 18:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine by me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done! Cassianto^talk 20:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Don Quixote (1932) - link Adventures of Don Quixote? Also, why just Don Quixote?
  • That's the title given by Wilson and the BFI. I'm not sure the WP article is correctly named based on how the BFI refer to it. Would the Adventures of Don Quixote be the story title upon which the film was based? Cassianto^talk 18:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll move our article. IMDB and the other source I checked also use the Don Quixote title. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're too kind! Cassianto^talk 20:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still on the subject of Don Quixote: apparently there were three versions made, and Robey was only in the English-language version (not the French or German), so that might be worth a footnote. Also, the internet claims the film is public domain. Not sure how it's reached that conclusion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Great, does that mean I can use this? or do we suspect that the PD claim is false? Cassianto^talk 16:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Since we don't know why the internet claims this is PD, and we don't have an RS for that claim, I wouldn't do that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok I won't bother. Thank you :) Cassianto^talk 06:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• at the Savoy Theatre in his next legitimate theatre role as Bold Ben Blister in the operetta Jolly Roger, - I'd remove "in his next legitimate theatre role "
  • Done. Cassianto^talk 18:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• legitimate theatre critics - why not just "critics"?
  • There were many kinds of critics who specialised in different genres; ie, comedy, drama, musical, opera etc... . I'm worried that simply saying "critics" could leave a hint of ambiguity in the air. It wouldn't be proper for a comedy critic to comment on a Shakespearean play and vice versa for instance. Cassianto^talk 18:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• [ballet, opera and musical comedy] - what was the original?
  • i.e. before "ballet, opera and musical comedy" were inserted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expanded quote for clarity. Cassianto^talk 20:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Shakespearian roles doesn't feel like the correct title. It's almost all about Falstaff. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2014 (UT
  • Bottom also gets an airing at the start (That's the character obviously...quieten down at the back there, honestly!)
    • Shakespeare covers them both; the only alternative would be Bottom and Falstaff which to me sounds like a Victorian underwear shop! Cassianto^talk 19:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• he got his biggest kick - encyclopedic language?
  • kick →thrill. Cassianto^talk 19:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• A report in the Kinematograph Weekly comment that the sixty-nine year old comedian - two things. A report ... comment ? and sixty-nine year old is missing hyphens (to be safe I'd go 69-year-old)
  • Done both. Cassianto^talk 19:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• That September Robey appeared as the Prime Minister of Mirth in Portsmouth for a one-man show. - is this one worth mentioning, at all? I mean, it's a single performance, with no critical commentary. Or do you have another purpose for including it?
  • No, your right. Removed. Cassianto^talk 20:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• sympathising - Is this really the best Easter egg? It's odd how we don't have an article on Nazi sympathizer, since they're not quite the same.
  • Did you mean link to the articles name? If so, done. Cassianto^talk 21:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• cine-variety - worth a redlink?
  • Although there is nothing wrong with red linking, I'm not a fan in FA's (which is where I intend to take.) I will "to do" it and collect sources in the meantime. Cassianto^talk 21:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Henry V - Worth quoting any British critics? I mean, it was a UK production, right?
  • Good point! I will look around. Cassianto^talk 21:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• In the early months of 1954, and confined to a wheelchair, - the conjunction doesn't work very well here, I think. It could be moved to the next sentence easily — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Cassianto^talk 20:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK chaps, I will be retiring this peer review now, so I would like to thank one and all for participating. I have thoroughly enjoyed answering each and every comment and I feel the article has benefitted greatly from all of your input. Special thanks goes to Ssilvers for fixing my all to frequent mistakes and introducing excellent opportunities for the article which I had missed. Onwards and upwards to FAC, so I hope to see you all there! Cassianto^talk 19:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]