Talk:Timothy Everest

	Timothy Everest has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 15, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed April 19, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance). Fashion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Wales Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The article just gives his wife's name as Catherine. The article should also give her surname, if possible.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list of references and independent sources at the bottom of the article establishes the subject's notability beyond the shadow of a doubt. May I suggest that the non-notable template which was placed there by an IP be removed ASAP?! --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of that British fellow. But, I'll leave it up to you folks. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, it doesn't matter whether you've heard of him or not. Notability is established in articles by providing references to independent secondary and third sources.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, he can stay. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the article? It definitely establishes that Everest is a notable individual.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that nobody (except for myself a while back) bothers to question the "designer" L'Wren Scott's notability!!!!! Jesus wept.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the references & external links, after you mentioned them. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why/how anybody could possibly question his notability. Besides, the references is the section which should be checked out before somebody slaps a non-notability template on a page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Non-notability template should be removed as it was placed by an IP. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the IP reads the article, notes the reliable sources used and reads Wikipedia:Notability (people). WP's Basic criteria says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Timothy Everest satisfies these criteria. WP:ANYBIO says “People are generally notable if they meet any of the following standards...

1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.

2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

I will now remove the tags. Should anyone disagree, please first raise the subject at the relevant notice boards. Daicaregos (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the tags should be removed as they never belonged there in the first place.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Daicaregos (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall, the article is highly-informative, well-written in a fluid, contemporary style; easy to follow and readable. The subject's notability is demonstrated without any peacock words or hyperbole.
• It is well-illustrated, with pertinent images and matching captions. Infobox image is in the portrait style, free, and of good quality.
• It is broad in its coverage and all the subsections are focused.

Clear, concise. No obvious problems there.

• Very well-covered, does not leave the reader wanting for more information.

• Alas, there is a dearth of basic biography such as exact date of birth, names of parents and children, number of siblings (if any), and all we know about his wife is that she's named Catherine. Although this lack certainly does not bar the article achieving GA status, I think the information should be tracked down and added to the article sometime in the future.

• Article gives a complete list without excessive name-dropping. It looks fine.

• There is a sufficient amount. I like the Tom Cruise quote at the end as it highlights Everest's international clientele. Again no obvious problems here.

• There needs to be more explanation provided as to why or how his ambition to be a racing driver was unfulfilled.

I'll need to do a closer scrutiny of the refs, but there is a sufficient amount of sources and appear bona-fide.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This section is way too long. Subsections are needed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Daicaregos (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Of his suit worn to the Oscars, Tom Cruise commented..... Who did he make the comment to? A reporter? This should be noted.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Timothy Everest/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Also working with Nutter at this time was Catherine (now an actress and film producer), whom Everest later married. Catherine who? Does she have a surname?

    Done diff. I have, as yet, been unable to discover Catherine Everest's maiden name. Daicaregos (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   His long-standing association with Marks and Spencer began that year (see below). I don't think the "(see below)" is necessary, not very encyclopaedic.

    Done diff. Daicaregos (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I made a number of copy-edits.[1]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   "dressed some of the world's most famous people". and "bespoke casual movement". all quotes need attribution and citation.

    Done diff 1, diff 2, diff 3 and diff 4. Daicaregos (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Everest joined DAKS Simpson (a well-respected name in British fashion) as design consultant in May 2000 "(a well-respected name in British fashion)" needs attribution

    Done diff 1, diff 2. Daicaregos (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I removed an EL that is used as a reference, as per WP:EL.[2]

   Other references appear RS, no OR detected.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good coverage, no unnecessary trivia

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images licensed and captioned

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for the issues above to be addressed. I note that large parts of the article are cited to WP:Primary sources, it would be good to find alternates especially where the statements are about other people. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   OK, I think this now meets the criteria so I am happy to list it. If you develop the article further you may want to look for other sources, but primary sources are Ok for statements by the subject about himself. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Please let me know which statements you would like further sources for - I'll try to find them. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]