Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rod Steiger/archive1

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

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2015 [1].

Rod Steiger edit

Nominator(s): ♦ Dr. Blofeld and Ssven2 14:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Rod Steiger, one of Hollywood's greatest and most beloved character actors... After watching several of his films I felt compelled to "give something back" for the entertainment he has provided me with his acting. His performance in The Pawnbroker (1964) I think was the real motivator, an Oscar nominated one as a disgruntled Jew working as a pawnbroker in New York City which even he took for granted that he'd won. It has been researched extensively and I was able to get a copy of the one decent biography which exists on him. Biographical info is a lot more sketchy than it is for most of the top Hollywood film stars, but I'm certain it's about as comprehensive as it's going to reasonably get. User:Ssven2 and User:Rationalobserver helped greatly during the peer review and have made further copyedits. I think it's now ready to run here, hope you enjoy it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I peer reviewed the article, and my comments were dealt with satisfactorily. The article is comprehensive but not overlong; the prose is – as far as I am any judge – good AmEng; the referencing is wide and thorough; the treatment of the subject is balanced; the pictures are many and excellent. There is, to my mind, too much about awards, but the Doctor knows my views on that point: we agree to differ, and I certainly don't regard it as affecting suitability for promotion to FA. The article plainly meets the criteria, in my view. – Tim riley talk 08:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thanks, Tim riley. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Tim, as above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Loeba and Susie edit

I will look at this more closely in the coming days; my initial impression is that it looks very promising. One quick comment in the mean time though: almost every paragraph in the "Career" section starts with "In 19XX..." I definitely recommend varying the prose. It's particularly good, I think, when new paragraphs give a sense of "story" and development, you know? Also, maybe move the "Acting style" section to come after "Personal life"? --Loeba (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think it's FA-level, but I did notice a couple of things which I think could be improved. I might be a bit too nitpicky at times, and it should be noted that my knowledge about Steiger or his career was pretty limited before reading this article. I'm sorry if this is a bit long, this is my first time doing this! I just don't know how to summarize all of these points in a paragraph without being really vague.

  • Early life:
    • "During the last 11 years of his mother's life, she stayed sober and regularly attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings..." Maybe "During the last 11 years of her life, Steiger's mother..." would be clearer?
    • The last para – Maybe move this to the next section, as it seems that the 1946 stage role was the point when his career began?
Done. Your comments for this section have been resolved.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Career
    • In general, I agree with Loeba about how the writing style could be improved. I think the opening sentence of each section should give some indication of what that section will discuss, even though you of course indicate this in the title as well. Same goes for many paragraphs. At the moment, the article reads a bit too much like a list at times, and I was left hoping for more context explaining what stage in his career each section represents. You provide a lot of interesting information about Steiger's opinions on his roles as well as the critics' views of his work, but I'm often left wondering what the importance of a certain film was for his career in general. For example, in Early roles, you begin the paragraph with "On May 24, 1953, Steiger played the title role of Paddy Chayefsky's "Marty" episode of the Goodyear Television Playhouse."; it's only in the fourth sentence that you mention that "Marty" was his breakthrough role. I think the section could be improved by beginning the paragraph with something like "Steiger's breakthrough role was in..." Also, if you are discussing several films made in the same year, maybe start the paragraph with "Steiger apperared in three films released in 1957..." etc. In other words, the opening sentence of each paragraph should clearly indicate what will be discussed in that para.
    • I would also definitely add years after each subsection title, that way the reader knows from the beginning what time period will be discussed.
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would try to 'link' paragraphs better. Often, a new paragraph begins a bit 'abruptly', e.g. after discussing Al Capone, you begin the next paragraph with "Steiger played sophisticated thief Paul Mason..." I think it would improve readability if you tried to link paragraphs by re-wording them a bit, e.g. "Steiger's next role was as..." or "Following the success of Al Capone, Steiger played..."
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is in general really good in describing Steiger's roles in each film, but I'm often left wondering whether the role was a starring, major supporting or minor one.
Re:"Steiger played sophisticated thief Paul Mason" Again I don't think I wrote that originally, I usually avoid that sort of thing, it looks altered in looking at it.. I've added Following as suggested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Generally "major supporting". Often he was not the highest billed "star" in a film, but neither were his roles usually minor ones, particularly pre 1980. He was a steady character actor, with a fair number of starring roles but generally overall a major supporting player. Similar I suppose to Philip Seymour Hoffman in that respect. It's difficult to often classify him as either lead or minor role at times. I do believe that post 80s I've implied some of his roles were often more minor and his career had declined though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early career:
    • I'm not sure I would include the information about James Dean, or the long quote about Bogart.
I think it's valuable to include it, and what a lot of readers will happily read. I did actually remove the Dean mention during one copyedit but I thought it a valuable insight into Steiger and old Hollywood and worth mentioning. It felt like a wrong move after I'd removed it. I think many readers will find the info about Bogart equally engrossing and will enjoy it. Those are the sorts of things I find most interesting when I read actor biographies. I think in places we can afford to include a few anecdotes for variety and to improve reading interest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How were The Big Knife and The Harder They Fall received?
I don't think we need to know how every film fared, in fact I removed a few ones during an earlier trim to try to improve the readability.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, but then I think it could be worth to mention in each section whether his films in a given period were overall negatively or positively received. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
If you view the pre peer review version I believe I did mention how those films were received and those below. He had a mixed bag really, though generally late 1950s he didn't do well, which is echoed later by the depression comment. I think he was actually blacklisted from US films in the late 50s, though I can't find a source to confirm the period he was blacklisted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should definitely be mentioned that he was blacklisted if that was the case. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I did mention it before but a peer reviewer told me to remove it as I couldn't be more specific about the actual dates or find anything more on it. It was one source which said he was blacklisted for a period, I think related to his comments on Kazan and McCarthyism. Roughly I think it was in 1956-1962 period as virtually all were British or Italian productions I think, many of them involving British studios in which he could have evaded it a blacklisting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struggling actor
    • How were The Unholy Wife and Run of the Arrow received? Again, you move from Wife to his next film without 'linking' them; it seems they were both made in the same year, but it would again improve readability to state this earlier.
    • "The film established Steiger as a serious lead actor, following his earlier supporting role success in On the Waterfront." – a bit confusing, since Waterfront is discussed in the earlier section. Do you mean that his roles between the two films were not well-received?
Yes, his late 50s weren't weren't well received in general, note also I say serious lead actor, as despite his success in On the Waterfront he wasn't a lead actor in it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What was his role in Rashomon?
Done. It was the bandit originally played by Toshiro Mifune.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How was Seven Thieves received?
Done. Written Crowther's review.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Steiger based his role as a destroyer commander in the large ensemble cast of The Longest Day, which included John Wayne, Richard Todd, Robert Mitchum, Richard Burton, Sean Connery, Henry Fonda and his own father." Confusing sentence, I suggest rewording! Do you mean he based his role on his father?
Yes, it should be "on" rather than "and", the error crept in during a copyedit the other day!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did Steiger speak Italian since he was able to act in Italian films?
His voice was dubbed but I presume by late 70s he'd acquired a good basic understanding of the language.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mainstream film acclaim
    • Why was Pawnbroker considered anti-semitic by some? Due to Steiger's performance or the script or something else?
Done. The source doesn't say anything about it hence removed.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that bit was from TCM, though I felt sure I saw it somewhere in his biography but can't find it. I disagree with Ssven's removal as I think it was quite controversial and worthy of mentioning. I've added a footnote explaining.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: Thanks for the footnote, Doc. I couldn't find anything actually, hence removed it. You certainly have sharp eyes.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest you replace "namby-pamby" with another, more common word. This might just be because I'm not a native speaker, but I had to actually google this as I had not heard it before.
It's a quote, and I think the perfect description of his character. I can link the article on Namby Pamby if you like?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts I'll change the word as the article on it is more on the poetry.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's better! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
    • Did Steiger say why he liked his role in Doctor Zhivago?
I don't believe he did, unless there is an interview somewhere where he spoke about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You describe his character as schizoid in No Way to Treat a Lady; is it actually stated in the film that he suffers from schizoid personality disorder? Or do you mean his character is mentally ill and takes on various personas? I'm being nitpicky about this because the terms schizoid or schizophrenic are often erroneously used in describing fictional serial killers when people actually mean mentally ill/disturbed or has multiple personalities.
Yes, mentally ill and takes on various personas, but I believe sources describe him as "schizoid". I don't know the exact traits, but I'm just going by what the sources describe him as.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If 'schizoid' is not mentioned in the film, but only in sources writing about it, I would instead use "mentally ill" or "disturbed". I've never heard of people with schizoid pd having multiple personalities, so my hunch is that the writers who describe the character this way are using the adjective in the same way as "schizophrenic" is often used by laypeople, i.e. to indicate 'has multiple personalities'. My issue with this is that neither schizophrenia or schizoid pd actually have anything to do with multiple personalities or serial killers, and using these terms in the wrong way perpetuates stigma about mental illness. Therefore I think it would be safer to use a more general term like "mentally disturbed" rather than to link the character to any specific mental illness, unless it's specifically stated in the film that this is the disorder he has. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is though Susie, he doesn't uncontrollably act a certain way or display a certain personality. In the film he is in control of his personalities, and impersonates different people for kicks, though all based on mental illness and obsession with his mother. I don't think it's really a case of Dissociative identity disorder, because he is consciously deciding who he impersonates from killing to killing. He is basically schizoid or an outcast who assumes different personalities.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IDC-10 states SPD is a "Personality disorder characterized by withdrawal from affectional, social and other contacts with preference for fantasy, solitary activities, and introspection. There is a limited capacity to express feelings and to experience pleasure." The way this character behaves seems to be the opposite of SPD, since by playing these 'personas', he is engaging with people, even if it is in a very destructive way. I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well... basically, is the character described as specifically suffering from this personality disorder (regardless of whether his behaviour in the film matches the actual disorder), or are the writers using "schizoid" as shorthand for "mentally disturbed"? If it's the latter, then I think "mentally disturbed" or a similar vague term would be preferable. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I checked the sources for the film, and it does seem that the NY Times writer is just using schizoid to mean mentally ill; it's not mentioned in the two other sources at all. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
It could even work without an adjective ("Steiger played a serial killer"), since you have explained in the next sentence that he assumes various guises.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I've changed to "deranged".♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • B-movies...
    • I would begin the paragraph by discussing his health issues, including the fact that he had heart surgery. Right now, it's not quite clear why he was considered a liability; I take it was because of his heart issues, given that his depression didn't seem to affect his work ethic, but since you begin the para by mentioning his depression and only mention open-heart surgery after stating he was considered a liability, the reader is left a bit confused.
I agree with you, I think somebody changed it during the peer review/copyedit. I've moved up the surgery part♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Specify "Yorkshire Television", right now it links to Yorkshire the county.
Linked.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later films
    • What was his role in Poolhall Junkies?
Done. It was as a billiard hall manager named Nick.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal life
    • Maybe link Claire Bloom again, as some readers might only be interested in this section.
OK, I like Claire so will do so ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Steiger was married five times but only the Bloom marriage is actually discussed. It would be interesting to know more about his other marriages if your sources mention them, e.g. the wives' professions, how Steiger met them, reasons for divorce, etc.
Steiger liked to keep a low profile on his personal life. Even his biography from somebody who knew him very well only discusses Claire. I don't think anything much is known about the others. Perhaps We hope can find some mention of their professions and something.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I presumed this might be the case; I wouldn't stress about it to be honest! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
    • First para: maybe switch the order of the two last sentences, as Steiger and Bloom divorced before he had to sell their flat.
Done. By Dr. Blofeld.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acting style (really enjoyed this section!)
    • Maybe mention the year On the Waterfront was made, as although it is a famous classic, some readers might not be aware that it was made in the 1950s.
It was mentioned earlier but I've added a reminder in brackets.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again I have to stress that overall, the article is really good, you just need to improve its general readability a bit. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Thanks for your comments User:TrueHeartSusie3. I think you have a point on some of the sentences of the opening paragraphs to avoid saying In xxx, all of the time. Overall though I think the general readability is sufficient and I've had positive comments towards that from respected editors during the PR. In places it does read a bit differently than when I last looked at though. I'll try to give it a read tomorrow and see if I can tweak and improve in places for variation and add some extra polish. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I'm happy with the changes made, so definitely support this article being given FA status. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
@TrueHeartSusie3: Thanks, Gracias and Merci Beaucoup, TrueHeartSusie3. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 08:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks TrueHeartSusie3, some excellent points.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

- spotchecks not done

  • Don't put works in the publisher parameter - as a general rule, if it needs to be italicized it's a work title
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For things in book cites that aren't pages (eg. FN1), use the loc= parameter
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN42 title needs spaces
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Movie titles should be italicized even in references
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes culturecourt.com a high-quality reliable source? Ozus' World Movie Reviews?
Dennis Schwartz often has reviews for films in which often don't have reviews elsewhere.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed culturecourt.com but kept Schwartz's reviews as Doc says, he has reviews for films in which often don't have reviews elsewhere.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a consistent date format
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN126 and similar: you're citing this as a book, but it's a magazine - needs article title (and author when present), does not need publisher. There are several of these
Ssven2 changed quite a lot of them from what was originally there, I'll let him deal with all the source issues.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Done. I have found out the names of the article titles and authors for those articles having author names.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN103: formatting doesn't match other refs
Done. Tweaked formatting.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN144: author?
Done. Added author's name.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN181 is someone's thesis - a) should be cited as such and b) how does it meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
Done. Removed the source.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate the names of university presses
Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed the source.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review Nikkmaria, much appreciated.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I am currently third on the list of contributors, after Dr. Blofeld and Ssven, but since my work on the article was deemed not significant enough to claim it for the Wikicup, I assume I must be uninvolved enough to support. I think it's well-written, comprehensive, and neutral, and I'm impressed with the quality of the prose overall. This is a terrific contribution to Wikipedia. Great work, Dr. B and Ssven! RO(talk) 21:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RO for your support and assistance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rationalobserver: Thanks, RO. Your thoughts, comments and contributions to the article are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my comments at the peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Wehwalt, much appreciated.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Thanks, Wehwalt. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My chief concern at peer review was length. This had been admirably addressed, and is no longer an issue. The article looks really thoroughly researched, and is generally a pleasure to read. I first saw Steiger when I was an adolescent, in a reissue of Oklahoma!, and his performance as poor Jud Fry was about the only thing I remembered about the film (except for a couple of sailor-girl dancers who unsettled me for weeks afterwards). I'm not a great film watcher, but I never saw Steiger in anything where his performance didn't have some impact. I've nothing significant to add to my earlier review, except to say that the De Niro image in the final section should ideally be cropped to match the Al Capone image above it – it looks out out of scale as it stands. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(PS: the early part of this review could do with some subheadings, since after Tim's contribution it's not immediately clear who's saying what. Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian, much appreciated. Your review did much to improve it before coming here for which I'm grateful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Thanks, Brianboulton. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat edit

Great article, nicely put together. I've got a couple of minor comments:

  • The caption "Steiger in 1978 for the premiere of F. I. S. T." breaks the film title after the F., which isn't good – best to force the break before the F.
  • Lubeski is listed in the sources but isn't used - probably best to remove it

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Schro. An ip added that FIST break in good faith only a few hours ago. I've changed it back, not sure what he was thinking!. Removed Lubeski source.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for citing it as good faith, Dr. Blofeld. I read SchroCat's note on the caption and put the break to solve a problem he noted. That's what I was thinking. I'm sure you wouldn't refer to a user in such a rude manner, so I please request that you treat me with respect and just let me know that I made a mistake without using comments such as "not sure what he was thinking". Good job on the page, though! Cheers. 186.204.89.90 (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how that was rude, I tried to be as polite as possible in stating it was in good faith. I genuinely didn't know what you were thinking. I could have (quite fairly) said that an ip address "made a complete hash of it and I've reverted the clumsy fool". I might have done that in fact if I hadn't have checked your contributions first and seen that you were the ip who asked for more images. We get vandalism all of the time from ips on wikipedia, so it's often difficult to know the thinking behind edits like that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok, I understand. Sorry for the trouble, I just see the expression "what was he thinking" in a disrespectful manner all the time, but now I'm sure that wasn't the case. I apologize again, I was just trying to contribute. And thanks for the images and the article, I'm a big fan of Steiger. Cheers 186.204.89.90 (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know, thanks for your positive words. You can always create an account and start editing here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dr. Blofeld, I've been editing infrequently for a while, but never really created an account. Might just do that. I just don't understand what's the problem with the line break, but thanks anyway. Cheers ;). 186.204.89.90 (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support All good (and await the usual bile-spewing nonsense from the Wikipediocracy clique!) – SchroCat (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Schro, and yeah, exactly ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Thanks, SchroCat. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. Yeah, we best be prepared. ;-)  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I had my say at the article's peer review, and all of 'em were resolved. Coming to FA criteria, it certainly meets each criterion of FA. Looks pretty comprehensive, well-sourced, and well-written. Images are nice (I wish we could have more images on Steiger). Will use this article to watch a few films of him, but to watch films of his era are not available everywhere, especially in a country like Germany, where everything is restricted. -- Frankie talk 18:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I, too, had my say at PR; the only thing I have to add right now is that the lead image seems like an odd choice. If there's not a particular reason for that image that I may have missed, I'd recommend switching it with a higher-quality photo from elsewhere in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and support Frankie and Josh. Well, I was toying with the idea of adding one of the black and white ones that We hope uploaded but I thought the coloured one of Steiger in his prime, even if slightly blurry is a better overall representation of him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG and J Milburn: Thanks, Frank and Josh. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 03:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from SNUGGUMS edit

Here's my assessment of the pics used:

I'll be back with more later, but will say now that the hyphens (-) for year ranges should be medium dashes (–) per WP:DASH. Out of curiosity, is there any particular reason this doesn't have an infobox or why a screenshot is used in the lead as opposed to something outside of Steiger's works (such as him attending events)? Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Regarding the infobox, there has been a discussion on the article's talk page with the RFC going in favour of those who didn't want an infobox. As for the image in the lead, it's been replaced. I feel "dynamic" is necessary as it reflects his acting style.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 03:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I liked this at peer review, and it's nicely polished now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: Thanks, Jimfbleak. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this at GAN and say that this meets the FA criteria without a doubt. Well done on all the work put into this! JAGUAR  12:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Thanks, Jaguar. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (having stumbled here from my FAC). Definitely high quality, just way too much use of quotes, throughout practically the entire page. And I've found that pull-quote boxes are generally frowned upon in FAs, as well. Please try to trim down and/or paraphrase the liberal use of quotes, and remove the quote boxes. At that point I think I could switch. — Cirt (talk) 01:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cirt: I've trimmed down the content in the quote boxes. Can you show me some instances/examples of the quotes so as to make it easier for me to fix them. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still see three large blue quote boxes that should be removed. One big block quote, and lots of other quoted text in the article. Really no need for quotes, at all, but ideally please trim aggressively and paraphrase, and of course remove all the blue pull quote boxes, as I've found those are frowned upon. — Cirt (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cirt: Is it alright if the quotes are something along the lines of Laurence Olivier's article?  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice example but that one also shouldn't have pull quote boxes and also has way way way too many quotes throughout the page. So unfortunately it's also an example of some problems with quotes. Really no strong reason to have so much quote usage, get rid of it (or paraphrase) and I can support. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are no pull quotes in the Olivier article or in this one. Cirt is getting muddled between pull quotes and quote boxes. A pull quote is "the visually distinctive repetition of text that is already present on the same page". As to quote boxes, perhaps, Cirt, you could point us to the section of the MoS that discourages their use? Tim riley talk 16:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cirt: How do you suggest I make use of the quoted material in the three quote boxes then? Completely remove whatever is said in the quotes? I feel whatever Steiger said in those quotes they are necessary as it depicts his inspirations and influences in acting. If you're talking about the critics' quotes, those too are necessary as it shows their opinion of Steiger's performance in that particular film, but the large quotes (if any) can be trimmed though, which I'll certainly do so.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I used to think like you, too, I really did. That whatever quotes I used in articles were so necessary and could not be removed because of their value. But really, once you get down to it, and actually try to paraphrase and/or remove them, you will see in the future that articles you work on are better for it. They'll be more concise, succinct, and less reliant on looking like strung-together-quotes from others and more like a summarized representation of paraphrasing what secondary sources have said. It's not easy, but it's worth it. And yeah, completely no need for the pull quote boxes. — Cirt (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cirt: I have trimmed and paraphrased the quotes from both the boxes and the big block quote and made some trims to other quotes as well.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 02:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Much, much better! My supreme thanks to nominator Ssven2 for being so quick and responsive to my FAC comments, and also for being so kind and polite in the manner in which responses were given! Well done! Wholeheartedly switch to Support. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cirt: Thanks, Cirt. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 03:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the removal of the blue boxes. They add depth to the article. Ssven we don't need to respond to every point a reviewer makes. Philip Seymour Hoffman, Olivier and numerous other articles have them and successfully passed FAC. Who says they "shouldn't" have quote boxes? You might have a point on the Bogart one, but the independent film and acting style quotes. Those were valuable. Pinging Tim riley, @SchroCat: and @Loeba:.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thought as much. I felt the third quote and the blockquote were necessary like you did, coincidentally. I thought of maybe trimming the content inside but Cirt said "completely no need for the pull quote boxes." and he seemed firm in his decision.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Bogart one wasn't essential, even if interesting, but the WWII one and how it impacted upon his acting and the independent film one, which formed the bulk of his career IMO were quite relevant to his career and valuable quotes. Quotes cited in the prose from critics and biographers are also a staple of writing actor articles, what's all this about them not being acceptable? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt said the quotes were "frowned upon" in FACs. So far in this review, no one has "frowned upon" quotes in the boxes.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quote boxes can enhance the aesthetics of a page (they're especially useful when you don't have many image options, so that readers aren't faced with a wall of text) and can supply important information. To suggest they should never be used on FAs seems pretty bogus, and indeed I see them on FAs all the time. As for quotes in general, they definitely shouldn't be used too much but I absolutely support their inclusion when used well: they bring the subject to life and often give insight from important authority figures. Most things should be paraphrased, sure, but some things are definitely best in their original words. --Loeba (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I paraphrase most quotes anyway to fit the text and improve readability.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think quote boxes serve the same function as images; the casual reader can first look through them to get an overview before reading the entire article. I do agree that it was good to lose the Bogart quote, but otherwise I think the quoteboxes were fine, and the article is a lot less easy to 'take in' without them. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

I've moved the Bogart quote to the film article. too valuable to lose from here, but strongly suggest that we restore the other two quote boxes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wholly concur. As explained above, the initial objection to the boxes was based on an unfortunate failure to understand the difference between pull quotes and quote boxes, but errare humanum est and haven't we all! There have never been any pull quotes in the article and I agree with Dr B's proposal in re the quote boxes. TrueHeartSusie3 seems to me to hit the nail on the head. Tim riley talk 18:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Rod_Steiger/archive1&oldid=1144365886"