Wikipedia:Peer review/Lauren Bacall on screen and stage/archive1

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Lauren Bacall on screen and stage edit

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see it go to FL status.

Thank you, LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat edit

Hi Lady, I didn't see this was one of yours when I edited previously, or that was at PR. There are a few things that jump to my eye, and I'll comment on them fully very shortly for you. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Four paras max only. (You could merge paras 3, 4 and 5 quite happily). Done I combined 3 and 4 together, figured 5 was about her theatre so it could stay separate. That ok?

Separating out stage and screen is always ok! :) - SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to add cites to anything in the lead that isn’t mentioned in the tables Done

Tables

You need to add column and row headers to pass WP:access. Have a look at a terrible FL by some pain of an editor ;) You'll see here how you'll need to put scope="col" on each of the columns, and scope="row" at the beginning of each row. Done Schro, usually it's just the title of a film that gets the "row" right? Or do I need to literally put it on every row? See what I've done already and tell me if I need more.

It goes at the start of the row (so computer readers for the partially sighted know when a row of new information will start). I've tweaked the films list, not the others tho... - SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something is going wrong with your sort on the films, TV programmes, and stage shows column. {{sort|Big Sleep|''[[The Big Sleep (1946 film)|The Big Sleep]]''}} should work OK for you, with the same format throughout. Done Should be anyway

Still a couple out of sync here: A Conversation with Gregory Peck and A Star for Two sort on A. Done

You'll need to sort the roles column by surname Done - with your help :)

No probs: I've done it for the first two (Rose Cullen & Vivian Sternwood Rutledge), so the same format runs through.

You don't need to sort the ref column. Done

Non-FL requirements to think about

Your call (not an FL requirement), but I tend to heads the refs column as {{Tooltip|Ref.|Reference}}, which explains the term on a hovering mouse. Done
Another non-FL requirement to consider is to centre the refs by having | style="text-align: center;" | at the start of the refs line. I find it looks better on the screen, but you may think otherwise and it's your call. Done

Refs

You need to sort the caps in the refs (some are, some aren't). What do you mean?

Sorry - that wasn't clear at all and I confused myself when I looked at it again! If you look at use of caps in FNS 1-3 "Lauren Bacall Has Died at Age 89" uses caps differently from the sentance use on FNs 4, 15, 18, 29, 39 and 41 "Legendary Hollywood actress Lauren Bacall, sultry star of screen and stage, dies at age 89 from stroke". I think the MOS has the first one right. - SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Lol it's ok It should be Done if this is what you meant.[reply]

Perfect! - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FN21 Doesn't need shouty caps Done
You need to change the publisher field to work like this ("publisher" is the company behind the works, and italicises the works properly). Done

Hope this helps! - SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two further areas for you to look at:

Firstly, we no longer open the leads of lists with the words "This is a list" (or similar), as it's fairly obvious what it is. "Lauren Bacall (1924–2014) was an American actress of film, television and stage." is the more common format - or a variation along those lines, at least. You also mention Hawks changing her name: I would leave that out, partly because you don't mention what her name was originally, and partly because it's not really needed in the filmography - much better that stays in the biography of the main article. If you would rather keep it in there, add a footnote to tell people what the name was, so they don't flick over the main article and don't come back! Done

The only other thing you may want to do (again, your call) is to add one or two images from WikiCommons oppostite the TV and stage tables. Done

You'll need to do something about the first point for FLC; the second is your choice. If you're happy with the content, then I think it's strong enough to go to FLC as it is. As a delegate I rarely support things that go through (except to nudge them over the line), but I think I'll certianly make an exception with this one! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SO much for all your input and help! I really appreciate it! This is the first article I've ever tried to get to FL so we'll see what happens. I think with what I had and your help plus anything else someone wants to throw in would be a great FL! :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! It should be good to put through: if it was one of "my" lists, I'd be pitching it in there about now as it's certainly strong enough as it stands. There may be a couple of minor things people pick up on, but not too much, I shouldn't imagine. How could anyone not like a page that has that image at the top?! - SchroCat (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know right?! :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS edit

I'm thinking this article could be retitled "Lauren Bacall filmography" Done

Agree. The current title is a bit ambiguous. Cassianto ^talk 20:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would "Lauren Bacall on film and stage" not have been more accurate? Cassianto ^talk 22:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of unintelligible and unhelpful answer is that; either it is, or it isn't. Lady Lotus, you will clearly need to fix this bad move before hitting FLC, otherwise you will run the risk of scoring opposes. Cassianto ^talk 18:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat:, what are your thoughts on the title? @Cassianto: what "bad move" are you referring to? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the ill-judged move by SNUGGUMS which resulted in this article being given an inaccurate title. I would have also expected such a move to have been discussed first, but that's a different matter. I agree with it being given SchroCat's suggested title below. Cassianto ^talk 20:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lady, I missed the change on this. I'm not sure it's an improvement and yes, someone is bound to oppose on the basis of the title: it's not a filmography as you've got more than just films listed. As it includes stage and TV work too then I think the Lauren Bacall on screen and stage format is probably your best bet—unless you can come up with a better format of title! – SchroCat (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better? LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Cassianto ^talk 20:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply using "filmography" as a basis of other pages listing film/television appearances. The page came across as one of those when I read it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice how FL's like Madonna filmography and Justin Timberlake videography have columns below main photograph in the lead for films, television roles, commercials, and such? Try something like that with this.

They are really not needed when there are only so few fields that would be included. It also has the effect of squashing the photo too much. - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been a fan of the columns, the way it looks with the colors being too much and it doesn't give a whole lot of info. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the main Lauren Bacall page, I see that the infobox photo indicates the photo was taken in the 1940s. That should be noted here since it is the same photo used.

As the source info in the file has "unknown date", I think to date it would be OR, as it is on the main page. - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, there shouldn't be a date range for the infobox on her main article, either Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...delete it at your peril; go on, I dare you! ;) Cassianto ^talk 20:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never changed it because of the reason Schro gave. It doesn't say anything about being in the 40s and to say so would be a guess, I didn't want to give an inaccurate guess so I just left it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the infobox. Don't worry, I was joking ;) Cassianto ^talk 21:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sentences could be merged to something like "Lauren Bacall (1924 – 2014) was an American actress who was from The Golden Age of Hollywood, along with Marilyn Monroe and Rita Hayworth".

You can link "golden age of Hollywood to this. "The Golden Age of Hollywood" is a bit magaziney. Cassianto ^talk 20:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That works too

What is linked now "Golden Age of Hollywood" redirects to "Classical Hollywood cinema". I did combine the first two sentences together though. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realize what "She was also trained to make her voice lower, deeper, and sexier" is trying to say, but "sexier" is POV. Some detail on what she did with vocal training would be useful.

Done sort of. I couldn't find a whole lot about HOW she lowered it, just that she did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady Lotus (talk • contribs)

I meant why or what she took such lessons for Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done

If available, I would include detail on any roles that won her major awards such as Golden Globes or Academy Awards. Done

Since the "radio" section is so short, I wonder how much it really merits to be on this article if it can't be converted to tables like the other sections aside from lead. Done since being removed
- I agree with this. Was this performance that notable to warrant an inclusion into this article, let alone its own section? Cassianto ^talk 20:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what SchroCat was trying to say on italics, the "work" field automatically italicizes terms while the "publisher" field does not:

Variety (magazine), Vanity Fair, Harper's Bazaar, The New Yorker, The Independent, The Wire (magazine), Los Angeles Times, and Portland Press Herald should be italicized
Non-print sources like CNN, Yahoo!, Special Broadcasting Service, Deadline.com, Turner Classic Movies, Paley Center for Media, firstcoastnews.com, and Bloomberg News should NOT be italicized.

I knew about these since I had asked you about them previously. Do you see any that are or aren't italicized when they should be? LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The following need to be italicized: FN1, FN2, FN3, FN9, FN10, FN12, FN18, FN24, FN28, FN32, FN48, and FN49. The following should NOT be italicized: FN8, FN19, FN22, FN27, FN29, FN33, FN36, FN37, FN44, and FN45. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC) Done I switched the non-italicized titles to "publisher" and left the ones that needed to be italicized as "work" since that parameter automatically italicizes them[reply]

New York Post is not a reliable source, and I'm not too sure about "LemonWade" or "Bold Venture". I removed LemonWade and Bold Venture was removed when the Radio section was deleted. But I can't find anything saying the NY Post is unreliable. Was there a discussion about it not being reliable?

Remove "Online" from "Hamptons Online"- we don't need to know that this is the online edition of a print publication Done

As a general note, observe the linking of terms within refs. I recommend linking all when they have pages or only first instances (i.e. linking the first Los Angeles Times ref when there are multiple articles used from that source) Done I think, I've tried to remove all the duplicate links when I found them

Include roles in all fields, I see some missing. Done to the best of my ability, some of her roles she didn't have a name.

Hope this helps. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @SNUGGUMS:, I always appreciate your feedback. After this discussion, is there anything else you can see that needs improving or you think I could go to FLC with it? LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, happy to help :). I'll make some tweaks later and let you know when it's ready for FLC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto edit

"Lauren Bacall (1924–2014) was an American actress who was among the actresses of the Golden Age of Hollywood..." Two things:
- The article starts by talking about the actress and not the subject in hand, her career.
  - How would you start it? Most articles even about their work starts out by saying what they did.
    - I would say "The American actress Lauren Bacall (1924–2014) performed in many mediums of entertainment, including film, theatre and radio. Together with Marilyn Monroe and Rita Hayworth, she was one of the most prolific performers during the Golden Age of Hollywood" or something like that. This isn't an essential fix, but I think starting out in a different way would separate this article from all of the others which all start off in the same, boring way. Cassianto^talk 12:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - How about "American actress Lauren Bacall (1924–2014) performed in film, television and theatre. Together with Marilyn Monroe and Rita Hayworth, Bacall was one of the leading ladies during the Golden Age of Hollywood" ? LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Being English I prefer the use of the definite article, but I appreciate that this is not used in AmEng articles such as this. Now, saying "Together with Monroe and Hayworth, Bacall was one of the leading ladies..." is, I feel, inaccurate as there were many more leading ladies during that time; your wording suggests that there were just three only, Bacall, Hayworth and Monroe. If you choose to go ahead and use this, then I feel some sort of extended adverb should be added between "the" and "leading": For example, "Together with Marilyn Monroe and Rita Hayworth, Bacall was one of the most prominent leading ladies during the Golden Age of Hollywood" or "Together with Marilyn Monroe and Rita Hayworth, Bacall was one of the most popular leading ladies during the Golden Age of Hollywood" etc. That would be my only stipulation if you were to use your preferred opening. However, you will need to cite the claim that she was "prominent" or "most popular" as that is quite a claim and without a cite, you could be accused of POV. Cassianto ^talk 22:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I took out the "most prominent" because that is OR, I'll try to re-word it and see what you think LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        It's only OR if you say it is. However, I'm pretty sure someone somewhere thinks she was up there with Monroe and Hayworth. Cassianto ^talk 13:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        With the way it is worded now, it has her a leading lady with Monroe and Hayworth as examples of other actresses. So the point of saying what caliber of actress she was in the midst of others isn't an issue now. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm still not convinced that this is the best way to word this line, but I won't stall the peer review any further. I think you should ride with it and see what others think at FLC, a destination which I think this article is now ready for. Cassianto ^talk 23:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I do appreciate all your help, and am thankful for your insight. I think with everyones comments and feedback, it's ready for nomination. We will see what others have to say about that darn lead sentence ;) LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Repetitive use of "actress" and "actresses" Done

"She started her career..." Who? Bacall, Monroe or Hayworth? Done

"She started her career as a teenage fashion model, when she appeared on the cover of Harper's Bazaar and was discovered by Howard Hawks' wife Nancy..." I don't think the comma adds much. Done

"She was also trained to make her voice lower, and deeper due to Hawks' suggestion since she naturally had a high-pitched, nasal voice." Two things:
- Again, the comma is misplaced and would work better by using just the conjunction. Done
- The sentence feels a bit awkward. I would say "She was trained to make her voice lower and deeper as Hawks' disliked her naturally high-pitched, nasal voice."

Kinda done because I didn't find anything about him NOT liking it, just that he though it would be better deeper. I think to say he disliked it would be OR. I just took the part out about him completely and reworded it to "She was trained to make her voice lower and deeper by shouting Shakespeare for hours every day as she naturally had a high-pitched and nasal voice". Better?

The Shakespeare claim is an interesting one, thanks. I fiddled with the prose somewhat, but yes this is a lot better. Cassianto ^talk 13:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Her first film appearance was with Humphrey Bogart in the 1944 film To Have and Have Not." -- New para requires a new noun and not a pronoun continuation. Done

"She later married Bogart in 1945..." -- We don't need "later" and the year; one or the other should suffice. In fact, I would just say "the following year" seeing as we are only in 1944 in the previous sentence. Done

We have an WP:OVERLINK to Marilyn Monroe. Done

"She also appeared in Murder on the Orient Express (1976) and The Shootist (1976)." -- who did, Bacall or Wood? Done

"In later years, she appeared in the films..." -- New para, new noun. Done

Bafta Award, Academy Award I repetitive. I would delete the first "award". Done

"Her television work included appearances in episodes..." -- "in episodes" is redundant. Done

Is it really necessary to say "Bacall in...", "Bacall in...", "Bacall in...", in the image captions? The second one even has hare picture and name in the screen shot! Done

Amália Traïda and 1955 Motion Picture Theatre Celebration in the tables are missing a reference, why? Done added ref to Amália Traïda, removed Motion Picture Theatre because I couldn't find a RS for it.

The image caption in the TV section needs to be looked at. There are three people in that image with Bacall being the obvious, and Bogart correctly described as being in the middle. Do we need "right" for Fonda's location within the picture seeing as he is the only person left? Done

Compare this to the next image in the stage section and we have no locations for persons depicted. Done

I just saw your question to SNUGGUMS asking if this is ready for FLC. I'm sorry, but I don't think it is, hence my review here. I think after this then it will be ready though. I will go through this again later today to make sure everything has been caught. Cassianto ^talk 12:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yes, please go through it again, I just made the changes you suggested, so check again :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]