Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ethel Barrymore on stage, screen and radio/archive1

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Ethel Barrymore on stage, screen and radio edit

Ethel Barrymore on stage, screen and radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethel Barrymore was a superlative actress whose career ran between 1893 and 1957. She was one of the finest stage actresses of her time, although her career—like those of her siblings Lionel and John—suffered from periods of dalliances with drink and drugs. This list has been separated from the main Barrymore article, as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of her work. This is the third history of the siblings, following successful FLCs for John's career and that of Lionel. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This new history is long overdue and complements the two listed above. It is well and clearly written and thoroughly referenced and sourced. It needs to be on featured lists. Jack1956 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Jack - much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Not much to say from me.

  • Is the title of the final citation correct? "WOOB"?
  • LOL - yes! I did check, and I'm still unsure of what or why, but that is what is there!
  • She was forced onto the stage for financial reasons, but did she always want to be a pianist really? Did she eventually enjoy being an actress? If so, at what point?
  • She may have done, but it's not really clear from the sources. I'll have another look to see if anything else comes up. (Incidently, this was exactly the same as John and Lionel Barrymore: none of them actually wanted to be actors, and all tried to escape from it at some point). - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There might be some merit in the caption of the lead image providing some more context. It's also taken from Captain Jinks of the Horse Marines, presumably?
  • Good point: I'll address that now. - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks ATD: much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto edit

  • "She was the middle child of actors Maurice Barrymore and Georgie Drew Barrymore, and her two siblings were Lionel and John. These and other family members were part of an acting dynasty." -- not sure about the conjunction here, or the sentence on the whole. It would work better, I think, with the introducer coming first; "Barrymore came from a notable family of actors; she was the middle child of actors Maurice Barrymore and Georgie Drew Barrymore, and the sister of two brothers, Lionel and John.." possibly?
  • "Her first Broadway role, alongside her uncle John Drew, Jr.," -- Ethel or Louisa?
  • "Barrymore was quickly popular..." -- Not sure about the adverb here. It would be more impactive without it, in my opinion. Or even: "Barrymore became popular quickly with..." should you wish to keep it there.
  • I've gone with "Barrymore was soon popular with English...": I hope that suits? - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On her return to America in 1898..." -- New para, new noun.

Apart from all that, it's the usual good list I've come to expect. Support (btw). CassiantoTalk 23:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks! All tweaked, as per your suggestions (with one minor change). Thanks for your comments and time on this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS edit

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
  • I'd prefer to retain the image if possible: it's the only one showing all three of them together. Part of her repute comes from her family, and I think it is important we show this. - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that I can see. It is from the LoC, but there is no further information there, aside from the fact it was a news source, which adds nothing of note. - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's a good example of how she looked without costume or the plumage of hats. Its also a very good example of her signature. There is the aesthetic point too, of breaking up tables with images, which I try and do where possble. - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The detail on her family background, pianist aspirations, and "romantic suitors" is better for her main bio than here
  • I think it should be in both - particularly her early career aspirations (none of the three siblings wanted to be actors, but they became the best known of their generation). We can just focus on summarising the lists, but without some background colour and context to the individual, the information becomes a simple dry list, detatched from the subject herself. - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the very least, Churchill and Irving don't really belong here; it's not like they were involved in her work or anything from what I can tell Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her involvement with Irving led to her working with his father, Henry Irving, so that is a pertinent link. Let me add a line or two later about the link and we can see if it's to much, or whether it would sit happily. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a line on the roles. If you think it's a bit too much in what is, after all a summary, we ca take it and the suitors info out - I'm not overly married to it either way. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "especial" in "received especial praise" reads awkwardly
  • Now replaced - should be better, but let me know if you think otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She received subsequent Oscar nominations"..... I'd note that these were for Best Supporting Actress based on the tables

That's all from me. I also checked all the images and found no copyright issues. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • SNUGGUMS, Many thanks for your most welcome comments, which I hope I've addressed satisfactorily. Ceers - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support – a few drafting points you may like to consider; they are too minor to affect my support:

  • The false title in the lead is an unnecessary injury to the prose (banned by The New York Times, so by no means de rigueur in American usage).
  • Irving offered her roles in The Bells and Peter the Great – I read this as meaning they were offered but not accepted, until I read the main table. Perhaps "cast her in The Bells…"?
  • Did they really spell "déclassée" without the accents? I see the film of that play got the accents right.
  • Stage appearances table: to my eye the en dashes for the first four productions and a few below indicates that they are still running, which I don't suppose is the case. If they indicate that we don't know when they closed would a "– ?" be clearer? Merely a thought.
  • Full stops: Mrs. Chesney gets one but Mrs Tanqueray doesn't. Mesdames Warren, Morley, Willey, Riordan, Pennicott and Grey are also full-stopped, so perhaps Mrs Tanqueray ought to follow suit, à l'américaine.
  • Theatres outside New York: is it your policy not to name them even if known? Fair enough, if so, but if not you could, if you wished, name the Adelphi for Secret Service, the Lyceum for Peter the Great in 1898 and Wyndham's for Cynthia in 1904, according to Times archives.

That's my lot. Happy to support this excellently clear and comprehensive FL candidate. Meets all the criteria, in my view. – Tim riley talk 10:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim, I've make the change, as per your suggstions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Overall very happy with this one, though I would suggest the use of alt text for the images used. Everything else seems grand. GRAPPLE X 10:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers Grapple, much appreciated. Mea culpa on the alts - it's one of the things I keep forgetting and I'll address them shortly. Cheers - – SchroCat (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • Spotchecks:
  • Checked refs 5, 24, 41, 66 - all clean
  • Formatting:
  • Is there a reason that you don't have a publisher for the ibdb sources (publisher=The Broadway League)?
  • ref 5 has the work as IBDB, rather than the full name like the other references to that site
  • Consider archiving your online sources, so that they don't fall prey to linkrot.

Couple minor formatting tweaks, and then I'll go ahead an promote this nomination. --PresN 21:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cheers PresN. I've done points one and two, and I'll sort the archiving in a few days when I have a little time. Thanks again. – SchroCat (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, happy to promote now. --PresN 22:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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_list_candidates/Ethel_Barrymore_on_stage,_screen_and_radio/archive1&oldid=1138479633"