Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Olivia de Havilland/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Olivia de Havilland edit

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

Beginning in January 2016, I did a substantial re-write of the article using four biographies and various secondary sources. The article was promoted to GA status on May 9, 2016. Please review the article against the WP:FA? criteria in preparation for WP:FAC nomination. Thank you, Bede735 (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto edit

I'll make a start reading through, although there may be periods where I'm absent owing to little or no internet coverage. I will say, at first glance, that this article is too long. There is a lot of information in the first section that is not relevent and detracts away from the subject matter. I would envisage that this section alone could be chopped down to at least half. CassiantoTalk 23:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note — I'm somewhat dismayed that the nominator has chosen to revert my copy edits here. While I appreciate that the nominator has worked hard on this article, at nearly 146,000 bytes, I don't feel they appreciate just how overlong this article is. In its current state, and at its current length, I feel that the article will almost certainly fail at FAC, if that's its intended path. So far from what I have read, the writing, in some places, is shoddy and has elements of POV about it. I'm dismayed that the nominator bothers to list this for peer review and when someone tries to help, they simply revert, not even bothering to discuss. It's plain bad manners. CassiantoTalk 02:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cassianto. I agree that most of your recent changes improved the article. I reverted three changes. I generally avoid ending sentences in a preposition—an editorial preference. I also retained the "prestige" phrase because it sets up the quote that follows (appearing in a Reinhardt production back then was a big deal). Finally, regarding "plays" versus "played", I use the former convention, for example, "In Alibi Ike, de Havilland plays Dolly Stevens, the girlfriend of a baseball player ..." This sounds correct to me. If you feel strongly about this, and others agree, I can make the global change. I see both conventions used in FA film articles. Lastly, I know the article at 12,191 words of readable prose is too long. I'm planning to trim out the sections dealing with the lesser known films. Bede735 (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, to break down your comments:

  1. —   Done With regards to the plays/played thing, I get that. But the moment has passed; she filmed the role years ago, therefore she played it. She doesn't slip into costume to play the role every time the film appears on television.
  2. — The preposition is a personal choice, that's down to you;
  3. —   Done Prestigious is a peacock word and should therefore be avoided.

I won't touch the first section until you have chopped it down, drastically. CassiantoTalk 02:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Done I changed "plays" to "played" throughout the article, except in reviewers' quotes. I also removed the word "prestige" while retaining the meaning of the sentence. I welcome any of your suggestions on which sections could be removed from the article, and I'll address those suggestions here on this page. Thanks. Bede735 (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I apologise if I sounded aggressive in my approach, or if my critique was too sharp, but I've had a day of it on here today. I feel that with some work, and a lot of trimming, you have the footings of what could be one of the best arts biographies this year so far. CassiantoTalk 03:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cassianto. I know I can trim this article down to an appropriate size before this peer review is over. Bede735 (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Career
  •   Done Section should start with surname only. This should now be used throughout unless we talk about another de Havilland to avoid confusion.
  • Some of the lesser known, non-notable films should be ripped out. This causes most of the bloat, IMO. Also, do we need to know the exact dates?
  •   Done "That on-screen attraction reflected their actual feelings at the time." -- needs rewording. I don't like the use of "that" at the start.

In fact, the more I think of it, the more I think that it would be better for you to trim first, and then I'll comment. I worry that I'm commenting on things that you may choose to rip out. let me know when you're done. CassiantoTalk 03:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be trimming the article over the next few days, with a focus on removing some of the lesser known films. Bede735 (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's enough material to warrant a separate article, and ancestry is an important element in a biography. While it could be moved to a footnote, I'd rather focus on the career section first. I'm still working on that. Bede735 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I disagree. This kind of bloat does not belong here and it will need to be cut out before any appearance at FAC. Moving it to a footnote is nonsensical as all you will be doing is shifting it from one place to another. The article on the ancestry doesn't have to be War and Peace, it's just somewhere for it to go; failing that, a sandbox; anywhere but here. CassiantoTalk 21:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A footnote removes it from the readable prose. Let other editors offer their opinion on the proposed removal. Bede735 (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From bitter experience, this won't work for you. As a reader, I'm afraid I really couldn't care about her third generation relatives, or her links to a king 1,000 years ago; its Olivia, the person, who I want to read about. CassiantoTalk 21:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with this. The musical credentials to do with her mother almost certainly belong in a footnote. CassiantoTalk 21:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal from this Peer Review -- I see, yet again, you have chosen to revert me with this edit; not only that, but I see that you are insisting on linking Tokyo, a world-famous city, which contravenes WP:OVERLINK. I have asked John, one of our best copy editors, for his input with regards to this issue and all of the other copy editing problems I have identified within the first couple of sections alone. I hope he has better luck with you than I did. Just so you know, I will be opposing this article at FAC should you go there with the reverted version in place. As someone who has been to FAC many, many times, I know just how tough it is. You are setting yourself up to fail there and that saddens me as I had high hopes for this article and I don't like seeing lambs being led to the slaughter. I really wanted to see this as an FA, which I believe it could be capable of; but unfortunately, you appear to be too pig-headed to acknowledge my points, accept my copy edits and to move onwards and upwards.

With that all said, I am now refusing to waste any more of my time making any more copy edits to this article or contributing to this peer review, unless you choose to accept my version. I suspect I know what the answer will be, as indicated by your comments above, and because of that, I wish you the best of luck at any future FAC; by heck you're going to need it! CassiantoTalk 03:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images edit

I'll start with the images, but I have to say that from a quick check of them there looks like a lot of problems here.

  • File:Olivia de Havilland Publicity Photo 1938.jpg The originator of the photo wasn't Culver Pictures. Culver Pictures is an image service, operating similar to Corbis and Getty, in that they provide photos to others for use. Am seeing a faint 1938 on the photo back, but no information about who originally took the photo. The photo may have been trimmed-and that information was removed with it. No further information about it with a Tineye search.
I believe the faint date reads January 25, 1938. The edging matches the tear edging in appearance and apparent age, indicating that it was most likely not cropped. Bede735 (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Done Removed. File:Olivia de Havilland 1919.jpg The source for this says "shortly after her arrival in California". The photo likely does date from 1919, but at present, there's no information about when this photo was first published.
@Bede735: Isn't that the photo of her sister, Joan Fontaine? The source doesn't mention that this is Olivia de Havilland's photo as a child.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I checked Fontaine's No Bed of Roses and there is a very similar photo of Joan in the same fur hat. I will remove it, correct the image page description and request a file name change, and then search for a replacement childhood photo. Thank you for catching this. Bede735 (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Olivia De Haviland 1933.jpg Again as above. The source says it was taken in 1933 when she was in a local production of Alice in Wonderland. We have no information about when this was first published either.
The image appears in Thomas (p. 19) and Kass (p. 18). Neither book contains a copyright indication for the photo. In Matzen (p. 4), a similar promotional photo is used, also without a copyright notice. On that same page, another image does bear a copyright notice. Bede735 (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Done @Bede735: Remove the signature at the bottom right corner there.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Done Replaced by non-free fair use image. File:Olivia de Havilland Fashion Photo 1937.jpg There's a 1937 date here at back, but no information about who took the photo. The photo has been trimmed, so that information and perhaps a copyright notice may have been removed when this was done.
No copyright notice appears on the front or back. How do you know it was cropped? The edging looks old and consistent with the appearance of an original. Bede735 (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The year appears on the back of the photo. No copyright statement appears on the front or back of the photo. Bede735 (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the lower right border of the front of the photo, the words "Made in U.S.A." are visible. No copyright statement appears on the front or back of the photo. Bede735 (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Done Removed (no reverse image). File:Santa Fe Trail 3.jpg The website, doctormacro1.info is defunct. I tried wayback machine for the copyright information and the site didn't permit robots to crawl it.
This is one of the few images I used in the article without an original back. I have seen the image used in books and on websites and never with a copyright notice. It is widely used by other Wikipedia sites if that matters (it probably does not). I am open to your suggestion on weather to keep or remove. Bede735 (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Done Found the link.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be a standard posed publicity still issued by Warner Bros. Bede735 (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am going to stop here for now. We hope (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will replace this with a non-free use version per the discussion below. Bede735 (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will replace this with a non-free use version per the discussion below. Bede735 (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will replace this with a non-free use version per the discussion below. Bede735 (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will replace this with a non-free use version per the discussion below. Bede735 (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will replace this with a non-free use version per the discussion below. Bede735 (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad to see We Hope's got this. I was a fair bit concerned after seeing how many images were in the article (if we have a lot of images of her, that often means we have a lot of potentially copyrighted images of her). Sorry for my late response; was finishing up a translation order. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chris for stopping by, and thank you We hope for your careful review of the images. I removed one screen capture so far. I have two questions. For the screen captures, if the studio did not renew the copyright for the original trailer—something many studios did not do—can the captures be used? What is the most efficient way of checking this? I would like to try to save some of these captures, especially the two used in Robin Hood.

For most of the publicity photos used in the article, I was careful to include both the original front and back showing that no copyright statement present. My understanding is that these images can be used according to the rationale I included in the image summary sections. Please advise. Bede735 (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bede735: For the trailer screenshots with copyright notice, you can substitute that with screenshots of a home video of those films (DVD, Blu-ray) like I have done so for Richard Burton in Becket and Virginia Woolf. You can search for more publicity photos here and here.  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ssven2: Thank you, Ssven. This is a good option. I could upload new low-resolution captures from the films to the English site using a non-free use rationale "for the purpose of critical commentary". I have the films and will do this for some of the captures. The article could probably do without some of the images. Bede735 (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be very careful with Doctor Macro, as they do not upload reverses. I've stopped uploading their stuff unless I can find a reverse elsewhere, like on Ebay. Likewise, if the home video release is still copyrighted, that's still an infringement.
Regarding trailer renewals: for most of these, if they were produced in the US but copyright was not renewed, then they are public domain in the US (of course, everything after a certain date doesn't need renewal, at all). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: If I upload a screen capture of a copyrighted video using a non-free use rationale "for the purpose of critical commentary", do you think this will pose a problem? Bede735 (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bede735: It won't as long as you have provided a sufficient fair-use rationale for them (but the fair-use rationale for the film and the biography article should be separate like in my images for Burton).  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only images in the article that don't have issues re: PD are:

Most of the rest either lack proof of authorship or date of publication. There are 2 photos taken from the French magazine, Paris Match from circa 1952 and 1956--these are covered by French copyright. Having photos published in a 1976 book (Kaas) or 1983 book (Thomas) doesn't indicate when they were first published unless this is their first publication, and that makes a difference about whether they are free or non-free. The bottom line for PD is that you need to be able to show when the photo was published, who the author/photographer of the work was and demonstrate proof that it is copyright free. We hope (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@We hope: If a year is printed on the reverse of a publicity photo, doesn't that meet at least the first two criteria—year of publication and the owner (the studio)? Publicity photos were typically owned by the studios, were they not? Bede735 (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It indicates when the photo was published, but it doesn't prove who took the photo and that it's free of copyright claims. All too often you see photos sold at eBay with no information provided-only to end up finding another copy of the image which has the name of the photographer or studio on it--with a copyright notice. We hope (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@We hope: @Crisco 1492 and Chris: I'm in the process of removing the images of concern, in some cases replacing them with non-free fair use screen captures. For these two images, the font and back images are provided, the border is present, the date and film title are written on the back, and the costumes are those used in the film establishing them as a Warner Bros. publicity photos. I understand your concern about eBay photos, but I would appreciate a second look on these. They could always be removed later.

There's no information that actually ties this photo to WB-only a handwritten title which could have been written by anyone and no date of publication. We hope (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This also has no information actually connecting the photo with MGM. Both the news clipping and the handwriting on the back are in Spanish-we need proof of US publication. I tried looking for the photo at lantern Cine Mundial was a Spanish-language film magazine published in New York but didn't find the photo in one of their issues. We hope (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same for this image. The font and back images are provided, the date and film title are imprinted and written on the back establishing it as a Warner Bros. publicity photo. There is not border but the edging looks consistent with the tear. I found this publicity photo for the same film showing a border with no copyright notice with the "Warner Bros" company name. I would really like to try and save this one if possible. Any thoughts?

All that's printed on the back is information from Culver Pictures-nothing from Warner Bros. There's handwritten information there, but nothing officially connecting WB with the photo and no date re: when it was used. We hope (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about this photo? It shows who took it, the year it was taken and has no copyright notice. :-)  — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@We hope: Thank you for taking another look. I've replaced the Dodge City image with a non-free fair use image, and will do the same for the Done with the Wind photo. The remaining two I will address later. Question: I found a childhood photo that I'd like to use for the Early life section. Could I add that as a non-free fair use image? Bede735 (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As with all non-free images, you have to satisfy NFCC. If there's critical commentary and it's necessary to further the understanding of text, then the non-free images are allowed. We hope (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have some concerns with many of the fair use rationales attached to the non-free images used in the article. In several cases the images serve a decorative purpose rather than an illustrative one. Take the color photo of Melanie from Gone with the Wind as an example: its primary purpose here seems to be to simply show de Havilland in Gone with the Wind, which is not essential to the prose. Sure, it's a nice image to have in the article but it's not furthering my understanding of her career. The commentary does not comment on de Havilland's appearance or the contents of the photo, so in my opinion the image is not supporting the prose which means it does not meet the requirements of the FUR. I also think the article is on thin ice using screencaps from films anyway, all of which are presumably under copyright. It may be possible in many cases to source alternatives from film trailers and publicity materials such as stills which are now in the public domain, meaning free alternatives might exist (again nullifying the FUR). Betty Logan (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Betty Logan, for your review of the images. My original images to this article were original trailer screen captures and publicity photos with no copyright notice on the front or back. We hope noted correctly the copyright notice on the original trailers, and I replaced them with the non-free images. The publicity photos (front and back) did not include the copyright notice, but did not include evidence of studio approval, so they were removed. I have searched for PD images for the article, but have not found any that will stand up to the criteria. I am open to any and all suggestions. Given We hope's careful review, we are left with five images. Bede735 (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Betty Logan: I will replace the non-free images with PD images, but it will take some time. Thanks again. Bede735 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Try Lantern to see if there's anything there you want to use. The magazines and trade journals there are all out of copyright. Many of the scans were provided by the Copyright Office/LOC, since you were required to submit a copy of the publication for application. We hope (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John edit

Hi there. User:Cassianto asked me to take a look. Quite a lot of problems with this article. Main ones first.

Hello John. Yes, I've acknowledged the size issue above and am in the process of trimming the article, including removing some of the lesser important films. In the past few days I've reduced the article by over 1000 words of readable prose to 11,317 words of readable prose. I will have the article at under 10,000 by the weekend.

Too long. Too much trivia. Looks like an attempt at completeness. Wikipedia articles should not attempt to be complete. Not every possible referenced fact needs to be present in this parent article; not even every film she appeared in needs to be here, as we have a filmography article for that. It needs a really good trim, by someone familiar with the material and able to be discriminating and remove the less important bits.

See above.

Too many quotes. Quotes should be summarised, not reproduced in full. This also contributes to the point above.

Are you referring to the four quote boxes, or my use of quotes in general? I have been trimming the quotes in general, and will do another pass to further reduce their use. Bede735 (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the weird over-sized images? I see from the above that the copyright on some of them is dodgy. Take them out and display the remaining ones at the default size, as MoS recommends.

I'm not sure what you mean by weird. The portrait-oriented images are at the default; the landscape images are adjusted to upright 1.2 to maintain proportionality between the two types of images. According to WP:IMAGESIZE: "Landscape" images (short and wide) often call for upright greater than 1. Similarly, "portrait" images (tall and narrow) may look best with upright less than 1. Another editor working on the project felt strongly that the portrait images looked better at the default width, so I adjusted the landscape images to maintain proportionality. As you probably know, you can adjust the default image width in your preferences.
The images with questionable copyright status will be removed before this peer review is closed. I am investigating some of the publicity photos now to determine if there are other uses of the images also without a copyright notice. The screen captions with questionable copyright will all be removed, and some will be replaced with non-free use images with a rationale "for the purpose of critical commentary".

Prose is all over the place; needs a good copyedit. This is the bit I can potentially help with, once the above steps have been agreed and enacted. At the moment I would oppose any promotion to FA on the above grounds. --John (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A thorough copyedit was done by Corinne a few weeks ago as the talk page indicates. I believe I made all of her recommended changes. I welcome your additional copyedit improvements. Bede735 (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe for one minute that the job was "thorough". CassiantoTalk 20:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John: I reduced the size of the article by over 2,000 words of readable text, bringing it under the limit specified by WP:SIZE. I eliminated sections dealing with the lesser films, and reduced the number of quotations throughout the article. If you are still interested, please include any additional concerns on this page and I'll address them. Bede735 (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bede735, there is no sodding point in trying to bring the article's size in line with WP:SIZE when there are still great chunks of irrelevant bloat in the article. In my opinion, and when it comes to trimming, you should be using common sense rather than policy as you are still left with a fat useless article. I also see that you are leaving the PR open for one more week before presumably, trying your luck at FAC. I think this is a bad move as the article is nowhere near what a featured article should be. So far, nobody has had an input with regards to the prose, layout, references, grammar, punctuation etc... . I think you would be better off seeking the help of more reviewers and actually taking their comments on board rather than sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring them. I suppose, like all my other comments, this will also be ignored, but you can't say you weren't warned. Just so you know, I will still be opposing. CassiantoTalk 13:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources edit

Comments by Betty Logan edit

  •   Done I have a problem with one of the chapter headings, "Redemption and recognition". "Redemption" implies that de Havilland had done something wrong rather than being wronged. I think something like "Validation and recognition" would work better. Betty Logan (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to Validation, but would Vindication be better to use, as in "show or prove to be right, reasonable, or justified". It would tie the section heading to Thomas' assessment at the end of the first paragraph. Bede735 (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vindication would work, or anything along those lines. My main objection is that "redemption" doesn't quite fit. Betty Logan (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Done The article is very comprehensive but I am finding the overall tone slightly sycophantic for an encyclopedic article. This is exacerbated by the sheer number of quotes from reviewers showering de Havilland with glowing praise, and I agree with John above that the number of quotes need to be scaled back. To give just one example: the quote "an intelligence too obviously superior to her material" by Judith Kass in Movie Stardom section is just a less effective way of saying what the first part of the sentence has already said. Snippets such as "a lady of rapturous loveliness" and "romantically beauteous" detract from the article more than they add to it. Betty Logan (talk) 09:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had removed a number of quotes following John's comments, but I went through the article again this morning and removed a number of others, including the ones you cited. If there are others that are not effective in your view, I can address them. Bede735 (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question edit

Is anyone with experience in writing Featured Articles willing to pare down either the article or a portion of it in a sandbox so others can do a "before and after" comparison? We hope (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you edit

Thank you everyone for your reviews and contributions. Sincerely, Bede735 (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Olivia_de_Havilland/archive1&oldid=1079638366"