Talk:Katharine Hepburn/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Deletion campaign by 76.176.167.130

An editor identifiable only by 76.176.167.130 has been on a campaign to remove material he apparently finds personally offensive or discomfiting from a number of articles. He has deleted entire sections (and removed any citations which might support those sections) dealing with quite legitimate topics regarding the sexual orientation or sobriety of various celebrities, in particular Randolph Scott, Katharine Hepburn, Spencer Tracy, and Cary Grant. Although I myself am rampantly opposed to gossip and to the increasingly frequent "outing" of anyone and everyone that seems to be de rigeur in some circles, I believe that the material relating to sexual orientation may well have a legitimate place in these articles, especially as cited and most currently expressed. Therefore, the wholesale deletion of anything which in some fan's eyes "denigrates" the subject is in direct contravention of Wikipedia's stated purposes. I have reverted a couple of times, but see an edit war brewing. Is there a means of preventing this activity when the editor, 76.176.167.130, is not a registered editor? Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

He's gotten escalating warnings up to final warnings. The next time he does this, he should be reported to WP:AIV. Whomever writes up the report at AIV needs to make sure that they note that this seems to be a static IP address as the editing pattern has remained the same for many days. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 04:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

He's at it again. He's gone through Bette Davis and Katharine Hepburn, eliminating maybe half a dozen or more photos I'd posted recently from Wikipedia Commons. Someone should do something immediately. Upsmiler (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Re-Organising Layout

Some changes need to be made to the layout here, and I'm happy to make them but I can't think of the best way to do it. I particularly don't like The African Queen having its own section, but don't know where it could all go. I do think 'Tracy & Hepburn' deserves its own section, but it slightly jumbles up the narrative. Does anyone have any ideas? Please share! --Lobo512 (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the standard biog format, which works and is clear -

• Early years
• Career - with main detail of film and stage under no subheading then later subsections:

• Revivial
• Hepburn and Tracy (if needed. This section seems heavy on gossip and trivia taken from 'tell all' biographies.)
• Late career (including one condensed para on African Queen. The film has its own article on cast and production.)

• Personal life and family (including her death, no subsection needed)
• Awards (needs totally reworking)
• Work

Span (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The reason I was thinking the Tracy & Hepburn section should stay is because they had such a significant working partnership. But I agree, that aspect of it can be intergrated to the career section. The stuff about their relationship can go in the personal life section (making sure it is mainly cited from her autobiography, which makes it less gossipy).

What do you think of this:

   1 Early Life and Background
   2 Career
       2.1 1930s
       2.2 1940s
       2.3 1950s
       2.4 1960s
       2.5 Late Career
   3 Personal Life
       3.1 Personality and Beliefs
       3.2 Relationships
       3.3 Death
   4 Legacy
   5 Awards
   6 Work
   7 References

...Or something like that? --Lobo512 (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, too many headings get in the way where there isn't that much text beneath them. I'd say it's best to keep it simple and if it turns out that there is one large cogent section that seems to need it's own heading, or later editors add text, split it off then. Readers who don't know much about Hepburn would be looking headings that signal something them, I'm not sure '1940s' tells us very much where 'late career' or 'decline' or 'revival' does. I think one section for 'Personal Life' is fine. The WP:FA on Bette Davis gives a sense of heading/text ratio and informative heading titles. Best wishes Span (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Right! I have moved the information around on the page into a new layout. The page is still a bit of a shambles, it really needs refining and there is so much information about her career missing, but this is a start. If anyone thinks they can make improvements, or wants to make a suggestion, please do! --Lobo512 (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks much better. Span (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest cutting out the award nominations and just listing the wins by year. Would you agree?Span (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't think they are quite a good resource? I feel like they are. Maybe the non-Oscar ones are unnecessary... --Lobo512 (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've tried a straight chronological listing. Not sure about the nominations. Span (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That looks a lot neater, cool. Personally I feel that people coming to the page will be interested to see what she was nominated for. I go to actor pages all the time and I'm always happy to see this information. I'm going to be away for a few days by the way, when I'm back I'll carry on adding career stuff. --Lobo512 (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The Time article overviewing her life says Hepburn "paid RKO $220,000 to be released from her contract" around 1933. Our article currently states that RKO refused to release her. I assume RKO refused for a while and she was finally able to pay them off. I'm wondering if biographies you might have to hand give more detail and/or if there is genuine confusion as to what happened when.Span (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing I've read mentions her wanting to leave RKO that early. I'm pretty sure that is inaccurate (looks like that article was written in the '50s, when they probably didn't fully know the facts). When she did finally buy herself out, I'm pretty sure there was no objection. I'll try and find a reference.

Thank you for my 'pie' by the way! :) Happy to be doing this, she deserves a good page and, well, it allows me to induldge in my fascination with her, haha. Gonna get to work on it now... --Lobo512 (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Great to see a new biography added as a source. Span (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Women's History project

I've reassessed the importance of this article to the Women's History project based on comments here. There are some indications already in the article that Hepburn meets our criteria for inclusion as a woman born between 1900 and 1950 because reliable sources discuss her life or career in the context of women's history or as contributing to significant societal or cultural change. Although these elements are not particularly strong in the current version of the article, it's enough to suggest that such sources may exist; articles are sometimes bannered because they could be developed to incorporate more aspects of women's history. Just wanted to explain Hepburn's potential inclusion by the project because in its formative stages too many actresses and pop stars were spam-bannered without considering whether they were actually relevant to "women's history" as such. Hepburn seems to merit a further look, however. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Reputation and legacy section

It would be great to have this section be more detailed, so I'm just making a request for people to add to it if they find anything relevant. It would particularly be good to have some negative comments - KH is obviously not universally revered (I've often read people say she "always played herself", for instance) but we need such criticisms to be properly sourced, and I'm yet to come across anything solid/"reliable" (it can't just be any old Joe on the internet saying that). Keep an eye out for any such comments from critics, films historians, etc, and either add them straight to the article or put the quote here with details and I'll do it. I'd love to see this section expanded. --Lobo512 (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Hepburn bogart african queen.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hepburn bogart african queen.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Katharine Hepburn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs) 02:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I've volunteered to review this article for GAC. Since it's quite long, it may take a few days for me to post comments, so thanks in advance for your patience! I'm looking forward to reading this. :) María (yllosubmarine) 02:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yay thank you. Please take all the time you need. :) Lobo512 (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I got around to it sooner than expected. I've read about 1/3 of the article (and skimmed the rest), and most of everything looks good. I'd say that as far as the GA criteria goes, it's an easy pass: it's well written, follows the MOS, sources used are reliable, no OR, neutral, broad in its coverage, etc. However, I gather from the talk page that you hope to take this to FAC in the near future -- a noble cause that I highly recommend! So below are some recommendations, with the FA critiera in mind:

Images

There are quite a lot of them, but some of the copyright/rationales given may cause problems because they're too general. Some examples:

• There are numerous publicity stills with the same general rationale used. I can't say for sure if this will cause issues with the image reviewer(s) at FAC, but a lot of these images seem to be used for decorative purposes only. Since it's largely a general rationale (in which none of the quoted material specifically applies to the image in question), you may want to consider cutting some of these images. Or else have a nice argument for their inclusion prepared!
• File:Infant katharine hepburn.jpg: image's permission states that it is in the PD because it was "first published prior to January 1, 1923". However, it does not state when it was published prior to 1923, and where.
• File:DrandMrsThomasNHepburn.jpg: same as above; the source description states it was published in a 2010 book, but in order for the PD-US licensing to be correct, you have to prove that it was published before 1923.

Lead

Leads are difficult to write as a rule, especially for incredibly detailed articles such as this one. Be sure to keep in mind WP:LEAD, and ensure that the introduction to an article summarizes the entire article. So far the lead is very heavy on Hepburn's early career, and ends not with her death (I don't even see that mentioned), but with her last movie. I'm a big fan of a lead that goes chronologically as far as the article is concerned: early life, career, personal life, death, then legacy/awards. Just tinker with it a bit, with the article's current organization in mind.

Prose

Overall, this article is very well written. It is overly wordy in places, however, so some copy-editing will surely be needed. Something you may find useful are the following pages: User:Tony1/How to improve your writing and User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing. The latter is especially pertinent here, since there is some wordiness throughout. I made a couple minor trims here, just to show how removing a word here or there can improve flow and readability (as well as the removal of peacockiness). A few examples from the first couple sections:

• Golf became a passion. She took daily lessons... -- A passion for whom? The following sentence focused on Hepburn's father, so this short sentence is ambiguous at first.
• Hepburn left Bryn Mawr driven by ambition, determined to become an actress. -- A bit confused: Driven by ambition, Hepburn left Bryn Mawr...?
• A friend put her in touch with Edwin Knopf, who ran a successful theatre company in Baltimore. She went to see Knopf in person... -- Is the fact that a friend put her in touch with Knopf important here? It seems somewhat over-explained, if that makes any sense.
• Hepburn appeared in a number of plays with a summer stock company in Ivoryton, Connecticut, and she proved to be a great hit. -- As I said above, watch for peacocks! Besides, that she was "a hit" isn't much different than "a great hit".

Awards and nominations

• FAC is rather anti-bullet points, so you may want to consider converting the list of Academy Award nominations/wins into prose. I personally think it's easier to read as a list (a testament to Hepburn's talent), so I would at the very list suggest that you strengthen the lead-in sentence, which is currently more of a fragment: "Academy Award wins and nominations (all for Best Actress):" There's also the option of using a table, similar to the one used at List of awards and nominations received by Katharine Hepburn. The colors especially would make it user friendly.

References

• Very well-sourced article, and correctly formatted throughout. Remember to include the place of publication for both the "Sources" and "Further reading" sections, however.

Misc

• I see in the ELs that there's a collection of her papers located at the Billy Rose Theatre Division, New York Public Library for the Performing Arts. Would this be something to mention in the Legacy section? Library holdings/collections are generally thought of as notable, especially if there's a reason why a specific institution holds an individual's papers and such.

Those are my main suggestions for improvement, with the notes re:images probably the most important, with the prose at a close second. As I've said, the article is already very good. I'm more than happy to promote this to Good Article status, with the hope that it reaches FAC in the near future! I hope this has been helpful. If you need help further down the line, either with another pre-FAC review or with more copy-editing, just let me know. :) María (yllosubmarine) 18:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Wow that was fast, thank you! Yaaay, it does feel good to see that little green circle in the corner, hehe. Thanks so much for bothering to read through the massive article and for your compliments, they mean a lot. I'm afraid I have some questions!

• About the images - I know the summaries are general, but they sound very convincing to me. Quotes from four knowledgable people saying that publicity stills are considered public domain...I would've thought that was enough to prove it?

• I'm not an expert image reviewer, so I'm speaking entirely out of what I've experienced at FAC. From what I gather, though, it's best for rationales to explicitly refer to the image at hand; while the sources provide rationale for publicity stills as a whole, they're not specifically referring to the ones used in the article. This is what I could see extremely persnickety reviewers picking up on, especially since there's so many of them using that general explanation for their use. Just to be on the safe side, I would suggest asking the opinion of an FAC image reviewer (such as Nikkimaria). If she says I'm crazy, then forget I said anything. :)

• The images of her as an infant and the family portrait are unlikely to be PD as there is no reason to suspect they would have been published prior to 1923 or subsequently released into the public domain (if the family portrait is taken by her father then the 70 year rule can't apply either as he didn't die until 1962). I've converted the first one to fair use, but the family portrait is masquerading as PD on Commons. I think you'll need to have that deleted over there and re-upload it here with a FU rationale. Yomangani^talk 14:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• I never fully thought about what published before 1923 meant. I doubt the person who uploaded the family image did either. Erm well they are unlikely to pass the non-free criteria, I guess they'll just have to be removed if I go for FAC... --Lobo512 (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think there is any reason they need to be removed; FAs are allowed to use FU images provided they are properly employed. Yomangani^talk 15:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• From what I can tell, they take images very seriously. I really don't think they'd allow those images if they aren't PD (non-free images basically have to be essential to the article). I think it's a bit ridiculous to be honest, but there you go. Never mind though because I think this has been the final nail in the coffin of me deciding against going for FA anyway. Too stressful. --Lobo512 (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Do you think the article's length is a problem? If you can suggest any specific bits that are too long and a bit boring, that would be great. I find everything about her fascinating, so I'm incapable of seeing this objectively haha.

• For such an iconic individual, about which so much has been written, the length makes total sense. I don't see an area that seems bloated, but other reviewers might disagree.

• Are we not allowed to use "peackocky" words even if they are sourced and, well, accurate?

• It's difficult to explain, but writing a biographical book is quite different than writing a biographical encyclopedic article. The reason why WP:PEACOCK and WP:EDITORIAL are part of Wiki's Manual of Style is because we serve a specific purpose, in that we take source material which might be overblown, dramatic, partial, etc., and make it levelheaded, undramatic, and impartial. In short: encyclopedic. (Yeesh, does that sound ridiculously self-important or what?) Truthfully, if something is written well, peacock words aren't needed -- but if you think they're necessary, then quote the "incredibly awesome[peacock] source directly".[citation needed]

• Do you think I've used enough sources to satisfy the research requirements at FAC?

• Absolutely. I only become suspicious when an article relies too much on one source, when it's obvious that others exist. You've used a variety of works, including major biographies and one autobiography, which is a good sign. Someone may ask why you didn't use the works listed under "Further reading", but unless any of them are considered major, I think you're safe.

• Thank you for doing some copy editing and making specific suggestions - I will certainly make those changes (I'll work on the lead as well). If you feel up for doing anymore, I'd appreciate it enormously. That's the main thing I'm insecure about right now, is the prose. I don't feel very confident I could get it up to FA standards myself...

• It takes practice and patience, that's all. I'm not especially skilled in judging my own writing either, but thankfully Wikipedia is a highly collaborative environment. I'll keep my eye on the article and give it a thorough look over in the next week or so, but rest assured that it's in fairly good shape. Other experienced eyes will be needed, so be on the lookout!

Thank you again, you are a star! Let me know if you think of anything else that could help. I never had these aspirations at the start but I have decided I want to get it up to FA status. It would be so great to have her featured on the main page (on her 105th birthday next year, that's what I'd love) so anything at all that you think would be needed to get it there...let me know! --Lobo512 (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. FAC seems daunting, but I can definitely see this article making it. It's important to cover all your bases before you get there, and allying yourself with experienced editors will definitely help. You can always solicit comments at various WikiProjects, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. I know you just went through a PR in October, so no need to rush another one unless you choose to. It's good to have a deadline, but don't rush -- unless you work better under pressure like I do, that is. ;) María (yllosubmarine) 19:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Some requested comments

These do not amount to a full-scale peer review, but I am posting a few comments as I read through the article. It will take several days to work all the way through; the following relate to the lead and first few sections:-

Lead

• Name of her feature film debut?

- Used to be included but I recently removed it because I got paranoid over how massive the lead is! It is important info though, I'll re-add it.

• Nine or seven films with Tracy? At present the wording is coinfusing

- Yeah I guess it is; it's also wrong because they made 6 films in the '40s. Duhh, silly me.

• Consistency required in representing numbers above 10 either in numerics or written. See "12 Academy Award nominations", and "twentieth century", for example.

- That should hopefully be a one-off mistake. This isn't looking great, but I very recently rewrote the lead so those errors haven't been up long.

• "actress" or "actor"? Hepburn is generally referred to in the article as an "actress", but occasionally she becomes an "actor". Consistency is necessary.

- Hmm, I think the only times she is referred to as an "actor" is to specifically make clear the she is the only actor of either sex to win 4 oscars. If it said "actress" in these instances it wouldn't be clear. I guess I'll change them to "performer". But then that could be called too vague?

Early life

• Is "golf" a verb ("taught them to swim, run, dive, ride, wrestle, golf and play tennis")? Maybe "play golf and tennis" would be better?

- It does get used as a verb ("Are you golfing this weekend?") but it's probably gramatically incorrect. Will change to your suggestion.

• What year did she go to Bryn Mawr, and what year did she graduate?
• - Graduation year is there, will add start year.
• "Hepburn was drawn to acting but roles in plays were conditional on good grades." Not sure what this means - good grades in what? Was she studying drama? And you say she "achieved her goals" without saying what these goals were. I think this paragraph needs a little attention.

- Those happen to be two sentences I didn't write. I thought they were clear enough, but that paragraph does bug me on the whole. Yeah I think I'll rewrite it.

Breaking into theatre (1928–1932)

• Link Knopf (Edwin H. Knopf)

- Oh I didnt' realise he had a page, will do.

• We are short on date information here. When did she meet Knopf? When did she appear in The Czarina? When was her disastrous appearance in The Big Pond? Among other missing date information is the rather important one of her marriage. Lack of specific dating may be a general problem through the article, and you should look at this aspect; a clear chronology is very important in summary biographies.

- I think a lot of these dates used to be there, but ended up being cut in my efforts to trim the article. I figured they were unneedeed detail, but am happy to re-add them. As for the marriage, I didn't want to go into detail here because it's all under "Personal life". I have linked the sentence to that section, so that readers know they can get more info there...do you not think that's okay? I guess it doesn't hurt to at least add the month of the marriage.

• "strong reviews" could go either way. Perhaps clarify these were positive.

- Okay, that phrase is bound to appear a few more times, I'll try and change them all.

Instant success in Hollywood (1932–1934)

• Say who Leland Hayward was, rather than requiring use of link

- Will do.

• "Knowing that she was popular..." This seems a little thin. Perhaps something like: "Confident of her value following her stage success,..."?

- Will work on the sentence. It's actually a bit confusing why she asked for so much (different sources say different things), I need to see how she refers to it in her autobio.

• "For playing aspiring actress Eva Lovelace in Morning Glory, she won an Academy Award." You should specify which award she won.

- Will do (I think that was another victim of me trying to shave words)

• New York opening night for The Lake: date?

- Will do.

I will add more later Brianboulton (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

- Thank you! This is great, and far more than I expected so I'm seriously grateful. :) Continue with it whenever suits you. --Lobo512 (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

More stuff: This goes up to "Personal life"

Career struggles etc

• "Neither movie was popular with the public, making four unsuccessful pictures in a row." Rephrase: "Neither movie was popular with the public, which meant she had made four unsuccessful pictures in a row."
• Re Jane Eyre, "Hepburn decided against taking the show to Broadway". What was her relationship to this show, apart from starring in it? Was it her decision, alone, whether it went to Broadway?
• Ref my earlier quibbles about dates and years, "around this time" is when?

Revival (1939–1942)

• "The pair also contributed a quarter of its production costs". Clarify whether this refers to the costs of the theatrical, rather than the film production?
• "Hepburn then passed the outline onto Joseph L. Mankiewicz..." In this context it should be "passed the outline on to..."
• "...$250,000, half for her, half for the script—a record at that time." Can you clarify who the scriptwriter was, and also what "record" was achieved?

Slowing in the 1940s

• Why was Tracy "troubled"?
• Paragraphs should not begin with pronouns, thus: "Her next film..." → "Hepburn's next film..."
• "Viewed as dangerously progressive..." By whom?
• "Her next film role came almost by luck, as she stepped in to replace Claudette Colbert..." "Almost by luck is loose phrasing; how was "luck" involved? Suggest rephrase: "For her next film role she stepped in..." etc

Professional expansion (1950–1959)

• "ten week run" → "ten-week run"
• "Her parents had read her Shaw as a child, making it a special experience for the actress" - Awkwardly phrased, and slightly ambiguous. Suggest: "Her parents had read Shaw to her when she was a child, which made the play a special experience for the actress".
• "Hepburn herself..." second word redundant

Continued success (1960–1970)

• "Theater enthusiast Garson Kanin..." Kanin has been mentioned before, as a scriptwriter. His enthusiasm for the theatre is incidental, thus: "Kanin, a theatre enthusiast..."
• It would help know the nature of Tracy's illness, the date of hiss death, and how long this was after the completion of the film.
• You don't win a "BAFTA", you win a BAFTA award. Link BAFTA.

Film, television and theatre (1971–1983)

• "Her next feature..." Pronoun para beginning again. Also, clarify you mean a film
• "TV movie" not "TV Movie", and don't bother with the link to a rubbish article - we all know what a TV movie is.
• "film rights" is more encyclopedic than "movie rights"

Focus on television (1984–1994)

• "In 1985, she presented a documentary about the life and career of Spencer Tracy." Film or TV?
• "She returned to the screen in 1992". Clarify you mean the cinema screen
• "for which she was Golden Globe nominated" → "for which she received a Golden Globe nomination"
• "the final role she ever filmed..." Delete "ever". But was this her final role? You mention another in the next paragraph.

Will get back in a day or two. Brianboulton (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the additional comments Brian. I'll work on them tomorrow. --Lobo512 (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have implemented pretty much all of these suggestions, thanks. Some comments:

• About Jane Eyre, the sources all say that it was Hepburn's decision not to take it to New York. Don't ask me how, but she always had a lot of clout with her plays/films (people probably didn't dare argue with her!) I suppose in this instance, everyone just agreed with her request so it wasn't problematic.
• I've changed the paragraph about Woman of the Year quite a bit, would you mind checking if it is clear? I feel like it's all a bit long-winded now...
• I do want to make the point that her role in State of the Union only came because Colbert dropped out, have rephrased it to: "Her next film role came to her unintentionally, as she stepped in to replace..." Is that okay?
• I've just given a completely different comment on Anthony & Cleopatra—that Kanin one was only there because it was all I had at the time, I've been meaning to change it for a while.
• I've added info about Tracy's illness and death, but god wikipedia is so confusing! I thought this was exactly the sort of thing I would be told was "not focussed on Hepburn's career, so doesn't need to be there."
  • I am not suggesting detailed information, just enough so that readers are not left wondering what happened to him. That won't remove the emphasis on Hepburn's career in which, of course, Tracy was a highly significant element). Brianboulton (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• The reason I mentioned her final ever role (One Christmas) at that point was so that I could get the TV movies out the way, then give a separate paragraph for her final movie appearance (which I'd say is more poignant), and end it with some nice quotes. But I've moved the sentence about One Christmas to the very end now, so it is in chronological order. It's a shame not to be able to end on the quotes, but this way probably is clearer.

I look forward to the rest of your comments. :) --Lobo512 (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A few points on the "Private life" and "Spencer Tracy" sections:-

• "A small bust she sculpted of Spencer Tracy's head was featured in Guess Who's Coming To Dinner. Not cited

• This is definitely accurate, I should be able to find it written down somewhere although may have to do some flicking through books...

• It's not immediately clear why Hepburn's dislike of the Reagans stopped her from accepting the "Kennedy Center Honors". Are they hosted by the current president? Also, I think "Kennedy Center Honors" refers to the event rather than to whatever awards are distributed.

• Yes, the honours are hosted/given by the current president, will clarify that. I'm pretty sure that is the name of the "award" as well, recipents are referred to as "Kennedy Center Honorees" (see eg Template:Kennedy_Center_Honorees_1990s).

• If Hepburn moved into Tracy's house, and stayed there for five years looking after him, surely his family must have at least suspected a relationship? So why was it necessary for her to be "discreet" by not going to the funeral?

• Well not necessarily, because the family never went to his house. He always went to theirs. In reality, they surely had suspicions (Kate felt Louise must have known) but it was never explicitly addressed. And Spencer certainly thought (or liked to believe) that they didn't know. I supose this is irrelevant because it all became undeniably obvious the morning Spencer died and the family went to the house to find Kate there, but I think maybe because Kate knew how much Spencer wanted to protect Louise, she chose not to go to the funeral...The words she used were that it would be "too controversial" and she didn't want to cause any "fuss". Maybe I'll just change the explanation to "To avoid controversy..." (As a side note, I think she thought funerals were pointless anyway. She always said things like "They're dead anyway, what difference does it make." She insisted in her will that she not have a funeral.)

I don't think there's anyway to do the paragraph on their relationship and not leave the reader with questions, because their relationship was so damn bizarre. I've read pretty much everything I can about it, and still find myself asking questions! I doubt anyone will understand why they went about it (all three of them, they all handled it terribly IMO) the way they did.

Edit: I just checked this, the explanation she actually uses in her autobio is "too conspicuous". I can understand that, it makes sense. I think it still amounts to "out of respect for his family", though, because it basically means she didn't want to take the focus off Louise, and get every one talking about her—have people giving her condolences, etc...

• Why the [sic]? There doesn't seem to be an egregious error.

• It is an error, they were togther for 26 years (1941 - 1967; definitely the dates because it was from the filming of Woman of the Year to his death) yet for some odd reason Hepburn always said 27 years.

I am making minor ce fixes as I go along - it's quicker than reporting them here. I will complete my commen ts as soon as I can. Brianboulton (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Responses above, underneath each bullet point. Thank you for doing some copy editing as well, that's very helpful. I'll say again, just come back to this whenever suits you. Thanks so much, I really do appreciate this. --Lobo512 (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Last comments

Performances

• I imagine that by "feats" you mean "stunts" such as would normally be carried out be a substitute
• Use normal quotes for "voice". What does "which has to be placed" mean?

Final years and death

• "made a statement in which he said" is verbose. Just "said" will do
• "It included..." Since "it" refers to the plural "belongings", the sentence should begin "They included..."
• Presumably the bust here is the same one mentioned earlier in the article, so it shouldn't be anonymously referred to as "a bust"

Legacy

• "...a monograph studying Hepburn due to her "key presence..." etc. Clumsy; I'd simplify: "...a monograph studying Hepburn's "key presence..." etc
• The sentence beginning "Off screen, Hepburn lived..." has two "ands", and needs to be recast.
• The line from On Golden Pond was 88th in th list of top 100 quotations. Is this memorable enough to mention?
• "...introduced the Katharine Houghton Hepburn Center". I don't think "introduced" is the right word. "Inaugurated", "launched", "opened", perhaps?
• We should be given a year for Tea at Five. Where was it first performed? Was it theatre, TV, radio?

I think I am done. I have two final suggestions which might help you:-

• Read the article out aloud, either to yourself or perhaps to someone else who is willing to listen. Very possibly this will highlight prose infelicities, awkward grammar, longwindedness, etc.
• When I have finished drafting an article, I usually find I can cut between 5 and 10 percent of it with no loss to meaning or comprehensiveness, through finding shorter ways of saying things, cutting out information which is of marginal relevance or important, etc. This helps towards a spare prose style which I believe is important in encyclopedia writing. But I will leave that to you.

I shall be interested to hear when you decide to go to FAC with this. Good luck with it, whatever you decide to do. Brianboulton (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks again Brian, I will implement those final suggestions. I wasn't expected a full review like this, you are a legend. Although, I hope you don't mind, but I'm particularly looking for a general idea on how plausable you think it is to go for FA...From your final comments, I am interpreting that the prose probably isn't good enough, and that it is too long and over-detailed. Would that be accurate? Like I said, I pretty much expected as much, so I won't be gutted if that's what you're saying. I just want to know, so that I can get the idea out of my head! I'm not really up for trying to cut loads of info and change the writing style (I tried that after the GA and just found it stressful) so if it's not close to FA standard right now then I don't think I'll be going for FAC...Well not any time soon anyway, maybe (hopefully) I would feel motivated in the future. I hope you'll let me know your honest thoughts on this. Thanks :) --Lobo512 (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No, that's not an accurate summary of my view of the article. I think it's entirely plausible as an FAC as it is. It stands very well among film biographies, and indeed general biographical articles. I am merely suggesting that you take every reasonable step to ensure it meets the FAC criteria before you nominate it, but I am a rather notorious ditherer in that respect. However, if you really don't think that any more can be cut from the article without damaging it, that's fine, I'll go along with that decision. Final advice: go with it. But I do recommend the reading-out-loud bit (I do it myself, when everybody else has gone to bed). Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Ah wow okay, I didn't realise it was just additional tips. Thanks for the encouragement. Okay, well if that's the case then I feel like I do owe it to myself to at least give it a shot...terrifying as it is...If I can get the images sorted (I found a user who said they'll try and help, hopefully they're still willing) then I'll probably go for it. --Lobo512 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You should definitely get some expert advice on the images. I'm unfamiliar with the current interpretation of the rules relating to screenshots and publicity stills. I notice that, although older film biography FAs, such as Bette Davis (2006) and Judy Garland (2008) have plenty of these, the more recently-promoted articles (Brad Pitt, Kirsten Dunst) don't, so it's worth checking whether there are any restrictions that apply on the use of these. The file File:DrandMrsThomasNHepburn.jpg carries a licence claim that it was published before 1923; you will need to provide details of where it was published (newspaper? book?) to support this claim; publication and creation are not the same thing. Anyway, please keep me informed as to how it goes. Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I know that this is something that needs to be addressed. I am confident that the stills and trailer images are PD (the reason contemporary actors don't have them is because copyright law for trailers changed in the mid-'70s, and publicity stills aren't even taken in the same way anymore, they're a "studio system" phenomenon). But I need to make the explanations more specific, such as has been done for this image (the uploader is the one I have recruited for help). As for the family image, yes it looks like that is incorrectly labled and will have to go. The newly added stamp image would also not fly at FAC, and I don't think the one of her in trousers is actually PD either (I didn't upload either). I'll make sure all of this is sorted if/when I go to FAC. --Lobo512 (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article blurb

I'll be nominating this for WP:Today's Featured Article in a couple of days, to get Kate on the main page for her 105th birthday. I've drafted a blurb, but it's very hard compressing the material into a short space! Knowing me I'll inevitably end up nitpicking over it, but I thought I'd share it already anyway. I need more eyes. What do people think? Criticism welcome. --Lobo (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Katharine Hepburn (1907–2003) was an American actress of film, stage, and television. Known for her headstrong independence and spirited personality, Hepburn's career as a Hollywood leading lady spanned more than 60 years. She won a record four Academy Awards, and in 1999 was named by the American Film Institute as Hollywood's top female legend. Hepburn began acting in college, and spent four years in the theatre before entering films in 1932. She became an instant star, but after a series of unsuccessful films was named "box office poison". The Philadelphia Story revived her career, and she subsequently formed a popular alliance with Spencer Tracy that lasted 25 years. Later in life Hepburn mostly played spinsters, such as in The African Queen, and became a Shakespearean stage actress. She remained active into old age, making her final screen appearance in 1994 at the age of 87. Hepburn came to epitomize the "modern woman" in 20th-century America and helped change perceptions of women. (more...)

(Comment copied from Lobo's talk page) I think the TFA is fine. Two questions I had were around the para "Later in life Hepburn mostly played spinsters, such as in The African Queen, and became a Shakespearian stage actress. She remained active into old age, making her final screen appearance in 1994 at the age of 87." I'm not sure the spinster aspect is terribly important - not vital enough to be included in your limited word count. Not sure what it points to. I think the Shakespearean / stage work is more interesting and lesser known. "Old age"? May be "Later years" would work. People's idea of "old age" seems to be a pretty subjective thing, esp nowadays; does it mean 60, 80 or 90? Span (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I was sort of trying to touch on all the key stages of her career. And after the Tracy-dominated period, she focussed on playing spinsters (it's all she played in the '50s, in fact, and regularly after that too). I do think it is quite strongly associated with her. And it allows for a mention of The African Queen, which is arguably her most famous film. But I see what you're getting at, it isn't the most interesting thing in the world to read about! I might try drafting a different version that focusses on showing why she's important, rather than trying to outline her whole career. I'll probably have another go tomorrow (too tired right now!) --Lobo (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fairly good, and doesn't need that much clarification. The whole point of a TFA blurb is to adequately summarize the article, while also hooking the reader into wanting to click the link and learn more. Oh, but I fixed the dash per WP:DASH. :) I count 1,036 characters (with spaces) which is well under the 1,200 limit. I see that you estimate it to be four points -- 2 for widely covered, 1 for "date relevant to topic", and 1 for first TFA. You may be able to claim vital article status since Kate is listed here. I'm not sure if Level 4 is considered, however, so you may want to ask at TFAR. Good luck! María (yllosubmarine) 16:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Maria, thanks for chipping in. The guide at WP:TFAR says the character count includes mark-up (which makes this one slightly over 1,200)...to be honest I was thinking that was a bit unfair, do people not really pay attention to that? I'll have to check if level 4 counts, I kind of assumed that it wasn't but you may be right. That would be cool. It's definitely 5 points now as well, because there hasn't been an actor article in over 3 months (I didn't want to say that on the "pending" list in case there was one).

I'll whip up another draft tomorrow (I can't be dealing with "fairly good", haha) and hopefully you guys can help tweak it. It's actually pretty tricky, this whole thing. It was hard enough writing the damn lead, and now there's about a quarter of that space! --Lobo (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Maria is there anything specific you think should be added/removed/expanded/etc? --Lobo (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I forgot about the markup! I made a couple minor changes (mainly removing the "independent" redundancy toward the end, since that's already mentioned in the first sentence); unless I'm mistaken, it's now at 1172. I wouldn't worry too much about it though -- Raul and the other TFA delegate sometimes edit blurbs themselves, and other contributors are welcome to suggest changes at the nomination page. María (yllosubmarine) 17:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Her final years

I do think that the Wikipedia Page doesn't have enough ressourches of her final years. For example: the 2001 hospitalization of her or Arthiritis. 188.22.189.14 (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Just a list of her films please

While this magazine-article description of her work might show literary skill, in an encyclopedia there ought to be a plain list of her work, called a "filmography" elsewhere in Wikipedia. It is impossible to see a list of all the films she has done, for example. 88.111.98.62 (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

At the top of the section called "Acting credits" appears the following link: Katharine Hepburn on screen and stage. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

1938 New England hurricane

Just learned that Katharine Hepburne almost became a victim of the 1938 New England hurricane which destroyed her home in Connecticut. The episode is mentioned in the article on the hurricane but may also be worth mentioning here. There is a documentary on the hurricane giving some details about what she went through: [1]. Proofreader (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2022 (UTC)