Talk:Katharine Hepburn/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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 (yllo submarine) 02:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 (yllo submarine) 18:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (yllo submarine) 19:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]