Jump to content

Talk:James Stewart/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 04:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this article. Thank you.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 04:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Passing comments...

  • "At first, he had trouble being cast in Hollywood films owing to his gangling looks and shy, humble screen presence. [40] His first on-screen performance was an unbilled appearance in a Shemp Howard comedy short called Art Trouble in 1934.[41] His credited first film role was the Spencer Tracy vehicle The Murder Man (1935).[42] Rose Marie (1936), an adaptation of a popular operetta, was more successful and led to his Stewart's casting in eight films in 1936.[43][44" -reps of first!!
Repetition of the word "first".
Good or bad criticism of his performances. I think it could do with some quality quotes of some of his more notable performances to reinforce the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My comments

[edit]
General
  • Too much overlink of films and other celebrities/people. Just linking them once is enough (Link in the lead as well if you have mentioned them). De-link the rest.
Lead
  • "The characters he appeared as spanned a wide range of subjects and appealed to large audiences." — Maybe rephrase it as "The characters he played spanned a wide range of subjects and appealed to large audiences."
  • Wikilink "MGM" and expand it to its full-form like say "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM)" since you are mentioning it for the first time. Do the same as well when you mention it for the first time in the body of the article (If you haven't done so already).
  • Wikilink Broadway, Frank Capra.
  • "he is most known" can be rephrased as "he is mostly known".
  • I hope you have the proper references for the details in the infobox. Just clarifying.
I'll look further into it tomorrow. Sorry if I'm slow at the review.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 18:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I just wanted to check in. Take your time. Thank you. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I said, "no worries, take your time", I meant to take a week or two to complete the review if you need it. Out of courtesy for nominators, I always complete my GA reviews within one week (if I can't for some reason I make the waiting period explicitly clear). You expressed interest in this page. You even went as far as to contact me on my talk page to ask if you could review the page but it's been over two months and you have barely reviewed past the lead section. I know this article is long and it's okay to be "slow", but slow is different than doing nothing at all.

I have a serious goal to get this article to FA and used this review as a formality to get some feedback as I've been told this article is already nearly at FA standards. I'm not trying to be abrasive, I just have serious ambitions about this article and I don't have the patience to wait around for months to get feedback. I will give you a few days to resume the review, if not I will either request another reviewer or list this review for deletion and direct this article towards more efficient preparations. I do appreciate the criticism offered because it did improve the article; however, it's important to be courteous to nominators by completing the review in a reasonable amount of time. Thank you. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyes(BYU): I am sorry, my friend. I am unable to complete this review and I've been rather busy too irl. I hope you bear no ill will against me for this because I really wanted to do this review but am unable to do so owing to life outside of Wikipedia. Please do accept my sincerest and deepest apologies. Btw, the article looks really excellent. Just needs a bit of copyediting and a source and image review.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 09:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ssven2, no worries. I just hope it is not a euphemism for "I quit forever". Skyes(BYU), feel free to request a new reviewer here. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ssven2, no problem. I hope everything is going okay for you. I really appreciate your help and good luck! Skyes(BYU) (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyes(BYU): Hi. Do you still need a new reviewer? AIRcorn (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Technically yes, but since my previous reviewer dropped out, I have been working with another editor outside of GA to get my article to featured article standards. We are still working on the article and haven't quite finished it. I'm not sure if we were planning on continuing with the GA review or not.Skyes(BYU) (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aircorn:, if you want to review the article, I would be happy to have you review it. The work I've been doing on it has kind of died down within the last month. But if you're interested in the work we've done to the article as a reference, here is the sandbox on which the article was discussed and improved. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyes(BYU): Hi, asking again if you want a new reviewer? If you want to work on this to FA instead, you can withdraw it, but if that editing has died down, I'd be happy to take on reviewing Jimmy's article! Kingsif (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif:, we almost finished editing, we are just down to the lead section. Someone previously expressed interest in doing a GA review, but I haven't heard from them since. I don't really care whether it's an FA or a GA review at this point; I just want the article to get reviewed since a lot of work went into it. I would be happy to have you review it! Skyes(BYU) (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyes(BYU): Is the current version the one you want reviewed? Kingsif (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif:, yes, please. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer

[edit]

Sources

[edit]
  • Earwig's copyvio tool has chosen to be down today, so I'll do my best with the sources.
  • First comments are the harv refs that point nowhere:
  • Bigham 1994 doesn't have a ref
  • Horton, Robert (March 1990). "Mann & Stewart: Two Rode Together". Film Comment. 26 (2). ProQuest 210251212 and Parish, James Robert; Bowers, Ronald L. (1973). Taylor, T. Allan (ed.). The MGM Stock Company: The Golden Era. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House. ISBN 0870001280 aren't cited
  • Is there a reason that some of the Citations, including ones with a last name, have the full citation (e.g. Crowther, Bosley (December 22, 1950). "The Screen In Review". The New York Times: 19., but there's a lot)? Could they all be moved to use the same format consistently
  • @Skyes(BYU): In the citation list, the first (AFI...) has its full citation, but the second (Fishgall 1997, p. 19) is just the short ref and links below. I know there's lots of different ref styles, but why wouldn't AFI, e.g., be in the Bibliography? Kingsif (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I am understanding what you mean, the way I normally do my pages when there is a mix of web and book sources is that I use the sfn style for anything with page numbers that must be distinguished like books and journals and I will put the full citation in the bibliography. Other things like newspapers and websites, I don't usually bother to put in the bibliography because I usually only cite them once or twice and they don't need to be distinguished from other citations because there are no page numbers. I have looked at other featured articles and some also use this like Katharine Hepburn. Additionally, the editor I have been working with is experienced in working with featured articles and seemed to be okay with my citation style. This is pretty much how I have been doing things for the past few years but let me know what you think. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's fine to do that, I was just wondering. There's no formal stance on it (and certainly not at GA), just wanted to make sure it was intentional. Kingsif (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the citation refs with multiple sources don't have a space between comma/semi-colon and name, if you wanted to fix that
  • Sources all appear reliable (using Headbomb's tool and manual check)
  • Quite a few are also books, so I'll do a:
Random selection - source check
  • AFI  Done (used once - has info - no copyvio)
  • Fishgall 1997  Done (115 uses; some of the pages aren't available on archive preview, but since the others are good I'll take it)
  • Eliot 2006  Not done (source is offline, not on Google books and no other evident archives/previews)
  • Smith 2005  Done (29 uses, some of the pages not available, otherwise is good)
  • Eyman 2017  Done (45 uses, "-")
  • Dewey 1996  Done (most pages only available in snippets view so less context, but they all seem good)
  • Thumim 1991  Question: (not sure what this is referencing - that No Highway was big in the UK but not US? It only says it did well in the UK)
  • So because of COVID-19, I am now doing my Wikipedia work from home rather than the library so I no longer have access to these print sources. However, a few months ago, I went through this article with a fine-toothed comb to make sure that every piece of info in the article was reflected in the citations. I'm pretty sure the only reason I introduced the Thumim citation was to cite the UK reception and everything else was in the Fishgall source. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crowther 1954  Done (used once - has info - no copyvio)
  • Looks pretty good, will AGF on hard to access sources. The online ones look good.

Lead

[edit]
  • Long, but so is the article. May be a bit too long, but seems fit for purpose
  • and had his first postwar role was as George Bailey should remove 'had' or 'was'
  • Lead moves from discussing Academy Awards to Oscars without clarifying that they're the same thing. I guess most people know, but to be sure it can be clarified as "Academy Award (Oscar)", or only use one name
  • It has gained in popularity - this might read better as "'increased' in popularity", but not actionable
  • Lead doesn't mention explicitly how many, particularly Oscar, award noms he had. Could something like this be added if deemed important enough?
  • Since his filmography has its own page, perhaps it could be linked in the lead - the "his films" in with most of his films becoming box office successes might be an appropriate phrase to add the link
  • an honorary Academy Honorary Award seems redundant, especially since it's already been introduced as an honorary award
  • Rest good, nicely written

Illustration

[edit]
  • Infobox:
  • Good amount of and choice of parameters/info
  • However, 'Awards' is listed twice, linking to the same page. Perhaps only list it once (above the military service section), or make multiple pages. Alternatively, move the relatively short military decorations to that section on his bio and link to the section in the infobox.
  • Would 'European Theater of Operations' be more appropriate in parentheses after WWII rather than with a plain text *?
  • Photos:
  • Lots of correctly licensed PD images
  • Most are used well
  • I don't see a use for the image from The Far Country - it gets only a brief mention, and Stewart's work with Mann is already shown with Winchester '73 being pictured
  • I added this because the editor I was working with asked me to add another image of Stewart in a Mann film since Mann made up a significant part of Stewart's career. While I would have preferred to find an image from a different film, this was what could find. (it was scanned directly from my university's James Stewart Collection). This was the only image of a Mann film I could find. I can remove if you really don't think it belongs here. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captions mostly used well
  • Could use more detail for why the image from Harvey is used (presumably, requesting the role?)
  • And for Rear Window (uncovering new depths)
  • And Anatomy of a Murder (first BAFTA)
  • Question on the use of periods at the end of captions that are only one sentence, I thought MOS was not to do that
  • According to WP:Manual of Style/Captions: 1) no period after lone fragment 2) period required after complete sentence 3) periods required after all fragments and sentences when used together
  • Theatre and radio are presented as a list and table, respectively. Could Broadway not be a table; also, have you thought about moving both to the filmography page (which now hold theatre, radio, discography, etc. - could be renamed as 'performances' if wanted)
I'm not sure it matters, I'm fine with them here. Kingsif (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also

[edit]

Early life

[edit]
  • About the dashes between dates, I don't think there should be spaces between numbers and the dash. (Apply this to lead, too)
  • A shy child, Stewart spent much of his time after school in the basement working on model airplanes, mechanical drawing, and chemistry - I can't tell if this should be "mechanical drawings" or not
  • Otherwise good.

Career

[edit]
  • in a Shemp Howard comedy short Art Trouble - shouldn't this be the Howard short?
  • For the Divided by Three mention, perhaps move "in the fall" to the start of the sentence. As it currently starts, it sounds like either it's going to discuss reviews of the plays mentioned in the sentence before, or that reviews have just been mentioned, but it's neither, introducing a new topic.
  • I'm confused how Stewart got the part in Vivacious Lady after critical success in Of Human Hearts if both were released in 1938 but Vivacious Lady had been worked on for years?
  • The chronology of the 1938 films was incredibly confusing to sort out. TrueHeartSusie3 challenged me to get the chronology straight which I did, and I believe is correct. What I think happened here becomes a bit more clear when reading the note1, but perhaps it isn't as clear as it should be. Ginger Rogers and Stewart were dating so she suggested that he be cast as in the film. He got ill right after and production had to be shut down. Then he began working on Of Human Hearts and Vivacious Lady resumed production without him. I believe his success in Of Human Hearts allowed Rogers to convince RKO that Stewart needed to be recast into the film. I found a New York Post article that kind of clarifies this. Do you think I should reword/restructure this section to make that detail more clear? Skyes(BYU) (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the paragraph about the Philadelphia Story, it doesn't actually say which Oscar he won, and since his awards are in a separate article, it's a bit unusual. James Stewart's article should mention in body text that he won the Best Acting Oscar.
  • reported for induction as private in the Air Corps - should it be "as a private"?
  • After spending over one-year training pilots should say "over a year"..
  • and was sent to England as part 445th Bombardment Group to pilot a B-24 Liberator in November 1942 - changes to read "as part of the 445th" and "Group, to pilot a B-24 Liberator, in November" (the commas to indicate he was sent to England, not flew the plane, in Nov '42)
  • Shouldn't military titles (Second Lieutenant, Major, Colonel) be capitalized? It's inconsistent in the article, any way
  • The word Westerns should have a capital W, every time
  • In It also marked a turning point in Hollywood, as Stewart's agent, Lew Wasserman, brokered an innovative deal with Universal, in which Stewart would receive no fee in exchange for a percentage of the profits as well as cast and director approval, the "as well as cast and director approval" sounds like the deal meant he got paid in being approved of by his colleagues, rather than he got to be involved with hiring and casting
  • "Indian agent" either needs a wikilink or to change to 'Native American'. Not even for political correctness, but because even with the context, I thought of India until the end of the sentence
  • The sentences about The Man from Laramie and the one Who Knew Too Much seem arbitrarily stuck on the end of the paragraph - up to now, the article is really strongly written, so they especially need to be rewritten for better flow
  • Same issue with the Quigley poll mention at the bottom of the '50s subsection
  • "Eastern attorney" - East Coast perhaps? Eastern sounds like it should refer to the hemisphere

Personal life

[edit]
  • Made a few minor tweaks, generally looks fine otherwise

Acting style and screen persona

[edit]
  • Quote box good
  • Italics for 'Hank and Jim' title
  • The sentence Stewart was the classic everyman, because he was someone with whom the audience could identify with as contrasted with other Hollywood leading men of the time such as Cary Grant who represented what the audience wanted to become reads quite awkward, as well as being a bit repetitive of the sentence before, and could do well to be rephrased.
  • The structure of this section is a bit weak. It starts out strong, the first five paragraphs have good flow. I think this was the section being worked on? Could use improvement. What particularly jumps out is the "Good American" paragraph, which should maybe be incorporated earlier, more with the everyman paragraph.
Comment: I just noticed this, sorry I've been lagging behind lately! I have a new (hopefully improved) version of this section in my sandbox that Skye and I have been working on, just forgot to add it. I'll add it now, feel free to revert if this was not ok.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Thanks, more notes, then:
  • Stewart's co-star Kim Novak stated of Stewart's acting style that for emotional scenes, Stewart would access emotions deep inside of him and would take time to wind down after the scene ended. - This sentence may use the word Stewart too much. It might not even need it at all. Some cut back would be nice.

*May want to alter the quote in However, during his career "Stewart encompasses the furthest extremes of American masculinity, from Reaganite militarist patriotism to Hitchcockian perversity." to get the tense consistent. *The opening According to film scholar John Belton, rather than playing characters in his films repeats the "According to X" from the paragraph above - and this instance I feel would work better rephrased anyway. *The last paragraph puts commas directly before quotations even when it makes no sense - could these be reviewed and removed.

Legacy

[edit]

*I just noticed there's an audio clip. Can it not be inserted as media rather than a link in parenthesis? It might work better in Acting style and screen persona section? Something to think about... *Although this sentence is also very awkward - the drawl has been mentioned earlier, and it's certainly more significant than a passing mention at the end of a paragraph *Is there any reason why BYU has Stewart's personal collection? It seems like it should be mentioned if so, since he otherwise has zero connection to it

Awards + filmography

[edit]

A short mention of some of his notable awards and films could be used to give a bit of content here.

  • This was included in an older version of the article, but as I recall, TrueHeartSusie asked me to remove it because it was too repetitive of information already in the article. I can add back if you think it's necessary for GA. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyes(BYU): Kingsif (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif:, I think I've addressed/responded to all of your comments. Let me know what else I can do if anything was not properly addressed. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyes(BYU): Looks good! Kingsif (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Stewart/GA1&oldid=946386064"