Talk:Gary Cooper/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 13:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will review within a few days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has the conflict which Cirt identified in the initial review been resolved now?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Y Way, way too long, needs to be trimmed I'd say by 40-50%. A lot of it reads as subjective, like a magazine rather than an encyclopedia. Much of the last paragraph especially doesn't belong in the lede.

I'll come back to the lead after going through the rest of the comments. I can certainly trim it down. All of the content is taken directly from the sourced article. The first paragraph defines the subject, and is taken mainly from the Career assessment and Acting style sections. The second paragraph summarizes the Career section. The third paragraph is from the Awards and nominations and Career assessment sections. The fourth paragraph summarizes the Personal life section. Bede735 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Doctor, I was able to reduce the lead by 40 percent and still retain the basic summary the article. I made most of the changes that Tim suggested and cut much of the last paragraph as you suggested. Regarding subjectivity, all of the content is sourced in the article body. Let me know what you think. Bede735 (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

YWhat is jitney?

A jitney is a type of open-air bus popular since the 1920s in national parks in the United States. There is no Wikipedia article for it. A modern version is still used at Yellowstone. I can replace the term with "open-top buses". A similar red version is used in Glacier National Park in Montana. Bede735 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cf Cole Porter: "When folks who still can ride in jitneys/Find out Vanderbilts and Whitneys/Lack baby clo'es/Anything goes". Tim riley talk 11:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I should have remembered that one being a jazz fan! I must see to it that it has an article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I have any material for the article. Here's a starting point: Yellowstone Historic Center. Bede735 (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the word "jitney" came from the word Jeepney, or vice versa? CorinneSD (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely, "Jeepney" was a play on "Jeep" (c. 1940s) and "jitney". According to Merriam-Webster, "jitney" is also slang for a "nickel" (a five-cent coin). According to one theory, the bus was named after the original five-cent fare. The first known use is 1903. One possible origin is from the French jeton, meaning "metal disk". Bede735 (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early career

YCan you add the year in brackets of the films unless the year is stated? .

I'm pretty sure I do this throughout the article. If the sentence or paragraph indicates the year, I omit the bracketed year. All other titles on first mention after the lead have the bracketed year. I will double-check. Bede735 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do I think except those early films of his in the late 1920s.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YWhat studio did he initially start appearing in films for? Was it a variety until signing a contract in 1926? You might mention something.

I will include a few of the Poverty Row studios in the first sentence of that section, such as Fox Film Corporation, Famous Players-Lasky, and Paramount. At the time, the same "action" footage would be sold and reused by multiple studios, so it's difficult to trace all of his stunt riding appearances. Bede735 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood stardom

YWhat is meant by "Despite conflicts with his authoritarian German director—whose entire focus was on Dietrich" In shooting the picture, personally or what?

Yes, that could be clearer. I'll make the necessary changes. According to my sources, Sternberg's sole purpose in making Morocco was to introduce Marlene Dietrich to American audiences (she was already a star in Europe). He treated Cooper poorly on the set, and its one of the rare times in his career he did not get along with a director. Bede735 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y"Cooper appeared in the Dashiell Hammett crime film City Streets with Sylvia Sidney playing a misplaced cowboy in a big city who gets involved with gangsters to save the woman he loves.[" -a little sloppy, reword a little

I'll reword it. Bede735 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YRather than mentioning every costar he was in films with, on some you might say something on the nature of the role instead just to vary it and improve readability. For some of the minor films I don't think you really need to say, and in some cases you could get away with ignoring them,

I understand. I will go through the article with this in mind. Removing some of the co-stars is not difficult, but truncating or bypassing some of his later films will be more difficult. I'll come back to this. Bede735 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YYearlong= year-long

Oxford and Websters list "yearlong"; the hyphenation is an alternate form. Your call. Bede735 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y"the film presented Cooper with one of his most ambitious and challenging dramatic roles to date.", which was? If you're going to say all that at least tell the reader something about it!!

Good point. I'll add a sentence or two about the film and his role. Bede735 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y"but Cooper's performance was singled out for its versatility[97] and revealed his genuine ability to do light comedy.[98] Cooper changed his name legally in August 1933.[99]" -again something on the nature of the role would be informative here.

Yes, I will add additional detail. Bede735 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YNow and forever - delink Carole Lombard, already linked, watch out for other examples of OVERLINK throughout.

Ah, missed one. I will go over the article again to check for OVERLINK. Per WP:OVERLINK, I'm linking once in first use, and repeating in the infobox, awards table, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. I did not add links to the image captions because they are all adjacent to the film they are illustrating. Bede735 (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Cooper delivered a performance of surprising range and depth" -to whom?
"and the on-screen chemistry between the romantic leads worked well" -ditto

Both are sourced to biographers—the first to Swindell, and the second to Dickens. Bede735 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Regarding these two items and similar items below, are the biographer sources cited not appropriate? Should I change the wording or omit? Let me know what you're looking for? Bede735 (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American folk hero

Y"critically acclaimed and commercially successful films " does tend to grate on me by the end of section, said too many times I think, Can you find a way to reword some like "universally applauded" or something? 1946 ditto "The film was a critical and commercial failure" really gets repetitive and annoying to keep reading even if true!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. They get on my nerves too—and I wrote them. I will provide variations and omit some. Bede735 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y"Bergman delivered a superb performance, especially in her close-ups, and her love scenes with Cooper were rapturous and passionate." according to whom, and who's biography is this anyway!

Yes, I will rewrite or remove it. Bede735 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A minor comedy done in the Capra style, the film might have worked a few years earlier but came across as overly sentimental and maudlin.[", says who?

It's sourced to biographer Swindell. Bede735 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y"Cooper returned to his element in Delmer Daves' war drama Task Force (1949) with Jane Wyatt.[242] In the film, Cooper plays a retiring rear admiral who reminisces about his long career as a naval aviator and his role in the development of aircraft carriers.[242] Cooper's fine performance and the Technicolor newsreel footage supplied by the United States Navy made the film one of his most popular during this period.[243]" I disagree with that statement. I say so as I've seen a lot of films from 1949 and that one didn't even make the top ten at the box office so it's misleading. Films like Samson and Delilah, I was a Male War Bride, The Heiress, 12 0 clock high and Pinky might claim that but I wouldn't put Task Force in the same category as those.

The sentence indicates "one of his most popular" (Cooper's), not one of the most popular. The ten films leading up to High Noon were not his finest. I will go back and clarify the sentence. Bede735 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y"Cooper's performance was satisfactory, but the "second-string" supporting cast and the "inept storyline" provided few memorable moments." I think you have to be careful with relying on biographers to deliver verdicts. In many of their eyes Cooper could do no wrong. Have you checked out films reviews in the NY Times or whatever? I'm pretty sure Cooper would have at least had some negative reviews on his performances. At least in later films you do mention a few.

I agree that I should have balanced the article with more quotes from contemporary critics, such as Crowther. I will come back to this. Bede735 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YA film like High Noon which won him Best Actor really needs a good review or two from a good critic.

I agree. I will add quotes from two or three contemporary critics. It was his most important post-war film. Bede735 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In his performance, Cooper effectively conveyed the anguish of someone struggling to retain his integrity and decency in the face of overwhelming temptation." -says who?

It's sourced to biographer Meyers. Bede735 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

YI remember when editing Wings he supposedly had an affair with her on set, you might mention that Cooper and Bow started an affair during the filming of Wings.

I'll add a sentence. Bede735 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YStrange break to continuity in discussing marriage after separation. I think you should discuss marriage and family before affairs.

My original thought was that most of his affairs occurred before his marriage, but I see your point. I'll make the change. Bede735 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Y" enthusiastic conversationalist " really contradicts what you say before it

I will reword it to convey the intended point, that with topics of interest to Cooper, he could be an enthusiastic conversationalist. Bede735 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOverall I think there's way too much detail here for his main article, especially on his leisure activities and death and you should split into Personal life of Gary Cooper and condense it.

I'll trim down some of the details, especially his interests. I'll come back to the splitting issue. Bede735 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did one more pass through the article tonight and cut unnecessary text per your comments. While the article is long, I think splitting off sections would diminish its value, and I'm not sure that his personal life warrants its own article. I'm open to discuss the issue further and explore other options. Let me know what you think. Bede735 (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Career assessment

NLink Bozeman, Montana

It's already linked in the Early life section. Bede735 (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this has obviously been very well read in biographies but my feeling is that it is too detailed and needs considerable condensing and split into sub articles. At times it affects the readability and flow by dwelling too much on certain things, more like a magazine than encyclopedia. Obviously you don't want to affect comprehension too much but this could easily be cut by 30 kb I think. In a main article I don't think you really need to mention every role and co star and certainly you don't need to say that much about his leisurely pursuits. For GA it might not be too big a deal but if you're gunning for FA eventually this will need a big chop I think. I'd also like to see more evidence of actual reviews from critics on his more notable roles from those sources directly like NYT, LAT, Variety etc rather than relying almost solely on what the biographer says.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of your points, especially regarding mentioning every role. I also agree that more critical reviews on his more notable roles is needed. I do intend to promote the article to FA, so I appreciate you identifying potential issues toward that end. Bede735 (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I kept these comments in mind as I edited the article these past few days. While I was able to address most of your concerns, the overall size of the article has not changed substantially—partly due to the added review text and their references. I think the addition of direct reviews has improved the article. I'm open to exploring additional ways to address the issue of the article size. Bede735 (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before you do any chopping though I want to ask for a second or third opinion on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Doctor, for reviewing this article so quickly and so thoroughly. I'll go through your review and leave comments and questions on this page. Bede735 (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Blofeld has asked me to look in and give views, which I shall be pleased to do in the next day or two. Tim riley talk 19:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim. I look forward to your feedback. Bede735 (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

YI agree with Dr B that the lead needs cutting. MOS:LEAD is very clear and to the point: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview" (my italics). Apart from the peacock "notable", the first para is fine down to and including "natural and authentic on screen". The rest I could do without here. I'd lose the first sentence of the second para (which just repeats info shown in the info-box). The third para is much too detailed, and could be boiled down to a single sentence on the lines of, "Cooper received many awards and nominations, including three Academy Awards" (though I admit that English readers get less excited about drama awards than American readers do). I'd lose or at least rigorously prune the lists of friends and hobbies from the last para.

Tim riley, I made most of your changes to the lead. Let me know if you think more trimming is needed. Bede735 (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the main text, the painstaking dissection of every film may not please every reader. Personally, I found it a bit of a slog, and would have welcomed a more cursory mention of the less important films. But I don't think the exhaustive analysis of each film falls foul of GA criterion 3b: the article stays focused on the topic, and whatever my personal preferences, I don't think the text can be said to go into unnecessary detail. Ditto for the section on Cooper's personal life: I could wish it were shorter, but I think it nonetheless meets criterion 3b. By coincidence I have this morning added my support of a Featured Article candidate about another great American actor, John Barrymore, which runs to nearly 12,000 words. This one runs to almost 13,000, but is plainly in the same ballpark, and as Dr B has asked for my opinion, it is that the article meets criterion 3b.

A slight correction to the figures, according to the "readable prose size" gizmo, Coops comes in at over 11,500 words, Barrymore at 8,500. The extra 3,000 words (to my mind) shows in places, as I think this gets bogged down in detail from time to time. That's just my personal view, and feel free to take it on board or disregard as you feel fit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SchroCat, for your Taylor fix and for your comments. I agree that the article needs trimming, and I'm working my way through the review comments, some of which point to that issue. Regards, 00:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Tim has said, and I think Blofeld also feels, this doesn't detract from what is a very fine piece of work, certainly above GA standard (the size isn't an issue on that score), and not too far away from FA. If you decide to go down the FA route, please drop me a note when you take it to Peer Review and I'll give a more thorough read through on it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, I appreciate the encouraging words and will reach out to you prior to Peer Review. Bede735 (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YThere are more peacock and editorialising words in the text than I feel comfortable with: "his impressive output", "a remarkable string", "the inventive screenplay", "he delivered notable performances" etc – all fine if in quotations, but not as uncited main text.

I took care of these, and I will check the rest of the document more carefully. Bede735 (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YIn passing, was the White House in Houghton Regis really a farmhouse in the young Cooper's time? A farmhouse right in the middle of a village high street seems an unlikely notion. From the look of the aerial view at Google I'd say the buildings around the area are not recent, and were probably there in Cooper's day, leaving no space for a farm.

I hope these few comments are helpful. – Tim riley talk 11:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley Thank you, much appreciated and those were generally my thoughts on this too. I don't think the length is preventing it being a GA but I do think if he's planning on taking this to FA it needs some serious cutting/pruning.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim riley. These comments are very helpful. I will make these changes, and get back to you with any questions. I hope to address all of these issues by the end of this weekend. Regarding the "farmhouse", I will change it to "home". Cooper's father Charles was the fourth generation to live in that house. His father, grandfather, and great grandfather were farmers. At one time it may have been a farmhouse, or their farmland may have been located in a nearby area. This site has a number of old pictures and articles of Cooper at Houghton Regis: Dunstable. I imagine that it's changed quite a bit since then, especially since the war. There's a pub nearby called The Gary Cooper. It's nice that they remember. Bede735 (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

An excellent piece of work. Easily GA quality. It is certainly comprehensive enough for GA but I still do think it is a bit heavy to read and needs a further trim before taking to FAC. I recommend opening a peer review and requesting some of those who regularly review actor articles to talk a good look at it and hopefully help get it to FA standard.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Doctor, for your careful review and help in improving the article. I will open a peer review as you suggest to help bring the article to FA standard. The comments above regarding reduced focus on the less important films, trimming out some of the personal life details, and including more critic reviews would be a good place to start discussions. Thank you Tim riley, SchroCat, and CorinneSD for your time and help. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, Bede735 (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]