Talk:Barbara Hershey/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 23:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mind Barbara Hershey as an actress, and I've never plucked the oldest unreviewed article from GAN before, so that's two good reasons to take this one... ;-) I'll probably do this in a couple of passes, firstly checking that everything in the main body is cited to reliable sources and getting you to take care of any outstanding issues there, then reviewing and perhaps copyediting for prose, along with verifying image licensing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toolbox check

No dab links reported.
Ref #11 reported dead by EL checker but no issue when I link to it myself.

Referencing

Good practice to finish each paragraph with a reference; currently this is missing from:
- 1970s -- third para, last sentence.
  - DONE: didn't sound like a big deal, but it has been a while since I did any editing here. Most of this article I did a long time ago. I forget how to do a lot of it, so this could take a while. Slow and steady, thanks for your review.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not quite -- just need citation for the Golden Globe nom at end of third para. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1990s -- first para, last sentence, and last para.
  - DONE
- 2000s -- first para, last sentence.
  - DONE
All awards in the Filmography section and in the Awards section should be cited unless you've already done so for each of them in the main body. For example, the Laurel award for Last Summer is not cited anywhere; pls rectify that and pls also check that all other awards are cited somewhere per above.
DONE
- I will add citations as I move the awards section to the filmography as you suggested.
  - What do you think of the reliability of this[[1]]site?
    - Disregard the above question, I have found plenty of sources, but the day is over. I will work on this some more tomorrow.--Ishtar456 (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some references are too brief and should be made consistent with others:
- DONE
- The Variety citation (ref #2) needs page number or at least article title.
  - That was not even a citation but a wikilink to the Variety article. Pre-dates my edits, I am sure. They have been replaced with real citations.
- Refs #42 and #43 need more detail, e.g. website plus retrieval date.
  - They are now combined and are #45.
- Ref #51 uses "Read" -- should be "Retrieved".
  - I could not find this one (number are different now, but I check with edit find and cound not find the word "read".
- Please check that all other online refs have retrieval dates.
  - I have checked them, but my eye sight is not that good, so may have missed some. I think that they are alright now, though.
    - DONE
What makes NetGlimse a reliable site?
- Oh, I don't know, I think that I was just trying to reference something someone else wrote, 'cause it is not something I would have written, but I would want there to be a citation for it. Hard to remember now how it went down, but happy to get rid on that phrase anyway. Sounded like POV. --Ishtar456 (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - DONE

Structure

Generally looks fine, however I'd question why we need to list awards in both the Filmography and in a separate Awards section. Since all her awards seem related to specific productions, you could put everything in the Filmography and drop the Awards section.
- DONE Everything is done so far. Thanks.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tks, aside from one little thing noted above, that looks good, tks. Will get onto prose/image review now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose/detail

Minor copyedit but I'm pretty happy with how it reads and the level of detail/coverage. You may want to check to ensure I haven't altered anything that looked odd to me but was deliberate on your part (in which case let's discuss). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting materials

Infobox looks fine.
Image licensing looks okay for main picture but fair-use rationales for this article are missing from the poster shots of:
- Last Summer
  - DONE
- The Baby Maker
  - DONE
    - Under "Purpose" in your FUR, I would remove everything between (and inclusive of) "Main infobox" to "Additional" -- it just confuses matters; everything after "Additional" is fine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Boxcar Bertha
As a suggestion, the article would look more balanced image-wise if we perhaps dropped the Boxcar image entirely (DONE) and added a poster featuring her likeness from one of her later films in the 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s sections (with suitable FUR for this article of course). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been dreading this part of the conversation. I used to have several good images in this article, but I find the process of adding images to be extremely complex and confusing. I have tried my best to do it right, but I turn around and they are deleted without warning. I had to wait for two years for someone to add an image to the infobox before I even dared submit this article for review. Someone finally did, and then I added the other images as they were already used in other articles, and then I kept my fingers cross. Aside from my inability to prevent good images from being deleted, Hershey has not really been the featured star of anything in a long time, so any later images most likely do not depict her. I find that adding them is a little pointless in an article about her. I used to have a picture of her in "the hat" that she wore in the natural. I thought it was a really good addition considering what I had written about it and its importance, but it got deleted without warning and I haven't got a clue as to how to go about replacing it. If you think that this is worthy with the images as is then that is great, but I feel helpless to do any more about the images. --Ishtar456 (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not an issue, images are not strictly a requirement to pass GA and I know how problematic it is to provide them in an article such as this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Overall this looks quite good, pls acknowledge/action referencing and structure points above and then I'll get on with the remaining things. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am okay with your edits, I just added the dates back to Black Swan and Insidious, because I believe that they have to be there for movies. As far as I can see, everything is done. Thanks. --Ishtar456 (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Heh, personally I think it looks odd putting the dates in parentheses after the film title when the date is given (expicitly or implicitly) elsewhere in the sentence but it wouldn't surprise me if it's just the standard no matter what in film articles, so not fussed. Did you see that comment on Baby Maker's FUR above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I got called on that date thing on another article, so I put them in now, regardless of the fact that the date is already there. I guess it prevents confusion with films of the same name. Anyway, I did not see your earlier comment about the image. I could not take "additional" out with the template I used. So I did the best I could. I hope it works. Thanks.--Ishtar456 (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good enough -- happy to pass this now, well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]