Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lana Turner/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2018 [1].

Lana Turner[edit]

Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about film actress Lana Turner, who had a prominent career in Hollywood over multiple decades. --Drown Soda (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read more about her here: Lana Turner Online Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether periodicals include publisher and/or location
Applied locations to local newspapers and other bibliographic sources that didn't have locations; is this necessary for nationally-known publications like The New York Times or Los Angeles Times, where the publication is famous and the location self-evident? --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it should be consistent - for example, Chicago Tribune sometimes has no location, sometimes "Chicago", sometimes "Chicago, Illinois". Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN4, 107: formatting is incorrect
  • Note that the numbering has changed since my initial comments; these are now FNs 10 and 130, the former of which still has issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you are referring to the Speed & Cameron-Wilson citation missing the location and ISSN, which I've now added. --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Geni a high-quality reliable source? Total-Movies.com?
  • Don't italicize publishers
I couldn't find an instance of this.
Examples include UT San Diego and UPI. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN15: title is incorrect, and if you're using via for Google News why not for this?
  • FNs 31 and 43 and 58 are to the same publication, but are formatted differently - check for others
Unsure if you were referring to the Wayne 2003 reference—if so, I'm not clear on what is formatted differently as these are shortened footnotes that anchor to the publication.
Now 36, 49 and 71. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Life magazine articles--got it. --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN36 needs time codes for specific references, and why the IMDb link?
  • Associated Press is an agency not an author
  • FN121: video has been removed from YouTube due to copyvio issues - check for other linkvio instances
I have attempted to find a video source for this, but cannot find it; the quote cited does very much appear in the program, which is a small (around 10 min.) interview with Turner's daughter on MacRae's Born Famous series.
Major concern here is rather the linkvio issue, which hasn't been fixed - looks like FN245 has also been taken down. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled the YouTube links to prevent the violation issue, but have retained the references as they are still useful.--Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn148: complete date?
Pulled this source and replaced with a bibliographic one. --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges and if so how
Not sure of the implication here, but I'm assuming it has to do with there not being a third-party reference about the Frank O'Hara poem, and rather a link to the Poetry Foundation's entry for the poem itself. My only response to this would be that the poem should be included here because her name is referred to explicitly in the title, and she is the subject of it. If need be, I can find a literary studies reference that corroborates the poem's title, but I'm not sure what the point would be.
The point of the RfC is, it's not enough to demonstrate that the reference exists, but rather that it is significant, which requires secondary sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Introduced secondary bibliographic source --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN208 is missing italics
  • No citations to Parish 1978
  • GBooks links should be trimmed down
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Brown 2004 publisher is incorrect. Check for other such issues
Not sure where you are seeing that the publisher is incorrect; Da Capo is the confirmed publisher according to Google Books, Worldcat, etc. --Drown Soda (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mistaken as I removed and replaced the Parker source earlier --Drown Soda (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: thanks for the source notes; I'll address these points and do another run-through for consistency. You're definitely correct about the Geni source; this was added by another editor and I didn't didnt want to excise it if I didn't have to, but I've unfortunately been unable to find other sources that corroborate the birthdates and deaths of her parents--in the end, that information is not vital to the integrity of the article and can be excised without creating any issues. There are plenty of sources pertaining to their names, which should suffice. I'll start work on your points within the next day or so; I'm currently out of town and do not have my computer with me and it's a bit impractical for me to make these changes on my mobile. I will return to this soon and make note of when they've been cleared up. - - Drown Soda (talk) 07:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I believe I have addressed the above notes concerning sources; I combed through all of the book references to add proper locations and publishing houses, cleared up the abbreviated page references, and also made time-stamped footnotes corresponding to the documentary source. The only points above that remain unaddressed are ones I've responded to specifically in green text. --Drown Soda (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TrueHeartSusie3[edit]

I've done some light copyediting to the article in the hopes that it will help in this FA process (hope you don't mind!please feel free to revert!). Will write some comments about the content here.

Childhood

  • "relocated to nearby Wallace" — year (or approximate) needed
  • "hard times" — perhaps a bit too euphemistic, I'd go with something more specific. I take it the reason was the Great Depression? If so, mention it.
  • "profound effect" — this is minor, but how did this profound effect manifest itself? E.g. did Turner develop mental health problems, or later in life refer to the tragedy in some specific way?
  • How did Turner begin attending the church with family friends? Are confirmation names really worth mentioning?
  • "reportedly" — Weasel word alert, it's better to write who reported this or leave it out altogether (i.e. if undisputed).
  • "overseer" – or manager? If she did not play an 'official' role like that of a manager, maybe just write that "after Turner was discovered, her mother began managing/overseeing/etc. her career".
  • Are there any photos of Turner as a child?

1937-1939:

  • First film: how major was the supporting role? If only a couple of lines or scenes, it's worth specifying instead that she had a minor role. If she was one of the main supporting actors, it's worth mentioning her role.
  • Why did Turner change studios? If she was successful at WB, why did the studio give her over to MGM?
  • "graduated from high school in between filming" — what was she filming?
  • Is LeRoy's role in the studio change actually disputed?
  • If she was already cast as the star of several MGM films in the late 1930s, you should go into a bit more detail about their reception, her roles, etc.

1940-1945:

  • Why did these film projects fall through?
  • Again, there needs to be more about the reception of these films.
  • Turner's first marriage hasn't even been mentioned, and now the section mentions her second divorce. You should briefly mention the marriages, even if you have a separate 'Personal life' section; the reader doesn't want to jump back-and-forth between sections.
  • It would be good to add maybe a quote on Turner's thoughts on Gable. Were they friendly?

Postman section:

  • What were her characters in Green Dolphin Street, Cass Timberline and Home Coming?

1948-1960:

  • Had she actually begun filming Bedeviled?
  • Why did the Topping wedding delay beginning filming?
  • Was it just announced that she'd be starring in the Cukor film? Unclear as the first sentence makes one think she began filming it in '49, but the next sentence states the script was shelved?
  • TCM is not a reliable source, I'd try to look for a better alternative.
  • Were the films made in Europe dramas, musicals...? What roles did she play? Again, more detail on the projects is needed.
  • Why was Turner reluctant to appear in The Prodigal?

Last section:

  • "She followed this with the lead role in Bittersweet Love (1976), a romantic comedy about a woman who unwittingly marries her half-brother" — erroneously implies she plays the woman who marries her half-brother
  • The Van Welder quote is awkward, given that Turner doesn't even play Patricia, the main character.
  • How were her theater performances received?

Personal life:

  • In the childhood section, she is described as a devout Catholic, but here it's stated she only became one in 1980?
  • It's mentioned that Turner suffered multiple stillbirths... how many exactly? One would think these were made public, as 'stillbirth' implies she was in the late stages of the pregnancy when they occurred. In general, this seems like such a major issue in Turner's life that more than a brief mention is needed.
  • It's also not clear why the blood type would lead to stillbirths. A brief (no more than one sentence) clarification would be a good addition.
  • Why weren't Lana and Cheryl close until the former's later years? It's also a bit awkward to jump then to something that happened when Cheryl was a teen.
  • Why is Tyrone Power's marriage significant enough to warrant a mention?
  • No lists are permitted in FAs to my knowledge, I would make a separate section for this, and perhaps merge it chronologically with the other section on relationships.
  • "habitually married" — sounds tabloidy, revise
  • Shaw marriage — give some background the marriage: how did they meet? why did they elope on their first date (which is pretty unusual)?
  • Same with Topping; how did they meet, etc.
  • Who is Judge?
  • Details about wedding ceremonies (i.e. clothing) don't really belong to an encyclopedia unless very notable (e.g. Diana & Charles's wedding, Kurt Cobain & Courtney Love's wedding...).
  • Once again, background is needed for the Barker and May relationships.
  • Stompanato:

- clarify how they met

That's all for now! In summary, you need to add more background to Turner's roles (e.g. what characters she played, how did the projects do in the box office, how did they fare with the critics, what were her opinions, did she undertake any specific training or other preparation for the roles...) and to rewrite 'Personal life' so that the marriages are no longer in list-form.

Good luck!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

@TrueHeartSusie3: I've addressed most of your notes here, and eliminated the marriage list and converted it into prose. I've tried to find as much as I can on the critical reception of Turner's films, but it is difficult to track down information pertaining to some (specifically in regard to mentions of Turner's performances themselves, exact box office receipts, etc.) In regard to Turner's training, again, there is little discussion/published material on this; she was a product of the studio system, though I've found no information regarding her acting style, method, etc. I'll look some more and see if I can find something about this arena of her career. Let me know if you find any pressing details I've missed; there are still a few things that could use brushing up I'm sure. --Drown Soda (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Great work! I'll try to take a closer look next week, but this article is definitely close to FA. Have you asked any particular editors to review it? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
@TrueHeartSusie3: I have made posts on talk pages on a couple of WikiProjects looking for editors, but so far no one has expressed interest. --Drown Soda (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Tentative Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now...

  • Why using bold for her name in body of text? Should be italics or double quotation marks...
  • James Agee of Time magazine was critical of Taylor's performance, and noted... - Taylor has not been mentioned previously.

Overall looking good. The article has 53kb of prose and shouldn't be any bigger. The article does a good job of trying to cover all work and adding enough detail so it doesn't come across as listy. The personal life is so intertwined with her career that it makes sense to thread it through chronologically. I think we're nearly there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: I believe I've addressed these two concerns in previous edits (the bold and the quote confusion). --20:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it seems comprehensive and is a nice read, so I think we're over the line. Not that familiar with Lana Turner hence support dependent on others. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP comments[edit]

One minor point, one slightly larger question:

  • The Manual of Style says to format the dates was 2016–2017, not 2016–17
  • I hate seeing partial lists of films in articles when most (or all) have already been written about. On what basis were those films selected? You should mention the rationale or it will leave the article open to people adding the film they just saw on TCM. Alternatively, just drop the whole section off to the list and add a link to it, rather than select things without rationale. - 213.205.194.145 (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the partial filmography as it doesn't entirely serve a purpose. Per the dates & MoS, are you referring to the years in the subheaders? (i.e. "1937–39: Discovery and early work")?
  • There are several points where the mos should be stuck to, particularly Wikipedia:Logical quotation, where there seems to be some changes needed.
    • I changed a couple but was reverted by User:Jeremy Butler. Perhaps he should look at the mos, rather than third-party style guides? - 213.205.194.191 (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry. I've been editing Wikipedia for over 13 years, but I did not know that English Wikipedia prefers the British style of punctuation (aka, "logical" quotation). I undid my reverting of your edit.--Jeremy Butler 12:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The image captioned "Turner and second husband Stephen Crane at Mocambo, February 1943" should be on the left so the pair look into the page, not out of it.

- 213.205.194.191 (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it standard to position images based on which direction the subjects are looking? I have no problem changing that and it does look more sensible, but this is the first I've heard of that being suggested in an article. --Drown Soda (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is suggested in MOS:IMGLOC, "It is often preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text." It is not mandatory, but seems logical and aesthetically pleasing. 213.205.194.147 (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know; I made this change yesterday and have rearranged/replaced some photos with ones that are more appropriate/pertinent to the text & trajectory of her career. --Drown Soda (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes[edit]

@Drown Soda: Are you still tending to this nomination? I see you are editing the article, but you should respond and follow up with reviewers here as appropriate. Otherwise, we can't monitor the progress of the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 11:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: apologies for the delayed response. As you pointed out, I have been tending to the article and periodically reviewing the comments and suggestions here. --Drown Soda (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from nominator[edit]

Hello all; wanted to let everyone who has provided input thus far that I appreciate it. At this point I believe I have addressed the issues/inconsistencies and other points raised by the above contributors and have hit something of a wall with the article (in other words, I don't think I can take it any farther, nor do I think it really needs much else in terms of content). I've pored through it many times now over the last couple of months since the nomination and feel it's probably in the best shape it's been in yet (largely thanks to input provided from other editors here). If there are other outstanding issues that would prevent an FA promotion, I'm happy to look at them. Thanks again. --Drown Soda (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure why this review has stalled but clearly it has, and it still has a way to go to achieve consensus to promote, despite your efforts. Given that, and the length of time it's been open overall, I don't see an alternative to archiving. I'm not sure a Peer Review would get you more in-depth commentary than you've had here but it might generate wider interest, and when you re-nominate at FAC you can ping any PRers as well as those who've commented here to let them know it's back. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Lana_Turner/archive1&oldid=853948864"