Talk:Anna May Wong/Archive 1

Christian Science
Why is she in the category Cristian Science Monitors? The article never mentions her faith. does anyway have a source on this? rydia 05:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's members, I don't know if she was connected to the paper. And yes I do have sources. To start UCLA and Classic images. The second states Anna lived quietly. She was a Christian Scientist practitioner, and she continued to study philosophy. She believed in reincarnation and wished her epitaph to read, "I died a thousand times. Granted this would indicate she was a bit unorthodox in her Christian Science. I had other sources too. Added to that Wikipedia often avoids mention the religion of actors/actresses unless it's very important to the article. However her role as a Chinese-American in film and her sometimes difficult personal life is the main thing of interest with regards to her. Also I'm not remotely a CSer.--T. Anthony 03:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Anna May Wong" in the German Wikipedia
The "Anna May Wong" article in the German Wikipedia is about to achieve "good article" status (and even more after that). Maybe it is worth a translation (which I personally hesitate to do because my English is not that good). --Stilfehler 15:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like a great article, Stilfehler. My German's not good enough to say for sure, but I think I see an error: "The Honorable Mr. Buggs" isn't really a Laurel & Hardy movie, though Oliver Hardy, and regular L&H co-star, James Finlayson do appear in it. And the English title of the one Anna May Wong did appear in is | Why Girls Love Sailors. Other than that, great work! -- Rizzleboffin 05:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the hint! I will check this! --Stilfehler 14:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hays Code
The article implies that that silent films were under the Hays Code and its anti-miscegenation rules. But the Hays Code wasn't adopted until 1930, and wasn't enforced until '34 (see: Production Code). The finale to Buster Keaton's 1921 short, Hard Luck shows him with a Chinese wife and several children. -- Rizzleboffin 05:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well The Good Earth (film) was in 1937. I think she was kept from doing interracial roles in the silent era more due to informal restrictions rather than any actual code. Either way the Good Earth case is, I believe, the most famous one on that in her career and it would apply.--T. Anthony 11:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No question about The Good Earth case being because of the Hays Code, and mention of it certainly belongs in the article. There's also no question that she faced discrimination, restriction and type-casting during the silent era. But it looks to me like the article implies those earlier restrictions were due to the Hays Code, when they couldn't have been. -- Rizzleboffin 13:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You have a point. Go ahead and edit it to clarify what's meant.--T. Anthony 14:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Anthony. I didn't want to barge in & step on toes by making changes unannounced. Also, I was afraid if I started tinkering with that one sentence, it would lead to further & further changes... and it did. I did what I could, if anyone wants to change it, go ahead. I also found a good Time article and linked it. I think the article could use more work-- the German article looks like a good model. I might come back to the article later, but have a few other projects I'm working on first. -- Rizzleboffin 18:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tod Browning, Marlene Dietrich, Toll, Drifting, Thief, Best-Dressed, AMW Productions
It's a bit strange that the article mentions that she "reportedly was a mistress of film director Marshall Neilan." If you're going to mention one of her scandalous affairs, why not mention the other famous stories: Tod Browning, Charles Rosher, Marlene Dietrich, and Greta Garbo? The Tod Browning affair was carried out in the open, and was a huge scandal at the time--more because of her age (16) and their outrageous drunken behavior together than because of racism.

Also, Douglas Fairbanks' Thief of Bagdad isn't mentioned except in the Partial Filmography list, and Tod Browning's Drifting isn't even in the Filmography. These seem like serious oversights.

While Toll was her first starring role, her supporting role as the slave girl in the blockbuster Thief was what made her a star. The role also essentially created the stereotypical Asian female character that would appear in thousands of Hollywood movies for decades to come.

This may sound like original research, but look at the biographies at IMDB:


 * Anna's big break came when she landed the role of a Mongol slave girl in The Thief of Bagdad (1924). This film put her in the position of being the first (and for a long time the only) Chinese-American to become a bona fide movie star.


 * Her big breakthrough after her auspicious start with "The Toll of the Sea" finally came when Douglas Fairbanks cast her in a supporting role as a treacherous Mongol slave in his Middle Eastern/Arabian Nights extravaganza "The Thief of Bagdad" (1924). The $2 million blockbuster production made her known to critics and the moviegoing public. For better or worse, a star, albeit of the stereotypical "Dragon Lady" type, was born.

Or Time's retrospective:


 * Against devastating odds, she made her name in silent films in the U.S., with Douglas Fairbanks in The Thief of Bagdad...

As for Drifting, although many sources say that Fairbanks cast her because of Toll, Alistair Cooke's Fairbanks biography says that he first saw her in a supporting role, which almost certainly refers to Drifting, and the Browning biography Dark Carnival says this:


 * [Browning's] casting her in Drifting was an important career break that would lead directly to an even bigger break--the slave-girl role opposite Douglas Fairbanks in The Thief of Bagdad the following year.

Drifting also produced her first rave reviews (although the movie itself didn't get great reviews), and the first attacks on Hollywood's supposed attempts to encourage miscegenation by casting such an attractive "foreign" actress.

Meanwhile, no mention is made of her clothing. She was repeatedly voted the best-dressed woman in Hollywood (Hollywood Magazine), in America (Time Magazine), and even in the world (the Mayfair Mannequin Society). While part of this may be because people were afraid to directly call her "beautiful" for fear of being called a "Chink-lover" by racists, and part of it was that she was the only famous actress who always appeared braless, there's no doubt that her fashion sense was amazing. (Not to mention that she wore the Louise Brooks hairstyle before Louise Brooks.)

Finally, there's no mention of Anna May Wong Productions. After the successful opening of Thief, Wong and partner Forrest B. Creighton created Anna May Wong Productions. Her goal was to make movies about Chinese legends (and, not coincidentally, create good leading parts for Asians); his goal was apparently to embezzle money. After the company dissolved in a sea of lawsuits, it was decades before anyone attempted the same thing. --75.36.128.247 13:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Lotus
How could MGM have offered her the part of Lotus, when that was a more romantic role than O-lan? Clarityfiend 13:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Formatting
I am loathe to fiddle with an article that has been worked on so well by so many. I find the quotations in boldface to be jarring, perhaps they should be italics or even block quotes for the larger passages? EraserGirl (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree-- there's been a lot of good work done here, but clearly a lot more needs to be done. Certainly, the quotes should not be in bold. The citations should use the templates. Also, the text needs to be more encyclopedic in tone. I've helped a little with the formatting, but the copy-edit is a larger task than I'm willing to bite off here. Good luck to whomever decides to take it up! Dekkappai (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you give me the go ahead I will make a pass at it. EraserGirl (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, but I didn't write any of it-- User:Thegingerone made the large, recent contribution. You might want to check with that editor, or otherwise just forge ahead. I'll keep watch on the article and do whatever touching-up I can. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont mind any format editing; Im not so good with it so anyone who is feel free to.--Thegingerone (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I took a run through. I cleaned up as much of the citations as I could, this article relies far too much on online sources. There are some perfectly wonderful books that aren't referenced. Online sources are too often wrong for my taste, and blogs posts aren't valid references at all. If someone were to actually reference the print media, many more citations could be validated and online sources replaced. The only other thing I noticed was that it seemed like one short article with a bunch of addendum pasted on to the end of it. Has anyone thought of rewriting it into a linear article and putting the events of the woman's life into chronological order? Let me know If I messed up something I haven't noticed, and I will fix it in a jiffy. EraserGirl (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Times is a pretty good source. I wanted very badly to use a book reference but I do not have one yet (ordered it :D).  Thanks for the clean!--Thegingerone (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, I can't wait to read your revision. I only have Picadilly at the moment, I wish more of her was on DVD. EraserGirl (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

References 2
I apologize if I blew up a bit there, Bzuk, and I have just a couple minutes to reply before I leave. I guess I left unspoken what my main concern is on the reformatting: Take a look at the Reference section of THIS version of the article. The citation format is wrong, but these citations are accurate. Now compare with THIS version. You'll see that I joined those raw, repeated bare-URL links into raw, named and joined URL links. The format is still atrocious, but the sourcing is still accurate, and the next step would have been to format it all properly. If you followed those URLs, you would see that each one, in the named-and-joined version, links to a separate page. Now take look at the current version of the article. Every page citation has been removed and everything has been joined into one citation. So, a lot of accuracy, verifiability has been lost somehow by combining all these citations incorrectly, I think. Anyway, good luck to all here and I'll look back in a week. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry-- had to leave quick and didn't get to finish my post there. I meant to mention that not only were all the page references linked togething into one citation: "Corliss," but that there are two separate articles. One is Anna May Wong Did it Right (January 29, 2005-- 3 pages) and the other is That Old Feeling: Anna May Win (February 3, 2006-- 4 pages). Both are in Time and both are by Corliss. Now, I prefer (strongly prefer) that a citation link to the exact page that is being used as the source. (Would we cite a a print source with just the title of the book or article without giving the page number?) But certainly the two articles should not be joined together as one reference. OK, I've blown off my steam... I look forward to seeing what progress has been made and contributing to the article next week. Regards to all. Dekkappai (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct and the appropriate changes will be made, little by little. Remembering that the original article is well-written as is, and only the referencing is an issue. Have a great holiday, mine is just ending in Mazatlan but I will take a look at the article as I find time. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC).

Corliss Time Article

 * I don't know much, but I know this is probably not right. If the full reference is listed in the bibliography, it is redundant to repeat the full reference in the Notes section. EraserGirl (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The general means of indicating a source is to use a citation (expressed as a "Note" in Wikipedia, and if the citation relates to a section, page or portion of a source, the full bibliographical record then appears in the Bibliography. FWIW, I'm on holiday as well in Mazatlan and have only a few minutes that I can sneak away every so often from sun, sand and strawberry dacqueris, but do not despair, all will come right. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC).

Revision
I've just posted the first step in a revision of the article based on a couple of smaller print sources. This is just a rough first-stab, more content and more polishing will come during the coming weeks, since I've just put my hands on the larger sources mentioned above, and a few others. (I usually do my editing off-line, and post in big chunks like this. I hope this not objectionable to other editors here.) About the format: If I've inadvertently changed anything through my style of formatting, anyone should feel free to fix it up to the style used in the article. I promise not to thrown a tantrum. Or at least I'll try not to :-)

The main things done so far were: 1) put the filmographies in first-to-last order per Wiki style, 2) tried to integrate into the body of the article some of the more random points accummulated (and sometimes duplicated) towards the end, 3) general copy-editing for more encyclopedic tone (removing or replacing words like "unfortunately," etc.), 4) tagged for verification ("fact" tags) unsourced bits-- though I commented these fact tags out-- they'll be removed once I or another editor provides a source.

One concern I have is that the pictures are rather uniform... All from the same photographer, all studio poses, and all taken at the same period in her life. I've seen images, such as Wong in parties while in Europe, working for Chinese causes, etc., which might be more historically interesting as well as providing more diversity. Stills of Wong in major roles like Thief of Bagdad should be appropriate as well, I would think.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to doing more work on this very interesting subject, and seeing contributions from other editors. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The photograhs were all found on WikiCommons but I will add a link to the files there and also include a screen capture from the Thief of Bagdad. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dekkappai, I think you are doing a great job so far. EraserGirl (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, EraserGirl! I'm finding the subject quite interesting and hope to continue work on this article for some time to come. Dekkappai (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

New image
MUCH better, Bzuk! I never liked the other as a lead either. I wonder if this one might raise objections though... If not, fine by me! Dekkappai (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point about the controversy that may arise and I did find a studio promo that might do, but nothing expressed sensuality as well as this image (found at the Library of Congress of all places). FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC).
 * I love the new photo, HOWEVER, my reservations are encyclopedic. As a definitive image it is inaccurate, it is lovely, but not appropriate. If you were to use ONE image to represent her inside the info box it should not be that one.  The info box is not an aesthetic choice, it should be referential.  I would choose the Van Vechten with the flowers or the one from Picadilly, as they are better images of her face. If you saw that in an encyclopedia, you could recognize her elsewhere.  EraserGirl (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Point well taken; let's leave it for the standard two days for other commentary. If it is still a bit of an issue at that point, I will change the image. FWIW, the new image would certainly fit as an illustration of her "image." Bzuk (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Well, I do think it's a better representation of her image than the old one is, and I hope we keep it in the article. But EraserGirl may be right that a better portrait/representation of her face would be best for the lead. Dekkappai (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the screen capture from Picadilly will work well, and I will re-insert the more provocative visual into the body as a lead-in to the "Image" section. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Looks very nice, Bzuk. Dekkappai (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then I made my contribution. Looks great. And the references are very respectable. You don't need my help here. EraserGirl (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Scroll
For the record, I think the scrolling citations are brilliant. EraserGirl (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't that a smart idea! I'm going to adapt it to the Amelia Earhart article I was working on recently. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC).
 * That's what I thought, but it only lasted a few minutes on the F-4 page since apparently it only allows those refs currently visible in the box to be printed out. --Red Sunset   16:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be a draw back for an article heavily footnoted, but I think it would work well for a biographical article where the footnotes are echoed in full in a bibliography. EraserGirl (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The format works well here and will continue to be useful whenever articles take on a large foot/end notes section. As long as the bibliographic record is present, a user could also change the format in preview and print out the notes section from that mode; a bit more complex and that alone may doom this format change. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Actually, I did it to the F-4's bibliography too, both elements are sizeable and seem to be begging for an elegant solution...never mind! What you suggest gets around the problem Bill, but not everyone would think of doing that. --Red Sunset   17:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you guys like the scroll (well, Bzuk denounced it as ugly and reverted, so I thought it was already gone) --Appletrees (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * and then I came to my senses, took a another long look and saw its value; maybe not everywhere but for certain applications. FWIW, thanks for giving use a another "tool" for the toolkit. Bzuk (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC).

The scrolling reference list isn't allowable per REF. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Darn, just when I was going to make it a continuously scrolling slide show. FWIW [[Image:Animated-Flag-Canada.gif|35 px]] Bzuk (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC).

Filmography page begun
Personally, I do not like the use of a filmography page because I feel it adds another layer of complexity to a topic. However, the page was nonetheless created and I invite comments about its use or value. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC).


 * There are about 150 stand alone filmography pages on WP, whereas I don't think her is long enough to demand a page of its own, I am partial to filmography pages for segregating extensive lists. Embedding them wastes space and can make the original article much too long. I just had this fight with someone who wanted to immediately delete a filmography I created that had over 250 titles and 4 columns of data, embedded in a page it would have overwhelmed the article and doubled the size.  As for the Anna May Wong filmography, I think its acceptable considering the original article is long and involved and the filmography page itself looks attractive.  I do miss having a tiny list of notable films following the biographical section. Let's say I am indifferent to it. EraserGirl (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comments and although I have also created sub-directories and sub-articles, this particular one was iffy as it did not really warrant a new page, and it was not discussed on the talk page which, as you know, has been used extensively in the "work-in-progress". I would go either way but did want people interested in this article to have a say. It took a bit of a struggle to put back the images that were part of the filmography section and even then I am not entirely pleased with the effort. I think the last point you made is very telling and that only having a tagline is not sufficient and a brief listing of significant or landmark films is appropriate. Again, I wish that the change would have been discussed first but now that it is made, let's adapt. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Actually, I'd considered adding to the filmography-- stage roles, etc.-- but held off on it because the article is already fairly long, and still has a long way to go... I also prefer to have a filmography in the main article, as long as it doesn't overwhelm that article. I think we can add more to Anna May Wong's though, enough to warrant a stand-alone. Dekkappai (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If additional work on the article does not increase its size significantly, it can always be put back. That is the wonderment of a dynamic database. Btw did anyone ask FredR why he thought it needed to be done? perhaps he has a thought. EraserGirl (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Ooohh I like that. I'm stealing it. EraserGirl (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm trying a little something with my Yakima Canutt article, that may be useful here. His filmography is really long, so I just excerpted his biggest pictures and added them as ' most notable films' right next to the link for the complete list.  I find that it oddly satisfying. EraserGirl (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Satisfying, without being filling. I think we might run into POV issues though, with "most notable films". Who says they're the "most notable"?... Maybe "Selected filmography?" "Partial filmography?"... Or maybe there's a better title? Dekkappai (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

FredR's radical deletion of the minor filmography attachment that followed the filmography link should have been discussed. The removal of the complete filmography to a separate page was NOT discussed and we lived with it. If my conversion of an awkward paragraph to a nice list bothered some, I apologize. I have been in tech writing for 20 years and I prefer lists. I propose from this point on Major revisions to format be discussed, we have too many cooks and we are playing nicely, lets keep it that way. EraserGirl (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and we more-or-less discussed your partial filmography list here last night. I, for one, think it's completely appropriate. While we're on the subject, does it bother anyone else that FredR, while making at least one undiscussed major change, never leaves an edit summary? Dekkappai (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not good etiquette; even a simple "tweak" is better than nothing and shows some thought for other editors. I also think the idea of a "Partial" (or "Selected") filmography is appropriate when there is a dedicated filmography page. --Red Sunset   19:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Me, being the one who invented the word "tweak" and I want residuals, line up at the front, cheques in place. But seriously, good editing and especially major revisions should get an airing before the dirty laundry is hung out. Did that make any sense to people? Bzuk (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC).

TOC box
Left or right? I know the standard is normally to the left and I did change it to this position temporarily in preview mode but there is a reason for the previous editor User:FredR to use this format. At present, there is a sizable gap and large "white space" that does not harmoniously fit the remainder of the page. What say you? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Just use the usual setting. It does not get in the way of anything on the left. See WP:TOC. Snowman (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Well, first off, I'm pretty sure the Table of Contents box can be shortened. While working on the article, I've been trying to integrate into the body of the article most of the sections that were tacked on after the biography. I'll probably do some work on the article (offline) tomorrow, with the goal of taking out the "Other celebrity milestones" section and the whole "Racism" section, and integrating the material into the main text. Also, I doubt we need "Notable roles" to be a subheading under "Filmography" when the filmography has been taken out of the article... Also, the lead section will probably be longer once the body of the article has been put more into shape. I noticed in passing a mention of a "two paragraph lead." Is this a standard? During the two Good Article reviews I've undergone, the reviewers advised me to lengthen the leads so that they sufficiently summarize the entire article. if this is done, the white space problem will be resolved. Dekkappai (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a compromise, let's try the TOC both ways and see which one works best? As for the Notable roles, the reason for my writing them out is that many editors discourage "lists" and routinely revert them as "trivia lists" so I studiously avoid them. Erasergirl, can you live with a short paragraph which incorporates your titles and leading roles? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Speaking for myself, I much prefer Erasergirl's truncated filmography list. I just don't think it needs to be a subheading under Filmography. I think it can just be listed after a "Main article: Anna May Wong filmography" note. Dekkappai (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the heading needs to go, but as I said before, lists are discouraged. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC).
 * But even filmographies as lists are discouraged? I can't see rewriting every filmography on Wikipedia into prose... Trivia lists are a different matter. I think Manual of Style (lists of works) applies in the case of a filmography, and I've never seen any objections to one-- and I've done many filmography lists. Dekkappai (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not filmographies but the use of short lists such as the notable list used in this article are discouraged and I have noticed a number of zealous editors who chopped out short lists as "trivial information." Filmographies and sub-articles do not qualify as trivial.
 * To me the white space gap looks a moderate size and seems not to disrupt the page. Snowman (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ? It is noticeable or else I wouldn't have noticed it. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC).
 * I think Bzuk's noticing the white space invalidates the statement... But again, I don't think it's much to be concerned about. It'll resolve itself as the article is worked on. Stepping out into the real world for now. See you all on Saturday. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you mean "validates" because invalidates, well, invalidates the comment. Bzuk (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC).
 * I do not known what your friend meant to say. The issue is about the TOC box disrupting the page and not if the white space is noticeable. In comparison to many other pages the white space gap seems not unduly large. Has anyone noticed the white space gap on "AE" page, which is more than twice the size of the white space here? Snowman (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Lists are discouraged? Look do what you want I'm just an opinionated spectator, but you aren't going to get me to swallow that. It's illogical, one third of WP's output are lists. Everything is lists, notes, references, bibliographies, external links, all filmographies are by definition lists. I look at dozens of WP articles, most of them are all lists. EraserGirl (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach, all I am saying is that some editors are vigilant in patrolling lists. See: Trivia sections where short lists are often considered as trivia. However, lists are not always trivial as you have already rightly pointed out. The filmography, lists of notes, bibliographies are all exempt from this cautionary note. That is why I wrote out the paragraph rather than making it a list; I simply got tired of fighting the "slash and hackers" that arbitrarily excised these sections as mere "trivia." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Sorry I had to duck back into reality last night, but I'm here again now. I can see where you're coming from Bill, but don't let the "slash and hackers" influence your own good judgement ("tweak" cheque in the post BTW).
 * My initial comment re the TOC box on the right was that to me it disrupted the page and made it look untidy even though it did reduce the whitespace, but the revised shortened TOC combined with the slightly expanded lead has balanced things nicely – good work. Secondly, in response to Dekkappai's comments on the lead, Wikipedia:Lead section states that it can comprise up to four paragraphs depending on the article's size. My last point is regarding the info box and EG's remark somewhere concerning Wong's name appearing in Chinese before English: a few weeks ago, an anon changed it from "infobox actress" to "infobox Chinese actor and singer" (obviously having not understood that she was in fact American) which can soon be rectified. --Red Sunset   19:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent revisions
Although at first blush, these changes may seem excessive, and please feel free to delete, they are the product of the discussions above and incorporate the many ideas that have been expressed about layout, format, use of photographs (you may have to look at the image file on the Picadilly image to see why it has been changed, it now appears with the Filmography section) and other considerations. I am not perfectly happy with the infobox image but it would be acceptable as a public domain image and would not run into hassles about its use in the infobox. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Visually, I think it looks fine, but I do have a question. Since she was NOT born in China, why does her name written in Chinese precede her name written in English? Just a thought but when i see a name written in another alphabet I assume it is because that's how their birth name was written in the country they came from. She was an American of Chinese lineage, not Chinese, therefore emphasis should be on the Latin spelling. EraserGirl (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, I think the name actually appeared that way in earlier incarnations and I cannot recall who made the change. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC).
 * See comments in previous section. --Red Sunset   19:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about throwing out the Chinese name infobox. She was in fact born with a Chinese name, "Anna May" was a nickname/stagename. I don't think the infobox implies Chinese citizenship, but only that her name was Chinese... About the new main picture: It's OK, but no more than that. I really like the Picadilly one best, and it's too bad that rule-making trumps aesthetics here... On the other hand, I'm still looking at the article as a work-in-progress with a long way to go. A nicer PD image is probably hidden away out there somewhere waiting to be found even as we speak. Dekkappai (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't implying we remove anything, merely flip the anglo name above the Chinese character version - or perhaps include a phonetic spelling. EraserGirl (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See the challenge on the Hurrell image as well. I think we can re-import the Picadilly image later after it appears as the primary picture in the film article, but then again, that was the original complaint. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
 * (in response to EraserGirl)-- Right... Though the English name is on the top of the box... I've never worked on an Asian American subject before, so I don't know if there is a standard way to handle this. I see Philip Ahn uses two infoboxes, a general Actor template, and a Korean name template below that. But this is a specific "Chinese actor" template, and she really wasn't a Chinese actor, was she? Or was that the point you were making above? :-) Maybe we can do this then: Actor template above Chinese name template, and see if it generates a wave of protest or not. Dekkappai (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, the entire point is moot. Apparently it is hard coded into that particular brand of info box that you can't move the datafields around. When I see the Chinese characters first, I automatically assume the person was born elsewhere, I'm sorry maybe that's just me. it was just nitpicky anyway. I retract my concern. Thanks for considering it. EraserGirl (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No-- I think it's a valid consideration: Putting in a generic actor box followed by Chinese name. I'll ask around and try to get other input. Dekkappai (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK-- I just replaced the "Chinese actor" template with "Actor" and "Chinese" templates. I asked an editor in China-related articles (coincidentally, the editor who created the "Chinese actor" template), and he expresses no strong opinion on which template is used for Wong. Also I removed the Chinese characters from the body of the text, figuring that since they're in the name template, they're redundant there. If there are any strong objections, we can always change it back. Dekkappai (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Another revision
I did some work on the article offline yesterday, and have posted it. I saw that there was some editing done yesterday, and have tried to integrate these changes into the new version. If I've mistakenly messed something up, left something out, or changed something radically, it was done mistakenly, and please feel free to fix it. A couple changes may need comment: 1) I've taken out all statements that she was not a U.S. citizen. This mistake apparently got into the article because one of the online sources said that Chinese could not become naturalized U.S. citizens at the time. Wong herself and her parents were citizens-- as both major works in my possession on the actress attest-- but her immigrant grandparents were not. 2) Perhaps a minor point, but I changed "Many Asian actresses have been acclaimed since..." to "Other Asian actresses...". The source cited does not say "many," but-- incorrectly I think-- says that there were none acclaimed until recent years. (This ignores an Academy award in the late '50s, I believe, to Miyoshi Umeki, and other noted actresses like Nancy Kwan and France Nuyen-- but not enough, I don't think, to say "many"). I don't like the idea of putting in a list of actresses of Asian descent who have achieved some level of acclaim in U.S. media, as that would constitute OR and possibly POV, but I trust a statement in a source will be found that adequately explains the situation, and we will cite that. 3) I've changed this a while ago, but in many lesser sources-- not the two big biographies-- Wong's father is, I believe, rather stereotypically portrayed as a ultra-conservative authoritarian. But consider the facts: He let a 14-year-old daughter go off on her own to act in Hollywood. Would a European American father, even today, be portrayed as "ultra-conservative" for being a bit protective, and even strict? I don't think so, and, again, the two main biographies I'm using for editing here take this into consideration. 4) Somehow it got into the article that the reaction to Wong by Chinese (in China) was so negative that she was practically driven out of the country, and prvented from visiting her father's home town. This is false. There was negative criticism of Wong in China-- I'll put more on that in later-- but there was also a lot of positive reaction, and, in fact, she did visit her father, her siblings, the family, etc... And she left with very positive feelings about China.

There may be some more changes I've made that may need explaining, I can't think of them offhand, but, again, this is a work in progress with a lot of work to come... Dekkappai (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity
Undoubtedly it's important to determine Wong's ethnicity at the start of the article, and the "Early life" section describes her more-recent ancestry in some detail leaving no doubt in anyone's mind, but two sentences into the second paragraph I found myself wanting to skip to the next section! Perhaps there's a bit too much related detail: what do other editors think? --Red Su<font style="color:#DD0000;">ns<font style="color:#FF0000;">et   21:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC) (previously omitted signature)
 * Well, as the editor who added that paragraph, obviously I'm biased for it. I didn't have in mind that I was describing her ethnicity when writing that, but that I was giving some family history. This history, and the family's home town becomes important later in the article, first when her father returns in 1934, and then when Wong visits the place and the family in 1936. Hodges does go into quite a bit of detail on the family in China (apparently he visited the place and found the family quite cooperative with him, unlike the remaining family in the U.S.) I did have reservations that it may be too much for an encyclopedia article, but, personally, find it interesting, and, like I say, it does have importance in the article, and in Wong's life, later on. Dekkappai (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough Dekkappai, putting it like that I see your point. A case of several 'wongs' making it 'wight' LOL! --Red <font style="color:#AA0000;">Su<font style="color:#DD0000;">ns<font style="color:#FF0000;">et   21:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Red Sunset. I just read through it, and it is a bit of a long slog... I'll see if I can trim it down tomorrow. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just trimmed this section down a little, and tried to tighten it up so it just gives the information which will be relevant to Wong's life and the article later. Still open to suggestions on how to improve it. Dekkappai (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Final touches
As soon as this article achieves some form of end point in development and has achieved a measure of stability, I would like to propose it for a Good Article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Good idea, Bzuk-- and this is a goal. I think the article still has quite a lot of work to be done on it before we're ready for a GA review though-- more explanation of the Good Earth incident, more description of her later film work, more criticism from China and Asian-American sources (especially from the '60s and '70s when her image was decidedly out of favor), also her serving as something of a symbol in literature and film-- I believe David Cronenberg's version of M. Butterfly uses an image of Wong, which gets comment in one of our sources not yet cited in the article... etc., etc., etc. Also better organization of the article as a whole... But GA review is certainly a target. Dekkappai (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You and the gang will get there; this has almost been a "textbook" case of editors collaborating and sharing resources! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC).

The intro
First I want to congratulate all the editors that have laboured on this article. It's looking great and definitely FA material. This is one of the articles that I've always had in the back of my mind to improve, but never got around to it because of my short attention span on WP. Having said that, I wanted to call attention to a couple of sentences in the intro: While I agree with this sentiment, it is ultimately a matter of opinion. Is there a better way to present this in a less POV manner? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is all the more remarkable considering the racist times in which she worked. Other Asian actresses have been acclaimed since, under less adverse conditions, but none have reached Wong's level of success.
 * Many thanks for the input, Hong. Like you, I've had this article in the back of my mind for a while, and got spurred into action on it, for some reason, a couple weeks ago. Anyway-- About the introduction, I'm not at all happy with it as it stands now, but I've intentionally pretty much ignored it. My thinking on introductions is that they should be written last, as they should summarize the article, and that implies that the article needs to be in a more-or-less finished state. And I think this article still needs a lot of work. Yes, I completely agree with your thoughts on those particular sentences... If no one else beats me to it, I plan to either put them in more NPOV format, or to source them. Dekkappai (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Image
While searching for a nicer PD image, I came across this cartoon from Punch, which editors here may find amusing. :-) Dekkappai (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting snapshot of a historical period, Anna May certainly was an iconic figure to land on the pages of Punch. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Commons gallery
I organised the Commons gallery a little and added more pictures from the Carl Van Vechten collection. They are all in the public domain. There are probably many more public domain pictures of Anna May out there, it's just a matter of finding them and verifying they're in the public domain. It would be great if we can find a collection of her public domain movie stills. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right-- I looked through the Van Vechten/LOC images, and none of them really "grabbed" me like the Picadilly one... But unless a better lead image can be found, I suppose the present one is fine. Strike up one more loss for Wikipedia and one more win for The Law I guess... Dekkappai (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Collections of photos
Found a collection of Anna May photos at Yale ( search for "Anna May Wong"), but it doesn't say they're in the public domain. Some actually say they can't be reproduced without permission. Some of them are actually taken by Van Vechten, but I think they are not in the public domain, unlike the collection the Library of Congress owns. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Also found a small collection at New York Public Library -. But according to their website: "However, as the physical rights holder of this material most of which is in the public domain for copyright purposes, the Library charges a usage fee if images are to be used in any nonprofit or commercial publication, broadcast, web site, exhibition, promotional material, etc." Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anna May Wong re-entry document
Great find! I found Anna May's US re-entry application. These applications were used during the Chinese Exclusion era by Chinese Americans to re-enter the US after having left the country. It's hosted in the National Archives and Records Administration. But I can't figure out what the access permission on it is.
 * http://www.nara.gov/research_rooms/pacific/anna_may_wong.html

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good find, with another picture of Anna May that is likely useable although it is again a 1935 image. Some of the fascinating details on the form are a list of her identifying features. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Any luck figuring out what the permissions are for that image? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 12:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect just like a passport image. Since it is in the national archives, it is a US government document and hence the property of the US people: public domain. The reason the government makes us supply the pictures is because they are cheap, not because the images belong to us. BTW WICKED cool find. EraserGirl (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes-- very interesting document. This one, and her first exit application is reproduced in (I believe) the Hodges book. These are nice, front-facial portraits which might be better than the current lead, and the one that is linked here is a bit more "movie star"- looking than the earlier one (1927, I believe), which is pretty "Driver's license-picture"-looking. Great job in finding these images, Hong! Dekkappai (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Browse around at the links I provided in the above section. A few of those photos are more "candid" than "studio".  She looks different in them (in my opinion) because she's not made-up for studio photograhy.  More like everyday girl beautiful than movie star beautiful.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point about it being in the PD because it's US-government-produced. I think I'll add it to Commons later and slap a PD tag on it. I'll post here again once I do. Hopefully you are right and the image won't get deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Goverment documents are paid with our tax dollars and hence belong to us. Why do you think they put these things out on the net for free? IF they could charge for it, they certainly would. EraserGirl (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Karen Leong's China Mystique (which I hope to work through tonight and integrate into the article later) has a reproduction of Wong's certificate of U.S. citizenship, issued in 1924, when she was leaving the port of Seattle. It's labeled "Courtesy of National Archives and Records Administration, San Bruno, CA"-- if that helps. On a personal, and aesthetic note, Hong-- I too prefer "everyday girl beautiful" to "movie star" beauty, but this is Anna May Wong, legendary symbol of movie-star glamour, we probably want to present her public image. Just my thoughts... Dekkappai (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if we could work THIS picture of Wong with Paul Robeson and Méi Lánfāng into the article... Sources mention that she befriended and supported Robeson and other African American performers in her years overseas... There's so much interesting info on her, that it's hard to decide what to leave out sometimes... Dekkappai (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Usually I start excising the things that are just interesting and do not have an impact on the life. Experiences that helped mold who they are and what they produced are integral. If her friendship resulted in an event or a work product or changed their outlook on life afterward then by all means stick it in. EraserGirl (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright I've uploaded the image to Commons -. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that a light I see?
at the end of the tunnel? Or am I just getting antsy to move onto another project? :-) I've just posted a new version. The goals here were to integrate information from Karen Leong's The China Mystique, more from the big Hodges & Chan bios-- with a particular eye to replacing as much of the Time article citations as I could. (They are fine articles, but I think the article was too reliant on them since we have two major bios on the actress.) I think the article is heading into the home-stretch. I have one more article I want to read for data/opinions with which to salt & pepper the article-- the Wang, Yiman article (Yes, Bzuk-- the anon edit was correct, I don't know where the "Bao Weihong" name came from, but I'll look around. It might be the editor's name, or it could be to a source I've since misplaced.) I've trimmed a lot of what seemed to be fannish trivia (mainly from the Time articles), especially on Wong's love-life and fashion. I may have taken out a bit much, but I'll look around for more "encyclopedic" references to these two important aspects of Wong's career. I hope to have the article in a more-or-less finished state by the end of the week. Maybe we can allow another week to weed out typos, fix up grammar & style, etc., then submit it for GA? Dekkappai (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You have done a lot of heavy lifting, and it looks terrific, I am jealous. I think you need to take a break and celebrate, have a cookie, have two - have cookie ice cream. You did good. EraserGirl (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Great job, D. I'll scan through it for possible clerical and editorial issues. In the meantime, do list it for GA. We can do clean-up while it's sitting in the GA nom list. Usually it takes at least a couple of weeks for a GA reviewer to get to a new listing, especially with a large article like this. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC).
 * (EC)Thanks, EG & Hong. I think we should hold off on the GA nomination at least until I've read through the Wang Yiman article on Wong & "yellowface"-- it may give some important bits to be added and/or changed. That should just take a day or so. I'm not much of an image/format person, but I do think the ones we have should be arranged a little better. I just stuck the George Hurrell portrait into "Move to Europe" to save it after I removed the "Image" section. (Also, I think a GA nomination gets thrown out if one of its images is up for deletion-- so we might want to wait for that to clear.) One minor thing you might be the one to ask about, Hong-- I've dabbed "Chungking" to "Chongqing" in the discussion of Lady from Chungking-- do we want to use the older English spelling or the current one there?
 * PS-- I see Bzuk's beat me to the draw, so we're up for GA-- thanks to all who have worked on this, and good luck with the nomination! Dekkappai (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about adding to the article even during a GA review, all is good. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC).
 * OK, thanks, Bzuk. :-) Dekkappai (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"According to some sources..."
The leading sentence in the "Early career" section may be problematic: What are these sources? I think a little bit of clarification and a little less ambiguity might be required. If not the GA reviewer, I think FA reviewers (when we do bring it to FA) will probably ask about this. The source given for this is Wollstein. If anybody has access to this source, can you clarify? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * According to some sources, Wong had appeared in amateur theatrical productions before her first screen role.

Same problem with another sentence in the same section: Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC) If "some sources" is the best that we have, we could say that's what our sources say: Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Some sources claim that Neilan and Wong were prepared to elope to Mexico, but were stopped by anti-miscegenation laws.
 * Both those "some sources" come from the citations. The first one from the Wollstein article, he literally says "Some sources." I see the second one is also sourced to the Wollstein article, but, unlike the first one, it's repeated in several other sources. I'd say the first-- about the early amateur productions-- could go, if you think it's problematic. The second one is a story that is repeated often in the Wong story, so I'll see if I can get a better source for it. Thanks again. Dekkappai (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * God bless Google. I don't have the Hodges book with me, but here is our source. I'll touch it up in the article. Dekkappai (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * According to XXXXXX, some sources claim that...
 * Well, I checked both major bios-- Hodges & Chan-- and could not find mention of any pre-Red Lantern performances. Since it's potentially problematic, not very well sourced, and really not very important in the article, I say, unless there are any objections, we just remove it. I'll do so now. Dekkappai (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Bitter Tea of General Yen
No source is given for this. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wong turned down the role of a villainous spy in Frank Capra's The Bitter Tea of General Yen.
 * I'm pretty sure I got that from the same source in the previous sentence-- the Wollstein article. I'll double check & source it (with a better source if I can find one) later today. Dekkappai (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, changed it and sourced it with Hodges. Hodges doesn't say she turned it down because it was objectionable-- as the Wollstein article implies-- but instead implies she lost the role to "Yellowfacing." This can't be right, since the role went to Toshia Mori... Anyway, she was apparently up for the part, but didn't play it, for whatever reason... Dekkappai (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way-- I checked several books on Frank Capra and his films, but found no mention of Wong's scheduled role in the film. Dekkappai (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Same, I checked four different sources on Capra and no mention was made about casting the role to either Wong or Mori. Lots of stuff on all the other casting decisions, however. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC).

"Yellowface"
I've been putting quotes around the word yellowface. Though I'm not sure if we need to do that, especially since it looks a bit repetitive since the word appears so many times in the article. Does anybody know of any relevant WP guideline or policy on this? Specifically on using quotes repeatedly for the same word in an article? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Usually the first mention is sufficient. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC).
 * You just beat me to it Bill.--Red <font style="color:#AA0000;">Su<font style="color:#DD0000;">ns<font style="color:#FF0000;">et   18:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Geez Louise
Hi, when you have a page that is 56 kilobytes long, it is best to cut it into shorter articles. I created the Anna May Wong filmography Page for this reason. You need to think about skimming the Anna May Wong article down, instead of how to enlarge it. FredR (talk)
 * At this moment I am not in favor of removing TEXT, however I think page numbers in the footnotes could be eliminated, hence combining many of the notes into singular references, this would condensed that section significantly. EraserGirl (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Big subjects demand big articles. About the footnotes: My philosophy for Wiki articles is that they're only as good as their sourcing. If there's a way to make the section smaller without sacrificing accuracy, I'm for it. If we're going to sacrifice accuracy just to cut the section down, I'm against it. For one thing, sourcing with just "Hodges" instead of citing the page number would harm verifiability very much, since the Hodges book is poorly indexed. And many of the smaller print articles are not indexed at all. Dekkappai (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Butting in here to say that Dekkappai is correct regarding page numbers. Per WP:CITE: "When citing books and articles, provide page numbers where appropriate.... Page numbers are especially important in case of lengthy unindexed books. Page numbers are not required when a citation accompanies a general description of a book or article, or when a book or article, as a whole, is being used to exemplify a particular point of view."  The length in kilobytes of an article en total is less important than its readable prose, which does not include references.  According to this tool, that number is only at 38.4.  No biggie. María ( habla  con migo ) 14:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see your point and agree. I am merely considering the POV of the casual reader, and such extensive referencing of one article can look redundant. I do want to belay the notion that just because an article is LONG, means it is a candidate for condensation. As long as an article is interesting and well written, who cares if it's long? EraserGirl (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, I get your point, EG. I've looked through the list of citations and wondered if there were a way to shorten it without harming accuracy too... Dekkappai (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless you wish to create sub-articles such as a cultural impact, it is not necessary to begin this process while the article is still being developed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC).

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Shanghai Express "Best-remembered"
I got the bit about Shanghai Express being one of her best remembered roles from a source, I know... The source describes how her film roles were neglected, and this film was one of her few remembered performances for decades, mostly because of von Sternberg's and Dietrich's participation in it... Anyway, I can't locate this source at the moment. Until/if I ever track down the reference, I suggest we just take out "one of her best-remembered film roles," It's not a crucial point anyway. Dekkappai (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox image
Is this image any good for the infobox File:Anna May Wong (passport style photograph).jpg. It is from her re-entry document. Was she excluded from USA in the 1930? Snowman (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a fabulous image for that propose..it is HER at the height of her beauty, not a role, no background, no flowers, no fancy lighting and in public domain - Delish. EraserGirl (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a plain photograph of her as a young woman. I will link it in, but would you find a place for the current infobox image, because I do not know where to place it. Was she forced to leave the USA int he 1930s? Snowman (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, HongQiGong and I considered this photo in a small discussion up above somewhere... We both like it as a picture (how many passport pictures look that good?), but I voiced the opinion that, since Anna May Wong is/was an international fashion/glamour icon, that the lead photo should reflect that image. Again, I have no objection to using it as the lead, but the question of whether it's the best one remains in my mind. However, if it is used, I think it needs to be better-captioned. It's reproduced in one of my sources (I hope I can track it down again), with a description as to the year and its reason. (She was never forced to leave the US, but-- in the 1920s-- Chinese American citizens were forced to have special documents prepared. This was the era of Chinese-exclusion, and a Chinese-American citizen who left the country and tried to re-enter without proper documentation risked losing citizenship.) Dekkappai (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the original artistic image be restored to the infobox. The passport photo could be included in the section (which I can not find) featuring the Chinese Exclusion era in the USA in the 1930s.  Perhaps, the infobox image was changed with too much haste, and I should have waited for your input. Snowman (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would like to suggest that we either use File:AnnaMayWong2.jpg, which shows her face much more clearly than the current picture, or File:Anna May Wong (Hurrell).jpg, which is a much more glamourous picture of her than the current picture. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Both of these images were at one time used as the infobox image with both being problematic. The Hurrell image was used temporarily but it is too stylized and does not represent a good picture of her face. The other image is a mess with all the flowers framing her face and detracting from the overall impression. Sorry, the best so far is the current one. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC).

Legacy section
It looks like the only GA-review concern left is over the "Legacy" section. This section gave me the most trouble in writing-- I think it's important that we have one, but how to go about it? I tried putting it in chronological order, which didn't work very well. Then I tried a version by "aspects" of her legacy. Which didn't work very well. Finally I tried a mix between the two, which is up now, and which doesn't work very well. I think the information I've gathered has the makings of a decent "Legacy" section, but perhaps I'm too close to it to see how it can be better put-together. EraserGirl or RedSunset-- Or any of the other editors-- if you see how it can be put into good shape, please feel free to do so. And feel free to cut out as much as you think needs to be cut. Again, thanks to all the editors who addressed the GA review concerns yesterday. Great job, all! Dekkappai (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "I think it's important that we have one, but how to go about it?"  why? EraserGirl (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is the only section I don't feel qualified to polish. I could work on the wording, but I am not very objective. I find Legacy sections too subjective and full of opinion - I like facts. I think that's my foible. When I finish with it there wouldn't be much left.  Anyone else want to tackle it?  EraserGirl (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dekkappai should tackle, I'll run interference. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC).
 * It's late here now but I've just had a quick stab at rearranging some of the info. It's nothing fantastic, but take a look here and see what you think. Mix it up as much as you want if you think its worthwhile! --Red <font style="color:#AA0000;">Su<font style="color:#DD0000;">ns<font style="color:#FF0000;">et   23:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To answer EG's "Why?" Above-- Because an artist doesn't work in a vacuum. They work within a culture which influences them, and on which, if they are significant, they have influence themselves. We have covered the overall culture's influence on Wong; and how she was perceived by later generations is an important part of her story too. I'm against the "in popular culture" sort of sections which are just random lists of trivial references to the subject. But the legacy of the subject's career-- good, bad, or non-existent-- ought to be mentioned, I think. Dekkappai (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that is a valid argument. But when I look up someone in an encyclopedia, the articles usually stop when they die. Personally I find it all very subjective. JMHO EraserGirl (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need more opinions? I think Red Sunset's done a pretty good job-- but it's still awkward. Anyone else say just leave it out? Maybe leave just the section on the recent Biographies? It would solve a lot of problems. Dekkappai (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Similar sections are common in high quality biographical articles, especially FAs. Anthony Michael Hall has an "In the media/Recognition" and Bette Davis has "Comments and criticism", for example.  Wong, being such a trailblazer in her field, is especially entitled to a section dedicated to her impact on culture and the legacy she has left behind.  I'd be disappointed -- as the reviewer and a reader -- to see it go completely.  My initial comment regarding the section was only that it needs to be somewhat condensed, with which I think Red Sunset has made a nice start.  Whichever way it goes, such debates can wait until the FAC, but for now you just need to pass GAN, right? :) María ( habla  con migo ) 00:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

True. It would may only have to recreated at a later date, as the move from GAN and FA would probably entail an expansion SOMEWHERE. Perhaps just RedSunset's rework would get us from this point, to the next rung. EraserGirl (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah HAH! There's that Shanghai Express was her best-remembered bit-- it's cited to Hodges in the current (at the page) Legacy section. I say we use Red Sunset's version without the sub-section headers. The only change I see it needs is "Among Wong's major film roles, for decades Shanghai Express alone retained mainstream..." because with the centennial and the new film festivals a wider body of her work, particularly Piccadilly has received re-appraisal, for the better. Dekkappai (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I took another stab at this. I took Red Sunset's and put it into paragraphs discussing 1) The impact of her career during her life, 2) How her films were remembered/forgotten 3), How her image became something of a literary symbol, and 4) the centennial re-examination of her life & career. Again, everyone is welcome to chip in on it. Dekkappai (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks EG-- Is it just me, or is "paragon" a bit flowery? Have a better word? Dekkappai (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For a woman born "frosted yellow willows" I think flowery is just fine, besides paragon has few synonyms. I took a swipe at those run on sentences and tried to make it flow a tad better. I also tweaked the tenses, feel free to tweak them back, but you have to stick with ONE, past or present. EraserGirl (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Bah. Danged roolz. Thanks, E.G. Much better. :-) Dekkappai (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice work on the tweakage and wordsmithing EG and Dekkappai, it has a better flow now, but I still think that I didn't manage to integrate the references to her gay community following and the Chinese Nationalist criticism very smoothly. However, taking María's comments into account, could these be dropped for the GAN? Also, maybe we should simply state that Wong was the subject of several poems and books, naming titles authors and dates, but cut out the descriptive comments that currently follow each one. Both actions would condense the section which seems to be necessary for the GAN, and that brings me to the point that EG made: would it need to be expanded again for FA? I reckon it would be useful at this point to have some input from María regarding what, in her opinion, would need to be addressed for the article to achieve FA status so we know where we should be going. --Red <font style="color:#AA0000;">Su<font style="color:#DD0000;">ns<font style="color:#FF0000;">et    18:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Red Sunset-- I think it looks pretty good now. I think the Chinese gov't/gay community thing was in one sentence before, which was pretty jarring. But the paragraph now basically names off how Wong was viewed by different communities, each sentence taking a different group, so it doesn't look awkard now. I suggest asking María if we've addressed her concerns, and if not, what else need be done. Dekkappai (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on Maria's talk page. Cheers. --Red <font style="color:#AA0000;">Su<font style="color:#DD0000;">ns<font style="color:#FF0000;">et   19:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

GA to FA
I'm not an authority by any means, but the criteria for GA and FA are not drastically different. The main difference is that FAC requires "elegant" prose and there is seemingly a difference between a content's broadness (GA criteria) vs. comprehensiveness (FA criteria). Both of these are the main issues that users face when bringing their article hot off its GA promotion to FAC. I don't think you guys will have an issue with this article being labeled non comprehensive; in fact, it's probably still a little too detailed in places for most FAC reviewers. As for the prose, although cutting it down 5k has done away with unnecessary detail in parts, it has made the writing clunky in places: unnecessary commas, beginning sentence with "And", not a big fan of "paragon", etc. The random "As an adult" sentence is still hanging around and there is also the matter of that huge section, "Return to Hollywood", which should definitely be cut in two; how did I miss that before? Another copy-edit (preferably from an experienced editor/regular reviewer at FAC) will help fix these things.

For now, however, the article is a definite GA. Well written, cited, beautifully illustrated, etc. Congrats! María ( habla con migo ) 20:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review and the suggestions which have greatly improved the article, María . And congratulations to all who worked on this article! Dekkappai (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations as well. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC).
 * Ditto --Red <font style="color:#AA0000;">Su<font style="color:#DD0000;">ns<font style="color:#FF0000;">et   21:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I propose we run the article through Peer review and then list it for FAC. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me Hong. I've never been beyond GA, so those who are more familiar with these processes, please lead the way. Did you get my question above about Asian American / American of Asian ancestry, Hong? It seems to me that if we have to dab to "Asian American," that's the term to use-- besides "American of Asian ancestry" being unwieldy. No big deal either way though. Dekkappai (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Congrats Dekkappai, Bzuk, Red Sunset Hong Qi Gong and all the cooks stirring the soup. EraserGirl (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

loose paragraph
I find this sentence :"As an adult, her religion was Christian Science,[4] and she loved reading on a variety of topics including Asian history, Lao Tzu and Shakespeare. Her hobbies included golfing, horse riding and skiing." looks very out of place where it is in the "Later Years" section. It justs sits there. I recommend perhaps moving it to the introduction section as it is too interesting to strike all together. EraserGirl (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Butting in again, but that suggestion goes against WP:LEAD; the lead section should be a summary of the entire article and must not include information that is not mentioned in the body of the article. If there is a more concrete timeline other than "as an adult" (did she convert? when? year?), then the information should go chronologically with where it fits best.  I personally think her hobbies, unless given context, are not truly necessary; religion is technically better regarded.  María ( habla  con migo ) 12:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, only significant aspects of her life are included, although a case can be made that her other interests included scholarship and outdoor activities which then allows some expansion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC).
 * True, I definitely agree. Personal/extracurricular activities give biographies some life, and I'm always for that.  You guys just need to provide context so it won't stick out like a sore thumb.  Back to the bleachers with me. :) María ( habla  con migo ) 12:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps creating another small section by combining it with "In both America and Europe, Wong had been seen as a fashion icon for over a decade. In 1934, the Mayfair Mannequin Society of New York voted her "The World's best-dressed woman", and in 1938 Look Magazine named her "The World's most beautiful Chinese girl."[68]" and any others tidbits about her. EraserGirl (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right-- that paragraph gave me trouble too. It's a legacy from an older version, and I too found it too interesting to remove. Couldn't context it though... If someone else can, please feel free to. About recent edits-- I'm not sure about a couple things. Isn't changing "Asian American" to "Americans of Asian ancestry" a bit unwieldy in an overly-PC-ish way, without being, to my knowledge, actually PC? HongQiGong-- if you're still watching this page, you might have an opinion on that. Also to answer a question in an edit summary-- She was brought up speaking Chinese (Taishanese) at home, English outside (and in school, hence the need for Chinese school.) And about Figueroa Street-- it's in Los Angeles, the city. "Los Angeles County" just seems downright wrong. True, L.A. is in L.A. Countr, but it's also in California, which is in the U.S.A., which is in North America, which is on planet Earth... I think you get the drift-- it's Los Angeles Anyway, I'll revert that, hoping that there are no hard feelings. Dekkappai (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify-- Figueroa Street does run outside the city into areas we would call "L.A. County," rather than just "L.A.", but the Wongs lived right in the city, near downtown/Chinatown area. Dekkappai (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

About "Asian American" vs. "American of Asian ancestry" - personally I don't see it as a big deal using one term over another. This is not a sociology or linguistics article, and certainly not an article on identity politics. Both essentially mean the same thing. Though I can imagine random editors coming to the article and changing it to "Asian American" instead since she is somewhat of a big deal for Asian Americans. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

One thing I would ask though - would articles refer to early black actors and actresses as "Americans of African ancestry"? I think that may be a good litmus test to use. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 13:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right-- I see your points. I was thinking about changing all the references to "white" Americans to "European American"-- an equivalent construct to "Asian-" and "African-" American. The Chan biography does this throughout the book, and in the intro he gives his reasons for doing this, and I think they are good reasons. But you're right, this is article is not on sociology or linquistics-- and if it were, I, for one, probably wouldn't be very interested in contributing to it. :-) And obsessing over the terms at the expense of the content would be counter-productive. Thanks for the input, and I guess we just leave it alone unless someone raises a big fuss over it. Dekkappai (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait...I'm European American now? did I miss a meeting? I thought I was still an Anglo Saxon-American. No offense children but I think we are starting to parse this into base molecules.  I think we should stick to 'common' contemporary usage and not try to be retroactively politically correct. During Wong's lifetime anti-Asian (or anti-Negro or basically anti-everyone else but me,) views where held by many white Americans.  In present day racist thoughts are the domain of a much smaller group and not limited to skin color. JMHO EraserGirl (talk) Beige American 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well sure, that was my point-- "Asian American" and "Chinese American" are more common, at least to my knowledge, than "Americans of Asian descent" and "Americans of Chinese descent." And it seems to me that "Americans of Asian descent" is the one which is retroactively politically correct... As a fellow Anglo Saxon-American, though, I'd point out that "white" is a very loose, and very loaded term, even if it is still in common usage. I do think there is valid reason to wonder how "encyclopedic" it is... Dekkappai (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
Should we archive this page up until the Legacy/Loose paragraph section since they seem to contain material useful for near future rewrites. EraserGirl (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure-- it's pretty lengthy, and reaching GA seems a good point at which to archive. Dekkappai (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Image
File:Anna May Wong (Hurrell).jpg; Is the Public Domain copyright tag correct? If it is incorrect, can the tag be corrected. Snowman (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

GAN review
This was fascinating to read; I'm truly pleased that such dedication was put into writing and researching such an important subject in cinema history. The article itself is well written for the most part, it follows the MOS and is factually accurate and verifiable as well as neutral and stable. It is certainly broad in its coverage and the images (most of which are either free or in the public domain) are lovely. I do have some suggestions on the prose:


 * The opening sentence is a little unwieldy. Stating that she was both the first "Chinese American movie star" and the first "Asian American star" seems repetitive, although I can see how they are different.  Perhaps reword the last part and relocate it?  "The first female Asian American celebrity (?), Wong... "✅
 *  Her career spanned the silent movie era, the advent of the talkies and television, as well as starring roles on the stage, and in radio: verb disagreement here as "spanned" and "starring" do not fit. This could be split into two sentences or maybe reworded as such: "Her career spanned the silent movie era and the advent of the talkies and television; she also appeared in starring roles on the stage and in radio." ✅
 * In Hollywood she acted with Marlene Dietrich in Josef von Sternberg's Shanghai Express, one of Wong's best-remembered film roles: terms such as "best-remembered" definitely require citation so as to not seem POV, but is this sentence even needed since Shanghai Express is already mentioned in the previous paragraph? ✅
 * Addressed repetition, but citation still needed . --Red <font style="color:#AA0000;">Su<font style="color:#DD0000;">ns<font style="color:#FF0000;">et   21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The last sentence of the lead bothers me. Rather than stating the obvious ("first Asian American star" is already repetitive), I think the examples ("three major literary works and major film retrospectives") can just speak for themselves. ✅
 * There is a lot of time spent of Wong's family, their origins, occupations, etc. If you're looking to trim info, that may be a good place to start -- we're writing Anna May Wong's biography, not her forefathers and mothers. :) ✅
 * Some trimming done. --Red <font style="color:#AA0000;">Su<font style="color:#DD0000;">ns<font style="color:#FF0000;">et   21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There were now two hills between the new home and Chinatown; this helped influence Wong to assimilate further into American culture: the way that this reads now, it sounds like the hills helped influence Wong to assimilate instead of the distance from Chinatown. How about "Two hills stood between the family's new home and Chinatown; this separation helped influence..."? ✅
 * she received her first leading role, and was officially "discovered" in the early Metro Technicolor movie, The Toll of the Sea: is "officially 'discovered'" necessary here? Isn't that what "first leading role" denotes? ✅
 * After this second breakout role... is there such a thing? Perhaps state the year instead for some context? ✅
 * It had become evident by now that Wong's career would continue to be limited by anti-miscegenation laws that existed all over the U.S. at the time. This is a good example of redundancies in the prose throughout; it isn't grammatically incorrect, but removing such wordiness can help remove some of the bulk in the article and stave off prose snobs in the future. "It soon became evident that Wong's career would be continuously limited by American anti-miscegenation laws." ✅
 * mostly white actors would play in yellowface": missing quotation mark. ✅
 * The New York Times, for example, called Wong "splendid" in her minor role in Forty Winks (1925).[34] Disappointed with Hollywood's treatment of her: it's confusing to have these two sentences back to back. One may be led to think that Wong was disappointed with such glowing reviews, which I know wasn't the case.  Give it context; what "treatment"? ✅
 * Reworded slightly. --Red <font style="color:#AA0000;">Su<font style="color:#DD0000;">ns<font style="color:#FF0000;">et   21:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Some copy-editing from non-involved editors would help eliminate some of the prose redundancies that I mentioned above, especially if you plan on taking this to FAC. All you need to concentrate on in order for me to promote, however, are the above concerns. Let me know if there are any questions/comments or if you need further clarification. Overall, this is a very detailed (perhaps overly so) article and I greatly enjoyed reading it. Great work! María ( habla con migo ) 14:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In the UK in 1929, Wong made what is today considered her finest movie, Piccadilly. This needs a source. ✅
 * In both America and Europe Wong had by now been seen as a fashion icon for over a decade: comma after "Europe". ✅
 * The "Legacy" section is bloated; much attention is paid to two different people's ideas of the three most important aspects of Wong's career. Rather than he said, she said, this section should deal in facts.  "Wong is remembered for" and not "So-and-so believes that Wong is remembered for."  A lot of this can be cut down drastically. ✅ I believe we did reduce the bloat. EraserGirl (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dekkappai, since I have not actually made any textural contributions, just voiced opinions, I could take a stab at smoothing this prose unless someone else feels they have a better handle on it. Just holler if I can help. EraserGirl (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Just taken a quick run through to cover most of the above points, but over to EG for polishing. --Red <font style="color:#AA0000;">Su<font style="color:#DD0000;">ns<font style="color:#FF0000;">et   19:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I will take a pass at smoothing the language but make no structural changes, I swear. Here's my Sandbox.EraserGirl (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You should remove the categories and similar categorizing templates from your sandbox version so it won't be taken for a duplicate article. Also, it would be helpful for me to affirm progression if contributors were to either strike my above comments or add ✅ beneath the individual bullet points when completed.  Again, I don't think a full copy-edit is needed in order to be promoted to GA status, so just let me know when the above has been adequately addressed.  Thanks, María ( habla  con migo ) 20:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you guys may find User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a helpful for tips in how to reduce prose redundancies. I think it should be required reading for all college students. :) If you have any questions, feel free to ask me.  María ( habla  con migo ) 20:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm only online for a few minutes today-- so I'll just poke my nose in here quick-- to say thanks to everyone addressing the concerns brought up in the review. I'll be happy to help with any work still needing to be done tomorrow. Dekkappai (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I bagged the idea of a sandbox version, every time I came back to paste stuff in, things had changed. I will just work 1 small section at a time, that should reduce edit conflicts and let people fix anything of mine they don't like right away. EraserGirl (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I polished down to Move to Europe section, but its late here, if ya'll don't mind I will finish the other half tomorrow. So be my guest if you want to take a pass at the top half. I have trouble seeing periods and commas on a backlighted screen. To make some room I have been trying to remove redundancies and information not directly related to the subject, but anything larger than a few words i merely commented out, in case someone disagrees with me. Quite a few paras were unrelated sentences grouped together, so it may LOOK longer, but really isn't. EraserGirl (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I finished what I could do, if anyone wants to unpolish my polish. I did comment out another paragraph that was completely about her family, but I moved the most important sentence in it to a later section. Dekkappai and Bzuk are going after the Legacy section. EraserGirl (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why does the text above need to have the strike-through line? Is the tick enough? I think that is is best that editors do not strike out other editors text. Snowman (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

assessments
Should we petition the other projects this article is part of for assessment? EraserGirl (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not EG; the input from further assessments, together with a peer review as suggested by Hong Qi Gong above and Maria on my talk page, would be invaluable in identifying the points that need to be addressed for FA. --Red <font style="color:#AA0000;">Su<font style="color:#DD0000;">ns<font style="color:#FF0000;">et   17:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review has been requested. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

An automatically generated review has been... err...  generated. Take a look - Peer_review/Automated/May_2008. (Compare that to the average number of comments generated for other articles, I'd say this article is doing pretty good!) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer reviews
I've tried to address all the points brought up at the two peer reviews. I'm not sure I did the ellipses right-- maybe someone can check those. Bzuk? Is this your area of expertise? I also broke an "Atlantic crossings" section off from the large "Return to Hollywood." If this is all done correctly, are we ready for the next step? Dekkappai (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC comments
I've addressed three of Rossrs' comments, but the other three require a bit more delving into the reference sources which I don't have. --Red <font style="color:#AA0000;">Su<font style="color:#DD0000;">ns<font style="color:#FF0000;">et   20:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Operatic career
Thank you to all who have collaborated on this article, it looks delightful! One area of subject matter, however, seems to be missing, unless I am simply missing it myself. In the "Late 1930s" section there is a photograph of Wong in costume for a performance of Turandot - yet her singing and operatic career are not mentioned (as far as I can tell - I admittedly did not read through the entire article, as I am currently pressed for time). I suspect that her activity in opera was not limited to Turandot, considering that at the top of the article she is listed as a singer. Anyways, thanks again for collaborating on this article, Iamunknown 16:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It was not Puccini's Turandot that she performed, but a stage/musical version, I believe. Her stage career is mentioned, though not gone into much detail because she was known more for her film work. Her operatic career, as far as I know-- and I'm pretty sure-- was non-existent. Dekkappai (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, shows how much I know. :( More info on her stage career would be appreciated (at least from me), but I would understand if little more were added. --Iamunknown 02:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought about this a little more. Would it be possible to clarify the caption? An example might be, "Carl Van Vechten photo portrait of Wong, in costume for a musical theatre production of the opera Turandot at Westport, August 11, 1937" (I don't have access to the source, so am deferring to your expertise) --Iamunknown 05:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been thinking along those lines since you brought up the question... I've checked, and it turns out it's actually a dramatized (non-singing) adaptation of the Puccini opera. I'll change the caption and source it later today. Thanks for the suggestion! Dekkappai (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)