Talk:Brandon Lee/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 02:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, this has been sitting here for long enough.

I will, as I usually do, print it out and then do a light copyedit (I don't think articles should fail because of those easily ixable issues) and then post my thoughts here. Give it a few days. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * First and foremost thank you for that. All the information here is accurate and neutral. The only three pieces of information I couldn't get in there due to lack of information or poor citations, but I know to be true.


 * 1. There was talk to cast Brandon Lee in the role of Johnny Cage in the film adaptation Mortal Kombat, most of the news outlet that mentions it bloat the whole story. Recently on YouTube video, a producer confirms there was brief talk of it.


 * 2. There is a rumor that Brandon Lee was to be cast in The Matrix. The directors denied it, but I can't find the interview where they deny it.


 * 3. Brandon Lee's image in goth culture. Very few articles approach it, and I felt I was out of my league to talk about it.

Thanks Filmman3000 (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey thanks for the efforts however I disagree on the intro, and the way trimmed. Lee didn't do a film with David Carradine but a TV movie.


 * I think some of the elements of his intro need to remain because they establish that American film studios were confident about him thus the production of his two first Hollywood films.


 * People get sensitive sometimes when debating, I know I do. So while disagreeing with the above I already fixed a few things. Based on your notes. So thank you.Filmman3000 (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, thank you for your patience.

I'm going to be upfront about this. I am failing this article ❌.

Most of the issues I found in going through a hard copy could be addressed in the usual week—a busy week, to be sure, but a week, if someone wanted to put in the effort.

However, at the end of the article I got to the references. They need far more work than one week could allow, as well as editorial decisions not my place to make. They are in atrocious condition; I am really stunned that no one seems to have taken even a cursory glance at them before the nomination.

There isn't a single one of the footnotes I don't have red ink on. A single one. Here's why:


 * 1. For starters, all three different dating formats are used: DMY, MDY and ISO 8601. There are over a hundred distinct footnotes (there doesn't have to be that many, but that's another issue)—they need to be consistently formatted. Pick one style and stick to it. This seems to be in part a byproduct of something I see in quite a few GA noms: the clear evidence of different editors working on different sections of the article at, often, different times. One editor seems to have had a Hong Kong-centric perspective (hence the DMY dates), another an American one (MDY). A third seems to have been too lazy to change the dates to a format other than the 8601 default in the cite templates. Before the footnotes can be harmonized, the editors involved with this article need to decide what perspective, what national variety of English, to take and stick to throughout the article ... Hong Kong or US? I, personally, suggest the latter is better as the subject was born, educated, died and buried in the U.S., made most of his films in the U.S. and didn't live in Hong Kong too much. But I leave it up to you.


 * 2. Would that that were the only problem with the footnotes. A great many are incomplete. Links are given to sources online but without a retrieval date (for example, notes 84 and 85). Note 97, conversely, is one of several that give use a retrieval date but no publication date. In some cases, like note 6, no date or publication information for the source is given. Note 59 gives us an article title and retrieval date but nothing else. I don't know what, exactly, is going in with the one-word note 90; I do know there needs to be a lot more there. This is something that should have been looked at and corrected before the nomination.


 * 3. Not one visible on the printed page but ... many of the references that cite Google Books pages include the entire URL that was returned, even the search string terms. We really don't need that—it adds nothing to the article while potentially slowing it down when loading on a narrow connection, and there are probably personal privacy issues involved—and it also makes the article harder to edit. Those URLs should be trimmed down to just the page numbers, the "PAXX" in the string.


 * 4. Some of them are also inconsistent in how they cite the same type of source. Some cites to newspaper articles, for instance, give volume and issue information; others don't. None of them need to as we rarely cite that information when citing newspaper articles (see note 33).


 * 5. Many were accessed via newspapers.com. This is fine; that's why we have all those free accounts, but ... the "via" needs to clearly state newspapers.com, not just "Newspapers". And then you have notes like 25 and 30, which don't even bother to provide URLs for readers to review but were clearly meant to.


 * 6. There are also plenty where the article title is given in ALL CAPS, because the hed was copypasted from the source page. MOS:ALLCAPS says pretty explicitly, right there at the first bullet point, that this is not to be done. Again, this looks lazy because it is lazy.


 * 7. Problems with the references do not end just with the footnotes. Right below it is a "work cited" page that, first, needs to be hedded in the plural because there are five works in the section below (and customarily we have always used the plural, in keeping with academic practice. But that's just a trifle. The real issue is that, while these works are indeed cited, those entries duplicate ones already in full in the references, with full format citations in the article. If we are going to do it this way, the notes should use sfn per CITESHORT.


 * 8. And lastly just what is up with these notes, many of them, that give page ranges as not two numbers separated by an en dash, or a set of ranges or standalone numbers but as a sequence of numbers separated by dashes? Huh? (Note 102, as well as some of the works cited and further reading, is a particularly egregious example) First, it's better to cite the page the actual fact appears on. But second, and more importantly, I have never seen anyone do it that way. I am unaware of anywhere, or any field, where that would be an acceptable practice. (Really, I'd like to know this one).

OK. I will save this now and come back soon with my broader critique of the article. Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright ...

First, what the article does well:


 * It is pretty comprehensive. Brandon Lee lived a shorter life than he deserved. I wish there were more to the article, but only because I wish for his family's sake that there had been more to his life. But nevertheless I did learn some things I hadn't known.


 * It is, as you indicated, neutral and free from POV (more so once I got rid of a few words).


 * And it wasn't too badly written. I have, when doing some of these copyedits, sometimes felt like I was doing the editorial equivalent of opening up the rear of the ambulance that just came in with its flasher and siren going, in order to rush the gurney with attached IV drip into the trauma room. This one was more like treatment for minor injuries at the scene.

OK ...

Re your comment above about the intro: We have to remember that intros are meant to summarize the article, and sort of sell the reader on the article in the process. To me the original four-graf intro read like the stub version of the article from before it was expanded (remember, whenever you expand an article that already has enough for an intro you need to revisit the intro and edit appropriately as you expand, or after). It went into greater detail about his film career than an intro to a longer article should—remember, the body is there to expand on all this.

9 * Uncited paragraphs: The first graf of the Early Life section is uncited ... not a way to impress a GA reviewer. There are four other such grafs in the article. During the long pendency of the nomination, this could easily have been addressed in one way or another.

10 * Citation overkill as now tagged up top. The second graf of early life introduces this, with no less than four footnotes hanging off its last sentence. This is, as the page on this phenomenon notes, understandable sometimes when you're dealing with a very controversial fact, but I don't see how Brandon Lee's decision to resume training with his late father's best student (or anything else in the article, really) reaches that level of controversy. It seems that this is the kind of citekill not noted at that article, the kind that results from editors feeling the need to "show their work". Whatever the reason for it, we don't need all these cites; cleaning that up, in fact, might go some ways toward cleaning up the reference section.

11 * Speaking of which, I am unsure, at best, of the reliability of Looper, cited at Note 12, twice. I'm familiar with it as a pop-metaculture-themed YouTube channel and sponcon listicle provider in the vein of Whatculture. Their content, while I do often find it interesting, seems to largely consist of previously reported (sometimes here) material that is not attributed or sourced by anyone there, and does not seem to be subject to editorial oversight, either. Its first use can probably be dropped as, per my above observation, three other sources also exist for that material, but on its second use it stands alone, more problematically.

12 * What's the big deal about Legacy of Revenge being the top-grossing film in the Philippines for its "first five days" of release? Is this some metric of box-office success unique to that country? Or did it just win the weekdays of its first week of release?

13 * I am a little confused by the passage on Laser Mission. Right after we read that it was "mostly shot in South Africa", we are informed that Lee and his costar, Ernest Borgnine, shot their scenes together in Namibia. These two statements seem to be contradicting each other somewhat. Can we have some clarity?

14 * I know the picture of Brandon's grave next to his father's is at Commons, but ... as described in the article, it may not necessarily be a free image. Linda commissioned a sculptor to do it, and thus it is a copyrighted work of art, and in the US under limited freedom of panorama any photographs of a copyrighted non-architectural three-dimensional artwork in a public place are derivative works, with the copyright on any and all photographs going to the creator of the subject three-dimensional artwork instead of whoever took the photograph. The inclusion of Bruce's headstone, which may not have been copyrighted, might ameliorate that, however, making it a collage. A discussion on this should be opened at MCQ ... if you do, do let me know.

15 * That quote from The Sheltering Sky needs to be cited to that novel, not a newspaper article. And frankly, I must ask why we really need the whole thing? It would be better summarized, perhaps with a line or two quoted at most. Which brings me to ...

16 * Excessive quotation. In two separate quotations, four full paragraphs from Brandon about the martial arts and life are quoted. There's no reason for this; as noted here, it creates a copyright problem, it's lazy, and frankly we'd be doing more for the reader if we paraphrased it and walked them through most of it. If we really think this quote should be online somewhere, well, no one's stopping you from starting a Brandon Lee Wikiquote page.


 * 17 There's still a bit of a name-droppy feeling to the article, most notable in the personal life section.

At this point I would have gone on into great detail about the footnotes, but since that was my primary reason for failing the article, I decided they should go first. I'm sorry that after such a long wait it had to come to this, but all the same, I hope you are able to get this article into shape eventually.

Happy editing! Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Daniel,

One of your points isn't true unless you can point to the rule or discussion that led to the consensus.


 * Many were accessed via newspapers.com. This is fine; that's why we have all those free accounts, but ... the "via" needs to clearly state newspapers.com, not just "Newspapers".

If you are pointing to a true rule it is unfortunately misleading by Wikipedia itself. When clicking on citation, and afterward Journal you have a section called Content deliverer (i.e. Database). The list goes as followed "e.g. JSTOR, Project MUSE, Elsevier Science Direct", not "jstor.org, muse.jhu.edu, www.sciencedirect.com".

I have had experiences with editors in the past who tell me how things are done based on no consensus or rules, once being doubtful and asked "where did you see that". In one case the person said well there is no rule and discussion... So the editor just reformated a regular format to something he made up. Sadly it did happen to me. So my answer to that is once the rule or discussion that led to the consensus is shown I will gladly do it.

Another point disagreement I have with you is the number of citations. I try to format articles to look like the most common format I see in media biographies of the featured articles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media_biographies

While Lee had a short life the number seems to be averaging the number of citations elsewhere and has slightly less than the other actors who had full lives and/or bigger legacies.

While we are pointing our differences I am grateful you took the time, some stuff just flew over my head and will fix them with time.

And I am quite happy with your feedback because most of the stuff you didn't like wasn't my addition, but the stuff I kept from the time before I got involved.Filmman3000 (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Yeah, before I begin preparing an article for possible recognition I print it out and go over it with a fine-tooth comb. Even ones that I've largely developed myself ... sometimes things that were fine in 2010 are not within standards today. You never know what you're going to find that can be improved until you look. The idea is to make the article internally consistent ... I can't tell you how many GANs I've reviewed where it was like an archaeological dig, where more than one person had worked on the article at different times. You're missing my point about the number of citations. It's not good, of course, to have an article that relies almost exclusively on one source, even if that one source is all that it takes to establish notability. But by the same token there is not a proportional relationship between sources and article quality. Upon looking at the lines with multiple citations more clearly, I can see that some of them, in fact, are citing multiple reviews of a film to establish an opinion shared by more than one critic—OK, although I think that notes 74, 75 and 80, where they are cited twice, would be better off if they were moved to the locations in the sentence corresponding to where the critics are attributed by name, instead of bunched at the end. In both instances. (And in looking at another pair, Note 39 leads to an archived, freely available Chicago Tribune article that supports, by implication, the stated date of release. Note 40, which presumably supports Turner Home Video's mention, is registered-only and this access limitation should be noted in the cite by adding url-access=registration. But the one cite that first drew my attention, the one about Brandon going back to training with his father's best students after a while when he'd given it up, has four sources. For just that clause of the sentence. So let's audit them: The first one in an interview that only mentions Inosanto once and says nothing about Brandon leaving and coming back. The second is a newspapers.com page (that should be cited that way with "via") which does support the stated fact. The third, clipped at newspapers.com (again, without "via" in the cite) supports this as well. The last one, the Black Belt interview (for which cite interview should really be used), supports, like the first, only that Brandon trained with Inosanto. So, that's two sources which support the stated fact, and two that don't. Right away we can trim that down. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Daniel I may be missing your point. I go through it all soon enough.


 * I'll work on the stuff where I see and agree with you first. Thanks.Filmman3000 (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Daniel,


 * I added numbers next to each point you made. So when one seems resolved I can say let's talk about point 1 for example.


 * Currently, I have resolved point 6.Filmman3000 (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I wanted to link to my last cut of the article to the current one. There is stuff I prefer from my earlier cut.

My last cut https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brandon_Lee&diff=964676783&oldid=964498577

Current cut https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brandon_Lee&diff=965722409&oldid=965681389


 * thanksFilmman3000 (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Daniel,

I have reviewed the article and took some of your most important notes. Not everything is resolved but this is a note to tell what as been resolved, on its the way of being resolved, or point where I still have questions.


 * Regarding point 1, 2, and 3. I get it will be resolved. Regarding point 2 they are probably citations by another user I may have to look deeper into this. Regarding point 3 I know the book you are talking about I bought the kindle version so I will be able to say which page and chapter.


 * Point 4: If the issue and volume are available I put them. Usually they are in the front cover, but when they are absent I do not add them. Let me know what I should do.


 * Point 5: If you are pointing to a true rule it is unfortunately misleading by Wikipedia itself. When clicking on citation, and afterward Journal you have a section called Content deliverer (i.e. Database). The list goes as followed "e.g. JSTOR, Project MUSE, Elsevier Science Direct", not "jstor.org, muse.jhu.edu, www.sciencedirect.com". I have had experiences with editors in the past who tell me how things are done based on no consensus or rules, once being doubtful and asked "where did you see that". In one case the person said well there is no rule and discussion... So the editor just reformated a regular format to something he made up. Sadly it did happen to me. So my answer to that is once the rule or discussion that led to the consensus is shown I will gladly do it.


 * Point 6 and 7 are resolved.


 * Point 8: Will look into it I think I know what you are talking about will take a closer look.


 * Point 9: That escaped me only one uncited aspect of his early life are currently left. Also, some of the prose added by the previous users are now in the unverified section of Lee's talk page.


 * Point 10 and 11: I have reduced some of the citations, and will look deeper into it. I didn't know about Looper will look into it.


 * Point 12: Will look in these citations again.


 * Point 13: according to BFI South Africa is part of the producing country. But no citation confirms that it was shot here, even the ending credits of the film. All that is confirmed is that Borgnine went to Namibia to shoot his scenes.


 * Point 14: To be honest, not sure what to do. I didn't add them


 * Point 15: I disagree, the article says that quote and from which book. So I think we don't need to find a copy of the book for a citation.


 * Point 16: They were there when I started editing since I appreciated the effort, I kept them. The full quote from the book that is now on his tombstone is mentioned in his integrality in many articles. While Lee's quote regarding his views on life I will have to look into it.


 * Point 17: I trimmed the Personal section. The part regarding his ancestry was added by another user let me know what you think about this part and citations. I personally think it's fine. Let me know where in the article it is name droppy to you?

Thanks Filmman3000 (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey Daniel,

Resolved more issues and slowly getting ready to renominated the article.


 * Regarding point 1. I tried to match every citation by dates but it doesn't work when I try to match them to those who are automated.


 * Regarding point 3. I bought the book, and every page is there.


 * Regarding point 5. The part regarding whether I should write 'Newspapers' or 'Newpapers.com' is above. The part regarding the URL will be fixed ASAP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Whitman#Works_cited
 * Regarding point 8. I took the format from the Stuart Whitman article. Since it's an article in a magazine I figured it's how you do it.


 * Regarding point 9. Is resolved everything is cited or in the talk page.


 * Point 10. Is now resolved only when it's a summary of most of the reviews, you will have several.


 * Point 11. Mostly resolved. Looper anyways spotted another dubious citation.


 * Point 12. Deleted it because it's only the ads that confirm it was number one. So resolved.


 * Point 13. Resolved


 * Point 16. Regarding the quote on his tombstone, the full quote is in many articles so I would keep it. His views on life are only the book.Filmman3000 (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)