Talk:Cary Grant/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 13:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Will begin soon. JAG UAR   13:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Lead

 * "and became known for his transatlantic accent, his light-hearted approach to acting and comic timing" - remove repetition of "his"
 * ✅ As asked. —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "Grant became attracted to the theatre at a very young age" - I would recommend losing "the", so it's not like he was attracted to just one theatre, but rather the theatre arts etc
 * ✅ As asked. —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "these films are frequently cited as among the all-time great comedy films.[1]" - WP:LEADCITE. Do you think it's alright for this citation to be in the lead or can you move this to the body? I don't mind, either way
 * Yes, because in the body some of the films are not claimed to be the best (to avoid bloating it) when they were, so without it it would be OR.♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "with Ingrid Bergman, That Touch of Mink (1962) with Doris Day and Charade (1963) with Audrey Hepburn" - Oxford comma needed in between "Day" and "and"
 * ✅ As asked. —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "suave actor who didn't take himself too seriously" - did not
 * ✅ As asked. —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "with the ability to play with his own dignity in comedies without losing it" - bit informal, what does this mean? Without mismanaging it?
 * ✅ Changed to "without losing control of it". —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "which led to press rumors" - rumours. Should we proceed with using British English in this article? I think it makes sense because he's an English actor despite being an American citizen. I'll continue to note down any mispellings I find but feel free to ignore Nevermind
 * I strongly recommend removing the infobox. It's a bit bloated and redundant. The lead would look much better without the text being squashed

Body

 * "while his mother, who also worked at the factory as a seamstress, was from a family of shipwrights" - how about while his mother (who also worked at the factory as a seamstress) was from a family of shipwrights, feel free to ignore
 * "McCann mentions that Maureen Donaldson, a lover of Grant's in the 1970s" - Grant
 * ✅ As asked. —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * " Grant later attributed her behavior towards him" - behaviour
 * "As a child, Archie enjoyed playing in thhe strawberry fields behind his house" - typo
 * ✅ As asked. —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * " One two-week stint at the Wintergarten in Berlin" - One two-week stints at the Wintergarten theatre in Berlin
 * ✅ As asked. —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "On March 5, 1911, Archie sailed to New York on the Lusitania with the Pender Troupe" - write it out as RMS Lusitania
 * ✅ As asked. —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "his father barely scraping together enough money to pay for his uniform" - informal sentence, try his father barely affording to pay for his uniform
 * ✅ As asked. —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "Archie became a part of the vaudeville world" - world? Is this a similar metaphor to "the vaudeville culture"?
 * Doc, I'm gonna need your help on this. —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a common expression.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:24, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "and toured with Parker and Rand" - who is Parker and Rand? A company or two people? Needs clarification
 * I think it was a touring company but couldn't find anything further so removed the names.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "...and Los Angeles by later October" - try by October that year
 * "After a tour of the mid West in 1924" - not sure if west needs to be capitalised. You could just say Midwestern United States or American Midwest
 * " with several of the other members when the rest of the troupe returned to England [53] Archie " - missing full stop and extra space
 * "as a soldier named Cary Lockwood in post-World I France." - post-World War I
 * "and it went uncredited, after seeing him on screen, Robinson instantly" - this is the first mention of Robinson, so his full name Casey Robinson should be written out here
 * "Through Casey Robinson, Archie met" - likewise, remove 'Casey' in this sentence
 * "Schulberg signed a contract with the 27-year-old Archie" - no need for the hyphen in 'old' (these points are becoming increasingly minor LOL) -yes you hyphen that too, see this
 * "shot in England by the independent studio, Garrett Klement Pictures" - no need for comma
 * "and encouraged him to improvize his lines" - improvise (this is American spelling too)
 * "he finished the year playing a wealthy landowner" - capital letter needed
 * "Morecambe and Sterling noted that a The Hollywood Reporter reviewer wrote" - noted that a reviewer from The Hollywood Reporter wrote
 * "He was photographed visiting wounded Marines in hospitals" - no need for capital
 * " to infiltrate a Nazi organisation in Brazil" - organization (we're going for US spelling now)
 * "and was not box office success" - missing "a"
 * "remarking that the actor "was never more at home than in this role of the advertising-man-on-the-lam." and handles his role" - no full stop needed
 * "One scene required Grant to strip down to shorts and shoes and participate in an Olympic marathon" - I don't see how this sentence is relevant
 * I though it quite an unusual scene for Grant to have been competing in a marathon in shorts and shoes, worth mentioning to understand his role in the film.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * "He confessed to being attracted to women who were "secure" with themselves" - I would lose the quote here
 * "Grant was hospitalised for 17 days with three broken ribs and bruising" - hospitalized
 * "Though his close friend Roderick Mann recalled that he'd met up with Grant" - he had
 * The four last links in the External links section are all dead
 * ✅ All of your above comments have been resolved. —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 14:42, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

On hold
Those were all of the minor prose 'issues' I could bring up from my first read-through. I'm exhausted. Brilliant article. It is comprehensive, well written, and enjoyable to read. No doubt it's future FA material. I would strongly recommend removing the infobox to maximise readability. JAG UAR   14:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Is the article excessively long, or containing too many lengthy quotes? Is the use of a discredited source (see article talk page) in any way an impediment here? Collect (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't contain that many lengthy quotes, except the ones in the boxes which I think are inciteful and boost the article. Most of them are paraphrased and shortened and are encyclopedic. The source is not discredited entirely, just the controversial content on homosexuality and Nazism. We don't rely much on the Higham source anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There isn't any specific length limit for GA I believe, is there? Its already trimmed by 13-14 kbs and now stands at 78 kbs of "readable prose". —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 14:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

As I said to Sven I think 12,000 odd words and 70kb of readable prose is what we should be aiming for, so it still will need a trim in parts but as Sven says it's already had a good trim today.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, Jaguar. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 14:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well done you two! By all means, let's promote this.  JAG  UAR   15:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your review!♦ Dr. Blofeld  15:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

problems
The article is now at 165K in gross length, ''placing it in the top 2500 of the longest articles on Wikipedia.  (or in the top .05% of articles in length'') Article size suggests a split at the 100K mark.

The Higham problematic book is used as a cite 54 times, rather a great many more than I think reasonable.

The "see also" links to a Wikipedia book which consists of this article, and articles already linked to within this article. Self-referentialism gone amok.

The article has 37 image boxes - of which 8 are very extended quotes - basically of copyrighted material, which may exceed Wikipedia guidelines for such quoting of copyright material.

Higham was frowned on in the New York Times - but we still use it for "Women would not feel threatened or overridden by his personality, and yet at the same time they would warm to his apparently unequivocal masculinity", Higham and Moseley believe that the real reason was that he stole a valise full of paints, which is self-referenced for good humor in The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer (1947). The source does not make that claim as such - it says that the "paints" line was used in a movie, but not that they thought it was the "real reason" at all. Higham is used for the bit ""shed his callow, awkward manner, his strutting, bowlegged, cockney walk and his excessive mugging; he looked like a man-about-town and at the same time he displayed the necessary roughness of an Australian type."" which is clearly opinion and not a statement of fact, from a source whose opinions were attacked by such places as the NYT book reviewer.

"Several authors, including Higham and Moseley in their book,[366] have implied that Grant was homosexual."  366 is their book, 367 is Kahaney and Liu. Lo - the claim is assigned to a New Yorker book review - of the Graham McCann book. It would have been more sensible to say "three" and not "several" and cite McCann directly rather than imply Kahaney and Liu were the ones posting that opinion.

We devote 20 lines to implying Grant was gay - when all the main sources say it was absolutely just rumour at most. We use a photo of Randolph Scott and Grant - from a Modern Screen article promoting seafood.  When Grant was alive, he won lawsuits (defamation) over this rumour, and now that he is dead we can basically imply he was gay anyway.

Another long section on LSD - which appears not to have been that big a deal, but is now overemphasized in this biography, and using an overlong quote as well.

As for proper length of quotes: WP:MOSQUOTE  '' Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editor's own words. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style, and may indicate a copyright infringement.''   Some of the "quotes" used are even over a hundred words long. This is not "brief" in my opinion. Looking at the boxed quotes: 65 words, 35, 78, 92,  71, 71,  60, and 96 words. Not exactly the permitted "brief quote" I fear.

And more if needed but the initial and main problems are:

It contains copyright infringements.  explicit ones, also excessive length of quotes, also misattribution of claims

the prose is clear and concise not.

all in-line citations are from reliable sources as one main source used is contested as being reliable. (NYT review: "The book's obsession with Grant's sexuality is more a reflection of the authors' keen perception of what sells books than of any allegiance to the dictates of ethical journalism", People review: "In this lurid book, the authors cruelly defame a man who can't defend himself and show disdain for his admirers' ability to distinguish honest biography from innuendo",   with regard to Higham, the LAT has "At the conclusion of the account of his investigation, Donati writes: 'Charles Higham describes himself as a serious writer and a scholar; yet, in the academic realm the worst sin is falsifying primary-source material to prove one's thesis. Deceitful, pseudoscholarship degrades information and distorts the truth'")

I rather think this covers the current state of affairs. Collect (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

It's 78kb readable prose Collect. We're aiming for about 70, same as Laurence Olivier. I suggest you read Michael Jackson, Ronald Reagan, Elvis Presley etc. And yes, given that he's considered the greatest film actor in history by many and an icon, you would expect it to be longer than your average article, so being in the top 2500 sounds about right. We don't use many long quotes, and the Higham book is not used to make claims for anything controversial. Appropriate weight is given to the sexuality discussion because most biographies devote significant weight on it. It's perfectly balanced with counter claims. We cover what is covered in biographies, and this is mentioned in practically every one. We do not omit or censor material because of the POV of the "concerned" editor. Bore off and do something useful with your time.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The photo "promoting seafood" is from a regular recipe feature of the magazine. This is a page "promoting" laundry soap. This information had to be added to the file File:Randolph Scott Cary Grant dinner at home.jpg because of disruptive editing by the complaining editor.  If you examine the file, nowhere was a claim regarding 12 years made by anyone other than the disruptive editor-a false claim.


 * The frenzy began after he hoped to be rid of the file but was unfamiliar with US copyright before 1978. Similar material is at the Randolph Scott article, but when advised of it, he contended it was not his problem and no reply to my direct question. Apparently there's selectivity-the ones he's watching; if it's objectionable here, it should be objectionable there as well unless this is agenda-driven for whatever reason. We hope (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't believe this article meets the GA criteria, and I propose to delist it. A few examples:
 * "After a role as a pilot opposite Jean Arthur and Rita Hayworth in Howard Hawks's Only Angels Have Wings, which was praised for its aerial photography.[153] He finished the year playing a wealthy landowner exploited by Carole Lombard in In Name Only, a sentimental melodrama involving a love triangle."
 * "his last film of the year was the romantic comedy The Philadelphia Story, where he played the ex-husband of Hepburn's character." A film isn't a place, so "where" isn't appropriate.
 * "... feeling isolated and discontent" How can you feel discontent?
 * "... not the actions of a man who had irrevocable turned his back on the film industry. Do they really say "irrevocable rather than "irrecovably"?
 * " ... so that 1939, he was "already an astute operator with various commercial interests" Seems to be a word missing there.
 * "When the company divided in 1980 into MGM Films and MGM Grand Hotels, he continued to sit on the board of both." He couldn't have continued to sit on the board of both as neither company existed until the split.
 * There is far too much detail about individual films, making the article too dense.
 * I agree that it could use a trim still, which I've gradually doing...♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that this article needs a proper GA review, not one done hurriedly in a few hours. Eric   Corbett  16:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Fine, give it a "proper GA review" then, I'm sure the article will only improve further.♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Dr. Blofeld will do what he can to address any of these issues. I would probably view some of Collect's concerns void. JAG  UAR   16:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Then you'd probably be wrong. Eric   Corbett  21:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The article did need a trim but I disagree that a stark minimum is an improvement, but I'm coming from a film buff perspective where information about a lot of the films, some detail on production and characters he played make the article more interesting to read. If you strip away some of the details the article becomes less comprehensive, less informative, and in all honesty boring. You take away all the details as Eric wants nd you're basically left with "In 1944 Grant starred in xx. It was a commercial failure. In 1946 Grant starred in xxx. It did well. Boring isn't it? I'd rather have an article which respects his film career and conveys decent information about it, but he does have a point that the general reader who isn't a film or Grant fan might not want to read much detail in an overview, and of course we have to think of the general reader on there. I think the Rod Steiger article is a good example of how it should be done, that has reasonably decent detail while being concise at the same time.♦ Dr. Blofeld  05:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've got onto looking at the late 30s - 40s bit of the biography now and going through all the films is a bit of a slog, but I can't honestly think of any better way of doing it than how Blofeld has done it here. I think it's a general problem with biographies, once you've got past the early life and onto the main career, it's hard to get something that isn't "in 'x' he did 'a', in 'y' he did 'b', in 'z' he did 'c', oh my word I'm so excited I might just fall over....." Possibly throw in the odd bit of personal information or something outside of the filming career is possible, like being ill in I Was a Male War Bride. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  16:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, but that was the strongest part of his career that 1937-1941 period, so many prominent films now, you need to place weight and more detail on that, but I'll see if I can condense it a bit later.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Additional review
As Eric seems to think I'm dishonest or lazy and don't have the best intentions of the quality of the article at heart, I invite an additional full review by somebody neutral here.... Hell I invite two or three GA reviews if it'll help this article...♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've expressed concerns about the prominence of the homosexuality and LSD sections, but they've been trimmed down so I think that issue's been resolved. I'm going through copyediting the article now and if I spot anything else I'll drop it here. Also paging, , , as we might as well get everyone to help (many hands make light work and all that). Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  08:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I would argue that given the weight placed on them in multiple reputable biographies, there's even chapters devoted to them, that a smallish sub section wouldn't have been that unreasonable, but I think it reads better trimmed down without sections. Of course we could create an entire article on Randolph Scott and Cary Grant ;-), and I reckon you could find enough material to make an article stick!!♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the best thing would be to open a peer review once you've finished Ritchie. I'd have done that anyway, though I'm sure it will be gatecrashed by Collect and wanting the HIgham material completely removed...♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe not completely removed. If the explanation or fact stated from the Higham book is the same as one from McCann or Wansell, you can substitute Higham with either one of them. For instance, the line "and would reduce pocket money for minor mishaps, whether it was marking the table cloth or misplacing a cushion" has reference from both Higham's & McCann's book. if McCann mentions it completely, the Higham reference can be removed there. Likewise for other Higham references. Your call, Doc. —  Ssven2  Speak 2 me 11:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The Higham book contains a lot of intricate details like that which are obviously not invented, and they're often not replaceable.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Obviously not invented"? Sorry - that would have us using Parson Weems for everything we assert is "obviously not invented" about George Washington.  Once a source is discredited in substantial part, it is discredited in full.  Collect (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think your best option is to go to WP:RSN and thrash it out there. In a similar manner, I can't abide people citing the Daily Mail in biographies (and indeed, I removed one from this very article only yesterday) but you if you look in the RSN archives you'll find that there is a distinct lack of consensus for that, with arguments on all sides. In the meantime, I would say if there is a consensus that what is left cited to Higham is not controversial and does not have any serious likelihood of being factually wrong, it should stand. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Checking the many discussions about the Daily Mail at RS/N and BLP/N, you will find a strong consensus that it is ill-used for "celebrity gossip" and ill-used for "sensational headlines" but is generally accurate in relaying press releases and statements of fact about sport and politics, though one must note where opinion columns are used that opinions should always be used and cited as such.   Meanwhile examine Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_208 and note that this has been asked there.   Collect (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I did read it, and I did see it was asked there, but I didn't see any firm agreement one way or the other; there were claims of it being used for 2/3 of the cites in the article but I don't believe that's the case now. I have trimmed out a few Higham opinions, but for all the criticism of the book, I don't believe inaccuracy of reporting dates of performances is part of that. As for the Mail, that's something we'll just have to agree to disagree over. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that's a little unfair,, not to mention immature.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   14:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Cassianto, I think this place is driving me insane. You're right. I need to take some time off. JAG  UAR   14:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * (Responding per a ping) I'm probably best here at resolving differences of opinion more than copyediting. As far as length goes, it's not over the top for a comprehensive biography on a major film legend.  As of right now, the LGBT material is not at all excessive, it may have been over-trimmed, I don't think there is a problem including it, I lean with Blofeld that there is enough smoke to make it a case of whitewashing not to examine the question.  Perhaps an entire subsection is a bit much, but as of now it sounds like there was simply no evidence at all other than gossip.  The idea of a spinoff article might be worth considering, but if so, then a see also should be incorporated here.  The LSD material is probably OK as is, he wasn't Timothy Leary or anything... (LOL). I'm frustrated that the GAN reviewer demanded removal of the infobox, which I feel is inappropriate for a film actor article, though that is a totally separate discussion.   Montanabw <sup style="color:orange;">(talk)  23:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I've gone through the article and I think all my concerns have been addressed. There are a few other copyedits I wanted to look at, but I think somebody else will probably get to them. I think consensus here and on the parallel conversation at WT:GACUP that the GA criteria has now been met. As the old saying goes, if anyone can improve it further, please do. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  12:12, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It had been met anyway, and everybody knows it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Needs fix
Grant was married five times, three of which were elopements..... Needs fixing. Yes, I could have done it myself, but many angels fear to tread in GAs. Moriori (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't worry about that. This GAN has seen more treading than Bear Grylls's Timberlands.   Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   23:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)