Talk:Lana Turner/GA1

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

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 18:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Ready to initiate a review of this article for assessment which may take a few days. In the meantime, possibly you could comment on the reasons which may have brought you to edit this article in particular, and to mention what were the most active areas of improvement which your editing needed to address in order to bring the article to its current state of development. JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you are available to start the assessment process. I'll need some time to type in the review notes for your response. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm available to do some work whenever you have the time. Thank you! --Drown Soda (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Lead section
 * The lead section contains some citations, footnotes, which are unexpected. Normally, for peer review articles, the main body of the article is the place to develop all of the material in the article and then to summarize it concisely in the lead section. If the lead section is a summary of the material and citations already developed in the article then there should not be a need for citations in the lead section. Are those citations already in the main body or can they be developed in the main body in order that they would not be needed in the lead section. Second point in lead section is that the reference to her illness sometimes calls it throat cancer and sometimes esoph. cancer in the article. Should it be consistent?


 * 1 Early life
 * Appears adequate for material being discussed.


 * 2 Career
 * 2.1 1937–1939: Establishment
 * Comment on opening sentence in this section. If there has been a tendency to exaggerate her 'discovery' then this can be stated more directly and perhaps with an example or two of any 'false' myth-making. The section otherwise is written well and sticks to the facts with citations.


 * 2.2 1940–1947: Rise and commercial success
 * Postman was Cain's debut novel, his first one. Is this worth mentioning in the article or in this section? Not to over-emphasize, though her reputation is firmly linked in film noir studies as being there at the start of this notable film genre with one of the genre's most noted films. Another biographical point is that she met Howard Hughes during these years who was himself active promoting films during his lifetime; did Hughes ever help her career or get her a part? Hughes is not mentioned in the article either professionally or for her personal life.


 * 2.3 1948–1960: Critical success
 * The phrase you use, "During the 1950s, Turner starred in a series of films that failed at the box office", does not seem consistent with this section's title. If they "failed" then that's not very successful. Possible tweaking the title might do it, or maybe simply state that the years of critical success had passing set-backs as well.


 * 2.4 1961–1985: Later roles and television
 * Of the 4 short paragraphs in this section, paragraphs number 2 and 3 might be combined together to enhance the paragraph structure of this section.


 * 3 Personal life
 * The medical history has many dire episodes which likely received hospital attention and required non-trivial periods of time for recovery. Pregnancy termination was also illicit back then and there is the question of where they were done. Is there any information on these points? Also, was she admitted to hospital for any of her mental health issues, suicide attempt, depression, ...?


 * 3.1 Relationships
 * Looks adequately covered with references. No mention of Howard Hughes.


 * 3.2 The Stompanato killing
 * This may have been a controversy at the time it happened, though she came out exonerated and I'm not sure it had a lasting impact on her reputation. Is it worth stating something like this in this section: "Although the tragedy was controversial at the time, she was exonerated of any wrong-doing," or your adapted version of this type of wording.


 * 4 Death
 * Esophageal cancer is the preferred reference to this and should be consistent throughout the article and in the lead section.


 * 5 In culture
 * Some mention of her being closely tied to film noir studies as a whole because of her pivotal role in the Cain adaptation. Some of the very short paragraphs at the end of this section can be merged as not needing separate paragraphs.


 * 6 Filmography
 * Appears comprehensive.


 * 6.1 Film
 * 6.2 Television
 * 7 Radio appearances
 * Appears comprehensive.

This should be able to get things started. Let me know if any point needs clarification. JohnWickTwo (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the input. I have addressed most all of the points you've raised here; the distinction between the "Critical success" section title and the mention box office failures reads a bit misleading, so I reworded it slightly. Critical success doesn't necessarily equate with box office success, but I can see how it may mislead. I also have noted your recommendation of including her associations with film noir. I've added two scholarly sources that mention this, as she is frequently associated with noir and the femme fatale's appearance in cinema (along with women like Barbara Stanwyck, Veronica Lake, etc). Let me know if you have other concerns. Best, Drown Soda (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That was pretty quick turn around. (a) Turning to the references, I have noticed that some of the citation access dates have not been updated since as far back as 2010, and all the older ones should have the access dates updated. The deadurl link notifications in this article also need to be updated throughout the article, for example in the Stompanato section where one of the archive links is simply duplicated as its primary link as well. This reference and similar ones needs to be updated, especially if there is no backup archive link, etc. (b) If you and I are agreed that the Stompanato incident ended with Lana being fully and completely exonerated, then it seems to be unneeded in the lead section, and I think it can be dropped as that very long first sentence in the fourth paragraph of the lead section since its comprehensively covered in the main body of the article. (c) To recap my assessment above from yesterday after your edits, then it appears you are comfortable leaving out the Howard Hughes 1946 tie-in with her. I ask this since there is a large literature of books about Howard Hughes which mention Lana in 1946, even though his Hollywood 'affairs' mostly concentrate on Ava Gardner, and also Katherine Hepburn. (d) On the next part of the assessment, any further information on her terminated pregnancies (done in USA or abroad question, for example) and her mental health issues (was she hospitalized, where was she hospitalized, for how long) appear not to be augmented from the original form of the article which was presented for assessment here. (e) The images throughout the article and their captions appear to be fine, though the final image from the last section includes an unexpected 1941 image of her in the last section of the article. Possibly alter the caption to indicate why it is included in the Legacy section which you are calling "In culture". Its possible you can use the image on the poster art at Trucks (film) of Bakke who portrayed Lana in the film LA Confidential as a Legacy image. As just a consideration, though you might think about retitling the last section as "Legacy" if that's what is described there. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Week-end note: With the week-end coming up I was wondering if you would be putting any time into the edits on Saturday or Sunday. Once the reference access dates are updated, it looks like the article may be in fairly good shape. Let me know what your immediate plans might be for your approach to the enhancements and possible time frame for this assessment. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm about to go through and address the reference access dates and URLs, and will also bring in your mention of Hughes—I personally wasn't aware of the tie. As far as her pregnancies were concerned, her revelations concerning them in her autobiography are vague. I can re-examine those passages, but she doesn't provide much detail; the same goes for her suicide attempt: She mentions her depression but the parameters of it are also vague. I will try and get through these edits tonight. Best, Drown Soda (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe I have addressed the concerns above; however, I was unable to locate the doubled archive URL you mentioned in the Stompanato section—could you point out which one? --Drown Soda (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Closing comments
That last set of edit I think does what was needed and the article gets a positive GA assessment. The url you ask about is just before the Stompanato section, currently #88, which has a good primary link though the archive link is not working and is marked that way when you look it up. Since the primary link from that cite is working, I am giving the article a promotion to GA peer assessment, and you can address the archive backup message when you sign on. The article is well-written, properly researched, with good images and captions, and could possibly be developed further towards an FA. Two ideas to look at for further enhancement would be to possibly go further in the film noir material and her reputation there; how did she compare to the other noir sirens like Barbara Stanwyck and Lauren Bacall, both in her own time and in retrospect. The relationship with her co-star in Postman might be researched further for an FA article, to deal with their relationship during the shooting, the immediate critics responses to them as co-stars, and whether they ever got together after the film was completed, either socially or for other possible project considerations. Otherwise, the article checks all the boxes for GA assessment, including your choice of images and captions. Cheers. JohnWickTwo (talk) 04:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)