Wikipedia:Peer review/Charlie Chaplin/archive1

Charlie Chaplin

 * This peer review discussion has been closed.

After 18 months in the making, we think the article is almost ready for a shot at FAC. It recently had a very thorough GA review, but it would be great to get some more eyes before we take that step. Comments on all aspects relating to the FA criteria are very welcome. Thanks --  Loeba (talk) and TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments
Here are some comments on the first few sections. I have also been copyediting as I've gone along – check the edit history.
 * Thanks for everything so far. To avoid making this page extremely long, I will only repsond to your points if I have a query or uncertainty - otherwise, assume your suggestion has been implemented. -- Loeba (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Argh, I'm such an idiot for not noticing this – I've edited a couple of things which I thought hadn't been edited yet, hopefully they were not those which you had already corrected! Also, seconding the thank you to Brian!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

My biggest area of concern is the frequent embellishments of short citations with explanatory comments. One example is ref 6: "Robinson, p. 4 for marriage, p. 3. for Sydney's birth, p. 19 for Charles Chaplin Sr.'s legal responsibility over Sydney." The proper short citation would be "Robinson, pp. 3–4 and 19". Another is ref 45: "Robinson, p. 68; Marriot, pp. 81–84. Chaplin attempted to be a "Jewish comedian", but the act was poorly received and he performed it only once." This kind of commentary, if it is thought necessary, belongs either in the text or in a proper footnote. It should not be included within the citation.
 * General point
 * That's fair, should all be removed now. -- Loeba (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * "...continued to hone his craft as he moved to the Essanay, Mutual, and First National corporations." Unnecessary to list the names at this stage, as it is not obvious to the reader that they are studios. I'd omit this detail, thus: "Chaplin directed his films from an early stage, and by 1918 he was one of the best known figures in the world".
 * I rather think the studios should be named in the lead. They are each important aspects of his career (he showed notable progression at each studio) and have their own sections in the article. -- Loeba (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "...his financial independence meant he often spent years on the development and production of a picture". I would replace "meant he often spent" with "enabled him to spend".
 * "His films are characterised by slapstick combined with pathos, and often feature the Tramp struggling against adversity." The latter part of the sentence only applies to his pre-WW2 films, so I'm uneasy with the general "often". A possible rewording: "...pathos, typified in the Tramp's struggles against adversity".
 * The vast majority of his films are with the Tramp (especially for those of us who consider The Great Dictator to essentially feature the Tramp), but I guess that's reasonable. I adopted your suggestion. -- Loeba (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Say from whom Chaplin received his honorary Oscar. The quote "the incalculable effect he has had in making motion pictures the art form of this century" is attributed and cited in the main text, so in the lead a brief paraphrase, rather than the actual wording, is preferable, e.g. "his outstanding contribution to the film industry".
 * "often ranked among the greatest films of all time" Briefly indicate whose rankings, e.g. critics, public surveys etc (don't go into detail, though)
 * Has this already been done by you, Loeba, as it now says 'industry lists'? Or should we replace it with 'filmmakers, academics and critics' etc.?
 * Yes I added "industry lists", which I think covers it sufficiently? -- Loeba (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Background and childhood hardship
 * I'd name the brother, e.g. "Chaplin and his brother Sydney"
 * Perhaps in a few words indicate when Sydney joined the navy, rather than merely mentioning his return from it?
 * Young performer
 * Note that at the start of the second paragraph I have restored a footnoted sentence to the text; I believe this is necessary for prose continuity.


 * Stage comedy and vaudeville
 * Ref 45 (at the end of first para), et al. It is generally not good practice to include commentary within citations. If it's significant, it should be in the text, or at least in a footnote. Otherwise it should not be there; short citations should be just that. (Note: this is a recurring issue)
 * "By 1908, Sydney Chaplin had become a star of Fred Karno's prestigious comedy company." This seems rather a sudden elevation to stardom; would it not be better to introduce this information more gradually, e.g. "Meanwhile, Sydney Chaplin had been pursuing his stage career rather more successfully, and by 1908 had become..." etc
 * "a fraction of the company" – is there a better word than "fraction" to use here?
 * It's been ages since I wrote this, but I remember struggling for some time over the best way to phrase it! Any suggestions? There was basically a group from the company that Karno sent to tour America. -- Loeba (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have changed "fraction" to "section" which I think reads better. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Will continue soon. Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The copy edits are great, but there's one potential issue - you tweaked an opening sentence to: "His career spanned more than 75 years, from childhood in the Victorian era until his death at the age of 88", whereas actually his last piece of work was done in 1976, the year before his death. So should we change it back or do you think that's close enough that we can say "until his death"? -- Loeba (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You could make it "until a year before his death". Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

(Next instalment)


 * Keystone
 * The opening of the section: "Chaplin was six months into the second American tour when his manager received a telegram..." etc is magazine journalism rather than encyclopedic style. Also I am puzzled by the word "members" – who are "members"of a Motion Picture Company? The interjection "(accounts of whom and where vary)" is unnecessary. I suggest the paragraph be rewritten in an unadorned style. e.g. "Six months into the second American tour, Chaplin was invited to join the New York Motion Picture Company. A representative who had seen his performances thought he could replace Fred Mace, star of their Keystone Studios, who intended to leave"...etc
 * I think "rationalised", rather than "justified"
 * It would be useful, at the start of Chaplin's film career, for readers to be aware of the kinds of film he was initially involved in. I assume short comedies of one or two reels, rather than full-length feature films.
 * The Chaplin quote refers to him introducing the Tramp character by walking on "the stage": did he mean the film set?
 * Must be, he liked to make his writing as dramatic/romantic as possible though! -- Loeba (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "a request arrived for more Chaplin films." From whom?
 * Robinson doesn't say outright, but it must have been from movie exhibitors. He says that the orders came from the east of the country, but I don't think we need that detail do we? I've reworded it to "he received orders for more Chaplin films", is that okay? -- Loeba  (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added the words from exhibitors" Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "With an insurance of $1,500 promised in case of failure, Sennett also allowed Chaplin to direct his own film." I assume you mean next film. The first part of the sentence is unclear; I assume it means: "After taking out insurance of $1,500 in the event of failure..." etc, and suggest you reword accordingly.
 * I'd appreciate some help with wording this so it's clear: the facts are that Chaplin promised to pay Sennett $1,500 if the film was unsuccessful. -- Loeba (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have reworded to "Sennett also allowed Chaplin to direct his next film himself, after Chaplin promised to pay hin $1,500 if the film was unsuccessful." Please feel free to tweak if you don't like this. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "highly successful occurs twice in the final paragraph. Try to find an alternative expression for the second.
 * The final words "and so Chaplin waited to receive an offer from another studio" can be assumed from the context.


 * Essanay
 * Is there any relevance in "In San Francisco..."? It may, however, be appropriate to mention that Purviance was a 19-year-old secretary with no previous film acting experience.
 * I haven't said this outright (several of CC's leading ladies had no, or very minimal, acting experience) but have indicated it ("..who Chaplin met in a cafe and hired on account of her beauty"). -- Loeba (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We should have some date indication for the end of Chaplin's Essanay contract and his move to Mutual.

More will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mutual
 * Were the "elaborate productions" of shorts or feature films, or both?
 * "Later in life, Chaplin referred to his Mutual years as "the happiest period of my career".
 * "registered for the draft" – I assume that you mean in the USA; the expression does not apply in the UK, and he wasn't there anyway, but this should be made clear. But as a UK citizen, would he have been eligible for the draft?
 * "Chaplin imitators were so widespread that he took legal action,[17] and it was reported that nine out of ten men attended costume parties dressed as the Tramp." Two unrelated facts should not joined by an "and" conjunction in the same sentence.
 * Well everything mentioned at this stage is evidence of his extreme popularity...it pretty much a listing of facts to prove this, so I think it's fair to link them? -- Loeba (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, but I would still reword slightly, and consider a split along the lines: "In 1917, professional Chaplin imitators were so widespread that he took legal action to prevent tham. It was reported that nine out of ten men who attended costume parties dressed as the Tramp." (The "professional" in the first part is important, and the "who" in the final part is essential). Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * First National (1918–1922)
 * "Chaplin paid yet more concern to story construction, and began treating the Tramp as "a sort of Pierrot." If this comment relates to the film under discussion, it needs to be reworded, along the lines: "In it, Chaplin demonstrated his increasing concern with story construction, and his treatment of the Tramp as "a sort of Pierrot".
 * Founding United Artists, Mildred Harris, and The Kid
 * Poor choice of section name – these portmanteau combinations rarely work; in this case it reads as though Chaplin founded United Artists, Mildred Harris and The Kid. I think we need to think of another.
 * Heh. Is "United Artists, Mildred Harris, and The Kid" alright? I am quite keen to make clear exactly what is covered in each section, since there's so many different things that happen in his life and I'd like information to be as easy to locate as possible. -- Loeba (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Marginally better - and I can't think of an improvement. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In what sense was the arrangment with Fairbanks, Pickford and Griffith "revolutionary" – what did it revolutionise?
 * Is this okay: "The arrangement was revolutionary, as it enabled the four partners to personally fund their pictures and have complete control." -- Loeba (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, though I would add the words "in the film industry" after "revolutionary". Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "the first film to combine comedy and drama" – really? Or do you mean the first of Chaplin's films? As the cited source is Chaplin himself, I'm inclined to think the latter.
 * I'm sure it must have been, at least in Hollywood (films were rigid in the 1910s - it was either a comedy or a drama, and I'm sure I've read that somewhere..) but looking through my books, no-one but Chaplin makes this claim outright. I've tweaked it to "one of the first films" for now, but will continue to look for a source. -- Loeba (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That change certainly helps. Maybe "earliest" rather than "first"? Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The final paragraph is a bit confusing. Was Pay Day or The Pilgrim Chaplin's final film for First National?
 * Yeah that was confusing - I thought I may as well mention that Pay Day was his final two reeler, but that doesn't really need to be mentioned and it just confuses matters. -- Loeba (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

(Next chunk: I will reply as necessary to your responses when I am through the review - probably by Friday):


 * A Woman of Paris and The Gold Rush
 * "revolutionarily" – a bit over the top, perhaps, and seven syllables! Other words: "unique" may also be too strong, but perhaps "atypical"?
 * Recommend delete "amid the historic event". It's not necessary, and introduces confusion about which "event" you're referring to.
 * The slang word "gags" jars a bit, and has too broad a meaning. How about "visual jokes"?
 * Lita Grey and The Circus
 * There's a problem with "he permanently associated with the film with the stress of its production" – I think the first "with" needs to go
 * Final sentence: "Chaplin omitted The Circus from his autobiography, and struggled to work on it in his later years." Why was he working on The Circus in his later years?


 * City Lights
 * "proceeded to develop a silent film" is somewhat ambiguous and unclear. "began work on a new silent film, City Lights"?
 * "opportunity", rather than "ability" to record a musical score, I think. Incidentally, is there any information in the sources that explains how Chaplin was able to compose and score orchestral music (a formidable accomplishment) without ant formal musical training?
 * You'll learn all about this in the "Composer" section ;) -- Loeba (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * For whom was the "surprise preview" in Los Angeles held, if not for the press?
 * A group of the public (who didn't know what they were about to see). Not sure how/if it's necessary to slip this in? -- Loeba (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A preview before an unsuspecting public audience"? Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Travels, Paulette Goddard, and Modern Times
 * Another awkward section title
 * Really? I thought it was fairly clear that it's just listing the three topics that the section covers... -- Loeba (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe its just me... Don't worry. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A date indicator in the first the first paragraph would be useful, e.g. we should know when the 16 months' travelling were. You should also indicate where he travelled to, rather than burying this information in a footnote.
 * I've put the dates in the footnote - to be honest, I feel like the information is fine there. Do you definitely think it's important enough to go in the main text? -- Loeba (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * When reading through, I found myself wondering "when was this, and where did he go?" I'd be more than happy with "early in 1931" after "In this state of uncertainty", and the rest left in the footnote. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "writing a serial about his travels" – I think you mean "a series of articles" rather than a "serial"
 * It was a series of articles, but that's often referred to as a serial, no? I've pipelinked it to serial (literature), if that helps? -- Loeba (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A serial and a series are different things. A "serial" is a single narrative in which each episode leads directly to and/or from another. A "series" is a group of articles/TV episodes etc around a common theme. I don't think the link is  helpful, as it seems to discuss a quite different form of writing. What Chaplin wrote looks quite definitely like a series of articles. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "endurers" isn't really a word. "Victims" would do.


 * Heh, yeah I always knew it sounded a bit awkward but this is another one I remember spending ages trying to word properly, and nothing worked! "Endurer" is included on Merriam-Webster so I decided to go with that...I don't want to describe them as "victims" because they remain cheerful and optimistic throughout the film. They "endure" the difficulties of the depression. Any suggestions? -- Loeba  (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * With due respect to the Merriam-Webster compilers, their's isn't in the front rank of dictionaries. I can't find "endurer" in the OED or other principal dictionaries; moreover, the word sounds wrong.  I can understand you not wanting to use "victims". The alternative is to reword the phrase, e.g. "Featuring the Tramp and Goddard as they endure  the Great Depression..." Or you could use "experience", as a more neutral word. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Great Dictator
 * Link the secion via a hatnote to the article on the film ("Main article: The Great Dictator")
 * Would this not be a bit redundant when it's linked to in the first paragraph and the caption? -- Loeba (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is normally done in such instances. Readers only interested in this film can then pick up the hatnote link immediately. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Should we have hatnotes for the other feature films as well? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * It is probably worth noting – I'm sure some source does – that filming began in the month that the Second World War broke out. Otherwise no comment or ce in this section.


 * Legal troubles and Oona O'Neill
 * "after their separation" – as they weren't married, better to say "after they separated" - and a date for the separation would be helpful.
 * The period in which they were involved is given in the preceding sentence (we have nothing more definite than "autumn 1942" - even Maland says it isn't clear exactly when things ended). -- Loeba (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "the transportation of women" – isn't it "the transportation of women across state boundaries"?
 * You need to explain that by the time the paternity suit was heard the child, Carol Ann, had been born. She is named without explanation in the accompanying footnote, but her existence needs to be made explicit in the text.
 * Ah, this information used to be included but another user removed it because he said the section was too detailed and it was difficult to read. It is important though, I agree. -- Loeba (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Monsieur Verdoux and communist accusations
 * "In the paranoid climate of 1940s America..." I would avoid the loaded adjective (however appropriate it might be)


 * "campaign to drive him out of the country" – this doesn't warrant quotes, it's plain speech.
 * Per "paranoid", above, "and Cold War paranoia grew"; I'd go for something more neutral, e.g. "Cold War fears"

Penultimate chunk: I will finish tomorrow:
 * Limelight and expulsion
 * Was he actually expelled? The text suggest that his return to the US was to be made conditional on an interview, which is not "expulsion" as such. Otherwise, no issues with this section apart from very light ce Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a difficult thing to name, and a user on the talk page (same one as mentioned above) wanted it to be expulsion. I said "that makes it sound like he was actively chucked out" and suggested "banning from US", but he didn't like that and I didn't want to argue any more. I've gone with "banning from US" for now, do you think that's okay? Chaplin was banned from entering so I think it's a good option. -- Loeba (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Limelight and US ban would be tidier, although it might be argued that he wasn't actually "banned", merely deprived of the automatic right of re-entry. I won't split hairs, though. "Expulsion" was definitely wrong, and I see that it has gone. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Would "Limelight and leaving the US" be ok? I know it doesn't immediately convey to the reader the fact that his re-entry permit was cancelled, but it is pretty neutral. Or maybe "Last years in the US and Limelight"?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3


 * Move to Switzerland and A King in New York
 * I'm not sure that "collect his fortune" is the best wording. I doubt that his assets were all readily transportable, and bank balances, even in 1953, could be transferred rather than physically collected. Maybe something more general, like "settle his affairs", would be more appropriate.
 * Yep, only "settle his affairs" is the exact wording used by Robinson! But perhaps it is commonplace enough that we can use it without accusations? -- Loeba (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a straightforward expression that doesn't need quotes. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "References were made to his arrest and expulsion, while his son, Michael, was cast as a boy whose parents are targeted by the FBI". To what does "his arrest" refer? Also, I have already expressed reservations about "expulsion"
 * Final works and renewed appreciation
 * The words "on their second release" are a bit confusing, and I think unnecessary.
 * Removed. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * "Commander of the national order of the Legion of Honour" – needs more formal capitalisation: "Commander of the National Order..." etc
 * Done. - Susie
 * "He experienced several strokes..." In view of the previous reference in this section to strokes, perhaps "He experienced several further strokes..."
 * Done. -Susie
 * Death
 * I am not altogether sure about this source Although it bears the BBC name, it is not necessarily a BBC-acknowledged site - see the disclaimer at the foot of the source page. The facts about Chaplin's illegal exhumation and subsequent reburial are pretty well recorded and shouldn't need a marginal site like this. A possible alternative would be Chaplin's Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry, which reads as follows (I can supply the necessary citation data):

"Ironically the corporeal Chaplin continued to make news, and compete with his famous shadow for the public's attention, when his remains were stolen and held for ransom on 1 March 1978. The kidnappers were caught and confessed to the authorities that they had buried the body in a cornfield about 20 kilometres from the site of original interment. The farmer who owned the field erected a wooden cross supporting a cane and a pair of old shoes to commemorate the spot after Chaplin's body was returned to Vevey cemetery."
 * I think the source is there to specifically reference the fact that he was re-burried in concrete (not mentioned by Robinson or the ODNB). It looks to me like it's a proper BBC source? The disclaimer at the bottom is included on all of their webpages. -- Loeba (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's part of the trouble with BBC sites – trying to establish which are valid and which are not. However, I won't press the point, if you are satisfied that this website is genuine. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Only two tributes from the film industry (Hope's scarcely fulsome)?
 * Hmm Robinson doesn't give many, and I think most of the others are mentioned under "Legacy" instead. He singles out the Hope one as particularly touching in its simplicity, and I think it's a nice quote too...erm, I dunno, maybe we can rummage around a bit. I don't have access to any newspaper archives though, perhaps we could recruit someone to look... -- Loeba (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not something I'd insist on, but if it gets raised at FAC I'll see what I can do. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Influences
 * "In 1921, he called the comic actor Dan Leno a boyhood "idol of mine"." Awkward palcement for this sentence, with hardly justifiable quotes around a commonplace expression. As the year is irrelevant, I'd simplify to: "The comic actor Dan Leno was his boyhood idol."
 * "Chaplin learnt to vary the pace of his comedy, and not depend on a hectic speed." I'm not sure the last seven words are necessary.
 * Removed.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * "was likely learnt" is closely followed by "was likely inspired". Maybe vary the latter phrase
 * Method
 * "Until he began making spoken dialogue films with The Great Dictator, Chaplin never shot from a completed script,[340] instead starting with only a vague premise..." The latter part of this statement is somewhat contradicted, later, by "From A Woman of Paris onwards Chaplin began the filming process with a pre-prepared plot".
 * "53 takes per finished take" is correct, but reads oddly. I would prefer "for every finished intake".
 * Done.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * "Chaplin asserted complete control..." → "Chaplin exercised complete control..."
 * Done.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * I didn't mean to say "intake", I meant "take"! So sorry (I have corrected the text) Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not too keen on the "however" in the final sentence, which is placed a long way from the information it qualifies. A possible alternative would be: "In fact, Chaplin often relied on help from collaborators, such as his long-time cinematographer Roland Totheroh, his  brother Sydney Chaplin, and various assistant directors such as Harry Crocker and Charles Reisner."
 * Still not keen on the "however"/ Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Style and themes
 * Presentation point: one quotebox too many (particularly with an image in the section). At present there is extensive squeezing of text between the boxes.
 * I believe this does need attention. What is the particular justification for so much illustrative material in the section? Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "going back to the 1940s" → "since the 1940s"
 * Done.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

And finally...


 * Composing
 * "Chaplin immediately adopted the use of a synchronised soundtrack..." - "immediately" is unnecessary, and "adopted the use of" is verbose. I suggest: "Chaplin began using...", and perhaps insert "orchestral" before "soundtrack".
 * DoneTrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * "he re-scored all of his silent features and some of his short films." What sort of "scores" did the silents and the short films have originally? Are you sure that "re-scored" is right, here?
 * "between the composer(s) and Chaplin" - "between" means two people; if more than two, "among".
 * DoneTrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * I would add the words "on the film's re-release", or similar, so that readers don't need to consult the note to find out why a 1952 film received an award in 1973.
 * DoneTrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Legacy
 * Nitpicking, I know, but you don't "wear" a bamboo cane.
 * Changed to "in 2006 a bowler hat and a bamboo cane that were part of the Tramp's costume were bought". TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * "He is often credited as one of the medium's first artists." A more or less redundant sentence, considering what has been written in the first paragraph of this section.
 * "claims" is not a good word to use unless you are asserting something against a denial. Better to use "maintains" or "suggests".
 * Done.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * "Chaplin was similarly influential on future comedians". I suggest "later" rather than "future" (they're all past, now). Also, "influential on" is a clumsy construction. Personally I'd rewrite the whole sentence to say: "Chaplin strongly influenced the work of later comedians".
 * DoneTrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * Although the noun does exist and is properly used here, I'd say "mime artist" rather than "mime"
 * DoneTrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * "Chaplin's comedic style has also been detected in ..." Better to reword along the lines: "X has detected Chaplin's comedic style in..."
 * DoneTrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * "The 2012 Sight & Sound poll, which compiles "top ten" ballots from film critics and directors to determine the most acclaimed films of all time, saw City Lights rank among the top 50 with critics;" The poll was among critics and directors, so does "among the top 50 with critics" mean that the directors thought otherwise? Or should the words "with critics" simply be deleted? Ah, I now understand that Sight and Sound polled critics and directors separately. This needs to be clearer in the sentence introducing the polls.
 * The sentence concerning Buster Keaton is a real dying fall, having just been reading how honoured Chaplin is in the film industry and beyond. I'd seriously consider dropping this sentence; the article is not, after all, about the comparative reputations of film comedians. Or, at any rate, I'd rewrite it in a different vein, e.g. "In the 21st century, while Chaplin's reputation and popularity remain intact, some writers have expressed a view that Buster Keaton's films resonate more with modern audiences". If Chaplin's reputation and popularity have genuinely declined in recent years, there ought to be more than one sentence reflecting this, and the matter is significant enough to be mentioned in the lead.
 * Well...Chaplin is still highly regarded (as his success in the recent Sight & Sound poll shows), and his name is certainly better known than Keaton's (surely? I grew up knowing the name Charlie Chaplin, but didn't hear of Keaton until my early 20s when I got seriously into film). But film buffs do tend to favour Keaton these days, and his films seem to be revived more often. This fact is mentioned by most Chaplin scholars, so it definitely should be mentioned. But I don't think it's serious enough that it deserves more attention..? Maybe, I don't know. Susie, any thoughts? -- Loeba (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Afterthought: just read this again, and Brian your comment "the article is not, after all, about the comparative reputations of film comedians" is starting to sound pertinent. As long as Chaplin is still highly regarded (which he is on the whole), I guess it doesn't really matter whether or not Keaton has overtaken him... Like, I wouldn't really expect to see a comparison between the statuses of The Beatles and The Rolling Stones on one of their articles. The comparison is made all the time, and people often chose a favourite, but when it comes down to it they are both very popular and considered extremely influential, and that's all that needs to be said. I guess it's the same with Chaplin and Keaton. I'm just so used to seeing the comparisons between them that it felt necessary to include it in the article! I really don't mind either way, to be honest. -- Loeba (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will hurt the article to remove it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * I think that would be wisest. I recently got into an argument at FAC when in my article on Michael Tippett I included comparisons with Benjamin Britten. The circumstances were a bit different from here, because "Tippett v. Britten" is the subject of much scholarly writing and is important in an understanding of Tippett's current status as a composer – or lack of it. In the end I prevailed; but in general, it is best to avoid such comparisons unless they are highly pertinent, which is not the case here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Commemoration and tributes
 * "Chaplin has also been remembered in several other ways." A sort of unnecessary introduction, could be deleted. (End the follwing sentence "is named after Chaplin").
 * Characterisations
 * Minor ce only
 * Awards and recognition
 * "Chaplin received several awards..." I'd say "several", meaning by definition a small number, is probably inadequate.
 * You want to keep "several"? It indicates not more than four or five; how many awards did Chaplin receive in his career?
 * Knighthood: "awarded" a few sections earlier, "appointed" here. The latter is the more correct.
 * "a joint Erasmus Prize"? I'd say they were joint winners of the Erasmus Prize.


 * I may be wrong, but I think members of the Légion d'honneur are "appointed", too.
 * Done.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * "It has since been presented annually to filmmakers as The Chaplin Award" To what does "It" refer?
 * It refers to the Lincoln Center award – I hope it makes sense now? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

I will try to go through your responses over the weekend, but for the moment I'm done. I have not checked out the images or the sources, and have barely looked at the footnotes – some of which appear rather long, and may be reducible. The article is, I think, a tremendous achievement that will make a splendid FA after a bit more polishing. It may not be an easy ride, however, as this is one of WP's most popular articles, and lots of people will have opinions and will want to express them (not always helpfully). I hope that others will contribute to the review, and I'll be happy to help where I can to prepare the article for its FAC and to look after it there. Brianboulton (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliments, it's great to know you were impressed. I'm aware that FAC is likely to be tough, but it's worth taking a go I think. February 2014 will be 100 years since Chaplin's film debut, and it would be nice to get him on the main page for that... We'll see! Whatever happens, this review has been extremely helpful and the article is better off for all your help. -- Loeba (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to have been of assistance. You will see from my acknowledgements, above, to your responses, that I have a few outstanding niggles which, to save you the trouble of going through the long review again, I will list here:
 * Date indication requested in first para of the "Travel, Paulette Goddard..." section (I have suggested wording)
 * "Series" not "serial"
 * Rephrase the "endurers" sentence
 * Add the requested hatnote
 * Use of "several" in the final section when a rather larger number is evident.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Late added comment: The duplicate links checker highlights quite a number of these. Some may be justified but you should check them out. They include: Best Picture; Best Actor; Honoray Award; Venice Film Festival; Commander of the National Order of the Legion of Honour; University of Durham; University of Oxford; Doctor of Letters; René Clair; Andrew Sarris; Donner Party; Fred Karno; British Film Institute; music hall. Brianboulton (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - hopefully all fixed now apart from 1) I'm still not crazy about adding a hatnote, will wait and see if anyone else requests it, and 2) I checked Robinson, and feel pretty sure that "serial" is the right term. Chaplin wrote 50,000 words about his trip (a chronological recount, I'm pretty sure), which was then published as a series in the magazine. Robinson refers to it as a "serialization of his travels". Sorry for not making this clearer before. -- Loeba (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Indopug comments
Since you want to take this to FAC, I'll say something I've found myself saying a lot over there of late—if you can trim down the details, you can increase readability significantly. The easiest way to do this is to cut down on lists of items in the prose. Examples:


 * You don't need to name every film in the third para of the lead. "which include Monsieur Verdoux (1947), Limelight (1952), A King in New York (1957), and A Countess From Hong Kong (1967)" is especially extraneous (if I wanted the names of his films, I'd go to his filmography article, if not Imdb; I'm here for a more subjective understanding). Other name checks can go too perhaps; restrict yourself to naming and writing about a film in a way that moves the story forward. "Chaplin became increasingly political and his next film, The Great Dictator (1940), satirised Adolf Hitler. " is a good example of how I think we should speak of his films in the lead.


 * im pretty sure everybody is going to skip reading the names of the eight children. If you don't want to excise it, relegate to a footnote.
 * Sections from Commemoration onwards—basically lists of statues, streets, tributes and awards. They don't really add to the readers understanding of chaplin's greatness, because he's already learned this much more powerfully from Legacy. (It's not very engaging subject matter either ("and then he won this"). I wonder if you should transfer it all to a subarticle? By ending with Legacy, you also give yourself a chance to end on a high note—a killer quote summarising his life, work and impact maybe? (As it stands, it ends, like the lead does, with a list of films, all of which feature again in the subsequent filmography section)

Having said all this, this is excellent work. I suggest the above excisions so as to not distract from the highly engaging narrative core of the article.122.164.176.105 (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC) (locked-out User:Indopug)


 * Hi, thanks for dropping in and for the compliments! I cam kind of see why you say the names of his films aren't necessary in the lead, but since Chaplin didn't make many features I feel like we may as well name them all? But yes, it can be done in a more interesting way. Something to work on. I don't know, maybe you're right that they don't need to be there. Orson Welles made a similar amount of films, and I'm wondering if I'd expect all the films to be named in the lead or not...I don't know, I don't think I'd make a strong argument either way. It is useful to name them, no? They all form a key part of his career (except his last, I guess), they're all named within the contents, and all get a fair amount of attention in the article. So not mentioning them at all in the lead seems wrong.
 * I'm afraid I definitely don't agree with removing his children's names. That's an important part of an individual's biography; if someone isn't interested they can easily not read the paragraph, but a lot of people do like learning about the personal lives of celebrities (especially us females, it must be said) and the information should be available. I would however be on board with creating an "Awards and tributes for Charlie Chaplin" article, or something similar, and linking to it as a "See also" in the Legacy section., what do you think? -- Loeba (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks for the feedback :) I see what you mean about listing the films in the lead... I agree that we should rework it so that it's less list-like.
 * I'm on the fence when it comes to the children's names. I can see how having a list like that might not look very elegant. But then, if we remove it, I fear that people might leave the article completely ignorant that some of the Chaplin children are famous on their own right (ok, two). I don't think it's necessarily a huge problem if we remove it, but I do find it useful, especially since I think it would look even more clumsy to list all ten in the infobox.
 * I think a separate 'Awards and tributes' article could be a good idea. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3
 * I've thought about these comments a bit more, and wrote this on the subject of possibly creating an awards/commemorations sub-article on the talk page: "At first I thought it sounded like a good idea, but now that I've had more time to think of it, I'm not sure anymore. I don't think those small sections make the article look too 'cluttered' because they are located at the very end, and therefore don't 'mess up' the actual biography / style & themes section. Also, I'm not sure if they would make an extensive enough 'sub-article'. Chaplin did not win that many awards during his career, and there haven't been that many important memorials dedicated to him either." I've also tried to think about ways to reformulate the lead, but I've not been very successful and have started to think that maybe in Chaplin's case we need to make an exception. He only made a handful of features and it is not easy to select the most important of them without giving a biased view.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program
(t) Josve05a  (c)  22:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)