Wikipedia:Peer review/Gene Kelly filmography/archive1

Gene Kelly filmography

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because Gene Kelly is an important figure in film history and warrants a good filmography page. The layout for this article is simular to that of the Woody Allen filmography and the Spike Lee filmography. Any advise on how to improve this article would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Jimknut (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Seems nicely done overall, although I am concerned about the reliability and use of references. Here are some suggestions for improvement. SInce I just reviewed the Gary Cooper filmography, some of the same comments apply here too. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours,Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As noted, my main concern is with refs. My understanding is that IMDb is not generally considered a reliable source (if this has changed, my apologies). My guess is that the Tony Thomas book Song and Dance Man: The Films of Gene Kelly would have all of the films in it.
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V.
 * It is also not clear from the tables themselves what is the primary source for each. For example, what is the source of the short films table? I think it is fine to have one ref for a whole table.
 * The lead is generally well done, here are a few nitpicks.
 * I would change tense in He has been noted for his musical films that displayed his creative choreography which often fused tap and jazz.[1] to He was noted for his musical films ...
 * Also could clean up  He has been voted on the American Film Institute’s millennium list as cinema's 15th most popular film actor while his 1952 film, Singin' in the Rain, has been voted as the most popular movie musical of all time.[3] to something like  He was voted the 15th most popular film actor on the American Film Institute’s millennium list, while his 1952 film, Singin' in the Rain, was voted the most popular movie musical of all time.[3] - I would say who voted it the most popular movie musical too
 * Any reason why the tables aren't sortable? (ask if you do not know how to do this)
 * I once had a FL where it was requested that the tables be made the same width to look better - not sure if this would still be an issue

Addendum:

Thanks for the Peer review of the article Gene Kelly filmography, which I have updated with more information and corrections in the past few days. Regarding these changes:


 * The Intro: I have used your suggestions regarding how to improve the wording in the introductory section. I think that they were good suggestions and read better.  Thanks.


 * The IMDb: I don't know who is saying that the IMDb is an unreliable source, but I strongly disagree with that opinion. I don't work for IMDb nor do I know anyone that does, so I think I can offer a thoroughly unbiased opinion of them.  The people that contribute to the IMDb have taken on the gargantuan task of documenting every film made since cinema began (I think their earliest entry is from 1892).  That means they're documenting hundreds of thousands of films and millions of people involved in the making of those films.  Certainly there are going to be errors made here and there but, overall, I think the people at IMDb are doing an outstanding job.  Wikipedia's entries on films and filmmakers almost always contain external links to corresponding articles within the IMDb.  Therefore, claims made that the IMDb is unreliable seems (to me, at least) to be contradictory and rather hypocritical.
 * I know that an External link to IMDb is OK, but if an article comes to WP:FAC with IMDb as a reference for something other than very basic claims, it will not pass. See Citing IMDb. I would give the External link to IMDb for Gene Kelly. Not sure the rest are reliable uses. If the data can be cited to the Thomas book (see below), I would use that instead. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Tony Thomas Book: Song and Dance Man: The Films of Gene Kelly was originally published in 1974 by Citadel Press and chronicled all of Gene Kelly's feature film appearances up until that time. In 1991, Mr. Thomas did an update of the book per Citadel's request.  It is this revision that I used as one of my sources.  The book is, in my opinion, well-researched, well-written, and well illustrated and an excellent introduction to Gene Kelly's films.   (Citadel is now defunct, Tony Thomas has since passed away, and the book is now out-of-print, but copies can still be found fairly easily.)
 * Sorry to be unclear - I think the book is fine and would be a good replacement ref should the IMDb refs prove unreliable. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Refs: I have added specific references to the "notes" part of the features section as well as general references at the bottom of the page.  I have also added a general reference to the shorts section.  The internet references contain the URL, title, publisher and date accessed.  What else is needed?
 * Refs 10 and 24 need date accessed. Cites to the Thomas book need to be consistent - since you give full info in the References section, I think it would be OK to give book refs like ref 11, but the three book refs are each done differently (one full with page, one full, no page, one just page). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Width of height of cells: These adjust themselves as you add in information. To make them all the same width isn't needed here and will not make the list look any better (except for the three "yes" sections, which I did make the same width).
 * OK, just pointing out this was a request made of me at FLC (set widths the same only, not height). Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg;


 * Sortable: The sortable function doesn't work right when you have cells spanning more than one unit either by row or column. It is also not needed here, as the lists should be kept in a year-by-year chronological order.
 * Fine, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope my changes improved the article and my comments here explain my actions properly. Jimknut (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks much better - I have one more suggestion, which you can ignoire if you want. Would it make sense to add some numbers to the lead? Something like He worked on X feature films: Y as an actor, Z as a choreographer, and W as a director. He also had a role in Q short films. Let me know when this is at FLC and I will support. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I only have a couple of comments to make and I apologize beforehand if they seem rushed or abrupt (that's the way I think). It is entirely fine to link to the Academy Award Database for referencing for film awards, or any other official individual award webpages that might be pertinent. From my experience with featured article reviewers, they will object to the text sizing in the tables and I do agree with Ruhrfisch regarding the column sizing. There are just some issues they will always take exception with, and I think those are ones they will. I'm not as sure about the columns with the "Yes" templates, although I will note that quite a while ago, editors at WP:FILM who were discussing tables were quite opposed to the use of Yes templates. That was partially based on the appearance of them, and also on questions regarding the appearance based on color-blindness of the reader. WP:ACTOR would endorse that view (speaking for WP:ACTOR). The awards from the Directors Guild are noted with acronyms, the FAR reviewers will want the name of the award spelled out and the link to individual awards (such as the Screen Actors awards, Golden Bear, ) should link to the appropriate individual award page on Wikipedia. Also, I'm not certain how FAR reviewers will view the source to IMDb or Turner Classic Movie Database. I'm thinking they will challenge them. That is also an observation based on experience. Hope this helps. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)