Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Katharine Hepburn/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 22:38, 15 February 2012 [1].

Katharine Hepburn[edit]

Katharine Hepburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Lobo512 (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I bring to FAC one of the most famous and unique women of the last century. I began working on the article last August, when it looked like this, and somehow ended up rewriting the whole thing and aiming for FA. This isn't a process I've been through before, but I have been reading the reviews here in preparation, and am familiar with FAC demands. I've also had input from several experienced editors. I believe it meets the criteria, but will happily address any concerns you may have. This is a popular article that gets viewed approximately 150,000 times a month, and would be a great feature for the main page (hopefully for her 105th birthday in May). Please note that all images have been carefully checked to be in the public domain (apart from one, which I believe meets non-free criteria). Lobo (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on all the work you've done on this article. However, I have one BIG problem that prevents me from supporting it for FA status: One of your sources of information is a biography of Hepburn by Charles Higham, an author who is often derided for his lack of credibility (notably for his fabricated claims that Errol Flynn was a Nazi spy). I will not trust anything that Higham wrote and therefore must reluctantly pass on supporting this article. Jimknut (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am refraining from making any more suggestions about this article ... with one exception: I would identify the actor with Kate in the still from A Bill of Divorcement. I believe the gentleman is David Manners. Jimknut (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm slightly resistant to do this, because the caption is already long and Manners isn't a notable enough co-star to warrant making it longer. I'll do it if it's really wanted though. --Lobo (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Higham book is one of the few Hepburn biographies that has not met with a poor reception. He makes no scandalous claims at all, unlike William Mann's book which insists she and Tracy were both gay and the Barbara Leaming book, which for some reason claims John Ford was the love of her life. These are the Hepburn biographies to avoid, which I have done. Higham may have done some questionable work, but his Kate is generally considered reliable. James Curtis recently published a biography of Spencer Tracy, and it is one of the best researched bios I've ever seen. At the end, he assesses the various Hepburn biographies (because they have played such a big part in shaping Tracy's image) and says: "The first major Hepburn biography, Charles Higham's Kate, drew its strength from the author's interviews with a number of Hepburn's friends and coworkers ... [re the Tracy relationship], Higham came closest to getting it right." He has no negative things to say about this bio. And I can assure you that I only have an interest in depicting Kate accurately and would not be using a book I felt to be unreliable. There aren't many good books to chose from for Hepburn, most seem to have an agenda, and I have made sure to use the ones considered the best. I ask you to please have faith in the article. --Lobo (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to delagates: Jimknut explicitly identifies himself as an Errol Flynn fan on his userpage, so may have a personal and perhaps irrational vendeta against Charles Higham (I'm not being rude here Jimknut, just making an observation) --Lobo (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on the conversation above (or source comprehensiveness in general). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ranges should all use endashes
  • Be consistent in whether page numbers are spaced or unspaced
  • What makes IMDb a high-quality reliable source?
  • Don't duplicate cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
  • I looked very closely at the sources for inconsistencies and found a few things to fix, let me know if you can see any more I've missed.
  • IMDb is used only to cite her filmography stats and her awards. I feel it's a good source for her checking the stats of her career (how many films, how many tv films) because it numbers them. It makes for quick and easy verifiablity. The info here is absolutely, undoubtedly accurate. As for awards, this is the only place to get them all collected on one page. And when it comes to finding an actor's/film's awards, I'd say IMDb is considered one of the best resources available. This stuff is only added by IMDb employees, it can't be added by the public like in their "trivia" and other sections (at least I'm pretty sure this is the case).
  • BBC obituary removed from external links.
Thank you Nikkimaria for your time in looking at this. --Lobo (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query, before I dig in. I appreciate the evident fact that there are many books out there on the subject. May I ask what your general strategy was for selecting sources? You make some comments above about how certain books were not well-received or are unreliable, but what information are you basing your assumptions on? For example, did you seek the opinion of a film scholar, or do you have a reliable source that provides insight on which Hepburn books are unreliable? On reviewing potential sources, I noticed, for example, the Worrall book Lunch With Miss Hepburn: The Last Interview. You haven't used this source and it could add to the sparse section about her last years and death. Why did you decide not to use it? --Laser brain (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair question. No I didn't consult a film scholar, but I have done a hell of a lot of reading about this woman, seen practically all her films and interviews, and consider myself pretty much an expert on Hepburn (probably as knowledgable as any film scholar would be). The books I have avoided using in this article are 1) biographies that make extreme claims and have subsequently met with a backlash from aquaintainces and experts (this refers to Leaming, Parish, Porter and Mann - although I have now made a reference to Mann and his argument in the article). Honestly, to anyone who knows anything about Hepburn, these books are considered a joke. Their research has been strongly called into question. I believe that using them would be the equivalent of using tabloid newspapers, which is something frowned upon here. 2) I thought the exclusion of rather "casual" books like Considine-Meara's At Home With Kate and Prideaux's Knowing Hepburn was fine because they are, well, so casual. As for that specific interview you linked to, there's a very practical reason why I haven't used it. It is only available as an e-book, and I don't have a device for that! I'd love to read it. But to be honest, I'd be very surprised if it includes anything previously unsaid. Also, Berg's book goes into a lot of detail about the final years of her life, so I already have the material to expand those sections. However I've chosen not to go into a lot of detail about this in the article - I think these sections are the appropriate length they should be. The article is already very long, and I don't think those sections can afford to be any bigger.
The main thing is, I have definitely made use of all the best Hepburn bios. If I had not made good use of Higham, Berg, Kanin and the new Spencer Tracy bio (probably the best research that's gone into her, even if it's not directly about her), that would mean the article was lacking. These are definitely the sources that *need* to be used for Hepburn.
If you like, I can provide more quotes from Curtis's assessment of the various bios, which confirm what I've said here...so actually, yeah I guess I kind of have had input from an expert! --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more thing to add. I hope you remember, Hepburn was a big celebrity, and one with the potential for lots of juicy stories. People have exploited this, and written a lot of crap about her. It's not like the respectable books that have been written about poets and artists, you know? Most of the books are people just trying to make a buck out of her. I have to be selective in the material, to make it a respectable article. I truly think it's is a good thing that I've done this (and a good thing that I am so knowledgable about her, so I know which books to avoid). --Lobo (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick answer! Everyone you've said makes sense. Subjects for whom so much have been written present an interesting challenge in research. I will provide a full review soon. --Laser brain (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I'm glad you understand. :) And I hope you like the article!
If anyone else has concerns about my judgement of the sources, let me know and I will type up Curtis's comments as "expert proof". --Lobo (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – On references
Ref 285 was published for guardian.co.uk, not The Guardian newspaper.
For all references cited to the BBC in this case, BBC News as the 'work'. BBC is the publisher. – Lemonade51 (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All fixed. I'm rather annoyed their official name is "guardian.co.uk" because none of the other web refs have that format, and it looks ugly, but oh well! --Lobo (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments from Laser brain > These have been moved to the talk page, with permision from delegate Ucucha and Laser brain. They were prose concerns that have been fully dealt with.

Support now. I've been through the rest of the article, and it is excellent. I changed a few things here and there. Awesome job on this! --Laser brain (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is a nice thing to wake up to, wonderful, thank you! --Lobo (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (No. 3) and spot checks

I've no qualms about using Higham. I've looked through the "Final years and death" and "Legacy" sections (numbering of sources as of this version:

  • [288]: "in the family plot" is not covered by the source (neither is the burial location but that can be sourced from the picture). "private plot" would be. The source calls itself "The Guardian, Monday 30 June 2003". I see no reason not to use the name of the newspaper. Fixed: Can't find a HQ source that says family plot, removed that statement. I changed it to "guardian.co.uk" after I was asked to above, but TBH I agree with you and certainly prefer it to say The Guardian, so changed back.
  • [290]ab: OK. The source actually says the lights will be dimmed, but I guess we can assume that they were.
  • [291]: the article says the money went "mostly" to her family; the source does not mention any other beneficiaries, implying they got the lot. Fixed
  • [292]: failed verification. "Academics" is not covered by the source, and the writers are not academics: http://www.camedit.com/who_we-are.html. Fixed: Oh, apologies, I was misled by something. Removed.
  • [218]c: OK.
  • [293]: Is this source really notable? Comment: You mean the book, in general? Well, I thought it was. It is an officially published book.
  • [294]: couldn't access. Dead links indicate to me that the sources and material are somewhat trivial. Scholarly sources are not prone to link rot. Comment: Variety is actually a well known and important cultural magazine, that spanned almost the entire 20th century (making their "100 icons of the century" list rather poignant). The list was mentioned by the BBC. That's very annoying they have removed the list from their site. Would this source be okay to use?
  • [295]: OK.
  • [168][296]: OK. You may wish to link Sheridan Morley as he is a notable critic; the quote marks around "breaking the mold" could give the impression that this is a quote from the two sources, whereas it is actually signifying a colloquialism. I'd re-phrase or remove the quotes. Fixed: Thanks for noticing he is linkable, that's great! I've rephrased this to " Broadcaster Sheridan Morley has said she "broke the mold" for women in Hollywood..", because those exact words are used in the image caption.
  • [218]d: OK.
  • [77]f: OK for the sense; the quotes in "modern woman" are again signifying a concept rather than the words of the sources. Comment: The statement is also sourced to Berg p. 17, where he uses those words ("The modern woman Hepburn symbolized..."). The other ref is used to support the first half of the sentence (which is also supported by Berg, but I thought it was nice to show two different sources say this).
  • [168]d: OK.
  • [77]gh: OK.
  • [300]: OK.
  • [206]h[301]: OK.
  • [206]i: OK
  • [302]: OK.
  • [303]: OK. But the source says Hepburn was in 4 comedy films; the article just names 2. Comment: Now this is tricky, because the other two films in the comedy list (Bringing up Baby and The Philadelphia Story) have just been mentioned at this point in the article, and it has already been established that they are classics. I felt it would be a bit awkward to repeat their names again for the comedy list...Can you think of an effective way of doing this, that won't be wordy and repetitive?
  • [168]e: OK.
  • [304]: OK.
  • [305]: OK for the square name; failed verification on the 12 stepping stones. Although this could be verified by going to the garden and looking, the lack of a third-party source describing the steps indicates that they are not especially notable and should perhaps be cut. Comment: Fair enough. Removed fact about the stones.
  • [306]ab: OK for content. Primary source.
  • [308]: OK for content. Primary source.
  • [309]: OK.
  • [310]: OK.
  • [311][312]: Primary sources. "Two other exhibitions have been" is not supported by the sources, as there could be others that we don't know about. It's better to say "Other exhibitions were..." or "Two other exhibitions were..." so that further exhibitions are not excluded by the phrasing. Fixed - I've just removed the word "two" to stop it from sounding so definite.
  • [313]: OK.
  • [314]: subscription or login required. Comment: Do I use the "subscription required" template for this? Strange, some NYTimes articles require log-in, and some don't.
  • [315]a: place OK; date not mentioned at the source. Comment: It was suggested to me that the place and year of first production were included in the article, but I can't find a single HQ source that gives both of these pieces of information! Do you think I should just remove it altogether?
  • [316]: OK.
  • [317]: OK.
  • [318]: OK.
Thank you DrKiernan for taking on this task, let me know if I can return the favour sometime. I have fixed the errors and left some specific comments above. --Lobo (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fine now, thank you. I don't think any further changes are necessary on [293][294][303], as your explanations have cleared up those points. The Variety article is probably still accessible to subscribers. On [314], I've found an accessible copy at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/18/theater/theater-review-two-snapshots-of-a-hollywood-legend-at-home.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm. I've also found a source for the year and place of the Tea at Five premiere at http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/arts/theater/documents/02164902.htm. DrKiernan (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh you're a star, thank you. I'll add both of those. --Lobo (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments:

  • Is the spelling "honored" and "theatre" consistent with MOS:ENGVAR?
That's fine then. DrKiernan (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.

Support. I thought this was an enjoyable read; comments addressed. What rationale have you used for the selection of credits in the Filmography section? DrKiernan (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray, thanks Doc! Thanks very much for taking the time to read it and I'm glad you enjoyed it. I confess that there is no official source I have used to select the films listed, it is merely a selection—based on my knowledge—of her films that are generally well thought of and fairly-widely seen (they had to meet both these criteria, not just one). I have aimed to be completely objective, there are actually a couple there I'm not keen on and a couple of my favourites are missing. I used these two IMDb lists, her highest rated films and her most voted on films as guides. And I do think they are a good indicator of the current standing of her films (as objective as anything I'm likely to find). I also tagged on Morning Glory, since she won an Oscar for it. --Lobo (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Image review passed. Nominator is to be commended for going the full length in justifying his usage of stills by checking copyright renewals and film copyright handbooks. I'll try to find time to read the text shortly as I've recently read one of the more scurrilous biographies.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did put in a lot of time and effort getting the pictures right, so I appreciate the acknowledgment. Did you also spot that there is a media file, incorporated into "Legacy" (this one)? It's definitey PD, but you may want to check. Oh, and it's "her". ;) I hoped making my signature pink would resolve this problem, but I guess not! --Lobo (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll mostly be addressing issues with the prose. First:

  • You need to choose a comma style and enforce it consistently throughout. Serial comma or not? I looked at the first four list sentences; two currently have a serial comma, two do not. This is just to demonstrate the inconsistency; the entire article needs brought in line with one or the other style.
  • Katharine Houghton Hepburn (May 12, 1907 – June 29, 2003) was an American actress of film, stage, and television.
  • Three more Oscars came for her work in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967), The Lion in Winter (1968) and On Golden Pond (1981).
  • She was dominant, outspoken, athletic, and wore pants before it was fashionable.
  • Katharine Martha instilled in her daughter the virtues of perseverance, independence and fortitude.
Serial comma is now (hopefully) used consistently.--Lobo (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dominant" in the sentence cited above rings oddly in this context. "Confident" or "assertive" or something similar would be better. ("Domineering" is the closest-sounding term commonly applied to a person's character, but I don't think you mean "domineering".)
Changed to "outspoken, assertive..", which I agree is much better. --Lobo (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

—DCGeist (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I gave this article a thorough talkpage review, here before its FAC submission, and was impressed by the ready co-operation of the nominator in resolving outstanding issues. I thought the article was in good shape then; it has continued to improve during this process, and I hope to see it promoted shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian! Your comments and encouragement were a big help. It's a privilege to have your support. --Lobo (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes -- this looks about ready for promotion, just a couple of things:

  • For the non-Americans in the audience, it may be worthwhile to link "progressive" to Progressive Era, as appropriate.
  • Done
  • I note a number of final sentences in paragraphs are not cited, and most (though not all) tend to relate to awards. These should all be cited as a matter of course -- examples below, pls check throughout:
    • Breaking into theatre -- fourth para.
    • Instant success -- second para.
    • Revival -- last sentence of second para.
    • Professional expansion (by the way, know what you mean but perhaps Professional challenges might read better as a heading -- suggestion only) -- last sentence.
      • I think I'll leave it as "Professional expansion": this makes clear that she was improving, whereas "challenges" could suggest she was struggling.
    • Success in later years -- last para.
    • Film, television and theatre -- fourth para.
    • Focus on television -- last sentence.
  • All paragraphs now end with a reference.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hope that's all okay now, let me know if anything else is needed. --Lobo (talk) 12:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed this article for GAC, and at the time thought it a masterful work by a dedicated editor. I'm so glad to see it's only improved since then. It's well written, exhaustively researched, and a great representative of one of the greatest actors, ever. I'm also a big fan of the new lead. :) Great work, Lobo! María (yllosubmarine) 13:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aww thanks Maria. It certainly took a lot of time to get to this point! I'm loving your "greatest actress" comment by the way, you have fine taste. ;) --Lobo (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Katharine_Hepburn/archive1&oldid=1144460325"