Wikipedia:Peer review/Rod Steiger/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rod Steiger[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review


This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's a very comprehensive account of the career and life of Rod Steiger, which with a good peer review I believe can be brought up to FA status…

Thanks, . BTW User:Rationalobserver and User:Ssven2 are welcome to assist me in answering comments and further improvement of the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

First lot of comments after first reading for typos etc:

  • "his usual effortness" – effortless?
  • "Zinneman" appears once and "Zinnemann" three times
  • "neutrotic" – probably a typo for "neurotic"?
  • "Columbia Pictures's" – not sure about the ess-apostrophe-ess
  • "which Steiger concurred that he wasn't effective" – "wasn't" seems too colloquial, and would be better as "was not".
  • W.C. Fields or W. C. Fields?
  • "mid 1980s" – wants a hyphen, I think
  • "mid seventies" – ditto, and perhaps this and the above should be in the same word/digit form as each other

More to follow on the content after a close reading. – Tim riley talk 19:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of these, except that the link to W.C. Fields and Me has to be un-spaced or the link won't work. Maybe the page should be moved; I don't know. I guess I could pipe it for consistency. I also went with "which Steiger concurred that he was ineffective". RO(talk) 20:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments to the end of "Early career"
  • Early life and acting background
    • "Battle of Iwo Jima and the sinking of vessels by the Taussig, known to have women and children aboard" – two things here. First, can we link the battle? Secondly, it was no doubt the sunk vessels rather than the Taussig that had the women and children on board, but that isn't what the sentence actually says.
    • "pretty young girls" – not very PC phrasing: "pretty (or attractive?) young women" might be less likely to attract flak
    • "the name Steiger, which had so humiliated him during his childhood" – not clear why the name was a matter for humiliation
It's earlier explained that his mother's severe alcohol problems made his family name a laughing stock in his neighbourhood. "Her alcohol problem caused Steiger much embarrassment and the family was frequently mocked by other children and their parents within his community." As Steiger put it "The name Steiger become a laughing stock" or something like that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "biographer Hutchinson" – you've already told us he's a biographer
    • "the tricks of the trade" – I thought the point, such as it was, of method acting was that there are no tricks
    • "Night Music" – why quotes rather than itals?
Well spotted!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early career
    • "NBC manager of program development Fred Coe" – as false titles go this is a prize-winner; it could be make to clunk rather less if redrawn as "Fred Coe, NBC's manager of program development".
    • "It wasn't long" – WP:N'T
    • "watching Steiger give none of his usual effortless persuasive performances" – sounds anything but a positive review. Is it what you meant to write?
It's actually a typo for "one" ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Steiger made his screen debut" – television screens excepted
    • "self-describing himself" – is this different from or better than just "describing himself"?
    • "director Kazan" – we already know that Kazan was a director
    • "William Shakespeare's Othello" – Shakespeare is already linked earlier, and we need neither duplicate link nor his first name here, I think.

More anon. Tim riley talk 17:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of these concerns, except the two noted above that I'd rather wait to see what Dr.B says before changing the meaning. RO(talk) 21:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

e-heat the oven to 190C/Gas Mark 5.

Final batch
  • Early career (resuming)
    • link film noir? Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He sought inspiration" – Steiger, presumably, rather than Palance. Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A struggling actor
    • "Indian extras" – now here I think Guardianesque PC wording probably is called for. We don't refer to aboriginal Americans as "Indians" any more, surely? The preferred (though linguistically idiotic) term seems to be "native Americans".
I suppose it could have been "red injun'" ;-). Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The film established Rod Steiger" – we don't need to be reminded of his given name at this point, do we?
Indeed nope!
    • If you're going to link all the obscure critics you might link the one very important one, Ken Tynan. The New Yorker seems at least as deserving of a link as The Daily Mirror, too.
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "he conceded to play" – doesn't read very naturally" – perhaps "agreed"? Though you'd then have to change "the producers agreed" in the same sentence, I suppose.
Yes, but I can't have two "agreeds" in one sentence to I reworded the whole thing!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "earned Steiger a Laurel Award" – to my mind we drag in too many tuppenny-ha'penny awards in WP articles on film stars. The Laurel Awards merit a 150-word stub article, I see, and I think we can do without this factoid.

I agree on the Sant Jordi Award but not the Laurel Award, they're actually pretty notable in my opinion, and a short article should never be an assumption of its lack of notability! What the article doesn't seem to tell us is that they were judged by the Writer's Guild.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Though perceived as something of a caricature of Capone the Ultimate Book of Gangster Movies" – syntax awry here: as it stands the book, not the film or performance, is described as a caricature.
    • "and his relationship with Cardinale" – whose?
  • Mainstream film acclaim
    • "New York City" – WP:OVERLINK
    • "the Daily Mail" – I quite see why you would be loth to link to The Daily Mail, but I'm afraid you must hold your nose and do so.
    • "Steiger was universally acclaimed" – meaning no critic anywhere disliked his performance? Do the sources support such a large claim?
    • "Sant Jordi Award" – another obscure award not worth mentioning, meseems. It doesn't even rate its own WP stub article.
Agreed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historical roles and declining fortunes
    • "chauvinist" – why the quotation marks?
    • "which earned him critical acclaim" – I'm sure it did, but "acclaim" pops up fourteen times in the article, which seems to me to rather over-egging the pudding.
    • "a Steiger found" – "and Steiger found"?
    • "legendary comic actor" – WP:PEA
    • "Steiger played … Sylvester Stallone plays" – troubles with tenses
  • B-movies and criticism
    • "wished he'd done" – another chatty contraction
    • "wary of his issues" – I advise caution with the word "issues". It has become a catch-all and somewhat woolly term. Where it means "problems" (as here) it is better to write "problems". Where "health issues" means "ill health", that is what one should write. Where "having an issue with" means "disagreeing with"… etc.
    • "appeared as a reverend" – can one use "reverend" as a noun? Looks odd.
    • "a small Georgian town" – I suggest a link to Georgia. (My first thought was of a Georgian town such as Bath)
  • Acting style
    • "showcase his remarkable talent" – the "remarkable" in the source or is it your opinion?
    • "associated with method acting" – need to be consistent in capitalising (or not) Method/method.
  • Performances
    • I think you do yourself an injustice by calling the list of roles "Main article". There's more about the roles on this biographical page than there is on the list page. I'd make it just "See…"
OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. I hope these few comments are of use. – Tim riley talk 13:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Tim riley, yes very helpful, much appreciated.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of the remaining issues. I went with lower case for method acting, but I changed on that was mid-quote, which I think is allowable as minimal change. I also linked to Georgia the country, but I've been told we shouldn't link countries. RO(talk) 21:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the country, the state of Georgia! Changed to American South. Thanks RO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim[edit]

Just nitpicks really Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "in the South Pacific"♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Across the Bridge (1957) and Al Capone (1959), in which his portrayal of Al Capone—reads as if he played Capone in both
Done. Tweaked the sentence. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • daughter by actress Claire Bloom, opera singer Anna Steiger,--> daughter, opera singer Anna Steiger, by actress Claire Bloom,
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • shadowy, fugitive figure, one which haunted Rod— shouldn't it be who haunted?
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • link paedophile, Soviet Union, clinical depression
  • Another prodigious pupil—he wasn't that big, I think you mean prodigiously talented or similar
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burton made him look like "one half of a naked ass-hole"—I know this is what the source says, but I wonder if it has been translated to AE? It's difficult to imagine the quintessentially welsh Burton use "ass" instead of British "arse"
Yes, AE, see here. I'm Welsh too and use Asshole rather than Arsehole!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, the critic from Variety'—"On the contrary implies rebuttal, I don't think that is what is intended
  • Steiger appeared as a Reverend—why cap reverend?
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • actress Sally Gracie (1952–1958),[191] actress Claire Bloom—some style guides (eg The Guardian) would use "actor" for both sexes
Eeks, I'm not sure about that, I find the idea that its no longer politically correct to call a female actor an actress absurd. What does Tim riley think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actress is usual on Wikipedia, which is a lot less doctrinaire than The Grauniad. (And I speak as a Guardian reader of many, many years' standing, but it can be irritatingly right-on sometimes.) Tim riley talk 15:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a big deal, just raising the point to be considered, since I have the Guardian's style guide (crossword prize) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Steiger eventually sold their New York apartment in the mid-seventies, which was too expensive to keep.--> Steiger eventually sold their New York apartment, which was too expensive to keep, in the mid-seventies
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

This looks like an exemplary article.

  • Is "Holocaust" not a proper noun?
  • "He is survived by his wife" Why not he was survived?
  • "who "haunted Rod through his life and was an "invisible presence and unseen influence".[4]" One of your quotes is not closed
  • "USS Taussig (DD-746)" Taussig should italicised
  • "didn't" Avoid contractions
  • "and believes that he would have ended up a miserable" Should be past tense, surely?
  • "which Turner Classic Movies (TCM) considers to have brought" This strikes me as unwarranted personification
  • "made the audience more sympathetic for him" toward him, perhaps?
  • "every word that said "death"" How about "every appearance of the word death"?
  • "and in one scene Palance threw several record albums at Steiger in frustration that he felt he was trying to steal the scene" How about "and in one scene Palance threw several record albums at Steiger in frustration, feeling that Steiger was trying to steal the scene"
  • "in which he drew comparisons with certain characters" I'm not clear what this means
  • "Variety was impressed" Personification again
  • "just before one of the battle scene was to be shot" This doesn't quite work
  • "the Ultimate Book of Gangster Movies considers" Personification
  • "in Henry Hathaway's heist film, Seven Thieves." You don't need that comma
  • "TCM notes" Personification
  • "Steiger read the novel" What novel?
  • " in the Tony Richardson's comedy" Doesn't work. Also, you link Richardson at the second mention rather than the first
  • "He next played one of his favorite roles as Komarovsky" This suggests that there were multiple roles as K. How about "His next role, as Komarovsky, a Russian ... , was one of his favourites"
  • "what TCM refers to as" Again
  • "Southern gentleman" Why gentleman? It seems a little formal
  • "Poitier was highly praising of his co-star," Odd construction
  • "Steiger not only scooped the Oscar, but won a plethora of other awards, including a BAFTA, a Golden Globe, a Laurel Award, and awards for Best Actor from the National Society of Film Critics and the New York Film Critics Circle." References?
  • "and TimeOut describing him" You can guess what I'm going to say!
Couldn't find it. RO(talk)
  • "with Time magazine writing that" Again
  • "Duck, You Sucker! (A Fistful of Dynamite)" Is A Fistful an alternative title? I don't follow this.
  • "and brother of Jeff Bridges," A character played by him, presumably?
  • "while Variety considered it" Again
  • " with "excellent performances abound by older and younger" with ... abound doesn't work- you want in which ... abound or with ... abounding
This is quoted material, so it cannot be edited for prose. RO(talk) 19:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "husband of Romy Schneider" Again- character
  • "while Time Out London called it a" Again
  • "The New York Times later referred to Steiger's portrayal" Again
  • "the book Canada and the United States: Ambivalent Allies calls it" Again
  • "weren't" Contraction
  • "He later regretted the poorer films he appeared in the 1980s" How about "in which he appeared during..."?
  • "He sank into deeper depression because it depressed him when he wasn't acting, but it depressed him even more that his acting career had taken a nose dive and was no longer a challenge for him" Repetition and contraction; is "nose dive" not a little colloquial?
  • "being overtly sentimental" Overtly works, but I was wondering if you meant overly.
  • "awarding it just one star" Out of how many? One out of two isn't bad, one out of a hundred is!
  • "insisted on taping on the audition" ??
  • "who he referred to as a "cocksucker"" Shouldn't that be "whom"?
  • "according to The New York Times" Again
  • "roles which he could playing menacingly but provided little opportunity for him to showcase his talent" This doesn't read well
  • "while the London Evening News referred to" Personification
  • "One 1960 publication referred to Steiger as an "angry, hot-tempered newcomer of prodigious acting talents, [who] works best only at emotional white heat", and remarked that he found it" The publication was male?
  • "Films and Filming, surveying his career in 1971, noted that" Personification
  • Perhaps the long quote in second para of acting style should be made into a blockquote
  • "New York Magazine, reviewing Duck, You Sucker!" Personification
  • "In that film, writer Richard Dyer highlights" He didn't highlight it in the film
  • "Humphrey Bogart, Steiger's co-star of The Harder They Fall, also displayed an aversion to method acting and Steiger's mumbling at times and referred to it as the "scratch-your-ass-and-mumble school of acting"." Difficult to follow
  • "the American Film Institute hadn't honored Elia Kazan because of his witness to the Un-American Activities Committee" Contraction, and I'm not quite sure what is meant

A very enjoyable and informative read. I made some small changes. I hope these comments will help you make the last few changes before FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The images all look fine at first glance, but File:Mussolini biografia.jpg is a little light on documentation and the source links for File:Rouben Mamoulian - publicity.JPG/File:Claire Bloom - 1971.jpg are dead. The sources are very strong, and the formatting looks about right. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou User:J Milburn, some excellent points and edits, much appreciated. Yes, believe me this is very comprehensive. I even watched several interviews too to try to glean content. He's not one of those actors who have a great deal written about him in any one source so should be easily the most comprehensive source on the web about him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of a few of these, and I'll get to the others tomorrow, but real quick, I think it's okay to personify newspapers and such as written by people. The New York Times can praise something, but it might be better to say who from them did so, but this is not always available. RO(talk) 21:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It just strikes me as rather clumsy, informal writing. I agree that newspapers are "written by people", but I can't say that publications "say" things or "feel" things. I'm not too opposed to something like "according to the New York Times", but I do think "according to a review[/article] published in the New York Times" would be better, and "according to writers for the" or "according to a reviewer writing in the" would be better still. I don't think, typically, that people truly write to represent the view of the publication (admittedly, they occasionally do, but I think it should be clear when they are doing this) but rather write for their view to appear in the publication- especially when it comes to reviews. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's best to name the journalist I think. For example "Janet Maslin of The New York Times stated that... It wasn't immediately obvious for the "effusive talent" one but in looking at the bottom I've found the writer so added it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another way to phrase it would be to use the passive voice: Rather than "The New York Times said Steiger was x", something like "Steiger was described as x in [a review in] the New York Times". I appreciate that this is a stylistic concern about which reasonable people could disagree. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it in that way in numerous articles, depending on how the phrasing is, I'll often paraphrase a quote as saying, described as " " by xxx of the xxx. In this case I believe you're referring to the effusive talent part, well I've said "Lucia Bozzola of The New York Times" now so that should be OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not incorrect to personify a journalism agency. This might be Milburn's personal preference, but it's not wrong. I'm trying to work through the rest of these, but since there's no indication which section they come from, I'm only fixing the ones that show up in a text search. Some do not, and I won't be searching blindly for them. Just so you know. RO(talk) 19:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And what you end up having by not personifying is a laundry list of unknown writers' names, e.g., Jones writes, Smith wrote, or Johnson noted. RO(talk) 19:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're just asserting back-and-forth about what and what is not acceptable- I think we'd have to dig out style guides to be sure. As for finding them, I mentioned everything I saw in my list of comments above- if you're working through that list, you should catch them all. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, though, I don't think it's that big of a problem! The article struck me as very strong, and I suspect I will be supporting at FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just wanted to be sure we were on the same page, because replacing the personification with Jones wrote or Smith stated just trades one issue for another. I think I got most of the remaining ones, but I might have missed a few that I couldn't seem to locate with text search. RO(talk) 20:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I changed a couple of the personification issues, but I didn't change very many. I went with "a writer from XX", as it's not great to litter the article with lots of meaningless names, and I've been encouraged to avoid that in general. But if Dr.B wants to make sure every journalist is named, I'll leave that to him. RO(talk) 20:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doc asked me to resolve some of the comments at the PR and I have resolved almost all of the personification issues. Feel free to revert if you wish. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Lede
  • "as the German pawnbroker," I would say "as the title character" to avoid the double "pawnbroker". The reader can wait a paragraph for the nationality.
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add "Charlie" after "brother".
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a police chief on the hunt for a killer, who learns to respect a black man" maybe "a Southern police chief who learns to respect a black fellow officer as they hunt a killer" or similar
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which reunited him with director Norman Jewison, who had directed him in In the Heat of the Night. " maybe "which reunited him with In the Heat of the Night director Norman Jewison".
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he is survived" I would "he was survived".
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • If you don't state his date of birth, then it is unsourced in the lede and infobox
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence beginning "Steiger's mother" could be usefully split
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " $5-room" per?
Done. Tweaked the sentence. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Career
  • "he sought to make a foothold in film" mixed metaphor?
Done. Removed it. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in which he played a reclusive "brilliant electronics engineer" Why does this need quotation marks? What's the point of having a quote?
Done. Removed and tweaked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "won over the director by praise of his directing and inviting him to learn more about the techniques and mechanics of acting" Hmm. Maybe "won over the director through praise" for the first part, but the second part is pretty opaque to me.
Done. Rephrased. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the issue with Kazam? Competence or communism?
@Dr. Blofeld: I'm gonna need your help on this one. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think, yes, Steiger had strong disagreements with Kazan's political beliefs though the book or interview doesn't venture into it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would give whatever info you have for the benefit of readers who know who Kazam is and why he was/is controversial.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was all there was I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contraction's aren't favored, I think.
Done. Removed the contractions except the ones that are quoted. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1956, Steiger portrayed the character "Pinky" in Columbia Pictures' western film of that year, Jubal," I'd get rid of "in that year"
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"A struggling actor" I think articles are not favored to begin section titles, thus "Struggling actor" might be better
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the Crowther quote really say anything about Steiger?
Done. Wrote what Crowther says about Steiger as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is why the scene is only shot with feet instead of close-ups" perhaps "which is why the scene shows only feet, instead of using close-ups"
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "switches identity" maybe "go into hiding"
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More later.--00:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  • "Though perceived as more of a caricature of Capone" I'm not quite sure this makes sense. At the very least, the sentence structure is strung out all over the place.
Done. Rephrased. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the psychiatric institutions " what justifies the "the"?
  • "In 1962, Steiger appeared on stage" I would sub "Broadway" for "stage"
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lower fee of $50,000" reduced fee?
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The screenplay of the biopic" Is this sentence really necessary?
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Senator" likely lower case
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of Yukon". I'd cut. Klondike is linked for the few unfamiliar.
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " they treated him as if he was dead" I don't think you can say this. You can quote someone saying it, but this isn't encyclopedic as it stands in my view.
Done. Rephrased. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " He played a character based on King Duncan, opposite John Turturro as Mike Battaglia (Macbeth), who plays a Mafia hitman who climbs his way to the top by killing his boss." I would make it clearer for those unfamiliar with Scottish plays that the boss spoken of is Steiger's character
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Hurricane Carter: I would drop a "wrongfully" before "convicted"
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during production" adds nothing
Done. Removed. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was without mannerisms" maybe "Steiger lacked mannerisms"
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had also been highly impressed" awkward, can you massage into just past tense?
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite Steiger's acclaim " this paragraph could profitably be divided.
@Dr. Blofeld: Your call, Doc. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " to go over the top", during the making of" I would ditch the comma
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " also expressed an aversion to method acting and Steiger's mumbling, which he referred to as the "scratch-your-ass-and-mumble school of acting" I think you're nearly repeating yourself here.
Done. Rephrased. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Annakin stated" I'd toss a "nevertheless" before "stated"
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " mid-seventies" likely should be rendered "mid-1970s"
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • appalled that the American Film Institute had not honored Elia Kazan because of his testimony to the Un-American Activities Committee. Steiger wrote that he was "appalled, appalled, appalled". I'd change the first appalled to almost anything different.
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not made clear when he was blacklisted.
@Dr. Blofeld: Need your help on this one. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say. I'd guess it was late 50s, early 60s as he appeared in mainly British and Italians films during that period.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If only one source says it, and it's as vague as all that, I would think that it might be open to question and so should at the least be in-line cited to the source. If this had a material effect on his career, I'd expect most biographical sources to pick up on it, especially given Steiger's connection to Kazan.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: I thought it important enough to mention but I agree there needs to be a footnote explanation. Googling "Rod Steiger blacklisted" picks up a few sources. Perhaps We hope can find something on it. If not I'll remove it as I agree it raises questions.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His career problems" I would split this sentence.
@Wehwalt: How do you think it can be split? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe rearrange it? It seems to me it could be stated more compactly, especially if a connection between weight and health problems (and the intentional putting on of weight) can be drawn.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've split it, agreed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting reading. Looking forward to seeing it at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: Much appreciated thanks, some great points here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Fn 32 and 34 (Mell 2005) are showing as reference errors.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the attitude towards Kazan expressed in the appalled, appalled quote seems at considerable variance with that expressed in the chronology of his life at the On the Waterfront part.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The appalled quote was Steiger's response to Heston not Kazan.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG[edit]

  • Images need alternative text so that it can help readers where images are not available for them to view.
  • "first for Best Supporting Actor for" – wiki-link Best Supporting Actor.
  • "The play was a monumental success and won him the acclaim of critics" – simply "critical acclaim" would suffice.
  • "The play was a monumental success" – monumental is a WP:PEACOCK term.
  • "Marty an extraordinary success" – again, extraordinary borders peacock.
  • "In 1954, Steiger was nominated for the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role as Marlon Brando's character's brother, Charley "the Gent", in Elia Kazan's On the Waterfront" – well, no. His role was in 1954, not the nomination, as the 27th Academy Awards was held in 1955 which nominated him in the category. So change it to something like "For his role as ... On the Waterfront (1954), Steiger was nominated for..."
  • "Upon release in April 1956, a writer for Variety was impressed" – wiki-link Variety.
  • " 'been as hateful a screen heavy around in a long time" " – why is there an apostrophe at the start and ends with a quotation mark?
  • "The director Ken Annakin" to maintain consistency.
  • "film critic Dennis Schwartz dismisses" – why are you using present form?
  • "Robert Coleman of the Daily Mirror considered Steiger's performance to have been..." – although it's just a review, I think anything from Daily Mirror should go away. It has a reputation of poor journalistic practices. It's in fact used as an example of a mainstream media source which is unreliable – see WP:PUS.
  • "Dennis Schwartz wrote: "Rod Steiger..." Though I understand it's a quote, it can be started only with his last name.
  • "So convincing was his performance that" – looks like WP:POV. Using a word like consider might help.
  • "The film was such a success that it was the biggest international box office hit of the 1960s".
  • "That year, Steiger finally won the Best Actor Oscar for his portrayal of Chief of Police Bill Gillespie in In the Heat of the Night, opposite Sidney Poitier" – word finally is redundant.
  • For the aforementioned sentence: again, he did not win the Oscars in 1967, but the film was released that year.
  • "Steiger not only scooped the Oscar, but won a plethora of other awards, including" – I'm a little bit concerned with sentences like "Steiger not only did this, but also this", as it does give a very good flow. It can be tweaked to "Steiger also won a plethora of other awards, including..."
  • "in Jack Smight's dark comedic thriller" – the encyclopedia uses black comedy more frequently.
  • "and a writer for TimeOut describing him" – a space needed between Time and Out as the title is.
  • "The film was a critical and commercial disaster" – disaster does not sound a very good choice to me. How about "failure"?
  • "Writer Ray Bradbury himself said" – why is there an emphasis (himself) in the sentence?
  • "while the entertainment magazine Variety stated" – de-link Variety as it borders WP:OVERLINKING.
  • "The screenplay by Bob Merrill is based on a memoir by Carlotta Monti, Fields's mistress for the last 14 years of his life" – I suggest to tweak it a bit as it reads too similar with the article W.C. Fields and Me.
  • "The entertainment magazine Time Out stated" – de-link Time Out.
  • "In 1980, Steiger received two Genie Award for Best Performance by a Foreign Actor nominations for his roles in Klondike Fever and The Lucky Star, both Canadian productions" – does ref 138 also support this?
  • "The critic from the Daily Mail thought it a laughable affair, thinking that Steiger resembled an" – I think even a review from an unreliable shouldn't be considered acceptable (WP:PUS)
  • "The film was critically panned, with Roger Ebert awarding it just one star out of four" – the word "just" is redundant, as you have already indicated the critical failure of the film.
  • "in the TV miniseries Sinatra" – you don't need the word "TV".
  • "The critical reception was so negative that as of July 2015 it has just" – tweak it a bit with omission of words "so" and just".
  • "In 1993, Steiger portrayed an aging gynecologist" – wiki-link that last word.
  • "he married actress Sally Gracie (1952–1958)" → 1952-58. And the same for the following sentences.
  • "In one clash in a column in the Los Angeles Times" – wiki-link the Los Angeles Times.
  • Wiki-link The Guardian in ref 1.
  • Ref 7: Turner Classic Movies – ditto. And the same for other publishers of references on first occurrence.
  • As the subject is American, I think you should use the dates in American format (in references) "[month] [day], [year]". The current format, I believe, is more appropriate for British English.
  • I see violations of MOS:DASH in references e.g. ref 45, 114.

I hope these comments help you. All the best. -- Frankie talk 15:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: All your comments have been resolved. Thanks for the detailed review, Frank. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

I'm afraid I don't have time for a detailed review, but here are some comments which I hope you will find useful:

Lead

The problem here is that the lead does not provide a summary of the whole article. It is very largely a listing of Steiger's more memorable film performances; it does not mention such things as his disturbed childhood, or that he was a significant stage actor besides his film career. More importantly, the lead gives no indication of the depression which shadowed Steiger's film career, and meant that by the 1980s, when it should have been at its zenith, he was playing in B features. Some significant lead rewriting is advised – fewer films listed and more information on the shape of his life.

@Dr. Blofeld: Gonna need your help on this one. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I agree that the 80s would have been his career's zenith if it wasn't for that, I think it would have always been the 1960s, but I've added a bit, I don't think significant reediting is needed, but I've removed a few films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of the table of contents, I would surmise that by the early eighties, Steiger's career was declining from its apex and that his later career ("B-movies and criticism") was less illustrious. If this is the case, this career arc needs to be reflected in the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I added "By the 1980s, heart problems and deep depression took its toll on Steiger's career, and he found it difficult to find employment, agreeing to appear in low-budget B movies."♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prose points

These are taken from the first half of the article – I have not had time to examine the later serctions:

  • "His first major role on Broadway came in 1951, in Clifford Odets's production of Night Music at the ANTA Playhouse." As it was his "first major role", you should identify the character he played.
Done. Added with reference. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Marlon Brando's character's brother, Charley "the Gent"..." Awkward apostrophising; suggest "Charley "the Gent", the brother of Marlon Brando's character..."
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Steiger also responded unfavorably when he learned that Kazan had been awarded an honorary Oscar by the Academy in 1999". Why? What did he have against Kazan?
We hope has put up a footnote regarding it I believe. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The words "a great screen test" are unencyclopedic unless enclosed by quotes. But see below in my "length" comments
Done. Removed. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence is somewhat out of control as regards length; punc and grammar also need looking at: "Steiger bleached his hair for the part, and sought inspiration for the role from Russian actor Vladimir Sokoloff, read a book about Treblinka extermination camp to understand his character thoroughly, and even visiting the perfume department of a store in Beverly Hills to try to understand his character's contempt for women."
Done. Rephrased. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "headhunter" has more than one meaning. In this case, is it referring to a decapitator or a recruitment consultant?
Done. Refers to a decapitator as Steiger is portrayed as an assassin in the film. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either "RKO" or possibly "R.K.O.", but "R. K. O." looks ridiculous.
Done. Wrote "RKO". — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re Rashomon: it was a stage production, right? But we have "...while Kenneth Tynan of The New Yorker though (sic) that the acting in the film..."
Done. Rephrased the sentence. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In film, he portrayed iconic mobster Al Capone in the film of the same name" – needs rephrasing to avoid repetition
Done. Rephrased. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Steiger reportedly refused..." This use of "reportedly" is deprecated; it carries tones of unattributed gossip. We need a firmer basis for this story. I also note that you say Steiger refused the producer's first offer of the part, but later in the sentence say that he turned it down three times.
Done. Removed "reportedly" as he did refuse the offer. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 03:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Length

My own view is that 10,000 words for an actor's biography is too long for an encyclopedia entry. Encyclopedia article writing involves the arts of selecting and summarising; it is not necessary to mention every film Steiger appeared in, to get a firm grasp of the nature of his career. Also, I found some of the content of rather marginal relevance. I started making a list of bits that I thought could be cut without detriment to the article as a whole – again, this only covers the first half of the article, but you get the idea:

  • Examples of unnecessary detail:
  • "including the pilot episode in which he played an electronics engineer". Doesn't add anything useful
Done. Removed. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "not only was Marty an extraordinary success, but..." covered by other wording
Done. Rephrased. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The James Dean anecdote is rather superfluous – not really about Steiger at all. In view of the article's length, I would consider ditching this altogrther.
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crowther's criticisms of Diana Dors's performance is unnecessary in this article. Retain his crticism of Steiger's performance
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "considered it to have been" → "considered it"
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The carbon monoxide poisoning story - tangential, not worth including (if someone had died, well...)
Done. Removed. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not only did he believe he had greater credibility and esteem as an actor in Europe, but he approved of the more relaxed filming schedule of beginning shooting at 11 am, stopping for lunch and resuming later in the afternoon into early evening." All the words after "relaxed filming schedule" could go.
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there is a lot more similar stuff that could be weeded out. In my own experience, anywhere between 15 and 20 percent of my first finished draft turns out to be expendable, and I tend to cut my own work pretty ruthlessly.

However, I don't want to leave a negative impression. In general this is an excellent article, painstakingly researched, which only needs the final pruning and polishing to be well deserving of FA status. If I can find time while this PR is open, I'll try and add to these commemnts. Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian. Well, yes there's content which could be weeded out but I tried to make it an enjoyable read and interesting, which is why I included the James Dean anecdote. I think it's something film buffs would take delight in reading. Perhaps I could put it as a footnote. I didn't actually mention every role but yes I've mentioned the vast majority. I think, perhaps with the exception of a few Italian productions, most of his roles in 1951-1979 period are worth mentioning. It's after then that they became less noteworthy, I suppose I could remove a few films from the 80s and 90s. I could trim this but I don't want to chop too much.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that film buffs wouldn't complain if the article was twice its length; cricket buffs probably wouldn't complain if the article on, say, Len Hutton, dissected every innings he played. But my point is, we are writing in a general encyclopaedia for a general readership, and need to cut our cloth accordingly. The tendency of WP articles to get longer, especially in the areas of biography and history, is to me an unwelcome and slightly worrying development. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give another read and try to see if I can file it down a bit.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The tendency of WP articles to get longer, especially in the areas of biography and history, is to me an unwelcome and slightly worrying development." The biggest problem with articles on wikipedia generally is not that they're too long but that they're undeveloped and poorly researched. Without somebody like me devoting hours of his spare time to write a comprehensive article it would remain barely a start class article. A number of articles do suffer from unfocused bloat, but there's a difference between a long, fairly balanced/concise overview than a long article which is wildly bloated and unbalanced with excessive prose devoted to one subject in it. I've just read it through and I believe it reads rather well, I've cut about 10 kb I think. I agree it's important to be concise in your writing, but I also think it's important to have a comprehensive outline of a career. You don't need to mention every film and how each fared but I believe you need to highlight the majority to provide an effective summary. I don't think 102kb (56kb readable prose) is too unreasonable for somebody like Steiger. I also believe including certain film production notes or anecdotes improves the readability, even for non film buffs. If you think it's still not acceptable in length then I think it's probably a good idea that I abandon the FA process for the future. I know Ritchie333 is put off by it and only gets articles to GA. How much more in raw kb do you think we need to lose? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think in wordcount rather than kb – it's words define the true length of an article. You've cut about 1,500 words, and I certainly wouldn't suggest you remove more. I agree that it reads well; I don't think there has been any observable deterioration on comprehensiveness. It is hard to judge what are the ideal lengths for articles across the range of topics; the MOS recommendations are given here, but I'm not sure how much attention anyone pays to these figures any more. Also, please bear in mind that I am giving my personal point of view, with which others may well (and do) disagree. Although I'll make my position clear, except in obvious cases of overdetailing (a 25,000-word article on Jayne Mansfield, say), I am unlikely to oppose on the grounds of length alone. So please keep doing your stuff! Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Well I went through it and tried to remove what I could without it really affecting the article. I didn't think I could really remove any more without it starting to affect the comprehension of it. I agree that the Mansfield article is way too long. It is important that an article is comprehensive but it has to be a length in which the reader can read an article fairly comfortably, it's finding a balance I think. Perhaps the average reader would find the article tough going, but I could say that for most featured articles on here. A really good article will take a considerable time to fully read and digest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Rod_Steiger/archive1&oldid=1142589743"