Jump to content

Talk:Olivia de Havilland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 148.0.116.39 (talk) at 18:44, 1 July 2016 (→Correct nationality?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleOlivia de Havilland has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 9, 2016Good article nomineeListed

GA review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Olivia de Havilland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 16:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this tomorrow, definitely now;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reading now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • Green tickY " and psychological dramas playing unglamorous roles in such films as" Try "and unglamorous roles in psychological dramas such as"
  • Green tickY " and television feature films, such as Anastasia: The Mystery of Anna for which she received a Primetime Emmy Award." -comma in the wrong place, move it to after Anna.
Early films
  • Green tickY "Los Feliz section " -link?
  • Green tickY "The film was released in February 1938,[81" -move this up to where you mention "The film, which marks her first appearance in three-strip Technicolor".
War years
  • Green tickY "While the comedy is light, it is also intelligent, " -in who's opinion?
Personal life
  • Green tickY "Stewart in fact proposed" -"in fact" not needed.
  • Green tickY Link "Paris Match"?
Already linked in the lead and in the article above.
  • Green tickY " Bois de Boulogne park in the Rive Droite section" -did you link these?
Already linked in the lead and in the article above.

Excellent job, very comprehensive. Perhaps a little too detailed in places but that can be addressed if needs be at PR stage. Certainly looks well researched enough to be a future FAC. Good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Doctor, for reviewing this article. I appreciate your time very much. Sincerely, Bede735 (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Excellent job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct nationality?

Since her nationality keeps getting changed, I posted this issue at the MOS page. It seems to be an ongoing issue. Even Elizabeth Taylor, who moved to the U.S. when she was around 6, and Cary Grant, when he was 16, achieved their notability in the U.S. only. Since the only reason they are in WP is because of their notability, which was made in America, it seems more correct to call them an "American actor." It also seems logical to add British-born, to avoid confusion. --Light show (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OPENPARA says to give the nationality the person had when he/she became notable in the first sentence, and not to stress previous nationalities or the place of birth on the first sentence unless relevant to notability. So I agree "American" is best. However I fail to see what "British-born" adds. We explain her family history further down in the lead and amply in the article body, and, as I have just explained, it goes against MOS. Also, Britannica introduces her as just "American" in their article. I see no reason not to do the same. Plain-old "American", I say. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, except where infoboxes get removed, such as for Cary Grant or others, which makes birthplace hidden or harder to find for casual readers. That's another reason for infoboxes, besides the quick view of marriages, children, age, etc.-Light show (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn... CassiantoTalk 08:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why, in a matter like this where you are essentially branding the article's subject, pander to people who can't be bothered to read beyond the first line or two? That's not improving the article in my view. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. But then Light show is an old hand at this kind of discussion. CassiantoTalk 18:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP Guideline: "Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." Need a link? --Light show (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should heed your own advice, Light show. This topic, or article, come to that, has nothing to do with the infobox on Cary Grant. CassiantoTalk 19:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Cliftonian. This debate even for Grant goes way back. --Light show (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it does. The cases are not the same, though. These are two different people and two different life stories. What's right for one article is not necessarily right for the other. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does she really holds the American citizenship, where is the source? One person can be successful in a certain country without having that nationality.

Images

I see thirteen none free images in this, none of which are particularly illuminating. This should be cut down to possibly one or two. I'm not sure what the plans are for this article, but whatever they are the non-free images have to be dramatically reduced. (If this goes through to FAC, for example, the image reviewers such as Crisco 1492 will be sure to insist the axe is wielded; even without FAC, there still needs to be a cull). - SchroCat (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Olivia_de_Havilland&oldid=727865867"