Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Angela Lansbury/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 February 2023 [1].

Angela Lansbury

[edit]
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most famous actresses of her generation, one whose death in October 2022 brought considerable international attention. From Mame to Murder, She Wrote, Angela Lansbury showcased her diverse talents and established a broad fanbase. This article became a GA in January 2016 and while subsequent years saw it fall victim to entropy and a marked decline of quality, recent efforts to restore the GA-rated version and bring it up to date have resulted in a much stronger article that I believe warrants FA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I support this nomination. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:8835:D36B:F718:19A2 (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Don't use fixed px size

Many thanks for these suggestions, Nikkimaria! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
Addressed comments
  • Shouldn't the first sentence in the article (i.e. Lansbury was born to an upper middle class family on October 16, 1925.) use Lansbury's full name since this is the first time she is mentioned in the article and it would provide a clear place where her full name is supported via a citation? I have not worked on biographic articles a lot so apologies if this is a silly or obvious question.
  • I will leave this up to other reviewers as I am also not clear if there is a rule on it. I would personally go with the full name (middle name included) to just have a citation to support that information (mostly for the middle name), but the current method could be acceptable as well so it is probably best to wait for more experienced reviewers to address this part. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would avoid putting words in all caps in the citation titles (as done in Citation 192) even if the source does it in its own title.
  • Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, the names of films and the like should be in italics (like Little Women in Citation 192).
  • Could you explain to me how websites/works and publications are linked in the citations? From what I can see these elements are not linked at all (like BBC Radio 4 in Citation 3 or Playbill in Citation 189 or St. Martin's Press for one of the book citations). I was curious on the rationale for this choice.
  • The New Statesmen citation does not a publisher or publishing location, while the rest of the citations in that sub-section include that information. This should be consistent throughout all the citations in this subsection.
  • The New Statesman and Vanity Fair citations both lack publishers or publishing locations there, because they are magazines, whereas all the other sources are published books. My understanding was that, although it was important to include publisher names and locations while citing books, the same was not the case for magazines. I'm happy to try and find publisher locations for these magazines, however, if you think it necessary? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I was under the impression that if a publisher or publishing location was used for a citation like this than it would need to be used for the rest as well, but I see your point and I do not think it is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part (Although largely seen as a B-list star during this period, her role) is grammatically incorrect. The beginning phrase appears to be describing Lansbury, but the sentence attaches the descriptor to the The Manchurian Candidate role. There is a similar issue in this part (Having gained the job by claiming to be 19 when she was 16, her act) as it reads as if the act and not Lansbury was the one to gain the job.
  • I've changed the first of these two sentences to "Lansbury was largely seen as a B-list star during this period, however her role in the film The Manchurian Candidate (1962) received widespread acclaim and is frequently cited as one of her best performances." Do you think that works okay? In the latter instance I've reworded it as "There, Angela gained her first theatrical job as a nightclub act at the Samovar Club, Montreal, singing songs by Noël Coward. Although 16 years old, she claimed to be 19 to secure the job." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be helpful to link gay icon in the lead and in the article. It is a fairly straight-forward concept, but I could see some readers wanting to get more background on it.
  • For this part (in the hit Disney film Bedknobs and Broomsticks), I would avoid the word "hit" as I have been told and I have seen comments elsewhere saying that it is too informal for Wikipedia.
  • I have a question on how numbers over ten are spelled out in the article. It seems quite inconsistent. For instance, numerals are used for (claiming to be 19 when she was 16) yet words (supervising sixty British children). Do you have a rationale for this? I was only curious because I thought this should be more consistent throughout the article.
  • I'm not sure if there is any guiding policy on this particular issue, but we should be consistent. I'll try and ensure that all numbers at ten or under are written as words, and all numbers over ten that are in digits. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was slightly confused by this part (adopting "Angela Lansbury" as her stage name) as I was under the impression that was her real name. Whenever I read the adopting a stage name phrasing, I am under the impression that the subject has either adopted a separate name entirely or changed their name somewhat (such as using a different last name or using their middle name for their first, etc.).
  • I re-checked the sources here. At this point, Lansbury largely went by her second name (Brigid) in everyday life; she nevertheless adopted the combination of her first name and surname for her professional name. I have amended the text in the article to make this clear. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies in advance as this may be a silly comment. I remember hearing that Lansbury was dubbed in Till the Clouds Roll By so I did some research on when her singing was taken more seriously or acknowledged by studios, etc. This citation by the Oxford University Press specifically talks about how Lansbury was dubbed in her musical roles until her performances on Broadway established her as a singer. I think that background information would be important for the article as it shows how her career changed over time. I have not read the full article yet. I do not see this being mentioned, but apologies if I am missing it.
  • I've checked that source and made reference to it in the "Honours and Legacy" section, although I intend to re-check the main biographies as I think that there may be more information on the dubbing situation there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. My comments are for the lead and the "Early life and career beginnings" section, with some focused on the citation structure. I am a huge fan of Murder, She Wrote so I could not pass the chance to review this article. Once everything has been addressed above, I will continue my review. I am really enjoying my read-through of the article so far. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking the time to read the article and offer your comments, Aoba47. I'll deal with the other few comments I have yet to address early next week. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the responses so far! Take as much time as you need. Have a happy new year! Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Aoba47, and a happy new year to you too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unsure about the current placement of File:Angela Lansbury 1966.jpg. It is a photo from 1966, but it is in a section about her career from 1952 to 1965.
  • I can see your point, but given that the photo was taken only the year after the period covered in that sub-section, I can't imagine its use would cause too much of a problem for readers. We would not be able to move that image into the "Mame and theatrical stardom: 1966–1969" sub-section without bunching everything up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about this part (Acknowledging that the film was of poor quality) as it can read like this is being said in Wikipedia's voice or is an objective fact. Would something like (Acknowledging the film's negative reviews) be possible to avoid this wording?
  • Could you expand on this point (and was bothered by the fact that she lost)? I would assume that any actor would be bothered to some degree that they did not win an Academy Award. Why is this time special?
  • Gottfried quotes Lansbury as saying that losing that award "bothered me desperately", but it's not clear that this particular loss was especially bad for her. I've cut the "and was bothered by the fact that she lost" wording, as we don't need it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I love how this part (Despite her well-received performances in a number of films, "celluloid superstardom") is worded, it is grammatical incorrect as it is tying "her well-received performances" to the superstardom quote and not to Lansbury.
  • There appears to be a pattern in which Lansbury has publicly (or privately as I have not read the citations so I cannot say with certainty) said negative things about her films. Did this ever cause any issues with career?
  • Not as far as I'm aware. I suspect that her negative comments were not made in the immediate aftermath of the release of these particular projects, but were instead made years after the event, and in some cases were most probably made in private. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be worthwhile to mention that critics and audiences have since considered Lucille Ball to be miscast in Mame or would that be better suited for the film article? It could be hitting this point too hard and it could be too much about Ball for Lansbury's article, but since I thought about it, I wanted to ask you about it.
  • Would it be worth mentioning that Lansbury took part in a 1982 album recording of Prettybelle?
  • I couldn't find any reference to this in the three biographies cited there (and which I have access to); I'm not sure it's pivotal information for this particular article, as she probably contributed to cast albums for most of the musicals she appeared in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think alma mater needs to be in italics as that phrase has passed over into English enough to be immediately understood.
  • Should the following parts be linked (Rose Thompson Hovick for Gypsy, Anna Leonowens for The King and I, and Maria Feodorovna for Anastasia)? I would think they should be linked, but I was uncertain since the articles about the real-life figures and the parts are for the fictionalized versions specific for each film/story so I wanted to make sure with you.
  • I have two comments for this part (commented that she "hated" the role, believing it too restrained). I would paraphrase "hated" as I do not think the quote is necessary. Also, could you provide some more context on why she felt it was too restrained? Is it something about performing in a Shakespearean play/role, was it something more specific to the production, etc.?
  • I've changed this to "Lansbury disliked the role, later commenting that she found it "very trying playing restrained roles" such as Gertrude". That should make it clear that it was the role she found too restrained, although the sources do not provide additional context there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that Wikipedia does not hide spoilers, but for this part (novelist and murder victim Salome Otterbourne), I do not think the "murder victim" part is necessary as it is almost going out of the way to spoil the story. I would think "novelist" would be enough.
  • Could you briefly expand on this part (and faced accusations of racism from the Japanese-American community) as it seems rather vague right now for this kind of statement?
  • I would avoid using the word "flop" as I believe it is too informal for Wikipedia.
  • Was there a reason given for why Lansbury did not make any more Miss Marple movies? I would assume that the first movie did not perform well financially, but it would be nice to have a definite reason if it is available.
  • This part (Unable to do both, her agents) reads that the agents were unable to do both, and while this may be true, I believe the intended point was that Lansbury would not be able to do both roles.
  • I know this is somewhat inevitable, but would it be possible to look at the 1986/1988 sentences and revise them to avoid them from reading too much like a list or resumé? I think the repeated "In X year" makes the prose less engaging.
  • I've reworded the start of one of these sentences to try and make it less repetitious, but I'm not sure any major changes can really be made here. At the end of the day, it is just a list of things she did, and it's difficult to avoid it sounding like one! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the adaptation of Mrs. 'Arris Goes to Paris was a television film? If that is correct, I would clarify that in the prose to avoid any confusion as a television film and a theatrical film are two separate things (not saying that in a negative way as I love TV films). I would add it myself, but I am not sure if the sources would support that or not.
  • For this part (a video titled), I think the link is somewhat of an WP:Easter egg as it is not readily apparent from "video" that it would go to the VHS article as there are a number of other types of videos.
  • This is more of a clarification question than anything. While reading the parts about her "saintly" public image, I was curious if there was any discussion on people who grew up with this image of her and were unaware that she was once known for playing more villainous roles? I think this could be an interesting thing to point out as the perception of an actor does change over their career.
  • That's an interesting point, and one that I had not previously considered. I don't think I've seen anything like that in the media coverage of Lansbury's passing. Much of the coverage seems to consist of little more than quoting tweets from various celebrities (lazy reporting, perhaps, but such is the way of the world in the 24-hours news cycle). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a requirement for a FAC, but I would strongly encourage you to archive your web citations to avoid any potential headaches with potential link rot and death.

I believe these should be all of my comments. I will re-read the article a few more times, but I do not imagine that I will find anything major to comment on. Thank you for your patience with my review and I hope you are having a wonderful week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you very much for taking the time to review this article with such thoroughness, Aoba47. The article is better because of it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience with my review and I hope it is not too annoying. I will re-read through the article a few times today. I do not imagine I will find anything further, but I want to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviwer. I agree with all of your explanations above, and I appreciate the time and energy you have put into them. Aoba47 (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga

[edit]

Not much to add. Interesting that Lansbury had such a long career and so many illustrious family members! I only really know her from Murder she wrote so it was an informative read. I smiled at her confession of being a "complete movie maniac" :) The link to Krishnamurti was unexpected!

  • "Moving into musical theatre, Lansbury gained stardom for playing the leading role in the Broadway musical Mame (1966), earning her first Tony Award and established her as a gay icon." - "established" reads weird, suggest which "winning her first Tony Award and becoming a gay icon" or similar
  • "and she was again nominated for Best Supporting Actress at the Academy Awards" - Academy Awards can be wikilijnked here as it seems to be the first mention in body
  • " He and Lansbury became a couple, living together before she proposed marriage.[28] They were intent on being married in Britain, but the Church of England refused to marry two divorcees." marriage/married/marry all present, maybe you can rephrase to get rid of one or two?
  • Photo caption - "Lansbury in a scene from MGM's Till the Clouds Roll By (1946), one of her earliest film appearances" - could wikilink Till the Clouds Roll By
  • I'm not sure if we have a policy guiding this issue, but the film's name is already wikilinked in the main body of text next to the image, so adding a wikilink to the image caption would create a duplink. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would come under MOS:DUPLINK, which says in part "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead" so I think you are fine to add it if you want Mujinga (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1987, a spin-off was produced, The Law & Harry McGraw, although proved short-lived." - "it proved"?
  • "She also starred in the 2005 film Nanny McPhee as Aunt Adelaide, later informing an interviewer that working on Nanny McPhee "pulled me out of the abyss" after her husband's death" suggest She also starred in the 2005 film Nanny McPhee as Aunt Adelaide, later informing an interviewer that working on it "pulled me out of the abyss" after her husband's death
  • "In the latter part of the 1960s, Anthony and Deirdre became involved in the growing counterculture and started using recreational drugs. Deirdre developed an acquaintance with the Manson family,[213] and Anthony became addicted to cocaine and heroin. He overcame both addictions in 1971." - I feel this repeats information already said earlier, although I can understand why you want to mention something about it here as well Mujinga (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a level of repetition here, it's true; to some extent that's quite difficult to avoid when putting together a "Personal life" section after a biography. I lean towards leaving this material in (especially as some of it, like the reference to Manson, does not appear earlier in the article) but at the same time I don't mind removing it if there are strong objections to its presence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, I just feel that the first mention "Her personal life was further complicated when she learned that both of her children had become involved with the counterculture of the 1960s and had been using recreational drugs; as a result, Anthony had become addicted to cocaine and heroin." is a bit too similar to the personal life sentences quoted above. Maybe we can see if someone else has an opinion on that Mujinga (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to read and review the article, Mujinga. I'm glad that you found things in there that were of interest to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mujinga, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya I'm inclined to support but wouldn't mind a reply on two things I still see as open, namely the photo caption and the account of her children in the counterculture (these two replies are dated Jan 6 above) Mujinga (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've offered a couple of responses. Thanks, Mujinga. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks for that, happy to support now. Best of luck with the article! Mujinga (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RL0919

[edit]

Starting with some initial comments from what I've looked at so far, which I will continue with tomorrow.

General:

  • MOS:PULLQUOTE explicitly deprecates the use of boxed pull quotes in articles, and there are a bunch of them in this one. Is there a specific reason you want to have these?
  • I've been using quoteboxes for years in Wikipedia articles (including many articles that reached FA, like Nelson Mandela, Rastafari, Dorset Ooser etc), and I've never seen calls to remove them. I think they contribute to the reader's experience. As for MOS:PULLQUOTE, I don't think it applies to these quoteboxes; the quoteboxes provide blocks of text that do not otherwise appear in the article, whereas a pullquote (if I understand correctly) just repeats something in the article, albeit sometimes edited down. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the MOS is a bit absolutist about this, which is why I asked for explanation rather than directly suggesting removal. But the MOS does make a good point when it says boxed quotes can privilege the POV of the quoted statement. On that basis, the quotes from Lansbury herself talking about her life are not so much an issue, but the two that quote others giving their opinions about her seem more questionable. --RL0919 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Len Cariou quote in the "Personal life" section isn't really necessary, but I still quite like it - it tells the reader something of Lansbury's personality, from someone who knew her. Do you think it should go? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously I agree with your previous edits to make the source title capitalization both consistent within the page and MOS-compliant, and I'm hoping the user that reverted them will be reasonable about it.

Lead:

  • "Moving into musical theatre, Lansbury gained stardom for playing the leading role in the Broadway musical Mame (1966), earning her first Tony Award and established her as a gay icon." The present progressive earning doesn't match the past tense established. You could either change established to establishing, or split the sentence out to "The role earned her ... and established her..." Or, I see mujinga offered another alternative above. Whichever you pick, consistency is the key.
  • I agree with the suggestion from Aoba47 to link gay icon – it is under the "addressed comments" above, but doesn't seem to have been done.
  • "including six Tony Awards (including a Lifetime Achievement Award)" – perhaps this could be reworded to avoid the double use of including.

More to come after a new day dawns in my time zone. --RL0919 (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments you have offered so far, RL0919. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding round two, covering the "Early life and career beginnings" section:

  • "In January 1930, when Angela was four ..." Since her birth date is at the start of the same paragraph, I doubt we need to explicitly state her age. It's not a big deal, but removing the aside could help readability.
  • She seems to be referred to as "Angela" more than is necessary to distinguish her from other Lansbury relatives. It's fine in the Childhood section where her siblings are also named, but after that I don't see any cases where it can't consistently be "Lansbury" (excepting direct quotes).
  • Similarly, Moyna Macgill is twice referred to by her first name, although there are no other Macgills named in the article.
  • "Befriending a group of gay men, Angela became privy to the city's underground gay scene, and with her mother attended lectures by the spiritual guru Krishnamurti, at one of these meeting the writer Aldous Huxley." The second half of the sentence seems so unrelated to the first half that it would probably be better split into two sentences.
  • The link to Krishnamurti goes to an article about the name, not a specific person. From looking at the article about Huxley, I think the link should probably be to Jiddu Krishnamurti?
  • "Set in Victorian London" – Initially this introductory clause seemed irrelevant to her biography; I only realized why it was there after reading the next paragraph. Perhaps it could included more organically as part of the description of her character: "a woman in Victorian London who is psychologically tormented ..."?
  • The sentence about getting an agent and choosing her stage name seems like it could be fully split at the semicolon.
  • "Upon release, Gaslight received mixed critical reviews" – We could probably drop "Upon release" here; unreleased movies don't get a lot of reviews and definitely don't get Oscar noms.
  • "the film became a major commercial hit, with Lansbury developing a lifelong friendship with co-star Elizabeth Taylor." I think "and Lansbury developed" would be better here, since I doubt their friendship had any close connection to the film being a hit.
  • "The marriage ended in less than a year when she filed for divorce on September 11, 1946" – Did she file a petition for divorce on that date, or was the divorce decree granted on that date? Or both? I'm not familiar 1940s UK divorce law, but it is common for the process to take a while. If this was just the date of filing, the first half of the sentence becomes questionable. If this was date it was granted, then I suggest rewording to say "she was granted a divorce on".
  • "Returning to the U.S., where they settled into Lansbury's home in Rustic Canyon, Malibu, in 1951, the couple both became naturalized U.S. citizens, albeit retaining their British citizenship via dual nationality." Another sentence that seems like it would be better be divided: "Returning ..., they settled ...". Then separately: "In 1951, the couple ..."
  • "Following on from the success" – Just "Following the success" would be enough.
  • "The company itself" – No need for "itself" here.
  • "1946 saw Lansbury play" – Suggest rewording to avoid starting the sentence with the year. To start a sentence with a number, you are supposed to write it out as words, which I don't think you want to do with a four-digit year.

Sorry I'm getting through this a bit slowly, but it's an enjoyable read overall so I will keep at it. --RL0919 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Another batch, from "Mid career":

  • I added a few links (including one to an article I had to create because our coverage of theatre is unfortunately poor relative to some other areas of culture). Of course if any of those turn out to be to the wrong thing, are already present, etc., feel free to revert.
  • "Shaw himself had a son by a previous marriage, David, and gaining legal custody of the boy in 1953, he brought him to California to live with the family; now with three children to care for, Lansbury moved to a larger house in San Vincente Boulevard in Santa Monica." This is another instance that seems to have too many thoughts merged into one sentence. I would split fully at the semicolon. The first half could also be reworded to reduce the number of comma interruptions and omit the unnecessary reflexive: "Shaw had a son by a previous marriage, David, whom he brought to California to live with the family after he gained legal custody of the boy in 1953."
  • "sent their children to state school" – Since the meaning of this phrase varies internationally, I'd suggest a link to the state school article.
  • "She followed this with an appearance ..." This is followed by a list of three appearances, so shouldn't it be "with appearances"?
  • "dance routines which she trained extensively for" – Pedantry would say "for which she trained extensively", by YMMV.
  • "The stardom achieved through Mame allowed Lansbury to make further television appearances, such as on Perry Como's Thanksgiving Special in November 1966." Lansbury appeared in Perry Como holiday specials in 1964 and 1965 (before Mame), so the I question the implication of cause and effect here. It may have helped her with other appearances (especially the award shows mentioned later in the paragraph), but she seems to have already been welcomed by Como.
  • "the musical Prettybelle, based upon Jean Arnold's The Rape of Prettybelle" – According to the article about the musical, the novel it is based on is called Prettybelle: A Lively Tale of Rape and Resurrection, which seems to agree with what I found in other places.
  • "A controversial play, it opened in Boston but received poor reviews, being cancelled before it reached Broadway." This could have a more straightforward wording, such as "The controversial play opened in Boston, but received poor reviews and was cancelled before it reached Broadway."

I didn't finish the entire section this time, so I'll finish it off in the next round. --RL0919 (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RL0919, is there more to come from you on this? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Gog the Mild. I've been a bit inactive over the past week, but yes I will have some more comments this evening. --RL0919 (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No rush. Thanks for the response. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing off the "Mid career" section:

  • "she filmed on location in Hohenschwangen, Bavaria" – I think 'Hohenschwangen' may be an alternative spelling for Hohenschwangau, which could be linked. (If there are any German speakers around, perhaps they can confirm or deny?)
  • "1970 was a traumatic year for ..." – Change to "The year 1970 was traumatic for ..." to avoid the number at the start.
  • "She had initially turned down the role,..." – This is another sentence that I think goes on a bit long and could be fully divided at the semicolon.
  • "the production ran from December 1975 to May 1976, receiving mixed reviews" – I would switch this to "and received mixed reviews", and end the thought with a period instead of a semicolon.
  • Assuming you don't mind the occasional redlink, I would link Counting the Ways and Listening, the latter as Listening (play). I think it unlikely that a produced play by Albee isn't notable. (If no one else creates the articles, I probably will.)
  • "The King and I musical" – Is there a non-musical version of The King and I?
  • A Little Family Business is also probably notable enough for a redlink, given that it appeared on Broadway and was controversial.
  • "Working prolifically in cinema" – Is an average of one feature film per year "prolific"? Unless sources specifically characterize it this way, I would remove that phrasing.

I should be able to finish comments on the rest of the article this weekend. Still looking good with no major flaws, just a bit of polishing, so I expect to end up with a support unless there is an unexpected surprise in the remaining text. --RL0919 (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, final round of comments. I struck all the resolved issues above and (finally) replied to one unresolved item near the top. Continuing new comments with the "Global fame" section:

  • "should remain a strong single female" – woman instead of female seems more natural to me here. (However, if that exact wording appears in one of the sources, I understand the need to paraphrase.)
  • In this section and the next one, there are a few instances where someone is said to have "noted" something that seems to be speculative or just their opinion. In keeping with WP:SAID, it is better to use words like said, stated, or commented to avoid giving the impression that such comments are definitively ascertained facts.
  • "Tom Shales suggested that the series ..." This is another case where I think the sentence is better split at the semicolon.
  • "The role earned her a seventh Tony Award nomination, while in May 2010, she was awarded an honorary doctoral degree from Manhattan School of Music." Two unrelated thoughts, so I would put the part after "while" into a separate sentence.
  • "2018 saw Lansbury's ..." One last sentence starting with a year that should be reworded.

Personal life section:

  • "although retained her British citizenship" – I don't think this phrasing with "although" works without a noun or pronoun It should be "although she retained". Or alternatively you could use but instead of although and leave the pronoun out.
  • "Anthony became a television director and he directed ..." – Opposite of the previous problem: you don't need the pronoun in the second clause.
  • Finally, it's beyond this section and probably beyond the scope of FAC, but shouldn't the {{Agatha Award}} template be nested inside the collapsed navbox with the other award templates?
  • Since you don't seem to object, I've gone ahead and grouped it with the others. If someone had a specific intention for keeping it separate, they can revert or speak up later. --RL0919 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all my comments; thanks for your patience. --RL0919 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks once again, RL0919. Your efforts are appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like everything I spotted is handled, so I support this nomination. --RL0919 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]
  • I feel her awards are over-emphasised in the lead. They're mentioned in the opening paragraph, then we have earning various awards and winning her first Tony Award within the space of ~200 words, then the entire last paragraph is given over to awards.
  • I think it is important to recognise that she was a highly-awarded actress, but your point is valid that this point may be overemphasised in the lead. I'm inclined to try and cut things back in the fourth paragraph, but would be interested to hear other editors' perspectives on this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's what she did to earn the awards that makes her notable, rather than the awards themselves, so I'd prefer to focus on that. My suggestion would be to keep the last paragraph more-or-less as it is but remove the other mentions of awards from the lead. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • seen as a B-list star during this period, however her role in the film "however" is a word to watch and implies to strong a contradiction here. Suggest "but" or "though" or even just splitting the sentence.
  • she achieved worldwide fame as the fictional sleuth Jessica Fletcher in the American whodunit series Murder, She Wrote, we can infer that Fletcher is fictional and you don't give nationalities for any of the other works. Less is usually more when it comes to the lead.
  • I've got rid of "fictional" but I think that keeping "American" is for the best as the lead already mentions Lansbury being English and moving to Ireland, so it is not clear just from the context here that the show was American. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • she has rejected this, stating that while she had ancestral connections This should be in past tense now.
  • Her mother was Belfast-born Irish I know Irish identity is controversial but can we not infer Irish from Belfast?
  • moved into his house in Hampstead, with Lansbury receiving an education the ", with" construction implies a connection between the two facts which doesn't appear to be there.
  • That year, Angela's grandfather died Any reason for not using her surname here?
  • I wanted to try and avoid confusion with the other Lansbury family members mentioned in this sub-section but thinking about it now I don't think changing "Angela" to "Lansbury" at this juncture will cause a problem. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • with Shaw's child Can this not be inferred?

After the lead, there's virtually nothing to criticise. Very impressive writing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel that awards are over-emphasised in the lead. It's quite a short lead but mentions awards three times. We know actors get awards but they're not notable for the awards they receive but for the roles they play and the productions they act in. Emphasising the awards is undue weight in my opinion and getting towards hagiography. I hate to be the stick in the mud, especially as it's such a small issue and the article is otherwise excellent, but since you asked for a declaration, I guess I'm at oppose but I hope we can work something out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harry, I was hoping someone else would offer their thoughts on this particular issue, but as they haven't I shall go ahead with your suggestion and remove the first two mentions of awards from the lead. Hopefully that deals with your concerns on this point. Thanks again for the review. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to strike my oppose and glad to be able to support now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Alanna the Brave

[edit]

Since several folks have already taken a closer look at the prose and images, I'm going to do a dive into sourcing/citations just to see if I can offer any helpful comments. I'll update this space with my feedback over the next couple of days. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty -- I've scanned through the online article sources, and will aim to do a spot check of some of the book sources soon. The source accuracy and citations look generally very good, although I've found some small items that could be improved:
  • Some sources have been archived, but others haven't -- now would be an excellent time to provide archive links for all web article sources.
  • Source 150 (Shales): dead link, HighBeam site no longer exists
  • Source 158 (Keley): author name "Keley" should be "Kelley"
  • Source 175 (Hernandez): in source title, "6 May" should be "May 6".
  • Source 177 (Brantley: source date should be March 15
  • Source 178 (Viagas): dead link
  • Source 183 (Jones): Source says Lansbury started role in March, not April
  • Source 184 (Gans): source doesn't actually confirm an end date for Lansbury's performance tour (only the starting month).
  • Source 188 (Shenton): source doesn't actually confirm an end date for Lansbury's performance tour (only the starting month).
  • Source 190 (Jury): add second author
  • Source 194 (Lawson): source year should be 2022
  • Source 195 (Miller): This source doesn't actually state it was Lansbury's final TV role -- I suggest removing that from the text (readers can figure it out for themselves, anyway, as her death is mentioned soon afterwards).
  • Source 197 (Bundel): source year should be 2018
  • Source 199 (Broadway): add date and author. Also -- again, this source doesn't state it was Lansbury's final Broadway appearance.
  • Source 200 (King): doesn't confirm it was Lansbury's final film appearance
  • Source 206 (McConnell): source date should be January 12
  • Source 207 (BBC News): This source doesn't say Lansbury adopted an Americanized accent for certain roles (unless I'm missing that?).
  • Source 217 (CBS News): add source date
  • Source 218 (Daily Telegraph): archived version is blocked by paywall
  • Source 219 (Fowler): source only calls Lansbury a cousin, not a second cousin
  • Source 226 (YouTube, interview): This is a YouTube video uploaded by an unofficial account (i.e., not the Phil Donahue Show), so I think it may not meet Wikipedia's standards for strong/reliable sourcing (or respect for copyright). Can you replace or remove?
  • 255 (Academy of Television Arts & Sciences): Hmm -- using a search result page as a source strikes me as straying into original research territory -- can you make an argument counter to that?
  • Source 256 (Contact Music): source date should be May 14, 2007.
  • Source 257 (Kilday): add second author

The article is looking great on the whole! Keep up the good work. Alanna the Brave (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have an excellent eye for detail, Alanna the Brave! Many thanks for going through these sources with a fine-toothed comb and picking up on all those little issues. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome, @Midnightblueowl! Thanks for the quick fixes. I've been waylaid by non-Wiki work this week, but I'll sit down on Saturday/Sunday and finish making any comments I have about the remaining sources. Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Okay. I've scanned Clark, Crampton, Degan, Gilvey and Hischak, and I've done a spot check of the three biographies (in particular any direct quotations). Overall sourcing/citation is still looking really good -- only a few notes for improvement.
  • The Internet Archive has copies of the Edelman & Kupferberg and Gilvey sources, so these should be linked in the list of sources.
  • In the citation info for Hischak, "Lansbury, Angela" should be added as the specific chapter/entry referenced within the source, and the author Hischak also has a middle initial "S."
Fair enough -- I was accessing an online version through the Wiki Library (which does include the "S"), but the Internet Archive version you've linked doesn't use the initial. Hischak's middle initial was mentioned in the main text of the Wikipedia article though, so I've removed that for consistency. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've also taken a further look here, and the article cites several different sections of the same book (citing pages 19, 328., and 510-11, for instance), so I think the present source description best covers that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! You're right. I was focused on the one section -- no changes needed. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 11 (E&K, Gottfried): I don't think Lansbury's mother was actually engaged to Leckie Forbes -- Gottfried calls it an affair, while Edelman writes "an 'engagement'" (emphasis on the air quotes). It's probably more accurate just to say that Lansbury's mother began a relationship with this colonel.
  • Source 87 (E&K): The source given does not support the "bitterest disappointments" quote.
  • Source 113 (Bonanno, E&K, Gottfried): The sources given don't support the "extraordinary wit" quote (I combed the cited pages for this one, but can't find the sentence anywhere)
Thanks for this -- I think I got a bit lost in the bundled citations. This makes it much clearer where the quote is. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 138 (E&K): Citation should give page 221 for this quote
  • Source 149 (Gottfried): The last episode aired on May 8, not May 19
  • Source 238 (Hischak): Small correction to the quote: "bringing a sparkling stage presence..." (you could always just move the quote marks to after "brought")
  • Lastly -- Coral Lansbury (with son?) is still marked as a second cousin in the infobox (should just be cousin). :-)
After these items have been addressed, I'll gladly give a vote of support for the article. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Alanna! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're good to go -- you have my support. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]
Midnightblueowl Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gog. I've gone through the article and think I've fixed all of these particular errors. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another editor contributing to this FAC pointed to the inconsistency, and so I had begun ensuring that the titles all started in upper case, but then a third editor reverted me. I can try and ensure consistency again, and hopefully it won't result in further reversions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly shouldn't be, as this is covered by the MoS - MOS:TITLECAPS. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
Resolved
  • From a glance, the "family" parameter from infobox seems rather cluttered with names. Is there by any chance a general family page link that could be used in place? I either way would scrap Peter Ustinov; that guy legally was no longer a brother-in-law after his divorce from her half-sister, plus I don't typically see this field used for those only connected through marriage.
  • The use of "notable works" is a POV description, even when a "full list" link is used instead of cherry-picking items, and I don't think this serves much purpose anyway when it's better to describe works within article prose
  • Not sure Lansbury's parents are lead-worthy
  • I disagree on this point. Both Lansbury's parents were independently notable and have Wikipedia articles of their own. If that was not the case then I would agree with you, but I think that it is is significant that she had famous parentage. 11:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • "who was the offspring of Macgill's previous marriage to Reginald Denham" is rather wordy. You can just say "from Macgill's previous marriage to Reginald Denham".
  • Starting three consecutive sentences with "she" like you did with the second paragraph of "Childhood: 1925–1942" feels repetitive
  • "Although in her personal life she was widely known by her second name, 'Brigid,' she adopted 'Angela Lansbury' as her stage name."..... contrary to what this sentence implies, one's own name isn't a legal alias.
  • "the film earned six Academy Award nominations, including one for Best Supporting Actress for Lansbury"..... if mentioning any of these, then just focus on her own nom, or readers might be misled into thinking she got others aside from Best Supporting Actress
  • The use of "hit" from "a major commercial hit" is too informal
  • Too much "she" in the last paragraph of "Later MGM films: 1945–1951"
  • Under "The Manchurian Candidate and minor roles: 1952–1965", do you mean "lattermost" when saying "latter" within "later describing the latter"?
  • "Her personal life was further complicated when she learned that both of her children had become involved with the counterculture of the 1960s and had been using recreational drugs; as a result, Anthony had become addicted to cocaine and heroin." feels overly long. I'd split that sentence by turning the semi-colon into a period.
  • "In the early 1970s, Lansbury declined several cinematic roles"..... is it known why?
  • According to the Edelman and Kupferberg biography, Lansbury turned down the role in The Killing of Sister George because she thought it would "destroy" the image she had built up in Mame, and then turned down One Flew Over the Cuchoo's Nest both because she did not like the character and because she did not want to spend several weeks filming in a mental care facility. I'm not sure if this information is necessary for the article really. It would perhaps be an excessive amount of attention given to projects that Lansbury did not take, especially given the article does not go into such depth on many of the roles that she did take. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as a big commercial hit"..... see my above comments regarding "hit"
  • I'd unlink Counting the Ways, Listening, and A Little Family Business when none of them seem likely to warrant articles in the near future
  • What prompted her to accept Murder, She Wrote over a sitcom offer? I'd also make more explicit in this paragraph that Jessica Fletcher was Lansbury's character in that.
  • Lansbury was prompted to accept MSW on the basis of the Fletcher character, which strongly appealed to her. I have made that clear in the text and also added text to highlight that Lansbury played the character. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't feel right to use "contemporary" for "those of most contemporary U.S. crime shows" when that's another way of saying "modern", especially when attributed to a 1996 book.
  • In this sense, "contemporary" is intended to mean the shows that are contemporary to Murder, She Wrote itself. Do you think this wording could be improved? Maybe with "contemporaneous" in place of "contemporary"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1990–91" and "1992–93" should have four-digit years as more complete and professional-looking than two-digit years
  • You can probably guess what needs to be changed with "proved to be a ratings hit", and "Santa's wife" should just be "Mrs. Claus" without an WP:EASTEREGG
  • My concern there is that it results in repetition, with "Mrs Santa Claus" being followed swiftly after by "Mrs Claus". I've changed "Santa's wife" to "the eponymous character" here. (I've again changed "hit" to "success".) Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five consecutive sentences under "Murder, She Wrote: 1984–2003" start with her surname, which is rather much (especially when three of these comprise of an entire paragraph!)
  • No commentary from critics on playing Ms. Potts in Beauty and the Beast? I find that shocking when this is among her bigger roles.
  • That sadly didn't help at all, and in retrospect I should've been more explicit: even mentioning them here can mislead someone into thinking she was the recipient. They're better for the song's page and Ashman's biography when he won them. You can replace it with details on her own involvement and maybe a bit on reception. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a cause of death is known (I haven't yet been able to find one), then that should be added
  • Not sure how I feel about "Personal life" when most (or all) of the crucial details on marriages and kids (except for Anthony directing Murder, She Wrote episodes and the restaurant venture with Deirdre) are already mentioned earlier in the article plus there were times she worked professionally both children. Likewise, her citizenship has previously been noted elsewhere. The rest of it seems trivial except for charities, cousins, and health issues (which you could also probably incorporate into prior sections).
  • I would not want to get rid of the Personal Life section, as readers tend to expect such a section in a biographical article. I also think that some of the issues (like her political views and charitable support) would be difficult to place in the more chronological sections of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To avoid redundancies, husbands in children could be moved to "personal life" (assuming that is maintained), and I'll let you decide where to put citizenships but there's also no need to repeat that information throughout the page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really agree here. Removing mention of her marriages and children from the main biographical chapters would be a mistake, but I also think that giving a brief mention of Lansbury's family relationships is necessary for the "Personal life" section. This does obviously result in certain facts being repeated, but there are other FA-rated biographies that repeat this pivotal information in both the biographical sections and the "Personal life" section (Nelson Mandela etc). I do appreciate the concerns about repetition, however, and what I will do is trim down the length of the sentences discussing her family links in "Personal life." Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was nominated three times for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, but never won; reflecting on this in 2007, she stated that she was at first "terribly disappointed, but subsequently very glad that [she] did not win" because she believed that she would have otherwise had a less successful career." is quite a mouthful! I don't know how much substance this whole run-on sentence carries, but the semi-colon is misused here.
  • Since "Bibliography" is frowned upon as a vague section title that could also potentially refer to works written on a subject, it should be changed to something more precise
  • "Notes" are a separate entity from "References" and thus shouldn't be lumped under the same heading as them
  • Unless you plan on implementing the Rupert Alistair book as an in-text citation, I see no point in having that or a "Further reading" section

While this certainly isn't perfect, I can see it being brought up to par. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, SNUGGUMS. It's good of you to make the effort. I've left a few queries that you may wish to respond to when you have time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome, and the article is thankfully closer to being FA-worthy now. I've left some responses above, and something I overlooked earlier is how the last paragraph of "Final years" uses the surname WAY too much, making it feel monotonous. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on the surnames, and have trimmed them back here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not up to par yet; there's still redundancies with discussing marriages and kids, plus the Beauty and the Beast awards I mentioned that she didn't actually receive remain in the article despite how such an inclusion wrongfully suggests they went to her. The initial edit to slightly change that latter bit didn't resolve my concern at all. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:41, 20 February 2023 (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/Angela_Lansbury/archive1&oldid=1141998035"