Wikipedia:Peer review/Stanley Donen/archive1

Stanley Donen

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is a thorough and complete article that is ready for a peer review and I would like the opinion of a good contributor on how to improve it.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Bradley0110

This is great article that has had substantial work done to it over the last couple of months. It draws on a number of high-quality sources and a number of bad ones too.

• • Thank you very much for your review, lots of great tips.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

General

• There is a lot of overlinking - people, places and films only need wikilinking once.
  • Will take care of this.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• In the infobox, you have "Partner: Elaine May (????–present)". The ???? looks clumsy. If the date is unknown/unpublished, then just omit a date range altogether.
  •  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • No problem, if I can ever find the dates I will ad them as well.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Early life and stage career

• The first sentence should begin with Dolen's full name, as the body of the article is separate from the lead. Filmreference.com is not a reliable source so should be replaced.
  • Yea, most of the websites used as references were present before I started working on it, and many of them can be removed. I did add a few, but will just get rid of all the unnecessary ones. One problem is the information of Donen's three sons comes from these sources...I'll see what I can do there but it would be a shame to exclude that info.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Film career

• The year ranges in the subheadings of this section should have en dashes, not hyphens.
  • No problem.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

1943-49

• What specific "rights" to Best Foot Forward did Freed buy?
  • Film rights, easy fix.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• "The film made Gene Kelly a star and is considered to be an important and innovative musical." Considered by whom?
  • This is covered in more detail in the Legacy section, but I can certainly ad a reference here as well.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

1949

• "Kelly, Sinatra and Munshin play three sailors on a 24-hour shore leave in New York City whose romantic ambitions get they more than they bargained for." Get them more than they bargained for?
  • Ha, yea...--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Like Orson Welles, Donen made his film debut at the age of 25." What is the significance of the Welles comparison?
  • Well, its a notable young age to make one's film debut. This admittedly was my contribution, and is certainly true. For me it is noteworthy due to the age being considered a benchmark for many young filmmakers. Also, praise for Welles often makes a point to point out his age when he made Citizen Kane. I could live without this I suppose, but will leave it for now.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Never gratuitous or amateurish[...]" Is this Wakeman's opinion? If so, it should be signposted as such, as it seems like a personal commentary.
  • It really isn't, its a rewording of the very detailed description of the scene in the Wakeman book.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

1952

• While this section gives a good explanation of Singin' in the Rain's success, very little of it is written from the perspective of Donen; is there nothing written on his and Kelly's methods and techniques used in the film? Why is there such a long chunk of plot summary?
  • Mostly I reserved that for the Relationship with Kelly section. I could make the summary shorter.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done--206.188.36.84 (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

1970-2003

• The last paragraphs of this section lack citations.
  • True, will find a newspaper article.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Legacy

• "Donen and Gene Kelly are credited[...]", "Cover Girl is credited[...]", "Donen and Kelly are usually considered[...]". As above, attribution should be made in the body of the text.
  • I'm not sure what you mean by this.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Donen's skill as a director has been praised by such actor's[...]" No apostrophe in plural of "actor". Rogue and absent puctuation is present elsewhere in the article too and should be rectified.
  • Easy fix.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Done--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Relationship with Gene Kelly

• I don't have access to the sources myself, but the writing style in the Donen/Kelly/Coyne paragraph makes me worry that it is a big block of synthesis. For example, "Blair's autobiography makes no mention of an affair between Kelly and Coyne or of any romantic attachments to or from Donen. However she does state that Donen's marriage to Coyne was unhappy[127] and that Donen was very close to Kelly and herself.[128]" has an element of "It doesn't say X, but it does say Y, so that means Z." about it.
  • Hmm, to be honest I was mostly trying to be fair and show both sides. The basic premise is that their relationship went sour partly because they were both married to the same woman, and the rest is meant to be supporting material. I don't believe that any difinitive explaination of the Donen/Kelly/Coyle relationship could exist since all personalities involved are strong and a bit proud. Will do what I can to improve this though.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

References

• The main sources (Silverman, Casper and Wakeman) appear sound, however much use has been made of unreliable sources. Apart from the aforementioned filmreference.com, use is made of genekellyfans.com (the original article that is cut and pasted to the blog can easily be referenced instead), IMDb.com (which has unverified user-contributed content) and Yahoo Movies (again, user-contributed). Additionally, web references are just listed as bare URLs; they need the page title, publisher, publication and access date as a minimum.

Bradley0110 (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Yea, what references could I use for his sons work in the film industry. For instance, his youngest son has no notable film experience aside for being a PA on one film, so I doubt I will find a source for this other than in list form like those already used. Certainly there must be some way to use the actual credits of a film as a reliable source. Otherwise, will deal with the web sources.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • •  Done--206.188.36.84 (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review. Since requesting the review I've decided to work on the Legacy section some more as well. But hopefully it will be better soon.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• •  Done Again, thank you for your review. I now plan to do a "third draft" of this page with specific attention to references and to the sections 1952, Legacy and Relationship with Kelly.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)