"From the age of 12, Hope worked at a variety of odd jobs at a local boardwalk. He would busk, doing dance and comedy patter to make extra money (frequently on the trolley to Luna Park)."
not sure the link to boardwalk conveys what is meant. Else why was he going to Luna Park?
"He would busk" - Tony1 disapproves of "would" in this situation, preferring the straightforward: "He busked"
(frequently on the trolley to Luna Park) - at first reading this sounds like he was taking a trolley to another town, Luna Park. However the link reveals this was an amusement park - is this type of thing more in line with what is meant by boardwalk?
I have cleaned up the passage using Grudens as a source.
" For a time Hope attended the Boys Industrial School in Lancaster, Ohio. Formerly known as the Ohio Reform School, it was a progressive institution for juvenile offenders."
Grudens says he got "locked up" for stealing some tennis rackets from a sporting goods store, but he doesn't connect it to his attendance at the school. I will re-word the passage to remove the implication that he was a juvenile delinquent, because I can't confirm that he was.
"Silent film comedian Fatty Arbuckle saw one of Hope's performances with his first partner, Lloyd Durbin," Hope's first partner? Apparently after the reform school, he turned professional, assuming in vaudeville? (there's kind of a gap here between how he got out of a juvenile penal institution and became a performer that Arbuckle saw.)
perhaps add "saw one of Hope's vaudeville performances"
I have filled the gap using material from Quirk.
" he failed a 1930 screen test for Pathé at Culver City, California."
perhaps some context, such "failed ...a screen test for the French film production company Pathé" - otherwise it sounds like the name of a movie - that's what I expected when clicking on the link so I had to figure out what Pathé had to do with screen tests.
Fixed.
lede says he appeared "in radio" but that's grammatically incorrent.
Fixed.
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)
The fact that the article is a biography that is not organized chronologically makes it difficult for the reader to understand the evolution of his career.
I am not going to change the arrangement of the material, as I think it's better organised the way it is, or it will become a repetitious litany of performances. His career did not really evolve, other than the switch from vaudeville to movies and from radio to television. I have added a paragraph at the top of the Career section explaining the overlap.
Examples of problems with prose are given above. Advise the article be copy edited so that the prose is clear and concise.
Never describes details of his performing style, what accounted for his success. At one point it says he depended on joke writers. Why did he win that long list of awards?
This is really a mystery. The reviews and critical reception mentioned in the two books I was able to get are actually not very good. Why was he so well-loved and so successful? I probably won't be able to resolve this given the sources available locally, but I'll see what I can find out.
I think this has now been addressed in the new Critical reception section.
Doesn't have a "Reception section" other than a long list of his various awards, some important, some not so much.
I have added a section on Critical reception and changed the long list of awards to a couple of paragraphs of highlights.
b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
The "listy" aspects of the article is unnecessary detail.
a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
at least one image is so poor that even enlarged it doesn't look like Bob Hope in the Gallery. I think the Gallery is unnecessary. The images in it are poor, don't add to the article, and there are plenty of wonderful images in the article already.
I have removed the lower-quality images from the gallery.
I feel that the fact that the article is not ordered chronologically is a fundamental failing. The reader gets no feel for how his career grew, what let to what, because the different facets of his career were intertwined. e.g. we don't learn he boxed at age 19 until the end of the article.
Also the "Critical reception" section (which should not be subsumed under career, IMO, but should sum up his total impact) doesn't explain his extraordinary popularity among the American public. To host 14 Academy Awards is extraordinary - a feat that will probably never be repeated. Also the tremendous breath of his endeavours should be mentioned. He was called the "King of Comedy", "King of the one liners". These sites may not be reliable sources but they give more of a flavour of his extraordinary career.[1] and this is an example of how this extraordinary career developed[2]
I suggest Katharine Hepburn as a good model to follow for ordering the career.
The TOC is fundamentally flawed, and a hodgepodge and not ordered chronologically, e.g.:
Career
Film
Broadcasting
USO
Theater
Critical reception
For example, Vaudeville is not given a section as part of his "Career", yet it was fundamental to it, and its influence runs through the whole 70 year career. The "USO" should not be a whole section of his career - it was something almost all Hollywood stars did at the time as an out growth of their celebrity and their support of the US troops. The USO article mentions Mickey Rooney and Irving Berlin, yet their articles don't have a whole section of their career for the USO.
Though I appreciate the good work put into the article, I feel it has major flaws and must fail it.
Thank you very much for your thorough work on the review. The article is better off for having gone through the process, and I appreciate your assistance. -- Dianna (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
