Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Gary Cooper/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Gary Cooper

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Beginning in September 2014, I did a substantial re-write of the article using five Cooper biographies and various secondary sources. The article was promoted to GA status on December 21, 2014. I spent the past two weeks making additional edits related to GA comments and suggestions. Please review the article against the WP:FA? criteria in preparation for FAC nomination. Thanks, Bede735 (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

edit

Image comments

  •  YFile:Gary cooper promo image.jpg - Recent FA image reviews have rejected the "publicity stills were rarely copyrighted, so we can assume this didn't have a copyright mark" argument. We'll need something which had both sides available at the source if we're going to claim PD-no notice (also note that stills and films would have had to be registered separately, so because a still is free it doesn't mean the film is free, and vice versa)
Question @Crisco 1492: This publicity photo was used for the film Meet John Doe. When ownership for the film was transfered from RKO to Frank Capra and Robert Riskin, they sold the film to Goodwill Pictures. When Goodwill failed to renew their copyright, the film reverted to the public domain. Is it likely that Goodwill newed the copyright for publicity photos while failing to renew the copyright for the film itself? This question also applies to the movie still listed below. Bede735 (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked renewals for artwork (covers things like lobby cards, posters and photos) for the years 1968 and 1969. There were no listings for Meet John Doe, so you can copy the search information onto the photos. We hope (talk) 23:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the lead image with a publicity photo with a reverse side with no copyright statement. Please confirm that this is acceptable. Bede735 (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 YComment I think it would be better if you changed the license to copyright not renewed. Not sure whether the photo was issued without borders or if the newspaper cropped it and kept only the photo portion. When there's copyright fine print on a border, most of them have a rider that says something like this (at lower left): "Permission granted for newspaper and magazine reproduction." The back of the photo notes that the newspaper received the photo in November 1936, but the Minneapolis Journal didn't use it for publication until February 17, 1937. I've now checked publications renewals for the Minneapolis Journal for the years 1964 and 1965--The paper didn't renew any issues during those two years--nothing with "Minneapolis" in the title was listed.
I changed the license and added a note in permissions. Bede735 (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 YOn a side note, this photo of Cooper and his wife could also be used under copyright not renewed if you want to include it. It was published by the Minneapolis Journal November 14, 1933. A check of periodical renewals for the years 1960 and 1961 show that the Journal didn't renew any issues during those two years. I would, however, include a footnote in the article about Mrs. Cooper being known by more than one name. The photo lists her as Sandra Shaw; have seen others identifying her with that name. Until I went to her article where I saw Sandra Shaw in the infobox, I thought he had been married more than once. We hope (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a note to the article. I will upload the photo and add it to the Marriage and family section. Bede735 (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  YFile:Gary Cooper 1903.jpg - What evidence do we have that this was published before 1923? A family picture like this could conceivably have been unpublished til much later.

Found a copy published in 1933 in Modern Screen-the magazine wasn't renewed. We hope (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This image has a PD-US-not_renewed license (1923–63). I could find only two published sources with this image: a Saturday Evening Post article (February 25, 1956, p. 29), and The Films of Gary Cooper (Dickens, 1970, p. 2). Neither source has a copyright notice for the image. Bede735 (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It might be difficult to get a copy of a Grinnell College yearbook from 1922. The college website lists the inventory for its Libraries Special Collections and yearbooks dating that far back are not included. Bede735 (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  NFile:Gary Cooper 1926.jpg - Link's dead. Unless the individual is some hundred years old, rather doubtful that they were the photographer (and thus the copyright holder, and thus actually able to give a free license)
I found a copy of the photo in a 1943 film book which wasn't renewed. Have changed the Commons information to point to the book at Internet Archive and the license to copyright not renewed. We hope (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different image. The one uploaded was not a full profile. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the image with a similar promotional photo from the film that We hope found, File:Gary Cooper in The Winning of Barbara Worth 1926.jpg, with the appropriate copyright information. Bede735 (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this image and replaced it with a new image with appropriate copyright status. Bede735 (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Renewal of the film and materials related to it were checked--nothing was renewed. We hope (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checked renewal for film and materials connected with it--neither were renewed. We hope (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link works, but the video is not from an official trailer. I will remove the image from the article. Bede735 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  YFile:Meet John Doe 1941 (3).jpg - Certainly not a screenshot with that inked-in number at the bottom; it's a film still. Again, needs both sides to ensure that this is actually free.
See above. Bede735 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, it looks like they're moving the photos to another host. You can't find anything of the LA Times archives other then the descriptions. Was at what appears to be their new service; it has very few photos transferred and what is there doesn't work well yet. We hope (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link the trailer and uploaded a new screenshot from that trailer. Bede735 (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMBD trailer. Just watched it and there's no notice We hope (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the image and replaced it with a new image with appropriate copyright status. Bede735 (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the copyright renewal listings for 1976 and found no entries for the Fountainhead trailer for artwork renewals for 1976 or for motion pictures for 1976 January to June and July to December. I've added this information to the image pages. Bede735 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  YFile:High Noon1.JPG - Another one that looks like a still. Got a link, either to a trailer or the still?
Trailer is at IMDB. I just watched it and there's no notice. We hope (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the image from the article. Bede735 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Bede735 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the text (last sentence of that section) I mention the "three-ton boulder" that marks the grave. The image is meant to illustrate that setting. Bede735 (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 YMake sure to check that all of the date fields are accurate. For instance, File:Gary Cooper in Saratoga Trunk 1945.jpg was not created in 2014. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Crisco 1492:, for your quick response and thorough review. I will address all of your comments, and may have some follow-up questions on some of the issues. Bede735 (talk) 01:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

edit

Sorry to be a bit late, and I'll have to do this in patches. On general reading it's very good, but with a few minor issues here and there. These tend to fall into two categories: firstly there's a little too much detail in places (such as listing all co-stars etc). This makes the prose flow a little less smoothly in places, and makes it a long read (you could lose a thousand words and it would be a tighter read). Secondly you tend to overblow the language slightly from time to time: "famous line", "superb reviews", "devoted mother", "pleasantly drawling" and "finest restaurants" are more in line with journalists and non-neutral biographies, rather than striking the neutral, non-encyclopaedic tone we aim for at FA.

Thank you, @SchroCat:, for your feedback. I made most of your changes as indicated below. Regarding the co-stars, I removed some and will return to this issue later. I agree that removing them would make some of the sentences flow more smoothly, but including the co-star names helps the reader identify the film, especially the lesser known titles (for example, I Take This Woman might not be as recognizable as I Take This Woman with Carole Lombard). Right now, I believe I only include well-known co-stars. I will revisit the issue later. Bede735 (talk) 14:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  •  Y"devoted mother": Devoted seems a little peacocky/unencyclopaedic here (most mothers are devoted, and it's the sort of thing you'd read in a puff piece or newspaper).

Silent films

  •  Y"In early 1925, Cooper began his film career working as an extra and stunt rider in silent films...": you've told us this in the last line of the preceding sentence. As you've told us he was going to do extra and stunt rider work, perhaps "In early 1925, Cooper began his film work in silent pictures" (which also gets rid of the repeated "films" in the same sentence.
  •  Y"Cooper also found work in a variety of non-Western films, appearing, for example…" I'd remove the names of the film's stars from the list: they add little, and in most cases Coops wouldn't have appeared with them (which suggests acting between the two).
  •  Y"Lilac Time with Colleen Moore.[62] The latter film, which introduced synchronized music and sound effects": I thought Don Juan (1926 film) from 1926 introduced it?

Hollywood stardom

  •  YImage caption: "Cooper in The Virginian, speaking the famous line, "If you wanna call me that, smile."": "famous"? Not only have I never heard it (no great surprise) but it didn't make the AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes and isn't readily identifiable as "famous".
Well the line is described as "famous" in three of my sources, but I removed the word. It's probably more notable for being the forerunner of "Smile when you say that", a cliché in Westerns.
  •  Y"deep, clear, and pleasantly drawling voice": definitely needs to be attributed to someone, and preferably quoted
  •  Y"He had lost thirty pounds during that period": you'll need to provide an imperial/metric conversion
  •  Y"in the finest restaurants": lose this bit, it's peacocky and adds nothing

American folk hero

  •  Y"In the fall of 1936" -> "In late 1936" per WP:SEASON
  •  Y"equal to $8,185,977 today": too precise and too recent. Suggest "equates to approximately $8.2 million in 2015"
I changed the currency conversion template to the format that comes closest to your suggestion.
  •  Y"the film became Goldwyn's biggest failure": what, ever? ;) probably add "to that date" on the end to clarify
  •  Y"including Graham Greene": Greene sort of pops in from nowhere. It may be worth tweaking to "including the writer Graham Greene" just so people don't click away from the article to see if it is Greene the writer.
I introduced him as "author and film critic Graham Greene" later in the article, so I moved that up to the first reference, which I added later.
  •  Y"received superb reviews": peacocky. Just let the reviewers say their bits, which is more than enough
  •  Y"his heartrending farewell speech": peacocky

Done to the end of American folk hero for the moment. Will return shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carrying on...

Mature roles

  •  Y"The overly sentimental film" Things like are red flags at FA reviews: you need to say who says things like this, along the lines of 'xxx of the Washington Post described the film as "overly sentimental", and it received poor reviews', or similar

Later films

  •  Y"the famous World War I general": I've taken out the "famous", as it's always a problem seeing it. (Famous to who? I can guarantee most of the world, including most of the US, haven't heard of him). FA reviewers will always pick up on words like that. Any word that appears at WP:PEACOCK is always going to be a problem, unless it's part of a quote.
  •  YNot sure what the Conrad quote is doing there: without saying who made the connection it is OR

Marriage and family

  •  Y"posh finishing schools": lose the posh
  •  Y"As a family they vacationed together in Sun Valley, Idaho, during the fall and winter, spent summers at Rocky's parents' country house in Southampton": you'll need to re-work this to avoid the season names (especially the Americanism "fall", which isn't universally understood). You need to check throughout, as I notice the same with his Hemmingway friendship
I went through the article and changed or removed most seasonal references, but kept a few in those cases where changing or removing them did not work, or in cases where the third guidance point in MOS:SEASON applies. When the sources indicate "summer of ...", for example, and the timing is relevant to sequence or context, it is difficult to reword without introducing awkward phrasing, imprecision, or original research. January–March and October–December are not so difficult to replace with "early" and "late" respectively, but spring, summer, and autumn are more problematic, especially when associated with seasonal activities, such as summer vacations. When describing seasonal events in a specific location (in this case, North America), I would think ambiguity is less of an issue. Bede735 (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Career assessment

  •  Y"More than a half century after his death, Cooper's enduring legacy is his image of that ideal American hero film audiences still find so attractive and compelling." It’s a big claim, so best to identify who makes it – "according to…" works well.

A very, very good article here, and on a great topic too. It's close to FAC, but I'd go through it and try and tighten the prose in a couple of places, mostly around the  Ypeacock terms. Hope this all helps, and please drop me a note when you go to FAC! – SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @SchroCat:, for taking the time to go through the article and providing these helpful suggestions. I checked the article for the main peacock terms listed in the guidance and will go back and review more carefully for this and for the co-stars issue. I'll let you know when I submit the article for FAC. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

edit

I have not forgotten, but will hold back till SchroCat has finished. Tim riley talk 20:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now reporting for duty as SchroCat has completed his comments. Very little left for me to glean from:

  •  Yduplicate links – see WP:OVERLINK – Fay Wray, Ernst Lubitsch, Claudette Colbert, French Foreign Legion, Ronald Colman, King Vidor, William Wyler, Billy Wilder and Delmer Daves
  •  Yunnecessary links – English, lawyer, Italy, lions, rhinoceros, antelopes, slang, selfishness, playboy, romantic relationships and affair.
  •  Y"of an English public school" – are we sure that Dunstable Grammar School was a public school in the British sense of the word, in which language is turned on its head to mean that private schools are called "public schools" and schools for the public are not called public schools? (Yes, I know, but that's the way it is.) I see there were boarders, which does rather suggest fee-paying, but I thought I'd check.
I changed it to "English school", but Meyers (p. 14) and Carpozi (p. 15) refer to Dunstable as a "public school". The school's website seems to imply that it was during that time, but neither Coop nor his brother boarded at the school—they stayed with his father's cousins. Let me know if you think I should change it back. Bede735 (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think your edit is prudent, and I'd leave it at that. Tim riley talk 21:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Y"an exhaustive ride" – it may be a UK-US thing, but to me "exhaustive" means "extremely thorough", as in "an exhaustive search", rather than "exhausting", as here. Later: I see Collins' American English Dictionary thinks so too.
  •  Y"an "instinctive authenticity".[51] – if it's worth putting in quotes it's worth attributing it in the text
  •  Y"established movie star Clara Bow" – do your readers really need a link to "movie star"?
  •  Y"per film … per week" – I'd make the second "a week"
  •  Y"the slopes of Mount Kenya in Nairobi" – geography has gone off the rails here by about a hundred miles
  •  Y"Plagued by production issues" – "issues" is a woolly management-speak word; "problems" is clearer. ("health issues" too, later in the text – twice)
  •  Y"generally centered around sports" – some people get very hot under the collar about "centered around", which, they maintain, is a logical impossibility. I think they're a bit silly, but I find it best to write "centering on", which they don't seem to mind.
  •  Y"Actor Charles Laughton, who played opposite Cooper" – as you tell us he played opposite GC you don't need to tell us he was an actor

That's all from me. The article is long, but is now a lot tighter (1,500 words shorter) than the version that went to GAN, and is greatly improved thereby. It looks like a Featured Article now, in my view. Please let me know when you have it at FAC. – Tim riley talk 12:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim riley, for reviewing the article again. I appreciate your time and feedback. I will let you know when I submit the article for FAC. I still have some unresolved image issues problems to close out. :-) Bede735 (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Touché in re issues! I chuckled. Tim riley talk 21:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld

edit

Had completely forgotten about this, I solemnly promise to give it a read tomorrow after I watch a Gary Cooper film!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  •  Y"Westerns, war films, adventure films, drama films, crime films, romance films, comedy films, and romantic comedy films. " -sort of a bit redundant to list them all when the first part pretty much covers it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Friendships
  •  YI still think you could cut down on this section a bit. "Despite his shyness, he met the unique demands made on a movie star,[348] frequently spending time with his fans.[352] He was modest and unpretentious,[348] frequently" -repetition of "Frequently".

I think it's worth going for FAC now Bede735♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dr. Blofeld, for your reviews of this article and your guidance. And thank you Crisco 1492, We hope, SchroCat, and Tim riley for your help in improving this article. I appreciate everyone's valuable time and effort. Now it's on to FAC. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Gary_Cooper/archive1&oldid=1138561382"