Talk:Bernadette Peters/GA1

GA Review

Hello, I will be conducting this article's GA review. I've always been a fan of Peters', so imagine my joy to see her article in such great shape! As far as the criteria goes, I see no major problems; the prose is well written, the MOS is largely adhered to and there do not seem to be any comprehensibility issues. It is also of course neutral and stable and all images are tagged correctly. I have some suggestions regarding the prose, but most are minor:

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting. I can't say I feel strongly one way or another, but I thought I should mention it if you aim to bring this article to FAC.
On a similar note, the published and accessed dates are formatted differently. Although neither of them no longer have to be linked, one should not be "July 28, 2008" and the other "2008-07-28". I suggest changing the latter to match the former.

I am now going through the entire article and will be making the suggested changes.JeanColumbia (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC) To add: I believe I've changed all of the access dates to the requested format.JeanColumbia (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Over the course of a career that has already spanned five decades, starting at an early age, she has starred in musical theatre, films and television, as well as performing in solo concerts and recordings. I'm not sure what purpose "starting at an early age" serves here. When her career began is already alluded to if one takes into account her age and the "five decades"; that she began acting while young is already explicitly stated in the next paragraph, as well.

Agree, deleted phrase.JeanColumbia (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

having been nominated for seven Tony Awards, winning two, and eight Drama Desk Awards, winning three. Somewhat confusing, but I'm not sure how to fix it exactly. "nominated for seven Tony Awards (winning two) and eight drama Desk Awards (winning three)"?

I Think this is fixed now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for her charming appearances...: this could be seen as POV; I would suggest losing the "charming".

Agree, deleted.JeanColumbia (talk)

Nothing of her personal life (early life, family, marriage, etc) is mentioned in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, I would expand on this somewhat.

I added some highlights to the Lead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early career

At 13 she was a "Hollywood Blonde"... I have no idea what this means. Can it perhaps be defined?

I fixed that sentence (she appeared in the role of a Hollywood Blond, etc).JeanColumbia (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Film appearances

including Mel Brooks' Silent Movie (1976 for which she was nominated for a Golden Globe Award) maybe "Including Mel Brook's 1976 film Silent Movie (for which... etc.)"?

fixed per suggestionJeanColumbia (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She appeared opposite Steve Martin, in the The Jerk (1979), whom she dated beginning in 1977: the commas make this an awkward read, especially in addition to the rest of the sentence. I would separate the two and reword the first part. Because dating came before the film, were they dating during filming? Is it known how they met? Were they still dating by 1981?

Tried to fix per suggestion. I broke the sentence into 2 sentences. They dated for roughly 4 years (they are both pretty private about the exact details, so I think some "hedge" is needed here). I think the "4 years" covers the time period during which they made the 2 films together. It is unclear how they met; as stated, they were quite quiet about the details. JeanColumbia (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To add: there is a brief mention about "how they met" in a Q&A with Steve Martin in "Rolling Stone" (1982). I've just included that in the article.JeanColumbia (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the second sentence into the footnote, because I don't think that what the reviewer told Martin is that notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By 1981, her popularity and appearance had led to Peters becoming much photographed: "much photographed" is odd and not really necessary. "her popularity had led to Peters appearing on the cover and in a spread..."?

Fixed the sentnce per suggestion.JeanColumbia (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, she appeared in many advertisements and on the covers of entertainment, fashion and women's magazines, especially in the '70s and '80s. Jean, have you seen anything to verify that? If so, I think it would be notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have nothing on any of that. I know recently there were quite a few magazines around the time of "Annie Get Your Gun" (1999-00) and "Gypsy" (2003). As far as the 70s-80's go, other than maybe a TV Guide (1977 or so) I just don't know. As far as advertisements go, I've heard people describe the tv commercials, saw one myself, but don't know of anything in print. JeanColumbia (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre

for which she won her third Tony Award nomination: does one really "win" a nomination? Either way phrasing is misleading! "She won her third Tony Award... nomination". Aww. :(

Agree, fixed per sugestion.JeanColumbia (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Knapp writes that Peters: past tense, "wrote".

Agree, fixed per suggestion.JeanColumbia (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, she performed at several concerts featuring Sondheim's work, and performed for him at his 1993 Kennedy Center Honors ceremony. Repetition of the word "performed", but since I don't have my thesaurus at hand, would "appeared in" be better for the first instance?

Agree, fixed per suggestion.JeanColumbia (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She next starred in Neil Simon's The Goodbye Girl with music by Marvin Hamlisch: It should be made clear that she starred in the musical adaptation of Simon's play and not the play itself.

Agree, fixed per suggestion.JeanColumbia (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Awards broadcasts: what years?

Agree, added years. JeanColumbia (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(the ceremony is televised on the CBS television network) I'm not convinced that this is truly noteworthy.

Agree, deleted.JeanColumbia (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made some minor edits to fix small, technical errors, but these are really the only issues I can find. Overall I think the article is in very good shape, but I'm still going to place the nomination on hold until the above comments have been addressed. If you have any questions, contact me via my talk page. María (habla conmigo) 13:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maria. I think the comments have been addressed now. Anything further, or is it ready for GA? Great work, Jean! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost there...

There are a couple citations with dates that still need to be consistently formatted (34, 38 and 39 are the ones I see right away).

Fixed.JeanColumbia (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She began an approximately four-year dating relationship with Steve Martin in 1977. "She began a romantic relationship that lasted approximately four years with..."?

Agree,re-wrote. JeanColumbia (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely missed this before, but links to youtube videos ("Watch and listen" section) may not be truly necessary. I would also move the Commons link to the EL section.

Agree, deleted the You Tube section "Watch and Listen". Commons link moved. JeanColumbia (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of external links, I think they could stand to be culled, but that may be simply a matter of opinion. Per WP:EL, fansites are to be discouraged, for example, and unless they have the potential for being used for refs, some of the interview links could be removed, as well. María (habla conmigo) 19:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fan site deleted. I'll look at the interview links, back in a bit. JeanColumbia (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I put most of the external links to the interviews in the article, I feel comfortable in removing them. They were of interest to me but they are not essential and they are not used or needed as references. (I also removed a duplicate listing (Dames at Sea is already listed under the Lortel listing.)JeanColumbia (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! I'm impressed with the dedication by editors at these musical theatre-related articles. :) This article fulfills the GA-criteria and has therefore been passed. If it makes its way to PR or FAC, drop me a line if you need further input. María (habla conmigo) 23:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Maria, for all the helpful comments. Jean, super job as always! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what an interesting experience! Thanks to Maria for making this GA review so pleasant, enlightening, and actually fun. (And for teaching this old dog some new tricks...) Thanks, as always, to Ssilvers for, well, everything. JeanColumbia (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]