Talk:James Cagney/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hello, I'll be conducting this article's GA review. I know nominations are never reviewed this quickly after being added to WP:GAC, but I saw the listing and I just had to jump at the chance! I've always been a big Cagney fan. :) Since this is such a meaty article, I'll be taking it slowly. I'd like to begin with the refs, since that is what jumped out at me at first glance.

References

I'm very glad that a few hefty biographies have been consulted for this bio, but the formatting is confusing and perhaps even misleading. Rather than citing chapters, cite specific page numbers. Per Wikipedia:CITE#Including page numbers, "If you are quoting from, paraphrasing, or referring to a specific passage of a book or article, you should if possible also cite the page number(s) of that passage.... Page numbers are especially important in case of lengthy unindexed books." Also, since the full bibliographic information is already listed correctly under "Bibliography", there is no need to repeat it in each citation. Rather, use shorthand. This can be seen at various FA articles, such as Robert Sterling Yard. Sutter's book, for example, is referred to as "Sutter, p. #" in the citations, but all of the bibliographic info is under "References". There are multiple ways to configure the shorthand, as long as it's consistent throughout; "Author surname (year), #" works just as well, for example. Take a look at some FAs and see which way you prefer it.

So, cite specific page numbers (not chapters), and use shorthand in the citations. I understand that this might take a while, so once this has been addressed, I'll move on with the rest of the review, including an in depth review of the prose and MOS technicalities. I'll put the review on hold during this process. If you have any questions, or want me to clarify something, please feel free to contact me via my talkpage. I also have this page watchlisted, so feel free to reply here. María (habla conmigo) 18:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for this. I can get on with thsi over the weekend. I had stuck to using chapters simply to avoid hugely long ref lists, but i don't mind changing it.

Actually, I had the shorthand style in an earlier version, but it was recommended by an editor that full cites be used throughout, so that was changed back. It isn't an enormous effort to change it back,especially as I will be re-citing as per your first comment. --Ged UK 15:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, differing advice happens far too often on Wikipedia. I can assure you, however, that if you plan to bring this article to FAC in the near future (which looks to be the case), editors there will prefer you to have shorthand citations. It does take up a lot of room, but it seems to be preferred per current academic standards. I look forward to reading the article in full! Just let me know when you're ready. María (habla conmigo) 15:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem. I much prefer the shorthand version. When yuo're going through this, feel free to let me know where it needs work to get to FA, because, as you spotted, i have every intention of getting this to Featured status :) --Ged UK 17:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry i didn't get to this sooner, I wasn't expecting it to appear on this page, hence the delay! --Ged UK 17:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, I thought that might have been the case. :) Take all the time you need; as long as I know you're still addressing concerns, I don't mind keeping the article on hold for a week or two while we work through the reviewing process. María (habla conmigo) 21:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's underway :) --Ged UK 21:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey, that took longer than expected! Refs done now. Let me know if i've missed any! --Ged UK 22:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, looks wonderful. I'll begin my in depth review tomorrow; I sliced my finger open yesterday and it's still a little difficult to type, I'm afraid! To make things a little easier for both of us, though, do you mind if I copy-edit as I go? I see a few minor things (spaced em dashes, a few repeated refs) that would just be easier to fix than explain. :) María (habla conmigo) 22:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-edit away! En and em dashes are a bit of a blind spot to me, i can never remember which is which, and i tend to write this in Word and copy over anyway, and that doesn't always work. Hope your finger is OK! --Ged UK 23:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review

Sorry this is taking so long! Some general MOS comments:

Use double quotes, not single: "Billie" instead of 'Billie', etc.
Blockquotes are for quotes that are four lines or longer; I've started integrating the ones I've seen in the text, but feel free to cut ahead of me and do likewise.
I'm fixing em dashes and en dashes I go, but I may miss a couple here and there. They're hard to spot, so I'm using the respective wikisyntax codes. Em dashes are unspaced, en dashes are spaced unless it's with numbers/dates/page numbers.
This personally doesn't bother me, but the folk at FAC tend to be very picky: when inline citation numbers are backwards ([7][3] instead of [3][7]), it drives them crazy. I'm trying to fix those as I go along, but feel free to jump ahead, etc.

Lead

Like James Stewart, Cagney became so familiar to audiences that they usually referred to him as "Jimmy" Cagney: the Stewart mention seems a little superfluous for the lead.
Done
Cagney's shoving of a grapefruit into Mae Clarke's face would become one of the most famous movie scenes of all time, and thrust Cagney into the spotlight. Again, this is a little too much for the lead, although that the film thrust him into the spotlight can be integrated into the previous line.

Tweaked

He sued Warners for breach of contract, and Hollywood watched as he won, one of the first times an actor had beaten the studios on a contract issue. This gets a little too dramatic, I feel. How about, "He sued Warners for breach of contract, and won; this marked one of the first times an actor..." etc.
Done
I'm a little confused by the chronology/place of the last paragraph in the lead. When did he sue the studio? When did he work for the indie film company?
Done
I also don't see anything about Cagney's personal life here. His childhood, longtime marriage, children, the fact that he was very private, etc, can all be mentioned. I would say tone down the career info just a little (weed out minor details, like maybe Grant's/Alson's namedrop, the indie film company) and stick to the basics. I have no problem with the length as it currently is, as the article is quite long, but any longer and I think people at FAC may complain.
There is some personal stuff at the end of the last lead para which I've created a new para for. I've trimmed the career section as you suggested.

Early life

The first sentence is a monster, and I'm having trouble trying to break it up. I was thinking of something along the lines of "Cagney was born on the Lower East Side of Manhattan above his father's saloon on the corner of Avenue D and 8th Street. His father, James Cagney Sr., was an Irish American bartender and amateur boxer" -- but I can't see how to introduce his mother and her side of the family. Any ideas?
I've had had a go!

all of which was a product of the level of poverty in which they grew up. I'm not sure what "all of which" is referring to here; the sicknesses? Is this speculation? Could be made clearer.
Done

He had a range of jobs early in his life, all contributing to the family fund: This is also a little vague. "to help support his family"?
Done

Early career

...was enough to convince that he could dance: convince whom, exactly? The director?
Done

As with Pitter Patter, Cagney went to the audition with little confidence of getting the part; this was drama, not vaudeville. The point is taken, but the tone could be made less informal. How about, "...of getting the part; he had had no experience with drama until this point."
Done

Playing opposite Cagney in Maggie the Magnificent was Joan Blondell, and the two were reunited a few months later in Marie Baumer's new play Penny Arcade, a show that would change Cagney's life, and ensured that he would never know poverty again. This smacks of dramaticism. :) I'm not sure it's even needed, really.
Done

Will continue later, quite possibly tomorrow. Feel free to work as I work! María (habla conmigo) 21:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a start on it sometime tomorrow, evening most likely. I'll stick the in-use tag on, so if you see it, you'll know i'm at work! Thanks so far though, these are the sorts of things I would never pick up because I wrote it!--Ged UK 21:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you done for now? I see the template is still up, so I wanted to make sure before I go back over your additions/changes. María (habla conmigo) 15:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, sorry. All done for now. I've given the lead a bit of a tweak and a few other bits and pieces. :) --Ged UK 15:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up...

Warner Bros.

This is a very, very long section. Could it be split?

Possibly, but to be honest I can't see where. It only covers five years, and there doesn't seem to be a natural place to divide it. --Ged UK 16:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the quality of the film itself was not realized until much later, Cagney's performance certainly was. This seems like needless editorializing. The first fact is not explained, and the second can be described simply with "Cagney received universal praise for his role", or something mundane like that. Let's tone things down a little. :)
...but the fruit's victim... this made me giggle, but it's a strange mental image. Is it strange to picture a grapefruit with a gun? "The person on the receiving end of the fruit", maybe? I'm not sure if that's less giggle inducing...

Well, she was the victim of the fruit, I think! I like the phrase too much to be objective on it though! --Ged UK 16:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cagney's stubbornness was starting to become well known behind the scenes, not least after his refusal to join in a 100% participation charity drive that was being pushed by Douglas Fairbanks, Jr.. Donating money to charity was not the issue, being forced to was. I feel that there is more to this story than is being told. I wanted to reword it, but I found there was very little detail to go with. Or perhaps this is a molehill pretending to be a mountain?

I just added it as further demonstration of his stubbrness and contrariness, which i think is important to understanding why he walked out so often. --Ged UK 16:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cagney was not prepared to be pushed around, however, and packed his trunks, left his apartment to his brother Bill to look after, and returned to New York with Billie. This is also somewhat melodramatic. Simplify. "Not wanting to be bullied, Cagney and Billie moved back to New York, leaving their apartment to his brother Bill for looking after"?
Cagney returned to the studio and made Hard to Handle. I cut off the sentence here, but I'm iffy on the time period. What year was this? 1933?

Independent years

Is William Cagney the same as Bill? It should be made consistent throughout.

How far he could have experimented and developed can never be known, but certainly back in the Warners fold he was back playing tough guys. Is this necessary? It seems like needless speculation, and then of course the latter is obvious as soon as you get to the next section.

Return to Warner Bros.

As it turned out, a ricocheting bullet passing through exactly where his head would have been. Was this during rehearsal?

Not as far as I can tell. I can't imagine they used live bullets in rehersal anyway, would seem rather expensive. --Ged UK 16:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(during his career, brothers Bill and Ed and sister Jeanne worked for Cagney Productions) This should be explained/described in full elsewhere, especially since Cagney Productions has not been introduced by this point. I've removed it for now.

Fair enough. I'm not quite sure of the best place to put that, so it can stay out for now. --Ged UK 16:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The film was Cagney's most important in terms of awards... Because he won the Oscar, or did he win other awards for the role? If the emphasis is to be kept on the Oscar alone, I would remove this line entirely. "The film was nominated for eight Academy Awards, including etc., etc." perhaps.

The two last paragraphs are difficult to get through, and seem melodramatic (again). Let's condense and simplify: he lost out to some good roles, and once more quit the studio, creating his own production company. Could take three or four lines all together, really.

More later! This is looking good, I think. María (habla conmigo) 20:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done See comments

The last of it

Going into the homestretch, now.

Back to Warners

The film was a critical success, though some critics wondered about the social impact of a character that they at least saw as sympathetic. I'm not sure what the latter part means, especially since the beginning of the section makes it clear that Jarrett is not sympathetic. That a few random critics disagreed may not be all too important to note.

Done The point was the critics thought he was sympathetic. Clarified I think. --Ged UK 21:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Later Career

It was the last time that Cagney would star on film with his sister Jeanne. As far as I can see, this is the only time that Jeanne is mentioned in the article. How many films did they do together? Why isn't she mentioned earlier?

She was in an earlier version! She played Cohan's sister in YDD. Removed (it's not that important really) --Ged UK 21:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cagney had concerns with the script, remembering back 23 years to Boy Meets Girl where scenes were re-shot to make them funnier by making them faster with the opposite effect. I'm not sure what this means. Making what faster, exactly? The delivery? Pacing?

Done

"You walk in, plant yourself squarely on both feet, look the other fella in the eye, and tell the truth." A great quote, but since it's already included in a quotebox at the top of the article, it's somewhat redundant. Can one or the other go?

Hmm, i'll have to choose which place is better. I guess probably this one as the box at the top is probably against the MOS. --Ged UK 21:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph needs a ref.

Done

Personal life

On September 28, 1922, Cagney married dancer Frances Willard "Billie" Vernon with whom he remained for the rest of his life. They met on the chorus line of Pitter Patter. Since Billie and their introduction is already explained in previous sections, there's no need to repeat it here. In fact, a lot of the information in this section is a repeat; perhaps go through and weed/integrate into previous sections?

Is it better suited here or in the chronology? --Ged UK 21:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, in the chronology. I prefer linear biographies, and since Billie is continuously mentioned throughout the article before the "Personal life" section, there is no need to re-introduce her and their relationship. The reader should have caught on by now: longtime marriage, devoted husband, etc., etc. María (habla conmigo) 18:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honors and legacy

Perhaps consider expanding this somewhat; one or two substantial paragraphs should be enough. Are there any streets/awards named after him? Maybe you can mention his Oscars/other film awards again, although in abbreviated format. Stress his legacy, as well; what effect has he had on the film industry?

Yeah, i know it needs a bit more work this whole section.--Ged UK 21:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that about does it for GAC. Thanks for your patience! I'm certain that this article fulfills the GA criteria, and is therefore ready for promotion. Great work, and congrats. :) Since I know you have bigger and better hopes, here are some steps I suggest for getting this to FAC:

At 81kb, this is quite a long article, so make sure you don't repeat information or needlessly go into detail. It's difficult for me, personally, to detect what is superfluous and what is essential, so more film-knowledgeable people may help in this regard.
COPYEDIT, COPYEDIT, COPYEDIT. This article needs more than what a frazzled librarian can offer, I'm afraid! Some wonderful people I've had help me in the past, and who might be nice enough to lend you a hand, include Scartol, Finetooth, and Moni3. I would say the more eyes you have look at this, the better. You also might want to consult Tony1's guide on How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Look in particular for redundancies and how to tighten verbage. I believe I've taken care of the MOS issues, but be on the lookout for those, as well.
Peer Reviews never hurt, although they can be slow going. I always find it helpful to alert applicable WikiProjects that you're looking to go to FAC, as that might induce more foot-traffic.
Copyedit again, just to be sure! I also find it useful to read articles aloud; if you trip up, chances are there's something wrong with the prose.

Best of luck, and if you need me to look over anything in the future, just drop me a line. María (habla conmigo) 15:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very very much for the time you've given this article! I will get onto these comments later today. I think i will probably try and get this peer reviewed, though I'll consult with those editors you've mentioned, and the various wiki-projects too. Thanks again :) --Ged UK 15:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]