Talk:Joan Crawford/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article is fantastic; if anything, it's overqualified for GA. I have a few minor suggestions...
Intro:
- Can some mention of her rivalry with Bette Davis be mentioned in the intro? As it's one of the most famous rivalries in Hollywood history, I think it warrants a mention.
Move to Warner Bros.:
"Following Barbara Stanwyck's success in Double Indemnity (1944), also based on a James M. Cain novel, Curtiz bent to Warner's demand." I'm sorry, I don't understand; why did Stanwyck's success force Curtiz to bend to Warner's demand regarding Crawford?
Later career:
Can you include some more specific information about some of the problems Davis and Crawford had during the filming of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?. If I recall correctly, Davis was at least accused of genuinely kicking Crawford in the head during a scene they filmed together; I also seem to recall during some of the scenes when she tied her up, Davis tied the knots extremely hard and when filmmakers or Crawford protested, Davis dismissed the pleas and said she had to make it look realistic. I figure this must be in some of your sources, but if you need help I can look..."Crawford secretly contacted all the other Oscar nominees to tell them if they were unable to attend the ceremony, she would be happy to accept the Oscar on their behalf." I thought I remember hearing that Crawford actually did accept the Oscar on Bancroft's behalf, and made some snide remark to Davis when she passed her to accept it? I may be wrong about this, but if I'm not, could you add it?
Mommie Dearest:
This whole section lacks citation tags. Could you add at least one?
Great job! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have removed the line about Double Indemnity entirely. Crawford did accept the Oscar on Bancroft's behalf but none of the sources I have indicate that she said anything to Davis. I added a couple of sentences about the filming of Jane. There really isn't any place in the lead where a mention of the feud would logically go. Otto4711 (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'd have still liked some mention of it in the lead, but I won't hold up the GAN for that, especially since the Bette Davis article (which is an FA) doesn't mention it in it's lead. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
A good article is:
- Well-written: Prose is good, MOS is good.
- Factually accurate and verifiable: Sources are good, no original research.
- Broad in its coverage: Covers main aspects, no unneeded detail.
- Neutral: Yes.
- Stable: Yes.
- Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes.
Pass. Good job! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)