Jump to content

Talk:Margot Fonteyn/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 15:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Full assessment may take a day or two to prepare. In the meantime, would it be possible to consider dividing the Death and Legacy section into two sections, and to possibly date the sequence of biographical section which come before it, for example, Early life (1st-year to end-of-section-year), etc. JohnWickTwo (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JohnWickTwo Thanks for picking the article up so quickly. While it is possible to do the dating and splitting you suggest, I am confused as to why that would be needed. I have participated in over 20 GA procedures and no one has ever asked for an early life, i.e. pre-career section to be dated. But it also seems it would be odd to have one section dated and the others undated. On the death and legacy section, again, never been asked to split these sections. Visually it would not be appealing, as the death section would be a tiny paragraph and the legacy section would be crowded between the two images. One other note, the photo of Somes and Fonteyn is currently at AFD. All votes! appear to be keep at this time and it should be resolved by August 3rd at the end of the 7 day period. SusunW (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its nice to start this assessment, the videos I have seen of her Nureyev partnership are remarkable. The full assessment here will still take a day or two to prepare since I want to look some things up. Let me know how the image issue works out. Regarding the dating of sections, that was just a generic example; in this case your first section reads Early life and I was asking to add Early life (1919-1934), and so on for all the separate biography sections which follow. I meant that all the biography sections in the article should have such years associated. More on the Legacy section later. JohnWickTwo (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, got it JohnWickTwo, you want dates on all the sections. Can do. And yes, it sent chills down my spine to watch some of the videos. I totally understand why they would perform an 8 minute ballet and get a 40 minute ovation. SusunW (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Initiating full review

[edit]

0 Lede section

The lede section is well-written and its a good summary. Possibly a little on the long side which I only mention for now because it keeps readers from getting to the well-written first sections of the main body of the article. Maybe if you could think about trimming 1 or 2 sentences it would get readers to the main body of the article quicker. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still requesting you think about trimming 1-2 sentences in the lede section. The last sentence of the lede I think looks enhanced as: "She died from ovarian cancer 29 years after her premier with Nureyev in Giselle". JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trimmed

SusunW (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1 Early life (1919–1934)

Is the red link on Felix helpful. Should it be decided by you if Hookham or Peggy is the preferred appellation in this section. I think I am inclining toward Peggy until Fonteyn takes its place. Some of this wording in this section can be trimmed though that is optional for you to decide. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Felix is a noted photographer who has photographs in the National Portrait Gallery, and did the work for the book The Woman in Fashion among other things. I am unsure how having a red link for Felix impacts the GA criteria in any way, as it conforms with policy to have red links for persons who are notable and may encourage article creation. Simultaneously, it is not in conformance with preferred practice of any projects related to women to call women by their first names unless is it to distinguish them from someone else of the same name. I have edited the text for two instances where her first name was used and left only the one statement that she was called Peggy as a child. SusunW (talk) 13:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cecil Beaton was a noted photographer from Britain, and there is no Wikipedia page for Felix Fonteyn, nor is he mentioned in any articles I have seen throughout Wikipedia. Are you sure he is noted. TNYT mentions him barely in passing in their obit for Fonteyn. I do not believe he had published a single book of photographs. Possibly add his adopted last name and drop the red link. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not having a WP article is no indication of notability. A search of available materials indicates there is sufficient information to produce a biography on him. While he may not be of the caliber of Beaton, that does not mean that he is not notable. Please advise which of the six GA criteria this is a problem for, as it seems like a personal preference not to have red links, rather than part of the actual review criteria. SusunW (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2 Vic-Wells years (1935–1945)

Fascinating comparison to Markova. Is there any more information about anyone else comparing her Markova? Photo with Helpmann is quite fine. Coaching by Karsavina is interesting; is there another link to Markova ties there? JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know of no comparisons to Markova. Ashton's statement referred to her becoming the company's prima ballerina and was not a comparison of the two dancers' styles. I have edited it to confirm that the reference was to female lead. SusunW (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This brings up the point of who were considered her peers in her own time. I know that many consider her partnership with Nureyev to be without peer even into the 21st century, but who were her primary peer in the world of ballet in her own time as a soloist. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unaware that she had any. The biographical information I read pretty much indicates she was always in a class by herself. Not a bravura performer was repeated in many articles, i.e. she was not a technician, instead noted for her artistry. I have seen nothing in expanding this article that compared her to anyone. Are you asking who else danced in the company? I can list Svetlana Beriosova, Maryon Lane, Pamela May and Nadia Nerina as "peers" within the company[1] but am unsure what that would add as they were not compared with each other in any sourcing that was reviewed. Perhaps Ipigott can address whether outside the company she had contemporary peers who were compared to her, but again, it seems outside the scope of a GA review. SusunW (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3 Covent Garden years (1946–1959)

That should probably be "post-war rationing" since the war ended in 1945. Who was the director or choreographer for the Sleeping Beauty performance? JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should tell us if this ballet was in their repertoire before the command performance, and if it was the Petipa version which they were adapting or staging. TNYT obit for Fonteyn indicates that her own improvisations on Aurora were lionized by the public when performed on the NY stage in 1949, possibly worth mentioning. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I am confused. References to the ballet begin in 1939 and it is specifically referenced as Tchaikovsky's version in 1946. No need to keep repeating that to my mind. As Daneman is checked out by another user, it is impossible at this time to determine who directed the presentation. The bio already states that she became an instant celebrity, which seems more neutral wording than "lionized by the public". SusunW (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

4 Political intrigue

Could this section placement be adjusted slightly with Covent Garden years ending in 1956, and then this section picking up at 1957-1959. You can then also adjust the title of the new section and add the new years for 1957-1959. Nice m-dashes in your article though sometimes you add spaces around them and sometimes you don't; it should be consistent top-to-bottom of the article when you use those nice dashes. Please check if the Talk page is already announcing that you are using "British" spelling and style. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • More logical break point is her marriage. Fixed dash consistency, I have no idea how to post that on the talk page. Assume it is a template, but I do not know. It would seem to me to be obvious that a bio on a Englishwoman would be written in British English, no? Maybe one of the other collaborators knows how to do that. SusunW (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section is not about "intrigue" in the broad sense, it is specifically about her lack of political savvy. Marriage and intrigue seems more like some sort of personal scandal. I have retitled in marriage and politics. SusunW (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5 Nureyev years (1961–1979)

Well written summary with Nureyev. Is it worth adding a portrait of Nureyev alone, similar to the solo portrait of Fonteyn you have here; or something like that. The Nureyev connection was immensely important to her. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

6 Cattle rancher (1979–1990)

Much of this is almost the stuff of anecdote and I still wonder what compelled her to leave to go so far from Britain. Regarding the Death material, I think the article is served better to separate the Death material away from the Legacy material and include it in this section. Somehow the convention I see around Wikipedia and in biographies in general is that death is the final parting act of life, and therefor it belongs in the biography sections. The Legacy section would look nicer I think if it dealt with everything that came after the death. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say toe-mah-toe, I say toe-may-toe... Legacy does not begin until death, thus is it the start of legacy. Seems to me that is a variance in judgment. I randomly picked 12 articles from Women in Green's GA list and they are equally divided as to whether death is a separate section with legacy following or whether death and legacy is a single heading. In only one instance was death included in the bio without its own section. It appears to be a matter of preference of the authors. SusunW (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

7 Death and legacy

See my comment on the last section. The new title here could be the single word "Legacy". For formatting's sake alone, I suggest that you try an edit experiment and try to organize all the first 6 sections above into one large section called "Biography" which will have 6 subsections in your edit preview box. The Legacy section would then appear as a full section following all the "Biography" sections. When I did this in my edit preview box, it looked very good in edit preview mode. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I did a sampling of GA across the board, male and female. In no instance is Biography a heading with subsections for life or career stages. Each begins with early life (or early life and education), following with career development. Few have dates on those sections. SusunW (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's revisit this. As I look at 3 biography articles such as Martin Scorsese, Ingmar Bergman, and the GA for Akira Kurosawa, I see all 3 of them grouping the biography sections (or career sections) together with well-organized table-of-contents for all 3 of those articles. Can I suggest an intermediate form to respect your preference for her obit going into the Legacy section? Try the table-of-contents outline leaving the Early life section out, and then grouping the Career sections together into a single section titled "Career" (with its subsections) before your Death and Legacy section which would follow. In my edit preview box, this form for the TOC actually looks quite good and a definite improvement. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I am confused. I looked at 12 GA, you looked at 3 articles which are not GA or FA and found a style you like. I am not trying to be argumentative, but this does not seem to fit into anything other than personal preference and has nothing to do with the GA criteria, as it is not dictated by MOS. I shall do it, but think it adds nothing and certainly is not required by the review criteria. SusunW (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

8 Premiering roles

This might look good as a Table, or, perhaps better in 2 column format, though this is optional and for you to decide what looks best for the article as a whole. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works within the bio, per my review above are typically in list form. We did a completely separate article on her performances which are in a table and that is linked. It is in a 2 column format, so I am confused by your comment. SusunW (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrasing my question, is anything gained by singling out the "premiere" performances in this sub-list. Since you have such a nice Table form article chronologically for all her performances, why include this sub-list? Possibly mention some of her 40-minute standing ovation performances, and one or two of the Nureyev performances, and then let your very nice sibling article of all her performances do the rest for interested readers. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my mind, yes, something is gained. To have premiered a few roles is notable, to have premiered as many as she did, over a fifty year period, and even still have had things written specifically for her after her "official retirement" is extremely unusual. A random list of performances was previously given in the article. No rhyme nor reason for why they were included. To avoid a random list, only the premier performances were included. That she was selected to debut them, clearly marks their import. SusunW (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

9 See also

Adequate to article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


That should get things started, and ping me when you are ready to continue or if there are any clarifications needed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JohnWickTwo I believe I have answered your initial comments, but advise if you still have concerns on the GA criteria. SusunW (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My responses are above. Ping my account when you are ready to continue. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
JohnWickTwo I am a bit perplexed by this review. It does not seem as if you are reviewing whether the article meets the 6 GA criteria but instead are performing a peer review of the article. As I stated previously, I have been involved in multiple GA nominations and reviews and none have focused as your review has on the various headings in the article, comparison to other artists, red links, etc. If there are problems with meeting the criteria, please advise and I will happily fix them, but altering the article to conform to personal preferences of the reviewer is not something I have ever been asked to do nor is it required by the GA criteria that I am aware of. SusunW (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update after multiple editing sessions by the nominating editor and closing assessment

[edit]

No need for you to be concerned as far as I can see. You seem have had some free time today for contributions to this article, which I think has been in your favor, and your fellow editor Alana has even dropped in to further assist you. The standard template for GA-review which you mention is made available to editors in various formats who like to use them either at the start or finish of a GA assessment. In your case here, I found that much of the main assessment was to focus on the article as being well-written and useful to readers. A well-written article is often assisted by a good Table-of-Contents with good section headings to make the reading of the article easier on readers, and therefore enhances the well-written aspect of the article. In general, I find that you have done most of this well with a now much improved article. Also, it is now with a much improved Table-of-Contents to enhance the well-written quality even further. Given your intense effort today and your multiple edit sessions in one day, I would like to add a small comment about Fonteyne's brother. After searching for a book of photography by Felix Fonteyne, I could find none, and that raises the question of his notability very squarely. I will ask that you at least consider to add his last name optionally, which he adopted from his famous sister, apparently for his own reasons. If he is not notable, as an important Wikipedia criterion, then he should not be red linked. The article at this point is well-written and has a neutral point of view. The images are useful and have instructive captions throughout, including the new one which has been added today. The article is well sourced and the bibliography is fully formatted. It is a comprehensive and useful bibliography in the event you might wish to develop this article further towards a featured article nomination at some later time and the article is passed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JohnWickTwo I am not sure what some of your comments mean but thank you for the review and passing the article. When we started it was in poor shape and seemed unacceptable for someone of her caliber, which is why we collaborated for a month to improve it. On Felix (I should also point out that I am in Mexico and many UK sites are blocked for me) I find that he published photographs in The Woman in Fashion (1949),[2], Chico[3], Life of a Circus Bear [4], and Cockney Cats [5], but was mostly known as a celebrity/society photographer [6]. The biggest problem in searching for him is that her fame is clearly higher than his and any search must contain -Margot or you will get few results. SusunW (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He was also apparently Margot's heir, helped establish an organization to promote Ashton's works and after his death was succeeded in protecting Ashton's legacy by his wife and daughter.[7], [8] Also merited an obit in the Dancing Times,[9] all of which to my mind indicates that he was probably notable. SusunW (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Margot_Fonteyn/GA1&oldid=853098774"