Jump to content

Talk:Spencer Tracy/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: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 01:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking on the review! Please keep it as simple for yourself as possible, I'm not really concerned with the article being anything beyond the GA criteria at this point. :) --Lobo (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Infobox

[edit]
  • Lists birth place but not death place. According to sources, he died in Beverly Hills. Viriditas (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • LA was there, but I've linked it and added CA to mirror the birth place format.

Lead

[edit]
  • Spencer Bonaventure Tracy was an American actor
    • That's a bit of a short opening sentence, wouldn't you say? Personally, my attention span is long enough such that I expect to be grabbed by the first sentence; I want my attention to be captured and held. My expectations as a reader are quite simple. I want to know that "Spencer Bonaventure Tracy was an American actor who worked during the Golden Age of Hollywood" at the bare minimum. Viriditas (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:ACTOR asks that opening sentence mention nothing beyond the bare facts. The example they give is: "William Bradley "Brad" Pitt (born December 18, 1963) is an American actor and film producer."
        • You're right, but I think far too many editors are taking Wikipedia:ACTOR#On-going projects/to do lists literally and out of context, as it is neither a policy nor a guideline. It's actually a subsection of Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers that is a reminder to adhere to WP:MOSINTRO, a recommended best practice. The statement, "Lead sentences should only include name, birth/death dates, occupation and nationality" is not meant to conflict with WP:LEADSENTENCE nor our accepted MOS on lead sections, nor should it conflict with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies which explicitly states, "Generally the guidelines for lead sections specify what should be in the first section." What it is meant to do, is to get editors to stop adding peacock words and phrases to the first sentence. Somewhere along the line, people forgot this, and began treating it like gopspel. I see that older FA's haven't been changed (Rudolph Cartier, Joseph Barbera, Anna May Wong, Jackie Chan, Noël Coward) and newer ones still adhere to WP:LEAD over WP:ACTOR (Steve Dodd). There's also GA's like Jon Hamm, etc. This is a problem that lies outside the scope of this review, so I'll bring it up elsewhere. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Viriditas (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tracy left MGM in 1955 and continued to work regularly as a freelance star, despite an increasing weariness as he aged.
    • That's a bit odd to read in the lead. Most—I would even venture to say all actors—become "weary" as they age. I'm guessing here, but I suspect this weariness can be described and illustrated with specific incidents. If so, it might make more sense to talk about it. Viriditas (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could write "although he struggled to commit to roles", or something similar? I'm not sure, I'd be interested to know what you think after you've read that part of the article.
      • A bit later: I just realised I phrased it like that specifically for a reason! It leads into the discussion of his personal unhappiness. I rather like how this flows - it will be difficult to slip in comfortably otherwise - and would prefer to leave it if possible.
  • His personal life was troubled, with a lifelong-struggle against alcoholism and a pervading religious guilt over his son's deafness.
    • I'm in agreement with previous editor(s) that this wording ("pervading religious guilt") is problematic and confusing. Viriditas (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well that's 2 against 1 so I've removed the word "religious" for now. The whole sentence may change, see what I've put below.
  • Tracy became estranged from his wife in the 1930s but never divorced, meaning a long-term relationship with Katharine Hepburn became a clandestine affair.
  • In a screen career that spanned 37 years
    • The lead doesn't mention how many films he appeared in. The number is quite large, more than 60 according to some sources. I expected to read that factoid (or one like it) right after that sentence. Just an observation. See below for more. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's mentioned towards the end of the lead. --Lobo (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know! What I would give to see this as part of the first paragraph: "Tracy appeared in 75 films throughout his career, during which time he developed a reputation among his peers as one of the screen's greatest actors. In 1999, the American Film Institute ranked Tracy among the top ten Hollywood legends," right after "a record he holds with Laurence Olivier, and received the award twice." Oh, well. Viriditas (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it is logical to mention some legacy stuff after mentioning his death. The lead right now has a sort of "introduction", "miiddle" and "conclusion", which I think is nice. --Lobo (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • he was nominated for nine Academy Awards for Best Actor—a record he holds with Laurence Olivier—of which he won two.
    • That's a pretty clunky sentence, as it makes me think Olivier won two; it's a bit confusing. I really like the wording in List of awards and nominations received by Spencer Tracy: "Tracy appeared in 75 films from 1930 to 1967. He was nominated for nine Academy Awards for Best Actor, a record he holds with Laurence Olivier, and won two for Captains Courageous (1937) and Boys Town (1938)." Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Slight rewording - better? I don't want to mention the films here otherwise there will be repetition in the lead. --Lobo (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, that's the problem. You've already got the repetition as you mention he won the two awards in the first paragraph (but don't mention the films); then you mention he won the two awards again in the second paragraph (where you do mention the films). One way to solve this problem is to use the inverted pyramid style in the lead. The lead should summarize the main points of the article of course, but it doesn't have to follow the same structure as the body. For example, (and this is only an example) as a first paragraph in inverted pyramid style: Spencer Bonaventure Tracy (April 5, 1900 – June 10, 1967) was an American actor. Respected for his natural style and versatility, Tracy appeared in 75 films during a screen career that spanned 37 years and developed a reputation as one of the greatest actors of Hollywood's Golden Age. He was nominated for nine Academy Awards for Best Actor, a record he holds with Laurence Olivier, and won two for Captains Courageous (1937) and Boys Town (1938). In 1999, the American Film Institute ranked Tracy among the top ten Hollywood legends." Just something to think about. Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to several sources Bad Day At Black Rock is considered Tracy's best role. If so, shouldn't this film be mentioned in the lead? Viriditas (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree it would be nice to mention more of his notable roles in the lead, but I'm not sure how to work them in at this point...And I can't say BDaBR is considered one of his best role unless that is sourced in the text, which I may try and do since you're right - it probably does get the most acclaim (which I can't understand TBH, I think he gave many better performances!) --Lobo (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was deemed fit to progress to the senior class, allowing him to join the academy stock company with fifteen others.

Career

[edit]
  • In January 1924 he played his first leading role, but the Winnipeg company soon closed.
    • What does Winnipeg refer to here? Viriditas (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I was just slipping in where the company was based. I've clarified this.
        • It's better, but the problem (as I see it) is that you start out by saying he took a position with a company in New Jersey. Then, you follow this up with his first leading role with a Winnipeg-based company. As I reader, I'm confused, and I want to know why it is important for me to know the company is based in Winnipeg. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it's necessary because otherwise it will sound like he was still with the NJ company. It also shows how regularly he was moving around. But I'll have a go at wording it better. --Lobo (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Right. But it so much more helpful to the reader to just say he was moving around rather than to show it by naming the location of the company and letting the reader figure it out. Hold my hand and walk me through the life of Spencer Tracy. That's how I see it. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When he took a position with a struggling company in New Jersey, Tracy was living on an allowance of 35 cents a day
  • the Hawaii location work with a simulated volcano
    • I'm not sure this is accurate. The article on The Devil at 4 O'Clock says the problematic simulated volcano scene took place in California. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the cited page, Curtis writes: "...he "withdrew from The Devil at 4 O'Clock, citing a conflict with the scheduled start of Judgment at Nuremberg. In a statement, Columbia's Sam Briskin said the studio considered the Hawaiian location work "too hazardous" to assure the completion of Tracy's scenes by December 16, the absolutely drop-dead date for Tracy's release to Stanley Kramer...As originally scheduled, The Devil at 4 O'Clock would have prevented Tracy from actively promoting the picture...Kramer pushed off the start date of Nuremberg, hoping to free up Tracy for a round of promotional appearances, and Tracy left for Hawaii two days later." Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

[edit]
  • Tracy became convinced that John's deafness was a punishment for his own sins—namely adultery—and felt a lifelong guilt over this.
    • It's a confusing statement on several levels. First, as far as I can tell (unless I'm missing something, which is possible) all of the adultery mentioned in this article takes place after John was born, not before. Of course, he could be referring to previous adultery, but the article doesn't indicate that. Second, the notion of "guilt" about his son here, while connected to his religion in the lead section, is discussed separately in the context of his family while his religious beliefs are mentioned in the character section. That is very confusing. Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, are you suggesting a restructuring of material? I'm surprised to hear it is so confusing... As for the adultery, I assumed that sentence alone told the reader that he had been adulterous before that point? No other adultery has been mentioned up til then, so I feel like the sentence speaks for itself..?
        • So, you're saying that he was cheating on his wife before John was born, right? The problem is that the article doesn't say that. Viriditas (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't want to be difficult, but isn't the implication fully given in the sentence? I can't even think of another way of rewording this that wouldn't result in redundancy. --Lobo (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're not being difficult. Give me a few days to work on the review. Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't know if this is a RS, The Daily Mail (2011) says: "Spencer blamed himself. He had committed adultery emotionally with Selena, and physically with Betty Hanna. Maybe there had even been others during Louise's pregnancy." That must be what you are talking about, right? Well, the article doesn't say that, does it? Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • No because, with respect, I just don't think it is necessary! The clear indication that he was adulterous is enough. I really don't see the need to name names, other than with the his co-stars since that is far more notable. Would you mind if I asked another editor if they think the sentence is clear? --Lobo (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The point I'm trying to make is, you're insinuating that he had a relationship with other women before (and possibly during) the time that his wife was pregnant, but not saying that in the article. I can understand why you don't think it isn't necessary to say that directly, probably because it is gossip and innuendo. However, one could easily solve this by simply stating he had affairs during his marriage before you say he felt guilt about the child. There's a way to do with this respect to chronology, but saying he felt guilt for committing adultery before his child was born without actually saying that is difficult for me as a reader. We should not have to read between the lines. With that said, you are free to ask whomever you like (and you don't need to ask my permission) but it's not going to change my reading of the text. In any case, this is of course, just my opinion, and you're free to completely disregard it. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Gosh, we really take different views over this don't we. :) I just don't even see the current sentence as being coy or indirect—it is the first time any adultery is mentioned in the article, so it has to be saying that he had committed adultery before John was born. No other period after their marriage has been discussed at that point either, so it is quite directly referring to those early years. --Lobo (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awards and nominations

[edit]
  • In addition, he received the Cannes Film Festival award for Best Actor and was once named Best Actor by the National Board of Review.
    • This is sourced to WP:IMDB. I thought we weren't supposed to use it as a RS for biographies; is there an exemption for awards? Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI...Curtis pp. 685, 752 supports, "In addition, he received the Cannes Film Festival award for Best Actor[685] and was once named Best Actor by the National Board of Review[752]", but not "Tracy was also nominated for five British Academy Film Awards, of which he won two, and four Golden Globe Awards, winning once." Is that only supported by IMDb?

Checklist

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Prose is choppy and unclear in some sections
    A few issues with section titles ("Years of illness and death"? What does that mean?), but otherwise MOS looks good enough to pass. I'll address any outstanding issues with section titles in the above
    I've changed the section title to "Years of illness, death" - is that better?
    I'm still a bit surprised, as I've never seen a heading with "years" in it like that. Perhaps this "Years of" style is one that I'm not familiar with here. Do other bios use it? It sounds a bit too dramatic for my tastes. You're talking about what, four or five years, right? Why not just say "Illness and death"? That's pretty much standard. Viriditas (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, I've definitely seen it in WP bios before, but you're right that "Illness and death" is perfectly fine! Fixed. --Lobo (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The choice and use of pull quotes here is remarkable; I can't think of another article where they were used so well.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Heavy reliance on a single source (Curtis 2011)
    I don't believe the GA criteria forbids this? --Lobo (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not so much a matter of proscription but rather a red flag for other issues. For example, articles that rely solely on one source usually (quite by accident of course) promote a single POV. I'm not saying this is the case, but I am saying that relying on multiple sources helps to improve topic coverage, resolve POV issues, and provide multiple perspectives and differing views. It's something to be aware of when we are writing articles. So, that is why I noted this reliance. I just started a review, so I haven't found a problem...yet. I'm merely noting it in case I do. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, very few books have been written about Tracy. There's only really one other biography (one that's even remotely credible, I mean). I actually have this but just haven't read it yet. In any case, I can't imagine it will have anything substantial that Curtis omits, seeing as it was written in 1969 and has 257 pages of text, while Curtis was published just last autumn with a whopping 800+ pages of text.
    One dead link (Wisconsin Birth Records)
    • Removed
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Major aspects are covered.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Need to verify status/resolution of NPOV dispute regarding religion.
    Observation: the mention of a "pervading religious guilt over his son's deafness" in the lead section seems a bit undue when the entire incident is represented by a single sentence: "Tracy became convinced that John's deafness was a punishment for his own sins—namely adultery—and felt a lifelong guilt over this". Also, if I looked at the tertiary literature on this subject, I doubt I would find any mention of this in the opening paragraphs. So, the question that needs to be asked is, which authors beside Curtis discuss it? Viriditas (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is a fairly big part of the "Tracy legend" - the reviews of Curtis's book, for instance, routinely make a reference to it:
  • LA Times: "But Tracy was beset with demons, including a drinking problem and guilt over his marital affairs and that his son, John Tracy, was born deaf."
  • New York Times: "Concurrently, he carried a gargantuan load of Catholic guilt: he was convinced that his philandering and other careless behavior, which began in the early days of his marriage, had caused his son’s deafness."
  • Wall Street Times: "Tracy's drinking has usually been explained as stemming from guilt over his son's deafness."
  • The Washington Post: "but he also had an advanced Irish-Catholic sense of guilt. And one source of that guilt was the congenital deafness of his son, John."
  • Publisher's Weekly (shown on the Barnes & Noble page): "Curtis fingers Tracy's Catholic self-loathing and irrational guilt over his son's deafness". B&N;s own overview doesn't mention it, but describes him as "haunted".
  • San Francisco Chronicle: "a deaf son whose disability he attributed to his own sinfulness."
  • Leonard Maltin's review: "beset by demons…not just the demon rum, but an almost-overwhelming Catholic fear of damnation. He was certain, for instance, that his son John’s deafness was direct punishment from God for his own drinking and philandering."
  • USA Today "But he struggled with alcoholism, marriage and fatherhood, and was overcome with Irish Catholic guilt because of his marital infidelity and his son, John Tracy, being born deaf."
  • Independent "The pair married and had two children, but when his son John turned out to be almost totally deaf, Tracy was consumed by Catholic guilt and decided the affliction was his fault."
I can understand you bringing this up when it only gets a quick mention in the article, but even if it does only get a quick mention, I don't think that diminishes its importance...there just isn't anything more that needs to be said. I suppose the lead could just give a more general summary of his unhappiness. Looking at 2 brief articles on Tracy, this is more or less what they do: LA Time's Hollywood Star Walk describes him as "a complicated man bearing large emotional burdens"; Philip French's screen legends as "a difficult, guilt-ridden man". Would you prefer something like this? --Lobo (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now changed. --Lobo (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Same as above regarding religious dispute.
    As far as I can tell, this has been resolved. Viriditas (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Excellent use of free images and captions
  3. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I've passed this article after going through and making minor fixes to the prose. Several concerns, which I've addressed, are listed above in their corresponding sections. Viriditas (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for the time you gave to the article, in particular the copy edits which are great. It is sincerely appreciated! --Lobo (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spencer_Tracy/GA1&oldid=1144170134"