Wikipedia:Peer review/Jayne Mansfield/archive1

Jayne Mansfield

Nice article on a ground breaking Hollywood actress with many awards and more controversies. A lot of people has put a lot of effort into it. It has gone through tremendous surges of changes, of which the recent versions of 28 July 2007, 3 March 2007 and 14 December 2006 may be worth taking a look at. A lot many suggestions I could make on the current version are there in these previous versions. This pretty important article shows all the possibilities of becoming a "good" or even a "featured" article. Please, take a look. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but is it possible that someone takes a look at the current and three previous versions to provide a specific review? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By Totnesmartin

The thing that strikes me here is the whole tone of the article, as if it was written by a mass of fans. It really needs someone to edit the entire article, top to bottom - there are things out of place or over-emphasised, and a fair bit of peacock terms. In all, not an encyclopedic article, even though the information is in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Totnesmartin (talk • contribs) 2:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Can someone cite a few examples from the article where the out-of-place stuff are or what kind of stuff is overemphasized? The rest, as well as the peacock terms can be figured out from there. Some more critique and review would be appreciated as well. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some specifics then:

Introduction: having a star at the Hollywood Hall of Fame is merely a detail and doesn't belong in the introduction, unless it's her biggest honour. There should be an "awards and honours" section it could go into. Also, the detail about her gravestone can go into the "Death" section - again it's too minor a matter for the introduction, unless it's a big part of the Jayne Mansfield mythos, and I don't think it is.

Added "Recognition" section, rewrote the intro. In fact, one of the earlier versions had a "Recognition" section (mostly helped by my poor self).

Reference 1 is to the IMDb, which Wikipedia does not accept as a reliable source. Please find another source.

It is no more the first citation.

early life: a few minor problems with links, which are easier to fix than explain. I'll do it after this. The only one that needs discussion is the Paul Mansfield redlink - relatives and friends of notable people do not usually justify getting an article in themselves (although there's an exception for royalty]]. Is Paul notable outside of Jayne?

Paul is not redlinked anymore.

Acting career:"good roles dried up for Mansfield after 1959, the year after she married Mickey Hargitay, a Hungarian-born bodybuilder who had been Mr. Universe 1955." This makes it look like her marriage to Hargitay interfered with her career. if it did, it needs citing; if it didn't, it must go.

Removed.

"(In Kenneth Anger's book Hollywood Babylon II, a photo from an unknown source reveals a shot from the movie's set in which Mansfield displays prominent pubic hair.)" This is irrelevant to her acting career if it wasn't in the film. The Hollywood Babylon books appeared long after she died, so this reference has no place in the section, or even (in my opinion) the article.

Removed.

"Celebrity and publicity stunts" - a bit awkward as a title; as the content is just publicity stunts, then maybe the title should just be "publicity stunts".

Reworded.

"(the line was written for Paar by Dick Cavett)." - this is irrelevant to JM and should go.

Relevance established.

"Mansfield was compared (sometimes unfavorably) to the reigning blond bombshell of the period, Marilyn Monroe" - "blond bombshell" is unnecessary. and, er, Monroe wasn't a blond, but a blonde :D.

This needs a bit more thinking for me, I guess.

Reworded.

"But her reliance on the racy publicity that had set her path to fame would also prove to be her downfall. Fox didn't renew its contract with her in 1962." - if her racy publicity led to her failure to renew her contract then it needs a citation; there could have been other reasons, such as her films being flops.

Yes, this needs a citation. I'll see what I can do.

"(whom Mansfield considered her professional nemesis)" - another statement needing a citation.

Yes again. This article needs a lot more citations. I guess, I should ask people who are in the ownership of those Mansfield bios to take a look.

career outside film - the part about her conversation with Queen Elizabeth is actually pretty boring and can go. Our Brenda has many, many frivolous mini-conversations with celebrities she sees for thirty seconds at official functions etc, and this is just another of them.

Removed.

The "Nightclubs" paragraph has half a sentence about singing in nightclubs, but the rest is about her personal troubles. Move this to the "Personal life" section, or rewrite so that it's about her nightclub work.

Reorganized.

The "Television" subsection could be expanded, it's not much more than a list of what shows she was in.

Let me see what I can do, though I can't see much happening any soon.

Recordings - is it just me or are the two statues in the picture looking at each other with expressions of "is this what we've come down to?" :)

You can't blame them.

Really.

Personal life - much detail about her sex drive and her many affairs. should be cut down except where they affected her marriages or public image.

May be that celebrated sex-drive was her personal life. There was a nice quote on one of the earlier versions to that end. I need more advise on this.

The acting success of Mariska belongs in her own article, not her mother's article.

In fact, the whole Mariska article needs to develop as there should be a new page on Jayne Marie.

Mariska reduced to ashes (and, yes, I have done a fair job on the Jayne Marie Mansfield article, I guess). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph about her pink mansion is way too long, and maybe not even necessary at all. Certainly the list of people who owned it afterwards can go. After all, it's on Sunset Boulevard, where pretty much every house has been owned by a succession of celebrities.

Shortened the Palace part, but theres still a rambling list of all things pink in it. What to do? Remove?

In the final paragraph: "(Mansfield: "The real stars are not actors or actresses. They're personalities. The quality of making everyone stop in their tracks is what I work at")" a two-sentence quote interrupting a single sentence is bad English and should be re-positioned within the paragraph. The second quote is preceded by "Or perhaps this quote sums it up best:" - some editor imposing their POV. We can't have everybody's favourite quote. personally I suggest rewriting the whole paragraph.

The whole paragraph removed.

Death - "Her gravestone is a beautiful carved heart" - spot the word that can go!

It is gone.

Popular Culture - these sections are cruft magnets and need regular weeding. So what if she was mentioned in a song by some band? Get this down to 3 or 4 references, and watch the article to ensure they don't start creeping back in.

I guess, this section could very well be split into an article on its own. Then I can put a {{dynamic list}} tag on the top and pray for the best when keeping an eye on the new article. I have been thinking of doing this a long time now. A little encouragement would immediately take me there.

There's been a drive recently aginst "...in popular culture" articles, with many being deleted - mainly because they were simply lists of every occurence of the subject in songs, cartoons and films etc. So make sure, if you do start an article, that it's not just a list of trivia, but a discussion of her influence and the variety of uses of her name and image, with just enough examples to illustrate the topic. Totnesmartin 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it dosen't fit into an existing article and can't survive on its own, may be it was never ment to be! Taking another look at the prospects right now. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, reading the essay WP:POPCULTURE, I suddenly became bold and have finally done it. Wheeeeee. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally (at last!) There should be a section on her legacy and influence - have any actresses or meodels based themselves on her, or were inspired to act/model by seeing her? This would be a good section to have.

I have brought back the part on her estate from a previous version. I'll check if anyone followed her footsteps.

I'm sorry if this sounds like a list of complaints (we Brits love a good moan), but acting on them will shape up the article immensely. If you want more help, then I heartily recommend WP:ACID.

Hope this all helps! Totnesmartin 20:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, us Bangladeshis can beat anyone at moaning anyday! :D I am working on your comment already. Some parts been done, others will be, I hope. Thanks for this enormous amount of help. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody can outmoan the Brits? Blimey! :) Totnesmartin 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. Now, I think I'm getting kind of familiar with the tremendous help you're rendering here. Can you please take a look at the peacocks dancing around in this article? There are way too many I'm afraid, and I'm not too good at locating them. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By Aditya

Citation! Can someone identify the places where an inline citation is a dire necessity and tag those lines with a {{fact}} tag? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By SandyGeorgia

I made some sample edits to get you started; there are a large number of MOS issues, including WP:DASH and WP:MOSDATE. Solo years should not be linked, full dates should, and emdashes are not spaced on Wiki. The citations are not fully formatted; see WP:CITE/ES. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting to the style issues soon enough, promise. But, I'd definitely like to solve the tone ans reference problems first. Doing a thorough copycheck before that may lead to some amount of wasted effort. I can already look forward to some amount of material removed, and some totally rewritten. But, please, someone guide me to some specifics. Living so close to the article for so long has blinded me to some extent, and I really need help on this. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By 138.67.44.69

She is a fascinating subject for an encyclopedia article. However, since it is an encyclopedia article, I feel that the subject throughout the article should be "Mansfield" instead of "Jayne." In some sentences, for instance, it will say, "Jayne was known for her great acting abilities." That sounds too informal to me. Another issue: Do you really believe that she had an IQ of 163 or whatever? Do you know how rare that would be? I doubt it, and if I were writing the article, I would treat that with skepticism.

There are three Mansfields in the article - Jayne, Paul and Jayne Marie. I think its prudent to use the first name in the body, and the last name in the leade (as there is only one Mansfield in the leade). Checking for the IQ thing, but if its strongly verified, it may remain as a fact. If not... well... Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Nasmformyzombie. Looks nice, I must admit. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things that I hope will be added is basically a modern analysis of Jayne Mansfield. For instace, what is her legacy today? Can you find any modern reviews of her movies, for instance? I am curious to see how people view her in the 21st century. How do feminists feel about her? Which entertainers have been insprired by her through the years? I would bet that Anna Nicole Smith tried to look like her, for instance. Good luck on your journey to Featured Article status.138.67.44.69 01:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see what I can do about this. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]