Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Marilyn Monroe/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marilyn Monroe

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because…

it was recently promoted to GA and I would maybe like to take it to FA. My aim has been to write an informative, balanced article on Marilyn Monroe which would provide an overview of her life and position in popular culture. Here are some specific issues which were raised in the GA review:

  • Balance between scandals/private life and acting career. While Monroe was an actress, her off-screen antics, private life and scandals played an instrumental part in her career; hence the article also includes a lot of information on these. However, I am worried that I have not been successful in conveying the relationship between these two elements, and that the article as a result comes across as "tabloidish".
  • Sources. Some concern was raised over the fact that I rely heavily on Donald Spoto's 1993 book for biographical information. My reasoning is that Spoto is considered perhaps the definitive biography on Monroe, and is definitely one of the most balanced. However, I have also relied a lot on Lois Banner's 2012 biography – she's a USC professor and the biography is the result of ten years of research, going into even more detail than Spoto in some areas, such as Monroe's childhood. The third book is Sarah Churchwell's 2004 "meta-biography"; she did not do original research, but instead focuses on the big debates in Monroe 'scholarship' and analyses different biographies written about her – hence I also know roughly what other biographers such as Fred Guiles, Maurice Zolotow, Anthony Summers, Carl Rollyson and Barbara Leaming have written, even without having read their books. Although I often cite just Spoto, it's usually because neither Banner nor Churchwell contradict him.
  • I would also like to get suggestions on how to improve the prose, how to make the article more concise etc.

Thanks, TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]

I'll kickstart this by reviewing the lead:

  • If describing her as a singer, there should be at least some mention of musical endeavors
I think I'm going to be bold and remove this occupation altogether. Monroe starred in several musicals and even sang in films which weren't musicals, such as Niagara, River of No Return and Some Like It Hot. However, many of these songs were not released on record during her lifetime, and the only time she performed and recorded a song not featured in a film was in 1952. In other words, she did not have a separate singing career, she was an actress who often sang in her films. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
EDIT: Turns out I was wrong, she did record four songs for RCA in 1953... again though, this does not mean that she had a separate singing career comparable to her career as an actress. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Definitely not a separate career, good removal Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She continues to be considered a major popular culture icon"..... it would help to include when she was first seen as such
I don't think it's possible to pinpoint the exact time when she was first named a pop culture icon; however, she was already a major star during her lifetime and had a very specific star image which was already emulated during this time. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • What is "draw" in "the story made her a box office draw" supposed to mean?
Reworded – English is not my first language and sometimes it really shows. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • When saying that The Seven Year Itch was " one of the biggest successes of her career", I'd be specific as to whether this is critical success, financial success, or both
Clarified. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "She won a Golden Globe" should indicate whether this was Best Actress or Best Supporting Actress
Clarified. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "She experienced addiction and other mental health issues, and had two highly publicized marriages, to baseball player Joe DiMaggio and playwright Arthur Miller, which both ended in divorce" is quite a mouthful. It would be better to have marriages in a separate sentence. Also, let's name examples of the "other mental health issues" she had
The issue here is that we don't know her specific diagnosis. It is known that she suffered from anxiety and depression, but these can feature in multiple different conditions, such as major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. I could change it to "She struggled with mental health problems such as addiction, depression, and anxiety. She had two highly publicized..." ? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Even better would be "She struggled with addiction, depression, and anxiety" and then a new sentence for her marriages Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

More will come later. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Moving on to images.....[reply]

I would definitely prefer to have an image of Monroe as a child or teen in this section, but my understanding of copyright issues is quite limited so haven't tried looking for one. I'll place an image request for one today. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I've replaced this with a quote box. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Corrected. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Removed. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Removed. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Here I have to disagree. I think having an image that demonstrates the contemporary reactions to Monroe's death is valuable, especially as her death was such a major event and has in later years become subject to so many conspiracy theories. The headline demonstrates both the fact that her death was major news, and that it was reported to be a suicide at the time. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I've reworded it (from "childishly innocent" to "naïve"), but if I don't think it is a fan's point of view, it's essentially how Dyer and other scholars analyzing her star image define her. The section where the image is placed explains this in more detail. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Have to disagree here as well. The Walk of Fame stars are all identical, so I think they only benefit an article if no other images are available. Monroe has been depicted by so many artists that I think it's good to have an image from one of them. Of course it would be preferable to have an image of a Warhol or of Madonna as Monroe, but I think the Gill image is ok as well. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

On the plus side, I can't find any copyright issues Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Life and career
Childhood and first marriage (1926–1944)
  • (in footnote) "probably to avoid the stigma of illegitimacy"..... try giving a more definitive statement than "probably" or just remove this bit entirely
Changed to "most likely". TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Saw you removed this completely; I have to disagree. There's no biographer who believes Mortensen was her father, but since no one was ever able to test Monroe's DNA against Mortensen's, they can't be 100% sure. Right now it looks like Mortensen is generally believed to be the father, with just Guiles, Spoto and Banner disagreeing. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHEartSusie3[reply]
I understand that in general speculation has no place on WP, but I don't think this is really speculation, as it's extremely unlikely Mortensen was the father, but there's just no way to conclusively prove it (e.g. DNA testing). I'm fine with omitting 'most likely', but what worries me is that without it readers might not understand that no MM biographer thinks Mortensen was the father.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Unless she was raised as such, I'm not sure it's necessary to state that her foster parents were Evangelical Christians
I'm under the impression that all of the children they fostered were raised according to the principles of their religion and had to attend church, sunday school etc.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I've added a sentence about this, I'm not sure if its placement is a bit awkward though? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Modeling and first film roles (1945–1949)
  • "had her curly brunette hair straightened and dyed blond"..... was there any particular reason she did this?
Apparently blondes were considered more versatile models. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
would "... to make her more employable." work? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Yes it would Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's mention Dangerous Years before Scudda Hoo! Scudda Hay! to maintain chronology
Done.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

So far, I'm overall quite impressed with this section, and the quote on how she became interested in acting is also quite a good addition. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Breakthrough (1950–1952)
  • "Unremarkable" isn't really a neutral description
I agree, but I'm not sure how else to describe them... Churchwell describes them thus: "films that are now only remembered as the films that launched her". I don't think they were necessarily flops, but they weren't hits either nor were meant as such, they were just the types of films studios produced to give people something new in between more interesting and hyped-up releases. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Just remove "unremarkable" entirely Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't just remove it; she had only bit parts in the 6 films released in 1950; but only two of these films were notable. I'll think about a way to rephrase it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Rephrased.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "bit parts" reads awkwardly, try "minor" or "small"
Done.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "good notices" → "praise"
Done.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Done.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Establishment as a star (1953)
  • "as well as one of the biggest sex symbols" → "and was seen as one of the biggest sex symbols"
I've changed it to just "and one of the biggest sex symbols", wouldn't that work as well? I don't think people in 1953 saw her as one of the decade's biggest sex symbols, since that implies that they were able to see into the future. Maybe the entire sentence should be changed to "emerged as a major sex symbol and one of the most bankable Hollywood stars", without the 'of the 1950s'? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
By "seen as", I mean people viewed her as such. I included that since I was previously told it's more neutral than saying "_____ is/was a sex symbol".
But that can be backed up, she most definitely was a major sex symbol, it's not POV. If we were talking about a current sex symbol, then I think it would be more important to stress that s/he is "seen as a sex symbol", but it's been 50–60 years since MM's career. We can assert that she was a major sex symbol without it being an opinion. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "had developed the iconic make-up look that would henceforth be associated with her"..... "iconic" comes off as puffery, and it would help to describe this appearance
Added a description. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • add "the" after the comma in "her second film of the year, musical comedy"
Done.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "earning more than double its production costs"..... let's provide a box office figure
Added.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "hit" in "box office hit" is too informal, and again a specific figure would help
Changed to 'success', added figure. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Conflicts with 20th Century-Fox and marriage to Joe DiMaggio (1954–1955)
  • "the film version of Broadway hit play" → "the film version of the Broadway play"
Done.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "The musical flopped upon its release in December, with Monroe's performance in a supporting role in particular receiving negative reviews"..... let's go with "was unsuccessful upon its release", and I'd give examples of how her role was criticized
I don't think it's a good idea to add examples from the reviews as it was only a supporting role. The negative reviews considered her performance vulgar, I've added a line about this. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "blowing up the skirt of her white dress; it became" → "blowing up the skirt of her white dress, which became"
Done.
  • "became one of the highest-grossing films of the summer"..... what was the box office score?
Added.
  • "stage hit" isn't really necessary
Done.
  • "the Strasbergs were to remain"..... remained
Done.
  • "she continued her relationship with DiMaggio despite the ongoing divorce proceedings, and also dated actor Marlon Brando and playwright Arthur Miller"..... did she separate from DiMaggio after or before dating Brando and Miller?
I don't think it's possible to know exactly when she stopped seeing DiMaggio; what I do know is that she was at first dating DiMaggio, Brando and Miller at the same time, but then of course the affair with Miller became more serious. Although she kept seeing DiMaggio in 1955, she was still proceeding with the divorce. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

More to come in the future..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some issues which I have yet to tackle (box office figures etc.), will do this either tomorrow evening or on Monday when I have more time. Again, thank you for the feedback! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Critical acclaim and marriage to Arthur Miller (1956–1959)
  • "talentless" isn't really necessary or neutral
Removed.
  • See above note on "hit" in "box office hit" being too informal
Removed.
  • A mere nomination that one loses isn't particularly noteworthy compared to actual wins, so no need for the Golden Globe nomination for Bus Stop when she won for Some Like It Hot
Disagree; Monroe wasn't recognized as a great actress at the time and received less nominations & awards than many of her peers (e.g. Grace Kelly and Audrey Hepburn); therefore it is worth mentioning when she was nominated for a major acting award, even if she did not win. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Something about "became difficult to work with" doesn't exactly seem neutral unless it is attributed to someone's views per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (quotes can be used if desired)
Added quote from Monroe. -THS
  • See above note regarding BAFTA nomination for The Prince and the Showgirl when it won the César Award and David di Donatello
  • "Her gynecological problems were most likely caused by endometriosis, a disease from which she suffered throughout her adult life"..... it would be better to give a more definitive statement than "most likely"
Changed to 'largely'; apparently her miscarriage during Some... was caused by her drinking and drug-taking so can't state that ALL of her problems were endometriosis-related. -THS
  • The paragraph on Some Like It Hot seems rather long; I'd split it at the "In the end" portion
Done. -THS
  • "Best Actress Golden Globe" → "Golden Globe for Best Actress"
Done. —THS
  • the ’ from "can’t" in "a comedienne with that combination of sex appeal and timing that just can’t be beat" should be "can't" (with a ' instead of a ’) per MOS:QUOTEMARKS
Done. –THS
Final films and personal difficulties (1960–1962)
  • "flopped" → "was unsuccessful"
Done. -THS
  • what is "effectively over" supposed to mean?
As in, their relationship was pretty much over, but they were still living together at the beginning of the production and hadn't filed for divorce. If I just state that Miller began a relationship with Morath, the implication is that this was the cause of the marriage's breakdown, which is not correct. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • I'd add an "also" in "Her health was failing"
Done. -THS
  • The alleged JFK and RFK affairs aren't really necessary to mention
Disagree, as these relationships have been subject to so much attention after her death. —THS
Death
  • "3 AM" should be "3:00 AM" to match the format of other times given
Done. -THS
  • "Her funeral was held at the Westwood Village Memorial Park Cemetery on August 8. It was arranged by Joe DiMaggio and her business manager Inez Melson, who invited only around thirty of her closest family members and friends"..... overkill, just keep things simple and say "Joe DiMaggio and her business manager Inez Melson arranged her funeral, which was held at the Westwood Village Memorial Park Cemetery on August 8"
Disagree, as the point is that despite her being a major star, her funeral was a small and private affair. –THS

This is coming along pretty well. I'll get to the last two prose sections in my next run-through. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure if the police bit at her funeral is necessary
Removed. –THS

Thank you again!TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Here's my final batch:

Public image and reception
  • "blond hair" would be better than "blondness"
  • "exposing too much of her body"..... "large amounts" would be more neutral than "too much"
  • "Freudian" should link to Sigmund Freud
  • "were generally" or "were mostly" would be better than "almost always"
  • "create their own Marilyns"..... we generally don't refer to article subjects by first name per WP:SURNAME when unambiguous, so go with "Monroes" or "Marilyn Monroes"
Legacy
  • "The Smithsonian" → Smithsonian Institution
  • the "troubled private life, unstable childhood, struggle for professional respect, and her premature death and the conspiracy theories surrounding it" ordeal isn't exactly legacy material, and "premature death" sounds biased
  • "important" in "an important cultural icon" is puffery
  • "her legacy as an actor"..... actress
References
  • I will assume good faith with offline references and anything requiring a subscription supporting the article's material
  • Link all works in the first instance each is used (i.e. Los Angeles Times in ref#1, The Guardian in ref#22)
  • Something seems wrong with ref#15, it only says "[[#CITEREF|]]" without any connection to a source
  • remove ".Com" from "Wartime Press.Com"
  • This says "best young box office personality", not "best new box office personality"
  • "The Chicago Daily Tribune" and "The Chicago Tribune" should read Chicago Tribune. Same goes for text within article.
  • British Film Institute doesn't mention comedies at all, so let's remove the "comedy" bit it is attributed to
  • There is nothing in The Guardian on Lois Banner
  • See above note on "The Smithsonian"
  • "The" is not part of the title of Chicago Reader
  • This says that only All About Eve was played at Cannes, not The Asphalt Jungle

And that's all! Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so, so much! :) Hopefully I can nominate this some time next week. I've corrected all of the points you raised in this last batch; the only thing I would like to discuss is this: "the "troubled private life, unstable childhood, struggle for professional respect, and her premature death and the conspiracy theories surrounding it" ordeal isn't exactly legacy material." Do you mean you oppose the inclusion of this aspect in 'legacy' completely, or just would like to see it worded differently? It's going to be very difficult to explain why she is still so central in pop culture without including something about her conflicted image. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
You are quite welcome :). The "troubled life" bits are not something I would include in the legacy section, but could be discussed in "public image and reception" and how it affected how others saw her. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:17, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Public image" section should be more about how she was perceived at the time, whereas "Legacy" is more about how we perceive her in the 21st century. While Monroe's issues were to an extent publicly known when she was alive, she wasn't yet perceived as this conflicted "real Norma Jeane/fake Marilyn" figure. Based on what I've read, it seems that this conflict is the main reason for her longevity in pop culture, hence I think it makes sense to talk about it in "Legacy".TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
In that case, try rephrasing it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about just shortening it to "troubled private life and struggle for professional respect"? Other ideas are also welcome :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 15:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Fine with me. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]
Prose
  • Run a duplicate link check. I'm not going to enumerate them here; there are quite a few.
How do I do that? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie[reply]
I use importScript('User:Ucucha/duplinks.js'); in my common.js. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit embarrassing, but my technology knowledge is as limited as an 80-year-old grandma's. What do I do with this code? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • I know it's well-cited, but I'm not exactly sure it's correct to categorically say that Glamour Preferred was not reviewed; in fact, this play opened (in 1940, I believe) at the Booth Theatre on Broadway. It's merely its presentation at the Bliss-Hayden that critics failed to note.
I've reworded it to "the production was not..." Maybe this way it's clearer? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie[reply]
  • "According to Spoto, Summers and Banner..." Who?
Clarified. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie[reply]
  • When you first introduce Love Happy, it is parentheticaly described as a 1949 film. Then, you list Monroe's six films in 1950, and Love Happy is again one of them.
Love Happy was originally going to be released in 1949, but got pushed back to 1950. I agree it is confusing, as do the biographers! Any ideas on how to change this? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
No easy answer; I might footnote this one with appropriate referencing. Technically it had a release of sorts in 1949 (premiere showing), but wasn't in general release until 1950. The American Film Institute treats it as a 1950 film; our article treats it as a 1949 film at the moment. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to 1950. I think it's usually seen as a 1949 film, but I doubt it's controversial for me to change it for clarity's sake, especially as AFI states it's a 1950 film. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "She had supporting roles in four low-budget films released in 1951, in the drama Home Town Story, which she had filmed for MGM before her new contract, and in three moderately successful comedies for Fox, As Young as You Feel, Love Nest, and Let's Make It Legal." This sentence is a garden path. I'm not actually sure how many total films are mentioned here. Is it (four low-budget films), Home Town Story, and (three ... comedies) for a total of eight? Or are Home Town Story and the comedies the four low-budget films? I think its the latter, but this needs reworded in any case.
Clarified. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Is Bosley Crowther the one calling her "essentially a sexy ornament"? Or Ezra Goodman? Someone else? Because that's a quote that needs direct attribution, and I'm not convinced of its source.
Clarified that it's Spoto's comment. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "The studio had learnt of the photographs..." In American English, almost certainly learned here.
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • There's some logical disconnect here. If the nude photos were "featured in popular calendars", why would they have had "potentially disastrous effects on her career"? That's especially true when the article text then goes into how she branded herself as a sex symbol...
I've removed "popular". It's not contradictory though, as film stars in the 1950s never posed in nude photos or appeared nude in their films, even if they were sex symbols. This was after all an era during which the film industry was controlled by a strict production code, according to which even implying that a married couple slept in the same bed could be a bit too risqué. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
This is sort of a case of "I know that, and you know that, but I don't think the article makes that too clear." Current wording is better, and there's clearly space concerns with wandering too far off the main topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Bosley Crowther deeming her too inexperienced for the difficult role..." You've introduced him previously, so he can be merely Crowther here.
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • The last two sentences of the Breakthrough section (about her drug and alcohol issues) both strike me as particularly unnecessary. I would suggest merely including alcohol with amphetamines and barbiturates in the list of substances she used, earlier in the paragraph. The "temporary aid" sentence can probably be cut entirely; that drug abuse isn't a permanent solution to problems is hardly a revolutionary notion.
Done.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "If Niagara had made Monroe a sex symbol and established her "look"..." I'm not sold on the conditional mood here. The article just said that's exactly what happened.
How would you rephrase it? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "...for 60–70,000 American marines..." Perhaps style this as "60–70 thousand" to avoid the potential misperception that this is a really big attendance range?
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Is there a way to avoid needing parenthesis to associate Tom Ewell with The Seven Year Itch? Also, later, Don Murray in Bus Stop?
First one reworded to: "in which she starred opposite Tom Ewell as a girl who becomes the object of her married neighbor's sexual fantasies." I wonder if it would be too bold to just not mention Murray, given that he was never a major star? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I don't think you're under any obligation to force a link to Murray into the text. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Monroe dedicated 1955 to studying her craft. She moved to New York in early 1955..." Closely-spaced repetition of the date could be avoided.
Removed. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "Monroe also started undergoing psychoanalysis, as a method actor must construct their performance by using their own life experiences." I haven't checked what your source actually says here, but there's a disjunct between this sentence and the associated footnote. The body text implies that she underwent psychoanalysis not out of any sense of medical treatment, but merely to bolster her ability as a method actor. The footnote explicitly states she was "treated" by psychotherapists.
Will think about how to rewrite this. It's kind of confusing because at the same time she was urged by Strasberg to begin psychoanalysis/psychotherapy (yes, there's a difference, but both are used by bios) in order to become a better actress yet at the same time these psychiatrists did also treat her very real mental health issues. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Some of this will simply depend on what the sources on the topic say. There may be some medical-oriented sources that have discussed this more specifically as well. I'll see if I have time to look. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've rechecked Spoto, and re-worded the sentence: "Monroe also started undergoing psychoanalysis at the recommendation of Strasberg, who believed that an actor must confront their emotional traumas to be able to use them to construct their performances." I also reworded the footnote: "Monroe underwent psychoanalysis regularly from 1955 until her death in 1962. Her analysts were psychiatrists Margaret Hohenberg (1955–1957), Anna Freud (1957), Marianne Kris (1957–1961), and Ralph Greenson (1960–1962)." In other words, it was psychiatric treatment, but with the ultimate aim to become a better actor. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • [About her marriage to Miller]: "They were married at the Westchester County Court..." The previous male discussed in text isn't Miller, but Walter Winchell. It's obvious what you mean here, but this is technically an unclear antecedent.
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "... mainly favorable reviews, with Bosley Crowther of The New York Times proclaiming..." Again, just Crowther is fine; you've given his full name and affiliation earlier, and it hasn't changed in the interim.
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "She also received a Golden Globe nomination for her performance." To my ear, the "also" here makes this read as though the Golden Globe nomination is less important than the critics' reviews, which is clearly not the intent.
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "Her drug use increased and according to Spoto, she had a miscarriage." We never have been told who Spoto is, but that would need to be addressed earlier. My biggest problem here is the element of surprise a reader faces when told of her (possible) miscarriage without having been given any idea that she was pregnant.
Will get back to this later, need to think about how to reword. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Reworded to: "she became pregnant and miscarried during the production."
  • "She also argued with Greene over the running of MMP and whether Miller should join it." Presumably, whether Miller should join the company, not just join the "running" of the company, as this structure implies; this might need reworded more dramatically.
Rechecked: yes, Miller wanted to join the company as he was in financial difficulty, but Monroe and Greene also had other arguments. I've reworded this to: "She also had arguments with Greene over how MMP should be run, including whether Miller should join the company." Is this better? I think it still sounds a bit weird. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "It was however better received in Europe..." However needs punctuation if retained, but it's not a popular word around these Wikipedia parts. And, here at least, it can be simply cut without ill effect.
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "She began a relationship with Frank Sinatra, and in early 1962 purchased a house on 12305 Fifth Helena Drive in Brentwood." Is there something significant about this house's address, rather than just "a house in Brentwood"?
It's the house she died in, and therefore is kind of notable, but I've removed it as it does sound weird to give the specific address. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "...her image and name have been licensed for hundreds of products..." Does someone (or some organization) hold the rights to her name and image for licensing purposes? If so, is that worth addressing?
Addressed in detail in the separate article about her death. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
References
  • You have two sources (Miracle and Miracle, Thomson) that are throwing ref errors because they appear to be unused. Miracle and Miracle appears to be reference #4 at this time, but isn't properly formatted to link to the source entry (and lacks a paginated reference).
Removed Thomson; M&M doesn't have a page number. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • We can quibble about the necessity of it, but you really should use this to convert all ISBNs to properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s.
I'll do this later. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Scholarly journals do not require publishers under most circumstances (see the Handyside source).
Removed. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • You mostly do not include publisher locations, which is fine, but you have one for Miracle and Miracle (but see above), Rise and Hitchens, and Summers (which is formatted ... strangely).
Riese & Hitchens and Summers were not added by me; M&M was, but very early on. I've removed the locations now. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • The Rollyson source is not reliable; iUniverse is a print-on-demand / self-publication service.
This is a reference added by previous editors before I started rewriting the article. Rollyson is however a key biographer and an academic so the book itself is definitely not unreliable. Will look into this. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
As far as I can tell, the source is only used as one of several cites to support a statement in the lead that probably doesn't actually need to be cited in the lead. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Miscellanea
  • I would snip the partial filmography entirely; just leave the link to the filmography article. Several FA-level bios have done this, and I think its cleaner than the hybrid approach taken here.
It's her entire filmography though? I don't mind either way to be honest. However, I do think her filmography should have its own section, as casual readers just looking for that list might not realise it's in "See also". TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Definitely keep the films listed if having a "filmography" section; it definitely is more beneficial to have them listed in the section since readers can actually get something informative from it if looming for names and releases Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had initially misjudged this as a selected filmography, which I'm not much fond of. While I personally prefer the minimalist approach (see Vivien Leigh), this presentation is also entirely acceptable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea what to do with the Personal life of Marilyn Monroe article that you link in See also. It's sort of terrible, and essentially forks a lot of this. The Early life article hatnoted in her childhood section ... isn't much better. YMMV here.
I definitely agree that they are terrible and personally would prefer to see them deleted. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Wow, that is a lot of external links. No opinion at this time as to which, if any, should culled. Just an observation.
The majority of them were there already when I started. Will look into this. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I don't actually think there are that many external links, Katherine Hepburn, Charlie Chaplin and Bette Davis also have quite a few. I've removed the Life galleries as they contained about five image each, as well as the link to Playboy's website. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

I didn't look at images at all (licensing, alt text, captions), and I didn't really go into this with an eye towards markedly shortening the prose, although there may be options to do that. I also wouldn't consider my list of prose concerns to be at all comprehensive; more than anything, I was skimming for stuff that stood out. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

Looking in at Dr Blofeld's request. This is a long article, and I'll need more than one go at commenting. I usually find it best to leave reviewing the lead until I've read the main text. Apologies if you are eventually surprised to find me reviewing the lead after everything else. First lot:

  • WP:OVERLINK:
    • There are too many everyday terms given blue links. I doubt very much if anybody will ever feel the need to click on "foster homes", "pin-up", "suicide", "chorus girl", "star image", "gold-digging", "physically abusive", "communism", "blacklisted", "saloon", "foul play", "public sphere", "multinational corporations", or "mass media".
Hmm, I agree on most of these, except that I think it is useful to link "cheesecake" to pin-up, as I don't think most non-native speaker readers would know this term, it's far less common these days than 'pin-up'. The English term 'pin-up' is also used in several other languages (including French, Spanish, Italian, German, Turkish, and most Scandinavian languages) to describe this style of modeling; 'cheesecake' seems to be purely American/British slang. As for 'star image', I'm removing the link as it leads to star system, which is not at all the same thing. It's a shame that WP doesn't have anything on star image, as it's a specific concept developed by Dyer and is in no way limited to the studio era.
Done, except in the case of pin-up. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

    • There are duplicate links to Columbia Pictures, Cheesecake, Paula Strasberg, Golden Globe, Betty Grable, femme fatale, Norman Mailer, Jayne Mansfield, Columbia Pictures (again), American Film Institute, Variety, Molly Haskell, studio system, consumer culture and cheesecake (again).
Will start on this, it might take some time. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Childhood and first marriage (1926–1944)
    • "health issues" – is this a roundabout way of saying "poor health"? A bit lumpen if so.
Where exactly is this term used in this section? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Modeling and first film roles
    • "Darryl F. Zanuck was however unenthusiastic" – if you must have "however" (usually unnecessary, as here) you need commas on either side of it. There are ten "howevers" in the article, all of which are superfluous and clog up the prose without adding anything of value.
Working on this. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3**"in order to avoid" – a long-winded way of saying just "to avoid". There are four "in order to"s in the article, all of which would be better as plain infinitives.[reply]
    • "selected her the screen name" – superfluous word here? Either "her" or "the" but not both, perhaps?
Removed 'her'. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
    • "Monroe became a protégé" – unless she had a sex-change she became a protégée.
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
    • "tour in New York" – do we really need a link to that city?
Removed.
  • Breakthrough (1950–1952)
    • Second sentence needs spacing at each end of the en-dashes (MoS)
    • "In the latter" – the "former" was two sentences ago, and one has forgotten it by this point; I'd give the title here, I think.
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

More when I can. I'm enjoying the article thus far, and look forward to resuming. Tim riley talk 17:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second and concluding batch
  • Public image and reception
    • "may not to be a pure coincidence" – superfluous word
Removed. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
    • "voice coach Phil Moore" – this might be clearer as "singing coach". If you search for voice coach in WP you get a page on all sorts of vocal training – mostly speech.
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Legacy
    • The first time I read the opening paragraph I wondered if it were not rather one-sided. No examples are given of critics saying she was unimportant. (Perhaps nobody has ever said such a thing.) Rereading it, I was less struck by one-sidedness, and I think it will pass muster, but you may like to ponder.
I don't think anyone has ever disagreed that she is a major pop culture icon, it would be quite difficult given the excessive merchandising of her image. I have however explained that she is not an icon because of her acting, so there is some criticism included. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
    • "in mid-century United States" – can one call that country just "United States" with no definite article?
Corrected. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
    • "Monroe was a talented comedian" – if we're calling her an actress rather than an actor, shouldn't she be a comedienne rather than a comedian? The switch between gender-specific and non-specific terms looks incongruous.
Done. I would prefer to use gender neutral terminology, but I don't want to bicker with people. She was referred to as an "actress" and "comedienne" during her lifetime, so I guess it's ok to use those terms. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Lead (last but not least)
    • "she was disappointed by the studio's typecasting and underpaying of her" – rather awkward construction: something like "she was disappointed that the studio typecast and underpaid her" or "she was disappointed at being typecast and underpaid by the studio" might flow better.
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
    • "other mental health issues" – "issues" is a much overused word, and more often than not (as here) woolly. The advice in Plain Words is shrewd: "This word has a very wide range of proper meanings as a noun, and should not be made to do any more work – the work, for instance of subject, topic, consideration and dispute." If you mean "problems" then it is better to say so.
Reworded. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

That's all from me on the prose. To address the two particular points raised by the nominator, I didn't at any point feel that the private life was given too much attention at the expense of the professional activity; the balance seems to me admirably judged. As to the balance of the sources, I don't think Spoto (153 references) is overused: we have 91 references to Banner and another 91 to Churchwell. Any impression that Spoto is used excessively may be due in part to having that book listed first in, e.g., refs 3, 5, 14, 42, 43, 182 and many others where Banner or Churchwell are mentioned second or third in the bundled reference: the eye lights on "Spoto" first and registers it. I don't say you should bundle refs in alphabetical order of author, but doing so would reduce the false impression of ubiquity of Spoto.

I think the article would be well worth taking to FAC. Please ping me when you go there. – Tim riley talk 09:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, you raised many good points! I don't think I have the patience to alphabetize the footnotes at this stage though. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Comments from Loeba

[edit]

I've already given the article a close review on the talk page, so I just want to quickly share my view regarding the two points TrueHeartSusie raised at the start. I definitely don't think the article is "tabloidish": the personal material is always dealt with appropriately and intelligently, and absolutely needs to be discussed on an article about MM - it's a huge part of her enduring legacy. Her acting career still gets lots of coverage; the right amount IMO. As for sources, I think biography articles - in other words, ones that are essentially a narrative - shouldn't need numerous sources: it's just important to use the best two or three. And many more than that are used for the analytical sections - it's a great list of sources. Ultimately, the article is clearly very comprehensive so there's just no need to worry. That's my take anyway! --Loeba (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there absolutely nothing then you think which can be improved? Do you think a few reviews from the 50s might be good alongside the biography sources?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Blofeld, I don't think Loeba means it that way. She just wants to give her opinion since her review wasn't an 'official' peer review. I'm quite shy and sometimes struggle to take criticism the right way, and I think Loeba is also concerned that I may have taken your comments too harshly (which is not the case, as I said I think many of them were very constructive and have led to improvements). I've added some material from 1950s reviews, Hopper's columns etc. to the article btw, and I think it definitely has enhanced the article! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
But reviews are often cited from the biographies. The good bios cover that stuff, which informs your writing. And yeah, some more reviews have now been added which is good. Articles can almost always be improved with extra polish and tweaks, but in terms of content it is exactly what I want from an article on Monroe. Which is why I don't feel more sources are needed - I'm not sure what else needs to be mentioned...I sort of feel like they'd just be added for the sake of it, you know? If others disagree fine but I am more than happy with the article. And yes, I'm partly making a point of saying this so that you're not disheartened, THS, but I'm not the type to say it if I didn't genuinely mean it! I've been told by my friends that I can be painfully honest, heh, and they all know that flattery from me means something and isn't empty. It applies here too. I'm also commenting as I hope my thoughts may ring true with other reviewers. --Loeba (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'm gonna get myself some Karwai Wong now!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

[edit]

As there seems to an abundance of review comments on the prose, I am confining myself to looking at citations and sources. With one exception (noted below), there are no problems with the quality and reliability of the sources,nor with your selection of material, but there are a few issues on presentation, link errors etc. The ref numbering is that as per this version of the article, 14.05 hrs, 22 October, should any changes occur before you get to this.

  • There is some inconsistency in providing author details for newspaper/magazine articles; generally you don't seem to do this. I think the norm is to show the author's name where possible. In some cases the writer is well known, e.g. Hedda Hopper.
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • There is a tendency towards the over-citing of quite simple non-controversial statements. For example, "[Gladys] spent the rest of her life in and out of hospitals, and was only occasionally in contact with Monroe" is cited to three page refs in Spoto, and six page refs in Banner, making nine in all. That's overdoing it, surely? There are similiar instances throughout the article. Multiple citations may be used to add support to a potentially controversial statement, but little is gained by overloading ordinary factual details in this way.
This is because the books don't state "She spent the rest of her life in and out of hospitals, and was only occasionally in contact with Monroe", but they list chronologically the times that Monroe was in touch with her and Gladys' going in and out of institutions. For example, after they write that Gladys was institutionalized for the first time, they don't write anything about her until 30 pages later, when it's stated that she contacted Monroe for the first time in years etc. The sentence I've written is therefore a synthesis of what the biographers are stating, but since they go through every year in Monroe's life in detail, this information is more scattered. So every time there are loads of page numbers for just one source, it's because whatever I'm stating is not necessarily stated in a concise way in the biographies. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Ref 26: Needs pp. not p.
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Ref 30: (Churchwell) needs pp. not p.
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Ref 106 returns "page not found"
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Ref 230: the linked article has a different headline from that cited. Wrong article or wrong headline?
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Ref 272: There's an error in the cited title ("named" not "name", which alters the meaning rather!}
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Ref 273: Is VH1 the publisher of this site? nothing to indicate that it is
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Ref 276: Paywall - you need to add a (subscription required) template
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Ref 286: The linked article has the title "Happy birthday, Marilyn", not as stated
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Ref 295: Is this a reliable source? In any event, the text seems to have been invaded by gremlins.
Another source has been added as well; since both sources are merely used to back up that BAM had a retrospective of her films, I think it should be ok? However, I do also wonder if the entire sentence should be taken out since I'm pretty sure Monroe has had other film retrospectives as well. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
EDIT: decided to delete the entire sentence. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Laura Mulvey source: Can you clarify the nature of this? "Lectora" is given as the publisher; I thought this was a software tool. More details, please.
Corrected – Lectora is an academic journal published by the University of Barcelona (http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/lectora). TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "Victor Gollancz Ltd" and "Gollancz" are the same publishing house, and the name should be presented consistently. Either version would do.
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

From my fairly cursory glances at the text, this looks a very thorough and well-prepared article. Brianboulton (talk) 14:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
The 50s reviews added now definitely resolve my own concerns with it. Susie, I think you're onto a winner with this now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

I commend you for taking on such an important article. Please double-check my edits.

I nominated them :) And yes, I'll wait until they're resolved – which will probably be some time next week.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "Gladys lived at the Bolenders to" Presumably you mean with the Bolenders or at the Bolender's house?
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "and her mother's friend, Grace McKee Goddard, took" Unless Goddard was Monroe's mother's only friend, this should be "and Grace McKee Goddard, her mother's friend, took" or alternatively something like "and one of her mother's friends, Grace McKee Goddard, took"
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "U.S. Camera, Laff, and Peek" Are any of these notable? Don't be scared of redlinks!
Won't redlinks be an issue in FA review though? I doubt anyone would 'bluelink' them any time soon, so I think it's probably better to leave them without links. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Red links certainly shouldn't be an issue at FAC, as long as the magazines are notable. See WP:REDLINK, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-08-13/Op-ed. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to judge whether they were notable or not, so will leave them as they are. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "Her contract was not renewed for a second time in August 1947.[59] Following her dismissal" I'm not clear what is meant by "not renewed for a second time", and surely choosing not to renew a contract is not the same as dismissing?
Film contracts were reviewed every six months; if the studio execs chose not to renew your contract during that review, you were let go. I don't quite understand the difference? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
It seems that in order to "dismiss" someone, a contract would have to be ended early, surely? Josh Milburn (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, not renewed = contract ends. I'm confused? Do you mean I should specify that non-renewal means the contract was terminated? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
No- the point is that contracts ending is not the same as the contracts being terminated. For example, there's a difference between me moving out of my house because my lease has ended and me being kicked out my house because I've smashed it up or refused to pay rent or something. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the two terms are used interchangeably when it comes to studio era contracts, as you would really have to screw up in a major, major way to be fired during your contract. If you did something to make you a persona non grata at the studio, you would just not receive any roles or publicity, and your contract would not be renewed. But I get it that in correct legal terminology there is a difference between a contract not being renewed and being dismissed. I've merged the two sentences, so it now reads: "Monroe's contract was not renewed for a second time in August 1947, and she returned to modeling." TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • What's a "vamp"? I'm assuming it's not a vampire...
As in femme fatale; linked now. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "them –Love Happy, A Ticket to Tomahawk, Right Cross and The Fireball– were" Are you attached to that dash use? It seems inconsistent with WP:DASH.
No, just ignorant about it, thank you for letting me know! It's corrected now. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • Is Love Happy notable? Again, red links are not a bad thing.
It's already linked in the previous para. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Sorry, my mistake. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she received some good notices from the critics" This is a slightly odd construction.
Changed to "Monroe received positive reviews for her performance", is this better? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Much clearer! Josh Milburn (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I draw your attention to MOS:LQ? "Released in June, it gained positive reviews for Monroe; the Hollywood Reporter stated that "she deserves starring status with her excellent interpretation," and the Daily Variety wrote that she "has an ease of delivery which makes her a cinch for popularity."" Is jumping out at me.
Corrected. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "By then, Monroe and her make-up artist Allan "Whitey" Snyder had developed the iconic make-up look that would henceforth be associated with her." This may seem redundant to the photographs in the article, but I do think a description of this "iconic look" would be a strong addition to the article.
I wonder if this should be removed altogether. Churchwell does not state exactly what the look was, as she probably thinks it's obvious. I don't think the article would really suffer from this bit being deleted. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I do think it's a part of the story- if you could find a source that goes into it in-depth, a line or two would be valuable, I think. Strikes me as the kind of thing some academic will have worked on, or at least fashion periodicals. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is something that I know there is some disagreement about, but I'll put it out there anyway: "While Variety deemed it "clichéd, morbid", The New York Times commented that "the falls and Miss Monroe are something to see", as although Monroe may not be "the perfect actress at this point ... she can be seductive – even when she walks"." This strikes me as unwarranted personification. Also "While disagreeing on the film overall, The New York Times and Variety both commented" and "and prompted Variety to call her".
What do you mean by personification? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Attributing things that persons do to non-persons; Variety does not actually "deem", "comment" or "call" anyone anything; people writing for those publications do. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is that Variety often does not list the names of their reviewers, but just gives 'Variety staff' as the writer. I've added the names of the reviewers where possible though. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "when Hugh Hefner featured her in the cover" Shouldn't that be on the cover?
Corrected. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "singled out for negative notices" Again, this strikes me as a slightly odd construction.
Would "with Monroe's performance in a supporting role in particular receiving negative reviews" be better? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I think so, yes. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They asserted that she was no longer under contract to Fox" Who?
Clarified. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "The studio urged Monroe to end the affair, as he was being investigated by the FBI for allegations of communism and had been subpoenaed by the House Un-American Activities Committee, and so she risked becoming blacklisted." This is a bit all over the place.
Rewrote it: "The studio feared that Monroe would be blacklisted and urged her to end the affair, as he was being investigated by the FBI for allegations of communism and had been subpoenaed by the House Un-American Activities Committee." Is this any better?TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Yes, though perhaps specify "Miller" rather than "he". Josh Milburn (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "Many of the problems stemmed from a conflict between Wilder, who also had a reputation for being difficult, and Monroe on how she should play the character, which she thought was stupid." This isn't as clear as it could be.
I agree, but I'm really struggling to come up with an alternative way of phrasing it. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
How about "Many of the problems stemmed from a conflict between Wilder—who also had a reputation for being difficult to work with—and Monroe about how the latter should play the character." I'm unclear on what the latter part of the sentence means- did she think the character was stupid, or the dispute was stupid? Josh Milburn (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She thought the character was stupid. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

That's all for now- I'll be back later. So far, this has struck me as an excellent article. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some more bits:

  • "The New York Times described Monroe as appearing" Another personification issue(?)
  • Perhaps you could link "a film adaptation" to Breakfast at Tiffany's (film) in the discussion of that film.
Done.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • "Monroe disliked her character, which included elements of her life," This doesn't quite read right
Changed to "Monroe disliked that Miller had based her role partly on her life"?
If that is what the source says- that seems like a slightly different claim to what was said previously. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I was trying to say is Miller included elements from her life in the character, e.g. the character's divorce is based on Monroe's divorce from DiMaggio etc. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • You mention in the caption that The Misfits was Gable's last film, but no reference is given for this
Isn't it generally frowned upon to insert footnotes into captions? It's not a fact that's in any way contested, is quite widely known and can be easily confirmed by checking Gable's article.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I'm not aware of any discouragement of citations in captions, but you make a fair point about it being uncontroversial. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was to be co-produced by MMP, directed by George Cukor and co-starred Dean Martin and Cyd Charisse." There's a somewhat-jarring tense-shift in this sentence.
Corrected to "to co-star", isn't this the correct tense? (sorry, English is not my first language so sometimes I struggle with grammar!) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
I'm surprised to hear that English isn't your first language- your writing is very good. Can I recommend "It was to be co-produced by MMP, to be directed by George Cukor and to co-star Dean Martin and Cyd Charisse." Josh Milburn (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

I really like the way you managed to summarize the views in the legacy section. This is a great article- a valuable resource for people who want to know a bit about Monroe. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, glad you liked the article! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Thanks for the quick response- I've offered a few replies. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

[edit]

I found this a fascinating read, and expert reviewers have left few bones for me to pick. If only to show I read it, here are a few suggestions

  • the Actors Studio; in late-1955, Fox granted her...—I'm not sure the two ideas are close enough to be in the same sentence, your call though
I've reworded the lead a bit. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • negative-cutter&mdash is this self-evident in this digital age, or better replace by something more descriptive
Do you think "film negative-cutter" would be better? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • silicone prosthesis
  • The use of medication to assist sleeping and to provide energy was not unusual in the 1950s, and was very common in the film industry.— seems to be anecdotal rather than scientific fact, so a "reportedly" might not go amiss
Done.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • I don't think we now link countries like Mexico. If you do, you should link "American" to US, since you can't link some sovereign states and not others
Yeah, that's a mistake, I've removed it now. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • her 1949 nudes—1949 nude pictures?
Corrected. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, sorry for taking a bit longer to get back to you! :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt

[edit]

Placeholder. I am a bit jet lagged but will get to this as soon as I can. If there's urgency to get this to FAC, I can catch up there.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lede
  • "When the studio was still reluctant to change her contract" "increase her compensation"?
The small paycheck wasn't the only thing Monroe wanted to change though; she was equally interested in getting better roles and more say over her career choices. –THS
  • Some in-lede explanation of why she became less active movie wise in her final years would be good.
Childhood
  • "according to their religion" possibly shorten to "accordingly"
Done. -THS
  • "responsibility over her " likely "for" instead of "over"
Done. -THS
  • "fostered" You've mentioned she had foster parents. "Fostered" has a bit of a UK feel to it
Changed to 'stayed with'. -THS
  • "until being placed in the Los Angeles Orphans Home Society" Hm. I would think she was either placed in the home or placed with the society.
Done. -THS
  • " stayed with her and Grace's relatives and friends in Los Angeles and Compton" This is complex to the point of being incomprehensible.
Ideas on how to rephrase? -THS
  • "and began attending weekly Christian Science services with Lower.[35] Due to elderly Lower's health issues," "the" before elderly. I don't have the sources, but usually children are taken to religious services, especially in that era, they don't have the bargaining power. This implies it was Monroe's choice. No idea if that's true one way or the other.
Done. -THS:*"off California's coast". I would say "off the coast of Southern California"
  • "Monroe then moved in with Dougherty's parents" "then" is a bit indefinite as you've described an event that lasted two years. Read literally, she did not do this until 1946.
Done. -THS
Modeling
  • "she had appeared in 33 magazine covers" "on" not "in", at least that's my view of US English.
Done. -THS
  • "acting agency in June 1946.[51] Through them" It, not them (similar objection)
Done. -THS
  • "expressed interest in her after seeing her on a magazine cover" I would strike "in her", as Hughes wanted her as an actress, not a girlfriend.
Done. -THS
  • "was granted divorce from Dougherty" granted a divorce
Done. -THS
  • "no film roles in the first months" during, rather than in
Done. -THS
  • "Monroe's contract was not renewed for a second time in August 1947" "for a second time" seems unneeded.
Done. -THS
  • "Monroe landed her second film contract in March 1948" I might say "next" rather than "second" to avoid questions about whether the renewal should count
  • " and had some modifications made to her appearance" There's possibly a better way of putting this.
Done. -THS
  • "the following month" ??
Done. -THS
Breakthrough
  • "very small roles" bit parts?
Snuggums disagrees, so I don't know what to do. -THS
  • " Although her on-screen time was only five minutes" maybe "Although only on the screen for five minutes"
Done. -THS
  • Can no more be said about All About Eve? That was not a trivial role.
There's not much else to say though. It was minor part, and she didn't really get any press attention for it. -THS
  • "actors Yul Brynner" Wasn't he really a TV producer and similar at that time? R & H had to basically drag him away to play the King.
Not according to his WP article? -THS
See The King and I.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "player Joe DiMaggio". I would either change player to "outfielder" or omit (in which case I would change Yankees to Yankee)
Done. -THS
  • "in gaining her " in getting her
Done. -THS
  • " the Daily Variety" I'd strike the "the". I might even strike the "Daily", if it can be justified
Done. -THS
  • "typecasting" stereotyping?
Typecasting is more specific and thus preferable I think. -THS

That's it for now, will return soon. A general comment. The writing feels rather British, both in the rather indirect phrasing and also in the pickiness, for example, the use of "protegee" (which my spellcheck is itching to attack) and naive with full umlaut (or whatever it is. With William Safire gone, Americans don't tend to be that picky. I think the tone is a bit too formal for an article like this one. Get to the point, even if it means idioms.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback! Changing the 'British feel' is going to be an issue, as I'm a non-native speaker mostly familiar with British English; my knowledge of the differences between the two dialects is pretty much limited to the differences in spelling (i.e. s/z, ou/o) and meanings of some words. Could you also be a bit more specific with what you mean when you say the article is too formal? TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Use idioms that are fitting to the article and easily understood. From time to time. For example, "flop" below. Yes, it's informal. But if they know who Marilyn Monroe is, they already know something about films. Which reminds me. You never use the word "movie" outside quoted text, yet that is the more common American term. And I would get more American eyes on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Establishment as a star (1953) (maybe change the text to "Becoming a star" or "Rising star" establishment sounds so ... establishment
Changed. -THS
  • "forecourt of " Doesn't feel American I suggest "outside"
Done. –THS
  • Conflicts etc
Would 'clashes' be better? –THS
  • " self-promotion" this has a negative feel. I'd call it a publicity campaign and adjust against repetition later in the sentence.
Changed to: "Monroe immediately began a publicity campaign to counter any negative press and to strengthen her position in the conflict." –THS
  • "or the people with whom she worked" possibly "the director, crew, and supporting cast,"
  • The Seven Year Itch Linked twice within a short span
The first link is to the play. –THS
  • "The musical was unsuccessful upon its release" suggest "The musical was a flop when released ..."
  • You might want it make it clearer that the critics objected to her acting, not her playing second fiddle to another actress. It's ambiguous.
I've removed the mention of it being a supporting role, I don't think it's that important. –THS
  • I would move the image of the grate scene next to where you discuss it,and move or remove other photographs as necessary.
I would but I'm not sure I want to delete either of the photos above it... It's important to have an image of her with DiMaggio, and I think the one from Korea is quite useful. The grate image is so close to the paragraph where it's discussed that I don't think it will be a problem for readers. –THS
  • "a girl " I would change this to woman and avoid the use of the word when referring to adults.
Good point, changed – I usually never call a woman a girl, but her character in the film is called The Girl, and hence I accidentally used that term. –THS
  • " in which she starred opposite Tom Ewell as a girl who becomes the object of her married neighbor's sexual fantasies." I I might suggest moving "Tom Ewell" and "neighbor" as close together as possible while consolidating the material about Monroe.
I find the sentence 'flows' better this way though, as the only alternative I can think of would be "in which she starred as a woman who becomes the object of sexual fantasies of her married neighbor, played by Tom Ewell." and that just sounds awkward to my ear.
  • I would move the reference to Greene earlier in the sentence, perhaps after "founded" It distracts from an important point you are making.
Done. –THS
I've decided to not add it back. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Throw in some "movies" anyway."
Critical etc
  • "changed her name officially" I would say "officially changed her name"
Done. –THS
  • "With the marriage, Monroe converted to Judaism" Did she undergo a formal conversion? Marriage isn't enough.. Such fine points may have been lost on the Egyptians of course.
I have no idea, I think the books I've used just say 'converted' without going into too much detail – I'll check again tonight. –THS
You may want to make it clearer what role Monroe had in Logan's hiring. She could have vetoed it, right? I'd say "hired" rather than "engaged"
It currently says 'employed' though? Changing it to 'hired'. Yep, she had the right to approve her directors and cinematographers, but I'm not sure who's idea it was to hire Logan in the first place. -THS
"triggered Wilder's anger " I would say "made Wilder angry"
Done. –THS
  • "the Madison Square Garden" strike the "the", it's simply referred to as Madison Square Garden. And you're linking to the wrong one, should be Madison Square Garden (1925).
Done. –THS
  • "Most biographers " his or hers?
Done. –THS
  • "Monroe next filmed a scene" you need to reestablish yourself at Something's Got to Give.
Done. –THS
  • "Several hundreds of spectators" Several hundred spectators
Done. –THS
Public image
  • " applepie" is this as in the quote?
Done. –THS
Legacy
  • " Monroe's agency in her career. " ??
The common assumption is that Monroe was completely 'passive' when it came to her career; "discovered" by a studio exec., and turned into a completely manufactured "Marilyn Monroe", i.e. she simply did what Fox told her to do and had no input in her career choices. In reality she played a significant part in creating the 'Marilyn Monroe' public persona, came up with her own publicity stunts, successfully fought for a better contract etc. In other words, she was not passive but had agency in her career. Maybe it's too academic to use that term though... maybe I should replace it with something like "played a significant part in the creation of her public image and career"? –THS
That's about it. I'll take another glance though when this is done. I still think the prose feels overly formal.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and sorry for the delay in replying to these comments! I'll see if I can make the text less formal before nominating for FAC. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Marilyn_Monroe/archive1&oldid=1151014725"