Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Barrymore/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

John Barrymore[edit]

John Barrymore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Barrymore was a truly, truly great actor. Possibly the finest thespian America has ever produced, his 1925 Hamlet was a huge success and he was lauded by fellow thesps such as John Gielgud and Orson Welles; the production was so ground-breaking that it is a still model for modern performances. Behind the mask of Barrymore the actor lay a very different and damaged creature who had been an alcoholic from the age of 14. His drinking, and his destructive behaviour wrecked four marriages, his career and his reputation. He ended his career playing parodies of himself in shoddy B-movies in order to pay off some of monumental debts.

This article has been through a root and branch re-write over the last few months, followed by a thorough copyedit and review to Americanise my rather British writing; an excellent cast turned up at the peer review recently, and I hope I've done justice to their thoughts. Any and all constructive comments regarding the article are welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I gave an image review at the PR. However, two new images have been added since then that I'm not too sure of, namely File:Arsene Luipin still.jpg and File:Romeo and Juliet scene 3.jpg. It looks like We hope has used a standard template from posters (which generally have the copyright notice on the front) rather than film stills such as these (which, if they have a notice, is liable to have them on the back). If the source included both sides, this wouldn't be a problem, but since Dr Macro only includes the one side, we can't be too sure that the images truly are free. The third new image at least has evidence that it was published elsewhere without a copyright notice... but these two, no. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The photos are from the posters and greyscaled. We hope (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Doctor Macro's Arsene Lupin page-the poster/lobby card came from there only because it has no copyright marks. This is Doctor Macro's page for Romeo and Juliet--nothing came from there. They're derived from the 2 posters/lobby cards. We hope (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I'd note that you are basing this off of the stills' use in the posters (rather than just including the image and expecting others to realize "yeah, this is how it's PD").  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea re: doing something like this came to me recently when some non-free stills for The Temptress had to go, copyright check showed the film was renewed and the Lantern magazine were no help. I'll need to go back and make all of the stills derived from posters and lobby cards a little more obvious as to how they came to be. We hope (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All-righty--have gotten all of them from our legal still into this format. :) We hope (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose and images (Images area alright). Good work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for all your help at PR, both on the prose, but largely on the images, which are always a ticky area!. (Thanks also to We hope for your work in tracking down the copyrights, and finding new images!) cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I see with considerable surprise that this article runs to getting on for 12,000 words. Well, it doesn't seem at all too long, and reading it a third time for this FAC review was a pleasure (except for "authored" in Legacy – ouch!). The text meets all the FA criteria, in my view: the prose is good, the balance judicious, the presentation neutral, and the focus firmly on the essential, with a leavening of just the right amount of personal detail to bring the man to life on the page. The images are excellent (though I note the exchange above) and very much to the point. I think a round of applause is called for. – Tim riley talk 10:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for your thoughts throughout: as always they are much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought: some images lack alt-text. Tim riley talk 10:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My usual oversight - I'll deal with it shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All now added. Thanks for reminding me! - SchroCat (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Admittedly I did spend a few hours looking through newspapers.com on this and made some minor additions to try to fill in some gaps I saw but as it has been so impeccably well-researched it was difficult to add anything of real substance without bloating it. I'm convinced now that this has been researched as well as reasonably possible and is a wonderful summary of a core American actor. It's clearly had a lot of research put into it (8 biographies and numerous news sources I believe) and I think there's a fine balance here. Great job Schro and everybody involved with the peer review. Normally I would object to an infobox but perhaps in his case with numerous wifes and family it makes it less confusing having them there for reference. If there is support to remove it though I'm not going to argue with it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Doc! Your thoughts and comments here and at PR were their usual great help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ps, on the IB point, I completely agree! - SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We hope has done a fantastic job with the images. Is it intentional to link The Sea Beast twice in the two photos though?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. OVERLINKING ignores image captions etc, where additional links can be used. As I've used links in other captions where applicable, I've gone for one here on the grounds of consistancy; it looked a little odd being the only image without such a link when I previewed the addition. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Use a consistent date format
  • FN59: DC?
  • Quotes within quote marks should be single quotes (eg " 'Fortune Hunter' ")
  • FN140 doesn't match other newspapers
  • Fn149 should be endash
  • Compare FNs 160 and 170
  • FN191 is missing location
  • FN218: is this a web source or something else?
  • FN216 requires subscription and should be tagged as such
  • FN210, 211: publisher shouldn't be italicized - check for others
  • Golden: Kentucky is abbreviated KY not KT. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I copy-edited this article at the start of the PR and have watched subsequent changes for American English idioms and spelling, as well as prose generally. I agree with Tim riley's comments above: this is a well-researched, well-written, balanced, readable, nicely illustrated study of this important actor, and I support its promotion to PR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Ssilvers, your huge help in Americanising the prose was enlightening in places, and hugely useful in improving the article. Many, many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support (subject to resolution of all image and sourcing issues): Barrymore belonged to my parents' and grandparents' generation, and I've never seen any of his films, but I had heard of him. He seems to be one of those actors – possibly Orson Welles was another – who conducted their careers in reverse: from bang to whimper and then silence. I have learned a great deal more from this very thorough article, on which I had a lot to say (mainly quibbles) at peer review. I've nothing to add now, beyond my contribution to the escalating murmers of satisfaction. Brianboulton (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks for all the work you did at PR Brian: the article would have any of the polish or lustre it has, were it not for your fine eye earlier. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looks extremely well done. Jimknut (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)|content=but there's a few points that I think should be noted:[reply]

  • Quite right: I'll address that now. - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1921, in The Lotus Eater, Barrymore portrayed a wealthy Frenchman in New York." − There is no mention that this is a film. Also, you might mention that JB's co-star was Colleen Moore, who said of him: "He was almost unbearable handsome. In my first love scene with him in The Lotus Eater, I was so overwhelmed I froze." (Source: Moore, Colleen (1968). Silent Star. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc. p. 112. ASIN B0006BTYIM.)
  • I've added the film element and Moore. I'm not sure about the quote: it doesn't add much to the image we have of the man (especially given the number of pictures we've got of him here). - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After completing his Warner Bros. contract with When a Man Loves, alongside Costello, Barrymore joined United Artists (UA) under a three-film deal. For the next three years, according to Morrison, he "enjoyed unprecedented prosperity and spent lavishly"." − Why are the titles of the first two of these films reduced to a footnote? All three were very elaborate productions so I think more should be made of them in the main text. I think also that it should be note that JB played François Villon in The Beloved Rogue (and check out this review of the film by the highly distinguished film historian William K. Everson).
  • Only because we have to prune the details somewhere. He appeared in 46 plays and 62 films, so we have to trim some of these out if we're to keep it balanced and readable. The links to the films are still there, and much of the detail can rest within those specific articles. - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite right: added them to the capition. - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Word about Barrymore's problems on and off the set spread around the industry, and he did not work on another film for over a year, when he had a supporting role in Maytime." − Could it be mentioned that Maytime was an extremely elaborate Jeanette MacDonald-Nelson Eddy operetta? Jimknut (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added that it was a musical: I think the key in terms of the Barrymore story here is that he had slipped into supporting roles as his condition worsened: I'm not sure that adding too much info about the film helps retain the focus on that part of his story. As always, it's linked for people to find out more if they want to. - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Many thanks Jimknut! Your time and thoughts are very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a fine article on John Barrymore-it gives equal treatment to his talents and to his troubled personal life. I've learned a lot about both the actor and the man while reading this. He died long before most of us were born, so we need articles like this to give us a proper "introduction". We hope (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks We Hope! Your thoughts here and at PR were a great help - especially in solving the copyright questions and issues. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Abductive

  • I find that there is an excessive use of the "According to ..." construction. There seem to be three biographers of Barrymore; Morrison, Norden, and Peters. I would prefer that no biographer's or newspaper's name appear in the lead, since the lead is supposed to be a summary, not a place for quotes and cluttering details. I would prefer that biographer's names only be mentioned where one is saying something that none of the others are; if a sentence represents consensus, then nobody's name in particular needs to be cluttering up the article inline. Abductive (reasoning) 04:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight correction, there are seven biographers (and the autobiography as well). I find that quite often a quote without identification can be misleading, vague or just insufficient. Sometimes we need to identify the source of a particular quote, without making visitors break their reading to establish who it was that said something. Having said that, I will go through to ensure that the use in each case is justified, or if some can be pruned. In terms of the lead, the quotes there quite appropriately: they are bold statements about the person and his position in the history of American theatre, so I am happy they remain; being such bold statements, I think we do need to provide some attribution as to the source. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In an encyclopedia one is to report consensus, not string together quotes. Paraphrase the consensus view. Abductive (reasoning) 12:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you: I am aware of the encyclopaedic approach, which does not necessarily eschew the use of quotes; indeed, out MoS is quite clear on the matter in WP:CITELEAD. The quotes in the lead (and elsewhere in the article), have certainly not been 'strung together' here, but the use has been carefully considered. - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attribution of quotes is fair enough in principle, I'm actually more concerned with how often the phrase "according to" is used -- in successive short paragraphs, and even in successive sentences in Early life -- so perhaps the words could be altered in a couple of places at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers Ian Rose. I had meant to do this previously, but better late than never! I trimmed most of them out: swapped some, and just cut a few others completely. Let me know if that suits, or if you've like a little more work done. CHeers - SchroCat (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that's plenty, tks. Will leave the review open a bit longer to see if there's any further comments on this or other aspects; unless any issues crop up I'd expect to close this by EOM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers Ian, much appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 12:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mark Miller[edit]

Less than neutral Support FAC - for comprehensiveness, images, sources and writing. (the below isn't to hold this hostage so I am !voting -adding support or oppose in the FAC polling now). Doesn't not need my support. I see some ownership issues from the nominating editor and a heavy dose of attitude. This will pass without my support so I don't feel there is any issue in changing my cote from a lack of cooperation and collaboration from the nominator.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick scan shows a really wonderful looking article that seems very comprehensive at a glance. I am going to do a more detailed look but the most immediate thing that comes to mind here is; As important as Barrymore is in the family line of performers and as important as the Barrymore family and the collateral lines are to American theatre and film, I feel this article really needs a family tree. I would very much like to attempt a family tree in the legacy section to show the genealogy of the family line. Articles about the patriarchs and/or matriarchs are especially good places for the EV of the tree.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about a family tree, but decided against it in the end. As you say, the article is about John Barrymore, not the remainder of the family. We link to the Barrymore family in a couple of places, and there is an extensive tree in that article. There's also an image of a tree too, but I think that is less useful.I think the main tree is in the right place (in the Barrymore article), and I'm not sure inflating the Legacy section would be the right move, it would certainly mean getting rid of the existing image, and dropping in a block of text to explain the connections to less connected members, only to justify a tree that isn't needed: we cover the important individuals in JB's life without the need of a tree so far, and the inclusion of one would be a backward step I feel. Many thanks for your thoughts on this point, and I look forward to your closer read. - SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree and think just removing a good faith addition in a FAC without very solid reasons within guidelines, policy and procedure or at least a consensus of editors is just not a good idea. Disagreeing with the addition and asking to form a consensus is the normal right. The tree I created specifically for the John Barrymore article is extremely tight and small and nothing like the massive and confusing tree you point to on a page that has multiple issues. The legacy section would not be inflating the Legacy section and the choice of wording describing that content is not very civil to be honest. First, the family tree has direct relevance to the legacy section as each step in the tree is a part of that legacy. Each person is discussed at length and John Barrymore is one of the patriarchs of the family where such information will be looked for and where such a graphic illustration would be both expected and have good encyclopedic value. I believe the inclusion is an improvement from the explanation given above.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not edit war to force the issue: this thread will discuss the matter much better without the upset to the article. I will address your above points shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel if you disagreed with the content that is verifiable and are requesting proof of my burden of evidence that would be one thing, but you were basing off your own opinion. It is actually easy enough to quickly deal with. This is a good faith contribution to what I see an important encyclopedic listing of a very notable part of a theatrical dynasty. My only real objection was the removal on FAC without discussion. There may sometimes be improvements you don't agree with that others do, but if a consensus of editors is for exclusion I can accept that of course.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether an article is at FAC or not is immaterial. Any editor can add or subtract to articles, and that edit can be reverted. That was the case here. I had already put forward an objection that you ignored when you added the overly bloated tree. I am happy I did not transgress any guidelines or policies in removing it. You did when you edit warred to force it back in, when there was no consensus to have to there in the first place. I have already given some reasons why I object to the tree, but I am happy to open it up to others to form a consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The question of whether an article is at FAC or not is immaterial" Incorrect. it is especially important to be on our best behavior. I re-added the tree because you removed verifiable content for no reason other than "You just didn't like it". You also say: "Any editor can add or subtract to articles, and that edit can be reverted." Of course, which is what I did. I have not crossed the three revert rule. That would be a violation of policy. Reverting a revert does not follow BRD, but is not against policy, especially when you are not following the spirit or intention of BRD yourself. BRD is not an excuse to revert by itself. Consensus does not have to be reached before adding content. What we have is an good faith contribution that even another editor below feels was an improvement. You removed it but gave no basis in policy. You actually erred when you reverted me the second time only because you then should have allowed it to remain until consensus excluded it or accepted it. Requiring consensus before adding content is not within policy to require. Deleting content on an article is not best practice if it can be improved or if it is acceptable. We all have differing views, but to keep things out in this manner can be seen as ownership. I am sure it would not bother you if consensus was for it to remain and could live with whatever the consensus is, as I can.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No Mark, the fact it's at FAC means nothing as far as editing etiquette goes, and there was no need for you to re-insert material that had been taken out. You also misrepresent me when you claim I reverted on the basis that I do not like it: I have said no such thing and had begun to outline my thoughts above which you ignored when you re-inserted the table. - SchroCat (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, Gavin is right. The table is in the process of being discussed and it is not acceptable for you to shoehorn it in devoid of any consensus. I like the idea of a tree, but I'm not so sure it is of any relevance to John, more so his family, which this article is not about. I have indicated this below in my post. Cassiantotalk 10:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry but that is incorrect. I also did not try to shoehorn it in while discussion was underway. It was removed with no real reasoning. I made a talk page (FAC) discussion and made my intention to add the tree (boldly) and there was no opposition while I took a few hours to make it. I didn't whip it out and shove it down his throat. Now, when he noticed it and saw the discussion he should have realized it was there and a discussion was underway and not removed it until the consensus was for the removal. Now, I believe it is relevant to John as one of the patriarchs of a famous theatrical dynasty and I stand by that.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, sorry, but the discussion was underway. I replied to the thread at 8:26; you inserted the tree at 8:38. I did not need consensus to remove something I thought was not advantageous to the article, especially as I had raised an opposition to it. - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me but I started the discussion and you commented an hour and a half later just about when I was adding it to the article. And whether you understand it or not, yeah....you do have to have a consensus to remove something. If I added it and you removed it, that means you don't want it and I did want it...that is no consensus. Don't you get that? The content should have stayed until a discussion. if a dispute arises that cannot be settled it would be returned to the last stable version. Is that you intent? to raise this to a level of a dispute? I'm not. I am just explaining that you were wrong for removing it once the proper discussion was made. Right now there is no consensus but you were the one who removed it. I added the content. There is no consensus for the removal.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't need to have the content in the article, my objection is on its removal without discussion and only because of opinion and not over policy or guidelines. As I said, if it is a good faith improvement that you may object to, it should be discussed not deleted unless it violates our standards in some manner. That is why I feel I see a slight ownership issue and I am not implying it is an ongoing or habitual problem or in any way something that the editor has a pattern of. I just see it here because of the way the deletion was made and accusations followed as if bullying me was the route to take. It isn't. Sorry, but while I am not saying there is something to be intervene on I am not impressed with the treatment I received here.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my objection was the inclusion while the discussion was ongoing (I had commented prior to the tree being included). I also object rather strongly to your personal attack above. I note you deleted my request on your talk page to remove it. - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was not ongoing. I stated what I was going to do and I did it but you removed it. That's all. Pretty simple. You insisted that I violated guidelines but didn't point to the guideline I violated. Yes, why bother going to my talk page when we are communicating right here. Look, I am sorry you feel that you are being personally attacked. That is how I feel. But I am not the one who removed the content and then made accusations of edit warring when no edit war existed and no 3rr broken. I stick by what I said as it is what I feel from the behavior here. Not from just trying to discuss you as a distraction. I just wish you would return the tree and then discuss why it should be removed.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should the family tree be used in the article under the Legacy section[edit]

The only other family tree on Wikipedia is oversized and extremely confusing and placed on an article with multiple issues. This small and tight family tree has great EV and direct relevance to the section and the continuing legacy of the family in theatre and film.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This isn't a !vote, it's a discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In polls, one cast !votes to weigh consensus. This is common. You can ping all of the participants that have weighed in if you wish. Yes, the additional comments not added directly to the poll is sufficient, we don't have to make everyone centralize their opinion. It can be in their sections.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The family tree is very good – better than anything similar I have managed elsewhere – but I don't think it belongs here. It would be silly to put it in the legacy section (the majority of people in it are manifestly not John Barrymore's legacy), and it doesn’t really belong anywhere in the main text. It would be fine in an article on the dynasty, helping people see the familial relationship between, say, Ethel and Drew Barrymore, but it would be rather in the way here, and would add nothing to the reader's understanding of John Barrymore. – Tim riley talk 10:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in. I see this as a rough consensus for exclusion.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't belong in the main article. However, I'd strongly support an article on Barrymore family where it would be appropriate to use it. Seems we already have an article on them but it badly needs work. There's a family tree in it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Dr. B. about an article on the family and including the tree in that. We hope (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, the tree is misplaced here. If it were to be used in the "family" article it would need tweaking, to clarify a number of issues. For example, why are multiple wives linked to each other, rather than to their husband? This makes it not always clear who the mother of the offspring was. Why are a couple of John Drew Barrymore's wives shaded, unlike others? But these are not issues for this article. Brianboulton (talk) 13:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree with all of ya. ;-) (If its the flow...I seem to find the opposite direction to travel) But I do appreciate everyone weighing in. Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the family tree is not appropriate for this article, as 1) the article is long enough, 2) John Barrymore's key family relationships are clearly explained in it, and 3) there is a link to the Barrymore family, where the family tree belongs. I agree that the family article needs work, but that is the place to do it. I agree with Brianboulton's comments about the template. I think that you should try to collaborate with Schrocat, instead of arguing with hime, because if you are interested in the Barrymore family, he is a very knowledgeable person who has read all of the key sources, and he is also very experienced, as are many of the above commenters, about what is typical and appropriate for FA articles on Wikipedia. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say to leave out the family tree. All of Barrymore's relations are fully covered in the main text so I think the tree is superfluous and pads out an already full article. Jimknut (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

I'll start reading through today. My thoughts maybe scant owing to the distinguished company I have before me. Cassiantotalk 08:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks – I look forward to reading your comments. As the latest reviewer to come along, could you also give your thoughts on the question of the inclusion of the family tree? Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the family tree is a good idea. I think, owing to the complicated lineage within the Barrymore family, this would be very helpful indeed. However, I note SchroCat's concern about not being relevant to John and more to the family itself. I completely see his point, which is why I would suggest the family tree article be put in a prominent position so one can click on it should they wish.
I understand what he is saying but that seems like an excuse that could be said about any individual as an argument to not use the tree and is actually false as it directly pertains to him.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early life: 1882–1903

  • There seems to be a lot of "born"'s, "Drew"'s and "Barrymore"'s within the first para. Could these be cut down?

"Barrymore was born John Sidney Blyth, in Philadelphia, and was known by family and friends as Jack. Although the Barrymore family bible puts his date of birth as February 15, 1882, his birth certificate shows February 14. He was the youngest of three children. His siblings were Lionel, born in April 1878, and Ethel, (b. August 1879). His father was Maurice Barrymore, an Indian-born British actor whose birth name was Maurice Blyth. It was during a tour later in life that he adopted the stage name "Barrymore" after seeing it on a poster at the Haymarket Theatre in London. Barrymore's mother, Georgie Drew Barrymore was born into a prominent theatrical family. Barrymore's maternal grandparents were Louisa Lane Drew, a well-known 19th-century American actress and the manager of the Arch Street Theatre, and her actor husband John. Barrymore's maternal uncles were also thespians, John Drew, Jr. and Sidney." Is just an idea.

  • I've sort of followed your thoughts. I've adopted your suggestion on the Drews, but re-worked the "born"s: having Lionel and Ethel structured differently (one "born..." and one "b. ..." jarred a bit, so they are now both "(b. ...)". I find the "birth name" a bit forced, so left it as it was, but I've trimmed the same number of "born"s out that you did, so it should be OK. - SchroCat (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Much of Barrymore's early life was unsettled. In October 1882, the family toured in the US for a season with Polish actress Helena Modjeska, and the following year his parents again toured with Modjeska, although they left their children behind." -- I'm not sure the current conjunction works at the end of this sentence regarding the children being left behind. Would this be better? "Much of Barrymore's early life was unsettled. In October 1882, the family toured the US with Polish actress Helena Modjeska. The following year his parents toured again, this time with Modjeska, leaving the children behind."
  • "...and they remained in Britain until they returned to the US in 1886". We say that they went to London and that they remained in Britain. I think we could lose "and they remained in Britain" and take it as read that they did, unless they stayed somewhere else, which they didn't: " In 1884 the family traveled to London as part of Augustin Daly's theatrical company, and returned to the US in 1886."
  • "...where Lionel was already studying. He was unhappy at Seton..." -- Barrymore or Lionel?
  • In 1892, his grandmother's business began to suffer..." --New para, new noun.
  • "The loss of their mother's income caused both Ethel and Lionel to begin acting professionally" Yes, stop mucking about and act professionally you two! It maybe phrased better as "The loss of their mother's income forced both Ethel and Lionel into professional acting."
  • "Barrymore's father was also absent on tour ..." I bet the managers were annoyed! I take it he was absent from home because he was on tour?

Early stage career: 1903–13

  • "Film critic Hollis Alpert wrote that, within a week of the wedding, "it was rumored on Broadway that Katherine complained she saw her new husband all too infrequently." – I'm not sure having this as a quote adds much here and can easily work without being quoted.

Films with the major studios: 1924–32

  • Overlink of Haymarket Theatre
  • "The reviews were positive, and "although none of the London critics found Barrymore superior to [Henry] Irving and [Johnston] Forbes-Robertson, many were favorable in their comparisons"– Again with this quote, this adds nothing as a quote IMO and can work just as well with the quote marks taken away.
  • "His first film under the contract..." – New para, new noun.
  • "Barrymore was offered a five-film deal with Warner Bros. at $150,000 per picture, and a share of the profits." – is the full stop after Warner Bros meant to be there? Cassiantotalk 07:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think so: it's the formal name of the company, and you know how Americans are with their superfluous commas and full stops! – SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All others except the quote done, which I think is the best way to deal with this. - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Years of transition: 1932–36

  • "1933 was a busy year for Barrymore..." -- I am not sure of the rules here, and it maybe fine, but for some reason starting a sentence or paragraph with a numeral looks wrong. I think: "The year 1933 was busy for Barrymore..."?

Decline and death

  • "On May 19, 1942, while recording a line from Romeo and Juliet for the show, Barrymore collapsed. He was taken to the Hollywood Presbyterian Hospital and died there on May 29, 1942..." -- do we need the second 1942?

Legacy

  • The New York Times obituary stated that during the time when Barrymore performed in Justice..." -- needs a trim I think to "The New York Times obituary stated that during Barrymore's performance in Justice..."

Support -- That's my lot. A brilliant portrayal of one of Hollywood's greats. This has FA stamped all over it in my opinion. Cassiantotalk 12:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks: much appreciated as always, and I hope I've done credit to your suggestions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Using my seven-point criteria:

Verifiability Excellent. I don't see any major referencing issues, and the article is throughly referenced. Content Quality Professional. Written exceptionally well, and in a professional manner. The quality is the best of the best.

Conventions Excellent. I don't see any blatant errors in grammar or spelling.

Readability Excellent. While some parts may be difficult to read, it can be easily comprehended by a non-native speaker with considerable knowledge in English.

Coverage Professional. The article is very comprehensive and in-depth.

Neutrality Professional. There are no disputes over its neutrality.

Structure and Organization Professional. It's organized very well, its structure is not spaghetti-like, and if you want to know about, let's say, Barrymore's early career, it is easy to find the section on it.

Overall I'd rate this article on my rating scale as a Professional article. It definitely should be a featured article, and I'm surprised on why it hasn't reached Good status yet. User:HelloThereMinions 03:09, 24 December 2014

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/John_Barrymore/archive1&oldid=1138464669"