Wikipedia:Peer review/Bette Davis filmography/archive1

Bette Davis filmography

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for January 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the main article on Bette Davis has received a "Featured Article" rating and I believe that her filmography page should an equally significant.

The majority of the list (i.e. the actual listing of her films) is not my creation, but the awards section is. I have also separated her film appearances from her television work and also added some radio credits. In structuring the article I used the Christopher Walken filmography as a model. The introductory section may need some cleaning up, so can anyone help on that?

I don't want the list to come off as one that seems to have been made in a "fan-worship" mode. In truth, I'm not a big fan of Bette Davis, but she is generally acknowledged as a "super star" and an icon of the entertainment industry, thus warranting a filmography worthy of featured status.

Thanks, Jimknut (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

In general the tables look very informative – more so than those on some FL filmographies. I have problems with one of the tables, as detailed below. There are also some things requiring attention in the introduction.

• Introduction
  • "in 1931" not "by 1931"
    • Corrected
  • "as a contract player" not "as contract player"
    • Corrected
  • No hyphen in freelance
    • Corrected
  • Some statements in the intro need to be specifically cited, in particlular "critically acclaimed", and "noted for her forthright maner and clipped vocal style"
    • These statements were removed.
• "TV appearances as herself" table
  • The table needs to be more specifically titled, either as "TV appearances as herself" or as "TV personal appearances"
  • The information in the "notes" column looks to have been included haphazardly. Sometimes it's the date of the appearance, sometimes an episode number without a date, sometimes just "Bette Davis", and there are numerous blanks. You need to decide on a policy for what should be included in this column, and then apply it consistently.
    • This section has been merged in with the other TV appearances.

In general, however, this is looking good, and there shouldn't be too many problems about getting it to FL. Brianboulton (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Otto4711 comments

• Does the lead adequately summarize the article per criterion 2?

• In my opinion it does, but you are welcome to expand and correct it.

• Where are the reliable sources that document these appearances? Why are the awards, which are not appearances, included in a filmography? Should they be perhaps be split into separate articles, a la List of Judy Garland performances and (the featured) List of Judy Garland awards and honors? Why are radio appearances included in a filmography? What are the reliable sources for the awards and radio appearances? If radio is included, why not stage? Higham's biography has a list of stage work.

• The sources are listed in the reference section at the bottom of the page. Awards are presented in the filmography because there are simular listings in the Christopher Walken and Vittorio Storaro filmographies, both of which are Featured lists. The Walken filmography also contains non-film listing such as television, stage, and video game appearances. For the Davis filmography these could be removed while the awards are shift over into their own article. Higham has a reputation for sleaziness and a heavy distortion of facts — I wouldn't rely on him for anything (his book is also absent from the reference list of the main article on Davis).

• Regardless of potential issues with a particular source, stage appearances should still be included if other non-film appearances are. Regarding referencing the various appearances, simply listing off the books and what-have-you is insufficient. There should be in-line citations. You can certainly do a blanket reference (e.g. <ref>Stine, pp. 126–137</ref> or whatever). IMDB is not a reliable source for featured material and as far as I know neither is IBDB. Otto4711 (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• What are the criteria being used to determine whether a fellow cast member is a "main" cast member and are they in line with WP:NPOV?

• These sections have been changed from "Other main cast members" to simply "Other cast members".

• Each of the filmography sub-tables should probably be sortable by year and title.

• Why? It's quite uncommon in most filmographies. A straight chronological listing seems the best method.

• Years needed for Walk of Fame stars.

• I'm trying to find these.

• Many awards missing. Stine's I'd Love to Kiss You has a list.
• Madam Sin (1972) missing from TV appearances. Should be relocated from theatrical releases as it was made-for-TV.

• Corrected.

• Cosmetic fixes:

• "Appearances" in the Lux sub-header should be lower-case, if radio appearances are retained.

• Corrected.

• "Awards" in sub-headers "Competitive Awards" and "Honorary Awards" should be lower-case.
• "Golden Globe Award" in honorary table should be pluralized.

• Corrected.

• In the "Academy Awards" sub-table, "Oscar" should be replaced with "Academy Award" as the formal name, in line with the other award tables.

• Corrected.

• I don't know if it's just my browser, but several of the awards names cause double-height table cells, in my browser it's currently the BAFTAs, the Golden Scrolls and the Cannes award.

• They appear fine with my browser.

• Awards tables appear not to be quite uniform in length, so by standardizing the lengths and increasing them you should be able to solve the bulging cell issue.

• Corrected.

• Monte-Carlo should probably not be hyphenated and it's out of alphabetical order.

• Both corrected.

• Are there additional free or fair-use images that could be included? Perhaps one of her Oscar wins can be the main picture.

• There are plenty of fair-use images in Wikimedia Commons. This one seemed a good choice.

• Is there an appropriate infobox that should be used rather than a bare picture?

• I don't think an infobox is absolutely needed. Jimknut (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So, some major things, mostly minor things, probably easily fixed. Otto4711 (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)