I'm nominating this article for featured article because...
I believe it meets the criteria following extensive work over the last several weeks. Otto4711 (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Looks pretty good. But where is the filmography table or list? (See Wikipedia:FILMBIO#Filmography.) Also, I think a straightforward awards table or list (not the succession box at the bottom) listing her major awards would not overly lengthen this article. To my eye, the separate article, List_of_Judy_Garland_awards_and_honors, seems extremely thin as prose -- it doesn't seem like the list it supposedly is, and the "Other honors" section of that article seems overly padded with trivia. I think it would be more appropriate to incorporate the five important awards types into the main article in a separate "Awards" section as a list or table (see Diane Keaton and Angelina Jolie), incorporate just a few of the "Other honors" into the prose, and then nominate the other article for deletion. --Melty girl (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't agree with your assessment. The article right now is 50KB. The awards article is ~13KB and List of Judy Garland performances is ~15KB. Even stripped of what you're calling trivia (which, I disagree with that assessment as well and also with the suggestion that the article be deleted) you're talking about adding 15-20KB to the main article, which then implicates WP:SIZE, with the performances and awards becoming logical split targets putting us back where we started but with less information. Otto4711 (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me toward the List of Judy Garland performances, a title which I did not interpret as a filmography. That article does seem to be a genuine list, and indeed is very long and full of helpful information. I disagree with you, however, about the awards "list." The typical awards table or list is much shorter than the prose in the awards and honors "list"/article, and the actual awards she won are not very numerous, so your estimate about the bytes that an awards table/list would add is inaccurate. (And sorry, but I do think that much of the "Other honors" section -- the bulk of the "list" -- is trivial, compared with other things that were necessarily left out of the main article for length. After all, many books have been written about this worthy subject, and I'm sure they didn't dwell in similar proportion on honors trivia; I'd prefer to hear more about what Garland's influence is considered to be in acting and singing, and about how her performances were received and are considered historically, than to read about how a rose was named after her or a long paragraph about postage stamps.)
I also want to add that I think the lead, while decently written, may not be quite detailed enough to serve as a short, stand-alone article, as per WP:LEAD, given the significance and the length of the article. Still, these are just my suggestions based on a quick look; I'm not going to oppose based on this. Good luck with this FAC. --Melty girl (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate your feedback. Otto4711 (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment : very strong article and well worth the effort to bring it to FA standard. I don't think it's quite there yet, but it's close. I have made some changes, rather than simply list them here. I'll describe what I've done and why, which anyone is free to disagree with/revert :-).
Moved filmography and discography links out of "see also" into their own sections. This is to comply with project guidelines for film and/or music articles, as well as "common practice" in numerous other articles. This also allows them to be quickly identified and selected from the TOC. I'm concerned that if an experienced editor such as User:Melty girl didn't immediately see the connection, a novice could well miss it entirely.
restored the Garland/Rooney image. Of Garland's co-stars, Rooney is arguably the most significant and the one most identified with her. We've already got a bunch of photos of Garland alone, so the Babes in Arms image of her alone doesn't add to our knowledge. We've got a free one from the same film, showing Rooney, and I think it's a better one.
reworded several instances of "Garland would .... (do something)". For example, rather than say "She would later characterize...", I think it's easier to read "She later characterized..."
a few instances of information being contained within brackets, have reworded so that the same point is contained within the sentence. I think it flows better this way, and no relevant information is lost.
general rewording, nothing to change the meaning.
Should try to avoid use of industry "jargon". Most words probably are familiar to most readers, but best to stick to common English. For example, this is why I replaced "wrapped" with "completed". It means the same thing but is more general.
1. Lead para is a bit choppy. Could be rewritten to flow a bit more smoothly and to summarize the article. I think it's close, so it won't take too much.
Can you offer some suggestions on what additional information should be included in the lead? Otto4711 (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it needs to give a clearer idea about what type of performer she was. I think just mentioning that she was successful in both musicals and dramatic roles would help, and I think mentioning something about her vocal style (ie emotional etc) would help distinguish her. I think there needs to be a clearer link between her health problems and the damage her unreliability did to her career. That's about all that I think should be added. The more I look at it, the more I see the lead as the article's main weakness. The lead needs to be paraphrased somewhat as there are a couple of points that exist in it, that are not directly supported by the information in the article. There are three phrases that I think are a problem. "attained international acclaim in nearly every arena... etc". I think that's too broad. For an encyclopedic article, I think it should be specific. ie she was successful as a film actress, a vocalist, live entertainer and recording artist. "Nearly every" doesn't really address this correctly. Also " a Carnegie Hall concert considered one of the greatest nights in show business history" fits well in the article because it's attributed to one source. In the lead it reads as though it was the general consensus and this impression is not supported by the sources cited. It looks like POV (even though it's not). I think that it would be more effective if it was downplayed a little and summarize it to it's main point only. I would suggest "including a critically acclaimed Carnegie Hall concert, and a highly regarded but short lived television series". (to avoid using "acclaimed" twice.) Also "the film with which she would be forever identified" - forever is a long time, and I think that one word should be replaced with something that is a bit more "measureable". I'll fix the bits that I think are choppy, and I'll reduce the number of mentions given to MGM (currently 3), but I'd like to hear your opinion - and User:Melty girl's - before anything is too greatly changed. Often the lead is the hardest thing to get right, and often the part that draws the most criticism, so I'm being fairly pedantic in my comments. Only for the good of the article though. :-) Rossrs (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I did some more work on the lead. I changed the "nearly every" reference to detail film, recording and stage, adjusted the Carnegie Hall and TV series references per your suggestion and re-arranged the personal paragraph to make it a little more chronological. I also made some minor wording changes to reduce what read like they established cause-and-effect relationships between events (separating the financial problems from the divorces, for instance). Otto4711 (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's superb! Rossrs (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it's much better now. Just one suggestion: I think it's a little odd not to mention any of the significant people in her life in the lead. Coming at this from a WP:LEAD perspective of offering both a strong stand-alone mini-article and summary of what's in the article, perhaps Mickey Rooney, a Minnelli or two, and perhaps a couple other people could be mentioned. What do you two think about this? --Melty girl (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of that, but I think it would be appropriate. I've had a look at a few featured articles for actors and Angelina Jolie, Vivien Leigh, Sharon Tate, Katie Holmes and Jake Gyllenhaal all make reference to individuals. Just pointing them out as examples to refer to if necessary. Garland and Rooney did 9 films together, which is quite notable, and Liza and Vincente Minnelli are/were both sufficiently notable. Rossrs (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
(reset) My only concern is that there's a fine line between a summary lead and a lead that's overloaded. If you mention one co-star why not another? If you mention one husband why not all (even though they're listed in the infobx right next to the lead)? If you mention Minnelli and Luft in the lead do you also mention all three of the children? And so on. I tend to err on the side of not wanting to overload the lead and trusting the reader. Otto4711 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You do it like you did for all the other details you selected to be in the lead -- you pick the ones that seem most notable. After all, how did you decide to mention the movies you did as opposed to the ones you left out? It's not as mysterious as you say here. About "overloading" the lead: the lead size should be tailored to the size of the article, which is long, and it should hit all the major topics in the body, as per the community's guideline, WP:LEAD. (Not sure what you mean by "trusting the reader".) Major collaborations and relationships -- just a few! -- should be mentioned. I'm not saying to greatly lengthen the lead, but you do have a little room, especially for an article of this length and significance. And the lead section takes precedence over the contents of an infobox. --Melty girl (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I think these things could be briefly mentioned without adding much to the length. Mickey and Judy were a notable couple and nine films together is one of the most successful collaborations of this kind. Nothing major just "Judy appeared in films.... including nine with Mickey Rooney...." That adds 5 words. I don't think any other of her co-stars merit inclusion, because they were far less notable in the overall context of her career. As for relationships, on second thought, I'd be inclined to not mention any of the husbands, rather than just single out Minnelli (and they were divorced after all) but I think Liza Minnelli is noteworthy enough for mention, perhaps (but probably not Lorna Luft). Once again, keep it simple "Garland had X children, including Liza Minnelli" - adds very little to the length. Rossrs (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is exactly what I meant about length -- it need not add much. And the logic here makes sense. I think it's fine not to mention Vincente Minelli, but I think Liza should definitely be mentioned in a children clause or sentence. After all, it is one of the things Judy Garland is most noted for doing (creating Liza!). --Melty girl (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. I have inserted a couple of phrases. "There she made over two dozen films, including the film with which she would be most identified, The Wizard of Oz." now reads "There she made over two dozen films, including a string of "backyard musicals" with frequent co-star Mickey Rooney and the film with which she would be most identified, The Wizard of Oz." "Garland died of an accidental drug overdose at the age of forty-seven." now reads "Garland died of an accidental drug overdose at the age of forty-seven, leaving surviving children Liza Minnelli and Lorna and Joey Luft." Honestly I don't think either adds a great deal of value, especially the latter. Otto4711 (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I've removed a couple of words. "Backyard musical" (in quotation marks) is a term that is not explained and which some readers may not understand. The main point is that of just over 24 films, she successfully paired with Rooney in 9 of them. It shows that it formed a significant chunk of her output at the time. I also removed "surviving". I know it means that the children survived her, but it could also be interpreted that as they were the "surviving" children, there had been other children that predeceased her. I think it looks good, and disagree about it adding value. It only adds a small amount of value, but I think it makes it more complete. Rossrs (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Film career needs to be expanded a little. Some early successes are discussed in sufficient detail, but then equally important films are mentioned only. This makes the discussion of her film career seem a little unbalanced. The late 40s seems to be the area most effected, but the overall discussion could be expanded. There is also a little overlap. The same films mentioned at the end of "Adult stardom" are also mentioned at the beginning of "Leaving MGM".
I've tweaked the two sections a bit. Are there specific films that you feel should be discussed in more detail? Otto4711 (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks good. I've had second thoughts about my comment here. No, I can't identify anything in particular that I feel is lacking. Rossrs (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
3. A sound sample would be great. Ideally something free of copyright but I think a fair use claim could be made with little difficulty. She is one of the most notable vocalists of all time, so a sound sample would enhance the comprehensiveness of the article. Not mandatory though.
4. I also think that a short paragraph about her awards, would be appropriate. It could refer to the main article in which it's discussed in more detail, but it seems to be pretty standard to include a summary of awards. I think it could be done without adding too much to the size of the article.
I really think that the awards being documented throughout the article along with the succession box covers the awards adequately.Otto4711 (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Rossrs (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I moved the succession box up to a stand-alone Awards section, a la Rossrs' moves with the discography and filmography/performances sections. Now it can be found in the TOC and within the body of the article instead of stuck at the end below External links. I don't like succession boxes, because they take up a lot of space for tangential information; I think a list or table of only Garland's wins for these awards would be more compact and contain only the info relevant to this article. --Melty girl (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Change header for "filmography". As Otto rightly says, it's not just films on that list. I don't know what the best header would be, so I'll leave that for someone else....Rossrs (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it to "filmography and performances." Otto4711 (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
That's a lot better. Rossrs (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment I've copyedited it with (hopefully) clear edit summaries regarding my changes. I only have one remaining issue: American English prefers 'theater'; 'theatre' is primarily a British English spelling. I changed one instance of 'theater' to 'theatre' to make the usage at least internally consistent prior to posting it for discussion here, but it has already been reverted, with the baffling summary 'buildings are er.' Note the following at American and British English spelling differences:
Theater is the prevailing American spelling and is used by America's national theater as well as major American newspapers such as the New York Times (theater section) to refer to both the dramatic arts as well as to buildings where performances take place; yet theatre is also current, witness Broadway and The New Yorker.
'Theater' is the most widely used term here. While I would not object strenuously to 'theatre' used throughout, I can't support employing both 'theater' and 'theatre' in the belief that they refer to two different things. Maralia (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I went in and changed the three instances of "theatre" in the Early life section to "theater". The edit summary was intended to convey the letter spelling. WP is very inconsistent about its application of -re and -er in regards to structures. Category:Theaters redirects to Category:Theatres but the subcats vary between the two. I prefer -er to describe American structures but I don't care if it's changed to -re. Otto4711 (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Support Mmm, okay, theater it is. I fixed one lingering instance of theatre. Maralia (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Support - everything that concerned me has been addressed, and I think this now meets all criteria. It's well written, well sourced, comprehensive without being exhaustive - everything is of a high standard. Rossrs (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Lots of fixes needed. There is incorrect use of WP:HYPHENs instead of endashes on date and page ranges. Solo years should not be linked per WP:MOSDATE. There is WP:OVERLINKing (common words known to most English speakers need not be linked, only first occurrence of most words should be linked, some words are linked repeatedly). 1c, reliable sources, is findagrave.com a reliable source (I thought anyone could contribute)? Is genealogy.com a reliable source? Please reduce all caps in citations per MOS:CAPS#All caps. Inconsistent date formatting in citations, some dates are linked some not, example: ^ Lewis, Richard Warren. "The TV Troubles of Judy Garland", The Saturday Evening Post, 1963-12-07. ^ Awards for The Judy Garland Show (1963). Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. Retrieved on December 14, 2007. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I've addressed the endashes, out of contrition; can't believe I missed that entirely. Maralia (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Excess wikilinking addressed; I think I go them all if someone wants to spot me. findagrave replaced with a different reference. Do you have some reason to believe that genealogy.com is not a reliable source? Otto4711 (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes. I can't find a page on their website that discusses their editorial oversight, factchecking, where they get their data, authorship, anything that would establish them as a reliable source. Perhaps it's there somewhere and I just can't find it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Overlinking looks to be solved. I removed a few duplicate interwiki links. Genealogy.com in general isn't cite-worthy in my opinion, but this particular cite is probably okay, given that the credentials of the author include something like 10 mainstream genealogy books . Maralia (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Reference dates wikilinked. Caps in citations reduced. Missing reference date added. Concur with Marlia re credentials of genealogy.com writer. Otto4711 (talk) 14:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.