Wikipedia:Peer review/Bringing Up Baby/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bringing Up Baby[edit]

Previous peer review
(more info)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because alot of work has gone into this article in the last year and a half, including a great Copy Edit and I would like to see it continue to improve. It has consistently gotten poor feedback on the quality assessment page. I attempted a peer review a while ago and got no takers. Hoping to find someone this time.

Thanks, Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Wadewitz[edit]

I'm going to read the article in more depth but my first question is why there is no "Themes" or "Style" or "Genre" section. There is a lot of amazing film criticism about this movie and very little of it is used to flesh out this article. If you look at Blade Runner or Mulholland Drive, you will see what is possible with a film article. So much has been written on this film, that a really great article is possible! Wadewitz (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

In terms of the rest of the article, I feel like all it needs is some good copyediting. Here are some spots I noticed:

  • The film tells the story of a paleontologist in a number of predicaments involving a woman with a unique sense of logic and a leopard named Baby - What does "unique sense of logic" mean?
  • Nichols and Wilde began a relationship during their collaboration, and went on to write other screenplays together. - Unclear what kind of relationship - clarify it is a writing partnership.
  • In general the lead feels too long and detailed. I would suggest taking out about half of the material. Summarize more. It is not important to put in all of the details about the reception, for example.
  • In the "Filming" section there are quite a few sentences that repeat information from previous sentences. For example, Beginning at the Arthur Ranch shoot,[25] Grant and Hepburn often ad-libbed their dialogue; production was delayed as the two stars ruined shots by making each other laugh.[26] The scene where Grant frantically asks Hepburn where his bone is was shot from 10 am until well after 4 pm because of the stars' laughing fits.[27] The film was further delayed, and after one month of shooting Hawks was seven days behind schedule. During the filming, Hawks would refer to four different versions of the film's script and make frequent changes to scenes and dialogue.[25] Some delays were caused by Hawks' leisurely attitude on set; on several occasions he shut down production so cast and crew could see a horse race,[27] and he took twelve days to shoot the Westlake jail scene instead of the scheduled five. - In this passage the idea of delay in introduced in almost every sentence as is the idea of filming - you can remove a lot of these phrases and words.
  • Hawks and Hepburn had a confrontation one day during shooting. While Hepburn was chatting with a crew member, Hawks yelled "Quiet!" until the only person still talking was Hepburn. When Hepburn paused and realized that everyone was looking at her, she asked what was the matter; Hawks asked her if she was finished imitating a parrot. Hepburn took Hawks aside, telling him never to talk to her like that again since she was old friends with most of the crew. When Hawks (an older friend of the crew) asked a lighting tech who he would rather drop a light on, Hepburn agreed to behave on set. A variation of this scene (with Grant yelling "Quiet!") was incorporated into the film. - I'm wondering if this can be summarized instead of narrated.

I hope this helps! Wadewitz (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wade for your input. I've given this an edit and in my opinion it now meets GA criteria but might need a minor copyedit in part which I've requested. I gave the lead a significant trim and reworded in parts. GAs don't need masses of critical commentary and I've looked in google books and am content with the coverage it already has.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that GAs do not need lots of critical commentary, but this article has no sections devoted to the topics I mentioned. If you check the MLA and JSTOR databases, for example, you will find some good articles. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what experts think is important about a topic and film critics definitely think that genre and themes are important. This article even points out the importance of this film in the evolution of the screwball comedy, so making that more prominent by making it a section is vital, in my opinion. Wadewitz (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't have access, can you suggest some sources and I'll get somebody who does to email me them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Peter Swaab's book will probably has a good deal of theory on the film.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't have access to it, do you?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm going away for the weekend but will get you a list and send the articles when I return! Wadewitz (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
On her behalf, here's a short list of analyses of the movie's themes and characters:
  1. Pursuits of Happiness: The Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage by Stanley Cavell
  2. Madcaps, Screwballs, and Con Women: The Female Trickster in American Culture by Lori Landay
  3. Different, Except in a Different Way: Marriage, Divorce, and Gender in the Hollywood Comedy of Remarriage by Heather Gilmour in the Journal of Film and Video, Vol. 50, No. 2 (Summer 1998), pp. 26-39
  4. A Proper Dash of Spice: Screwball Comedy and the Production Code by Jane M. Greene in the Journal of Film and Video, Vol. 63, No. 3 (Fall 2011), pp. 45-63
I hope that helps. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
For those who don't know, the day after posting the "when I return" comment, Ms. Wadewitz suffered critical injuries during a rock climb, and died on April 8th.[1]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Onel5969[edit]

Okay, there are a few issues in the lead section. First, section needs copy editing. Second, the statement is made that the script was written specifically for Hepburn, but there is no citation, and in the body of the article this is not only not supported, but contradicted (when Lombard is the first actress considered for the role). Third, the discussion of it having the reputation of being a flop gives the tone that this is untrue. When a film does not break even, it is a flop, and the article should not indicate otherwise. If it was a critical success, yet still a flop at the box office, that should be indicated. Finally, there are no citations in the lead section, which is okay, if the material is mentioned elsewhere and there cited. However, for example, the claim is made that the film started to gain popularity in the 1950s when it was shown on TV. Nowhere is this fact backed up.

The plot is all right, although it relies a bit heavily on parenthetic exposition. You might want to consider getting rid of the actors names in the plot section. This is a matter of style, but in other film articles, the plot reads better when not broken up by the actors' names. The section also needs copy editing

In the D&W section, it begins with several uncited assertions. There are several other facts in this section which have no citations (e.g. the food taster Ali). This section really needs copy editing.

The Casting, Filming and Post-production sections are fine, but need some slight copy edit work.

The first line of Reception is redundant, the same point having just been made in the previous section. The first paragraph reads like the film had good reviews, then there are 1 positive, 1 mostly positive and 1 negative review. Which to me gives the indication that the film had mixed reviews. I think you either need to list other publications which gave it a good review (don't have to quote them), in order to show that the preponderance of the reviews was positive, or you need to change the wording to mixed reviews. And again, copy editing.

The Legacy section lists several "all-time" or "best-of" lists, but is missing citations to those assertions. It also needs a bit of copy editing.

The section on "gay" is well done, bringing up both sides of the discussion, with appropriate citations.

I hope this helpsOnel5969 (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Its not a contradiction. When Hawks first bought the rights to the short story he considered Lombard. The subsequent script was written for Hepburn.
I do not believe that anything in a lead necessarily has to be cited and anything in the body of the article is referenced by citations, even it those citations include more than one sentence.
The film was considered a flop and eventually broke even after a few years. Flop is a subjective word anyway and it was certainly financially unsuccessful on its initial run. I don't see what the problem is at all.
EVERYTHING is cited. Just because several sentences are sourced from the same page doesn't mean that every individual sentence must be cited redundantly.
Wadewitz, I look forward to more comments from you.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm... sorry you feel that way. Regarding Hepburn/Lombard, that's not how the article reads, particularly since the casting section is subsequent to the development/writing section.
  • Second I never said that anything has to be cited, but the one example I gave, regarding it gaining popularity in the 50s is not cited in the "Legacy section". If footnote 34 is for the entire paragraph, then you should delete one of the two citations, as right now it looks like your citing it for those two points, and not for the initial statement. Since it's a hard copy, and can't be simply clicked on (which is not a negative by any means), I couldn't verify what was being cited).
Again, your terminology "reputation as a flop", suggests that it wasn't. Flop is not a subjective term. If a film makes money, it's a success, if it loses money, it's a flop.
And finally, not everything is cited. e.g. there are no citations for the Entertainment Weekly and Total Film claims (I'm pretty sure that wasn't mentioned in the Premier Magazine citations... which are the only citations for that paragraph). In the d/w section, I see your point regarding all of those assertions being on page 4 of Mast's book, and later on page 6.
I'm guessing you don't think it needs any copy-editing either.Onel5969 (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The lead does not need to be cited. Agreed with Deoliveirafan, what needs to be sourced is sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)