Talk:Claudia Cardinale/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 09:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I went to do a bit of gnoming on the article, started reading it, and now fancy doing the GA review. A lot of work appears to have gone into this already, and as expected is up to the usual high standards of those who worked on it, so I see no reason not to give it a full review.

References[edit]

Quite a number of the {{sfn}} tags don't work properly. The tag needs all last names plus year unless you override it with {{harvid}}

As you can see my plan of annoying Sagaciousphil back to Wikipedia has worked, but two sources (Fillini 1996 & Simpson 2008) can't be resolved. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Checklinks returns the following errors:

Remember adding that, removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's okay, though now http://www.latimesmagazine.com/2011/02/50-most-beautiful-women-in-film.html is complaining about needing a login

Lead[edit]

  • Just because File:Claudia Cardinale 1963.jpg is public domain in Italy (the laws there were notoriously lax, that's why so many bootlegs from the '80s and '90s are Italian, anyway, I digress), what makes it PD in the US, which is required for Wikipedia?
User:Materialscientist?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is about the right size for the article
  • Unless I've missed it somewhere non-obvious, her date of birth isn't actually cited to an inline source in the lead, the article or the infobox
Sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is a Tunisian-born Italian film actress of Sicilian parentage" - this is accurate, but I can't help thinking it's a lame edit war waiting to happen. What's the problem with "Italian film access"?
Because Tunisian is very much a major part of her identity and spent her whole childhood there, and even today she works with Tunisians. It best summarises her background I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She appeared in some of the most prominent European films of the 1960s and 1970s" - suggest "She appeared in many European films during the 1960s and 1970s" (or something like) - just tones the POV down a bit
Not the same though, A European film is a European film, Cardinale appeared in many of the top films of prominent directors like Visconti, Fellini and Leone. I could tweak to acclaimed if you like?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, (critically) acclaimed is better, "prominent" is rather subjective Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cardinale became one of the most famous actresses in Italy" - rather than this, it would be better to say what specific awards / accolades she won (nothing's leaping out me from the prose but I'll doubtless come across something)
I've mentioned her awards further down. I've reworded to one of the best known.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. "la fidanzata d'Italia" might be a nice tidbit to add too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rocco and His Brothers, The Leopard and 8½ in particular are frequently ranked by directors and critics as among the greatest films ever made" - although the body expands this, I think such a bold claim needs an inline citation, even in the lead
Agreed, added sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "following her role in The Pink Panther with David Niven" - worth name dropping Peter Sellers as well? Although Niven is the top billed star for the first film, if I had to associate one guy with the series it would be Sellers
Yes, but most of her scenes were opposite Niven. I'll added Sellers too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See that Sellers is now in the lead but I would suggest dropping the name again. See may later comments on this.--Ipigott (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, having gone through the whole article I agree Sellers should come out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jaded with the Hollywood machine" - what's the "Hollywood machine"?
The whole industry and components of the Hollywood film industry, from writing and pre production to filming, editing, and the lifestyle. It is a term used in numerous reliable sources like [1], often negatively to illustrate how controlling it can be over actors accustomed to working elsewhere. And it is very much a machine, and a powerful one at that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well personally I think "the Hollywood film industry" scans better, the "Hollywood machine" sounds like a giant box that you put 10c in, it splutters a bit, gives a wheeze of smoke, and then a can of film pops out the other end ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you said "A Hollywood machine" yeah you might think of that, but the Hollywood machine should be clear. like "the political machine of Mugabe" might be.I don't think it has quite the same effect as "machine" which metaphorically is more powerful I think. I've reworded anyway!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1974, Cardinale met director Pasquale Squitieri, who would become her husband, and after this she frequently featured in his films" - I don't think "after this she" is necessary
What else would I replace it with? Subsequently and frequently wouldn't go together and I need to demonstrate that the marriage marked a close collaboration between the two professionally over many years.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant just take it out, which gives you "... Squitieri, who would become her husband, and frequently featured in his films", if that makes sense? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded slightly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who raises the funds to buy Kinski a steamship in South America" - don't think this is necessary in the lead (and surely it's Kinski's character?)
It is one of her most prominent roles being a Herzog film, I think to mention something of the nature of her character work in one film at least is OK. I, MarnetteD and other cinephiles I think would look on it memorably and enjoy reading that in the lede. I've tweaked to "him" rather than "Kinski".♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early life[edit]

  • "Cardinale received her education" - "Cardinale was educated" sounds better
Done.

1950s[edit]

  • "Cardinale's first contact with the world of cinema" - suggest "Cardinale's first film work"
Done.
  • "The appearance nonetheless marked her film debut" - wouldn't this be her major film debut, given the earlier short Vautier production?
Tweaked to "feature film".♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The turning point came in 1957" - what do we mean by "The turning point" here?

The turning point in her career.

  • "When she discovered she was pregant" - typo, and as pregnancy has already been mentioned, maybe "On this discovery" would scan better?
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Determined not to have an abortion" - the previous sentence makes this redundant as the context is clear
  • "far away from the prying eyes of the press" - suggest "away from the press"
OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was her first real test as an actress" - this sounds like an opinion, in which case it should be expressed as such
Reworded.--Ipigott (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More later Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1960s[edit]

  • "perdition" could do with a link - just not quite sure where, Son of perdition perhaps?
With eternal sin. Done.--Ipigott (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "portraying praying mantis types" - this just doesn't sounds like a particularly good phrase, could we use "portraying dominant" or "portraying manipulative" or something like that instead?
Reworded along these lines.--Ipigott (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a result of her own experience of early motherhood, Cardinale unwittingly conveyed" - do we need "unwittingly"?
I think we need something. I've changed it to naturally.--Ipigott (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "comparable to the two divas of Italian cinema" is "diva" the right word here? I suspect it is but when I think of "diva" I think of somebody writing a four page post on ANI ;-) Maybe "leading actresses"?
Absolutely "diva" is the right word. In the dictionary Lollobrigida's photo would be under the word "diva"!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several newspapers and magazines including the French Paris Match" - do we need "French" here? I think most readers would be able to work out it's a French title
Done.--Ipigott (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "be a credible young rival to Brigitte Bardot" - per WP:LASTNAME and WP:OVERLINK, this can be simply "Bardot", plus most readers will know who you mean anyway with just the surname
No longer linked but I think we need the full name here to balance up with Sophia Loren and Gina Lollobrigida.--Ipigott (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also in 1961 she appeared" - I think it would be better to write "She also appeared" and move this whole sentence before the one starting "At time, Cardinale was not considered...." which acts as a summary to the rest of the paragraph
I think these relatively unimportant appearances need to be at the end of the para but I've reworded.--Ipigott (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The finest and most prolific year of her career was 1963" - according to whom?
Reference given. Dr. Blofeld might like to rework it into the source list.--Ipigott (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fellini's much more relaxed style where improvisation was the order of the day" - can we write something else instead of "order of the day"?
Well spotted. Reworded.--Ipigott (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Cardinale's early Italian films, another actress's voice was dubbed in place of her own naturally deep, hoarse voice." - this has already been mentioned at the end of the "1950s" paragraph
Yes, I know. I think some kind of reminder is required here but I've now rephrased.--Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Il gattopardo.jpg is not necessarily PD in the US
  • "In 1963, Cardinale also acted in her first American film" - don't need "In 1963", we already know this bit of the article is talking about that year. Also, since I mentioned him in the lead, we need to work Peter Sellers into the body somewhere.
I've removed "in 1963" although as we have just mentioned 1965 there might be some confusion. How about starting "The year 1963 also saw Cardinale in her first American film...?"
I'm really not sure whether Sellers needs to be included here (or even in the lead). She was not very complimentary about him in the Guardian article where she tells us "Peter Sellers didn't speak to anybody. Always in the corner, just the opposite of what you see in the film." The emphasis should remain on Niven. If Sellers is mentioned, then something along these lines should also be included. What do you think?--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, her screen time with Sellers was very minimal anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Ipigott (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Life quote immediately following this could do with a citation immediately after the quote
Done.--Ipigott (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "uniting her on screen once again with Burt Lancaster" - per WP:LASTNAME, just "Lancaster"
Done. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lancaster on its own means nothing to me. I would prefer to restore Burt Lancaster.--Ipigott (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, especially as it is twenty years later and a long time ago in the article. On its own I think of the town first.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the end of the decade...." - I think the rest of this paragraph is in the wrong place, it should come after all the Hollywood films.
Done.--
  • " "I don't like the star system. I'm a normal person. I like to live in Europe. I mean, I've been going to Hollywood many, many times, but I didn't want to sign a contract." - I don't think this quote has a citation
It was sourced to the Cardinale.co.uk and I remember reading it but the source is now dead. Perhaps Jaguar can do me a favour and add the archive url type source to it from http://www.claudiacardinale.co.uk/biography/biography.htm?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep just added the archived reference, which seems to be this link? It has the quote in it JAGUAR  19:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but because it was used without Cardinale's permission, the photo was removed from the cover art in later pressings" - suggest "but it was used without Cardinale's permission and removed from later pressings"
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such was the power of her performance as the whore" - don't need "as the whore". Prostitutes are sophisticated women (like Cardinale), whores are just downmarket. (Err, allegedly).
There was something satisfying about calling her a whore ;-) She was a former whore in it though, even Jason Robards said so!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1970s[edit]

  • "The film, shot on location in Australia" - I don't think we need "in Australia", it's obvious from context where "on location" means here
Removed "Australia".♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sordi-Cardinale-BelloOnesto.jpg and File:Guappi-Cardinale.png as before, I'm not sure I buy the "not a copyright notice" excuse for a film still, can these be checked by somebody in the know?
  • The citation for the Jesus of Nazareth cast has the title "The Economist" - that sounds like the work or publisher, not the title
You'd think, but that's what google came up with in the ref maker and I don't know what would go under "title" given that I can't see the full page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1980s[edit]

  • "which also reunited her with Burt Lancaster" - WP:LASTNAME, just "Lancaster" should suffice here

I'm not sure, just Lancaster I think might confuse people, especially given that it's also a place, we last mentioned Burt Lancaster twenty years ago.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. Whatever the rules, I think we need to maintain Burt Lancaster. See also my earlier comment. One instance of Burt Lancaster has already been changed.--Ipigott (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He pointed out that although Cardinale's screen time in the film was unfortunately not durable" - what does "unfortunately not durable" mean in this context?
Unfortunately she didn't get much screentime. I've reworded slightly to "substantial".♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later in 1982 Cardinale played opposite Pierre Mondy...." - suggest "Later that year"
OK, done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1983, Cardinale had a role in the in the...." - the problem with this paragraph is it's a bit too "In 1983, Cardinale did this.... in 1984 Cardinale did that ... in 1985 Cardinale did the other...." Might just be worth rejigging things a bit so it's not just a list in prose
Yes, there is that, but I was hoping Ipigott could find more from the book to flesh it out with other info to avoid it reading like a recital of imdb.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1990s[edit]

  • "opposite Bruno Cremer in her husband's" - do you mean Squitieri?
Yes, but I think it's a bit of variation, rather than keeping saying Squitieri's xxx all of the time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2000s - present[edit]

  • "in a role which Patrick Besson described as "atrocious" - why did he describe it as atrocious
Good question, source didn't say I don't think, I picked it up in a snippet. I can remove it if you want.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's probably best, without any more context it looks a bit odd. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to Harold and Maude (1971)" - why the brackets here?
We always put years in brackets after mentioning films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sure, but why in "2000s" are we suddenly jumping back to 1971? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it's their personal opinion, I don't think citing the Hollywood Reporter on a BLP goes down well with some editors
  • "which was penned by Emma Thompson" - suggest "written by Emma Thompson"
means the same thing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interview LOL in which she says it herself. If that's not reliable I don't know what is ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right. In which case, it would be helpful for verification purposes to put the location of where the quotation is spoken, for the benefit of lazy so and so's like me who can't be bothered to wade through the whole thing ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life[edit]

  • I don't understand why File:Claudia Cardinale Blindfold 1965.JPG is here in the "personal life" section. I think it would be better to have either a picture of her with Squitieri if a free picture exists, otherwise I'd leave it out.
Done. Removed. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cardinale has two children" - suggest "She has two children"
Done. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Patrizio, who was born out of wedlock" - the top of the article uses the English name, "Patrick", I'd suggest going with one or the other for consistency. Also use "illegitimately" rather than "born out of wedlock" per WP:EUPHEMISM
Done. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed Patrizio to Patrick as this is the name Cardinale uses in "Io Claudia"--Ipigott (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was a goodwill ambassador for the UNESCO World Water Day for 2006." - needs a source
Done. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She published an autobiography" - as this is a new paragraph, suggest "Cardinale published her autobiography"
Done. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography[edit]

  • As this section is only link, this should be "See also"
Done. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy[edit]

  • One of the problems I see with this article is it's too "career heavy". If you look at Meryl Streep, that's got a sizeable "Acting style and legacy" section, while Audrey Hepburn has a lengthy "Legacy" section. I think we need something similar here. Most of it can be moved or copied from the main prose, and then bolstered by a summary of awards and quotes from various people.

Cardinale's nowhere near the league of Streep and Hepburn in terms of scholarly coverage of her acting. I very much doubt there is much at all documenting her acting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My gut feeling is if we don't address this now, if it goes to PR / FAC, it will probably rear its head then. I still think you can get a couple of sizeable paragraphs out of everything else. Certainly her longevity (how many other early 1960s film stars are actively working?) has been touched upon in the prose. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not needed for GA though is it? We may try to find something before taking it to FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess so - there are enough eyes looking at this that I'm confident PR / FAC will take care of it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

I've gone through the whole article now. My main concerns are some of the image copyrights, and the lack of "Legacy" / "Style" section means some of the "Career" prose rambles a little bit too much. Still, based on your work and who else is looking at this, I don't think these are insurmountable problems to meet the GA criteria, so I'll put the review on hold now pending improvements. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Most have been addressed I believe. I really detest fussing about with images, please do whatever you deem necessary, but I'd be very sorry to see the main image go.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we get no response from Media Copyright Questions, I'm happy for them to stay and if anyone subsequently complains, we just point them at the thread and say "we tried to make sure but there was no answer". Can't say fairer than that. I'll check all the other issues are addressed later today, hopefully. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

I've gone through all the points raised and made a few comments - everything else I'm happy with. The only outstanding points I can see are :

* http://www.latimesmagazine.com/2011/02/50-most-beautiful-women-in-film.html is complaining about needing a login * "Determined not to have an abortion" - the previous sentence makes this redundant as the context is clear

  • The citations "Fellini 1996 p.20" and "Simpson 2008 p.56" are incomplete

I'll try and press for a response about the images - I'm surprised nobody has said anything, there are a handful of editors who leap on image copyrights like a praying mantis. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm happy that the images can stay - they are all on Commons and I think as they are all taken by Italian companies it seems reasonable to assume they have Italian copyright tenure, not US. Commons is a lot stricter on image copyrights and would clamp down on this far more forcefully. I can't easily fix the two citations, so that's the only thing stopping passing the review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: What citations?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: "Fellini 1996 p.20" and "Simpson 2008 p.56" are {{sfn}} tags that do not have a corresponding entry in the "References" section. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: OK now?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it, so I can now pass the review. Another one in the bag - well done team! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Ritchie, much appreciated.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Claudia_Cardinale/GA1&oldid=1085911450"