Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Angela Lansbury/archive1

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 February 2023 [1].

Angela Lansbury

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most famous actresses of her generation, one whose death in October 2022 brought considerable international attention. From Mame to Murder, She Wrote, Angela Lansbury showcased her diverse talents and established a broad fanbase. This article became a GA in January 2016 and while subsequent years saw it fall victim to entropy and a marked decline of quality, recent efforts to restore the GA-rated version and bring it up to date have resulted in a much stronger article that I believe warrants FA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I support this nomination. 2001:BB6:4E52:7D00:8835:D36B:F718:19A2 (talk) 06:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text

I've gone through and added alt text to the images. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use fixed px size

I've removed the two instances of fixed sizing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Studio_publicity_Angela_Lansbury.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the deadlink and replaced it with an explanation of where this image came from. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for these suggestions, Nikkimaria! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

Addressed comments

Shouldn't the first sentence in the article (i.e. Lansbury was born to an upper middle class family on October 16, 1925.) use Lansbury's full name since this is the first time she is mentioned in the article and it would provide a clear place where her full name is supported via a citation? I have not worked on biographic articles a lot so apologies if this is a silly or obvious question.

I'm not sure if there is any clear rule on this, but I'm more than happy to add "Angela" to that particular sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave this up to other reviewers as I am also not clear if there is a rule on it. I would personally go with the full name (middle name included) to just have a citation to support that information (mostly for the middle name), but the current method could be acceptable as well so it is probably best to wait for more experienced reviewers to address this part. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid putting words in all caps in the citation titles (as done in Citation 192) even if the source does it in its own title.

I've gone through and changed all the instances of fully capitalised words. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, the names of films and the like should be in italics (like Little Women in Citation 192).

Good point. I've gone through the references and I think I've caught every instance where italicisation is needed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain to me how websites/works and publications are linked in the citations? From what I can see these elements are not linked at all (like BBC Radio 4 in Citation 3 or Playbill in Citation 189 or St. Martin's Press for one of the book citations). I was curious on the rationale for this choice.

You're right, there is not really consistency here. I've now gone through and Wikilinked these, except where it would create a duplink. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The New Statesmen citation does not a publisher or publishing location, while the rest of the citations in that sub-section include that information. This should be consistent throughout all the citations in this subsection.

The New Statesman and Vanity Fair citations both lack publishers or publishing locations there, because they are magazines, whereas all the other sources are published books. My understanding was that, although it was important to include publisher names and locations while citing books, the same was not the case for magazines. I'm happy to try and find publisher locations for these magazines, however, if you think it necessary? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I was under the impression that if a publisher or publishing location was used for a citation like this than it would need to be used for the rest as well, but I see your point and I do not think it is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This part (Although largely seen as a B-list star during this period, her role) is grammatically incorrect. The beginning phrase appears to be describing Lansbury, but the sentence attaches the descriptor to the The Manchurian Candidate role. There is a similar issue in this part (Having gained the job by claiming to be 19 when she was 16, her act) as it reads as if the act and not Lansbury was the one to gain the job.

I've changed the first of these two sentences to "Lansbury was largely seen as a B-list star during this period, however her role in the film The Manchurian Candidate (1962) received widespread acclaim and is frequently cited as one of her best performances." Do you think that works okay? In the latter instance I've reworded it as "There, Angela gained her first theatrical job as a nightclub act at the Samovar Club, Montreal, singing songs by Noël Coward. Although 16 years old, she claimed to be 19 to secure the job." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing this point! Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may be helpful to link gay icon in the lead and in the article. It is a fairly straight-forward concept, but I could see some readers wanting to get more background on it.

Ah, I've linked this in the past, but I see the link has been removed. I'll re-add it in, as I'm not sure this constitutes a WP:COMMONTERM, but I'm also happy to discuss the issue further with editors who disagree. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If editors disagree, feel free to remove it though. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For this part (in the hit Disney film Bedknobs and Broomsticks), I would avoid the word "hit" as I have been told and I have seen comments elsewhere saying that it is too informal for Wikipedia.

I agree on this one; it doesn't quite read right. I've scrapped it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question on how numbers over ten are spelled out in the article. It seems quite inconsistent. For instance, numerals are used for (claiming to be 19 when she was 16) yet words (supervising sixty British children). Do you have a rationale for this? I was only curious because I thought this should be more consistent throughout the article.

I'm not sure if there is any guiding policy on this particular issue, but we should be consistent. I'll try and ensure that all numbers at ten or under are written as words, and all numbers over ten that are in digits. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the answer. I could just be being overly nitpick-y regarding this matter so I'd also listen to other reviewers as well. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was slightly confused by this part (adopting "Angela Lansbury" as her stage name) as I was under the impression that was her real name. Whenever I read the adopting a stage name phrasing, I am under the impression that the subject has either adopted a separate name entirely or changed their name somewhat (such as using a different last name or using their middle name for their first, etc.).

I re-checked the sources here. At this point, Lansbury largely went by her second name (Brigid) in everyday life; she nevertheless adopted the combination of her first name and surname for her professional name. I have amended the text in the article to make this clear. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing this point as your explanation does clear up my confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies in advance as this may be a silly comment. I remember hearing that Lansbury was dubbed in Till the Clouds Roll By so I did some research on when her singing was taken more seriously or acknowledged by studios, etc. This citation by the Oxford University Press specifically talks about how Lansbury was dubbed in her musical roles until her performances on Broadway established her as a singer. I think that background information would be important for the article as it shows how her career changed over time. I have not read the full article yet. I do not see this being mentioned, but apologies if I am missing it.

I can't get access to this particular source at present, but I'll see what I can do. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. All the information from the above source is on one page (i.e. page 417) so I can either email you some screenshots of that information or you can request it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. That being said, it would likely be beneficial to see if this information is covered in other areas. I have only done a very brief and superficial search on this topic. Aoba47 (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked that source and made reference to it in the "Honours and Legacy" section, although I intend to re-check the main biographies as I think that there may be more information on the dubbing situation there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. My comments are for the lead and the "Early life and career beginnings" section, with some focused on the citation structure. I am a huge fan of Murder, She Wrote so I could not pass the chance to review this article. Once everything has been addressed above, I will continue my review. I am really enjoying my read-through of the article so far. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking the time to read the article and offer your comments, Aoba47. I'll deal with the other few comments I have yet to address early next week. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses so far! Take as much time as you need. Have a happy new year! Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aoba47, and a happy new year to you too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure about the current placement of File:Angela Lansbury 1966.jpg. It is a photo from 1966, but it is in a section about her career from 1952 to 1965.

I can see your point, but given that the photo was taken only the year after the period covered in that sub-section, I can't imagine its use would cause too much of a problem for readers. We would not be able to move that image into the "Mame and theatrical stardom: 1966–1969" sub-section without bunching everything up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncertain about this part (Acknowledging that the film was of poor quality) as it can read like this is being said in Wikipedia's voice or is an objective fact. Would something like (Acknowledging the film's negative reviews) be possible to avoid this wording?

You're right, this does read like Wikipedia voice. I've changed this to "Although believing that the film was of poor quality,". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand on this point (and was bothered by the fact that she lost)? I would assume that any actor would be bothered to some degree that they did not win an Academy Award. Why is this time special?

Gottfried quotes Lansbury as saying that losing that award "bothered me desperately", but it's not clear that this particular loss was especially bad for her. I've cut the "and was bothered by the fact that she lost" wording, as we don't need it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I love how this part (Despite her well-received performances in a number of films, "celluloid superstardom") is worded, it is grammatical incorrect as it is tying "her well-received performances" to the superstardom quote and not to Lansbury.

I've reworded the start of this sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a pattern in which Lansbury has publicly (or privately as I have not read the citations so I cannot say with certainty) said negative things about her films. Did this ever cause any issues with career?

Not as far as I'm aware. I suspect that her negative comments were not made in the immediate aftermath of the release of these particular projects, but were instead made years after the event, and in some cases were most probably made in private. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worthwhile to mention that critics and audiences have since considered Lucille Ball to be miscast in Mame or would that be better suited for the film article? It could be hitting this point too hard and it could be too much about Ball for Lansbury's article, but since I thought about it, I wanted to ask you about it.

I think that this would probably be more appropriate on the film article; it is a comment on Ball, rather than Lansbury. (And we might be getting into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS!) Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worth mentioning that Lansbury took part in a 1982 album recording of Prettybelle?

I couldn't find any reference to this in the three biographies cited there (and which I have access to); I'm not sure it's pivotal information for this particular article, as she probably contributed to cast albums for most of the musicals she appeared in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think alma mater needs to be in italics as that phrase has passed over into English enough to be immediately understood.

I've removed the italics here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the following parts be linked (Rose Thompson Hovick for Gypsy, Anna Leonowens for The King and I, and Maria Feodorovna for Anastasia)? I would think they should be linked, but I was uncertain since the articles about the real-life figures and the parts are for the fictionalized versions specific for each film/story so I wanted to make sure with you.

I'm quite happy to have those links added (and have done so). I can't see it doing any harm. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have two comments for this part (commented that she "hated" the role, believing it too restrained). I would paraphrase "hated" as I do not think the quote is necessary. Also, could you provide some more context on why she felt it was too restrained? Is it something about performing in a Shakespearean play/role, was it something more specific to the production, etc.?

I've changed this to "Lansbury disliked the role, later commenting that she found it "very trying playing restrained roles" such as Gertrude". That should make it clear that it was the role she found too restrained, although the sources do not provide additional context there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Wikipedia does not hide spoilers, but for this part (novelist and murder victim Salome Otterbourne), I do not think the "murder victim" part is necessary as it is almost going out of the way to spoil the story. I would think "novelist" would be enough.

You're quite right. I've cut this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you briefly expand on this part (and faced accusations of racism from the Japanese-American community) as it seems rather vague right now for this kind of statement?

Yes, this should be clearer and more precise. I've double-checked the sources and changed the wording to "faced protests from California's Japanese-American community for including anti-Japanese slurs.". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid using the word "flop" as I believe it is too informal for Wikipedia.

Agreed. I've gone with "failure". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a reason given for why Lansbury did not make any more Miss Marple movies? I would assume that the first movie did not perform well financially, but it would be nice to have a definite reason if it is available.

I've checked the cited biographies and I don't think they provide a reason as to why the other Marple films were not made. I suspect it had nothing to do with Lansbury herself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This part (Unable to do both, her agents) reads that the agents were unable to do both, and while this may be true, I believe the intended point was that Lansbury would not be able to do both roles.

I've changed the first part of this sentence to "As she was unable to do both," Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is somewhat inevitable, but would it be possible to look at the 1986/1988 sentences and revise them to avoid them from reading too much like a list or resumé? I think the repeated "In X year" makes the prose less engaging.

I've reworded the start of one of these sentences to try and make it less repetitious, but I'm not sure any major changes can really be made here. At the end of the day, it is just a list of things she did, and it's difficult to avoid it sounding like one! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the adaptation of Mrs. 'Arris Goes to Paris was a television film? If that is correct, I would clarify that in the prose to avoid any confusion as a television film and a theatrical film are two separate things (not saying that in a negative way as I love TV films). I would add it myself, but I am not sure if the sources would support that or not.

Yes, the sources confirm it was a TV film. I've now made that clear in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For this part (a video titled), I think the link is somewhat of an WP:Easter egg as it is not readily apparent from "video" that it would go to the VHS article as there are a number of other types of videos.

I've made clear in the text that it was a VHS video. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of a clarification question than anything. While reading the parts about her "saintly" public image, I was curious if there was any discussion on people who grew up with this image of her and were unaware that she was once known for playing more villainous roles? I think this could be an interesting thing to point out as the perception of an actor does change over their career.

That's an interesting point, and one that I had not previously considered. I don't think I've seen anything like that in the media coverage of Lansbury's passing. Much of the coverage seems to consist of little more than quoting tweets from various celebrities (lazy reporting, perhaps, but such is the way of the world in the 24-hours news cycle). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a requirement for a FAC, but I would strongly encourage you to archive your web citations to avoid any potential headaches with potential link rot and death.

That's a good idea, and something I've done for other FA-nominees in the past. I'll aim to do this in the next week. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these should be all of my comments. I will re-read the article a few more times, but I do not imagine that I will find anything major to comment on. Thank you for your patience with my review and I hope you are having a wonderful week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you very much for taking the time to review this article with such thoroughness, Aoba47. The article is better because of it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience with my review and I hope it is not too annoying. I will re-read through the article a few times today. I do not imagine I will find anything further, but I want to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviwer. I agree with all of your explanations above, and I appreciate the time and energy you have put into them. Aoba47 (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from mujinga

Not much to add. Interesting that Lansbury had such a long career and so many illustrious family members! I only really know her from Murder she wrote so it was an informative read. I smiled at her confession of being a "complete movie maniac" :) The link to Krishnamurti was unexpected!

"Moving into musical theatre, Lansbury gained stardom for playing the leading role in the Broadway musical Mame (1966), earning her first Tony Award and established her as a gay icon." - "established" reads weird, suggest which "winning her first Tony Award and becoming a gay icon" or similar

I think your suggested wording is a definite improvement so I've made the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"and she was again nominated for Best Supporting Actress at the Academy Awards" - Academy Awards can be wikilijnked here as it seems to be the first mention in body

Well spotted! I've added the Wikilink. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

" He and Lansbury became a couple, living together before she proposed marriage.[28] They were intent on being married in Britain, but the Church of England refused to marry two divorcees." marriage/married/marry all present, maybe you can rephrase to get rid of one or two?

I've changed "They were intent on being married in Britain," to "They wanted a wedding in Britain," - do you think that works okay? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

great! Mujinga (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photo caption - "Lansbury in a scene from MGM's Till the Clouds Roll By (1946), one of her earliest film appearances" - could wikilink Till the Clouds Roll By

I'm not sure if we have a policy guiding this issue, but the film's name is already wikilinked in the main body of text next to the image, so adding a wikilink to the image caption would create a duplink. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would come under MOS:DUPLINK, which says in part "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead" so I think you are fine to add it if you want Mujinga (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I probably lean towards leaving the wikilink out, if that's okay. If a wikilink is added to that particular image caption, then we would have to do the same for image captions that mention both The Picture of Dorian Grey and Deuce. For consistency, we would have to wikilink them all, or none of them, as opposed to just one of them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thanks for the answer Mujinga (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1987, a spin-off was produced, The Law & Harry McGraw, although proved short-lived." - "it proved"?

Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"She also starred in the 2005 film Nanny McPhee as Aunt Adelaide, later informing an interviewer that working on Nanny McPhee "pulled me out of the abyss" after her husband's death" suggest She also starred in the 2005 film Nanny McPhee as Aunt Adelaide, later informing an interviewer that working on it "pulled me out of the abyss" after her husband's death

Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"In the latter part of the 1960s, Anthony and Deirdre became involved in the growing counterculture and started using recreational drugs. Deirdre developed an acquaintance with the Manson family,[213] and Anthony became addicted to cocaine and heroin. He overcame both addictions in 1971." - I feel this repeats information already said earlier, although I can understand why you want to mention something about it here as well Mujinga (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a level of repetition here, it's true; to some extent that's quite difficult to avoid when putting together a "Personal life" section after a biography. I lean towards leaving this material in (especially as some of it, like the reference to Manson, does not appear earlier in the article) but at the same time I don't mind removing it if there are strong objections to its presence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I just feel that the first mention "Her personal life was further complicated when she learned that both of her children had become involved with the counterculture of the 1960s and had been using recreational drugs; as a result, Anthony had become addicted to cocaine and heroin." is a bit too similar to the personal life sentences quoted above. Maybe we can see if someone else has an opinion on that Mujinga (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one else has offered an opinion in the last two weeks so it's probably best that I just go ahead and remove the sentences from the "Personal life" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind if you rephrased it a bit, I just thought there was too much repetition, but this also works! Mujinga (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to read and review the article, Mujinga. I'm glad that you found things in there that were of interest to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mujinga, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya I'm inclined to support but wouldn't mind a reply on two things I still see as open, namely the photo caption and the account of her children in the counterculture (these two replies are dated Jan 6 above) Mujinga (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've offered a couple of responses. Thanks, Mujinga. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks for that, happy to support now. Best of luck with the article! Mujinga (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RL0919

Starting with some initial comments from what I've looked at so far, which I will continue with tomorrow.

General:

~~MOS:PULLQUOTE explicitly deprecates the use of boxed pull quotes in articles, and there are a bunch of them in this one. Is there a specific reason you want to have these?~~

I've been using quoteboxes for years in Wikipedia articles (including many articles that reached FA, like Nelson Mandela, Rastafari, Dorset Ooser etc), and I've never seen calls to remove them. I think they contribute to the reader's experience. As for MOS:PULLQUOTE, I don't think it applies to these quoteboxes; the quoteboxes provide blocks of text that do not otherwise appear in the article, whereas a pullquote (if I understand correctly) just repeats something in the article, albeit sometimes edited down. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the MOS is a bit absolutist about this, which is why I asked for explanation rather than directly suggesting removal. But the MOS does make a good point when it says boxed quotes can privilege the POV of the quoted statement. On that basis, the quotes from Lansbury herself talking about her life are not so much an issue, but the two that quote others giving their opinions about her seem more questionable. --RL0919 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Len Cariou quote in the "Personal life" section isn't really necessary, but I still quite like it - it tells the reader something of Lansbury's personality, from someone who knew her. Do you think it should go? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't think that one is appropriate for WP:NPOV reasons. --RL0919 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I agree with your previous edits to make the source title capitalization both consistent within the page and MOS-compliant, and I'm hoping the user that reverted them will be reasonable about it.

Lead:

"Moving into musical theatre, Lansbury gained stardom for playing the leading role in the Broadway musical Mame (1966), earning her first Tony Award and established her as a gay icon." The present progressive earning doesn't match the past tense established. You could either change established to establishing, or split the sentence out to "The role earned her ... and established her..." Or, I see mujinga offered another alternative above. Whichever you pick, consistency is the key.

Yes, the wording wasn't the best there; I have already made a change in response to Mujinga's comments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~I agree with the suggestion from Aoba47 to link gay icon – it is under the "addressed comments" above, but doesn't seem to have been done.~~

I will restore the link (although don't particularly want to get into an edit war if my change gets reverted again). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~"including six Tony Awards (including a Lifetime Achievement Award)" – perhaps this could be reworded to avoid the double use of including.~~

Definitely, we don't want that repetition." I've changed the wording here so that the sentence begins: "Among her numerous accolades were six Tony Awards (including a Lifetime Achievement Award),"

More to come after a new day dawns in my time zone. --RL0919 (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments you have offered so far, RL0919. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding round two, covering the "Early life and career beginnings" section:

"In January 1930, when Angela was four ..." Since her birth date is at the start of the same paragraph, I doubt we need to explicitly state her age. It's not a big deal, but removing the aside could help readability.

I can trim that out, no problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She seems to be referred to as "Angela" more than is necessary to distinguish her from other Lansbury relatives. It's fine in the Childhood section where her siblings are also named, but after that I don't see any cases where it can't consistently be "Lansbury" (excepting direct quotes).

I've gone through and changed "Angela" to "Lansbury" in every instance where I think it won't cause confusion (including a few in the "Childhood" sub-section). Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Similarly, Moyna Macgill is twice referred to by her first name, although there are no other Macgills named in the article.~~

I will definitely change this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Befriending a group of gay men, Angela became privy to the city's underground gay scene, and with her mother attended lectures by the spiritual guru Krishnamurti, at one of these meeting the writer Aldous Huxley." The second half of the sentence seems so unrelated to the first half that it would probably be better split into two sentences.

A fair point. I've cut this in two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~The link to Krishnamurti goes to an article about the name, not a specific person. From looking at the article about Huxley, I think the link should probably be to Jiddu Krishnamurti?~~

Well spotted. I'll change this to the correct wikilink. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Set in Victorian London" – Initially this introductory clause seemed irrelevant to her biography; I only realized why it was there after reading the next paragraph. Perhaps it could included more organically as part of the description of her character: "a woman in Victorian London who is psychologically tormented ..."?

That works. I'll make the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~The sentence about getting an agent and choosing her stage name seems like it could be fully split at the semicolon.~~

Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Upon release, Gaslight received mixed critical reviews" – We could probably drop "Upon release" here; unreleased movies don't get a lot of reviews and definitely don't get Oscar noms.~~

Good point! Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"the film became a major commercial hit, with Lansbury developing a lifelong friendship with co-star Elizabeth Taylor." I think "and Lansbury developed" would be better here, since I doubt their friendship had any close connection to the film being a hit.

Also changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The marriage ended in less than a year when she filed for divorce on September 11, 1946" – Did she file a petition for divorce on that date, or was the divorce decree granted on that date? Or both? I'm not familiar 1940s UK divorce law, but it is common for the process to take a while. If this was just the date of filing, the first half of the sentence becomes questionable. If this was date it was granted, then I suggest rewording to say "she was granted a divorce on".

I've gone back and checked the sources. This was the date that the divorce was granted, not the date on which she filed for divorce. I've reworded the sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Returning to the U.S., where they settled into Lansbury's home in Rustic Canyon, Malibu, in 1951, the couple both became naturalized U.S. citizens, albeit retaining their British citizenship via dual nationality." Another sentence that seems like it would be better be divided: "Returning ..., they settled ...". Then separately: "In 1951, the couple ..."

Agreed and done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Following on from the success" – Just "Following the success" would be enough.~~

Good idea. I've cut this back. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~"The company itself" – No need for "itself" here.~~

Cut. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"1946 saw Lansbury play" – Suggest rewording to avoid starting the sentence with the year. To start a sentence with a number, you are supposed to write it out as words, which I don't think you want to do with a four-digit year.

I've reworded this sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm getting through this a bit slowly, but it's an enjoyable read overall so I will keep at it. --RL0919 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another batch, from "Mid career":

I added a few links (including one to an article I had to create because our coverage of theatre is unfortunately poor relative to some other areas of culture). Of course if any of those turn out to be to the wrong thing, are already present, etc., feel free to revert.

Those changes look good, thank you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Shaw himself had a son by a previous marriage, David, and gaining legal custody of the boy in 1953, he brought him to California to live with the family; now with three children to care for, Lansbury moved to a larger house in San Vincente Boulevard in Santa Monica." This is another instance that seems to have too many thoughts merged into one sentence. I would split fully at the semicolon. The first half could also be reworded to reduce the number of comma interruptions and omit the unnecessary reflexive: "Shaw had a son by a previous marriage, David, whom he brought to California to live with the family after he gained legal custody of the boy in 1953."

That's much better. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~"sent their children to state school" – Since the meaning of this phrase varies internationally, I'd suggest a link to the state school article.~~

Good idea. Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~"She followed this with an appearance ..." This is followed by a list of three appearances, so shouldn't it be "with appearances"?~~

Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~"dance routines which she trained extensively for" – Pedantry would say "for which she trained extensively", by YMMV.~~

Quite right. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The stardom achieved through Mame allowed Lansbury to make further television appearances, such as on Perry Como's Thanksgiving Special in November 1966." Lansbury appeared in Perry Como holiday specials in 1964 and 1965 (before Mame), so the I question the implication of cause and effect here. It may have helped her with other appearances (especially the award shows mentioned later in the paragraph), but she seems to have already been welcomed by Como.

A good point. I've changed the wording here to "Off the stage, Lansbury made further television appearances, such as on Perry Como's Thanksgiving Special in November 1966." Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"the musical Prettybelle, based upon Jean Arnold's The Rape of Prettybelle" – According to the article about the musical, the novel it is based on is called Prettybelle: A Lively Tale of Rape and Resurrection, which seems to agree with what I found in other places.

Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"A controversial play, it opened in Boston but received poor reviews, being cancelled before it reached Broadway." This could have a more straightforward wording, such as "The controversial play opened in Boston, but received poor reviews and was cancelled before it reached Broadway."

Changed; I have also cut "controversial" as I think it's probably not best to just call something "controversial" without then explaining why. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't finish the entire section this time, so I'll finish it off in the next round. --RL0919 (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to read the article and offer your comments, RL0919. You've got a good eye for tightening the text. I'm glad that you've enjoyed going through it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RL0919, is there more to come from you on this? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gog the Mild. I've been a bit inactive over the past week, but yes I will have some more comments this evening. --RL0919 (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No rush. Thanks for the response. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing off the "Mid career" section:

"she filmed on location in Hohenschwangen, Bavaria" – I think 'Hohenschwangen' may be an alternative spelling for Hohenschwangau, which could be linked. (If there are any German speakers around, perhaps they can confirm or deny?)

I'll add the link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~"1970 was a traumatic year for ..." – Change to "The year 1970 was traumatic for ..." to avoid the number at the start.~~

Good idea. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~"She had initially turned down the role,..." – This is another sentence that I think goes on a bit long and could be fully divided at the semicolon.~~

Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~"the production ran from December 1975 to May 1976, receiving mixed reviews" – I would switch this to "and received mixed reviews", and end the thought with a period instead of a semicolon.~~

Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you don't mind the occasional redlink, I would link Counting the Ways and Listening, the latter as Listening (play). I think it unlikely that a produced play by Albee isn't notable. (If no one else creates the articles, I probably will.)

I'll add the link. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~"The King and I musical" – Is there a non-musical version of The King and I?~~

Not that I am aware of, but it may be worth specifying that it is a musical as many readers may be unaware of that fact. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. --RL0919 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Family Business is also probably notable enough for a redlink, given that it appeared on Broadway and was controversial.

Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Working prolifically in cinema" – Is an average of one feature film per year "prolific"? Unless sources specifically characterize it this way, I would remove that phrasing.~~

I've remove "prolifically" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should be able to finish comments on the rest of the article this weekend. Still looking good with no major flaws, just a bit of polishing, so I expect to end up with a support unless there is an unexpected surprise in the remaining text. --RL0919 (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, RL0919. Have a good few days. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, final round of comments. I struck all the resolved issues above and (finally) replied to one unresolved item near the top. Continuing new comments with the "Global fame" section:

"should remain a strong single female" – woman instead of female seems more natural to me here. (However, if that exact wording appears in one of the sources, I understand the need to paraphrase.)

Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this section and the next one, there are a few instances where someone is said to have "noted" something that seems to be speculative or just their opinion. In keeping with WP:SAID, it is better to use words like said, stated, or commented to avoid giving the impression that such comments are definitively ascertained facts.

Also changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Tom Shales suggested that the series ..." This is another case where I think the sentence is better split at the semicolon.~~

Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The role earned her a seventh Tony Award nomination, while in May 2010, she was awarded an honorary doctoral degree from Manhattan School of Music." Two unrelated thoughts, so I would put the part after "while" into a separate sentence.

I've now split the sentence in to. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~"2018 saw Lansbury's ..." One last sentence starting with a year that should be reworded.~~

Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life section:

"although retained her British citizenship" – I don't think this phrasing with "although" works without a noun or pronoun It should be "although she retained". Or alternatively you could use but instead of although and leave the pronoun out.

I've gone with "while retaining". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Anthony became a television director and he directed ..." – Opposite of the previous problem: you don't need the pronoun in the second clause.~~

Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, it's beyond this section and probably beyond the scope of FAC, but shouldn't the {{Agatha Award}} template be nested inside the collapsed navbox with the other award templates?

I'm not sure, to be honest. Does anyone with more experience of these things than me have a recommendation on this point? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't seem to object, I've gone ahead and grouped it with the others. If someone had a specific intention for keeping it separate, they can revert or speak up later. --RL0919 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all my comments; thanks for your patience. --RL0919 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks once again, RL0919. Your efforts are appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like everything I spotted is handled, so I support this nomination. --RL0919 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

I feel her awards are over-emphasised in the lead. They're mentioned in the opening paragraph, then we have earning various awards and winning her first Tony Award within the space of ~200 words, then the entire last paragraph is given over to awards.

I think it is important to recognise that she was a highly-awarded actress, but your point is valid that this point may be overemphasised in the lead. I'm inclined to try and cut things back in the fourth paragraph, but would be interested to hear other editors' perspectives on this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's what she did to earn the awards that makes her notable, rather than the awards themselves, so I'd prefer to focus on that. My suggestion would be to keep the last paragraph more-or-less as it is but remove the other mentions of awards from the lead. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

seen as a B-list star during this period, however her role in the film "however" is a word to watch and implies to strong a contradiction here. Suggest "but" or "though" or even just splitting the sentence.

A good point. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

she achieved worldwide fame as the fictional sleuth Jessica Fletcher in the American whodunit series Murder, She Wrote, we can infer that Fletcher is fictional and you don't give nationalities for any of the other works. Less is usually more when it comes to the lead.

I've got rid of "fictional" but I think that keeping "American" is for the best as the lead already mentions Lansbury being English and moving to Ireland, so it is not clear just from the context here that the show was American. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

she has rejected this, stating that while she had ancestral connections This should be in past tense now.

Another good point. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Her mother was Belfast-born Irish I know Irish identity is controversial but can we not infer Irish from Belfast?

A lot of people from the Ulster Unionist community (in Belfast and elsewhere in Ulster) will very much identity as British but not as Irish, so I don't think we should change this here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

moved into his house in Hampstead, with Lansbury receiving an education the ", with" construction implies a connection between the two facts which doesn't appear to be there.

I've split this into two sentences. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That year, Angela's grandfather died Any reason for not using her surname here?

I wanted to try and avoid confusion with the other Lansbury family members mentioned in this sub-section but thinking about it now I don't think changing "Angela" to "Lansbury" at this juncture will cause a problem. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

with Shaw's child Can this not be inferred?

I suppose it's a debatable point; I'd rather leave it in, if that's alright. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After the lead, there's virtually nothing to criticise. Very impressive writing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to read through this, Harry. I appreciate it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel that awards are over-emphasised in the lead. It's quite a short lead but mentions awards three times. We know actors get awards but they're not notable for the awards they receive but for the roles they play and the productions they act in. Emphasising the awards is undue weight in my opinion and getting towards hagiography. I hate to be the stick in the mud, especially as it's such a small issue and the article is otherwise excellent, but since you asked for a declaration, I guess I'm at oppose but I hope we can work something out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, I was hoping someone else would offer their thoughts on this particular issue, but as they haven't I shall go ahead with your suggestion and remove the first two mentions of awards from the lead. Hopefully that deals with your concerns on this point. Thanks again for the review. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to strike my oppose and glad to be able to support now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Alanna the Brave

Since several folks have already taken a closer look at the prose and images, I'm going to do a dive into sourcing/citations just to see if I can offer any helpful comments. I'll update this space with my feedback over the next couple of days. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty -- I've scanned through the online article sources, and will aim to do a spot check of some of the book sources soon. The source accuracy and citations look generally very good, although I've found some small items that could be improved:

Some sources have been archived, but others haven't -- now would be an excellent time to provide archive links for all web article sources.

I'm getting on with archiving them all now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 150 (Shales): dead link, HighBeam site no longer exists

I've found a functioning URL and added that in place of the deadlink. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 158 (Keley): author name "Keley" should be "Kelley"

Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 175 (Hernandez): in source title, "6 May" should be "May 6".

Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 177 (Brantley: source date should be March 15

Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 178 (Viagas): dead link

I've found a URL that seems to work and switched to that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 183 (Jones): Source says Lansbury started role in March, not April

Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 184 (Gans): source doesn't actually confirm an end date for Lansbury's performance tour (only the starting month).

I've removed mention of June. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 188 (Shenton): source doesn't actually confirm an end date for Lansbury's performance tour (only the starting month).

I've removed mention of June. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 190 (Jury): add second author

Added! I don't know how that got missed before. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 194 (Lawson): source year should be 2022

Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 195 (Miller): This source doesn't actually state it was Lansbury's final TV role -- I suggest removing that from the text (readers can figure it out for themselves, anyway, as her death is mentioned soon afterwards).

Agreed and changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 197 (Bundel): source year should be 2018

Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 199 (Broadway): add date and author. Also -- again, this source doesn't state it was Lansbury's final Broadway appearance.

Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 200 (King): doesn't confirm it was Lansbury's final film appearance

I checked the source, and it does refer to this film as being "her celluloid swansong", which I think is a roundabout way of saying it was her last film appearance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 206 (McConnell): source date should be January 12

Corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 207 (BBC News): This source doesn't say Lansbury adopted an Americanized accent for certain roles (unless I'm missing that?).

You're right, it's not in the source provided. I just had an online rummage and found an article from The Herald that does say she that used an Americanized accent for Murder, She Wrote, so I'll add that citation in here too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 217 (CBS News): add source date

Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 218 (Daily Telegraph): archived version is blocked by paywall

I've switched to an archiveurl that seems to be working (at least for me). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 219 (Fowler): source only calls Lansbury a cousin, not a second cousin

Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 226 (YouTube, interview): This is a YouTube video uploaded by an unofficial account (i.e., not the Phil Donahue Show), so I think it may not meet Wikipedia's standards for strong/reliable sourcing (or respect for copyright). Can you replace or remove?

I've removed it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

253 (IMDb): As most IMDb content is user-generated (not much oversight), it's not considered a reliable source for awards info. Can you replace or remove?

I've found an article I can replace it with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

255 (Academy of Television Arts & Sciences): Hmm -- using a search result page as a source strikes me as straying into original research territory -- can you make an argument counter to that?

I've removed this citation, and those elements of the preceding sentences that rely on it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 256 (Contact Music): source date should be May 14, 2007.

Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 257 (Kilday): add second author

Added. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is looking great on the whole! Keep up the good work. Alanna the Brave (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have an excellent eye for detail, Alanna the Brave! Many thanks for going through these sources with a fine-toothed comb and picking up on all those little issues. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, @Midnightblueowl! Thanks for the quick fixes. I've been waylaid by non-Wiki work this week, but I'll sit down on Saturday/Sunday and finish making any comments I have about the remaining sources. Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightblueowl: Okay. I've scanned Clark, Crampton, Degan, Gilvey and Hischak, and I've done a spot check of the three biographies (in particular any direct quotations). Overall sourcing/citation is still looking really good -- only a few notes for improvement.

The Internet Archive has copies of the Edelman & Kupferberg and Gilvey sources, so these should be linked in the list of sources.

Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the citation info for Hischak, "Lansbury, Angela" should be added as the specific chapter/entry referenced within the source, and the author Hischak also has a middle initial "S."

The book itself is just attributed to Thomas Hischak, without the "S.", or at least the print cover is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough -- I was accessing an online version through the Wiki Library (which does include the "S"), but the Internet Archive version you've linked doesn't use the initial. Hischak's middle initial was mentioned in the main text of the Wikipedia article though, so I've removed that for consistency. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've also taken a further look here, and the article cites several different sections of the same book (citing pages 19, 328., and 510-11, for instance), so I think the present source description best covers that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! You're right. I was focused on the one section -- no changes needed. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 11 (E&K, Gottfried): I don't think Lansbury's mother was actually engaged to Leckie Forbes -- Gottfried calls it an affair, while Edelman writes "an 'engagement'" (emphasis on the air quotes). It's probably more accurate just to say that Lansbury's mother began a relationship with this colonel.

A fair point. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 87 (E&K): The source given does not support the "bitterest disappointments" quote.

I've corrected the page number here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 113 (Bonanno, E&K, Gottfried): The sources given don't support the "extraordinary wit" quote (I combed the cited pages for this one, but can't find the sentence anywhere)

The quotation is on page 199 of E&K, so was cited already, but I'll try and make this clearer in the article body with an additional citation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this -- I think I got a bit lost in the bundled citations. This makes it much clearer where the quote is. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 138 (E&K): Citation should give page 221 for this quote

Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 149 (Gottfried): The last episode aired on May 8, not May 19

Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source 238 (Hischak): Small correction to the quote: "bringing a sparkling stage presence..." (you could always just move the quote marks to after "brought")

Sorted. I must have put the quote marks in the wrong place originally. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly -- Coral Lansbury (with son?) is still marked as a second cousin in the infobox (should just be cousin). :-)

Sorted. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After these items have been addressed, I'll gladly give a vote of support for the article. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Alanna! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're good to go -- you have my support. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alanna and thanks for the detailed review. I am taking it to be a source to text spot check and a general review. Could I check if you also intended it t be a source review? I am easy either way, but just wanted to be clear. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild -- yes, was aiming to provide a source review (sorry if that wasn't made clear!). I assessed reliability of the listed sources, checked all sources for accurate author names/dates/publishers, checked all article sources against the Wiki text for accuracy, and did a spot check of the book sources against the Wiki text for accuracy. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

There are several p./pp. errors. Eg cites 23 and 43 - there are others. And cite 127 "pp. 156157"? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gog. I've gone through the article and think I've fixed all of these particular errors. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Why are some article titles (in the Citations section) in title case and others in sentence case? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor contributing to this FAC pointed to the inconsistency, and so I had begun ensuring that the titles all started in upper case, but then a third editor reverted me. I can try and ensure consistency again, and hopefully it won't result in further reversions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly shouldn't be, as this is covered by the MoS - MOS:TITLECAPS. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Resolved

From a glance, the "family" parameter from infobox seems rather cluttered with names. Is there by any chance a general family page link that could be used in place? I either way would scrap Peter Ustinov; that guy legally was no longer a brother-in-law after his divorce from her half-sister, plus I don't typically see this field used for those only connected through marriage.

I agree. I've removed Ustinov as well as all references to aunts, cousins etc. I've only retained references to her grandfather and brothers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "notable works" is a POV description, even when a "full list" link is used instead of cherry-picking items, and I don't think this serves much purpose anyway when it's better to describe works within article prose

I agree. Removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure Lansbury's parents are lead-worthy

I disagree on this point. Both Lansbury's parents were independently notable and have Wikipedia articles of their own. If that was not the case then I would agree with you, but I think that it is is significant that she had famous parentage. 11:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

"who was the offspring of Macgill's previous marriage to Reginald Denham" is rather wordy. You can just say "from Macgill's previous marriage to Reginald Denham".

That's a good suggestion. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starting three consecutive sentences with "she" like you did with the second paragraph of "Childhood: 1925–1942" feels repetitive

I've changed the middle example to "Lansbury" to make this less repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Although in her personal life she was widely known by her second name, 'Brigid,' she adopted 'Angela Lansbury' as her stage name."..... contrary to what this sentence implies, one's own name isn't a legal alias.

But we don't state that it was a legal alias in the current wording. Do you have any recommendations for how this sentence might be improved? Or do you think we should just remove it altogether? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scrap the whole thing when "stage name" is a synonym for that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've scrapped this wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"the film earned six Academy Award nominations, including one for Best Supporting Actress for Lansbury"..... if mentioning any of these, then just focus on her own nom, or readers might be misled into thinking she got others aside from Best Supporting Actress

I've reworded this so that it only mentions Lansbury's personal nomination. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "hit" from "a major commercial hit" is too informal

I've changed "hit" to "success." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too much "she" in the last paragraph of "Later MGM films: 1945–1951"

I've replaced two examples of "she" with "Lansbury" here, which I hope deals with the issue of repetition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under "The Manchurian Candidate and minor roles: 1952–1965", do you mean "lattermost" when saying "latter" within "later describing the latter"?

I would have thought "latter" was better than "lattermost" here; do any other editors have a view on this one? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Her personal life was further complicated when she learned that both of her children had become involved with the counterculture of the 1960s and had been using recreational drugs; as a result, Anthony had become addicted to cocaine and heroin." feels overly long. I'd split that sentence by turning the semi-colon into a period.

I've replaced the semi-colon with a full stop. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"In the early 1970s, Lansbury declined several cinematic roles"..... is it known why?

According to the Edelman and Kupferberg biography, Lansbury turned down the role in The Killing of Sister George because she thought it would "destroy" the image she had built up in Mame, and then turned down One Flew Over the Cuchoo's Nest both because she did not like the character and because she did not want to spend several weeks filming in a mental care facility. I'm not sure if this information is necessary for the article really. It would perhaps be an excessive amount of attention given to projects that Lansbury did not take, especially given the article does not go into such depth on many of the roles that she did take. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You could simply say she wasn't satisfied with the roles. That shouldn't come off as overkill. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have now done so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"as a big commercial hit"..... see my above comments regarding "hit"

Again, I've changed this to "success." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd unlink Counting the Ways, Listening, and A Little Family Business when none of them seem likely to warrant articles in the near future

Ah, I added the redlinks at the suggestion of another editor during the FAC. I don't really have an opinion either way on this particular issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What prompted her to accept Murder, She Wrote over a sitcom offer? I'd also make more explicit in this paragraph that Jessica Fletcher was Lansbury's character in that.

Lansbury was prompted to accept MSW on the basis of the Fletcher character, which strongly appealed to her. I have made that clear in the text and also added text to highlight that Lansbury played the character. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't feel right to use "contemporary" for "those of most contemporary U.S. crime shows" when that's another way of saying "modern", especially when attributed to a 1996 book.

In this sense, "contemporary" is intended to mean the shows that are contemporary to Murder, She Wrote itself. Do you think this wording could be improved? Maybe with "contemporaneous" in place of "contemporary"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be better off with "most U.S. crime shows of the time" or "most U.S. crime shows of the era" SNUGGUMS (talk /edits) 16:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed to your suggested wording here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"1990–91" and "1992–93" should have four-digit years as more complete and professional-looking than two-digit years

Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can probably guess what needs to be changed with "proved to be a ratings hit", and "Santa's wife" should just be "Mrs. Claus" without an WP:EASTEREGG

My concern there is that it results in repetition, with "Mrs Santa Claus" being followed swiftly after by "Mrs Claus". I've changed "Santa's wife" to "the eponymous character" here. (I've again changed "hit" to "success".) Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Five consecutive sentences under "Murder, She Wrote: 1984–2003" start with her surname, which is rather much (especially when three of these comprise of an entire paragraph!)

I've changed two of the five examples to try and cut back on this repetition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No commentary from critics on playing Ms. Potts in Beauty and the Beast? I find that shocking when this is among her bigger roles.

We could cherry pick some quotations from various critics, but I'm not convinced that would be needed here - we already mention the awards received for the role. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, those awards went to songwriter Howard Ashman, not her (contrary to what the current text implies). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the text here so that it does not give the wrong impression. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sadly didn't help at all, and in retrospect I should've been more explicit: even mentioning them here can mislead someone into thinking she was the recipient. They're better for the song's page and Ashman's biography when he won them. You can replace it with details on her own involvement and maybe a bit on reception. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the mention of the awards completely here. I'll take a look to see if there is other information on the role which could be added in their place. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a cause of death is known (I haven't yet been able to find one), then that should be added

As far as I am aware, I don't think the COD was ever released. It may be that it will in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I feel about "Personal life" when most (or all) of the crucial details on marriages and kids (except for Anthony directing Murder, She Wrote episodes and the restaurant venture with Deirdre) are already mentioned earlier in the article plus there were times she worked professionally both children. Likewise, her citizenship has previously been noted elsewhere. The rest of it seems trivial except for charities, cousins, and health issues (which you could also probably incorporate into prior sections).

I would not want to get rid of the Personal Life section, as readers tend to expect such a section in a biographical article. I also think that some of the issues (like her political views and charitable support) would be difficult to place in the more chronological sections of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid redundancies, husbands in children could be moved to "personal life" (assuming that is maintained), and I'll let you decide where to put citizenships but there's also no need to repeat that information throughout the page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree here. Removing mention of her marriages and children from the main biographical chapters would be a mistake, but I also think that giving a brief mention of Lansbury's family relationships is necessary for the "Personal life" section. This does obviously result in certain facts being repeated, but there are other FA-rated biographies that repeat this pivotal information in both the biographical sections and the "Personal life" section (Nelson Mandela etc). I do appreciate the concerns about repetition, however, and what I will do is trim down the length of the sentences discussing her family links in "Personal life." Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"She was nominated three times for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, but never won; reflecting on this in 2007, she stated that she was at first "terribly disappointed, but subsequently very glad that [she] did not win" because she believed that she would have otherwise had a less successful career." is quite a mouthful! I don't know how much substance this whole run-on sentence carries, but the semi-colon is misused here.

I've replaced the semi-colon with a full stop. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since "Bibliography" is frowned upon as a vague section title that could also potentially refer to works written on a subject, it should be changed to something more precise

I've gone with "Publications" - do you think that works? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's perfectly fine :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Notes" are a separate entity from "References" and thus shouldn't be lumped under the same heading as them

I've moved "Notes" into a separate section of their own. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you plan on implementing the Rupert Alistair book as an in-text citation, I see no point in having that or a "Further reading" section

I've cut the section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While this certainly isn't perfect, I can see it being brought up to par. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, SNUGGUMS. It's good of you to make the effort. I've left a few queries that you may wish to respond to when you have time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome, and the article is thankfully closer to being FA-worthy now. I've left some responses above, and something I overlooked earlier is how the last paragraph of "Final years" uses the surname WAY too much, making it feel monotonous. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the surnames, and have trimmed them back here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Midnightblueowl, have all of SNUGGUMS' second round of comments now been addressed? SNUGGUMS, if they have, how do you feel about the nomination now? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not up to par yet; there's still redundancies with discussing marriages and kids, plus the Beauty and the Beast awards I mentioned that she didn't actually receive remain in the article despite how such an inclusion wrongfully suggests they went to her. The initial edit to slightly change that latter bit didn't resolve my concern at all. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've now responded to those two queries/concerns. Thanks, Snuggums. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SNUGGUMS, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give my support after seeing how some redundancies were at least trimmed as a compromise (even though I personally would prefer to not have kids and husbands repeated in the page). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.