Rod Steiger

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review


This peer review discussion has been closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it's a very comprehensive account of the career and life of Rod Steiger, which with a good peer review I believe can be brought up to FA status…

Thanks, . BTW User:Rationalobserver and User:Ssven2 are welcome to assist me in answering comments and further improvement of the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

First lot of comments after first reading for typos etc:

More to follow on the content after a close reading. – Tim riley talk 19:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of these, except that the link to W.C. Fields and Me has to be un-spaced or the link won't work. Maybe the page should be moved; I don't know. I guess I could pipe it for consistency. I also went with "which Steiger concurred that he was ineffective". RO(talk) 20:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments to the end of "Early career"
It's earlier explained that his mother's severe alcohol problems made his family name a laughing stock in his neighbourhood. "Her alcohol problem caused Steiger much embarrassment and the family was frequently mocked by other children and their parents within his community." As Steiger put it "The name Steiger become a laughing stock" or something like that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a typo for "one" ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More anon. Tim riley talk 17:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of these concerns, except the two noted above that I'd rather wait to see what Dr.B says before changing the meaning. RO(talk) 21:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

e-heat the oven to 190C/Gas Mark 5.

Final batch
I suppose it could have been "red injun'" ;-). Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed nope!
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I can't have two "agreeds" in one sentence to I reworded the whole thing!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the Sant Jordi Award but not the Laurel Award, they're actually pretty notable in my opinion, and a short article should never be an assumption of its lack of notability! What the article doesn't seem to tell us is that they were judged by the Writer's Guild.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. I hope these few comments are of use. – Tim riley talk 13:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Tim riley, yes very helpful, much appreciated.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of the remaining issues. I went with lower case for method acting, but I changed on that was mid-quote, which I think is allowable as minimal change. I also linked to Georgia the country, but I've been told we shouldn't link countries. RO(talk) 21:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the country, the state of Georgia! Changed to American South. Thanks RO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

Just nitpicks really Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "in the South Pacific"♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tweaked the sentence. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AE, see here. I'm Welsh too and use Asshole rather than Arsehole!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eeks, I'm not sure about that, I find the idea that its no longer politically correct to call a female actor an actress absurd. What does Tim riley think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actress is usual on Wikipedia, which is a lot less doctrinaire than The Grauniad. (And I speak as a Guardian reader of many, many years' standing, but it can be irritatingly right-on sometimes.) Tim riley talk 15:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a big deal, just raising the point to be considered, since I have the Guardian's style guide (crossword prize) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

This looks like an exemplary article.

Couldn't find it. RO(talk)
This is quoted material, so it cannot be edited for prose. RO(talk) 19:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A very enjoyable and informative read. I made some small changes. I hope these comments will help you make the last few changes before FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The images all look fine at first glance, but File:Mussolini biografia.jpg is a little light on documentation and the source links for File:Rouben Mamoulian - publicity.JPG/File:Claire Bloom - 1971.jpg are dead. The sources are very strong, and the formatting looks about right. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou User:J Milburn, some excellent points and edits, much appreciated. Yes, believe me this is very comprehensive. I even watched several interviews too to try to glean content. He's not one of those actors who have a great deal written about him in any one source so should be easily the most comprehensive source on the web about him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of a few of these, and I'll get to the others tomorrow, but real quick, I think it's okay to personify newspapers and such as written by people. The New York Times can praise something, but it might be better to say who from them did so, but this is not always available. RO(talk) 21:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It just strikes me as rather clumsy, informal writing. I agree that newspapers are "written by people", but I can't say that publications "say" things or "feel" things. I'm not too opposed to something like "according to the New York Times", but I do think "according to a review[/article] published in the New York Times" would be better, and "according to writers for the" or "according to a reviewer writing in the" would be better still. I don't think, typically, that people truly write to represent the view of the publication (admittedly, they occasionally do, but I think it should be clear when they are doing this) but rather write for their view to appear in the publication- especially when it comes to reviews. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's best to name the journalist I think. For example "Janet Maslin of The New York Times stated that... It wasn't immediately obvious for the "effusive talent" one but in looking at the bottom I've found the writer so added it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another way to phrase it would be to use the passive voice: Rather than "The New York Times said Steiger was x", something like "Steiger was described as x in [a review in] the New York Times". I appreciate that this is a stylistic concern about which reasonable people could disagree. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it in that way in numerous articles, depending on how the phrasing is, I'll often paraphrase a quote as saying, described as " " by xxx of the xxx. In this case I believe you're referring to the effusive talent part, well I've said "Lucia Bozzola of The New York Times" now so that should be OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not incorrect to personify a journalism agency. This might be Milburn's personal preference, but it's not wrong. I'm trying to work through the rest of these, but since there's no indication which section they come from, I'm only fixing the ones that show up in a text search. Some do not, and I won't be searching blindly for them. Just so you know. RO(talk) 19:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And what you end up having by not personifying is a laundry list of unknown writers' names, e.g., Jones writes, Smith wrote, or Johnson noted. RO(talk) 19:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're just asserting back-and-forth about what and what is not acceptable- I think we'd have to dig out style guides to be sure. As for finding them, I mentioned everything I saw in my list of comments above- if you're working through that list, you should catch them all. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, though, I don't think it's that big of a problem! The article struck me as very strong, and I suspect I will be supporting at FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I just wanted to be sure we were on the same page, because replacing the personification with Jones wrote or Smith stated just trades one issue for another. I think I got most of the remaining ones, but I might have missed a few that I couldn't seem to locate with text search. RO(talk) 20:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I changed a couple of the personification issues, but I didn't change very many. I went with "a writer from XX", as it's not great to litter the article with lots of meaningless names, and I've been encouraged to avoid that in general. But if Dr.B wants to make sure every journalist is named, I'll leave that to him. RO(talk) 20:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doc asked me to resolve some of the comments at the PR and I have resolved almost all of the personification issues. Feel free to revert if you wish. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 05:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

Lede
  • "as the German pawnbroker," I would say "as the title character" to avoid the double "pawnbroker". The reader can wait a paragraph for the nationality.
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add "Charlie" after "brother".
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a police chief on the hunt for a killer, who learns to respect a black man" maybe "a Southern police chief who learns to respect a black fellow officer as they hunt a killer" or similar
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which reunited him with director Norman Jewison, who had directed him in In the Heat of the Night. " maybe "which reunited him with In the Heat of the Night director Norman Jewison".
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he is survived" I would "he was survived".
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • If you don't state his date of birth, then it is unsourced in the lede and infobox
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence beginning "Steiger's mother" could be usefully split
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " $5-room" per?
Done. Tweaked the sentence. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Career
  • "he sought to make a foothold in film" mixed metaphor?
Done. Removed it. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in which he played a reclusive "brilliant electronics engineer" Why does this need quotation marks? What's the point of having a quote?
Done. Removed and tweaked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "won over the director by praise of his directing and inviting him to learn more about the techniques and mechanics of acting" Hmm. Maybe "won over the director through praise" for the first part, but the second part is pretty opaque to me.
Done. Rephrased. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the issue with Kazam? Competence or communism?
@Dr. Blofeld: I'm gonna need your help on this one. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think, yes, Steiger had strong disagreements with Kazan's political beliefs though the book or interview doesn't venture into it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would give whatever info you have for the benefit of readers who know who Kazam is and why he was/is controversial.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was all there was I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contraction's aren't favored, I think.
Done. Removed the contractions except the ones that are quoted. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1956, Steiger portrayed the character "Pinky" in Columbia Pictures' western film of that year, Jubal," I'd get rid of "in that year"
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"A struggling actor" I think articles are not favored to begin section titles, thus "Struggling actor" might be better
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the Crowther quote really say anything about Steiger?
Done. Wrote what Crowther says about Steiger as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which is why the scene is only shot with feet instead of close-ups" perhaps "which is why the scene shows only feet, instead of using close-ups"
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "switches identity" maybe "go into hiding"
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More later.--00:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  • "Though perceived as more of a caricature of Capone" I'm not quite sure this makes sense. At the very least, the sentence structure is strung out all over the place.
Done. Rephrased. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the psychiatric institutions " what justifies the "the"?
  • "In 1962, Steiger appeared on stage" I would sub "Broadway" for "stage"
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lower fee of $50,000" reduced fee?
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The screenplay of the biopic" Is this sentence really necessary?
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Senator" likely lower case
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of Yukon". I'd cut. Klondike is linked for the few unfamiliar.
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " they treated him as if he was dead" I don't think you can say this. You can quote someone saying it, but this isn't encyclopedic as it stands in my view.
Done. Rephrased. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " He played a character based on King Duncan, opposite John Turturro as Mike Battaglia (Macbeth), who plays a Mafia hitman who climbs his way to the top by killing his boss." I would make it clearer for those unfamiliar with Scottish plays that the boss spoken of is Steiger's character
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Hurricane Carter: I would drop a "wrongfully" before "convicted"
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during production" adds nothing
Done. Removed. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was without mannerisms" maybe "Steiger lacked mannerisms"
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had also been highly impressed" awkward, can you massage into just past tense?
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite Steiger's acclaim " this paragraph could profitably be divided.
@Dr. Blofeld: Your call, Doc. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " to go over the top", during the making of" I would ditch the comma
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " also expressed an aversion to method acting and Steiger's mumbling, which he referred to as the "scratch-your-ass-and-mumble school of acting" I think you're nearly repeating yourself here.
Done. Rephrased. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Annakin stated" I'd toss a "nevertheless" before "stated"
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " mid-seventies" likely should be rendered "mid-1970s"
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • appalled that the American Film Institute had not honored Elia Kazan because of his testimony to the Un-American Activities Committee. Steiger wrote that he was "appalled, appalled, appalled". I'd change the first appalled to almost anything different.
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: Need your help on this one. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say. I'd guess it was late 50s, early 60s as he appeared in mainly British and Italians films during that period.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If only one source says it, and it's as vague as all that, I would think that it might be open to question and so should at the least be in-line cited to the source. If this had a material effect on his career, I'd expect most biographical sources to pick up on it, especially given Steiger's connection to Kazan.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: I thought it important enough to mention but I agree there needs to be a footnote explanation. Googling "Rod Steiger blacklisted" picks up a few sources. Perhaps We hope can find something on it. If not I'll remove it as I agree it raises questions.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His career problems" I would split this sentence.
@Wehwalt: How do you think it can be split? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe rearrange it? It seems to me it could be stated more compactly, especially if a connection between weight and health problems (and the intentional putting on of weight) can be drawn.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've split it, agreed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting reading. Looking forward to seeing it at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: Much appreciated thanks, some great points here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Fn 32 and 34 (Mell 2005) are showing as reference errors.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the attitude towards Kazan expressed in the appalled, appalled quote seems at considerable variance with that expressed in the chronology of his life at the On the Waterfront part.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The appalled quote was Steiger's response to Heston not Kazan.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG

I hope these comments help you. All the best. -- Frankie talk 15:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: All your comments have been resolved. Thanks for the detailed review, Frank. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

I'm afraid I don't have time for a detailed review, but here are some comments which I hope you will find useful:

Lead

The problem here is that the lead does not provide a summary of the whole article. It is very largely a listing of Steiger's more memorable film performances; it does not mention such things as his disturbed childhood, or that he was a significant stage actor besides his film career. More importantly, the lead gives no indication of the depression which shadowed Steiger's film career, and meant that by the 1980s, when it should have been at its zenith, he was playing in B features. Some significant lead rewriting is advised – fewer films listed and more information on the shape of his life.

@Dr. Blofeld: Gonna need your help on this one. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I agree that the 80s would have been his career's zenith if it wasn't for that, I think it would have always been the 1960s, but I've added a bit, I don't think significant reediting is needed, but I've removed a few films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of the table of contents, I would surmise that by the early eighties, Steiger's career was declining from its apex and that his later career ("B-movies and criticism") was less illustrious. If this is the case, this career arc needs to be reflected in the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I added "By the 1980s, heart problems and deep depression took its toll on Steiger's career, and he found it difficult to find employment, agreeing to appear in low-budget B movies."♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prose points

These are taken from the first half of the article – I have not had time to examine the later serctions:

Done. Added with reference. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We hope has put up a footnote regarding it I believe. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rephrased. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Refers to a decapitator as Steiger is portrayed as an assassin in the film. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Wrote "RKO". — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rephrased the sentence. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rephrased. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed "reportedly" as he did refuse the offer. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 03:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Length

My own view is that 10,000 words for an actor's biography is too long for an encyclopedia entry. Encyclopedia article writing involves the arts of selecting and summarising; it is not necessary to mention every film Steiger appeared in, to get a firm grasp of the nature of his career. Also, I found some of the content of rather marginal relevance. I started making a list of bits that I thought could be cut without detriment to the article as a whole – again, this only covers the first half of the article, but you get the idea:

  • "including the pilot episode in which he played an electronics engineer". Doesn't add anything useful
Done. Removed. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "not only was Marty an extraordinary success, but..." covered by other wording
Done. Rephrased. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The James Dean anecdote is rather superfluous – not really about Steiger at all. In view of the article's length, I would consider ditching this altogrther.
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crowther's criticisms of Diana Dors's performance is unnecessary in this article. Retain his crticism of Steiger's performance
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "considered it to have been" → "considered it"
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The carbon monoxide poisoning story - tangential, not worth including (if someone had died, well...)
Done. Removed. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not only did he believe he had greater credibility and esteem as an actor in Europe, but he approved of the more relaxed filming schedule of beginning shooting at 11 am, stopping for lunch and resuming later in the afternoon into early evening." All the words after "relaxed filming schedule" could go.
Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 01:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure there is a lot more similar stuff that could be weeded out. In my own experience, anywhere between 15 and 20 percent of my first finished draft turns out to be expendable, and I tend to cut my own work pretty ruthlessly.

However, I don't want to leave a negative impression. In general this is an excellent article, painstakingly researched, which only needs the final pruning and polishing to be well deserving of FA status. If I can find time while this PR is open, I'll try and add to these commemnts. Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian. Well, yes there's content which could be weeded out but I tried to make it an enjoyable read and interesting, which is why I included the James Dean anecdote. I think it's something film buffs would take delight in reading. Perhaps I could put it as a footnote. I didn't actually mention every role but yes I've mentioned the vast majority. I think, perhaps with the exception of a few Italian productions, most of his roles in 1951-1979 period are worth mentioning. It's after then that they became less noteworthy, I suppose I could remove a few films from the 80s and 90s. I could trim this but I don't want to chop too much.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that film buffs wouldn't complain if the article was twice its length; cricket buffs probably wouldn't complain if the article on, say, Len Hutton, dissected every innings he played. But my point is, we are writing in a general encyclopaedia for a general readership, and need to cut our cloth accordingly. The tendency of WP articles to get longer, especially in the areas of biography and history, is to me an unwelcome and slightly worrying development. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give another read and try to see if I can file it down a bit.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The tendency of WP articles to get longer, especially in the areas of biography and history, is to me an unwelcome and slightly worrying development." The biggest problem with articles on wikipedia generally is not that they're too long but that they're undeveloped and poorly researched. Without somebody like me devoting hours of his spare time to write a comprehensive article it would remain barely a start class article. A number of articles do suffer from unfocused bloat, but there's a difference between a long, fairly balanced/concise overview than a long article which is wildly bloated and unbalanced with excessive prose devoted to one subject in it. I've just read it through and I believe it reads rather well, I've cut about 10 kb I think. I agree it's important to be concise in your writing, but I also think it's important to have a comprehensive outline of a career. You don't need to mention every film and how each fared but I believe you need to highlight the majority to provide an effective summary. I don't think 102kb (56kb readable prose) is too unreasonable for somebody like Steiger. I also believe including certain film production notes or anecdotes improves the readability, even for non film buffs. If you think it's still not acceptable in length then I think it's probably a good idea that I abandon the FA process for the future. I know Ritchie333 is put off by it and only gets articles to GA. How much more in raw kb do you think we need to lose? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think in wordcount rather than kb – it's words define the true length of an article. You've cut about 1,500 words, and I certainly wouldn't suggest you remove more. I agree that it reads well; I don't think there has been any observable deterioration on comprehensiveness. It is hard to judge what are the ideal lengths for articles across the range of topics; the MOS recommendations are given here, but I'm not sure how much attention anyone pays to these figures any more. Also, please bear in mind that I am giving my personal point of view, with which others may well (and do) disagree. Although I'll make my position clear, except in obvious cases of overdetailing (a 25,000-word article on Jayne Mansfield, say), I am unlikely to oppose on the grounds of length alone. So please keep doing your stuff! Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Well I went through it and tried to remove what I could without it really affecting the article. I didn't think I could really remove any more without it starting to affect the comprehension of it. I agree that the Mansfield article is way too long. It is important that an article is comprehensive but it has to be a length in which the reader can read an article fairly comfortably, it's finding a balance I think. Perhaps the average reader would find the article tough going, but I could say that for most featured articles on here. A really good article will take a considerable time to fully read and digest.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Categories