Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:17, 28 October 2011

Thank you

Hi Lobo, welcome to Misplaced Pages and thanks very much for your work on Katherine Hepburn, it's important work that's long over due. Just a small point to note. In your page refs, could you add the year of publication. If using, for example, <ref>Hepburn, Katharine (1991). ''Me: Stories of My Life''. Knopf p41</ref> the ref might read <ref>Hepburn (1991) p41.</ref>. If the book is not listed in the bibliography a ref might show <ref>Miller, Edward. (2005) ''The Sun's Wife''. Academic Press, p. 1.</ref> It's needed as there are often many editions in various years of one books and the page refs no longer make sense. There's more info at WP:CITE. I hope that's helpful. Happy editing. All best wishes Span (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The full details are there in the bibliography, and it is the only book by Hepburn, so I thought it would be adequate just to give the author surname and a shortened book title? That's how I was taught to reference at university (ie, the year only needs to be included if there is more than one book by the same author in the bibliography). --Lobo512 (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The tricky bit comes as others add other sources. It's the only book now, but as a collaborative project that holds over time, editors will add and subtract text and sources over the years, articles, essays, interviews etc. Have a neb at WP:CITESHORT. It helps if all editors ref in the same way over all articles so that confusions don't happen later on and the adding editor isn't around to help explain. Thanks for all your time and effort you have given. It is appreciated. Best wishes Span (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay yeah I will make the changes. Thanks. Lobo512 (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work in kicking starting a clean up of Katharine Hepburn. Span (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Register

Hi there Lobo, It's great work you are doing with Katherine. It's all really coming along beautifully. Here is a gently offered thought. You might want to back up a little from La Hepburn herself. Published biographies often have their own register, which tends to be very close in, and the work is often written by someone who adores or at least feels very intimate with the subject. Having got immersed in writing from biographies, I know it's easy to get caught up 'in-universe' (as it were). The encyclopaedic register is somewhat different. I suggest writing about Hepburn as you would about diabetes or water filtration systems or the life cycle of the mosquito. I don't mean to say that the prose has to be dry or without juicy detail, that is what will draw the reader in, but that we see her objectively, from all sides, aiming for a dispassionate neutral point of view. Imagine an editor rocking up tomorrow and wanting to add in lots of warts to the profile, all the critical view points, which may be very valid, how would that sit with you now? Maybe have a look at FAs Bette Davis and Ernest Hemingway to ref the tone. It seems to me that since this is mostly your work and you are in mid-flow, you are in a better place to sculpt your own prose (which is very accomplished), although I am happy to tweak later if you wish it. I hope this helps. I'm sure Katharine would be delighted to know she has someone is giving their time to support her in posterity. I'm away for maybe 10 days now, finally getting a holiday (off line). Have fun! Happy editing and best wishes Span (talk) 02:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello! Yeah that's fair, writing in an 'encyclopaedic tone' certainly doesn't come naturally to me. I'm still trying to gage exactly what it is (and isn't). I'll see what I can do, but I'm *very* happy for you and other users to edit what I've done and improve it. And if someone were to come along and write all the critical points of view on Hep, well...that would be ideal because I guess I feel a bit bad writing them, haha. No, I do fully understand that she was a weird and difficult person (all adds to my fascination with her) and I want that side included in the article. I guess I just haven't been adding it much because the books I'm working from are pretty biased. It's just about finding the sources.

Thanks for the compliments and the guidance. It's good to know I'm not doing this alone. Hope you have a nice holiday. --Lobo512 (talk) 11:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

p.s. Hepburn would definitely tell me I was a complete moron for doing this, haha.

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Lobo512, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Lobo512/sandbox.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Cary Grant picture

Good call on the Cary Grant photo! The Bringing Up Baby shot is much better plus it's a much better movie on top of that. Upsmiler (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Mrs Delafield Wants to Marry.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mrs Delafield Wants to Marry.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Re:photos on hepburn page

Hey there. You're right that there is no "maximum number" of non-free images allowed on any one page, but I am afraid that you are wrong that "it is fine to use a screenshot so long as it is relevant and low quality". All non-free images used must meet the deliberately very strict non-free content criteria. The important point here is criterion 8- "on-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Obviously, this is a far higher bar than content being merely relevant. I also appreciate that a lot of the images are free- you are, of course, welcome to use as many of the free images as seems fit. However, a number of the images are currently tagged as non-free.

• File:Katharine Hepburn Little Women.jpg. Clearly an important role, but why do we need to see an image of her in role? By all means, talk about the role, but unless her appearance as the character is in some way highly significant, we don't really need to see it.
• File:Hepburn Alice Adams.jpg. Again, clearly an important role, but it's not clear why we need to see what she looked like. It's telling that she looks pretty much the same in this role, and other roles, as she did normally- it's hardly a transformation.
• File:Hepburn Stewart Philadelphia Story.jpg. The rationale of this says it all; "There is significant discussion of the film in the article, as it was the film which revived Hepburn's career, so it is beneficial for the reader to see an image from it." That's not true. Yes, there is discussion of the film, and yes, the film was important for her career, but that does not mean that we need to see an image. At most, it's possibly an indication that an image is a useful addition, but only if the image itself is necessary to understand the article is an image used.
• File:Hepburn Fonda On Golden Pond.jpg. Again, the importance of a film is not proof that a non-free image is needed.
• File:Katharine Hepburn in Love Affair.jpg. This is the one non-free image which seems potentially legitimate; the article discusses her appearance in role, and, obviously, she looks vastly different in this role from other images. A slightly tighter rationale, and perhaps a slightly sharper pic, and this one is perhaps a keeper.

I hope this helps you understand the issue. J Milburn (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No, trailers aren't automatically PD. You really have to assume that things are non-free unless you know otherwise- the copyright laws of the United States are anything but simple. I appreciate your effort to compromise, but the thing is that the compromise already exists- the non-free content criteria are the compromise between those who want to use non-free content, and those who do not; we can't then compromise between that and your position. Basically, you're going to have to explain what any of the images that you're leaving in adds to the article; merely being from an important film doesn't mean that it adds to the article, and, unless you have sourced commentary in the article, claiming that "the way she looked was important" or something doesn't really hold much water. I'm sorry, I appreciate that I may be coming across as a real hardliner here, but our non-free content criteria are unabashedly strict. J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

For my two cents, the article is looking great and has some great free images to support the text. The copyright rules are pretty tight on Misplaced Pages. It's a shame, Lobo, after you went to the trouble of gathering and uploading them. I guess we all learn as we go. All best wishes. Span (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah well I genuinely thought it would be okay, but I guess I can see now that I was getting carried away. It would be a big shame to have them *all* removed...I paricularly feel like the On Golden Pond one is justified as there's no way of getting a free shot from the trailer (apparently), and it shows her at a very different stage of her career. I'd really love the Philly Story one to stay as well...maybe I can write how the gowns were designed by Adrian (costume designer) and that can justify it?! That is quite legit actually - Scott Berg makes a point of mentioning the higher production values at MGM compared to RKO, so I could write about that.--Lobo512 (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Concerning your Only Fools and Horses comment; there are badly used non-free images all over Misplaced Pages- there's actually a discussion on the non-free content talk page about FAs with unwarranted screenshots right now. That doesn't mean that it's OK for you to misuse non-free content. Concerning your plan to "write how the gowns were designed by Adrian (costume designer)"- that's really looking at it the wrong way. You shouldn't say "I want to use this image, how can I justify it?", you should write the article, and add images if they are genuinely needed. J Milburn (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Project ratings

Mu understanding is that project ratings are done by members of the project themselves. Someone from the biography project would have come by to evaluate. I am not an active member of a project corps so I haven't ever been involved this way. I would drop the Women's project a note and ask them to swing by Katharine. Span (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I left a note on the project talk page. The theatre link is not an RS as it's a fansite, but yes, it's a good thought to expand the filmography page. The page would need a title change. Are you going to knock out the unlicensed images and remove the tag? Span (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

In the 'Instant success in Hollywood' section it says "Hepburn chose not to attend the awards ceremony, a decision she would stick to for the duration of her career, but she was thrilled to win". Does this mean she never went to awards ceremonies or she never doubted that it was right to not go to that ceremony? About the pictures, the controversial ones are not out of copyright yet. They are someone else's property. By the way, you can reply on this page. I'll answer you here to keep the convo together. Span (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It means the former. I'll reword it if it's not clear (or you can go ahead if you like). Well like I said about the pictures, I'm basically just not going to be the person to make a decision or remove them. --Lobo512 (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty easy to get a title changed. You request it, admins do it. Span (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

You're a female in London who likes film. Just like me! The article's looking good. Span (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Ha, no way really?! Where abouts in London are you? I'm north (camden/islington). The article is coming along nicely (thanks for doing some copy editing btw). I just have some personal life and legacy stuff I want to add, and then that theatre table, then I think I'll be happy with it. --Lobo512 (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Finsbury Park. Would you want to go for WP:GA? Span (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, we're practically neighbours. It's a small small online world. Umm I dunno really. It would be nice to get that recognition, and I do want the article to be as good as possible, but it does seem like a bit of a tedious, nitpicky process... What do you think? Do you think it would be do-able? --Lobo512 (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never been GA-focused and shied away from them generally because it did seem like an anal nitpicky process but you've done so much work here and it all seems very thorough. It would be good to see you and Katharine get some recognition. I've just bitten the bullet just started my first on Keats (after some encouragement). If the article were not far off it might be possible - all your referencing, for example is immaculate, the prose is sound (it seems to me). Anyway, mull it over. I would hope to help out if you did go for it. You can ask for a peer review to invite other eyes to see what they think and give feedback, if you ever fancied that kind of thing]]. Happy editing, neighbour. Span (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well that's nice to know I'd have your help. I suppose the article probably isn't that far off GA now, so I may as well try and push it to that point. Hepburn does deserve a top-notch page after all, hehe. When I feel like I've done everything I want to do, maybe I'll ask for a peer review. It would be good to know what people think of the page anyway, there might be some problems that I wouldn't pick up on myself. Good luck on your process - I suppose it must be nice to take that step when you've put the work in. I'll have a read through the page and see if there's anything I can suggest on the review to help you out (but I'm probably not the best person to help, I'm far more relaxed than most of the wiki rules ask for!) --Lobo512 (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, I feel a bit intimidated by it but it seems good to move on to a new level - something fresh. I would not have gone for Keats, except a long standing editor said it was nearly there so I thought I'd go for it. Your eyes would be very welcome. Span (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

ce

"Hepburn was nervous about every performance, 'wondering what the hell I was doing there.' " I'm not sure this line at the end of the 'continued success' section scans. Not sure it's needed. Span (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm I rather like the little quotes that come from Hepburn herself, they bring the page to life, but if it doesn't read well I don't care too much.

I like how you've added subsections in the legacy bit, good idea. --Lobo512 (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a fine quote, just the scansion seems a bit off. I/she, here/there, tenses, that kind of thing. No biggie. Span (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC

PR

Good for you for putting the article up for review. Did you decide against going through the central review process? Span (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I just did it through the wikiproject without seeing what else was available, doh. Uhh, do you think I can make a central review as well?! --Lobo512 (talk) 19:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I've just made a central review and removed links to the old one. I can't imagine that's a problem (hope not anyway). --Lobo512 (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a good move. Good luck with it. I'm in the middle of a review for Jabberwocky and John Keats on the central review page but will help tweak Katharine, if I can re the feedback. Did you put in on the Women's Bio project PR too? 26oC in London they say, this coming week. Enjoy. Best wishes Span (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a look as soon as I get time, and thanks for asking! Upsmiler (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think your filmography summaries are just fine. It's all good work. You might want one or two refs to offer confidence to the reader and as it's so easy for vandalism to creep in via some arse screwing with the numbers. The dates refs are added give a set benchmark to revert to. (I've been having some problems with 5 year old stat vandalism recently - so hard to trace back.) Span (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Legacy

Isn't the sun lovely! I hadn't clocked about the autobiog use. Sorry, I would have flagged it up if I had been clear about that. I can understand that, re restrictions on primary sources in a GAs. Can you keep in the current refs and add to them with other sources? Seems a shame to ditch them after all that work. There are a couple of things I'd flag up in the Legacy section. One is that inset boxes are not encouraged (as I understand it) for other people's commentary on the subject. That is to say, boxes featuring Hep's own words are fine, but to box other's opinions is to give them undue weight/editorialising - a bit like highlighting the bits you want to foreground. We are going for NPOV. I think the legacy text reads like it's trying to big up Hep. The beginning reads like so many other WP biographies - "she was the best, most famous/successful/influential/ la la la". I would take out the predictable

Hepburn was one of the most lauded American actresses of the twentieth century, and is widely regarded as one of history's most influential and iconic actors, a 'true Hollywood legend'. Upon her death, American president George W. Bush declared Hepburn "one of the nation's artistic treasures."

even if though it's well sourced. See WP:PEACOCK for more details. The last para before Memorials reads a bit like a hagiography too. I would try and stick to facts. She was so ahead of her time and groundbreaking that she doesn't need inflation. For famous people it's always going to be easy enough to find quotes to support any kind of argument. Perhaps cite and quote people who specifically name her as the reason they went into acting, say if she's featured in university/academic/women's history texts, more on Bryn Mawr College... that seems to the meat, to me - hard and fast stuff. Again, WP tend to favour secondary and tertiary texts over primary quotes, so "I think she's fab" soundbites will only take you so far. More here. It's all looking pretty great, to me. Big congratulations on getting so far so fast. I hope these ideas and the PR is useful. Best wishes Span (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm gonna stop for tonight, but I will mull over them. If you feel up for it, please go ahead and delete anything that you think is definitely inappropriate. I'm too much of a fan and too new to wiki, heh. --Lobo512 (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's just one bod's opinion. I have not worked up a GA before (though am currently trying). The PR might think differently. You've put too much work in and it's all too well written for me to go hacking about in it. I'll mull too. FAs Elvis, Michael Jackson and Madonna (entertainer) have a fair amount of floofing about them. Maybe it's a matter of personal taste. I don't think you count as new any more. Sleep well. Span (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well yeah, I was kind of going for the approach of clarifying her legacy completely from scratch, even if it is a bit obvious and predictable. Like, as if it's for written for someone who has never even heard of her. I will take away some of the fluffy stuff, but then let's see what the PR says (hopefully I'll get some comments), if they agree that it's too much then I'll make more changes then.

I do still feel like a newbie here, even though I'm picking stuff up fast I still keep finding all sorts of stuff that is considerered inapproriate and whatnot. I've been casually using wikipedia for years but I never realised how anal it is before now, haha.--Lobo512 (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Spanglej, you posting the Madonna page made me to look at her legacy section, and it led me to some great references that also mention KH (and I was able to access one of them on Amazon). Yay! I've added them to the page and taken away a lot of the other stuff, I think 'Reputation and legacy' is looking MUCH better now - what d'you think? --Lobo512 (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a gander. It seems that the longer WP goes on the higher the GAs and FAs reach. They say a standard, bog standard article was enough for an FA a few years ago. The article is great, whether you go for recognition or not. Just so you know.Span (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hardcore! That academic-based, fact-based stuff feels irrefutable. The more like that, the better, I'd say. I added in a hidden edit for your consideration. I'm off to bed. (Btw, my email is enabled if you need it, via my user page.) Span (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Katharine Hepburn Little Women.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Katharine Hepburn Little Women.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hepburn

You are welcome. There's no requirement that you include every book ever written about her, and I believe you when you say that the other biographies largely echo the ones you've cited. If you've read them, you're in good position to reply if a future reviewer asks, "Well, what about X's biography"? As for the prose, I thought it was generally fine. I noted a few glitches that I included in my PR suggestions, though I'm sure I didn't see everything another editor might see. More eyes almost always help. Finetooth (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts

It's all lookin' good. A couple little points that strike me Hepwise on rereading:

• I would avoid brackets where possible or minimise their use. They can usually be replaced by comma'd clauses.
• I would again suggest taking out the non-free images, I don't think will help your GA case.
• I don't think the cites in the lead are needed as you ref them in the article body. Cites are not req'd in the lead.
• I've toned down some of the adjectives as I think the facts stand for themselves and don't need the qualification, but feel free to revert if you think this buggers about too much with threads running though the article.
• In the lead ", and gradually adapted to her rebellious nature". I'd say the gradual adaptation bit was pretty POV - to suggest we can surmise the thinking of a global public.
• In early years "Her parents were criticized for their progressive views, which stimulated Hepburn to tackle the world head-on." I'm wondering - criticised by whom and was it the criticisms, the critics or the progressive views which stimulated Hep, or all three? A bit more dev needed, maybe.
• Hep also has a record for the longest time span between first and last Oscar nominations, apparently (on List of Academy Award records (no ref given), 48 years from 1932/33 to 1981. Not sure if it's worth mentioning or if you already have.
• "The young Hepburn was a tomboy who liked to call herself Jimmy and who often shaved her head." I'm wondering how often she called herself Jimmy, through all her young years or now and again; did she sometimes shave her her head or was it pretty standard? I delinked the Jimmy and the shaving as I assume they are not connected.
• In 'Breaking into theatre' "After only two weeks, Hepburn quit to be married." May need to say more here - marrying whom?
• In 'Instant success' "Hepburn chose not to attend the awards ceremony, a choice she would follow for the duration of her career, but she was thrilled to win." Any more on this - why, via what inspiration?
• In the same section "One journalist predicted that one day 'Katharine Hepburn will be our greatest actress.'" Not sure this is needed, again an odd syntax with the tense.
• In 'Continued success': "for the second year running Hepburn won the Oscar for Best Actress (tied with Barbra Streisand for Funny Girl), an unprecedented occurrence.". Which is unpresidented, the tie or winning two years in a row?
• In the same section "what she lacked in euphony she made up for in guts". Did she say this herself?

I have done a little work on Rita Hayworth (pretty much contemporary) and their differing fortunes and choices are striking. Hayworth wound up a broken alcoholic regretting many of her career choices and relationships. I wonder if it's worth mentioning a line about the now defunct studio system which dictated to actors which films they had to do, when and for how much. It might help explain why Hepburn fought the studios so hard to make her own choices. Just a thought. Span (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Wow, that was like a whole other peer review. And you've done a big copy-edit, you are a *STAR*. Thank you so much, I honestly love that someone else cares about this article. :) Comments:

• "I would again suggest taking out the non-free images, I don't think will help your GA case." > I actually went to the relevant talk page when this issue came up and asked about the images, and the only one they said was definitely not allowed was the On Golden Pond one, which I removed. The other two are linked to the text with sourced commentary, which makes them pretty acceptable. There might be some opposition, but there might not be. But I did recently come across this image, which is similar to the Philly Story one I added but looks like it is a publicity still. If that's the case, then it's free and I'll change the image to that one. I think it must be a publicity still - it's such good quality, looks staged, and I don't even think the movie ever films them from that far away at that point. I'll watch the scene to check.
  • • Well, great.
• I've toned down some of the adjectives as I think the facts stand for themselves and don't need the qualification, but feel free to revert if you think this buggers about too much with threads running though the article. > Nope, that's fine.
• "In the lead ", and gradually adapted to her rebellious nature". I'd say the gradual adaptation bit was pretty POV - to suggest we can surmise the thinking of a global public." > Well that was me rephrasing what is said in the referenced links, which is precisely why I thought I should reference the statement. I felt like there needed to be some explanation of why the public's attitude to her changed, even while her behaviour/personality didn't..? Now I think of it though, it does pretty much go without saying, do you think? There's no other explanation for it after all!
  • • See what you think of my edit.
• In early years "Her parents were criticized for their progressive views, which stimulated Hepburn to tackle the world head-on." I'm wondering - criticised by whom and was it the criticisms, the critics or the progressive views which stimulated Hep, or all three? A bit more dev needed, maybe. > Yeah, this sentence bugs me too every time I read it, but I keep staring at it and not being able to think of another way of phrasing it! I'm trying to say that her parents were criticised and shunned by other members of their community, but this only made Hepburn want to fight against anything trying to hold her back. If you can reword it please do.
  • • Just wondering. No biggie, I think.
• Hep also has a record for the longest time span between first and last Oscar nominations, apparently (on List of Academy Award records (no ref given), 48 years from 1932/33 to 1981. Not sure if it's worth mentioning or if you already have. > Yeah could mention that in the awards bit. I'll see if there's a source anywhere.
• "The young Hepburn was a tomboy who liked to call herself Jimmy and who often shaved her head." I'm wondering how often she called herself Jimmy, through all her young years or now and again; did she sometimes shave her her head or was it pretty standard? I delinked the Jimmy and the shaving as I assume they are not connected. > I have a suspicion that Hepburn may be exaggerating a bit when she mentions this, I'd be surprised if she did it that often. She never clarified, so I don't know, but she talks about it as if it was a pretty standard thing. And the two things were connected, both of them her wanting to be a boy (that's how she talks about them). To be honest, I think how it is in the article now is fine though.
  • • See if my edit works.
• In 'Breaking into theatre' "After only two weeks, Hepburn quit to be married." May need to say more here - marrying whom? > Okay I'll tag on a little bit.
• In 'Instant success' "Hepburn chose not to attend the awards ceremony, a choice she would follow for the duration of her career, but she was thrilled to win." Any more on this - why, via what inspiration? Yeah it would be interesting to mention that (she hated public events, and also later admitted that she was scared she wouldn't win. She said she didn't approve of her own behaviour, that it was cheap). I just didn't want to clog up that section. Could maybe put it in 'personality' where it talks about her shunning the celebrity life?
  • • Sounds good.
• In the same section "what she lacked in euphony she made up for in guts". Did she say this herself? > No that is a quote from Scott Berg. Do you think it should just be reworded?
  • • Maybe mention Berg said it.
• I wonder if it's worth mentioning a line about the now defunct studio system which dictated to actors which films they had to do, when and for how much.> That's a good idea, it would help put things in context. Lots of readers may not even realise that's how things were done back then. The only question is, where. In the lead?
  • • If it was a big enough driver for Hep, then yes, the lead or else at the time she has her first big studio clash.

I have a couple of questions if you don't mind, things that I've been thinking about. What do you think of the current level of detail in the article? And I've been worrying about how the article covers her changing popularity. I wanted to summarise the public's changing attitude towards her in the lead, but then is it okay that this is never explicitly referenced in the main text (you aren't meant to mention anything that isn't expanded on later)? I mean it was just a gradual process, there's no definite point when it happened, so do you think it's okay to just let the facts speak for themselves and let the statement in the lead summarise it all? Maybe I should just mention in somewhere in the later sections, and then I can use those references which you said probably shouldn't be in the lead anyway? I know that I'm rambling, sorry, basically if you have any opinion on all this please share as it's been bothering me.

• • I think you cover her changing popularity and the reasons very well. The headings make clear there were great shifts through her life.

Well I have a week off work now, I work in a school and it's half term - woo! So I'm gonna work on it a bit more (I just ordered that Star as Feminist book in the further reading section, which should give some interesting stuff), and there are lots of related articles I want to improve as well. I like Rita Hayworth too btw, have you seen Gilda? That's a top-class film, I love it. --Lobo512 (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Gilda was on a few months ago again on the Beep. It caused a riot at the time and is still pretty raunchy today, eh? She caught the flack Rhianna is catching now, perhaps. Nobody's done significant work on Rita for about 5 years, and it shows. But there's some good material to work with. Rough to read about it all going south for her. Not a happy life, it seems. They were both pioneers, eh? One hammered by the press for not being sexy and revealing enough, one hammered for being too much so. Plus ca change. Congrats on all your good work. Enjoy your week off. Don't spend it all in front of a hot computer. Span (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Loeba! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

re: Bette Davis

As I pointed out in the edit summary, we are not here to show her desperation, the readers can make their own conclusions but only based on notable facts. Three poor guest appearances do not really merit a mention there. Shahid • 14:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I concede the point because another editor agrees with you. Nice to see your work on other articles. Shahid • 17:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Name change

Re your message: You should be able to move the article back as the redirect at Peter Bogdanovich has not been edited. You need to use the Move button on the Petar Bogdanović article, not the Undo on the edit history. You only need an admin if the redirect had been edited. See WP:MOR. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)