Joan Crawford was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DanceWikipedia:WikiProject DanceTemplate:WikiProject DanceDance
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
The Lede is fine - summarises her start as a dancer, then actress eventual winning Oscar etc, and ends with mention of 4 marriages, 5 adopted children and the acrimonious fall-out that led to memoir "Mommie Dearest". But the rest of the article reverses things - it puts her "personal" life before her "professional" one, as if the personal is her main claim to fame and thus more important to read first, ahead of anything about her career in depth. Here's the current Contents list: 1. Personal life (1.1 Early life, 1.2 Marriages, 1.3 Children, 1.4 Pepsi-Cola, 1.5 Final years), followed by 2 Career (2.1 Early career, 2.2 Self-promotion and early successes, 2.3 Transition to sound and continued success, 2.4 Career decline at MGM, 2.5 Move to Warner Bros., 2.6 Radio and television, 2.7 Later career). The rest of the contents are okay: 3 Death (3.1 Legacy), ..etc.. to 12 External links. But placing 1.Personal life before 2.Career - this is like putting the cart before the horse! And it becomes most noticeable when one is actually reading the article in depth. It states (in 1.1) "Early life: Born Lucille Fay LeSueur" [..etc, finishing with..] "In 1922, she registered at Stephens College in Columbia, Missouri, giving her year of birth as 1906. She attended Stephens for a few months and then withdrew after she realized that she was not ready for college. Due to her family's instability, Crawford's schooling never surpassed the primary level." [..and then next straight into 1.2] "Marriages: On June 3, 1929, Crawford eloped with Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. at Saint Malachy's Roman Catholic Church (known as "The Actors' Chapel", owing to its proximity to Broadway theatres) in Manhattan" etc. What? How did she get from a lowly Missouri school to a Manhattan marriage to Douglas Fairbanks? Not some magic transportation, like Dorothy from Kansas to Oz, surely? Where's 1923-1928? Something must have happened in between... ah yes, I see, she must have developed a successful acting career, but that's not so important, let's leave all that career stuff out until much, much (much!) later... The whole Section 1 (Personal life) even goes on (and on) to conclude with (in 1.5: Final years) "Her last public appearance was made on September 23, 1974, at a book party co-hosted with her old friend Rosalind Russell at New York's Rainbow Room, after which unflattering photographs were published.", before a single word of 2.1: Early career, etc. Ultimately, her career (or at least some of it, eg. her initial successes) should precede mention of her first marriage etc. I'm surprised no one has mentioned this in either the Talk or the Edits - I took a cursory look at the last 250 edits, a two-year span, didn't spot any switcharound or query or concern. So - all the sections are well-written but I'll have a go at rejigging, by a simple reversal of the order of 1.Personal life and 2.Career, or by splitting the Career section so's it'll perhaps run better as 1.Initial MGM Career, 2.Initial personal life, 3. Later career post-MGM. 4.Later personal life. Pete Hobbs (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did a further check through previous Edits, and have now found the Contents always began as 1. Early life, 2. Career (2.1 Early career, 2.2 Self-promotion and early successes), etc., with no "Personal Life" section at all until inserted on 19:29, 17 February 2024 by user MonicaAng, when she "Added personal life info (specifically marriages info) that is scattered throughout "Career" section to "Personal life" section under subsection "Marriages" so that the article flows better, with the info contained to the appropriate sections.". She made several further good edits that day, eg. later "Added "final years" to "Personal life" section since this subsection contains primarily info Crawford on personal life rather than her film/TV career" and then "Added the info on Joan's children in the "Career" section to "Personal Life" section, where it is more appropriate." Done a couple of hours after the Talk's "GAR concerns" posting, and all good clean-up work, well carried out, so I've no intention of undoing it, no need or desire to pull it apart etc. I think (certainly hope) it'll be enough just to switch the order of "Rersonal life" and "Cereer" sections around. Pete Hobbs (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Numerous uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Several paragraphs are one or two sentences long and should be combined. Several sections are too long and should be summarised more effectively or broken up with headings. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since it seems no one is going to be able to convince everyone what her actual birth year was (I say it’s ‘06), then Ms. Crawford should at least be honored with the year she used broadly and consistently for over 40 years. That’s 1908. Leaving it blank is rather catty and drama-tinged. The birth year 1908 should be able to be protected just as well as the two spooky question marks are with warnings and notations. She’s a human of the modern age, and a revered one. Let’s let her have her year of birth. Clarawolfe (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
