Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna May Wong

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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:37, 13 June 2008 [1].

---

Anna May Wong

Nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because a group of editors, of which I am part, have successfully put this article through GA review and two Peer Reviews. We feel it is now ready for FA review. Dekkappai (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It may be clearer to specify which Chinese language(s) are referred to. Snowman (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See "Transliterations" (below infobox) --Red Sunset 21:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that transliterations is her name in different languages, but I was not referring to that. From the introduction, I presume that her ethnicity is one of the key features of the article. What the page needs is what language her parent spoke, what language she was taught at her Chinese lessons in US, and also a bit more about genealogy, and her precise Chinese ethnicity. Snowman (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, there was a whole paragraph on her genealogy-- her father's family's immgration to the U.S., their hometown, and the fact that they spoke Taishanese. That was first shortened, and then commented out, and finally, I edited it out, because other editors felt it was a bit too much detail at an already long article. We could restore it, I suppose, but it would seem to be going in circles to me... Since I wrote the original section, and it was removed by editing consensus, I'll leave it alone and let other editors decide on whether it should be restored. Dekkappai (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw a short commented out section on her grandparents at one time. I think that it was a mistake to remove all of the longer version. I think that there are unanswered questions without more precise details of languages and ethnicity. Snowman (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Couldn't you have made this comment when the discussion was going on? You were actively editing the article at this time... I believe it was Red Sunset and EraserGirl who thought the section should be cut down, and finally removed. I'd have been on your side then, but it seems like consensus-- at that time anyway-- was to cut it down, and finally, to remove it. I'll be happy to restore it, but I think we need input from the others first. Dekkappai (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw a line or two on grandparents in hidden text and then your comment to delete it. My comment here is an observation with no hidden motives. I did request clarification of her language in an edit summary on 30 April 2008. The discussion you refer to is at Talk:Anna_May_Wong/Archive_1#Ethnicity and there was agreement with you and I see no conclusion to delete anything there. Nevertheless, I think my comment here is valid. Snowman (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not implying any hidden motives. It just confuses me as to why, after several weeks' editing, a GA review and two Peer Reviews, this old issue is being brought up by one of the editors of the article... Sure, I'm in favor of restoring it-- I'm the one who wrote it, after all. Any other opinions? Dekkappai (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Look on the bright side; perhaps you were right all along, and Red thought you were right too. I have not taken part in any discussions to take it through peer reviews or GA, or to initiate FAC. Anyway, lets wait for Red and others to have a say. To me, it is a barn door that ethno-linguistics should go in. Snowman (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Return) Sorry to keep you both waiting! My original thoughts on the section regarding Wong's ancestry were that it was a tad hard going, and wondered if there was perhaps a bit too much related information as this bears out. I accepted Dekk's response and no further action was taken until later when similar comments were made, if I remember correctly, during a peer review; but a trawl through review and discussion histories would reveal the exact details of what was said and by whom. So, in essence, I'm not opposed to most of the info being replaced without it going too far off-topic, or to the addition of references to spoken language. --Red Sunset 19:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK-- I guess that makes three of us who say restore it, so I've put back the shorter version. It doesn't specifically say the family spoke Taishanese, but points out the hometown was near Taishan, and the Chinese template includes Taishanese. I hope this satisfies your concern, Snowman. If not, let us know. Dekkappai (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the article needs the dialect too. In other articles it might not matter so much, but here I think it is essential. Why are there two languages in the template? - excuse my ignorance. Snowman (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Mandarin is the official language, and was during Wong's lifetime as well-- since 1924 according to the article. The second, Taishanese, is there because it's the dialect she spoke. I'll see if I can work in a reference to that in the text. Dekkappai (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "new" material looks fine, and noting that the family lived near Taishan implies that logically they would speak Taishanese; but apart from (admittedly) adding accuracy and interest, why is the dialect so important? --Red Sunset 22:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that what you imply is a logical deduction is actually almost totally dependant on special knowledge. They do not all speak Londonese in London, or Scotlandese in Scotland. The dialect is important because her ethnicity is notable, and it would be interesting to known what dialect her Chinese lessons were in. Snowman (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest adding in the paragraph on her trip to China, after the sentence, "During her travels in China, she continued to be strongly criticized..." we might add something like: "She had difficulty communicating in most areas of China because she was raised with the Taishan dialect rather than Standard Mandarin." I remember reading this in several sources-- the Hodges for one, I'm pretty sure. I don't have any of them with me, so unless anyone else can source this, it'll have to wait till Monday. Dekkappai (talk) 00:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that it could also be said in a more prominent position as well as popping up in a sentence about something else; nevertheless, the sentence you suggest sounds like another good addition (pending sourcing on Monday). You have just added more confusion. Being 2nd generation U.S. I would have guessed that she would have been raised in English. Was she raised to be bilingual? What dialect were her Chinese lessons in? Did she have Chinese lessons to learn the standard dialect? How different are the two languages? If we had the facts we would not need to make guesses or deductions. Please excuse my lack of knowledge on Chinese languages. Snowman (talk) 08:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman has made some good points; however, the fact that Wong attended schools where lessons were taught in English at one and Chinese at the other suggests that she was or at least became bilingual. Just a suggestion, but IMO the reference to the family speaking with the Taishan dialect and the other language-related points could be introduced into the third paragraph of the "Early life" section where the Chinese language school is first mentioned. --Red Sunset 14:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman's confusion is really beginning to confuse me... Yes, she spoke English. She was born and raised in the U.S. By-and-large, we speak English here. She also spoke Chinese at home-- Taishanese dialect, to be precise-- because that is the language that her grandparents spoke, since they came from China, a Taishanese-speaking area of China. I have not seen the specific dialect of the Chinese lessons mentioned, but since Taishanese is Cantonese, as were the majority of Chinese immigrants to the U.S. at the time, and because she could not speak Mandarin at the time of her trip to China in 1936, I assume that they were in Taishanese. I suppose we could assert that the lessons were in Taishanese, but not only would this be original research, I don't really see how crucial that information is... I really don't see what the confusion is-- Chinese-American, English-speaker, spoke Chinese (Taishanese) at home, went to U.S. (English) schools, father sent her to Chinese-school (Taishanese, probably) after school. This is all very standard immigrant activity, in my experience. My own son, a second-generation Korean-American on his mother's side-- speaks English at school, speaks English and Korean at home, and we send him to Korean school so he can speak to our Korean friends, his relatives in Korea, and have that language as a useful skill in the future. Why is this difficult to understand? And why is this being brought up now, after weeks of editing... I'm getting very confused. Dekkappai (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think it's time to knock this one on the head. Without proper sources, some of Snowman's comments cannot be addressed and the details will have to remain unstated in the article. Dekkappai has already said that he will find out what he can on Monday, so I suggest we leave it to his discretion to decide what can realistically be added. --Red Sunset 20:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few remaining points need to be clarified, and so these problems are being brought up in FAC discussion. Snowman (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no points you've brought up that need to be addressed here, Snowman. Let's look: 1) "Was she raised to be bilingual?" The answer is obvious, and addressed in the article. 2) "What dialect were her Chinese lessons in?" In researching this article, I've read many biographies the length of our article and longer, including two full-length, 300+ page works. None of them specifically say what dialect the lessons were in. It seems that the experts have decided that this is not important. For us to say it is important would be Original Research. 3) "Did she have Chinese lessons to learn the standard dialect?" Ditto. I would point out, however, that her learning of German is widely-remarked on, and covered in the two biographies. Still, this is a point beyond the scope of our article. 4) "How different are the two languages?" This is a question for articles on the Chinese language(s), not in an encyclopedia article on Anna May Wong. Really, I think I addressed your question when I restored the old material. I'll go an extra step in adding the sentence on Taishanese/Mandarin when I can source it specifically (I hope) tomorrow. Beyond that, I really don't think the questions being brought up are within the scope of an encyclopedia article on Anna May Wong. Most of these points are not brought up even in full-length biographies, and others are more properly addressed in articles on Chinese. Dekkappai (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not think that it is obvious in the article that she was brought up to be bilingual. I have known settlers in the UK opt not to teach their children any other language except English, because they would not need any other language. If some issues are unclear because some facts are unknown, that is not a problem; nevertheless, the point of FAC is to discuss the merits of the article. I think that all of the topics I have raised have been relevant. The factual content added from your literature research has been excellent. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this now? The points Snowman has raised have been discussed and answered by Dekkappai to the best of his knowledge, and in the absence of suitable sources we should leave it to Dekkappai to add that which is verifiable. --Red Sunset 23:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second the motion. I appreciate Snowman's concern that the article sufficiently cover Wong's ancestry and linguistic background, but I think it does now. It's quite obvious at the article that she was raised bilingual... She went to U.S. public school, then to a Chinese school taught in English, and she went to Chinese language school. This is all stated in the article. Unless an article is required to answer every conceivable question directly (Potential question #6,962 "Was Anna May Wong raised bilingual?" Answer: "Yes, Anna May Wong was raised bilingual."...) Similarly the Taishanese question is answered quite sufficiently at the article. We've got links to the article on Taishan which, surely, tells what language is spoken there. And we've got links to China, Chinese, Standard Mandarin, etc. all of which will cover off-topic issues, but important, like how do Mandarin and Cantonese differ. They are covered at the articles at which they should be covered, not the Anna May Wong article. Dekkappai (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question "How do Mandarin and Cantonese differ?" is not off-topic as it relates to how easy she would have been able to learn or understand one language knowing the other. I do not know why this has been side-stepped. I think that all of the topics I have raised have been relevant. I think that her ancestry is now covered adequately. However, going to Chinese school might imply that she was learning Chinese at a basic level speaking mainly English prior to that. People who learn languages before the age of about 10 years of age can speak the languages authentically, and I think the article still leaves it in some doubt about this. Snowman (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added these two sentences to the "China" section: 'She also had difficulty communicating in many areas of China because she was raised with the Taishan dialect rather than Standard Mandarin. She later commented that some of the Chinese dialects sounded "as strange to me as Gaelic. I thus had the strange experience of talking to my own people through an interpreter."' To anticipate the next line of questioning: No, I don't think the article needs a discussion of the differences between Gaelic and English, California English specifically. Yes, a discussion of the difference between Mandarin and Cantonese would be very important, very encyclopedic-- at an article on Chinese dialects, not in an article on a Chinese-American actress. The same would go for German and English, or French and English, or American- and British-English, all of which Wong studied in her life. She also sang in many other langues-- Swedish for one... These are all very good subjects for encyclopedia articles, but not for a brief article on Anna May Wong. Anna May Wong led a full and fascinating life, three full-scale books have recently been published on her life and work, and I am sure they have still not completely covered the subject. But the issues you bring up are not even covered in these large works (the two that I have access to anyway-- and I doubt a filmography goes into Chinese linguistics). Both of these large books are written by authors with concerns about ethnicity. Hodges' main field is African-American culture and history, and Chan states that his book is written "from a uniquely Asian American perspective and sensibility." Still neither of these books discuss, for example, the dialect of Wong's childhood Chinese lessons. So, unless we are planning to write an article even lengthier and more in-depth than these several-hundred pages, we have to leave things out. Leaving out a discussion of linguistics is actually one of the easier choice. She makes some interesting-- if understandably biased-- comments about Japan, which I personally find interesting. She makes many comments about European countries and compares them to the U.S. Also very interesting stuff... In his index, Hodges has 20 pages devoted to Wong's choice of clothing, 9 to conflicts with father, 5 to drinking, 2 on a case of extortion against Wong, 18 on her hair... I hope you get the point, but whether you do or not, I'll have to consider the issue settled now. Dekkappai (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the changes have made a difference. Snowman (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! Thanks, Snowman! Dekkappai (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please close and archive the peer review. The instructions at both WP:PR and WP:FAC state that articles shouldn't be at both places simultaneously, and peer reviews should be closed before approaching FAC. Also, if it's not archived, it will stall the bot when the FAC closes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "First Asian-American movie star" is incredible POV without a reliable source, and this, as Ealdgyth pointed out above, is definitely not a reliable source.
• Footnotes should go after punctuation.
  • All footnotes are directly after punctuation excepting where there are quotation marks between the footnote and punctuation, and are in ascending order in the case of multiple references. --Red Sunset 19:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check for grammar and prose later. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Is "First U.S. President" incredible POV too? Easy enough to source... Unless it's being implied above that a major print biography is not reliable either... And that is easily found through Wikipedia's ISBN / World Cat search right here... So this is FA review... Will try to address some of these points tomorrow. Dekkappai (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK-- removed that definitely unreliable source-- written by Philip Leibfried, published authority on Anna May Wong, and all the other contentious ones have been removed except for the one sourcing the translation of her name. That will be easy to replace tomorrow. I'll see if I can figure out how to close the Peer Review. Dekkappai (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And here is a link to Scarecrow Press, "... purchased in 1995 by University Press of America... known for our scholarly bibliographies, historical dictionaries (of countries, religions, organizations, wars, movements, cities, and, now, ancient civilizations), library science monographs, and reference works in the humanities, particularly music and film..." Dekkappai (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK-- I think I've removed all the criticized links & replaced with university sources, except the one to the documentary. That's not a source, but an external link, to a documentary, which I think is appropriate. If not, feel free to slash & burn. Dekkappai (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I think this is an excellent article, very strong, interesting and well written, logically structured and with appropriate emphasis placed on the various elements that make up her story. Sourcing seems to be very thorough and precise, and the legacy section is exceptional. I think it meets FA standard and I'd be happy to see this nomination succeed. Some points: (the following points have all been addressed) — Rossrs 14:39, May 13, 2008 — continues after insertion below

• The overall article flows very well, and is engagingly written. By contrast the lead section is a little stilted. Rather than expect anyone to read my mind, I'll try to reword a couple of sections that I think should be reworded. Of course, anyone is welcome to revert....
  • I've gone through and joined a few sentences, removed a few "Wong"s. I thought it was a bit dismissive to refer to Luise Rainer just as "a European woman" as it discounts the fact that Rainer was once highly prized as a film actress...and she was hired because she was "Luise Rainer" not merely because she was European. In any case, I think it has been softened a little just by adding her name. Would be interested to hear what you think. Rossrs (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure who phrased it as just "A European woman", but it is a bit odd since she was, indeed a major star. I never saw it as "dismissive" exactly, but do think your version is better. Dekkappai (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• In the lead - "ensuring her unique place in film history" is drawing a conclusion. It's enough to say that she's been the subject of renewed interest and specific works. It's discussed very well in the legacy section, and Anthony Chan's comment is quite useful, but we can't say these works will "ensure" anything, particularly in the lead where it's an opinion not attributed to anyone.
  • "Conclusion" removed. --Red Sunset 19:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Infobox - the generic occupation "performer" seems superfluous when preceded by her specific fields (acting, singing etc). "Fashion icon" is not an occupation. I suggest both should be removed.
  • Both removed. --Red Sunset 19:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The Grauman's paragraph. That Wong was hugely disadvantaged by racism throughout her life is very well documented and supported throughout the article, (obviously it's one of the main themes discussed) but this paragraph is somewhat weak by comparison. Rather than suggest or imply racism, we should come right out and say it, but only if it is clearly established. It could be supported by a comment from a biographer or film historian or even by Wong's own perception, any of which could be added to strengthen the point. As it is, it reads as though Wikipedia has concluded that she was excluded due to racism, without actually supporting the notion. It just needs to be reworded to make the point more exact.
  • The racist implication is in one of the sources-- the online one, I think-- but not directly stated. I've tried to remove that implication at the article. Dekkappai (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine....Is it mentioned in any of the biographies? I don't understand why the paragraph goes on to discuss typecasting and stereotyping. Is there a reason for this? I think that would be better in the next paragraph because it immediately goes on to mention the "yellowface" issue, but let me know if I'm missing something. Rossrs (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I moved it into the next paragraph because it looked pretty skimpy on its own. I've joined it into another one that makes more sense. Dekkappai (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks better. Rossrs (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "tired of the typecasting and losing roles that should have been hers" - it's not really for us to say that they should have been hers, even if it appears obvious. Perhaps rewording to something like "losing roles that she sought" or something similar.
  • Reworded. --Red Sunset 19:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like the way it's worded now. It's strong and specific. Rossrs (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Picadilly is "today considered her finest movie". Can this be expanded slightly to give some kind of modern verdict so that "today" fits? The comments are only related to its reception in 1929. (A modern viewpoint has been given for Shanghai Express, and something similar is needed for Picadilly, although in the legacy section it says that only Shanghai Express received attention in more recent times, so I don't know. This contradicts the statement that Picadilly "today" is considered "her finest". )
  • This one is giving me a little trouble-- As an explanation: Shanghai Express was remembered, because of Dietrich & von Sternberg. Picadilly was largely forgotten until its recent (within the decade) restoration by UCLA, and today several critics-- Corliss in Time, and Hodges in his biography-- call it her best performance and best film. I think I read it, all spelled out like this, at one of the sources, possibly one that has now been removed. I've been able to put each element together-- the UCLA restoration, and the modern critics saying it's her best-- but haven't yet found a source that lays it all out as in our article. I'll try to either solve it or change it today though. Dekkappai (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I tried to take care of this by rewriting and citing two sources already at the article. One that tells the British Film Institute (not UCLA) restored the film, and another that says this restoration is largely responsible for the re-evaluation, for the positive, of her career. Hope this addresses the point. Dekkappai (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it addresses the point. Discussing the restoration places the comments into the correct context. I think it's excellent. Rossrs (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Java Head - "Perhaps because of this, the film remained one of Wong's personal favorites." It seems inappropriate that we should be speculating on why the film was a favourite. If the "perhaps" belongs to Hodges then it should be attributed accordingly, otherwise it should be avoided. Rossrs (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Hodges speculated this. I've put that into the article. Dekkappai (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Note that the wiki guideline is not to strike through others comments; see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. Strike marks removed. Snowman (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only comments I struck were my own, which the guideline says is OK and which has always been accepted practice on FA nomination pages. The top of the nominations page says not to use graphics such as ticks per your edit summary. Rossrs (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thankyou for pointing out that ticks are not used here. I have put back the strikeouts where you had mentioned it in an edit summary. Snowman (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support , assuming the following minor issues can be addressed You got them, fast work. --GRuban (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead seems to have a lead of its own! By that, I mean that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. Except here, the first paragraph of the lead seems to be a summary of the next three paragraphs of the lead. For the most visible example, in the first paragraph: "In the early 1950s, she starred in her own television series." and in the third paragraph: "Wong returned to the public eye in the 1950s in several television appearances as well as her own series in 1951, The Gallery of Madame Liu-Tsong." Redundant. Can the lead be reshaped so it summarizes the rest of the article, and doesn't summarize itself?
    • I rearranged the intro in chronological order-- I hope this fixes the issue. Dekkappai (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While we're at it, link that TV series name to the article about it. And can you write a few words about the series? It seems to have been named after her - was it? How long did it run? Why was it canceled? What was it about - a detective series named after a Gallery, how did that work?
    • Linked to the show in the intro. Later, the article now says, "From August 27, 1951 to November 21, 1951, Wong starred in a detective series, The Gallery of Madame Liu-Tsong for the DuMont Television Network., playing the title role, which used her birth name, and was written specifically for her." This last part was in the article earlier but removed-- I don't know when, or for what reason. As far as why it was canceled, and plot points-- I think that's a bit more detail than need be gone into here, though it should certainly be brought up in the article on the TV series. Anyway, I hope this addressed the issue. If not, it won't be very difficult to supply that extra information. Dekkappai (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • stereotypical "Dragon Lady" and demure "Butterfly" roles - surely we have articles that go into more detail about these concepts that we can link to?
    • Dragon Lady is linked to Dragon Lady (stereotype). I found no article specifically on the "Butterfly" stereotype, though China Doll comes close. Our source calls it "Butterfly" though-- from the story Puccini's opera was based on, and which was remade countless times in the silent era. Dekkappai (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd have though we had something better, but I guess the word "demure" covers it, until we get a real article. --GRuban (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly "American anti-miscegenation laws" - an article that explains them more?
    • Linked to article. --Red Sunset 19:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wong told Motion Picture in 1931 - Motion Picture is/was a magazine, a radio program, a newspaper? Can we say so, in at least one word? Do we have an article for it that we can link to?
    • THIS SOURCE calls it Motion Picture Magazine, so I've changed it to that. Apparently we have no article started on it. Dekkappai (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • China section is rather broadly named: Tour of China? Return to China?
    • Changed to "Tour of China" --Red Sunset 19:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After she left for a short trip to The Philippines, - lower case the
    • Done --Red Sunset 19:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later year section could be reorganized a bit - it seems to start in 1938, while the previous section is titled Late 1930s, is 1938 not of the late 1930s? In fact that previous section had something from 1939... how are these events divided by section? I'd think the "six-year absence from film" would be a more natural dividing line, the earlier section on her films, the later section on her real estate, television, and occasional return to film. The Death section is also short, two paragraphs, with the first seeming rather forced in; surely she wasn't thinking about her death at the time of appearing in the film. Merge in to the later year section?
    • Moved "1938" paragraph to "Late 1930s" section, removed heading & merged two "Death" paragraphs into "Later years". Dekkappai (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • instead engaging in pro-China events and appearances. - explain "pro-China" a bit; charity? United China Relief specifically? Political, in support of the Nationalists, that disliked her so much? Communist, perhaps?
    • Changed to "Between 1939 and 1942, she made few films, instead engaging in events and appearances in support of the Chinese struggle against Japan." Dekkappai (talk)
  • Link Disputed Passage - if it starred Dorothy Lamour, it may be a major enough movie that we should have an article about it: either stub it out, don't be afraid of a few red links, they encourage people to make articles. Probably the same for The Red Lantern, Bombs over Burma (1942), The Lady from Chungking, Bits of Life, Drifting, A Circle of Chalk, etc. We should generally have articles for major films.
    • Done. Dekkappai (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • notable films such as Schmutziges Geld (aka Song and Show Life, 1928), and Großstadtschmetterling (City Butterfly) - if they're that notable that our text says they're notable, we should certainly have articles! :-)
  • sole other well-known Asian actor of the era, Sessue Hayakawa - guess... :-)
    • I'm not sure what this point is-- The sentence reads, "In this film she starred for the only time alongside the sole other well-known Asian actor of the era, Sessue Hayakawa." Dekkappai (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry - I meant, if he's a well-known actor, should we have an article on him that this should link to? That's sort of become my refrain for this review. :-) It's a bit of judgment as to which names are probably worthy of a separate article of their own, we don't want an article on every proper noun, but adjectives like "well-known" imply, to me, that this one is probably article-notable. --GRuban (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah. He's linked above, but in another section. I guess another link won't hurt. Dekkappai (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asian American Arts Awards, Asian Fashion Designers - important enough for articles & links?

--GRuban (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't looked over the whole article yet, but could the corresponding Chinese characters be added for her name, Wong Liu Tsong? Also, I have doubts about the translation of her name, "frosted yellow willows." Wong (or Huang, which means yellow in Chinese) is her surname, not part of her given name. bibliomaniac15 01:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese characters are in the infobox. I too wonder about the accuracy of the translation, but it's repeated at nearly every source listed at the page. We had a native (I believe) Chinese-speaking editor here for a while, and I specifically asked him to check out the Chinese name box. He didn't call it wrong. But even for us to replace a "correct" translation for the universally-sourced one would probably constitute original research. Dekkappai (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Prose massage required, preferably by someone new to the article. It's not too bad, but improvements are needed.

• "Chinese-American" needs the hyphen. Pipe the link, please. So does "Asian-American".
• Such strange words as "film, television, stage, and radio"—why on earth are they blue-splotched?
• "second generation" as adjective needs hyphen.
• "passed her over"—"passed over her"? Unsure.
• "notable" twice in the lead.
• "Her film career slowed down"—like a bus.
• Why the sudden bold of the other name in "Early life"? Please debold. Why the caps in "Frosted ..."?
• "Irish, German and Japanese residents"—who is going to hit those links? Why the repeat link for "Chinese-American"? Audit the whole article for blue splotch.
• "helped Wong to assimilate further into American culture." You haven't told us yet that she was assimilating. Why "further"? TONY (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've (hopefully) addressed the above points, but another pair of eyes might be useful as TONY suggests. --Red Sunset 19:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Personal notes:[reply]
    • If "Chinese-American" and "Asian-American" are the correct (hyphenated) form, perhaps the editors of the Chinese American, Asian American, European American, Korean American, Filipino American, Indian American, Vietnamese American, Japanese American and many other, similar articles, should be advised that they are in error. However, I would feel comfortable with "Wong had Chinese-American parents" (conjoined to describe parents), or "Wong's parents were Chinese Americans" (Chinese describes Americans): a different form for a different situation; after all, we don't see a "green-door" or a "fast-train". I don't want to jeopardise the review and will leave the term in the hyphenated form, but I'm not convinced that it is correct in every situation, and would welcome further comments.
    • "Frosted Yellow Willows" is capitalised in two print- and numerous online sources. --Red Sunset 20:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What was wrong with "American of Chinese origin"? Snowman (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing wrong, but "Chinese-American" is simpler and therefore IMHO preferable where there are multiple instances of the term. Apart from the hyphenation, it's also consistent with the form most-frequently used in other articles. --Red Sunset 17:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • In order to explain what it means the "Chinese American" wiki page starts; Chinese Americans are Americans of Chinese descent. The term "Americans of Chinese descent" is used and it is simple. Snowman (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Once only, and just to explain the term; thereafter referred to as "Chinese Americans" (no hyphen). --Red Sunset 18:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, and the Llama page starts, "a South American camelid, widely used as a pack animal by the Incas[1] and other natives of the Andes mountains," which is entirely accurate, but we still call them "llama" for simplicity, and because it's the term agreed upon. Dekkappai (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • In Tibet a Lama is a monk. Is there scope for confusion with American-Chinese and Chinese-American? Snowman (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • No. Not if it's properly linked. Dekkappai (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• A bot has tagged the image Image:Daughter of shanghai.jpg with doubts of its use on one or both of the pages the image is linked to. Snowman (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure, but I think it might be due to not being linked to Anna May Wong filmography as well as Anna May Wong in the rationale template. I've left a note on the uploader's page. --Red Sunset 22:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this is a bot-problem. I have a whole section on Daydream (1964 film) at the Tetsuji Takechi article-- clearly justifying the image-- but it was tagged too. I've removed the tag. Probably should be done here too. Dekkappai (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did it; the filmography rationale is similar, and clearly no less strong. --GRuban (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is really wonderful article. Great care has been taken on sourcing and (now improved) prose. Only a few reservations keep me from throwing in a full support:

The article still has six redlinks. If these links aren't likely to be removed any time soon, you should remove them. Else, blueify them.

Ms. Wong's starring role in the DuMont Television Network series The Gallery of Madame Liu-Tsong is relegated to a single sentence:

From 27 August to 21 November 1951, Wong starred in a detective series that was written specifically for her; DuMont Television Network's The Gallery of Madame Liu-Tsong,[114] playing the title role which used her birth name.[107]

I discovered this article through my work on the DuMont network article; I'm well aware that DuMont programs are quite obscure these days (nobody nowadays has heard of or remembers them, actually), but surely more could be said about one of the first American TV series to star an Asian minority? Someone somewhere must have said something else about the program...? Much emphasis, including entire sections, is given to her film roles, while her television roles are relegated to the second half of a single paragraph. It seems unbalanced, to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK-- you're not the first to ask for more on the TV series, so I've expanded it to read, "From August 27 to November 21, 1951, Wong starred in a detective series that was written specifically for her; DuMont Television Network's The Gallery of Madame Liu-Tsong,[114] playing the title role which used her birth name.[107] Wong's character was a dealer in Chinese art whose career involved her in detective work and international intrigue.[115] The 11 ten half-hour episodes of the series aired during prime-time, from 9:00 to 9:30 p.m.[116] Though there were plans for a second season of the series, Dumont canceled the show in 1952. No copies of the show or its scripts are known to exist." I blue-linked Chinese art in the section. I hope this causes no one undue concern. About the red-links, and linking in general: Really, we're getting into a ping-pong match here. I'm not addressing this to you specifically, Firsfron, but some say there are too few links, others seem to have an agenda against any linking at all. Can we put aside personal editing preferences and judge the article on its merits? Dekkappai (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dekkappai,

Thanks so much for adding a bit on the television series. I know it's difficult finding something to say about a series that McNeil (1996) claims was "little-noted" when it aired, and which is impossible to review today because it was destroyed. So I greatly appreciate what you've done to try to expand the TV section. It works for me.

As far as the redlinks go: I have worked on 16 FACs (15 of them successful), and I have never heard that leaving redlinks was OK, and we were always strongly urged to fill these in. I have never had anyone tell us to leave redlinks in. Obviously, you can't be forced to jump through opposing hoops, and so I'm withdrawing the redlinks objection, because while I've been trained to think it's weird to leave them in, I see above that you clearly have been told to leave them in, and one of the things I've always disliked about FAC was being pulled in two different directions. I won't subject you to that.

Support. You've done a wonderful job on this article, you've addressed most of the concerns above, and I feel I can Support. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Dekkappai re the linking issue. I fully understand that over-linking is to be avoided, but what should be linked is IMHO a personal preference and not always clear, and I think it is better to assume that the reader will be interested in, or unfamiliar with more items than I am. Also, I agree with Firsfron of Ronchester regarding redlinks; my thoughts were that they should be avoided at FA-level at least. It's all a bit confusing, but thank-you Firsfron for understanding the position. --Red Sunset 18:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Firsfron. I agree, and it seems to be consensus, that red-linking should be kept at a minimum when an article is up for FA. (Though I think red-links are valuable in articles/subjects still in beginning stages.) Since only one reviewer encouraged red-linking here, I think we should either de-link them or blue-link them, preferably the latter. I'll see if I can start up some stubs on the films by the end of today, and if not, I'll remove the links. I am not so in agreement with the complaints about blue-linking, however. It seems to me that the ability to link-- and for the reader to jump-- from one subject to another is one of Wikipedia's greatest strengths. I think removing blue-linking when it is not overdone-- and I don't think it was here-- is harmful to an article. But, of course, I'll go along with consensus on this. Dekkappai (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with keeping red links to a minimum and making stubs for them if possible, but if there are a few red links remaining it should not prevent potential FA status it itself, so why remove them? Snowman (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way-- I found The Gallery of Madame Liu Tsong listled in the index to Variety for August 1951, but I could not locate the actual article or mention of it... Very frustrating. But, apparently there is a contemporary review or mention of it. I did add a bit to the article on the series also. Dekkappai (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I took time out from discussing the appropriateness of red-links to blue-link them. :-) Bits of Life‎, The Red Lantern‎, Lady from Chungking‎ and Bombs over Burma‎ now have articles started. The only ones I see off-hand are the play A Circle of Chalk and the Dorothy Lamour film Disputed Passage. I'm out of editing time today, but anyone else is free to either blue- or dis-link them. Dekkappai (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, Dekkappai. I've blueified one myself. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm the evil red-link requester :-), I'll work on the other. --GRuban (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another observation: Pearson Education states that The Gallery of Madame Liu Tsong was the first television series starring an Asian-American. Should this be noted in the paragraph? Firsfron of Ronchester 15:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Firsfron! That was above and beyond the call of duty for a review. The "first TV series starring an Asian-American" thing was in the article earlier. Someone removed it sometime, for reasons unknown-- it may have even been myself, for reasons of shortening the article. I'll try to put it back in later today. Dekkappai (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I question Pearson Education's assertion that Haing Ngor was the first Asian American to win an Academy Award. Miyoshi Umeki won one in the '50s. I don't know if she was a citizen at the time (or whether Ngor was, for that matter...), though she was a naturalized citizen... Dekkappai (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely wrong, because cinematographer James Wong Howe won an Academy Award in 1956. I'll source Wong's "First" elsewhere. ;-)... Dekkappai (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK-- I've added "the first U.S. television show starring an Asian-American." after the first mention of the series in the intro, and sourced it with a UCLA article. Dekkappai (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An interesting, informative, well-structured, well-referenced and well-written article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Malleus! I asked Malleus Fatuarum to look over the article, with his "fresh" eyes, and strong experience at FA review. I hope this will have a positive influence on the "Oppose" above which requested prose-massaging? Dekkappai (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Per Tony, I feel the prose is still rather clunky. Some very quick examples: "With the birthname Wong Liu Tsong, meaning "frosted yellow willows", Anna May Wong..."; "Anna May was born next in 1905, followed by five more children"; "lesser-regarded films"; "losing significant Chinese character roles". There are plenty more. But on the whole, this isn't half-bad. With a bit more copy-editing, I could be persuaded to support. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The particular examples of problematic prose I mentioned earlier have all been changed. I'll try to come back to this article tomorrow. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The prose is still rather uninspiring. On another note, the section title "Stardom" seems inappropriate, given that it describes a period in which she (still) is unable to get any decent parts. I don't have a great alternative, however. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I missed this comment earlier. As far as "Stardom", she was in an odd situation. She was already an international star as far as name- and image-recognition, but Hollywood just wasn't giving her starring roles-- never did, really, except for a few b-movies in the '40s. She did, later, star in some European movies, but those aren't the ones that really made her a star, those in the silent era did, as well as her magazine and other appearances... I think the heading, or something like it, is OK. I recall several sources using similar titles for chapters on this era-- Attaining Stardom, or something like that. As far as the prose-- prose that has been worked over and over by committee is likely to become bland and uninspiring, and to become more so the more picked over... My thoughts anyway. Dekkappai (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's much improved; but there are still little punctuation and sentence-structure glitches such as:

In an interview with Doris Mackie for Film Weekly in 1933, Wong made reference to the nature of her Hollywood roles, "I was so tired of the parts I had to play."

Should the comma after "roles" be a colon? The final period should be after the closing quotes.

Could you explain why you believe that the final period ought to be outside the closing quotes? My understanding of logical quotation is that if the punctuation is a part of the quotation – as it is in this case – then it should be inside the quotes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite such favorable reviews she became increasingly disappointed with her casting, and began to seek other roads to success.

Move the comma to after "reviews".

Sentence structure could be smoother: "In 1928, tired of being typecast and passed over for significant Chinese character roles in favour of non-Asian actresses, Wong left Hollywood for Europe." Why not: "Wong left Hollywood for Europe in 1928, tired of being typecast and passed over for significant Chinese character roles in favour of non-Asian actresses." Easier?

• "London producer Basil Dean bought the play A Circle of Chalk for Wong to appear in with the young Laurence Olivier,[41] her first stage performance in the UK." Bit awkward.
• "It was criticized because of her Californian accent, described by one critic as a "Yankee squeak", as a result of which Wong sought vocal tutoring at Cambridge University, where she acquired a British accent." Long snake. "As a result of which" might be "... "squeak"; as a result, Wong ..."
• "kiss scene"—erky. Makes what should be a rather special activity sound like doing the dishes.

This is on the borderline. Lots of work has gone into improving the article, which suggests diligence by its guardians. I can't decide whether to withdraw my oppose on the understanding that it will be improved further, whether before or after promotion, or to go with JB and Wackymacs and expect another sifting through by someone different. TONY (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC) (PS Absolutely nothing wrong with resubmitting it after a few weeks' with space to polish it.)[reply]

• Support, as it appears impeccably sourced and well-laid out. A few points:
  • Wong received her first screen credit for Bits of Life, the first anthology film, in which she played the wife of Lon Chaney, Sr.'s character - it's not clear to me what an anthology film is.
    • Took the hint, linked anthology film. Dekkappai (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Variety magazine singled Wong out for praise, noting her "extraordinarily fine playing". - does this mean she played an instrument? If so, note that. If it means "playing" in the sense of acting, then the direct quote should probably be truncated. ("extraordinarily fine" acting)
    • Changed
  • The most virulent Chinese criticism of Wong came from the Nationalist government, but China's intellectuals and liberals were not always as opposed to Wong, as demonstrated when Peking University awarded the actress an honorary doctorate in 1932 - this sentence meanders a bit, would be better split in two
    • Changed to "The most virulent Chinese criticism of Wong came from the Nationalist government. China's intellectuals and liberals were not always as opposed to Wong, as demonstrated when Peking University awarded the actress an honorary doctorate in 1932." Dekkappai (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • he helped to "humanize" Asian-Americans to white audiences during a period of overt racism and discrimination. Asian-Americans, especially the Chinese, had been viewed as perpetually "foreign" in U.S. society - I don't think either of these scare quotes are needed
    • I removed the quotes around foreign, because they literally appeared foreign... It seems to me that the quotes around "humanized" are needed because they were not literally "humanized". They were human, after all. Also, I believe the quotes were used in the source, though it's been so long now, I forget... Dekkappai (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Selected filmography seems awfully skimpy. It's not an overwhelming long article, and I think a few more releases could be added there.
    • I've added the films mentioned in the article. Dekkappai (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Tuf-Kat (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for the support and the good, helpful comments, TUF-KAT. I've tried to address all your concerns. Dekkappai (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks, good work! Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Fix the following disambiguation links so they point to an article: The Thief of Bagdad and Westport.
• I would suggest removing "References" section, keeping Notes, renaming Bibliography to References, and keeping Further reading, especially since Further reading are not references.

Gary King (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Further reading" section may need to go up one subheading level so that it is not a subheading of "references". If you are referring to MOS about the other "notes" and "reference" section changes, please indicate which part of MOS. Snowman (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Status? There are three reviewers raising prose concerns; what is the status, has a ce been done, and have those reviewers been asked to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not really sure where we go from here, Sandy. The article has been reviewed and rewritten so many times that we are going in circles as to style and formatting. After the first request for ce at this review, I asked Malleus to look over the article, and he made numerous good changes, and added his "Support" vote. The continued opposes seem to be personal stylistic differences. Sure we could have more and more CE- make-overs, but, since the opposition seems to be on personal stylistic differences, it seems that this could potentially lead to previous "Supports" changing to "Opposes". No article is ever perfect, and some editor can always find a word-choice, a hyphen or a dash to quibble over. Since this review has gone on over a month now, and as my contributions here were mainly content, and I leave the formatting to other users, I am really at a loss over what to do next. It has been suggested to accept a "Fail" and bring the article back after a couple week's grooming, but I cannot see this working either. It has been groomed and groomed. Styles have been changed and changed back again. Continuing this on through another round seems pointless to me. I leave the choice over what action to take next up to the other editors. Dekkappai (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I see that both Jbmurray and Maralia have been through to copyedit, so you should be almost there once you've answered their remaining queries. Please keep the FAC page updated so I know when those queries are resolved, and you might want to ping the previous opposers as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some changes to the prose have been made where it appears that reasonable suggestions were made. Other objections, such as to the phrase "kiss scene", which seem more like personal preferences and in some cases even misunderstandings, have not been acted on. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Comment Re: Jbmurray's inline questions
  1. "what are these?" in reference to "outlying British provinces." I don't know either-- I paraphrased the source here. If it's too vague, feel free to omit that and just leave Scotland & Ireland, which were mentioned in the source.

     Can you give what the source actually says? We could then come up with a better paraphrase. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     I could give the exact quote tomorrow. I'm pretty sure it's pretty close to what I have there though... "Scotland, Ireland & outlying provinces..." something like that. I'll check at home tonight though. Dekkappai (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Here's the exact quote: "After that Anna May moved back to England for nearly three years, appearing in such films as Limehouse Blues and Java Head, as well as performing on radio, where she took part in the King George Jubilee Program in 1935. She also traveled around Scotland, Ireland, and the outlying British provinces with a vaudeville troupe." Dekkappai (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  2. "Film producers capitalized on Wong's growing fame by using her brief appearances in these supporting roles to promote their films"-- Anna May Wong's name and image were used to publicize films-- e.g., she was placed prominently in advertising-- yet she was often given only minor, supporting roles in the films. Dekkappai (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have just done a complete copyedit; I suggest asking those who had opposed on prose grounds to revisit. A few remaining issues:

• • Many thanks for the copy-edit, Maralia, and I hope I've addressed all your concerns. Dekkappai (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few more:

• Why is she in Category: American Christian Scientists?

• This raises a 1b comprehensive question. I did a google search to source the Christian Scientist, and it can be sourced to Hodges: [2] Why isn't it in the text? Bigger concern: why does Hodges mention a 1953 breakdown that isn't included anywhere in this article? Why do they say breakdown on one page, and internal hemorrage on another (what was the deal)?[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be clear by now that Anna May Wong had a busy, interesting, multi-faceted life and career. Much has been left out, and the article has still been criticized for being too long. The Christian Science bit is easily sourced in many biographies, Chan has an entire chapter on her philosophical beliefs. And, in fact this was in the article at one point, and taken out... She had some sort of breakdown as a teenager too-- should mention of this be included? Easy enough to do... I could name dozens of things I find interesting, but had to leave out because this is not a full-length biography, but an encyclopedia article, so I'm sure you can go through the Hodges and Chan biographies and find something on every page that is interesting, and would, ideally, be included in a full-length biography. What is to be included and what is to be excluded is a decision that has to be made at some point, and different people are no doubt going to have differing ideas on what to include and what not to include. I can easily add and address all the concerns you raise, and will try to do so by the end of the day... at which someone else is free to edit them out... Dekkappai (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added this bit to the "Early life" section:
      • "While still a student, Wong came down with an illness identified as St. Vitus's Dance which caused her to miss months of school. She was on the verge of emotional collapse when her father took her to a practitioner of Traditional Chinese medicine. The treatments proved successful, though Wong later claimed this had more to do with her dislike of the methods. Other Chinese thought such as Confucianism and articularly Taoism and the teachings of Laozi had a strong influence on Wong's personal philosophy throughout her life. The family's religious life also included Christian thought, in the form of Presbyterianism, and as an adult she was a Christian Scientist for some time."
    • and this to "Later years"
      • After the completion of the series, Wong's health began to deteriorate. In late 1953 she began internal hemorrhage, which her brother claimed was due to the onset of menopause, her continued heavy drinking and financial worries." Dekkappai (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've rephrased that last addition slightly, to fix the awkward 'began internal hemorrhage' (reworded to 'suffered from an internal hemorrhage'), and to change 'claimed was due to' to the more neutral 'attributed to'. Maralia (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The 'Further reading' section shouldn't be a subsection of References.

• I fixed that one, some other WP:GTL issues, and few other things (it might be good to have User:Epbr123 run through); waiting for the rest of this list to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for consistency: there are a couple of Hodges footnotes that are missing the year (search on 'Hodges, p').

• I fixed those, too; pls doublecheck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The bibliography entry for Countervisions: Asian American Film Criticism should include the name of the book's author (in addition to the name of the cited chapter's author, which is already listed).

Maralia (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Added the editors. Dekkappai (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support My concerns have been addressed. Thanks for an interesting article. Maralia (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the helpful comments and the touch-ups, Maralia. Dekkappai (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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