Talk:Claudia Cardinale

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleClaudia Cardinale has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 20, 2015Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 13, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Los Angeles Times Magazine named Claudia Cardinale (pictured) among the 50 most beautiful women in film history in February 2011?
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 15, 2023, and April 15, 2024.

"Tunisian actress"[edit]

Why "Tunisian"? Just because she was born there? Her mother was French, father was Italian (Sicilian). Cardinale is widely considered Italian actress. (Nothing personal, I am just for accuracy). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty kerner (talk • contribs) 17:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Because she was raised there, her mother was born and spent her entire life there, and she has spoken openly about her identity as part of the Italian Tunisian ethnic group. I had changed the article to reflect this and linked to the Italian Tunisians wiki page, but someone changed it back. I'm not going to bother wading into editing politics, but she was born in Tunisia, raised in Tunisia, identifies as a member of a demographic of Tunisia, speaks Arabic and has discussed Tunisia at length in the press. Make of that what you will. 2407:7000:8318:C471:B813:75FD:EC33:89A2 (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen no evidence of her speaking Arabic. In fact on a German TV interview from 1964 (which can be found on YouTube), when asked what languages she speaks, she doesn't even mention Arabic and specifically identifies herself as Italian. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4dnvvV9LjM

Cardin[edit]

Birthname is given as Cardin in article. Is there any supporting evidence for this, or is it an error? Orbicle 09:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


mustache women — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.7.193.46 (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

son Patrick[edit]

says the article: "Her son Patrick was born out of wedlock to a mysterious Frenchman when the actress was only 17" - it is known (and written in her book) that she was raped when she was 17 ! 84.227.134.78 07:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal comment about her voice[edit]

The following sentence regarding her voice will have to be sourced, please revert it then. "Despite her very feminine appearance, she had a deep voice (for a woman) from an early age, and in her early films she had her voice dubbed by someone else, but very soon her unique voice gained huge popularity and added to her success." KungFuMonkey 22:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:La ragazza di Bube1.jpg[edit]

The image File:La ragazza di Bube1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --18:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The image is taken from the voice La ragazza di Bube (film) and it is: 1) allowed for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents on the English-language Wikipedia, 2)hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. The same explanations are valid for File:Once-upon-a-time-in-the-west-charles-bronson-henry-fonda.jpg--Sabanglana (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mistake in biography Claudia NOT in Falcon Crest....[edit]

Claudia did NOT appear in FALCON CREST.. That was Gina Lollobrigida in a few episodes.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 09:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date[edit]

Currently leaving the 1939 birthdate in - seems to be supported by BFI and Allmovie, arguably more reliable than IMDB which indicates 1938. Filmreference also claims 1938. Additional sources would be welcome here, especially Italian sites which meet WP:RS. Dl2000 (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we find some official records it will be hard to know for sure (Is there an Italian birth index available?). Although her official site does say 1938. Crisso (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography[edit]

She was in The Pink Panther and not A Shot in the Dark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattmeskill (talk • contribs) 04:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Claudia Cardinale/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 09:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I went to do a bit of gnoming on the article, started reading it, and now fancy doing the GA review. A lot of work appears to have gone into this already, and as expected is up to the usual high standards of those who worked on it, so I see no reason not to give it a full review.

References[edit]

Quite a number of the {{sfn}} tags don't work properly. The tag needs all last names plus year unless you override it with {{harvid}}

As you can see my plan of annoying Sagaciousphil back to Wikipedia has worked, but two sources (Fillini 1996 & Simpson 2008) can't be resolved. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Checklinks returns the following errors:

Remember adding that, removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's okay, though now http://www.latimesmagazine.com/2011/02/50-most-beautiful-women-in-film.html is complaining about needing a login

Lead[edit]

  • Just because File:Claudia Cardinale 1963.jpg is public domain in Italy (the laws there were notoriously lax, that's why so many bootlegs from the '80s and '90s are Italian, anyway, I digress), what makes it PD in the US, which is required for Wikipedia?
User:Materialscientist?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is about the right size for the article
  • Unless I've missed it somewhere non-obvious, her date of birth isn't actually cited to an inline source in the lead, the article or the infobox
Sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is a Tunisian-born Italian film actress of Sicilian parentage" - this is accurate, but I can't help thinking it's a lame edit war waiting to happen. What's the problem with "Italian film access"?
Because Tunisian is very much a major part of her identity and spent her whole childhood there, and even today she works with Tunisians. It best summarises her background I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She appeared in some of the most prominent European films of the 1960s and 1970s" - suggest "She appeared in many European films during the 1960s and 1970s" (or something like) - just tones the POV down a bit
Not the same though, A European film is a European film, Cardinale appeared in many of the top films of prominent directors like Visconti, Fellini and Leone. I could tweak to acclaimed if you like?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, (critically) acclaimed is better, "prominent" is rather subjective Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cardinale became one of the most famous actresses in Italy" - rather than this, it would be better to say what specific awards / accolades she won (nothing's leaping out me from the prose but I'll doubtless come across something)
I've mentioned her awards further down. I've reworded to one of the best known.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. "la fidanzata d'Italia" might be a nice tidbit to add too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rocco and His Brothers, The Leopard and 8½ in particular are frequently ranked by directors and critics as among the greatest films ever made" - although the body expands this, I think such a bold claim needs an inline citation, even in the lead
Agreed, added sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "following her role in The Pink Panther with David Niven" - worth name dropping Peter Sellers as well? Although Niven is the top billed star for the first film, if I had to associate one guy with the series it would be Sellers
Yes, but most of her scenes were opposite Niven. I'll added Sellers too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See that Sellers is now in the lead but I would suggest dropping the name again. See may later comments on this.--Ipigott (talk) 11:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, having gone through the whole article I agree Sellers should come out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jaded with the Hollywood machine" - what's the "Hollywood machine"?
The whole industry and components of the Hollywood film industry, from writing and pre production to filming, editing, and the lifestyle. It is a term used in numerous reliable sources like [1], often negatively to illustrate how controlling it can be over actors accustomed to working elsewhere. And it is very much a machine, and a powerful one at that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well personally I think "the Hollywood film industry" scans better, the "Hollywood machine" sounds like a giant box that you put 10c in, it splutters a bit, gives a wheeze of smoke, and then a can of film pops out the other end ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you said "A Hollywood machine" yeah you might think of that, but the Hollywood machine should be clear. like "the political machine of Mugabe" might be.I don't think it has quite the same effect as "machine" which metaphorically is more powerful I think. I've reworded anyway!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1974, Cardinale met director Pasquale Squitieri, who would become her husband, and after this she frequently featured in his films" - I don't think "after this she" is necessary
What else would I replace it with? Subsequently and frequently wouldn't go together and I need to demonstrate that the marriage marked a close collaboration between the two professionally over many years.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant just take it out, which gives you "... Squitieri, who would become her husband, and frequently featured in his films", if that makes sense? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded slightly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who raises the funds to buy Kinski a steamship in South America" - don't think this is necessary in the lead (and surely it's Kinski's character?)
It is one of her most prominent roles being a Herzog film, I think to mention something of the nature of her character work in one film at least is OK. I, MarnetteD and other cinephiles I think would look on it memorably and enjoy reading that in the lede. I've tweaked to "him" rather than "Kinski".♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early life[edit]

  • "Cardinale received her education" - "Cardinale was educated" sounds better
Done.

1950s[edit]

  • "Cardinale's first contact with the world of cinema" - suggest "Cardinale's first film work"
Done.
  • "The appearance nonetheless marked her film debut" - wouldn't this be her major film debut, given the earlier short Vautier production?
Tweaked to "feature film".♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The turning point came in 1957" - what do we mean by "The turning point" here?

The turning point in her career.

  • "When she discovered she was pregant" - typo, and as pregnancy has already been mentioned, maybe "On this discovery" would scan better?
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Determined not to have an abortion" - the previous sentence makes this redundant as the context is clear
  • "far away from the prying eyes of the press" - suggest "away from the press"
OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was her first real test as an actress" - this sounds like an opinion, in which case it should be expressed as such
Reworded.--Ipigott (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More later Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1960s[edit]

  • "perdition" could do with a link - just not quite sure where, Son of perdition perhaps?
With eternal sin. Done.--Ipigott (talk) 07:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "portraying praying mantis types" - this just doesn't sounds like a particularly good phrase, could we use "portraying dominant" or "portraying manipulative" or something like that instead?
Reworded along these lines.--Ipigott (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a result of her own experience of early motherhood, Cardinale unwittingly conveyed" - do we need "unwittingly"?
I think we need something. I've changed it to naturally.--Ipigott (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "comparable to the two divas of Italian cinema" is "diva" the right word here? I suspect it is but when I think of "diva" I think of somebody writing a four page post on ANI ;-) Maybe "leading actresses"?
Absolutely "diva" is the right word. In the dictionary Lollobrigida's photo would be under the word "diva"!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several newspapers and magazines including the French Paris Match" - do we need "French" here? I think most readers would be able to work out it's a French title
Done.--Ipigott (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "be a credible young rival to Brigitte Bardot" - per WP:LASTNAME and WP:OVERLINK, this can be simply "Bardot", plus most readers will know who you mean anyway with just the surname
No longer linked but I think we need the full name here to balance up with Sophia Loren and Gina Lollobrigida.--Ipigott (talk) 08:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also in 1961 she appeared" - I think it would be better to write "She also appeared" and move this whole sentence before the one starting "At time, Cardinale was not considered...." which acts as a summary to the rest of the paragraph
I think these relatively unimportant appearances need to be at the end of the para but I've reworded.--Ipigott (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The finest and most prolific year of her career was 1963" - according to whom?
Reference given. Dr. Blofeld might like to rework it into the source list.--Ipigott (talk) 08:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fellini's much more relaxed style where improvisation was the order of the day" - can we write something else instead of "order of the day"?
Well spotted. Reworded.--Ipigott (talk) 08:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Cardinale's early Italian films, another actress's voice was dubbed in place of her own naturally deep, hoarse voice." - this has already been mentioned at the end of the "1950s" paragraph
Yes, I know. I think some kind of reminder is required here but I've now rephrased.--Ipigott (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Il gattopardo.jpg is not necessarily PD in the US
  • "In 1963, Cardinale also acted in her first American film" - don't need "In 1963", we already know this bit of the article is talking about that year. Also, since I mentioned him in the lead, we need to work Peter Sellers into the body somewhere.
I've removed "in 1963" although as we have just mentioned 1965 there might be some confusion. How about starting "The year 1963 also saw Cardinale in her first American film...?"
I'm really not sure whether Sellers needs to be included here (or even in the lead). She was not very complimentary about him in the Guardian article where she tells us "Peter Sellers didn't speak to anybody. Always in the corner, just the opposite of what you see in the film." The emphasis should remain on Niven. If Sellers is mentioned, then something along these lines should also be included. What do you think?--Ipigott (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, her screen time with Sellers was very minimal anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Ipigott (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Life quote immediately following this could do with a citation immediately after the quote
Done.--Ipigott (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "uniting her on screen once again with Burt Lancaster" - per WP:LASTNAME, just "Lancaster"
Done. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lancaster on its own means nothing to me. I would prefer to restore Burt Lancaster.--Ipigott (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, especially as it is twenty years later and a long time ago in the article. On its own I think of the town first.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the end of the decade...." - I think the rest of this paragraph is in the wrong place, it should come after all the Hollywood films.
Done.--
  • " "I don't like the star system. I'm a normal person. I like to live in Europe. I mean, I've been going to Hollywood many, many times, but I didn't want to sign a contract." - I don't think this quote has a citation
It was sourced to the Cardinale.co.uk and I remember reading it but the source is now dead. Perhaps Jaguar can do me a favour and add the archive url type source to it from http://www.claudiacardinale.co.uk/biography/biography.htm?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep just added the archived reference, which seems to be this link? It has the quote in it JAGUAR  19:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but because it was used without Cardinale's permission, the photo was removed from the cover art in later pressings" - suggest "but it was used without Cardinale's permission and removed from later pressings"
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such was the power of her performance as the whore" - don't need "as the whore". Prostitutes are sophisticated women (like Cardinale), whores are just downmarket. (Err, allegedly).
There was something satisfying about calling her a whore ;-) She was a former whore in it though, even Jason Robards said so!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1970s[edit]

  • "The film, shot on location in Australia" - I don't think we need "in Australia", it's obvious from context where "on location" means here
Removed "Australia".♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sordi-Cardinale-BelloOnesto.jpg and File:Guappi-Cardinale.png as before, I'm not sure I buy the "not a copyright notice" excuse for a film still, can these be checked by somebody in the know?
  • The citation for the Jesus of Nazareth cast has the title "The Economist" - that sounds like the work or publisher, not the title
You'd think, but that's what google came up with in the ref maker and I don't know what would go under "title" given that I can't see the full page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1980s[edit]

  • "which also reunited her with Burt Lancaster" - WP:LASTNAME, just "Lancaster" should suffice here

I'm not sure, just Lancaster I think might confuse people, especially given that it's also a place, we last mentioned Burt Lancaster twenty years ago.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. Whatever the rules, I think we need to maintain Burt Lancaster. See also my earlier comment. One instance of Burt Lancaster has already been changed.--Ipigott (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He pointed out that although Cardinale's screen time in the film was unfortunately not durable" - what does "unfortunately not durable" mean in this context?
Unfortunately she didn't get much screentime. I've reworded slightly to "substantial".♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later in 1982 Cardinale played opposite Pierre Mondy...." - suggest "Later that year"
OK, done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1983, Cardinale had a role in the in the...." - the problem with this paragraph is it's a bit too "In 1983, Cardinale did this.... in 1984 Cardinale did that ... in 1985 Cardinale did the other...." Might just be worth rejigging things a bit so it's not just a list in prose
Yes, there is that, but I was hoping Ipigott could find more from the book to flesh it out with other info to avoid it reading like a recital of imdb.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1990s[edit]

  • "opposite Bruno Cremer in her husband's" - do you mean Squitieri?
Yes, but I think it's a bit of variation, rather than keeping saying Squitieri's xxx all of the time.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2000s - present[edit]

  • "in a role which Patrick Besson described as "atrocious" - why did he describe it as atrocious
Good question, source didn't say I don't think, I picked it up in a snippet. I can remove it if you want.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's probably best, without any more context it looks a bit odd. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to Harold and Maude (1971)" - why the brackets here?
We always put years in brackets after mentioning films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sure, but why in "2000s" are we suddenly jumping back to 1971? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it's their personal opinion, I don't think citing the Hollywood Reporter on a BLP goes down well with some editors
  • "which was penned by Emma Thompson" - suggest "written by Emma Thompson"
means the same thing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interview LOL in which she says it herself. If that's not reliable I don't know what is ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right. In which case, it would be helpful for verification purposes to put the location of where the quotation is spoken, for the benefit of lazy so and so's like me who can't be bothered to wade through the whole thing ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life[edit]

  • I don't understand why File:Claudia Cardinale Blindfold 1965.JPG is here in the "personal life" section. I think it would be better to have either a picture of her with Squitieri if a free picture exists, otherwise I'd leave it out.
Done. Removed. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cardinale has two children" - suggest "She has two children"
Done. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Patrizio, who was born out of wedlock" - the top of the article uses the English name, "Patrick", I'd suggest going with one or the other for consistency. Also use "illegitimately" rather than "born out of wedlock" per WP:EUPHEMISM
Done. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed Patrizio to Patrick as this is the name Cardinale uses in "Io Claudia"--Ipigott (talk) 10:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was a goodwill ambassador for the UNESCO World Water Day for 2006." - needs a source
Done. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She published an autobiography" - as this is a new paragraph, suggest "Cardinale published her autobiography"
Done. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography[edit]

  • As this section is only link, this should be "See also"
Done. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy[edit]

  • One of the problems I see with this article is it's too "career heavy". If you look at Meryl Streep, that's got a sizeable "Acting style and legacy" section, while Audrey Hepburn has a lengthy "Legacy" section. I think we need something similar here. Most of it can be moved or copied from the main prose, and then bolstered by a summary of awards and quotes from various people.

Cardinale's nowhere near the league of Streep and Hepburn in terms of scholarly coverage of her acting. I very much doubt there is much at all documenting her acting.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My gut feeling is if we don't address this now, if it goes to PR / FAC, it will probably rear its head then. I still think you can get a couple of sizeable paragraphs out of everything else. Certainly her longevity (how many other early 1960s film stars are actively working?) has been touched upon in the prose. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not needed for GA though is it? We may try to find something before taking it to FAC.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess so - there are enough eyes looking at this that I'm confident PR / FAC will take care of it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

I've gone through the whole article now. My main concerns are some of the image copyrights, and the lack of "Legacy" / "Style" section means some of the "Career" prose rambles a little bit too much. Still, based on your work and who else is looking at this, I don't think these are insurmountable problems to meet the GA criteria, so I'll put the review on hold now pending improvements. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Most have been addressed I believe. I really detest fussing about with images, please do whatever you deem necessary, but I'd be very sorry to see the main image go.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we get no response from Media Copyright Questions, I'm happy for them to stay and if anyone subsequently complains, we just point them at the thread and say "we tried to make sure but there was no answer". Can't say fairer than that. I'll check all the other issues are addressed later today, hopefully. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

I've gone through all the points raised and made a few comments - everything else I'm happy with. The only outstanding points I can see are :

* http://www.latimesmagazine.com/2011/02/50-most-beautiful-women-in-film.html is complaining about needing a login * "Determined not to have an abortion" - the previous sentence makes this redundant as the context is clear

  • The citations "Fellini 1996 p.20" and "Simpson 2008 p.56" are incomplete

I'll try and press for a response about the images - I'm surprised nobody has said anything, there are a handful of editors who leap on image copyrights like a praying mantis. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm happy that the images can stay - they are all on Commons and I think as they are all taken by Italian companies it seems reasonable to assume they have Italian copyright tenure, not US. Commons is a lot stricter on image copyrights and would clamp down on this far more forcefully. I can't easily fix the two citations, so that's the only thing stopping passing the review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: What citations?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: "Fellini 1996 p.20" and "Simpson 2008 p.56" are {{sfn}} tags that do not have a corresponding entry in the "References" section. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: OK now?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it, so I can now pass the review. Another one in the bag - well done team! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Ritchie, much appreciated.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Oppose. I see no reason for one. The lead does an excellent job of summerising the key facts in a much more educational compared to a load of trivial old bullet points contained within the infobox. CassiantoTalk 11:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much more attractive without it, such a nice image too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I am a little OCD and so things that are inconsistent bug me. I could really go with or without but Wikipedia, as an entity, should not revolve around the appearance of one (this) article. Just looking at some of the other names mentioned on this page alone, all have info boxes. Sometimes a casual reader (not editor, concerned with style and layout) are actually looking for a specific fact. They know where to find these facts based on how other pages have trained them. See Gina Lollobrigida, Meryl Streep, Federico Fellini, and David Niven -- and that's cutting the list short. I would say either remove all infoboxes from Wikipedia for whatever logic Cassianto can use to justify a deviation from what appears to be a celebrity template or add an infobox to this article. --SlimJimTalk 09:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is in my Sandbox
Claudia Cardinale
Claudia Cardinale filming
Born(1938-04-15)April 15, 1938
Tunis, Tunisia
OccupationActress
Years active1958–Present
Spouse(s)Franco Cristaldi
(1966–1975, divorced)

--SlimJimTalk 09:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That box is the most god awful fucking eyesore I have ever seen. You cannot be serious in thinking that that is a benefit to anyone? CassiantoTalk 13:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've said it, OCD. Enough. BTW I also authored the Meryl Streep article and would also favour removing the infobox on that too but it's a high traffic article and can't be bothered to have to keeping reverting the zealots. We add infoboxes where they're of use to the reader, not for the sake of the furniture being consistent. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So SlimJim, nothing relating to the guidelines or policies as to why an IB should be included, just your personal preference for consistency? If the "casual reader" wants to find a fact, it can probably be found in the lead, where it is presented in its proper context, and not with nuance stripped out. It's not too much to ask that when people visit a text-based encyclopaedia, they might actually have to read some of the text there. - SchroCat (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're all different. You and I look up information in different ways and differently depending on any number of variables. Sometimes I read entire articles. Sometimes I am just looking for a quick answer and don't want to wade through the well thought-out lead. It appears that this article has some ownership issues. If there's nothing in any guideline or policy as to why it should be included, I'm guessing that there is also nothing in there about why it should be excluded. --SlimJimTalk 11:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so obnoxious as to throw around mindless insults like ownership allegations. I have never edited the article, so it's utterly churlish to throw around such accusations just because someone has a differing opinion to yours; your approach also fails WP:CIVILITY. - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe Wikipedia isn't for you SlimJim. If you want quick and easy factoids go and buy this. CassiantoTalk 14:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SlimJim, it's exactly this sort of thing which puts editors off wanting to promote things to FA and GA because every time the article appears on the main page some idiot comes along and kicks up a fuss over infoboxes. When they get the response "no thankyou" they start with the usual WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL arguments and things become unnecessarily unpleasant.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Lord! Another case of "if you oppose an info-box it's WP:OWN". How wearisome! Tangentially, I happen to be a carer for someone who has severe OCD, and I am comprehensively unimpressed by the suggestion that that condition has any relevance to IBs and the homogeneity of WP articles. I have a crippling phobic terror of heights, but I do not object to the use on WP of images taken from high buildings. Tim riley talk 14:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you guys really don't like an alternative opinion being voiced. Someone besides me started the section so I'm not the only one that thought of it. Read the first two responses to my initial edit. How does that comport with the five pillars? If I was a new editor, would I offer up an opinion contrary to the majority voice here? I've been editing since 2005. I thought the talk page was where things were hashed out. If you voiced an opinion here, reread it and see how you stand up. So keep it as it is, nobody would dare step up and offer an opinion or a solution that might include an IB (mine was an example, improve it) or not. Maybe I'll just stick with grammar and sentence structure. I do my part and I'm happy. --SlimJimTalk 15:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no objection to alternative opinions: I do have an objection to people idiotically throwing OWNership allegations out (as you did) just because someone disagreed with your opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite; SlimJim, to whom you are referring when you speak of incivility? Or is that like your flawed OWN accusation and just another cliche thing the supporter's in infobox discussions say when the going gets tough? CassiantoTalk 16:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Picking through this section, let me make sure I get all the names. To Cassianto, Dr. Blofeld, SchroCat, Tim riley; please allow me to offer an olive branch in an attempt to quell this kerfuffle. If I have offended, I sincerely apologize. This issue is not worth disrupting the work that I enjoy doing here. I assume that each of you get satisfaction as well in what you do. I will take this as a lesson in that the tone has changed during the break I took from editing in the last few years. That is not meant as a criticism, it’s either my faulty recollection or just the way it is. --SlimJimTalk 06:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SlimJim what you appear not to realize is that we have to put up with the same thing in dozens of articles throughout the year. It becomes a tedious bore, so that's why we might seem a little aggressive to you because it's another "OH NOT AGAIN" scenario, somebody trying to force an infobox.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no offence taken SlimJim. In discussions like this, my computer keypad is so used to typing "an infobox is neither prohibited nor required" and "I'm not against info boxes, but they have to be used where they do some good, not just added for the sake it" blah, blah, blah, that the lines are on auto complete. Info boxes are great on certain articles and I rely on them when looking at film, political, sports, royal, and science articles. But they simply don't work in biographies on persons within the arts, classical music, medical, and historical stories and events. Everything and I mean everything within an infobox in these articles can be found in the lede, quite often within the first line or paragraph. It is that kind of repetition which we must try and avoid. It really annoys me to think that people just assume articles like this must have an infobox simply because they believe that it is a consistency on Wikipedia as a whole. Yes, that consistency is a sad reality at the moment, but it is completely wrong and hopefully one day, that'll change. CassiantoTalk 14:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone realize that the infobox I just added is different from the infobox provided here? sst✈ 10:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For which there is still no consensus. – SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to find out how old she was, and it'd be easier if I didn't have to work it out from her date of birth. I have slight dyscalculia and infoboxes that include a person's age make life a lot easier for me. 2.219.97.182 (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need to come to the WP page. Just a simple google search would provide you with that information on the results page. As that is obvious, and because I see this is your one and only edit, I suspect you have an ulterior motive. CassiantoTalk 20:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, quite the amateur detective. This kind of thing reminds me why I don't edit more. It was my one and only edit from here, yes, because I'm not at home. I don't edit much, but this is my first port of call for information, not Google. I don't really see why that should suggest I have an ulterior motive. I see your attitude is that if someone doesn't find what they want on Wikipedia, they should just jog off and find it somewhere else. Well done, you. 2.219.97.182 (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you're a sock? CassiantoTalk 21:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A what? 2.219.97.182 (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. You think I'm someone from the above discussion who's now pretending to be someone else in order to be disruptive. Wow. She's 77, so I gather. I thought it might be easy to get that from a so-called encyclopedia but apparently I was engaging in subterfuge and covert disruption. Seriously, you folk are weird. 2.219.97.182 (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Claudia Cardinale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Claudia Cardinale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing age[edit]

@SchroCat, could you please get the bio information to display Cardinale's age based on her birth date?

I added the InfoBox so the age would be displayed with her bio information. I was not aware the InfoBox was being endlessly debated here.

I'm not asking you re-add the InfoBox. Just show her current age with her bio information, like birthdate.

Thanks. Jeffrey Walton (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox, again[edit]

I have reverted the recent addition of an infobox by an IP. I am doing this simply because there was previously consensus not to include a box, the primary contributors to the box did not want one, and while editors do not own articles and people should just be bold and do stuff, I can't help thinking that the purpose of this edit was not entirely based on an intrinsic desire to improve the article. If you're going to take bold actions, I'd like you to log in and be accountable for them. If you're worried about being personally attacked for simply adding an infobox, you have my sympathies - email me and we can discuss things.

I also want to make it clear that I have no objection to any editor in good standing re-adding the infobox back in, and my actions here are because of the way things have been done, not what. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Claudia_Cardinale&oldid=1219136818"