# Talk:Howard Hawks

Seriously?--206.188.55.235 (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the online source says exactly this, but this looks like a misquote from the stated print source, "The new biographical dictionary of film". I'm guessing that the book actually says "Far from being", and have changed the article on that basis. A Google search directs me to page 380 of that book, but won't show me the preview. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I have The New Biographical Dictionary of Film beside me as I write. It does say "Far from the meek purveyor of Hollywood forms." It makes sense in context: "The clue to Hawks's greatness is that his somber lining is cut against the cloth of the genre in which is he operating. Far from the meek purveyor of Hollywood forms, he always chose to turn them upside down. To Have and Have Not and The Big Sleep, ostensibly an adventure and a love thriller, are really love stories."
In 1975, when the first edition of A Biographical Dictionary of Film (as it was then called) was published, Hawks may have been seen as a "meek purveyor of Hollywood forms", particularly in Thomson's native England. Thomson is arguing that this is far from the case. He's a great critic and deserves to be quoted accurately in the article. Charlie Faust (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The lead section and "Legacy" say a bunch about the praise for Howard Hawks without truly saying much about Howard Hawks and his work. AndrewOne (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Howard Hawks/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: DionysosProteus (talk · contribs) 03:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I'll address each of the six criteria, then add notes...

1: Well written
I spent a while copy-editing, so I think it's in better shape now, though the changes were all minor ones and it was in a good shape when I found it. The most frequent things were: (1) a very minor punctuation point, whereby it seems natural to add a comma before an "and" in a long sentence, becuase that's how we'd say it out-loud, but which isn't correct grammatically. I think I've fixed all of those, sometimes by breaking up the sentence, or else employing "while" etc. instead of the "and". Where appropriate, "so" is sometimes better (if it is a causal relation); (2) Sentences starting with "Although". It's usually better to put a "though" halfway through and reverse the terms to avoid this. These are minor points, but once or twice led to some strange phrasing and logic (she was unhappy with her husband. "They started dating [...] until she asked XXX for a divorce" for example, made it sound like they dated, but stopped once she asked... Anyhow, that's all corrected now, I think. Sometimes the tense shifts around (stars/starred), too. 
The one bit I couldn't follow was the Gunga Din sentence. Gunga Din was a reworking of the Front Page play? I think that sentence needs breaking up and clarifying a little. 

2: Verifiable with no original research
Much of the article relies on the biography of him, The Grey Fox of Hollywood at Google Books, which says published 2007 and is "the first". So, that seems straightforward enough, though it's there's no preview, so I can't check the relation between article and source. Nothing struck me as especially contentious or dubious, though, so it looks fine to me. I added a source for some of the style material that I put in the lede (more below on that). I couldn't find the original source for Leonard Maltin's quotation, but the source quotes him saying that. The claim about what makes a good director comes from a Huff Post article, which says that, though from previewing the interviews, the original quote might not be so broad (in the interviews, he seems to be talking about himself, rather than directors in general). 
The claim of BBBaby as his masterpiece needs a citation (it's obviously correct, though). 
The only other one that might be problematic are the quotations for legacy/awards. Looks like #14 is mislabelled, and the Brit critics is a quote from the blog linked to, which could do with being cited in that bit, so there's a tiny about of bibliographical sorting out to do.

3: Broad in its coverage
I think that this might be the weakest area, though I must admit to uncertainty here. In one sense, the article is a comprehensive account of Hawk's film career, so in that sense, it passes easily. My first impression, which I later found echoed on the talk page, was that the lede needed more on the kind of filmmaker he was, rather than who thought he's good. I edited to try to fix that, though, bring up material from the style section. Just a little more analysis would be good. For example, I knew before coming to the article that he's a kind of test-case for auteur theory in film studies. If I glance in my The Cinema Book, it has a few pages discussing Hawks in these terms, along with feminist analysis of the functions that women and male-bonding have in his films, and that's just a very broad-survey-type film studies volume. If the editors are able to flesh that aspect out a little, it would help a great deal (that is, analysis, rather than just people saying how good he is). Otherwise, it sometimes reads like a filmography with a few extra details. 
I confess, I didn't come away with a good sense of what kind of a filmmaker he is, despite having read through the long sequence of films he'd made. I also was surprised to find so little on the really big films. To that extent, it did feel a little uneven or unbalanced. Lots on early life, which on my first read felt like hard work to wade through. I decided to start copy editing as I read once I reached the early films. When I reached the "Later Sound Films" section, I perked up a little. I used to work as a transmission controller for TCM movies, so I've seen many of the later ones. By the end of that section, I felt rather disappointed. I don't think that it would be fair to hold the assessment for this reason, but if editors are able to add even only a sentence more for each of the really famous ones, it would have a far more comprehensive coverage. This obviously requires a film studies book, which can act as a source for the significance of Bringing Up Baby, To Have and Have Not, The BiG Sleep, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Rio Bravo (to me, they seem like the really really famous ones most likely to be the reason a reader has come to the article, though the lede has a slightly longer selection). 
My remarks here are recommendations, rather than conditions needing to be met to pass the criteria, as I hope is clear.

4: Neutral
Well, in the style/legacy sections, we hear of the relative disinterest of the British critics of S&S, along with more positive evaluations. Touching ever so slightly more on what critics/scholars have made of his work & how assessed it might be desireable, but on the whole, the article is well written and encyclopaedic in tone, with no obvious biases or omissions. 

5: Stable
No problems at all. The article has evolved slowly over time, becoming increasingly more detailed and substantial, with no conflicts in evidence. 

6: Illustrated, if possible, by images
Infobox image is fair use. It needs to be replaced, because there are images of him in the Commons. That's a legal requirement, unfortunately, as nice as the current one is. (done) • DP •  {huh?} 03:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Fig-leaves-1926.jpg is fair use - it needs a fair use rationale added to its page justifying use here (which is identical to fig leaves article rationale, so shouldn't be a problem for editors to sort out).
A Girl in Every Port poster.jpg is fair use - it also needs a rationale. I recommed copy/pasting the one from Fig leaves, as it's better/more detailed justification.
File:Dawn-Patrol-1930-Poster.jpg is in the public domain
File:Criminal Code.jpg is fair use and needs a rationale added (see above)
Tiger Shark 1932 poster.jpg is fair use and needs a rationale added (see above)
His Girl Friday still 2.jpg is in the public domain (astonishingly!)
Film1951-TheThingFromAnotherWorld-OriginalPoster.jpg is fair use and needs a rationale added (see above)
File:Bacall&Hawks.jpg is in the public domain
So, this is the most important aspect to sort out. Unfortunately, there is a public domain image of Hawk's face, which is a cut out of the Hawks and Bacall image. I assume that's why the infobox image was added, but it's not legal if there's an alternative. I recommend, then, that we use the cutout in the infobox and the full image down in the article, even though there's a little duplication. An alternative would be to use the Hawks Bacall full size image in the infobox, which is a nicer image in some way, but less to-the-point?


### In summary: On Hold - Action points
I conclude that the article should be placed On Hold while the following points are addressed (mostly minor)

Rewrite the Gunga Din sentence for clarity
Add citation for source that confirms Bringing Up Baby is regarded as his masterpiece (perhaps, "one of...?" given Rio Bravo opinions further down)
Fix citation #14 with correct details
Remove the infobox image and replace with public domain alternative (done) • DP •  {huh?} 03:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Add fair use rationale for all non-free images used
Further improvement suggestions: Beyond achieving GA status, further elaboration of the analysis of his work, its development, its significance, its negative criticisms would be desirable in the future development of the article. Perhaps the early life could do with a slightly more concise, summarised formulation.

Great work and congratulations to all of the editors involved. Only a few minor issues to take care of and it'll pass.
--  • DP •  {huh?} 03:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


### Editing the article
 • DP •  Thanks so much for your review and comments. I am working on making corrections. So far I was able to add fair use rationales for all non-free images (at least I think I did it right). I tried to get the sources from my library to fix the Gunga Din sentence and citation 14, however, the books aren't on the shelves... which is frustrating since they're supposed to be there. I will check again tomorrow to see if they are shelved properly by then. I just wanted to let you know that your comments are being addressed. Thanks for your patience and cooperation. Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Today, I added the correct source for the quote to replace reference #14. I am still waiting on a copy of the World Film Directors so that I can address the remaining issues. As far as the other suggestions, I honestly think that further analysis of the films themselves and their significance would be better suited for the individual pages about each film (many of which already exist). It seems that there hasn't been enough attention provided to these pages, and the summary/analysis of the films that are on the Howard Hawks page may be more suitable to go on those other pages. I think that would help to make the article as a whole more concise without sacrificing details. Since this is a page on Hawks himself, I don't mind the information on his early life. Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I was able to locate the book I needed, and have made the other improvements. I added 2 additional sources (one to the Gunga Din sentence and one to the masterpiece sentence). I edited the Gunga Din sentence so hopefully it makes sense now, but let me know if it still doesn't make sense or if other edits should be made on anything in the article as a whole. Thanks! Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


### GA Pass
Great work, well done.  • DP •  {huh?} 02:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I just followed the link on the talk page that says this article is mentioned in a media source, and in the first paragraph they criticise our citation. I had already fixed that in my copy-edit, though, by adding A Short History of Film, which says the same thing.
There were a couple of other minor points that aren't necessary for GA but I thought were worth mentioning: 

Early bio says his wealth might have influenced school acceptance. Would be good to provide a citation for such a claim.
A relevant image for the early life section is desirable--perhaps commons volunteers can help with a photo of school or house or somesuch?
The reference to not using religious iconography or messages is a bit decontextualised. What's it referring to exactly?
Why was he fired from Ceiling Zoo?
The legacy and the awards section seem to be covering very similar material (placement in top 100 lists). Perhaps merge the sections?
--  • DP •  {huh?} 04:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The last sentence in the lead section's second paragraph for this article is unnecessarily and incorrectly italicized. But that sentence doesn't seem to register as italic on the "edit" page. Explanation, anyone? Mucketymuck (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello, the italics for one of the preceding films was not closed which was the problem. Fixed. As for the sentence being unnecessary, I don't personally agree, but you are welcome to edit it how you see fit. Thank you. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
You've misunderstood, Skyes: I wrote "unnecessarILY and incorrectly italicized"; didn't suggest the sentence itself wasn't needed. Thanks for the mend, though. Mucketymuck (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Howard Hawks. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120827040433/http://www.dvdbeaver.com/rivette/ok/hawks.html to http://www.dvdbeaver.com/rivette/ok/hawks.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141011022900/https://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/1942 to https://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/1942
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

There is far too much information about Hawks's individual films. I personally find it appalling that Hawks's lost silent films have their own sections, whereas his later and more well known films are just integrated into prose and mentioned briefly. I'm going to remove the exorbitant information related to his individual films and move it to the film's article as appropriate. I will be using some strong article examples of other film directors to give me some direction in reorganizing this article. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources found as of yet state that Hawks served in the military in a war zone during the World War I. More specifically, the sources do not establish defining role in World War I. Accordingly, "Category:United States military personnel of World War I" was removed. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)