Sundry weirdities in this IMDb entry

One of the reviewers contradicts himself by stating: “I sort of like the idea of presenting two famous, successful people who both willingly give up their careers for love (and not just the woman giving up her career). It was a novel approach. It a rare example of equality between the sexes for its time.”
Then he turns around and boldly states: “the plot was a formulaic re-hash of something from five years earlier (done better the first time).

From the Trivia section:
To accommodate the enormous sets, the roof and walls of the structure were raised an additional 35 feet. The project, costing $100,000 in 1936 dollars, was paid for by William Randolph Hearst.
Then,
Sheilah Graham, a syndicated entertainment columnist, reported that raising the stage 35 feet in height took four weeks (with 200) workers, and cost $300,000.
So, which is the true cost - $100,000 or $300,000? Or neither of these?

Perc Westmore, the makeup designer for this film, told journalist Sheilah Graham in a 1936 interview that his design for the "Thousand Love Songs" musical number facilitated the enlargement of Stage 16 on the Warners lot.
Now, Westmore was a prominent Hollywood make-up artist who worked with well-known Hollywood actresses of the period. So what the heck did he have to do with designing musical numbers and enlarging a sound stage?

2,000 ostrich feathers were used in making the costumes for the "Thousand Love Songs" musical number.
How many people did they have to hire to count the ostrich feathers?


From these board discussions, with regard to the stage hand who marched in the background across the stage during the “Those Endearing Young Charms” number, “apparently no one spotted him until after production wrapped and it was too expensive to retake the scene.”
I have just taken a look at this scene. It would have been a piece of cake for one of the film lab technicians to have erased the image out of the scene in the film negative.