Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Katie Holmes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Katie Holmes

Self-nom for a profile of the actress much in the news for her relationship with Tom Cruise. Article has references, completely chronicles the actress's life, career, and relationship with Cruise. It has photographs as well. The article, cited as a good article, was peer reviewed twice here and here. It also had a FAC in the past, here. PedanticallySpeaking 16:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support, the POV issues seem to have been cleaned up. Nice work! --W(t) 16:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well documented subject, appears to have reconciled all of the pov issues which there used to be many of. AriGold 16:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support article looks good and appears well set out. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support.. Looks very good and balanced. Though I can't help but note I wish there was at least one free image in the article. There's got to be some way of getting one. Has anyone tried contacting her agent/fanclubs/etc? Sorry I didn't mention this during the peer review. - Taxman ^Talk 16:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There was a question some time ago on her talk page about if she had an official site. I checked then and could not find one. I will look to see if that has changed. PedanticallySpeaking 16:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Was about to support when I realised that the footnotes are out of line; clicking footnote 70 brings me to footnote 69. Please use m:Cite (as documented on WP:FN) to avoid this sort of problem in the future. Also, ideally we should avoid directly linking to external websites in the text (such as was done with the Free Katie website). Aside from that, I see no problem with this article. Good job on keeping it largely free from fancruft. Johnleemk | Talk 16:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected this footnote. A sentence was moved in the paragraph above the one you noted but the corresponding note was not moved. Thus the discrepancy. Thanks for your kind words about the article. PedanticallySpeaking 16:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm willing to support now, although I'd still prefer conversion to m:Cite (but seeing how many {{ref}}s you have, that's going to be a pain in the ass, so I won't press it). Johnleemk | Talk 16:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also moved that Freekatie link into the notes as well. PedanticallySpeaking 16:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Argh, I really hate to be a pain in the ass, but Image:Katiegap.jpg has no fair use rationale or source (although the latter should be fairly obvious). I also doubt its validity in the article, since The Gap or Holmes' relationship with it don't appear to be discussed by it at all. None of the other fair use images have rationales either, but the way I see it, it's fairly obvious; a quick sentence or two should be enough to justify fair use for them. Consider this a support again when this issue is settled. Johnleemk | Talk 16:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Her relationship with The Gap is discussed in the "Guest appearances and endorsements" section. AriGold 16:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. Still, fair use has rather stringent guidelines. I doubt half a dozen words really counts as "criticism or comment" under the US government's definition of fair use. The same can't really be said for most of the other fair use images (except possibly Pieces of April, which has a couple of sentences only), since they're discussed in depth (i.e. Cruise's "insanity", Holmes' role in Batman Begins and Dawson's Creek, etc.). Johnleemk | Talk 16:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The GQ and Gap images have been removed, and the others now have fair use rationale on each of their description pages. Extraordinary Machine 21:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

To likewise be "a pain in the ass" and to clarify, is this now a support vote from Johnleemk? PedanticallySpeaking 18:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Good work. Very well resourced, refs, illustrated with images, flows well and interesting to read.--Dakota ~ ° 18:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. PedanticallySpeaking 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object. (although these things should be fairly easy to fix.) The statement in the lead her films being "bombs" should be sourced. In the Early life and career section, things like The Blade and Joey Potter are overlinked and her parts such as listing her "secret vices" are just unimportant trivia. Image:Katiegap.jpg, Image:Cruiseonoprah.jpg and Image:GQKatie.jpg currently lack fair use rationales. Also, I don't think the use of Image:GQKatie.jpg qualifies as fair use, as it's not an article about the magazine and the issue is not mentioned in the corresponding section. And I think the Bibliography subsection of Notes should just be removed, as they are all listed under References anyway. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 19:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • A footnote has been inserted for the "bombs" statement in the lead, and duplicate wikilinks have been trimmed. The Oprah screenshot now has fair use rationale on its description page, while the GQ and Gap images have been removed. I've also taken away the material on Holmes' favourite things, but I don't dare touch the Bibliography section since PedanticallySpeaking supplied virtually all of the article's references. Extraordinary Machine 21:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

References list is because on second reference in the notes to an article, I abbreviate the reference, something like "Cohen". Rather than dig through all the preceding notes to find that citation, one can simply go to the alphabetical list and find the reference. I was taught that even with footnotes, one still needed an alphabetized bibliography. PedanticallySpeaking 19:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see how that's helpful. Now when I want to check a source, I have to first click on the footnote and then look up what I find there in the second list. Why not give the full ciation in the numbered list?--Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 23:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very comprehensive, well-written and neutral...an excellent article, meets all the criteria. Well done! Extraordinary Machine 21:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. She's a terrible actress, but the article is definitely well-written. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object - reasonable article, though extremely long considering she's hardly someone whose achievements to date will leave very much of a mark on the world. My problem here is mainly referencing - I do not believe that any article can possibly need 89 references. It's long been joked that we'll eventually see 'Joe Bloggs ^[1]' with the birth certificate being cited and that's pretty much what this article does. The 'Early life' section is poorly written, with short sentences, no sense of flow, and almost every single sentence having a distracting footnote, whether it contains a potentially disputable fact or not. I also think there is a huge over-reliance throughout the article on quotes from magazine articles etc, which makes it read more like a lengthy news report than an encyclopaedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Worldtraveller (talk • contribs) .

Well, according to the footnote there actually seems to be a dispute about her real name, but I agree with you about the Early life section and that the article relies to much on quotes from magazines.--Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I don't think a footnote is the way to address such an issue. It doesn't explain who is disputing it and on what grounds, and if this is really worth discussing it's worth discussing in the main body of the text rather than in a footnote. Worldtraveller 14:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

On the talk page of the article you will see a discussion of what her legal name was. IMDB had something different that what you see here. I thought it important to cite that point because of the discussion, which is here. PedanticallySpeaking 16:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not deal with it in the main text? Worldtraveller 17:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Because, aside from the error on IMDB, it is not something I ever saw at issue in the outside world; it only came up here on Wikipedia. PedanticallySpeaking 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's not an issue beyond Wikipedia then surely it doesn't need mentioning at all? Worldtraveller 00:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that there are too many notes. Everything I say is cited and verifiable, which is what Wikipedia:Citing sources says to do. I do not see even a caveat about "over-citing" there. PedanticallySpeaking 16:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Typically my peer reviewed papers which appear in astronomical journals don't even have 89 references, so I can't think that a bio of a minor actress needs that many. WP:CITE does not say that every single fact needs citing, and there are plenty of things which just don't need a reference. Worldtraveller 17:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If I had fewer notes, then surely people would be objecting to my failure to cite sources. I would note that articles in legal journals cite everything and have long reference sections not unlike this one. PedanticallySpeaking 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I'd have thought if you had say 40 references instead of nearly 100, verifiability requirements would still easily be satisfied. Part of the reason you have so many references in the article is because there are so many direct quotes from magazine articles - this is a problem, and you should be endeavouring to say what the articles are saying without just lifting quotes directly. Worldtraveller 00:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I am uncertain what material to use if newspaper and magazine articles are unacceptable. She is a twenty-seven year old actress. There aren't books about her aside from those aimed at juveniles. I used the resources which are available. PedanticallySpeaking 16:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not the use of magazines as references I'm complaining about, it's the excessive use of direct quotes in the article. Given what you say I'd also encourage you to consider whether that doesn't imply that she's not really significant enough to warrant a 50kb+ article. FAC criteria say articles should be of appropriate length. Worldtraveller 17:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. It's a really comphrehensive article. My only qualm is that the Tom Cruise section doesn't need four subsections.--Fallout boy 04:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your praise. PedanticallySpeaking 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support Object (for now) - I think it's very good on the whole. I'm so glad to see that the issue with the images has been dealt with. (Well done Extraordinary Machine on such a good job! ) Two things that will be easy to fix : 1. The first paragraph in "Early life and career" contains 12 sentences. These need to be merged to give it a better flow. All it needs is some "and"s and some commas. 2. In the "Dawson's Creek" section there is a sentence beginning "So good was Holmes" - where the "so good" is outside the parameter of discussion being attributed to a particular commentator, and as written looks more like an editorial comment. It needs to be subtly reworded to shift the POV onto The New York Times where it belongs. eg The New York Times considered Holmes to be so good that they wrote...." . Or better still, just drop the "so good" and have the sentence read : "The New York Times wrote ..." and let their comments stand on their own without further amplification. Other than that, I think the article is very good and I will certainly support when these minor points are fixed. Rossrs 10:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC) I like the article, so I've made the minor changes that I thought were needed. It's well written, scrupulously referenced, and the images are well chosen and well supported by fair use rationales. It seems to be balanced and the earlier POV issues have been dealt with satisfactorily. I think the depth of discussion of her relationship with Tom Cruise is relevant because it is current - at some point in the future, when it is no longer topical, it could be culled, but for now it is appropriate. Rossrs 09:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As always, Rossrs, thanks for your help. PedanticallySpeaking 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support Kaisershatner 14:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Everyking 14:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object Too much of her relationship with Tom Cruise--Hotwiki 16:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Is this a reason to object? As far as I'm aware of, I don't believe so. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with Eternal Equinox, besides the lead, the first appearance of Tom Cruise in the article is half way through the article. Though it can be cut down a little, I don't believe it is a reason to object. AndyZ 23:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a valid objection. Articles need to be balanced, and if one aspect of a topic is over-emphasised that's a bad thing. Worldtraveller 19:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Cruise is the reason she's been in the news this year and considering the volume of coverage--even The New York Times ran a big article on them--it does not feel unwarranted to me. PedanticallySpeaking 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's in the news now, but what is in the news now is not necessarily what is most important. Worldtraveller 00:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Enough comprehensive, well-formatted filmography. Brandmeister 18:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Object - WOW! IMO, too many references in "Early life and career". I real dissapointment. ^KILO-_LIMA 19:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• Is this another reason to object? I'm aware of the criteria, but not sure if it pushes its boundaries. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• I suppose not, but I don't seem to like it. Changed my vote to Support. ^KILO-_LIMA 19:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why it's not a valid objection. Worldtraveller 19:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object - The swathes on Tom Cruise totally unbalance the article. - Hahnchen 20:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

See reply to Worldtraveler above. PedanticallySpeaking 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

See above. Worldtraveller 19:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Object, primarily because of the overuse of direct quotes. Significant portions of the article are simply chains of quotations from various magazines together with footnote numbers; these need to be transformed into something closer to original prose. Maintaining NPOV should not require simply restating the opinions of critics verbatim. In addition, various trivia (e.g. "Before the premiere, the show's talk of sex caused a stir in the press; one of the show's producers, Procter and Gamble, withdrew after negative press in its hometown newspapers" and "Holmes purchased a townhouse in Wilmington in 2002") shoud be excised; the article is rather long as it is. —Kirill Lokshin 02:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Quite good. --Pamri • Talk 00:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support awesome. you added a few more photos since the peer review stage (I think), which make it look very complete. awesome references look, nicely organized and a nice font/font size. good info! keep up the good work! --Lan56 09:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)