Talk:Ben Daniels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Ben Daniels has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
February 14, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Welcome and please expand

Please do add to this Ben Daniels article. Just be sure to add a verifiable source for anything new. Thanks.--ResurgamII 16:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Daniels: Correction of some errors

Hi Jacklee, Ben Daniels' a friend and wanted to correct a couple of errors on this page, but has never edited a wiki-article, doesn't know how to do it, so he asked me... I just thought I'd clear it with you (as the main editor of this page) before doing anything... Tomandlu 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tomandlu, I'm not really the "main editor" of the page. I didn't create the article, but visited it a couple of times to do a cleanup. In any case, no one "owns" Wikipedia articles – they are freely editable by any user as long as the edits don't amount to vandalism. Do go ahead and improve the article by correcting any errors and adding additional information.
By the way, an administrator has tagged the photographs that are currently featured in the article as violating Wikipedia's "fair use policy". This means that the photographs are likely to be deleted in a week's time unless it can be shown that the use of the photographs complies with the fair use policy, which may be difficult to show. Does Ben have any photographs that we can use with his permission? We would need confirmation from him (or from someone who is authorized on his behalf) that the photographs can be used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation Licence (GNU-FDL, or GFDL for short). This means that although he would retain the copyright and authorship of the photographs, he would be granting permission for others to use, copy, and share the images freely, and even potentially use them commercially, so long as they do not try to claim the copyright themselves, or try to prevent others from using or copying them freely (e.g., "share-alike"). The licence can be read in full at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License. Wikipedia uses the GFDL because the organization considers it the best available tool for ensuring the encyclopedia can remain free for all to use, while providing credit to everyone who donates text and images.
(I'll put a copy of this conversation in "Talk:Ben Daniels".) Cheers, Jacklee 20:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
PS If possible, please cite the sources for facts that you put into the article. Thanks. Cheers, Jacklee 20:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tomandlu, Jacklee and I are pretty much the Wikipedians did much of the major editing here (I started the article with limited info). Go right ahead and edit it with sources, just like Jacklee said. If you can, please add a usable image. (Let me also add that it's an honor to have Mr. Ben Daniels take the time to look at the article even with all the 'errors' if it is true as you claim).ResurgamII 13:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Although I haven't heard from Tomandlu since April 2007, I've finally found the time to expand this article. Hope the results are satisfactory. (We could still do with a photograph of Daniels licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License or Creative Commons Attribution or Attribution-ShareAlike licences. :-) ) — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 21:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Jacklee, your contributions to the article is astounding. It seems I have forgotten about this page for sometime until your message regarding the DidYouKnow? on my talkpage (btw all three selections are very good, though I prefer the second one listed there). The 'Ben Daniels' Wikipedia article is no more a mere collection of quotes/actor credits from what I started with in the creation. Job well done (and any other editors who I have missed)!
P.S A portrait image would be a great addition, where rules permit.

ResurgamII (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. I think I'm getting a knack for articles about actors. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 03:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Ben Daniels' height

I've deleted the reference to Ben Daniels being 6 ft. in height. I had a look at the citation (http://www.celebheights.com/s/Ben-Daniels-3765.html), and all it says is that someone thinks he "looks about 6ft". In any case, this piece of information is rather inconsequential and adds little to the article. Cheers, Jacklee 23:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This is a surprisingly good beginning for an article! I'm not familiar with the actor's work, but I enjoyed reading about him. The article fulfills most of the GA criteria: it is stable, neutral, verifiable, comprehensive, and fairly well written. I'm particularly impressed with the number and quality of the references. I do see several issues, however, especially in regards to its writing, that could use improvement before it is able to advance to GA status. Some suggestions:

  • There's something wrong in the infobox: Birth name  ?Dave
    • Fixed: In the main text, a fellow student says he knew Ben Daniels as "Dave", so I thought perhaps this was his birth name and that "Ben Daniels" was a stage name. However, this is rather speculative, so I've removed it.
  • The lead is almost too comprehensive. It is nearly 300 words long, whereas the body of the article is at about 850. The lead could be reduced drastically, keeping mentions of important and/or more notable roles, of course, but weeding out some of the less important.
    • Fixed: I've tried to shorten the lead.
  • The format Film title (year) becomes very monotonous after the third paragraph or so. Variation would greatly help reduce some of the visual clutter, as well; the repetitive parentheses are not easy on the eyes. Try phrasing it in different ways, such as "2005's Doom" or "In 1995, Daniels starred in Passion in the Desert..." etc.
    • Partly fixed: Do you mean in the lead, in the main text or both? For reasons of brevity, it's a bit hard to get away from the format in the lead. I've made some changes in the main text.
      • I was referring to the format used in both the lead and the body of the article. I still think it's monotonous, but it looks better now that the lead has been shortened.
  • is a British actor from England: this is not the first time I've seen nationality phrased in such a way, but I find it misleading. He was born in England, he grew up in England... if he still lives in England, wouldn't that make him English? Would it be easier to just say "is an English actor"? Does he have dual citizenship somewhere else in the UK, like Daniel Day-Lewis, that would facilitate such a phrase?
    • Comment: Well, strictly speaking there's no evidence that he is English. For all we know, his parents could be Welsh. As there's no consensus on this matter (see "Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom") I'd rather leave it as it is, unless you feel very strongly about it.
      • I was not aware that it was phrased that way because of lack of available information. Perhaps this should be made clear?
    • Comment: Is that necessary? It seems a little odd to add a footnote on the point. 01:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Hm, on second thought, it's not necessary; I believe you were correct initially. Hopefully when he becomes rich and (more) famous more information will be available to clue us in. :)
  • The Virgin Queen 2005): missing (
    • Fixed.
  • as well as the Best Supporting Actor award at the Whatsonstage.com Theatregoers' Choice Theatre Awards, in 2001 for his performance in the Arthur Miller play All My Sons: misplaced comma; perhaps reword as: "award at the 2001 Whatsonstage.com..."?
    • Fixed.
  • blond-haired and blue-eyed: I really don't think this is necessary. It just seems irrelevant.
    • Deleted: This was in the article before I started working on it.
  • According to Daniels, drama lessons at O-levels gave him a voice: is this a direct quote? It's vague enough to be out of place, although I understand it's directly related to his previously quoted "shy" comment. Perhaps paraphrase it another way; "gave him confidence" or something similar?
    • Comment: Yes, this was a quote from the article, so I think it best to leave it as it is.
      • If it is a direct quote, then it should have parentheses quotation marks.
    • Comment: I think parentheses are unnecessary. The sentence is clearly a paraphrase of a direct quote from Daniels as it begins "According to Daniels" and a reference is given. If a direct quote is used, it will be necessary to set it out like this: "According to Daniels, drama lessons at O-levels 'gave [him] a voice'". This disrupts the reading flow of the sentence somewhat. 01:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Ack, by parentheses I meant quotation marks (sorry about that; that was probably written before I had my morning tea), but it seems you got my meaning. I'll bow to you on this one in regards to disruption of reading flow -- you definitely have a point.
  • A fellow student, who later taught at the college, recalled that Daniels, whom he knew as Dave: very broken up and with information that is not strictly necessary; is it important that this guy would later teach at the college? Also, do we have a name for this fellow? And why "Dave"? Is that Daniels' middle name?
    • Comment: Have deleted the phrase about the person interviewed later teaching at the college. No, he isn't named in the article. Unfortunately, the article doesn't say anything else about why Daniels was known as "Dave" in school.
  • in perhaps one of the few films where he has the lead role: why the uncertainty of "perhaps"?
    • Fixed: This was in the original article before I expanded it.
  • métier: as a layman, I have no idea what this word means. It seems out of place. You could link to wikiquote if such a page exists or just switch it for another.
    • Fixed: Métier means "strength". But I've rephrased it.
  • He has treaded the boards... again, I'm clueless about this phrase. Further clarification?
    • Comment: "Treading the boards" is a common idiom for performing on stage: see, for instance, http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/tread+the+boards.html. I was trying to think of different ways of saying Daniels has "acted on stage" or "appeared in the theatre". I think the expression is well known enough.
      • It may be well known to those affiliated with British theatre, but a great majority of readers (including me) are not. :) It does seem to be a British saying, which others may find confusing.
    • Fixed. 01:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • ("Out? I've never been in"): this is a great quote, but it's not attributed to anything or anyone. It would be best if it were taken out of the parentheses and placed within its context. Daniels once stated/replied/commented in response to whatever, "Out? I've never been in"... or something. :)
    • Comment: I think it's clear enough from the context that this was a quotation from Daniels himself, and a reference is provided for it.
      • Again, it would be far more suitable if it were placed within its context. It is clear to you because you are the one who added it; the rest of us are not so lucky. I think, for the sake of comprehension and encyclopedic style, a simple explanatory intro of a half-sentence would do nicely.
    • Fixed. 01:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • They got together during a production of Joe Orton's Entertaining Mr Sloane: "got together" sounds clumsy. "Began seeing each other"?
    • Fixed: This was a quote from the source, but I've fixed it anyway.
      • If you are using direct quotes, please remember to mark them as such.
    • Comment: As I mentioned above, I don't think this is always necessary for paraphrases which are properly referenced. It would look and faintly quaint if the sentence read "They 'got together' during a production...", as if we were somewhat embarrassed by the phrase! ;-) 01:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I would prefer to have the "Personal life" section with the rest of the prose. The three large tables cut his biography in half, which does not work either aesthetically or for readability.
    • Comment: In general, my view is that the information in the "Personal life" section of such an article is less important than the subject's career and work, which is why my practice has been to put it at the end of the article. In Daniels' case, what should be emphasized is his work and not really his sexuality. What do you think?
      • Okay, I can go for that.

I'm going to put the article on hold for now to give you time to work on it. If you have any questions/comments/concerns, please do ask -- either here or on my talk page, whichever. Just let me know when you're at a stopping point and I'll review the article again. María (habla conmigo) 14:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I've put my responses to your suggestions above. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to your new comments above. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 01:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Cool, I appreciate your hard work on yet another Good Article and I definitely admire your reasoning in response to my suggestions. It's nice to come across someone who's willing to stick to their guns, but not in a bull-headed way (which tends to be my problem, actually). This article definitely fulfills the GA criteria and it has polished up nicely, so it passes in my eyes. Great work. :) María (habla conmigo) 14:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful! Thanks very much. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)