Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elisha Cuthbert/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Elisha Cuthbert

An article that has been on my worklist for a bit. It's gone through a peer review, is labelled as a good article (by me, before my involvement with the article, and only after it had been on the nominations page for quite a while without objection). I feel it's worthy, what do you think? Staxringold talkcontribs 02:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate and support Staxringold talkcontribs 02:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well-done, well-referenced, and well-deserving. (Is that a word?) RyanGerbil10 02:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Images of unclear/dubious origin, and there are too many given that they chiefly serve to illustrate her appearance. Section headings don't make much sense, current career is a subsection of later career, later career includes such higlights as finishing high school -she is only 24 - so the later career title seems a bit premature; it would probably be best to roll all the career sections into a single section. The language, in particular the grammar also needs work. Much like KaDee Strickland (which has a more logical article structure), I'm not really sure why this person is interesting after reading the article.--Peta 02:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As a quick statement to start with (to reply to your last bit) remember that personal beliefs on the overall "value" or "importance" of subject matter is not a factor in FAC. If an article is notable enough to be on Wikipedia (which she most certainly is) then she can rise to featured status. Second, the images provide necessary functions (Infobox image for general, standard look, 24 image for what she looks like in her most famous role, House of Wax image for the first role where she took on an extremely different look than usual). I have, however, removed the Lucky Girl image as it is not as useful for her Early Career as I first thought (thanks for the note). Finally, I've renamed the career sections, and re-added the 24 section that I agree was sensible. It was mentioned in a peer review, but I agree that this follows the KaDee Strickland model better. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm more than familiar with the FA criteria, my point is that the article is not engaging, which in my opinion is problem with 2a - the prose is clunky and overly chronological, x didy y, then she did z etc.--Peta 03:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I meant no disrespect, I was merely replying to a statement. Do you feel I've addressed some of your other issues, and if not what still needs work? As for copyediting, any help or suggestions you can give would be wonderful. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The tone is fannish, the grammar is bad, two examples:
She began her career in 1989 by modeling for various lines of children's clothing, also becoming a foot model.
She landed, in the same year, the part of Kim Bauer, the danger-prone daughter of CTU agent Jack Bauer (played by fellow Canadian Kiefer Sutherland), in the television series 24.
Ask a third party to copyedit it. According to the filmography she was in a lot of things before 2001, none of these are discussed, why? The inclusion of her height and weight is just insulting, she is not a race horse or a boxer.--Peta 22:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed the issues you just brought forth. Any chance you could be that third party? I'm not much of a copyeditor and I'm even worse at material I've read over and over again. There isn't a Wikiproject Copyediting or some other group I can approach, is there? Staxringold talkcontribs 23:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Lots of potential, and many good things in this article, but I agree with Peta's comments and while I won't presume to speak for her, I also find the prose clunky and will give a couple of examples. As a rule of thumb, try reading the text out loud. If there are sections comprised of a string of short sentences - clunky. If you read it out loud, the general rhythm of the article will become clearer, and if the rhythm sounds repetitive, that's another sign that some sentences/sections should be restructured. By this definition the "Recent career" and "Personal life" sections are most in need of revision but the overall article could do with some minor fixes.

  • Specific examples and points:
*"The Quiet was helmed by Jamie Babbit, best known for the teenage satire But I'm a Cheerleader. The Quiet was a change from Cuthbert’s past ventures.". Example of clunky. Two sentences in a row starting with the same two words, plus, in an article about Elisha Cuthbert, the first sentence is about Jamie Babbit only and is irrelevant. It's also not exactly clear why it marked "a change". Different type of character? Tested or stretched her abilities? Caused critics to acknowledge some depth in her acting that they hadn't seen before? The point could be a little stronger.
  • Removed entirely as even if it were better worded it would be an opinion. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
much improved, thanks. Rossrs 08:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is about Elisha Cuthbert therefore everything needs to be in some way related to her. Going off on tangents looks like filler - keep the spotlight on the subject, Cuthbert. Examples : Assessment of The Girl Next Door - "critics were divided... (about the film)" Did anyone say anything about Cuthbert? What they thought of the film belongs in the article about the film. The comments regarding House of Wax goes into even more detail about the film being a poor remake etc. We don't need to know that it was a second remake of a 1953 Vincent Price film. Once again, this is a tangent, as is all the critical comment about the film, and has nothing to do with Cuthbert. Despite the film's shortcomings did anyone notice Cuthbert and write anything about her? That would be more relevant.
  • Comments on a piece of work the subject contributed to are absolutely relevant. I've tried to tone down the depth a little bit, but Cuthbert is taking these roles in these films, so opinion of these films is relevant to a discussion of her. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. A general indication of how the work was received is relevant and quotes to support this are fine, but the problem is balance. There are 4 quotes in this article that specifically discuss critics' reactions to the films. None of these quotes is linked in any way to Cuthbert or her performances. The article currently contains zero quotes from critics about Cuthbert or any of her performances. This is an inbalance that should be addressed and is why the quotes as they currently appear, are irrelevant because they are not balanced by any critical discussion of Cuthbert's work in these roles. Rossrs 08:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed one of these quotes and replaced it with a quote about Cuthbert's role (it was Ebert's quote about GND), striking two birds with one stone. I'll try to dig around on this s'more today. Staxringold talkcontribs 09:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Finished off the remaining quotes in the HoW section so they now pertain to Cuthbert's performance. Staxringold talkcontribs 10:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly the type of expansion I was hoping for. Excellent! Thank you Rossrs 13:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
*words such as "tanked" are unencyclopedic unless used in a quote. For our own text we should use something less colloquial such as "failed" perhaps. "slated" should be "scheduled". "Helmed" should be "directed". There are other examples.
  • The "Recent career" section is quite awkward. "Little is known about the second film, He Was a Quiet Man, at this point" - we know the film's title and that Cuthbert will play a quadraplegic. Isn't that enough? If anything has to be said about this film, it would be better to leave it at that. An encyclopedia should not be drawing attention to what we don't know or what hasn't happened. Rossrs 09:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
it's getting there. Rossrs 08:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the changes you've made are very good, so please persevere. Another problem : why the section for 24? I know it was her first role and her breakthrough but it could easily fit into the career section. I think singling out a role or a production with its own header is POV and in this case the discussion of 24 is very brief anyway. The whole Career section could easily be absorbed into one section - it's not overly long. On the subject of 24 this section is written out of sequence. It goes 1. Cuthbert moves to Hollywood. 2. Cuthbert gets a role 3. Cuthbert gave herself a deadline... she's already got the role, what's the deadline about...it's backtracking. The paragraph should be rewritten as 1. 3. 2. followed by the fact that the show was well received, so that it follows a chronological line of thought. Rossrs 08:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of looking like a lunatic, since I rewrote most of the article, I'm opposing. The article is a tad too much on the short side, and needs a bit more work. Maybe a year or two ago, the article would've stood a chance at FA status like Chuck Palahniuk's, but I'd like to think the standards for FACs have risen since then. I'll definitely re-nominate it (unless it somehow makes it through this time) once I get in the mood to spruce it up. There's not too much that needs to be done aside from expansion. --Antrophica 09:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you please pose actionable objections? Saying the article is near perfect, but objecting, and yet not saying what specifically you object to makes it difficult to improve the article to satisfy your objections. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
In detail:
  • I realize I focused on elaborating on the films in many instances instead of Cuthbert's performances. Specifically, there ought to be more quotes regarding the critical perception of her performances.
  • The article seems too short to be a FA. Expansion needs to be done to bring it up at least to the length of the KaDee Strickland article.
  • I favor minimalism, so I tend to separate longer sentences into shorter fragments, which I suppose isn't a suitable way to write an encyclopedia. I don't reckon this issue is too prevalent, albeit.
That's about it. --Antrophica 07:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Opening needs to be longer (2 paragraphs at least). You might want to use Katie Holmes as the benchmark to shoot for. Give her work on 24 its own section, since that's her most notable work. See if you can also discuss more of her childhood etc. Tombseye 16:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know about giving 24 its own subsection. I'm pretty much neutral when it comes to film headers, but Rossrs may want to chime in on this. --Antrophica 16:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • He did, in saying "I think singling out a role or a production with its own header is POV and in this case the discussion of 24 is very brief anyway." I don't really mind either way, and I like the structure of having a lead-off section for the career section (and 24 is certainly her most notable role to date). Staxringold talkcontribs 19:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)