Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emma Watson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:19, 26 January 2008.

[edit] Emma Watson

previous FAC
Check external links

I believe that all the improvements that could be extracted from the previous FAC have been implemented. With the details of Ballet Shoes now integrated this is an ideal time to develop the article to FA status. Happy‑melon 21:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Update Checking back, and noting that Ref 2 is still there. It would be nice if a more reliable source was found to replace it. BuddingJournalist 00:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: as Ballet Shoes is a film, it's supposed to be italicized; I see it several times in the article where the title is both with and without italics. It also concerns me that the article is semi-protected. Is it stable (WP:FACR 1e) or is that to protect it from vandalizing middle schoolers? María (habla conmigo) 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Y Done - all instances italicised if appropriate. Happy‑melon 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support.

  • Both reinforced the notion that her character, Hermione, should romance Ron Weasley: this doesn't seem supported by the following citation, and in any case I'm not sure what it means -- does it mean that the actresses told Emma Watson that they agreed with her analysis of the characters? If so I think this could be rephrased.
  • Can you identify the people in the shot from Ballet Shoes? I.e. "left to right" at the front of the list, or however you like.
    • Y Done - "right to left" added. Happy‑melon 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems odd to call The Tale of Despereaux "her first non-Harry Potter project" after talking about Ballet Shoes. Isn't Ballet Shoes her first non-Harry Potter project? Or do you mean first film?
    • Despereaux was announced first, although it will be released after Ballet Shoes. Does this need clarification? Happy‑melon 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I suggest changing "whilst"; see Wikipedia:MOS#Avoid contested vocabulary for the MOS point of view on words like that.
    • Y Done - all instances changed by the LOCE copyeditors. Happy‑melon 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Although I think the focus on interviews with Watson rather than Radcliffe or Grint is entirely right, there's one moment where I'd like to hear their point of view: Watson maintains that there were never any romantic feelings involved. Surely they've been asked this question in their interviews, and any reader interested in Watson is going to wonder what they said.
  • I think it would be better to expand PPE to "Philosophy, Politics and Economics"; I know it's linked but readers who don't know it (most, I would think) won't want to see the article, they'll just want to know what it stands for.
    • Y Done - expanded by the LOCE copyeditors. Happy‑melon 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Watson says her greatest wish is "to have two friends, which stay – people with you can always be together and who don't scoot, because you are a film star." I assume this is an error in the source, probably for "people with whom you"; it reads very oddly to me. You've transcribed it correctly from the source, but this is so jarring that if you can't source it elsewhere I think this should probably go.
    • Works for me - A {{sic}} might be needed but poor grammar on the part of the source is not our problem, IMO. Happy‑melon 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I know it's a little early in her career, but is there sufficient material in academic film criticism that mentions her yet to have a "comments and criticism" section? I took a look at the Bette Davis article, which is an FA; of course there is an almost infinite amount written about Davis. I tried some digging for myself on Google Books, and what little I found was more about Hermione Granger than about Watson, as you might expect. For example, Lana A. Whited's The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter: Perspectives on a Literary Phenomenon has some material. I know this is a long shot but I thought I'd ask.
    • Short answer: "no"!! Happy‑melon 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I noticed that a Wikipedia editor has provided a translation of an interview, cited in a footnote. Would this be counted as a reliable source? Is it covered in a policy or guideline? While I've no reason to doubt the translation, and my rusty German confirms most of it, I do wonder what policy says here. I found the answer in a link provided in the previous FAC.
  • I also noticed in the previous some discussion of her position at 98 in an FHM hot 100 list of sexy women. This was discussed on the talk page, I see, and briefly thought to be in error, but ultimately found to be factual. Was it removed for some other reason? I don't see it in the article now.
    • I doubt that this detail would be in Indrian's draft :D. Happy‑melon 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Switched to support. Mike Christie (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
In the light of the opposes below, I'll just comment that I don't personally share Indrian's and Melty Girl's objections, though I agree with them that some of the material (e.g. the comment about kissing Grint) is the sort of thing that would appear in an article in Seventeen. I'm not sure any of our content policies directly forbid this material. I also wonder about precedent; have there been FAs on famous people that included material like this? If Indrian is willing, it might be useful to take up his offer in order to have a version to compare, but I am not yet convinced that this content renders the article unsuitable for FA. Mike Christie (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not an issue of content policy; it is an issue of quality. Featured articles are supposed to be the best encyclopedia articles on the site. The less an article reads like it belongs in an encyclopedia, the less this ideal is realized. Anyway, sometime today or tomorrow I will start working on a revision. I reiterate that most of the article is very good; it just needs a little polish and a little less of Watson's comments on tangential topics. Indrian (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me be a little clearer about my objections to some of the content. An encyclopedia article about an actor should primarily cover the actor's career/acting: the performances, the critical response to those performances, the degree of success of the films/shows/plays, awards, the actor's influences and who they influenced, whether they affected the craft, the things they're most noted for by critics. Yes, it should also give the basic facts of their personal origins and primary relationships, but the article should not overly dwell on the feelings of the subject about their life, and certainly not how they feel about everyone they've worked with. (It's on this basis that I have in the past targeted the whole "Professional relationships" section as superfluous; and I haven't seen such a section in other FAs.) Not only are Watson's feelings about colleagues gossip, which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, but they're off-topic -- this is an article about Emma Watson, not all these other people. And our sources should be reliable publications, not the website of Emma Watson, which is not neutral and is probably co-authored by PR people. There's a balance to be struck, and it's off here. This is an encyclopedia; it should be a sober, dispassionate, outside view of the subject. While much of the article's content overlaps with magazine content -- Seventeen would discuss her acting too! -- the focus and language should be very different here. --Melty girl (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to note that I don't disagree with any of this - I simply dispair as to how to achieve this while leaving something in the article! I will be very interested to read Indrian's revised version. I do, however, take issue with the reliability of http://www.emmawatsonofficial.com - let's not lose track of what we're citing to this website. Reviews, commentary, critical reception - of course this can't be sourced to her website, as it's certainly not going to be neutral. But please explain to me why her official site is unqualified to note that she will be involved in The Tale of Desperaux? Or that she was born in Paris? I just picked the first two references, but an official site would seem to be the most reliable source for pure, objective facts. Who is going to know Emma Watson's birthday better than Emma Watson? If the question was "Where did Watson go to school" and two possible sources were "Where I went to school" by Emma Watson, or "Where Emma Watson went to school" by the BBC or The Times, I would say the former is the more reliable source of the two, although of course I would include both if they were available. Am I missing something here? Happy‑melon 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to echo Mike's thoughts here. What would an "encyclopedic" article on Emma Watson look like? I just have no idea what encyclopedic means in this context. Would Britannica ever have such an article, and if it did would anyone even be interested in the way they'd present it? Over the summer Emma Watson was frequently a top-100 article, read by demonstrable millions. Why do we have an encyclopedia article on Watson? Is it not because she was cast as a member of one of the most iconic trios in popular literature? Is not her relationship with the other members of that iconic trio pertinent information? I agree that you could have too much of such info, but I think you could also have too little. --JayHenry (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
As I said above, there's a balance to be struck, but I found it to be off here. Jay, what do you think of Indrian's version of the article? --Melty girl (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Melty! (Hey when is your next FAC coming through ;) I haven't had time to give a detailed look at both versions or to put a huge amount of thought into it. It looks like Indrian's version is based off the premise that Watson's own feeling about her film roles are irrelevant. I'm not sure I accept that as a valid biographical premise. I'd certainly want to know what Ronald Reagan felt about his presidency, or what Ernest Hemingway thought of his books. With Miss Watson, her film roles are the reason she's here. I want to know what she thinks of that! I do agree that it's a balance, but I think Indrian's version goes too far. If nothing else losing the bit about the dentures -- what an incisive little nugget about life as a child actress! I would suggest that the issues with Emma Watson at the moment are prose issues, rather than content. It wouldn't seem so Seventeen-y I think, if the sections weren't as formulaic. I.e. facts about movie 1, "later Watson said..." her opinions about movie 1. Facts about movie 2. "Later Watson said..." her opinions about movie 2. So as far as the Indrian version integrates things smoothly, I think that's something to work toward. Hmm... depending on the status of my other projects I'd enjoy hashing this one out. Be fun to work on an article that gets onto that top-100 list. --JayHenry (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I must once again voice my opposition to this article as I did before on the grounds that it still reads like an article in Seventeen rather than an encyclopedia article, running afoul of criteria 4 relating to summary style. The article is not an interview with Miss Watson in which she tells us her feelings on kiss scenes, co-stars, and favorite dramatic moments in her movies; it is an encyclopedia article chronicling her life and career. Each individual Harry Potter movie summary is incredibly short and could probably be combined into one or two broader headings that do not break up the text so much. The "post-mortem" comments on how Miss Watson felt about working on each movie should be elminated, though there is certainly nothing wrong with sumamrizing at some point how she viewed her experience in the movies. As I stated in the last FAC, there is absolutely no need to give a quote about what she thought about having to kiss a co-star; no professional encyclopedia would include this kind of gossip and not because it would make the article too long. I would be happy to lend a hand in getting this article free of these few blemishes to what otherwise truly is a feature quality work, so just give the word and I will create a revision as a user subpage and work towards hashing out something we can all be happy with. Indrian (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Hit me! I'd be delighted to see any such suggestion. Happy‑melon 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Ok, my revision is done and can be found at User:Indrian/Emma Watson. Just a few notes. The references may be a little messed up because I did not bother to reformat any as part of this run. Also, the headings were created on the fly, and there may be better heading names out there. I do strongly feel, however, that the individual film headings broke up the text to much and would be opposed to reinstating them. Finally, I know Happy-melon, that you are concerned about length, but I would not let that worry you. There is no length requirement for FA, and this version of the article presents all the relevant details of Watson's life with good sourcing and is featured quality in terms of comprehensiveness in my opinion. Note that while your version is longer, it is not necessarily more comprehensive because much of the material I have cut is tangential and does not add anymore insight into her life and career thus far. This version is, of course, by no means final, and all feedback is appreciated. You may be able to convince me that some of what I cut truly is necessary or could be readded in a way that speaks to my objections, but there is no way that the article as it currently stands will get my vote. Hope this helps. Indrian (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
        • So, is there going to be any discussion on this, or is this FAC just going to die due to opposition? Indrian (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I was waiting for you and Happy-melon to work out the major points of disagreement on the draft so that it could be implemented in the actual article and officially considered in this FAC. Or do you guys want to proceed differently? BTW, it looks like JayHenry is interested in helping out too. --Melty girl (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
            • That was my assumption as well, but Happy-melon has not commented on the changes yet. Until I get some feedback from him, I cannot really proceed, so I was hoping he might pop on at some point to comment. Indrian (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
              • I have looked at your version, Indrian, and it has clarified for me the kind of improvements you were talking about. I agree it's an improvement, though there may be some places where you might have cut just a little too much. Anyway, I agree that we should wait for Happy-melon before getting into details; we need to review what's actually at the article, and your version isn't the article yet. Mike Christie (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • ←Sorry to keep everybody waiting. While Indrian's draft has caused me to have the penny-drop moment and finally realise what Melty girl et al have been complaining about all this time, I agree with those who feel it is a little harsh. I have my own draft going at User:Happy-melon/Emma Watson, proceeding from the current version down, like Indrian's. Where Indrian has been deliberately aggressive, I have tried to be overly conservative, so that we can come to a happy medium somewhere in the middle. This diff indicates my cuts so far, including (probably to great rejoicement) the entire "Professional relationships" section. I would be very grateful for any comments as to where I have been too soft, or indeed too harsh. Perhaps editors would like to mark (using <font color="red"></font> tags) further phrases they would like to see cut. Once we get the right content, organising it properly should follow fairly easily. Apologies once again for the delay. Happy‑melon 12:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll post here for now, but Happy-melon, where would you like comments to go? At the talk page of your draft? Anyway, my main comment on your revision is that I think there is legitimate encyclopedic content in the nature of her prolonged involvement with the same cast over many years of her childhood. I agree with Indrian that the tone of the material you've cut is not right, but how about taking all that cut material, putting it back into "Professional relationships" or some similarly-titled section, and making it less gossipy in tone? For example, this cut sentence: "her parents did their best to make her feel comfortable and that her biggest thrill was getting to know her adult co-stars" is clearly inappropriate; but I think it's encyclopedic to indicate that the child-actor experience was not a problem for her because of her family's support, and that it was enjoyable for her, partly because the other actors were supportive. You don't need the "biggest thrill" approach, or all the quotes (perhaps you don't need any of the quotes); but child-actors are an unusual breed and a note or too about the impact the experience had on her is OK, I think. Mike Christie (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
        • The last FAC essentially drowned in its own ink, so I would definitely recommend that comments on the drafts be made on the appropriate talk pages. I have created another draft, User:Happy-melon/Emma Watson/sandbox, which currently contains the offcuts removed from my main draft at User:Happy-melon/Emma Watson. Please feel free to have a play around with these phrases and see if you can make something of them - I'm not entirely sure what you're saying can/should be done with them. Happy‑melon 15:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While many problems I had last time around have now been addressed, I must second what Indrian says above. I had these same concerns last time as well, and the problems remain, i.e. a paragraph on what Watson thinks about her co-stars, etc. It's not relevant, and it is more like a Seventeen article than an encyclopedia entry. I hope the nominator will take up Indrian on the kind offer to do a serious revision. --Melty girl (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I certainly intend to. Happy‑melon 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok maybe I can give you some stuff to start with. Understand these are just expamples of thing that need to be addressed over the whole article.
    • "She rose to prominence playing Hermione Granger, one of three starring roles in the Harry Potter film series." came instead of rose, portrayal instead of playing, lose the second part of the sentence.
      • Disagree. The word changes are a lateral move, and the second part of the phrase is needed to explain who Hermoine Granger is -- not everyone knows! BTW, I think the indent of this comment list is misleading. It doesn't appear to be from Indrian, but the indent makes it appear as if it is. If this is not Indrian's elaboration, the whole list should be deindented. --Melty girl (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I also disagree - we had this discussion in the previous FAC. Note that I have moved these comments to the end and deindented them, to avoid the confusion that Melty girl points out. Happy‑melon 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't there be a Internet Movie Database link in the infobox?
      • No. This was briefly added, then removed from the actor infobox's parameters. If you want to read the long debate about it, go to Template talk:Infobox actor. --Melty girl (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • "Watson outperformed thousands of other candidates for the role of Hermione" don't really need this in the lead.
    • I think "Hermione Granger casting" would fit better in the Early life section.
      • I disagree. Early life is supposed to be pre-career. --Melty girl (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • "Watson added that during the production of both films she had lost several baby teeth and had to wear dentures to avoid continuity issues." trivia
    • "Watson said she found comfort in already knowing many of the Prisoner of Azkaban crew, who had also worked on Philosopher's Stone." needs ref
    • Start with the date the films began production rarther than when it was released.
      • What does this mean? --Melty girl (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Re-phare some of her quote so they aren't quite as long. For example "Watson's commitment to the final two films was confirmed in March 2007 by Warner Brothers. She said, "I could never let [the role of] Hermione go – she is my hero! I love her too much and love what playing her has meant to me. I am excited and honoured to be finishing what I started and playing her in all seven of the films." could become "Watson's has confirmed her commitment to the final two films. She has been reported to be "excited and honoured" to be playing Hermione in all seven Harry Potter the films, and has described her as her hero."
    • Not sure you need the Professional relationships section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I just wanted to let the powers that be in the FAC process know that the primary work on this article has migrated to user subpages and is ongoing. I believe we are close to a final version everyone will be happy with and the lack of activity on the FAC page should not be taken as a sign that this FAC is dying. Indrian (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Objection I think "Watson outperformed thousands of other candidates for the role of Hermione.[2]" sounds very POV. the source (2) - is not very well written, - more importantly however it does not reference that statement at all. - Let me explain why "outperformed" is wrong - others may have been "better actors" overall but been less fit for the specific role. So- both on the count of wrongly referenced and POV, I object against this article as long as it contains this statement in the lead. I hope I was clear, I am very able to re-explain, I am very amenable to discuss this further, thank you for reading. --Kiyarrllston 18:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure this word is a problem. The goal of an audition is to be the best and most appropriate actor for a specific part. The winner of a specific part has outperformed all other actors for that specific part in the minds of the people who have the part to give. If someone isn't a fit for that specific role, that means they were not able to perform adequately for that specific part. The POV in question is the filmmakers' POV; Wiki merely reports the fact that in the opinion of the filmmakers, Watson outperformed all other comers. --Melty girl (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, it's an easy fix - both instances removed from the article without damage. Incidentally Melty, is there anything you'd like to comment on from the current version of User:Happy-melon/Emma Watson, before I reorganise it and insert it into the article? Happy‑melon 19:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Great, I will take a look this evening after work. --Melty girl (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I think I agree, Melty. "Outperformed" is a loose cannon of a term, often thrown about by papparazzi and definitely an actor's agent. My suggestion would be something like "In her audition, Watson proved to be an appropriate choice based on efficient acting skills and accurate age and appearance." or something a little less... clinical, maybe? --rm 'w avu 02:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Um, that's a little crazy. The simple fact is that she beat out more competitors than most actors compete against for parts, and that's a notable, factual career win. It need not be quite so downplayed to be NPOV. And what are "efficient acting skills"? -- she's an actor, not a bean counter. But it's moot anyway -- "outperformed" had already been changed when you commented. --Melty girl (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Melon, I don't see anything major I would want to comment on in Indrian's edit, which I think is very good. There are only little things like heading names, paragraph breaks, and minor wording issues, etc. I will wait to see how you incorporate it into the actual article. --Melty girl (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree; I think Indrian's work is good. When you get a chance to update I'll review again too. Mike Christie (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe the word was a problem and I remove my objection as it is now gone - I think "was approved in an audition process involving ___ people" or similar would have been a proper substitution.--Kiyarrllston 23:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have gone live with the version cooked up in my sandbox, so I would now appreciate comments and criticisms of this fresh version. Happy‑melon 13:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- I have made a few copyedits, and will continue to read over the new version this evening. I expect I will remove my opposition soon. One suggestion: read WP:OVERLINK and remove some of what the policy talks about with linking "plain English words" -- the idea is to link for context to the article's subject, not offer a dictionary function to readers. For example, I just removed links on "grandmother" and "divorce". If readers do actually need to look those words up in the dictionary, they can do that on their own. I think there are other links you could remove below the Early life section, which is as far as I could get for now. --Melty girl (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is one more sentence I find objectionable: there is no need for Watson's opinion of her new co-stars in the latest movie, that does not really add anything. I will have to take another careful look tomorrow, but I think that may be the last sentence I have a serious objection to. I am close to being able to support. Indrian (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It doesn't seem like you kept all that much from Indrian's edit, though admittedly, it's hard to keep track at this point. But I saw many trivial things still in the article, so I dove into the Career section, trying to help out with an edit showing you my concerns and reincorporating some of Indrian's edits (though not all). I won't explain everything I did in the edit, since it's somewhat self-evident and goes along with sentiments I've shared before, but here are some notes on my edit (perhaps out of sequence)... Indrian's paragraph about the success of Goblet of Fire simply had more brilliant writing; it better framed events, so I put it back in, with one quote from your version inserted. Sorry, but it is more dull to simply state the year of the film's release and unnecessary to say that Watson reprised her role as Hermione; Indrian's alternative there presented the information in a much stronger way (I'm really surprised you didn't use it). His next paragraph about Phoenix was phrased more forcefully as well; I don't understand why you kept in the trivia about the other actors instead -- we don't need a sentence about what Watson thinks of Staunton and Lynch's peformances; we need to hear about what they (or critics) think of Watson's performance! Also, I think that Indrian's break up of the Career section into subsections made more sense (although I did not like the first section's title). I do not think the casting paragraph deserves to be a section on its own; I did a rearrangement of the section headings. Next, I think the Ballet Shoes section had a great deal of trivial content, though I didn't lose as much of it as Indrian did. Announcement dates of a projects are pretty trivial; what's more important is when something is coming/came out, and possibly when it was filmed -- the ITV detail was trivial too. And much of the casting stuff was also trivial and overly fawning (probably because the source is official publicity, not independent coverage). The casting of such a small project shouldn't be dwelt on over the news of what the project is and how it was received. The fact that it was a TV movie and received poor reviews also means that it should not be overly emphasized in the article, because it is not a major part of her career. I tightened the Despereaux bit too -- again, the announcement date is simply too trivial for mention. The reader will start to get lost in dates, and you want the important dates to be remembered. Above that, you'll see I also removed the bit about her awards panel duty; sorry, but winning an award is notable while giving one once is not. And there are a few other trivial, navel-gazing things I removed, but I did incorporate many things that Indrian's draft removed. Take a look at my edit and see what you think. I also touched up the Personal life section, but the changes are not as significant. I look forward to hearing what you and Indrian think of my changes... I really want to support this article, but I just could not given in the shape it was in, so I spent considerable time trying to help improve it. --Melty girl (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou to everyone for your active assistance on this article, rather than being the all-too-common sit-back-and-expect-results FAC reviewer. I think I like all of your modifications, Melty, with the singular exception of "Harry Potter begins". I don't really see why this can't be left as "Harry Potter casting" or some such. Other than that, great! Happy‑melon 09:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Support. You're quite welcome. If these major changes are going to stand, I can support. Perhaps someone can think of a better wording for the idea of "Harry Potter begins" (casting is only the first paragraph). Cheers, Melty girl (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Support. Thanks to Happy-melon for his willingness to compromise and thanks to Melty girl for making the edits that brought the article the final few changes it needed to get over the hump. Things look to be in good shape now. Indrian (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • As I stated twice above, ref 2 is not a reliable source. Please replace this with one that is.
      • Y Done. Happy‑melon 16:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • "Although critics largely turned away from Radcliffe's acting talent, increasingly labeling him as wooden" I'm not sure "turned away" is the best phrase there. Also, are you sure that Radcliffe's performance was that universally panned?
    • "2006 found Watson playing Hermione..." I'm not a big fan of the construct, "_year_ found...". It also puts a numeral at the start of the sentence, which looks awkward (next sentence starts with a year too).
      • Since I wrote this, I'll chime in. This is a way to vary sentence structure, and it is grammatically correct. Therefore, I don't see a problem. What you are personally not a fan of isn't a make-or-break issue for FAC. --Melty girl (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I never said it was a make-or-break issue for FAC. I'm just giving suggestions to improve the article. Of course, anyone's free to ignore these suggestions. A sentence that starts with a numeral should generally be recast. "_year_ found" is an inelegant solution to varying sentence structure...there are better ways to do so. BuddingJournalist 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Y Done I have rewritten this, not because of the construction, which I also consider acceptable, but to add a bit of context. Happy‑melon 16:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Is there a way some of the references can be moved to a spot immediately after punctuation? It gets distracting having a blue number in the middle of a sentence. ("the film stars Watson as white-blonde[36] aspiring actress Pauline Fossil," -> "the film stars Watson as white-blonde aspiring actress Pauline Fossil,[36]")
      • This seems more like personal preference than a legitimate MOS issue, unless you can point to a guideline that says otherwise. Footnotes should be placed after what they document. --Melty girl (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Again, I never said it was a legitimate MOS issue. Why are you putting words in my mouth? I'm just saying that as a reader, it gets distracting to see numbers in the middle of a sentence not offset by punctuation. And in the example I gave, placing the footnote after the comma is perfectly fine, seeing as how the given source covers everything prior. Moreover, I'm not sure why you're taking such an adversarial tone...
          • Y Done Here I agree with BuddingJournalist, and so I have moved all references to be after punctuation (I think only about three or four were affected). Happy‑melon 16:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Oops, forgot to comment back to BuddingJournalist. I'm not going to respond to each of your responses to me, because they've already been resolved by others. Just wanted to clarify that I did not mean to be overly adversarial anymore than you did when you pointed out your problems with choices made in the article; I simply disagreed with you. More importantly, I never said that you asserted that your comments were based in the MOS. What I was trying to point out was that your personal wording preferences—and some of them certainly were personal preferences rather than true copywriting or MOS problems—are not make or break issues in FAC. The FA criteria is what we're measuring against here, not whether you personally like a grammatically-correct construction like "2005 found Watson..." Different writing styles, many quite effective, abound in a project like Wikipedia. And if the idea being presented is clear, then it ain't broke. That's not to say my writing is perfect; but this is still something to keep in mind at FAC. --Melty girl (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • "the eldest of three sisters around whom the story revolves" A bit awkward.
      • This phrase is grammatically correct. I see no need to fix it unless you can point out a real problem or a better alternative. --Melty girl (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, it's grammatically correct. However, "around whom the story revolves" is a bit awkward. Also, as it's written, it's unclear whether it's suggesting that the story revolves around the three sisters or the eldest of the three sisters. Just because a sentence is grammatically correct doesn't mean it can't be written better.
          • "[,]the eldest of three sisters[,] around whom the story revolves" improves it a bit, much better would be "the story revolves around the eldest of three sisters, [...]" even better would be "the story centers on the eldest of three sisters [...]" - Does anyone disagree?--Kiyarrllston 03:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
            • I can see absolutely nothing wrong with this construction, indeed I applaud it as a particularly fine example of english grammar and syntax. Happy‑melon 16:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
              • Thankyou :D --Kiyarrllston 15:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • "Watson's next new role is the character of Princess Pea, a starring voice part in animated film The Tale of Despereaux." Awkward sentence in need of fixing.
      • This sentence is grammatically correct. Again, can you point out a real problem or a better alternative? --Melty girl (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
        • First of all "next new" together are[is] terrible. "Watson's is set to have a starring role in The Tale of Despereaux, an animated movie, as the voice of Princess Pea." - is this better?--Kiyarrllston 03:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Y Done This has been rephrased. Happy‑melon 16:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Glad to have helped.--Kiyarrllston 15:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The last paragraph strays into trivia-territory in my opinion, especially since they're just randomly cobbled together. Some of the facts could be merged elsewhere. How has her self-described "feminism" influenced her take on Hermione? Have Johnny Depp/Julia Roberts influenced her acting style? On the other hand, having a cat named Bubbles and liking France as a holiday destination are quite trivial.
    • To strengthen the argument for fair use, the caption of the screenshot should probably mention that this is the scene where she punches Malfoy. BuddingJournalist 22:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't believe the fair-use rationale for this image is under any question, or that it provides any useful addition to the article to mention it. Happy‑melon 16:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The refs that link to specific news items on "Emma Watson's Official Website" no longer work. Presumably, they've changed their URLs since these were last accessed in fall of 2007. BuddingJournalist 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Y Done I've cut down the use of the newsline, and updated the three remaining references. I belive, though I'm not sure, that these references are now static. Happy‑melon 17:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of use of fair use image Image:EmmaWatsonBalletShoes.jpg. What's the point? You can't really even make out that it's her, and the fact that (according to the fu rationale) she bleached her hair for the part isn't even mentioned in the article. The scene depicted isn't even mentioned on the article. Totally superfluous image and unnecessary. Same applies to Image:WatsonPoA copy.png, which similarly isn't discussed at all in the text. Totally useless application of fair use images. We already have to free content images on the article showing her appearance. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The fact that an actor bleaches their hair for a part is trivial and typical for the profession; that is why another editor and I favored removing a sentence about that. But I think it is entirely useful to see this actor, best known for her role in Harry Potter, performing in a different role, from a different time period, with a different appearance -- so I think the image is valid. I do not know the full scope of your work on Wikipedia, but whenever I've encountered you, you're trying to curb (end?) the fair use of copyrighted images. But fair use has not been eliminated from Wiki yet, so couldn't the rationale simply be worded better? --Melty girl (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Please keep your comments focused on my arguments, rather than questioning me thank you. As to my arguments, I noted that neither image is discussed in the text. Thus, the images are decorative only. There's little point to them. We already know what she looks like (and arguably better) from the two free images on the article, one of which is very high resolution [1]. With Image:EmmaWatsonBalletShoes.jpg, we can't even discern her face. We don't need the two fair use images in this case. I was surprised that Image:EmmaWatsonBalletShoes.jpg was not used in Ballet Shoes (2007 TV film), which has no screenshot. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • (Edit conflict) The note about Watson bleaching her hair was in the article the last time I read it. I'll readd it if you would like. When choosing the PoA image I deliberately ignored several better-lit moments because this is the scene where she punches Draco. Would you like this to be mentioned in the caption? With regards "you can't really even make out that it's her", there's really very little we can do about this when we are required to use low-resolution images. Despite this, I believe this claim to be somewhat exaggerated - Watson is clearly identifiable from the image, as is her hair. Happy‑melon 19:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
      • If this be the scene where she punches Draco, then get a screenshot of her punching Draco and discuss the significance of that scene in the text. The image shows three of the characters just standing there, doing nothing. Hardly useful. There's nothing significant about this screenshot. I.e., useless. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
        • What, exactly, is that supposed to mean? An example of what you would like to see in the text would be very useful to me. Happy‑melon 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
          • You say this screenshot is significant because it's from the scene where she punches Draco. Yet, in the screenshot, there's no punching going on. Just three characters standing there. Get a screenshot of the punching actually going on and then discuss the scene and it's significance to the story line in the text (hopefully beyond just plot summary style). --Hammersoft (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Saying what? I can get an image if you want: it won't be as good because it's a stage punch and it's a fast-moving action shot. But I have no idea what you think the article has to say around it. Happy‑melon 19:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Never mind. I have removed both fair use images. Happy‑melon 20:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Objection struck, assuming the images not restored on the same grounds they were previously on the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Happy‑melon 20:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Slight ppose I am not convinced this article should be a FA. Also, you could surely add some pictures from the movies she played in.Nergaal (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Just to let you know, FAC is not a vote. If you have an actionable objection under wikipedia policy or the FA guidelines I invite you to post it so that editors may attempt to address your concerns. Otherwise, I doubt your objection will have any effect. Indrian (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Note to the director: Just in case this FAC has gotten too long to read... This FAC, which has been open for 17 days, currently has three supports, while all opposes were addressed and subsequently stricken, except for this new, seemingly unactionable oppose (that ignores the above debate about screenshots, which were all removed to satisfy an anti-fair use editor). I noticed that the nominator is on Wikibreak, so I just wanted to note that all valid opposition has been addressed and reversed. --Melty girl (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I notice that the director recently promoted 17 articles and this was not one of them. I would hate to see this go down after all the compromise and work that went on here. If the powers that be feel there is still a problem with the article preventing promotion, I would like to know what it is so the final hurdles can be overcome. Indrian (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the article is slight, and fawning in places. Its basically a list of events, and has little insight. For example towards the end it mentions "She calls herself a feminist", and cites this twice, but leaves it hanging with no specifics or substantiation. "has a cat named Bubbles, and lists France as her favourite holiday destination"? Mmm, not very interesting. Ceoil (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
In the first FAC, given the state of the article then, I agreed with your assessment that it was basically a list of events and fawning and had little substance. But I disagree now; now there's critics' opinion of Watson's performances and the place of the HP films in the world of movies has also been added. She's a child star, so I don't think you can expect much more in length because her short career is narrow in scope, and you can't expect anything about her influence or legacy yet. Still, she's a bona fide, if young, movie star, and I think the scope of the article is appropriate and FA is possible for the subject matter. MUCH of the fawning and trivia previously in the article has been removed in a long process of rewriting and compromise (see above). I would be interested to know more specifically what kind of "insight" you think should be added to this article that would make it more fully encyclopedic about Watson.
Your specific comments relate to two things in the Personal life section. First, as far as I can see, the feminist comment is only there once, not twice; I think it is perfectly appropriate (and common) to state a subject's political orientation in a bio, and that's what this is. There's no need to go on further about it: she states this as her creed, and that's worth including. As for the name of her cat and her holiday destination, you are not the only person who's thought this too trivial. I was on the fence, and saved it because the nominator favors it, and it is the Personal life section after all; but you've convinced me that it should go, so I've removed it. --Melty girl (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I Agree with Ceoil an encyclopedia and a tabloid should have very different kinds of tone - "fawning" is not encyclopedic
I looked at the sources for the feminist comment "
PARADE: “I’m a bit of a feminist,” she proclaims. “I’m very competitive and challenging.”" - "a bit of a feminist" is far from "a feminist"
YOU:""I am such a feminist on this. It drives me nuts when friends say, 'We can't continue because sport gives you muscles and it's so unattractive, and you get sweaty.'" "Feminist on this" is far from "a feminist"
So... that was wrongly referenced.
--Kiyarrllston 02:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "fawning." It is not "fawning" to describe someone as either a feminist or not a feminist. Whether the article is fawning has nothing to do with whether it says she is a feminist or not. Second, she's said both that she's a "bit of a feminist" and "such a feminist" -- these two statements have different emphases, but neither contradicts the assertion that "she calls herself a feminist," as the article says. Additionally, her saying, "I'm such a feminist on this," does not preclude the fact that she also is a feminist on other issues; she may or may not be, but it is unmistakeable that she is a feminist in at least some way. Bottom line: the sources do indeed support the statement that "she calls herself a feminist." I think it shows POV to want to strike something like this fact. --Melty girl (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
let's see - if personality is a good thing - and feminism is a personality trait, then to say someone has a personality trait is to say a good thing about them - definition of fawning (from memory): to flatter immensely to the point of ridiculousness
I don't know if you know what being a feminist is. - It's a political affiliation. And like being a liberal is different from "being a bit liberal" and "being liberal in regards to this" - so the same goes for feminist. Emma Watson's comments do not support the labeling of her as a feminist - being "very competitive" and "sporty" is not being a feminist.
I hope I was clear, thank you for reading my comment. I very much appreciate your response.
--Kiyarrllston 03:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
No, feminism is not a personality trait. And to many people, terming someone a feminist is an insult. So no, it is absolutely not "fawning" to state, "she calls herself a feminist." About the accuracy of the statement, did she "call herself a feminist"? Absolutely, she did, both "a bit of a" and "such a," both of which are turns of phrase, as in when a fan says, "I'm a bit of fanatic about Harry Potter." You are coming at two clear sources, where Watson voluntarily identifies herself as a feminist, from a POV place. The statement, as written -- "she calls herself a feminist" -- is entirely accurate. --Melty girl (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you read the sources?--Kiyarrllston 13:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
So - I agree with Ceoil - the article should not leave us thinking that she burns bras. Rather that she has in interviews used the word "feminist" to describe where she is not a demure fragile female (which both sources note, makes her a lot like hermione) - she is not part of the feminist movement to any stretch.--Kiyarrllston 14:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The article does not state that she is a feminist activist. If a public figure refers to themselves as a Catholic or a Jew, or a liberal or a conservative, we don't question them because they don't go to services every week or stump for a campaign -- they stated their beliefs and that's enough to be of interest. The article does not leave us thinking that she "burns bras" -- that is an extremely outdated point of view that you're bringing to the word, but it doesn't represent how the word "feminist" is often currently used. Again, as you did above, you have revealed that you are not clear on what "feminist" means. Artists (and others) refer to themselves as feminists all the time when they are not activists. It often refers to a personal political worldview, not an avocation on its own, and yes, that can include a woman's viewpoint of how she conducts herself in her personal life or beliefs they incorporate in their work. You clearly are not comfortable with the fact that she unmistakeably refers to herself as a feminist in both sources. Your POV pushing is unfortunate and seems like an attempt to keep readers from knowing what Emma Watson has said about her worldview. --Melty girl (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This latest comment I did not appreciate. - not "You [...] are not comfortable with the fact that she unmistakeably refers to herself as a feminist [...]" and not "Your POV pushing"
I would appreciate knowing Ceoil's opinion on how that section could be improved.
--Kiyarrllston 23:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please review the unresolved external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: the nominator is on Wiki break for a couple more days. I'm sure the few unresolved links will be promptly addressed then. --Melty girl (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • All fixed. Happy‑melon 19:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose "her academic achievements were good." as in "good vs. evil" or "good vs. bad"- does "exemplary" fit any worse? "pretty"? - why "good" if what is meant is "above average"? why "good" if what is meant is " "were good" according to her mother and father"? - I hope I am clear... It does fit a previous reviewer's comments of "fawning"--Kiyarrllston 01:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Um, the very next two sentences specify exactly what was meant by "good": she was a straight A student by national British standards. I don't really know how the article could get any clearer. Your opposition regarding this point seems baseless. --Melty girl (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It is a matter of tone - calling something "good" is not encyclopedic. (- at least as far as I know)
Saying she was "at the top of her class" (slightly better phrased) would seem to both not repeat the "straight A" comment and keep a [more] encyclopedic tone.
Thank you for responding.
--Kiyarrllston 02:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Terming a grade A student's grades "good" is hardly fawning; "brilliant," "whipsmart" or "top of her class" are what I'd call fawning. "Good" is merely accurate; straight As certainly constitute academic achievements that are "good" by the very standard of the grading system! And since when is the modest, accurately employed adjective "good" inappropriate for an enyclopedia? This is a very odd, if not wholly inaccurate, reason to oppose. --Melty girl (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me first state - if it is "a very odd, if not wholly innacurate, reason to oppose" from your point of view, you should at least know that I do not agree
not fawning?- I do call it vague, and did call it (once again) not an encyclopedic tone.
I was hoping that "top of her class" was verifiable information whereas "her academic achievements are good" is not verifiable and will never be.
the prasing of "top of her class" is not the best - I agree - thus I said- "slighly" better phrasing-
Thank you for reading this comment
--Kiyarrllston 03:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
It is reliably sourced that her grades were straight A's. A's are the best grade you can get, as far as I know. The best grades you can get in a national education system = "good" academic achievement (if not "excellent"!). It's verified, period -- I don't know how you can dispute that. I find your logic incomprehensible. Sorry, Melty girl (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Have you seen elsewhere where something is called "good" in wikipedia? or "best"? or "pretty" or "ugly"?--Kiyarrllston 13:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it happens all the time. Superlatives are not a problem if the statement is sourced. For example Æthelbald of Mercia uses "most powerful" and "most formidable"; these superlatives are supported by the source material. I agree with Melty girl here; this is sufficiently sourced and there is nothing wrong with the tone. Mike Christie (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
"Most powerful" or "most formidable" are different - refer to a kind of power or size - both would be more encyclopedic than "were good" or (the example) "were the best" or "were pretty". Saying Elvis was "the best musician or that "his records were good" - then referencing with his record sales - is not encyclopedic. The word "good" is not very encyclopedic.
The sentence - "her academic achievements were good" is an arbitrary judgement of quality on her studies, not an example of very good writing either, furthermore is later repeated in a better form( -"straight A"). I suggest removal of that phrase, I believe the paragraph flows much better without it. If others do not judge her achievements -"straight A"- as anything (good, bad, ugly, strange) then we need not tell them what to think.
--Kiyarrllston 14:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Grades are measured on a scale, from good to bad. Grades are inherently a judgment of good to bad. Your comment that we are telling people what to think is absurd. --Melty girl (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Academic achievements are measured by grades, grades are measured good to bad. - instead of saying that "academic achievements were good" - you could say she maintained high grades. - which does not use the word "good" --Kiyarrllston 23:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
←I have reworded this phrase - please let me know whether you think it is an acceptable alteration. Happy‑melon 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
"maintaned high academic standards" is something usually said about academic institutions, rather than individuals, but it is a significant improvement, thus I consider this done with.--Kiyarrllston 01:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Objection tabloid/fawning tone
    - the last sentence, where it says "Watson lists her interests as dancing, singing, field hockey, tennis and art,[7] and describes herself as a feminist.[10][46] She admires fellow actors Johnny Depp and Julia Roberts"
    I echo Ceoil's thoughts on this. I believe that this can be improved through elaborating as to what she has done in "dancing" (twice participated in Rock ___ at her school?) and so on. "Feminist" seems to have different meanings to different people - is she pro-choice in the abortion debate? does she believe strongly in equal participation in the workplace? does she believe in topfree equality? - the article should not leave us thinking that she burns bras.
    Thank you,
    Kiyarrllston
    [Message posted at 01:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)]
  • Comment: I see absolutely no reason to think that feminism "seems to have different meanings to different people" -- you are just not grasping the true definition. A feminist is someone who believes in equal rights for both men and women. What you are describing, Dwarf Kirlston, are examples of common feminist causes, which cover a wide spectrum and is surely subjective depending on the individual or group he/she belongs to. The fact that Watson believes herself to be a feminist, period, is clear and properly sourced. From what I gather, Watson has not described in full what her feminist beliefs entail and therefore they (the beliefs) cannot be added. María (habla conmigo) 13:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with JayHenry (below) that Watson need not go into a long explanation of the particulars of her feminist beliefs in order for her self-identification as a feminist to be included in the article. If an American actor says that she's a Democrat, do we keep this out of the article unless she gives a full explanation of whether she's a liberal Democrat or a new Democrat, and which policies she supports and which she doesn't? Jake Gyllenhaal identifies as Jewish, and it was noted in his article last time I checked, but the article didn't need to specify his affiliation or non-affiliation, or report which tenets he believes in, etc. It just states how he says he identifies. I suspect that he doesn't go to services often, if at all -- should his identification as Jewish therefore be removed from the article? No. To say that we can't write that Emma Watson says that she's a feminist because she didn't explain herself to our satisfaction exerts POV. She said it, in the way she chose to say it, on more than one occasion, and it's fully sourced, and therefore we can report it. I thought we were trying to keep insight into who she is in this article! --Melty girl (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe there's been a misunderstanding. Just to be clear, I agree with Melty girl and JayHenry in regards to this silliness about elaboration of Watson's "brand" of feminism. Obviously, what has not been stated (i.e. what her feminist beliefs entail) cannot be added to the article because as far as we're concerned, they don't exist. I support the addition of her describing herself as a feminist because it is sourced and I do not believe any other explanation is needed. She describes herself as a feminist, so there it is; if one connects that with bra burning, that is their own (outdated) misinterpretation. María (habla conmigo) 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I get you now! Thanks for the clarification. I thought you had been agreeing with Ceoil's comment that somehow it wasn't "substantiated," and thus could not be added. --Melty girl (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
No, no, no; I just suck, apparently. :) I'm glad we got that straightened out. I was reading your reply and thinking, "OMG, what did I say?!" María (habla conmigo) 21:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Let me speak as to what I understand to be her "feminist beliefs": She has said she is "a bit feminist" explaining that she is "very competitive and challenging." -She has also said that she is "such a feminist" regarding whether girls should play sports. ONLY regarding whether girls should play sports. We have only that she has said that she is "a bit feminist" not that she has said she is a feminist.
If a person said they are democrat, then I hope that at least there is some comment as to under what meaning this is
If a person said they're a democrat, then, explaining, says "I am very against the Iraq War" - that would serve as something to put next to Jake Gyllenhaal's Jewishness.
--Kiyarrllston 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what your second sentence means. --Melty girl (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
"Lists her interests as" is something that would be included in a tabloid, not in an encyclopedia.
--Kiyarrllston 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to note that I fully support Melty Girl and Maria's position vis the feminism statement. However, rereading that particular phrase it strikes me that it would improve the flow of the paragraph if the assertion was converted to a quotation, which I have now done. Please let me know if you think this new version is acceptable. With reference the "lists her interests as...", yes, I agree it is something that would be included in a tabloid. This does not, in and of itself, make it unworthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Why, exactly, it is unsuitable for an encyclopedia article which is not constrained by limitations on ink, paper or storage space? I do not deny that Brittanica would not include it, but Brittanica editors have brutal space restrictions to accomodate to. If it were necessary to reduce this article to half its original size of course the phrase would not make the cut, but fortunately it is not necessary to do so. It is appropriately sourced, it is verifiable, it is neutral, stable and not tangential to the subject. It is well structured, uses appropriate grammar, syntax, and style, and provides information which may be of interest to some readers without being biased. In short, what, precisely, is wrong with it? Happy‑melon 22:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest "describes herself as "a bit of a feminist" [saying "I am very challenging and competitive"]" - I believe that serves to clarify, elaborate, explain that "feminism" of hers. Hanging sentences are not good writing.
I believe the reason they wouldn't include it is not lack of space - lack of relevance, meaning, among other things instead. but more importantly they would include it if it was relevant, meaningful - how is it meaningful that those are her interests? - has she done anything regarding those interests? furthermore I believe the phrase "lists her interests" is specifically unencyclopedic tone. This is not a fan encyclopedia, this is not her personal website - I believe that expression is warranted.
--Kiyarrllston 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The sources more readily support that she is like hermione than that she is a feminist to any extent. In fact, the "a bit feminist" is only used to elaborate on that.--Kiyarrllston 13:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The previous FAC effectively drowned in discussions to the effect that any direct comparison between Watson and Hermione Granger was inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. Please read the previous FAC thoroughly and tell me if you still think this is a good idea. Happy‑melon 14:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please note that graphics, including coloured ticks and crosses, are discouraged in the instructions for this process. Tony (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Support with thoughts. Kudos to Happy Melon for keeping cool in what's been a mostly impossible FAC process. (Most amusing is the exchange above where one editor demands the fair use images be taken out and the next day a different editor says "it would be nice to have some screen shots from her movies." It is really unfortunate to our editors that the system is such that these impossibilities arise.) Okay, Watson describes herself as a feminist -- that's just fine. It's saying she identifies with the label. An actress doesn't need to write a graduate thesis elaborating her precise views on feminism to identify as a feminist, or for us to mention this identification. Three thoughts on improvement 1) User:Ceoil so accurately mentions there could be more insight. Sadly, although much effort went into this compromised version it stripped the article of some of that insight. I won't object on this ground because I don't wish to prolong this now-unhelpful FAC. 2) In cases where it mentions the films broke records, I would like it to be a bit clearer precisely what record was broken. With many of the film statistics I'm not sure if it's global, US or both. I think this should always be explicit. 3) The first time that the Otto Awards are mentioned it would be good to explain what this award is, especially since there's no article and she's won a handful of them over the years. --JayHenry (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll support when it's fixed up properly. Random issues suggest that a good massage is required. For example:
    • Space before three ellipsis dots (Pauline and others).
    • "USA" is laboured nowadays: US?
    • "outside of"—remove the second word, always.
    • Ref 31 used to support a breach of copyright in the main text. The site says "data cannot be published or posted elsewhere without the expressed permission of Box Office Mojo. To publish or use the stats for professional purposes, please inquire at info@boxofficemojo.com." Have you done so? Remove immediately, please, or find another reference. And in any case, who's the author of the web page, and should we trust it?
    • "the pluses outweighed the minuses."—See MOS on logical punctuation at end of quotations.
    • "a four-year old son"—hyphen missing. Tony (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I have done all bar the Mojo ref. Correct me if I'm genuinely wrong, but my interpretation of copyright law in this instance is "tough". "333 million" is not copyrightable, either as a number of a sum of money. The fact that HP5 earnt $333 million" is also not copyrightable, as it is common knowledge and does not represent intellectual work by anyone. The intellectual effort expended by Box Office Mojo to compile that list of top films is copyrightable, as it represents intellectual work for which they should be rewarded with exclusive use. If we were to copy that table in whole or in part, to the extent that we threatened to create a rival source of information on top grossing films, we would be infringing their copyright. Even claiming that HP5 was the third highest-grossing film of all time would be on dodgy ground using that as a reference. But they cannot deny us the right to use the statistic "$333 million", as it is not their right to give or take. Happy‑melon 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
        • It's good that you're cautious, Happy-melon, but you can go ahead and take out the copyright notice. It's not needed in a situation like this, where you're just quoting one of their figures. If copyright notices were needed we'd have to apply them anytime we report any list, such as New York Times Bestsellers, or #1 Billboard single, etc. You can simply remove the notice. Also, for what it's worth Boxofficemojo is considered reliable within the industry. It's commonly used by American newspapers as authoritative. --JayHenry (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: There's a strange inconsistency in the citations: part of the periodical names are italicized and part aren't (see WP:ITALICS). The easiest way to consistently italicize all newspaper and magazine names is to use the Work parameter instead of the Publisher parameter in the cite templates (Work is italicized). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I find that this produces an unwanted inconsistency whereby sources such as the BBC use {{cite news}} with the |publisher= parameter, while print sources use {{cite news}} with the |work= field, even though both are clearly "published" rather than "worked on". It's more consistent to simply remember to italicise published works - I have been through the references and I think I've done this thoroughly. Happy‑melon 09:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I was not aware that the BBC was a periodical; do I miss something? Newspapers, magazines, and journals (periodicals) are italicized. Has Tony been asked to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Missing publishers: Bravo Otto – Sieger 2003 (German). Retrieved on September 22, 2007. and Bravo Otto Awards 2005 (German). Retrieved on September 13, 2007 (one of them appears to need cite press release). What makes this reliable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Fixed both of those. Vis the Dannielradcliffe.com ref, I would link directly to the Bravo pages mentioned in the article, but we're not allowed to. Anyone who follows the reference through that page to the original source material (and can read German) will see it's correct - it's just a shame we can't do that ourselves. Happy‑melon 19:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.