Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack Sparrow

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 04:25, 4 November 2007.

[edit] Jack Sparrow

I'm nominating this article for featured article because its very well written, vigorously referenced, complies with the manual of style and has pictures to make it look good. Hadseys 21:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Support as nominator --Hadseys 15:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support I passed this article for GA, and its only improved since then, so I'll lend my support. Gran² 07:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Good to read. Lot of information.--Tamás Kádár 15:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Great piece: pacy, well-informed, well-written. --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 14:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comments, mostly on prose. Quite happy to be disagreed with, or corrected if I'm wrong:

• From the lead: Jack Sparrow is a fictional character in the Pirates of the Caribbean universe. He was introduced in Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) and appeared in the back-to-back sequels, Dead Man's Chest (2006) and At World's End (2007), where he was portrayed by Johnny Depp. This, to me, implies that Depp only played Sparrow in the sequels. Of course everyone knows this not to be the case; suggested changes are to either move Depp to the first sentence (Sparrow is a fictional character [...] universe, played by...), or lose the , where he was and replacing with something like ; he was portrayed by.... Just suggestions.

• Addressed in a recent copyedit Carre 12:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Last sentence, 1st para, Film trilogy: This is how Sparrow escaped the first time, but we've just read that he & Elizabeth have been stranded. Without going on to read the second paragraph, that is a touch misleading, and with reading the 2nd, confusing. Could either lose it, or use something like on that occasion?

• Small copyedit on this bit done, to try and better distinguish between Sparrow's first marooning, and this one with Elizabeth. See what you think. Carre 15:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Last para of that sentence. We've just been reading about Sparrow hallucinating a crew of aspects of himself, and then After the crew finds him. After Barbossa's crew finds him, perhaps?
• Whole section - Jones' should be Jones's per MOS. Ugly, I know :(
• Tie-ins: the first para has no sources. Of particular concern is His role in the game is presumably non-canonical with the rest of Pirates fiction. making a presumption with no citation smacks of OR (I'm not accusing you of OR, just saying what it looks like).
• Characterization: Sparrow seems to have created, or at least contributes to, his own image - mixed tenses. Should be contributed?

• Addressed in recent CE Carre 12:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Spaced emdashes in that section too (yep, another FAC commenting on dashes ;) ),/s>
• Character creation: Director Gore Verbinski admitted, "The... - should that comma be there?
• Same on the Jonny Depp section, a comma before the quote that looks misplaced - am I mistaken in this? Quite happy to be corrected if so.
• Jonny Depp section: Johnny Depp returned as Jack Sparrow in 2006's Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, the first time the actor ever made a sequel. We already know he returned. It seems you're using sentence start as a carrier for it being Depp's first sequel, so perhaps Depp's return [...] was the first time ... is better?
• Make-up section: In addition to a red bandana Sparrow wears numerous objects in his hair, which was influenced by Keith Richards' habit of collecting souvenirs from his travels,[41] which includes Sparrow's "piece of eight". -> travels, and includes gets rid of the repeated "which". Richards' is probably OK, since Richards's is so clumsy to say it meets the MOS's exception rule.
• How strict do we want to be on grammar? If strict, Depp's study of nomads who he compared to pirates, "who" should be "whom", but that may fail Tony's "misplaced formality" suggestion.

After a brief discussion with Tony (here and here, barring archives), he, at least, agrees that it should be whom. Carre 10:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• but they were abandoned when they stuck up when Depp laid down -> because they stuck up when avoids repetition of "when".
• None of the costumes from The Curse of the Black Pearl survived: this allowed tougher linen shirts to be used for stunts. I'm not sure what this is getting at. Does it mean the linen could be used in the sequels?
• Popular culture section, 2nd para: popularity can be attributed to being "scoundrel whose occasional bouts needs an "a" before the quote. fixed.
• and Sparrow's personality contrasts to previous should read contrasts with according to Fowler. fixed
• free of much of the responsibility from most heroes. I think should be free from much of the responsibility of most heroes? fixed

The list got a little longer than I'd been expecting, and I hope you find it constructive criticism! Carre 10:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed Comments to Oppose, for the following reason: having just checked the article's edit history, the nominator doesn't seem to have made any contributions. Of course this is fine, but I'm concerned that the issues raised above won't get addressed as a result. I don't see how the article can be promoted with an un-sourced presumption in the middle of it! I've also left a note on the article's talk page suggesting the regular contributors pop over here to look at what needs sorting, so I hope to be able to go back to Comment, or even Support, in the near future. Carre 12:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the principal contributor Alientraveller, is on holiday, I think until today. So your shouldn't have to wait to long, although I'll see if I can solve the sourcing problem now. Gran² 12:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Gran - this would be so simple to get to FA, I really don't want to stop it! A couple of the issues have been addressed already, by a coincidental copyedit. Carre 12:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a little off topic, but there are two principal contributors, Alientraveller and myself. BlackPearl14 20:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[←]Back to comment again, since the OR bit has gone (thanks Gran), although as per BIGNOLE, the section still needs source(s). I'd also like to apologise to Hadseys for suggesting (s)he wouldn't address the issues. The recent changes show that was a completely unfounded concern, but at the time seemed legitimate to me. Carre 13:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Are both paragraphs being sourced by the one source in "Tie-ins"? If so, you should put the source on both paragraphs. If that information isn't from source #6, then it needs a source, because there's speculation about his next appearance.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Pass & support

• On the basis that it meets FA criteria to a sufficient degree.

Remark: I had made only minor edits. Leranedo 02:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Your edits haven't always made sense. No offense meant :) [ BlackPearl14 00:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC) ]

• Support being primary author of the article, I stayed away from this page to have a look at a building consensus. The article has been copyedited heavily from other parties, and I thank them for it. I shall add my own support then. Alientraveller 20:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support being the other primary author of the article, I have made sure that no unnecessary information be posted. I'm very happy that we have made a lot of progress in this article. I thank everyone, especially Alientraveller for their help in this article. Once again, I'm supporting as the other primary author. BlackPearl14 20:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - still waiting on reference(s) for first para of Tie-ins; as BigNole mentions, if the source using in the 2nd para of that section covers the whole, then simply repeating it would address this. Carre 13:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support - good work. A mention of his presence in Kingdom Hearts II (considering that it ranks slightly above cameos in other shows) would be nice. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• It is mentioned in the article. :) BlackPearl14 22:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm blind. Looked in the completely wrong section. =/ Oh well. Good job on the article. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• That's okay :) Thanks! BlackPearl14 23:04, 3 November 2007 (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.