Wikipedia:Featured article review/Austin Nichols/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The article was kept 07:55, August 11, 2007.

[edit] Austin Nichols

[edit] Review commentary

Messages left at Dev920, Stevenscollege, Actors and Filmmakers and Bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The article is of good quality and I think it would pass a good article nomination, but it is not of featured article quality. I will give some feedback concerning all featured article criteria to improve the article to achieve FA status. – Ilse@ 21:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable
  • Not much information about what critics think about his acting performances, apart from his game of tennis
  • Not much information about his roles for TV
Manual of style
  • Lead text is not a good summary of the article
  • Infobox contains almost no information (no notable roles, years active, residence, etc)
  • Biography is a bad heading, the entire article is a biography
  • The structure of the biography section could be improved
  • Early life section also contains information on his personal life
  • TV and filmography tables have no headers, which table is about TV?
Images
  • No photographs that visually identify Austin Nichols
Length and focus
  • Information about acclaim of John P. Aguirre should be on his WP article
  • Too much detail about his game of tennis compared to his acting and other roles

Comment. Ilse@, please notify relevant parties with {{subst:FARMessage|Austin Nichols}} according to the instructions at the top of the FAR page. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I already notified User:Dev920 and User:Stevenscollege, they are the users that contributed the most to the article. The other top 3 contributor was an IP. How many other users do you want me to notify? – Ilse@ 22:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I am currently on exam leave and have no solid block of time to devote to this FAR. As I was planning to update his article when I come back anyway (as Austin has now done a wave of publicity to promote John from Cincinnati and I have more to write about him now), can this FAR please be delayed until the 22nd? DevAlt 22:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
In the FAR policy, I read the following: "The nomination should last two weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process." On June 23 the two week period of the FAR for this article will end, and I think this is the time to evaluate whether it is useful to continue the review period. – Ilse@ 00:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, given I don't intend to participate until the 22nd, and I wrote the entire article from this, and Stevenscollege, the next largest contributor, edits approximately once a week, it seems somewhat of a waste of everyone else's time to have this FAR open. 21:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The article has indeed improved a lot, and I'm sorry you feel this way. There is always the opportunity the renominate the article later on. – Ilse@ 23:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
You're going to FARC an article simply because I can't stick to your absurd schedule for mitigating reasons I have already given? How silly. DevAlt 13:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The practice at FAR has always been to allow extra time when someone notifies they can work on the article; the 22nd is well within the time the FAR would run. In the meantime, others may work on some of the issues, including Ilse, who brought the nomination ("Nominators are asked to improve an article that they nominate for review to the best of their ability".) Bio infoboxes are controversial, and not a WP:WIAFA requirement, btw. Ilse, have you notified yet the WikiProjects linked on the talk page per the instructions above? Please follow the example on other FARs on this page and include the notifications at the top of the FAR. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't think about notifying the biography project, thank you for the suggestion. I have made some edits to improve the article. – Ilse@ 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
There's no hard limit. We can leave it in the FAR period a week or two after the 22nd, if need be. Marskell 17:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree the review period should remain open as long as the article will clearly pass all criteria within reasonable time. At this moment I would classify Austin Nichols as a B-class article that will probably pass a good article nomination easily. I believe there is nothing wrong with a GA classification. – Ilse@ 18:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Note Per the main contributor's request extra time will be granted for this FAR. If the main contributor feels that he/she will not be able to work on the article he/she should inform this and the extra time will be waived. Joelito (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree and I think we have spent enough time discussing the review period. Please comment on weaknesses of the article and the possible improvements. And maybe you can help improving it. I believe the section on Austin Nichols' acting career needs to be rewritten or at least some serious copyediting. – Ilse@ 22:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have one exam left: I will be ready to receive your suggestions in about four hours. See you then. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to start adding info from his recent publicity, if anyone would like to make constructive suggestions, bring it on. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Some days ago, I've spent considerable time on improving parts of the article, including the lead section which is now reverted by Dev920. Dev920 explains that the lead section is otherwise too short for FA status, which is in my opinion a bad argument because FA status is not about quantity but about quality. I believe several of the elements Dev920 has just put back in (parents professions, waterskiing as a child, lead actors of the films he played in) are not important enough to be part of this summary. I am willing to compromise on the waterskiing by leaving a short sentence about his waterskiing in (something like "During high school he was a trick water skier participating on a international level."). I also believe the style of writing of "...and is known for his film roles in..." should be changed into a more encyclopedic wording such as "...he had roles in...". – Ilse@ 21:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the wording as suggested. However, I disagree with Ilse@'s view on the lead and, suggest that if it was not FA quality, it would not have passed FAC with such support. The lead has not changed significantly since it passed (ie, the wording you just now suggested and an update about JFC). The contents of the lead are fairly standard for an FA and I am somewhat surprised that Ilse@ thinks removing the entire second paragraph improves it. What do others think? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I approve of the last change. For the rest, Dev920 uses an argumentum ad populum, which doesn't make this easier. I think the supporters didn't use the FA criteria as a checklist, unfortunately. Still, I hope the article will improve and I will continue to try and help. – Ilse@ 21:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
And you are making an argumentum ad logicam, wherein proving I am using a fallacious argument somehow makes you right. You are aware of the concept of consensus on Wikipedia, right? The very first sentence of WP:FA is "Featured articles are considered to be the best articles in Wikipedia, as determined by Wikipedia's editors.", so excuse me if I think your point is merely to needle me ("doesn't make this easier"? You are not obligated to participate, so why say that?) rather than actually contribute. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
No needling intended towards Dev920. With the word "this" in "which doesn't make this easier" I was referring to the discussion about the contents of the lead section. The reason why I think the lead should be altered is because I question the significance of the elements in this lead as a summary, as I stated before, and not because of your argument. – Ilse@ 22:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have notified all users that voted for this article's nomination (and that were not already notified) about this review. – Ilse@ 23:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure they'll love that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Some pieces of info in the header are repeated in exact form later on (his parents' professions). Since the header is supposed to be a summary of the article, those cases should be removed (especially since his parents' professions aren't related to his notability, unlike, say, Kate Hudson or Emma Roberts's parents) Mad Jack 06:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I have removed his father's profession, but etained his mother's, but she clearly influenced him in his water skiing career (which he was apparently majorly famous for before becoming an actor). How's it looking? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it does seem kind of odd that you give more details about his mother's profession (her status as a champion) in the opening then you do later down... Mad Jack 21:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
How remiss of me. Extra details have been added. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now updated the article. I have a little bit more stuff to add on JfC and some info from interviews which he has done for it, but then I will be done. Does anyoen have any other comments they would like to add? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Status: How does everyone feel about this? Can we close as keep without FARC? Dev920 perhaps you can contact Ilse on user talk to see how s/he feels. Marskell 16:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns comprehensiveness (1b), MoS issues (2), images (3), and focus (4). Marskell 14:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I see work's been done but I'm not sure how people feel about the page, so moving it down. Marskell 14:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The valid issues that were raised have been dealt with. I have repeatedly welcomed any and all opinions on the article and sought to address them. If anyone has any further issues they wish to raise at this stage, please go ahead, but also please note I am currently on holiday with my family, am writing this from an Internet cafe, and will only be on irregularly, so any objections may take some time to be resolved. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Dev920, the main contributor of this article, and I obviously disagree about the quality of the current version of the article. Although the article has improved on some points during the month the review is now open, I think that the article still needs improvement on all four criteria mentioned above by Marskell. I believe that the article should become a FARC. - Ilse@ 09:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Right, I'll just fly out to LA and stalk Austin Nichols until I get a free image of him. He's a living minor celebrity, it's very difficult, if not impossible to find a free image of him and believe me, I have been trying. I will keep trying, but I cannot magic up photos of a man who has few obsessive fans. I added two posters that had previously been removed and gave them fair use rationales - what more exactly do you want? I used the focus that has been given to me by the sources I used, I will hunt around to find some mention of his acting ability, there might be something in the JFC publicity I can use, but I'm not holding out hope; most of it seems to focus on David Milch.
And frankly, I flat out disagree with you on the prose. Someone else copyedited it for me when it originally passed and enough people have looked through it now, notably Sandy Georgia, that I think I can say you're wrong that the prose is not FA quality. The one point you raised I changed immediately. No FA can be perfect, but this is completely standard FA prose. The fact that only one other person has commented on this FAR would indicate that there is little wrong with it; if there were, I've no doubt someone would have brought it up by now (though I obviously welcome reviews even at this stage - I am a little surprised that no-one else has commented). I think to hold an FARC would be an injustice to this article, to the people who have contributed to it, and a capitulation to a whim. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove – I should have voted right away. My comments are above. – Ilse@ 17:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Maintain - as stated above, numerous times. Dev920 (Have a nice day!)
  • Fixes needed - an image would be really really nice but is not a total dealbreaker. I think the article can be fleshed out more as it comes across as sparse in places - mainly some more reviews of performances (go through and see if you can get any extra critical comments on roles or films not much elaborated on). Has he never been nominated for any awards yet? give it another week - cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
PS: The prose as such isn't too bad, (I gotta read these things more closely - agree with Tony below) I just feel the article could be more comprehensive. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, he was the horn player in Six Feet Under! I'm disappointed to find problems in the writing. I lean towards Remove, but if Sandy comes out with a strong "Keep", I'm willing to be persuaded. At the very least, the imponderables that follow need to be fixed. And more.
    • "Nichols has stated he wanted to be an actor for much of his life." Um, "has stated", even though he's made it? It's a vague and awkward temporal notion.
    • "His acting career began when he gatecrashed a party at the Sundance Film Festival and was promptly signed up by a prominent manager.[9]" Provide a year, please. There are other events mentioned without a year. We shouldn't have to consult the references to find out.
So far as I know, no years were provided in the references.
    • "After his signing, Nichols originally wished to attend the University of Texas,..."—"initially", not "originally".
    • "... Nichols then simultaneously co-starred in two box office successes." (End of section.) Um ... what were those successes? We have to piece it together by reading into the subsequent section. Not kind to the readers.
    • This quote of the guy doesn't show him off well: very poor expression, even if oral mode: ""I ?really salute the players ?that go out there and can do that ?, they ?actually perform in front of these people for two or three hours. It's amazing." Better to paraphrase or quote less of his statement?
    • "... film. He keeps a film log for every film ..."—Ungainly repetition.

I'm not reading further. It could be fixed by a copy-editor, but I suspect it's too late now. Tony 12:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It is simply too late to address this now. I appreciate you taking the time to review this, but, while having been willing to work on it for some time, I AM on holiday, and I'm not going to stress myself out about this anymore with such a poor workstation. I'd ask for another extension to work through it, but I intend to spend August working on the List of LGB people, and, realistically, Austin probably isn't going to get a look in. Remove it from the FA lists if you truly believe it is not good enough and I will resubmit it at a later date. Unless of course, Tony, you will save it by copyediting it yourself - as I have said above, copyediting is not my strong point and I usually ask other people to do it for me. Clearly they have not been entirely successful. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, it's not too late given that hasn't been FARC all that long. We can leave it up a while longer. Marskell 14:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Dev, ping me if you decide to do further work, so I can look in afterwards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I will return from holiday next week. I'll take a look then, then and evaluate the situation. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't have any problems with 1b or 4, he is only 27 so I wouldn't expect the article to be very long anyway. Although there are style issues, these are not sufficiently serious for me to contemplate delisting. The lack of images, however, is a problem. From the FAC it's looks as though there was an image on nomination, but it's since been removed? The only thing I can suggest is linking to one on another web-site maybe? DrKiernan 16:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note that if people have made a good faith attempt to find images but they can't be found, then we can't hold it against the article. Not having images is a lesser evil than copyvio. Marskell 04:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • In that case, my single objection is answered. Keep DrKiernan 08:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The image I originally put up was deleted for not being acceptable under fair use (which was fair given it was a copyrighted image I had taken off a random site). I just checked the FAC and in it I mentioned some image that has now been deleted - I asked an admin to undelete it so I could examine it, but again, it was a blatent copyvio. The issue is that, although he attends some film premieres and stuff where we could get a free photo, he's not famous enough that people think "Oh, that's Austin Nichols!" and get a photo of him in the same way they do, say Kevin Spacey. I'm hoping that as JfC takes off he'll turn up to other things where we have Wikipedians snapping everyone as a matter of course, but until then, I'm really stumped. It's not like I did for Jake Gyllenhaal, the largest Austin Nichols website is largely full of screencaps and coyrighted images that we can't use. It would seem that none of Austin's fans have ever actually met him, and certainly not got a shot of him. Let me go check the Lj group. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it looks like someone got a shot of him. It's dark and not great, but I'll contact the person who took it and ask. We might get some mentions of his acting ability as well in the stuff they have there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, they're not free after all, look like pap. Damn, I really thought we might have something there. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • For a 27-year old actor I think this is a very good and comprehensive article. So, I stick on my vote in FAC, and I am pro keep!--Yannismarou 14:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just tapped AustinMedia and the result was this. They tend to trawl for interviews so I'm thinking that there's no more new stuff since the beginning of the year that I haven't gone through now. Dates have been added for all events where they were available, and the specific issues which Tony raised copyediting wise have been fixed. I will now go ask someone else to copyedit it for me. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I've asked someone to copyedit it, I'm waiting on them to reply. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I changed the thing about Deadwood, but as to the rest of your questions, I simply don't know. The references don't say. For example, you asked "what is the significance of a holding deal with HBO?" I have no idea, the source says "The deal is somewhat unusual for HBO, which rarely signs actors to holding deals." Does this cover the significance? All it tells me is that HBO rarely signs them, not why. What do I need to do with these "verification needed tags"? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that additional text would cover it for the holding deal. Verification needed; those sites go nowhere and don't contain the text cited. Some of them appear to be commercial cites. Is there a page in there somewhere that I wasn't able to find that references the text given? If so, can you find them and link directly to them? Verification needed means, when I click on the site, I get no reference to the text cited. The link does not verify the text cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I've partly fixed this. The site you're linking to is dead, Dev. It either moved url or expired. There is still an official site at http://www.paramountpictures.co.uk/wimbledon/. Here I managed to track down the Personal life info for ref 28. That leaves the quotes about learning tennis for ref 19. I couldn't find them on the new link but they might be there somewhere. Marskell 19:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Not really surprising that a company wouldn't keep up a site for a poorly received film that came out 4 years ago. I found it at Archive.org, will update in the morning. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, small problem. Archive.org have saved the main page, but because it was a flash site, not any of the pages I actually used. How incredibly unfuckinghelpful. *sigh*. What now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 14:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Replace the statements with info from durable reliable sources: Google (is your friend) coughs up these in the first ten.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've gone and replaced the quotes with some new info from the links above. It's different, but I don't think worse. Assuming there's nothing else major, I'll keep this over the next day or so. Marskell 08:09, 10 August 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.