Youtube

Go to The Main Page Add Youtube to favorite!

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/September 2007 

Contents

September 2007

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 not promoted 17:40, 30 September 2007.

Harry Potter fandom

previous FAC

A recent peer review of the article yielded no creative feedback (which could be due to the backlog, but I'm taking to mean as little more to say about the article). I think that all the concerns from the previous FAC have been addressed. The article is comprehensive as to how people take Harry Potter into their hands, with little to minimal mention of the popularity of the series or how the series has been critically assessed. Images are all free, and the article is well-cited. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 15:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Needs a copyedit. I found at least 2 odd constructions. "written by fans online", people usually write offline and use the net just for distribution. "tours of iconic landmarks relevant in the books"; landmarks are relevant to the books. "Pottermania is an informal term dating to about 1999"; "Pottermania is an informal term first used..." or "Pottermania is an informal term dating back to about...". "The fandom is facilitated by many different forms of media"; the fandom shares their ... through many different forms of media. Why aren't Draco and the Malfoys or any of the other wizard rock bands mentioned? I think JKR sharing plot info with a dying girl should also be mentioned? The excessive lines with film auditions? Also, what is an article about HP fandom without a mention of "towel girl"? There's quite some things missing. - Mgm|(talk) 18:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Doing... Finished all the wording issues. The issues with content I will cover by tomorrow. Never even considered the "towel girl" -- where would you consider incorporating that into the article? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry I haven't gotten to cover this yet -- I encountered quite a bit of unexpected work this week. I suppose with the comment below I'll work on this after the nomination fails and the article undergoes copyediting. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I concur this article needs a serious copyedit. It seems relatively comprehensive to me, but there are a great number of odd sentence constructions. There are too many for me to list here, but I've included a few of the larger ones, and I recommend that you talk to the WikiProject:League of Copyeditors about helping. Karanacs 13:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Awkward sentence: "Pottermania is an informal term first used in about 1999 describing the craze Harry Potter fans have had over the series"
  • This sentence needs to be reworked: "There are many fan web sites about Harry Potter on the Internet" (where else would web sites be?)
  • Sentence on Godric's Hollow website needs work; "strangely?"
  • The paragraph about Warner Bros trying to shut down the sites does not flow well
  • The paragraph describing fan web sites in general should probably be at the top of that section instead of the bottom
  • The Podcasts section probably need to be reworked; I would first describe the podcasts and then talk about their award nominations
  • There should be no external links in the body of the article; these go in the external links section
  • awkward: "new posts of which are subscribed to by over 5000 people"
  • Need a citation after Emerson's quote about delusional
  • In your citations, don't put (English) - that is the default

Karanacs 13:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Thanks for your comments -- looks like that's a major concern, so when the nom fails I'll work with the League of Copyeditors to improve the article. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 16:17, 28 September 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.
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 not promoted 17:40, 30 September 2007.

Raëlian beliefs and practices

(self nom) I hereby nominate Raëlian beliefs and practices for Featured Article status. Kmarinas86 04:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Article as of Oppose 1

Oppose Weakly oppose This article is horribly written and presents only one POV, not any opposition. In addition, approximately half of it is a collection of quotes and lists. Several references are blank/poorly formatted. Other sections of text have no references. Numerous MOS problems and passive voice. Recommend speedy deletion. — BQZip01 — talk 05:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Recommend giving this person more time to make changes as they are VERY responsive, knowledgeable, and efficient. — BQZip01 — talk 04:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"This article is horribly writtenG and presents only one POV, not any opposition.H In addition, approximately half of it is a collection of quotesC and lists.B Several references are blank/poorly formatted.D Other sections of text have no references.E Numerous MOS problemsF and passive voice.A Recommend speedy deletion.wtf?"

Fixed A. Aggie Bonfire consists of 33% passive sentences. In your favor, I have now removed 100% of the passive sentences which are outside blockquotes. Overall, passive sentences are now 1% of the sentences in prose.Kmarinas86 17:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Fixed B. I have converted the lists into prose.
Fixed C. Impact of quotes reduced.Kmarinas86 14:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Fixed D. There are no more blank references in this article, and although the cite template is not used, the citations are consistently formatted and are in an acceptable form.
Fixed E. More references have been added and especially in the part about creation of life on other planets.Kmarinas86 15:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Fixed F. As for WP:MOS problems, there are no longer any in the headings or the lead. None of them involve the dashes used in the article, nor the overall use of punctuation.Kmarinas86 17:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Dispute G. As for being "horribly written", Thedagomar begs to differ (source).Kmarinas86 14:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Fixed G. See how I fixed the article. I used Microsoft Word in order to fix the grammar and style mistakes.Kmarinas86 02:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reliably referenced criticism of Raelian beliefs and practices? I ask because I've always been the under the impression that they are such a fringe faith that, with the exception of their cloning claims (which is in the article), no-one's really paid them any heed at all. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The primary cause of criticism is disturbed people, scientists against cloning, religious people, and those who attend sensual meditation exercises.Kmarinas86 00:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Fixed H. I added a bit of "criticism" from the Raelism article concerning the "infiltration" of two college students who took video inside (http://www.wired.com/news/culture/1,68593-1). I also added the bit about Brigitte McCann attending a masturbation session. I also added a bit about Geniocracy and the claims that it promotes fascism and racism.Kmarinas86 00:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. Please don't take too much offense at comments. I apologize if anything here was taken as hostility; none was intended.
  2. As for the rest of your comments:
A I'm glad you read other work to which I contributed. I'm not saying that passive voice isn't acceptable only that it seemed excessive.
B That's all I asked for.
C see B
D I never said you had to use citation templates and have no problem with you using a different form. What you have used now appears to be acceptable.
E MUCH better!!! I personally look through the end of paragraphs and see if any of them don't end with some sort of reference. I feel the few you still have could be easily referenced
F IAW WP:LEAD (part of the MoS), there should be citations in the lead. I think you & I both feel differently about this than the MOS currently reads (it is a summary of everything below...), but nevertheless, the claims should be backed up. In addition, IAW WP:MoS#Images, the pixel sizings for most of your images need to go.
Fixed. I added several citations to the lead and removed pixel sizings from the images.Kmarinas86 19:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
G That's all I wanted
H see G
WTF see #1
Article as of Oppose 2

Oppose Issues surrounding quality of writing, references, and NPOV J.Winklethorpe talk 20:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Lead is short, and does not adequately summarise the article. WP:LEAD suggests two to three paragraphs for an article of this size.
Fixed. Two paragraphs.Kmarinas86 00:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Lead size increased. Second paragraph made.Kmarinas86 04:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, it's still on the brief side. I'd suggest looking through each section you have, and making sure it has a decent mention in the lead.J.Winklethorpe talk 10:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. Two paragraphs increased.Kmarinas86 17:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • “Beliefs” is very list-like. “Raelians believe” kicks off a dozen different sentences, not to mention “Raelians claim” and “In Raelianism”. This contributes to the general lack of flow in the prose, along with some short stubby paragraphs (and a single-sentence paragraph in cloning). Two sub-sections are a single paragraph, suggesting that they are either under-developed, or not worthy of their own section.
Fixed. List-like repetition was remedied.Kmarinas86 01:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. Three new references.Kmarinas86 00:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip!Kmarinas86 04:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Taking the “Human Cloning” section as an example, I'm very dubious as to whether there is a NPOV. I would be amazed that no-one has disagreed with the Raelians on the feasibility of what they suggest. In fact, Ref 28 (The Maneater) contains a criticism, which has not been used in the article.
Added the criticisms.Kmarinas86 04:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
A very short peice of research uncovers more criticisms of Raelian beliefs. If it's this easy to find items that have not been covered, then it implies to me that there's not a NPOV. J.Winklethorpe
Fixed. Two references added.Kmarinas86 00:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant questions. Which Raelian beliefs do the pedophillia accusations criticize? Are they a criticism of their belief in "sexual liberty"?Kmarinas86 12:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea which belief is refered to, as I'm unfamiliar with them. But it's clearly an important enough criticism for a public response from the Raelians. My point is: criticism exists, and is not covered. This makes me doubt the NPOV of the article. J.Winklethorpe talk 14:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The only piece of criticism in that section is noted as “anonymous - BBC”. As un-signed pieces are the norm on the BBC site, I find that unnecessary, and may imply some unreliability that does not exist. In addition, I don't think that giving a quote from either side with little narrative adequately covers this issue.
Fixed. Ditto.Kmarinas86 00:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. The "ANONYMOUS" has been removed.Kmarinas86 04:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • A couple of examples of bad writing in the article: “After the coming of the about 40 other prophets of Elohim, if that occurs, Raëlians believe, this information will be accessible to scientists on Earth who will perform resurrections of many billions of individuals either for long-term reward or short-term punishment” and “According to Raëlianism, if humans saves itself from nuclear annihilation, it will become like their creators, extraterrestrial Elohim”
THANK YOU. This is what I like to hear.Kmarinas86 04:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Bear in mind that they're only examples; you may wish to have someone unconnected with the article give it a good read through. J.Winklethorpe talk 10:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. See how I fixed the article. I used Microsoft Word in order to fix the grammar and style mistakes.Kmarinas86 02:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Not fixed. While Word might help you catch some obvious mistakes and the like, it is of no help in bringing an article to the "Well written" standard required by the FA criteria. J.Winklethorpe talk 10:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Some unreliable looking references
  • Ref 75 “Same Street, Different Parade”. I'm unconvinced of the reliability of a blog whose latest entry is “Restrooms around the World”.
  • Ref 66 “eric_bolou's photos”, is an inaccessible page on Yahoo photos – surely not a reliable source?
  • Ref 74, from Cruftbox.com – some photos on a personal website. Questionable reliability, I would say.
Ref 74 & 75 are obviously blogs. They show pictures of the Raelian float, and they come from blog websites. The claim on the article was, "In Pasadena, California, the Raëlians and their silver inflated "UFO" float were sighted at the Doo Dah Parade by online bloggers.[74][75]". The Doo Dah Parade is in Pasadena, California, per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doo_Dah_Parade.
74 - http://cruftbox.com/cruft/docs/doodah03
75 - http://support4change.squarespace.com/journal/2006/11/30/same-street-different-parade
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dsnet/66571180/ - Pictures say a 1000 words. You don't.Kmarinas86 03:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
As for Ref 66, Yahoo! Photos died, which is why the link doesn't work anymore.Kmarinas86 03:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
A couple more refs of concern. Ref 68 links to nothing, ref 69 is a page of photos. Blogs and photo pages really don't count as reliable sources. Overall, that section is very low on use of reliable sources. On another note, Ref 71, "Raelity show" is listed as from Associated Press. It's from the Tapei Times; the photo is credited to Associated Press.J.Winklethorpe talk 10:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. Taipei Times replace by Associated Press.Kmarinas86 14:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. Former Ref 68 removed.Kmarinas86 14:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Are you reliable? Just kidding =P. Seriously, I did not use those blog sources as evidence for any characteristics of Raëlians except what is demonstrable from the pictures. Those pictures could be taken by anyone, and they say a lot. Anyone who does not think the pictures are evidence they actually participated in a parade has no faith in humanity. The fact is that many of the free pictures used in the article are from "unreliable sources" because all of them came from permission of the "primary source". But it is ridiculous to suggest that the pictures have significantly doctored content, especially the blog pictures.
I make no suggestions of doctoring, or anything else. I'm quite happy to believe that they represent exactly what they say they represent, as I prefer to err on the side of trust. However, we owe it to our readers to present verifiable and reliable information, and blogs and photo collections simply don't cut it as reliable sources. WP:RS explains it better than I could.J.Winklethorpe talk 14:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the sources themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

—WP:RS#What_is_a_reliable_source.3F

Fixed. Third party sources added to support the blogs whose sole use is for the pictures, titles, dates, and the Raëlian symbol. Any prose of the any of the blogs is absolutely not used in the article.Kmarinas86 00:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Not fixed. Refs 92 to 98 are unreliable, and are used to support the appearance in a parade on stated dates. If you read the WP:RS section you quoted, you will see that unreliable sources may only be used in articles about the sources themselves. If the news article supports those specific claims, then reference them with it. If not, remove the claims. J.Winklethorpe talk 10:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. The blog sources have been removed.Kmarinas86 14:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And on a different note, I don't know what's going on with the colours above, but you've made that section unreadable on my monitor. J.Winklethorpe talk 20:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Color replaced by lettering system.Kmarinas86 00:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I will be off-wiki for approx a week. Rest assured I will review my oppose once you've had an opportunity to work on the article. J.Winklethorpe talk 10:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, well you obviously been putting in some hard work on the article, for which you are to be applauded. Unfortunately, as I've noted above, I still don't think it approaches the "Well written" FA criteria. For example, the following are, at best, awkward to read: “the idealized political framework for a worldwide political union is one advocating problem-solving and creative intelligence as criteria for regional governance.”; “For example, the most intelligent among the creation may reject spontaneous generation and support the ideas primordial soup or biogenesis.”; “a reporter from a Spanish television station saw Raëlians who crawled around in cross-dressing plays in which both sexes were participants”;
Fixed. The quoted examples have been addressed.Kmarinas86 19:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Further notes:
  • While you've improved the listiness of the prose, that tendancy still remains, along with examples of short, stubby paragraphs.
Questions. I have put together paragraphs that go together. Which remaining paragraphs do you think are too short and stubby?Kmarinas86 14:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, the majority of the short paragraphs are dealt with. I'd say the last four paragraphs in Human Cloning could be merged together into two, though. J.Winklethorpe talk 09:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Another question. I have moved those four paragraphs, containing mainly criticism, to a new section on Clonaid located under "Practices and history". Would you say that this is an appropriate place to put it in comparison to the "Beliefs" section? The criticism focus on the ethics and feasibility of the first stage human cloning (i.e. development of a baby clone), however the beliefs section only has a sentence or two about the first stage human cloning. The vast majority of the human cloning section covers stage two and three.Kmarinas86 18:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I would say it was more appropriate to the Beliefs/Human cloning section, but honestly it could go in either. Perhaps you should think about what the Clonaid controversy brings to the article - does it illustrate a belief, or a practice? J.Winklethorpe talk 18:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You still need to beef the lead up
Maybe fixed. I beefed the lead.Kmarinas86 14:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No need to italicise Yahweh and Elohim per MOS. It might be reasonable to italicise the first usage as citing, but not the rest. It would also save us from “thought to be from Elohimic origins”, which is just horrible. Similarly for baptism, sensual meditation.
Fixed. Italics removed.Kmarinas86 13:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • “The religions thought to be from Elohimic origins include Hinduism, Judaism, Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, and Bahá'í.” Supported by Ref 20 “Glenn Carter's Raëlian Webpage”. In what way does that reference (which is of dubious reliability anyway) support that sentence? It has a list of religions, which it then describes. At no point does it say extra terrestrials founded them. If the claim is in Intelligent Design, which is cited earlier, then use it to support it. If not, remove the claim.
Fixed. Better citations found and implemented.Kmarinas86 13:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • And what do the other world religions claimed to have been founded by extra terrestrials have to say about it all? I can’t imagine they’re impressed…
Comment. Would this help detract the article from an FA rating?Kmarinas86 13:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if any commentry on this aspect of Raelian belief existed, that therefore might need to be reflected in the article. J.Winklethorpe talk 09:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Not all small parts of Raelianism that are mentioned in the media have warranted attention by those interviewed or commented on by the media.Kmarinas86 02:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
A Google search reveals little or no commentary on this from members of other religions. They are often reported in the media from the Raelian point of view or as an observer of a Raelian speaking about their beliefs, not as a contrary to those beliefs. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=raelian+%22prophets%22+jesus+mohammed http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=raelian+%22prophets%22+elohim Kmarinas86 14:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

J.Winklethorpe talk 10:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Article as of Oppose 3
  • Oppose, below are a comments on why, but please realize many of those are just examples of things I consider to be a problem throughout the article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The image of the 'twins' in the cloning section has nothing to do with the subject and only serves to make the article more 'pretty'. In addition, inclusion of photographs of random people in an article about a religious topic has potential BLP issues. Please remove the photograph.
      • Fixed. Photo removed.Kmarinas86 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Examples of bad prose:
      • "causing the clone to mature much, much faster than normal"
        • Fixed. Deleted.Kmarinas86 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • "Note that "genetically identical" does not mean altogether identical"
        • Fixed. Deleted.Kmarinas86 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • "The purported extraterrestrial explained... ", just one sentence earlier there is no such reservation about him being extraterrestrial
        • Fixed. Deleted.Kmarinas86 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • "The elohim will visit the earth officially when enough...", are they now visiting unofficially or not visiting at all?
        • Fixed. The sentence is redundant in the paragraph so it has been removed.Kmarinas86 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • "for everything that one does, including what one tells others, have natural consequences"
        • Fixed. Replaced "have" with "leads to".Kmarinas86 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • "an American woman underwent a standard cloning procedure", at the moment there is no such thing as a "standard" cloning procedure
        • Fixed. "Standard" removed.Kmarinas86 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • "the only thing which can stop war and injustice that currently persists in today's world"
        • Fixed. Redundant addition of "currently" removed.Kmarinas86 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The section "Extraterrestrial elohim" is difficult to understand:
      • "These humanoid extraterrestrials were able to master solar astronomy...", appears to mean they "mastered" those things after arriving on earth.
        • Fixed. Replaced "were able to master" with "who mastered".Kmarinas86 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • "...share their advanced scientific knowledge with us, their creation.", first time it is suggested "we" are "their" creation, please expand on the subject, as earlier in that paragraph it is stated that "primitive people of the past called "those who came from the sky" elohim". So did they create us, or where we already here when they came?
        • Fixed. This has been resolved with the addition of the mention that they were fashioned out from scratch.Kmarinas86 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
    • "Elohim" is inconsistenly written with either a capital letter or not
      • Fixed. Capitalized "elohim".
    • In general, I find the prose to be too "poetic" (for lack of a better word), which complicates reading. Examples (but definately not all of them):
      • "Religious texts foretell their return"
        • Fixed. Resolved.Kmarinas86 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • "on the dwelling they have designed"
        • Fixed. Replaced it with something else.Kmarinas86 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • "had meals with the living body of Jesus Christ"
        • Fixed. Removed "the living body of".Kmarinas86 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • "with us, their creation"
        • Fixed. Removed "their creation". Changed "us" to "humanity".Kmarinas86 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
      • "disagree with them on said consequences"
        • Fixed. Resolved.Kmarinas86 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Golly gee whiz. Just how many other things need to be changed? 20, 100, 1000?Kmarinas86 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  • LOL - there are thirteen references for the last statement on the intro. How about picking the best two? ←BenB4 12:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Removed recently added non-summarizing statement.Kmarinas86 15:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a case of The Heymann Standard; the point of FAC isn't just to change things to accommodate a person so you get a support. The article you nominated is not the same as the one it is now (hm). I think you need to withdraw and take some more time on this article. ALTON .ıl 21:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree on this point. The article now is very different from the one I looked at about a week ago, and the changes are not all for the better (for example the addition of several very colorful, but incomprehensible and unexplained images). Many of those changes were not done because of this FAC, so the article clearly is still under development and thus is not stable. The article should be taken off FAC, worked on until its finished and then passed first through peer review before it is listed again. I'd be happy to give my comments on a final version of this article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The images were added because the image copyright status of Image:DNA_UFO_Raelian.jpg was questioned and support for keeping it in the article could not be delivered, so I had to replace it with something. Also, I find notions of incomprehensibility very contentious. Obviously the problem must be in the captions and not the images themselves. There is absolutely no reason that the images would have a fundamental problem. Adding or subtracting words in the images themselves would make them "incomprehensible". I have revised the captions to illustrate this point.Kmarinas86 17:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, the notion of the article as being finished is rather arbitrary. As it stands right now, I don't see why a new FAC could be started right now in place of this one. After all, the article has already changed enough. The whole point of me bringing this FAC is for others to bring up issues that are invisible to my limited mind.Kmarinas86 17:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, while the article may have not been stable a few days ago, it is now, because I have run out of ideas for changing it.Kmarinas86 17:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Two points. 1) “The whole point of me bringing this FAC is for others to bring up issues that are invisible to my limited mind”. Actually, that’s the point of peer review. FAC is supposed to have reviews of the article under the FA criteria, and minor fixes being made. 2) I was trying to ignore the pictures, but seeing as they’ve been brought up…of the three above, the details in the life cycle are incomprehensible (what’s the figure with a staff representing? The group of three figures bring to mind a cartoon family, which surely isn’t the intent?), the electorate picture only makes sense after reading the paragraph next too it, and the cloning picture adds nothing. The picture at top right of the article is genuinely incomprehensible to me, and I’ve read the article enough times that it shouldn’t. The genesis picture also is only understandable after reading the paragraph, and in no way adds to the explanation. J.Winklethorpe talk 19:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I am really sorry, but you should have made a "finished" version of the article before bringing it here. This way, we have to comment on several, different versions of the article. That makes things complicated, as people might support a specific version, but the large changes later might cause them to reconsider (as I said, some of these big changes have not been for the better). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The images have been replaced.Kmarinas86 07:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • PLEASE REMOVE THESE OBSTRUCTIVE IMAGES—relocate on a linked page if you feel it's necessary.
    • Obstructive images removed.Kmarinas86 15:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Poorly written, uncritical, silly. Take the lead as an example of the whole text.
    • The lead has been recently changed and probably has a higher percent of errors than the rest of the text.Kmarinas86 15:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • "Exercizes"?
      • Spelling fixed.Kmarinas86 15:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • "upper level members"—a hyphen?
      • Hypen added.Kmarinas86 15:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • "they hope to extended life through cloning"
      • Tense fixed.Kmarinas86 15:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • "outerspace"—one word?
      • Space added.Kmarinas86 15:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • "civil extreterrestrials"—they're not rude?
      • "Civil" deleted.Kmarinas86 15:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • "sexual self-determination"—which is what? "sex-positive feminism"?
      • No. What makes you think that?
    • You do meditation, do you?
      • Revised.15:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, I don't.Kmarinas86 15:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
    • "genital masturbation"? (As opposed to the ankles?)
      • "Genital" removed.Kmarinas86 15:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Tony (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Please address the following:
    • What areas should be made more critical?
    • What can be done to remove the silliness that prevents this from being a FA? Specifically, what harm does the silliness have on the article's adherence to the FA criteria?Kmarinas86 15:19, 30 September 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.
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 not promoted 17:40, 30 September 2007.

Emma Watson

This is a self nomination on behalf of the Harry Potter WikiProject. This article is certainly our best work; it passed its GA with flying colours, has been rewritten completely and copyedited several times by myself (Happy-melon) and Onomatopoeia. I consider it to be a strong candidate for Featured Article status. Happy-melon 21:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - Looks good, meets the criteria. Judgesurreal777 21:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: This reviewer offers conditional support below.
  • Support (WP:HP editor) I read through it all, and it seems to be comprehensive and well written. I didn't noticed any unsourced statements. Layout appears clean. – Basar (talk · contribs) 03:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Subject is too young and article may be unstable for FA. Alientraveller 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't see how her article will change anymore than older living people, especially not in such a dramatic way that will destabilize it to non-compliance with criterion 1e. Remember, criterion 1e says being stable "means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day". Her article does not need changing day to day just because she is 17 years old. – Basar (talk · contribs) 00:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Fair enough. Structurally, would it not make sense to give all the information on Harry Potter into one section? That's her career so far, and considering her age it may be better to merge her childhood and personal life into one section at the top. The lead provides chronology anyway, so there'll be no trouble if it looks a little jumpy. Alientraveller 18:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • See my comment below regarding how such a merge does not read well. I think a short opening section does not disrupt how the article reads/flows, but putting these two sections together just to keep a section from being short has nothing to do with readability/flow and puts less important personal information (i.e. her grades) ahead of important career landmarks which also happened to occur first. She's a child actor, so it's not so shocking that the opening section would be brief. --Melty girl 19:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support: Fair enough again, apart from that, the article is fine. Alientraveller 20:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to say, I'm quite impressed. Support, a well-written and engaging article. I'll leave it to others, perhaps more knowledgeable about Watson, to say if the article is comprehensive enough, but it seems that way to me, and avoids cruft or in-universe pitfalls. Sources look good. — BillC talk 22:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: While the article itself is good, I am concerned about it being a FA because it is a high traffic page, and because it is especially prone to simple vandalism as well as the fact that unsourced fan cruft is constantly inserted into the article by throw away accounts. I mean, since she is a teen idol and all, there is too high of a risk and too much of a challenge to keep the page's integrity from being bogged down by fancruft. Karrmann 03:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    • This page does not have any exceptional characteristics compared to other, much more difficult, featured articles such as Islam and Hurricane Katrina. – Basar (talk · contribs) 04:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I concur. Raul654 21:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, since when was prone to vandalism a reason not to promote the article? If the content itself is featured quality, then it's worthy of featured recognition. If the page becomes suscepitble to vandalism, we'll protect it. That's certainly not a reason to Oppose. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 06:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Inconclusive Comment It might be a good idea to merge "Early years" and "Personal life", which read similarly. Yes, "Early years" deals with her life before stardom, but the section is so short (and likely to remain so) that keeping it separate seems unnecessary. —Verrai 19:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The redistribution of headings was discussed briefly at Peer Review. It was concluded that much more amalgamation would unbalance the table of contents, leaving too few top-level headers. However that combination is one that appeals to me somewhat, so if there is significant approval I will implement it. Happy-melon 20:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I strongly disagree with this combination because when the combined section was placed at the end, the article was out of chronological order, but now, placed at the front, it likewise disrupts the chronology and puts less important personal information (her grades) ahead of career landmarks, which are far more notable. I feel that these two sections should not have been combined. Yes, the "Early years" section was short, but that's because she's a child actor, and that's simply how it is. --Melty girl 15:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I doubt that vunerability to vandalism is a factor in determining whether or not the article should be featured. then that would just ruin the concept of featured articles. It meets all of the criteria. I support it. Reginmund 23:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I am a main contributor, ok, but I feel it meets WP:WIAFA. Subject is "only" 17, but so what, also older actors make films and the content is stable whilst being updated constantly. "Fancruft" can be killed as of WP:RS. "Prone to vandalism" is not an argument at all. Just look at global warming, it is subject of vicious edit wars since years (!!) and still a FA. It is rather an argument to protect it. —Onomatopoeia 06:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment
  • Does the Daisy Pratt Poetry Competition have any real relevance? It doesn't seem to be notable in its own right, nor is it related to her becoming an actress, so is it needed?
  • I second this concern. The poetry contest mentioned is not placed in sufficient context, and is not notable enough for mention. I Googled it, and it's only a school contest, yet the way it's presented by name only implies that it's a regional or national contest of importance. It's also not on topic in terms of her trajectory toward becoming an actor. It seems too trivial for mention. --Melty girl 00:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done Happy-melon deleted the sentence. --Melty girl 04:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done I would approve of merging "Early years" and "Personal life"; the distinction isn't always clear and neither are particularly long.
  • Y Done "Acting career" seems to specific a title considering it veers into exam results and the FHM stuff, so possibly change to just "career"?
It looks pretty good in general. Trebor 13:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done Oh, and some of the sources don't have full information; *14, for instance, doesn't have the author or publication date. Quick run through of them would be good. Trebor 13:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. If you find any more ommissions let me know. Happy‑melon 14:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done Thanks. I would put personal life first (although if people disagree, that's fine), and cut the "See also" section since it only contains one link (and many of the the people on the list are already linked to within the article). Trebor 14:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I have removed the see also, but I'm less convinced about moving the personal life. Let's be honest - most readers are purely after her acting career (or they just want to marry her :D). Happy‑melon 14:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well if we're trying to please the readers, let's move the bit on nude scenes to the lead :D I'm not too bothered, it's just the norm for biographies to start with childhood after the lead. But looks good to me, Support. Trebor 14:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Just my two cents, but I also like having personal life first just because it is the more standard way of doing things, and also because it balances the section lengths by having short, long, short. – Basar (talk · contribs) 16:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - meets criteria. Couldn't spot any obvious prose fixes and article is comprehensive. Changeability of subject matter (rather than article) is not an issue. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose with specific (if numerous) reservations, which ideally, can be addressed so that I may remove my opposition. There are many writing and style rule issues I want to raise. Though the article is good, I think FA calls for more scrutiny, and it hasn't received that here as of yet. Some of the issues I raise call for easy fixes, some call for discussion and careful reworking. I don't think the writing is "brilliant" or "of a professional standard" yet. No ill will is intended; the article is good, but I think that for FA, more work needs to be done. I will discuss issues in order, from top to bottom of the article (not from biggest problem to smallest). NOTE: I have a request for the editors of the article: please do not place "Y Done" in front of my paragraphs. Instead, please place "Y Done" (or "N Not done") below each comment along with your explanation and signature. Thanks.] --Melty girl 07:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Throughout the article, there often seems to be the assumption that all readers already have a full understanding of the Harry Potter universe; for a first example of this issue, the second sentence of the lead section should specify that the role of Hermione is one of three starring roles. Simply stating that Watson plays "Hermione Granger" does not provide enough quite information for the reader for those who don't know the character's name or significance.
  • I have corrected the second sentence of the LS as suggested since I agree that clarification was needed, but I think I'll leave further modifications to Happy-melon. – Basar (talk · contribs) 06:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Doing... Your modification is good, Basar. It's not my article, of course! If I had a concern to raise about this article it would be that the lead is short. However, I'm not sure what else we can put in there that is notable enough. Happy‑melon 14:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I added the modifier "hugely successful" before "the Harry Potter film series", and I feel that with this and all the changes everyone has recently made, my above problem with the lead has been now solved. But are you still working on the rest of the article having assumptions about the reader's HP knowledge? --18:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melty girl (talk • contribs)
  • Here's an example of awkward writing (also from the lead): "Originally a child actor in minor school plays..." is not the strongest way to open the sentence about her casting in Harry Potter. Not only are school plays are always "minor," but one is usually not considered a "child actor" unless one acts in some kind of professional context. I would suggest rewriting the sentence along the lines of "At the age of eleven nine, having previously acted only in school plays, Watson beat out thousands of other candidates for the role of Hermione."
  • I see that this point has not been responded to. Perhaps you just haven't gotten to it yet, but is there a reason why my suggested sentence above is not acceptable? It could simply be used as drafted. The link your sentence provides to the child actor article confirms that a child who acts in amateur school productions is not a child actor, because a child actor is a professional. The usage is factually incorrect/misleading and should be edited out. I'm not sure if it's kosher for me to edit the sentence, given my role as reviewer, but if it's not a problem, I could go ahead... --Melty girl 05:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done I implemented your sentence because I did not like the original either. – Basar (talk · contribs) 06:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I simply hadn't got around to it. I like the new wording. Happy‑melon 14:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The article later makes it seem like she was nine or ten when she was cast, yet the lead says eleven. Isn't eleven how old she was when it was released?
    • Y Done factual error fixed Happy‑melon 08:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I question whether her ranking as 98th in the FHM "100 Sexiest Women in the World" list is notable enough for the lead section. First, she only ranked 98 out of 100. Second, is her hotness ranking really one of the most important things to mention about this actor in the lead section? And is mentioning this poll the best way to get the idea of the nature of her celebrity across? If the answer to these last two questions is "yes" (which I'm not convinced it is!), then it would be good to note, for those who are not familiar with the poll, that it is a public vote -- otherwise, it just seems like one magazine's editors picked her, which is certainly not as notable.
  • I rather like that sentence in the lead. I feel that part of the job of the lead is to establish the breadth of a person's notability, and I think the FHM poll shows how much her roll as Hermione has brought her to the attention of the public. I also think it's nice to establish this distinct aspect of her celebrity early in the article. For me, just the fact that people would vote for her is significant, even though she only made 98th. I have clarified that it is a poll by substituting the word list for poll. – Basar (talk · contribs) 06:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I also like it. Plus the lead is short enough already without us taking more out of it. Happy‑melon 14:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done Substituting "poll" is a nice clean fix. While I'm still not 100% sure it's worth mentioning in the lead in quite this way, this seems fine. --Melty girl 16:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:$, as it's been explained to me, calls for only one currency to be used and only less familiar currencies to be converted in parentheses. Additionally, it calls for U.S. dollars to be the one currency used in non-country-specific articles; the question is whether this is a non-country-specific article or not.
  • I would strongly argue that a British actress in an article written in British english should use pounds sterling. However, the MOS appears fairly inequivocal. Are there any other examples of legitimate exceptions to this rule? If not I will use USD, although I am loathe to do so. Happy‑melon 08:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done I didn't see your comments before I changed it. I decided that this was a country specific article since she is British and brought it to strict compliance. I noticed this problem earlier but for some reason did not fix it. – Basar (talk · contribs) 08:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I know this has been debated, but I think it's odd to begin the article with casting Hermione and not with the origins of Emma Watson herself. Seems more customary and more chronological to begin with where Watson was born, etc. I think it's odd that this info comes in the last section of the narrative.
  • Inconclusive Consensus seems to support this change. I have implemented it. Happy‑melon 08:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment above: Please note my problem with placing the merged "Early years" and "Personal life" section at the beginning. (It disturbs chronology and hierarchy.) --Melty girl 17:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I completely misinterpreted your comment. I have reverted. Happy‑melon 19:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Y DoneIn fact, the article as it now stands satisfies your concern. Happy‑melon 14:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Another example of awkward writing, this time about acting: "Following the literary depiction of Hermione, the producers sought a 'bossy' and 'self-confident' character and found that she fit this description perfectly." This seems to state that Watson herself is a bossy, self-confident character. Was she really cast because she demonstrated these personal qualities, or because she was able to portray them effectively as an actor? Additionally, this sentence displays a problem that I think the article has elsewhere as well: subtly making the qualities of Hermione the character of equal or more importance in this article than Watson herself. As written, this sentence is more descriptive of Hermione than Watson.
  • I read the reference, and I believe it is saying that Watson is bossy and self-confident, matching Hermione who has the same qualities. – Basar (talk · contribs) 06:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done I see what you mean -- the source seems to suggest that they chose her based on her own personality rather than her ability to portray the needed qualities, which I suppose shouldn't be surprising for casting a child. Your re-wording is good. --Melty girl 16:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Concern remains The "Harry Potter (2001–present)" section launches in without first telling us anything about what Watson's role in the first film involved, how Watson's first performance was received, or how well the film did. There's no context. The main thing we get is Watson's perspective on herself and on Harry Potter, and this seems very unbalanced in terms of sources and perspectives. Hearing that twelve-year-old Watson said that "success hasn't changed her" seems more like fansite writing than FA Wikipedia/encyclopedic content. Continuing on, we hear Watson's opinions of her character, film plotting and of other actors, but we should be reading about Watson herself, about her work. Then we veer into the news that her early teenage years were hard, as were Daniel Radcliffe's -- but this is the Career section, not the personal section (or the Radcliffe article). Shouldn't we be learning about what this actress was called upon to do in her work in the HP films and how her performances were received? Next, more about Watson's opinions about other actors follows. But this article should be about Emma Watson, and this section should be about her work in the HP films; it should not be about what she thinks about other actors.
  • Do you feel that this concern has been adequately addressed by recent changes? If not, what still needs to be added? Happy‑melon 13:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As per the explain jargon style rule, I question whether "shipper" should be used in an encyclopedic context with only a link offered as explanation. It seems like fan jargon to me, as as such, should be explained. Additionally, once again, this part is veering into being an article about Harry Potter and not Emma Watson.
  • Y Done I will consider all the "more about Hermione than Watson" comments together at a later time. Happy‑melon 14:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Remind There is still an instance of "shipper" in the article, and it is not explained. Please take more care with this process; I don't feel that it is an FAC reviewer's responsibility to make sure that you've really addressed each issue that you say is "done". Please be more rigorous and thorough -- not only will the article will benefit, but it will be more likely to attain FA. --Melty girl 17:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done I have removed this also. I appologise for the sloppy editing the first time around - I was extremely busy today, hence my only attempting to address the more objective of your comments. As I have time tonight, I shall try and address some of the more substantial concerns. Happy‑melon 18:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Gotcha, thanks. --Melty girl 19:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • In Celebrity, the part that begins, "When Watson took GCSEs in 10 subjects, achieving straight As, it inspired comparisons to Hermione..." is about Watson's personal life (education), but even more so, it goes on to be about about Hermione and images of girls in the media. As written, it is not about Watson's celebrity.
  • Works for me Watson's results are discussed in depth elsewhere (currently in the first section). The inclusion is only to provide context for the media comparisons. Her being compared to anyone is information relevant to her celebrity status, IMO. Her comparison to other girls in the media doubly so. I question the desirability of focusing sections as rigidly on their headers as you fell is necessary, fearing for the fluidity of the article. While there are certainly sections which may need moving or restructuring, I fear that being so rigid will result in a very mechanical article with a loss of continuity. Happy‑melon 19:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Concern remains Perhaps a rewrite that sets this bit in better context would help. As it stands, I feel that its inclusion throws the flow of the section off. One minute you're talking about how the public perceives her as a sex symbol, but the next you're talking about her grades and how she's personally like her character. Next comes the fact that she's a feminist, which are her personal politics. Then we're back to her wealth, which flips things back to the flow you'd expect as a reader from the section name and how it opened. And if, as you note, her grades are mentioned in the Personal life section, why dwell on them again here? About your concerns re my "rigidity" on sections, all I can say is that your perspective on "fluidity" concerns me for the current and future coherence and stability of the article. This is an encyclopedia, not a magazine, and the sections need to be divided sensibly and clearly in order to read well. Still, sharp clarity of organization need not result in a mechanical read so long as the text is crafted skillfully. To be FA and to remain stable, this article must have a solid set of logical, coherent hierarchical sections. If organizational clarity is not strongly built in, users will put new text anywhere, and the article will not be readable or stable for long. In the case of this particular issue, the "Celebrity" section, the text doesn't flow coherently, to my mind. Perhaps you need to adjust the name of the section itself, but even still, the flow between the items mentioned needs to be given better context/segue. --Melty girl 00:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • After a great deal of soul-searching, I have removed the celebrity section altogether, after moving as much as I could get away with into other areas. Happy‑melon 10:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Next, the phrase "She admitted that there is quite a lot of herself in the confident and bookish Hermione," is a verbatim lift from the sourced Parade article, but the quote is not attributed. The article should be closely scrutinized for other such accidental plagiarisms, and they should all be properly quoted or rewritten.
  • I shall make that the focus of my work tonight. Happy‑melon 19:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done Happy-melon indicated below that this is done. --Melty girl 18:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The section Professional relationships contains topics that do not relate to her professional relationships: how she copes with fame and whether she'd do nudity. And much of the stuff about her professional relationships boils down to Watson's opinions of other actors, which is, once again, tangential to the subject at hand. Some of this section should be eliminated, and other parts should be moved to other sections.
  • See my comments two sections above. Happy‑melon 19:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Concern remains/suggestion OK, here's a modified, more specific suggestion for you. There are two short things in this section that don't belong in this section, and the first in particular is jarring to the reader: "Asked how she copes with her success and fame, Watson also credited her family as a source of support." This sentence follows sentences about her relationships with Radcliffe and Grint, and simply doesn't make sense as the final sentence in the paragraph, because it has nothing to do with what precedes it -- and it also interrupts two sentences that do belong next to each other. This "copes with fame" sentence belongs under either "Celebrity" or "Personal life", because it has nothing to do with professional relationships. Second, there are the two sentences about nudity, which also have nothing to do with "Professional relationships" and don't flow logically from the sentences they follow. Perhaps they should go under "Future plans," since they discuss what she's willing to do in her career in the future. --Melty girl 16:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done I have moved these two phrases. Happy‑melon 18:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Filmography "Notes": exact film release dates seem unimportant for the purposes of this actor article (and certainly, they can't be the release dates for the entire planet anyway). Year should suffice. It's fine to leave the Notes column blank for certain roles.
  • Y Done Happy‑melon 13:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Remind Actually one past film release date is still there. Also, the date a film was announced seems similarly trivial -- I would delete that too and instead allow a citation to provide that information. "(voice)" seems like a true note about the part; I would delete that from the Role column and instead note that it's a voice part in the Notes column. --Melty girl 16:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Y DoneI have corrected these. Happy‑melon 18:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The Awards section is sloppy. Nominations come before wins, some dates are missing, some roles may be missing, and some award category titles are in quotes while others aren't (I think none should be). Also, sometimes the awarding body's name comes first, while sometimes the award comes first. Please pick a style, preferably something used on many other actor pages, and stick with it.
  • Y Done Happy‑melon 13:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Remind The table looks very nice. There's still something missing, however -- where the award was for a specific film, that should always be noted. You need one more column for Film. See Jake Gyllenhaal for an example. --Melty girl 17:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Included. Do you think it needs column headings, or is it sufficiently self-explanatory? Happy‑melon 18:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done Though I prefer the presentation of the awards table at Jake Gyllenhaal, I think this is adequate. --19:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The References are quite substantial, but there are little inconsistencies in formatting. Occasionally, the name of an article is missing (i.e. a news article from Watson's site), sometimes commas are used where periods are used in other cases, capitalization is inconsistent, and news source naming seems inconsistent (sometimes it's "bbc.com", sometimes "BBC", etc.). All citations should be reviewed carefully; it should be easy to fix.
  • The majority of minor formatting 'error's are hardcoded features of the templates {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}, which have slightly different syntax (including, as you noticed, periods in one and commas in another). I am fixing them as far as possible. Question: should the 'one link rule' apply to references? Should the publisher "BBC" be linked only in the first reference it appears in? I would suggest that, since references are the one section of the article that is never going to be read from top to bottom, each instance should be linked. Comments? Happy‑melon 21:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
NEW Comment How did you decide when to use {{cite web}} versus {{cite news}}? For example, why wasn't AskMen's reprint of IGN's interview considered news? Isn't an interview with the press news by definition? I have to say, this is why I prefer to simply write the citations myself -- that way, the format is the same for all of them, and the resulting reference section is easier to read. But leaving that aside, I am wondering if there is any internal consistency here for the use of {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}. --Melty girl 18:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm aware, {{cite news}} is used here to reference printed material (although a web version is usually provided). That is to say, the interviews which appeared in print, usually in broadsheet newspapers, use the news template. All other web sources use {{cite web}}. If you can see any references that do not follow this 'rule', let me know and I'll get them fixed, although I don't think it's really a major (or even minor) issue, given that we're not aiming for perfection, just "the best". In any case, something like this seems fairly minor in comparison to the other concerns you've raised (some of which I have asked for your comments on, check this diff). Happy‑melon 18:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I always exclude references and captions from the one link rule, but I do not know of a formal guideline on this; I support linking each instance. – Basar (talk · contribs) 00:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I haven't used templates for citations, but I understand what you're saying. Perhaps this is a limitation of using templates, and that's why some people argue against them? Not sure what to say about that. I will say, however, that because you have a link on the article name, an additional link on the publication name seems unnecessary, since the article name link leads to the same place. If you go with this strategy, the "one link rule" becomes moot. --Melty girl 00:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Except that the title link is an external link to the story and the publication link is a wikilink to the organization's article. – Basar (talk · contribs) 01:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh yes, of course you are right! But the articles I've studied for citation formats have not included the Wikilinks. A References/Notes section doesn't necessarily seem to be the place where people will be reading for Wikipedia articles. But it certainly can't hurt. And if you're going to include Wikilinks, I think the point about linking them all is sensible. --Melty girl 06:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Right. Well, I quickly browsed through a few FAs, and I see both. I agree with your observation that for the most part people are not looking for Wikipedia articles in the reference section, so for lack of knowing an established guideline on this issue, I would support either linking or not linking. – Basar (talk · contribs) 21:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Y Done I shall work on this and plagiarism tonight. Happy‑melon 19:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I think I have got every little error here. Let me know if I've missed anything. I haven't found any more plagiarisms but, of course, that doesn't mean they aren't there. Happy‑melon 19:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • NEW Comment Upon consideration, I think the subsections for each HP film clutter things up a bit. Also, I think it's best to write out the full title of each film when you introduce it into the narrative, rather than to cut out the "Harry Potter and the...". (Not sure where things are headed with other issues in this FAC...). Melty girl 03:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I expressed doubts on the subsections in the edit summary when I added them. I don't think that they clutter things up, but I do think they break up the text in a way that makes the other details (First Light film awards, Queen's Handbag, etc) look rather out of place. I'm fairly sure that this (massive) section needs some subdivision, however, but I'm not sure how best to do it. Any suggestions? I have expanded the film titles as you suggested. Vide the other comments throughout this FAC, I am rather losing track of what's done, what's not, and what's still to do! Your implementation of line breaks is helpful, so thanks for that. I'll have to have a good read through and work out what's still outstanding. Happy‑melon 13:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments about prose quality
  • My copyedit just before FAC was the third time I have gone through this article with a red pen. I do not feel I am personally capable of improving its wording. If you maintain your concern, I will advance it to the League of Copyeditors when all other concerns have been addressed. Happy‑melon 19:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a great final step. There are definitely some issues that I see, but I didn't want to get into the finer details given the larger issues I was raising. --Melty girl 20:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Over-focus on Hermione Granger
  • While I fully accept your first point, about the article assuming familiarity with the Harry Potter world, I disagree with your concern about the article veering towards a description of Hermione rather than Watson. Firstly, I do not think that the phrases you have mentioned or the article in general (apart from the "following the literary depiction of Hermione" line, which is perhaps poorly phrased) suffers much in this regard. Secondly, Watson has been typecast: in a very real sense, she is Hermione Granger. Through the phenomenal sucess of the films (which I agree we need to mention more of), vice versa is also true. That is not just a perspective issue. The articles on Pierce Brosnan and Sean Connery display something of the same 'problem', although weaker as their typecast is not as pronounced. I agree that the line I mentioned above needs rephrasing. There may be other specific examples, which I will be delighted to correct if they geniunely represent a problem. Happy‑melon 19:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Emma Watson is not, in any real sense, Hermione Granger. Period. To write successfully about her, you must be able to keep an eye on getting confused between which entity you're writing about/emphasizing, the actor or the character. I took a look at the articles you mentioned; Sean Connery is a B-class article, so I didn't consider it carefully, but I read Pierce Brosnan and it does not suffer from the syndrome I am raising here. Yes, there's a lot about Brosnan's work in the James Bond series, but the focus is firmly on Brosnan as an actor negotiating contracts and appearing in films, and it gives critical opinion of his performances and box office finances for his films. It does not, as this article does, focus on the personal qualities of the Bond character, or veer into extensive quotes from Brosnan giving his personal feelings about all his co-stars and the Bond character, or present Brosnan as the primary source for the article on him. OK, I'm going to leave this topic there for now, in order to let you and the other editors consider this issue and review the article for where you might be writing about things in a way that gives more primacy to Hermione, HP and other actors than to providing information about Emma Watson the actor. And I would also hope to hear from other FA reviewers about the issues I've raised. --Melty girl 01:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thankyou for your comments. They will be considered. Happy‑melon 06:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not at all stable. In 3 months her latest film will come out which no doubt will warrant extensive editing. - Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I disagree strongly with that definition of "stable". The article is not "the subject of ongoing edit wars" and the content does not "change significantly from day to day". If the future release of information were prohibitory to FA status, no living person, ongoing event, or non-complete theory or concept could attain FA status. That would preclude such articles as Angelina Jolie, Economy of India, and Asthma, amongst many others. There is no reason why, once information on Ballet Shoes becomes available, it will not be formatted, referenced, and included at as high a standard as the rest of the article. I will certainly be maintaining this article on my watchlist to ensure that that happens. Happy‑melon 13:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I also disagree strongly with this reasoning. If this logic were the case, then articles on all working artists would not be eligible for FA. And living politicians wouldn't be eligible because they might run for office again, and television shows might have a new season, and so on and so on. I think an argument would have to be made about how, in the past, the article itself has not been stable due to edit wars, etc., in order to support any concerns on the stability issue. --Melty girl 15:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Well-cited and comprehensive. However, the article is full of stubby paragraphs (one in the intro, the entire early childhood and celebrity sections, etc.) that are not suitable for FA. --Nat91 17:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Does the FA criteria "(a) "Well written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" mean that paragraphs can not be short where appropriate f