Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emma Watson/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Emma Watson
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

edit

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)[reply]

Note: This reviewer offers conditional support below.
  • Oppose: Subject is too young and article may be unstable for FA. Alientraveller 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  •  Done I would approve of merging "Early years" and "Personal life"; the distinction isn't always clear and neither are particularly long.
  •  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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 "{{done}}" in front of my paragraphs. Instead, please place "{{done}}" (or "{{notdone}}") below each comment along with your explanation and signature. Thanks.] --Melty girl 07:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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?
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
  • 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.
 DoneIn fact, the article as it now stands satisfies your concern. Happy‑melon 14:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
  •  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)[reply]
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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.
  • 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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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 for the paragraph's topic? Does engaging, even brilliant writing = long paragraphs? Or does professional writing = long paragraphs? Could you please clarify/elaborate? For example, if the editors combined all instances of adjacent short paragraphs would that make this article suitable for FA to your mind? Or do you feel that the stubbiness of the paragraphs shows that the subject matter itself is too thin? Or is there some other concern you have that relates to FA criteria re "well written"? Thanks, Melty girl 18:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. I like this article. It's very well written and flows beautifully, but I have a few issues relating to structure:
    • I don't like the term "early childhood" as it sets her apart from other cators, even other actors who found fame in their childhood. I'd rather see that section as "early life" even though it only encompasses 10 years.
    • In the filmography section, her character, even though it's the same, should not be rowspanned, it should be row for row and repeating the character name in each line. It looks untidy and, even though the bulk of her films have been harry potter centric, this should not appear as such.
    • The lead is far too Harry Potter centric. You don't really need to mention that the Harry Potter films are based on JKR's books. It becomes overinformation in the article at all to have that sort of information (since that info can be found on the film series' page in the lead there, where it belongs) but it only vaguely should belong in this article, but definitely not in the lead. I would explain in the lead also that playing Hermione is not Watson's only role, even though it's her main claim to fame, it's not her expanse, because the lead does seem to play her like a one trick pony, even though the rest of the article seems balanced in that respect.
      • Works for me Not too far above this, Melty girl raises the legitimate comment that some sections, including the lead, do not provide enough detail about the Harry Potter series and Hermione's place in it. While it is probably true that 80% of the world population know exactly what the HP film series is and who the character of Hermione is, an encyclopaedic article cannot afford to make the assumption. In many places in this article, what is needed is more HP context, not less. Happy‑melon 13:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not saying the article's too HP centric, I'm saying simply the lead is. There's such a thing as overlninking. There's about five links to Harry Potter articles that are circular linked amongst themselves. I think it would suffice to say that she was one of the three central characters in all five HP films and is set to star in the remaining two films. I don't have a problem with you liking to each of the remaining films and the link to the film series, but to like to JK and to the books is superfluous. Once a person gets into the article, then it's fine to mention that the films are based on books. It's also fair to assume the person interested in looking at what Harry Potter films are will click the link and see that the films are based on the books. This article is to discuss Watson, her impact on the world and therefore her impact upon the films. She has had no direct impact upon the books, except the fact that since the films have been made, the books readership base has marginally widened (mind you, the majority of the readership was in place before the films, but that's by the by). It's hard to argue that she has had any profound impact upon the books. I hope you don't take what I'm saying here as being harsh, but I'm simply stating that I don't believe there's justification for the lead to have that kind of information when there's ample other things that could be listed there, even if it's simply to indicate that "Outside of the HP world, Watson has finished filming a telemovie for BBC1 called "Ballet Shoes" and is set to appear in another cinematic release feature film in 2008." or something to that effect. --lincalinca 13:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification Just to make sure this is clear (since this page has gotten so long): I was not suggesting that the article needs more Harry Potter/Hermione info or "more HP context," as Happy-melon put it above -- all I meant was that some modifiers were needed to place HP mentions in context instead of assuming that all readers know their significance. But there are two context/focus issues that make it hard for me to remove my opposition. I will clarify with two major points:
(1) LincaLinca echoes my criticism when he says, "This article is to discuss Watson, her impact on the world and therefore her impact upon the films." A focus on Watson must be maintained; there shouldn't be too much about Hermione, HP or other HP actors, because they have their own articles (see above for some specific instances of this problem).
(2) At this stage of the FAC process, I still have several other (unanswered) concerns regarding the "well-written" criteria (see above), but I feel that my biggest obstacle to FA support is the missing global context: critical opinion of Watson's performances and box office information about her films. Her place in the entertainment industry is a must for an encyclopedia entry about her, and that information simply is not here. There's no outsider opinion on Watson in the article at all (Rowling is not an outsider, and it's not a quote from Rowling anyway). As it stands, Watson herself is the primary voice here, and that puts this article more into the territory of magazine interview writing. To be encyclopedic, the article must reveal what critics think of Watson the actor (good and bad) and how audiences have responded to the films she's been in with their ticket money, or we don't have a context for who Watson is in the world. Many basic questions for the Career section are unanswered here: How was her debut performance received by critics? How was each subsequent performance received? Is her acting overall well-received, or are there some naysayers? Do critics feel that her skills as an actor have grown as she's gotten older? Do critics feel that she will be able to build a career as an adult? How did each film do financially? Did the series grow in popularity, remain steady or shrink? To me, this missing critical and financial context means that the article falls down on the FA criteria, "(b) 'Comprehensive': the article does not neglect major facts and details." (Please refer to some of my above unanswered comments for further specifics about this criticism.) --Melty girl 20:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The awards section separates everything into awards won and ceded nominations. These should be listed simply in chronological order and each should be indicated whether it won or lost on its own line (see some awards article for examples, such as the list of Crowded House awards).
      •  Done Happy‑melon 13:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, I meant more something like this, where each award is referenced against its outcome/result. I've taken the liberty of adjusting it how I think it ought to look, but so as to not step on your toes, I'll show you the table here.
  • Sorry, I didn't explain myself very well when re-reading my original suggestion. Each award should contain its own line. The only thing that generally should span more than one line (i.e. row) is the year in which the award was granted. This improves readbility. Another change I made was to include the presenters of the Saturn Award and the Empire Award, as per the table's own headers, and lastly to mvoe the refs to the results. Lastly, it's more of a visual thing (I like to use red and green, but that's a matter of preference also) I like to separate the colours of the wins from nominations so they can be easily distinguished at a glance as to which is which. One last thing is that I've indicated that a reference may not be provided for two of them (even if it's in the article, there's an inline missing and for FA, every award needs to be referenced; it seems I missed that in my first sweep over the article). --lincalinca 14:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK I see where you're coming from. I do not believe that spanning the "film" column would affect readability (I have implemented this above, let me know what you think). Well noticed on the refereces - of course that's not acceptable; I'll have a look. Happy‑melon 14:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it's fine spanning the film. Generally I'd try to lean away from that, but definitely only span as little as possible and replicate as much as possible. In these cases, I can see it being beneficial to span, but not for the awards themselves. It's also more accessible to the viewer associating the reference and award together. Otherwise, I think you're getting the hang of what I'm trying to get across. Nice work on being receptive to these comments. --lincalinca 14:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, you never know: it could get the attention of the artist. Neil Finn mentioned the Crowded House wiki article on Denton, and that's an article I almost completely wrote myself, so they do read these things, you know! Anyway, just a few more squirrely things from me and you'll have my support. --lincalinca 15:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The filmography indicates "Ballet Shoes (TV)" and the notes section states "on BBC1". This would be better taking the TV part out of the title section and indicating in the notes "Made-for-television movie on BBC1" or something to that effect.
  • Other than these points, I believe it's a great article, but needs these matters attended to before can justifiably pass FA. --lincalinca 04:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I'm sorry not to have mentioned this before, but I feel that some of the personal life section should be relocated into early life. Early life is something of a bio, whereas personal life should indicate a person's current personal status. In here, you indicate about her French lineage through her grandmother and such. I just think it needs a jig. Being unfamiliar with the subject matter as closely as you guy editing here, I can only say it looks somewhat more jumbled than it possibly could be. What's there is mostly well written (a few nuances here or there that're probably just a matter of personal issues). I think in particular "After moving to Oxford with her mother and brother, Watson attended The Dragon School, a private preparatory school, until June 2003 and then moved to Headington School, a private all-girls school, also in Oxford." could go into early life. Alternatively, it could be worked into the general career section. Your edits here have been very well attended and I'm impressed. Attend these last few things, plus find the two references for those awards as mentioned before, and you'll gain my support. --lincalinca 15:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This issue has been much discussed in this review, so in the interest of helping us to not get stuck on this issue again, I made some slight adjustments myself. You'll see that I disagreed about moving the school stuff, just in the interest of maintaining chronology: "Early life" should be all pre-acting career, and the school stuff is mostly not, just because she became an actor at nine (I had named the section "Early childhood" to underscore that). Please see the above discussions for more about chronological and topic priority concerns re this placement issue. Additionally, I strongly disagree with integrating school stuff into the Career section, since it's not career-related, and thus could not simply be dropped into the section without careful re-writing for flow. On a different topic, I would be interested in getting your feedback about my above comment today responding to you and Happy-melon, particularly my second point, where I outline major missing facts. You might also want to refer to my disucssion with H-m comparing this article to Pierce Brosnan. --Melty girl 20:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. WP:LEAD isn't even close. Also, what does "Watson's work in the Harry Potter series has amassed a combined £10 million" even mean? Her work alone ammassed that? How do you separate that out? And then what does combined mean? Those problems that early do not lend confidence. The rest of the article also feels poorly organized and prioritized. A lot of random bits that don't seem connected. - Taxman Talk 03:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well since she hasn't done any other work it's fairly obvious that her fortune must be from HP - unless she got lucky on the lottery or something! General prose quality is something we're working on - it's getting worse at the moment rather than better as I'm trying to deal with other concerns vis missing detail etc. Happy‑melon 09:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what he's saying (and it's a valid point) is that it suggests the films have made a combined £10 million, thanks to her contributions. I didn't think of it in that way, but he's right. It should be re-worded to state "the success fo the HP films has earned Watson alone over £10 million from her work on the series to date." or something to that effeect. Correct me if I'm wrong, taxman. --lincalinca 13:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last time I really looked at it, it said "... has ammassed her a combined £10 million..." - at some time in our changes, that crucial pronoun got lost somewhere. You're right, taxman, it does (currently) need rewording. Happy‑melon 14:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense, but really the other issues were the bigger ones, especially the lead. In addition now I see a lot of poor prose flow, with little to no transitions between sentences. Part of the issue is due to paragraphs that have no cohesive idea and are too short to have one anyway. Merge, expand, or remove them if they are not important enough to devlop more fully. - Taxman Talk 03:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Overall, this article seems in very good shape, but I still have some issues with it. The most glaring problem to me is the "Professional Relationships" section which is not encyclopedic in tone and reads like a gossip magazine. There is no need for an encyclopedia article to talk about interviews asking how an actress feels about having to kiss someone onscreen or who she particularly enjoyed working with. The "celebrity" section has the same problem and should probably be eliminated entirely. Indrian 18:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure why you think the "celebrity" section is not relevant... I agree some of it might need a little clearing up, but the chineese theatre, FHM poll, sydney herald article, are all essential for an encyclopaedic coverage of her growing fame, surely. The difference between the "professional relationships" section and a gossip magazine is, of course, the letter V. Why is her reliably sourced concern about an anticipated future work not relevant, exactly? Happy‑melon 20:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really get your opposition. A gossip magazine would have unsourced rumors; this article is sourced and usually it's based on what she has said. It seems reasonable that a biography on someone would include writting on their life experiences, opinions, personality, and so forth. Sharing how she felt about a movie she worked on would help flesh those things out. – Basar (talk · contribs) 02:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't understand why information on kiss scenes and the like is not encyclopedic material, I am not sure you should be trying to bring an article to featured status. Most of the article is fine, but we are not running a magazine for teenagers where they can catch up on what their favorite stars are on about. Verifiability is not the issue. The problem is that such information is not relevant to an analysis of Watson's life or career. As for the celebrity section, I will clarify my remarks from above. Certain pieces of information such as the sexiest poll should be integrated into other sections of the article. Stuff like a quote from her about dressing up not running her life should be cut. The section is so small when the fluff is removed that I feel it does not merit its own section and the good material should be integrated elsewhere. Indrian 03:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indrian, this strongly echoes criticisms I've made throughout this process, about tangents, tone and relevancy. I'm at a loss for how to get this message across any better than I've already tried. I can sympathize that the editors are reluctant to let go of some of the material, and I've really tried to make helpful suggestions to help the article succeed, but there are still some serious problems that it may take a while to address. --Melty girl 03:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is perfectly relevant and appropriate to be talking about a "kiss scene" if it is part of Watson's career -- and it will be, as the quote explains. The comments about kissing and nudity are included because they are Watson's own comments on where she thinks her career may go. Personally, I don't know if they belong in this section ("professional relationship"? might be more appropriate in "celebrity" or something, not sure), but they are pertinent to her future film career. The dressing up/dictating her life quote is a reference to the fact that she loves acting ("dressing up") but it's not her only goal in life, and she is definitely open to other careers besides acting. What's wrong with any of that? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, just read the source from which the dressing up quote comes from. I thought dressing up was an allusion to acting, but it appears to be what it says -- dressing up in clothes. In that case, I have no real strong feelings to the quote. However, she has mentioned in the past that acting is not the only thing she wants to pursue, which would be an appropriate quote. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you have misunderstood my objection slightly. Stating that she has interests other than acting is fine and useful. How she feels about kissing Rupert Grint is trivial to the subject. I challenge you to find any professionally producced encyclopedia that would include info like that. It lowers the quality of the article by giving it the tone of a gossip magazine. Once again, this is a tone issue not a verifiability issue. Indrian 03:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I can understand your objection. Thanks for rewording it. However, I don't think that her concerns about nudity necessarily fall into this "gossip" tone, though I can see how her thoughts on kissing Rupert could be. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose But only until that difficulty about Emma matching the role is fixed. I otherwise enjoyed the article. The Problems- 1. What the article says and what the source says are different- "Emma Watson seems to implement these requirements, because she seems to be really self-confident." This is what the original says. It doesn't mention bossy. It doesn't say she was "perfect" for the role. It says that she seems to implement the requirements, because she is self-confident. 2. The way it is written in the wiki article is a bit of a slur on Emma, who admits to being like Hermione in some ways (straight As, for example) but not in others. Therefore, It needs accurately quoting and accurately citing. The sentences above and below this one are is no way sensitive, but both have citation This is the sentence that requires citation. Neither of the other two are likely to be challenged, but this sentence has been considerably challenged. Amandajm 16:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I have reworded it to remove the controversial "bossy" - although the source does mention it. I don't want to quote she source verbatim because the grammar is horrible and we'd have to throw "[sic]" around everywhere to make it make any sense at all. What do you think of the new version? Do you have any other conerns? Happy‑melon 17:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's inappropriate to actually have the term "sic" anywhere in an encyclopedia article unless absolutely necessary. It's more appropriate to provide a direct quote or to not quote at all and to summarise the intentions of the message being given. The other situation may be where a translation is provided. I have a new concern with this article which is that there's a user-defined translation of text, which is inappropriate. It will only be an acceptable excerpt if there is a reliable third party source that has translated the text, not simply a Wikipedia user. --lincalinca 01:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response The word "sic", short for "sicut" meaning "just so" is used in professionally written articles to indicate that a spelling, grammar or stylistic error is copied verbatim from an original source material and is not the result of poor literacy on the part of the article author. As such, an encyclopaedic article containg a quote from a source of questionable literacy is the only time you would find [sic] in most modern literature. The relevant text from the source is "the casting directors looked for a bossy person. Emma Watson seems to implement these requirements, because she seems to be really self-confident" - I can see at least two places where the addition of [sic] is necessary lest readers think that the poor grammar is the result of Wikipedia editors. As I do not like the quotation anyway, and I don't really want to throw Sic around, I have reworded it so as not to need a direct quotation. Vis the user translation, I am really not sure what the issue is. Foreign-language sources are in no way excluded from the coverage of WP:V. While WP:RSUE does state that English language sources are "preferred", it does not exclude foreign sources - indeed its listing of additional points to consider clearly implies that foriegn sources are acceptable if no english alternative exists. Its comments on translations are worth reading: the implication is that any quoted translation is subject to error, no matter who authored it, and that all editors who can read the original version should work from that rather than a translation. In essence, Onomatopoeia's translation is provided only for convenience, and does not represent the source - the reliable source is the original german text. Happy‑melon 07:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That image is extracted straight from the film DVD - that is exactly the lighting level that you will find in the film. I'm not sure how modifying it stands in relation to WP:FU. It's not possible to acquire a "better quality image", though. Happy‑melon 13:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
  1. 1 2 "2002 nominations and winners". Young Artist's Awards. Retrieved 2007-09-13.
  2. ↑ "2002 Saturn Awards". IMDB. Retrieved 2007-09-13.
  3. ↑ "2002 Empire Awards". IMDB. Retrieved 2007-09-13.
  4. ↑ "American Moviegoer Award nominations". Time Warner. Retrieved 2007-09-13.
  5. ↑ "Bravo Otto Awards 2003" (in German). Retrieved 2007-09-13.
  6. ↑ "Bravo Otto Awards 2004" (in German). Retrieved 2007-09-13. "DanRadcliffe.com News". Retrieved 2007-09-13.
  7. ↑ "Prisoner of Azkaban awards". Broadcast Film Critics Association. Retrieved 2007-09-13.
  8. ↑ "Goblet of Fire awards". Broadcast Film Critics Association. Retrieved 2007-09-13.
  9. ↑ "Bravo Otto Awards 2005" (in German). Retrieved 2007-09-13.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Emma_Watson/archive1&oldid=1339801549"