Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anthony Michael Hall/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Anthony Michael Hall

Anthony Michael Hall

edit

Self-nomination. Before I started, the article looked like this. I re-wrote the entire article from scratch. I requested a Wikiproject Biography peer review. The article got an A-Class rating, but I still wanted to go for GA before FAC to get more criticism. The GA reviewer had no issues and thought it was pushing FA status. I requested another peer review, and I was once again told to go FAC. I believe it is ready. If you have any addressable concerns, I will promptly deal with them. If you have no objections, please support. Thanks. Nat91 11:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - great article. I can't find any problems with it. Everything seems to be cited. It's not too cluttered either, and looks great. --andrewI20Talk 06:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think that all the concerns raised in the Biography peer-reviews (here) have been addressed.--Yannismarou 10:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this is quite a good article. The quotes from the subject are used nicely. However, some phrases seem a bit wordy. For instance, from the top:
    • "The films that shaped his early career were those with..." Why not "His early career was shaped by films with..."? Does the comma belong in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the intro?
    • "...was the one that put him back into the spotlight." How about just "...put him back into the spotlight"?
    • "...due to there being another actor in the SAG named MH." How about "...because the SAG had another actor going by the name MH"?
    • Also "Breakfast club" and "Weird Science" appear to be contrasted, but both are called a "moderate success at the box office". That might need some clarification. Gimmetrow 23:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, Weird Science was the "moderate success at the box office." I deleted the first part of that sentence (Compared to The Breakfast Club...) to avoid confusions. Thanks! Nat91 03:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support: Good job well done. However, there are a few more redlinks in the filmography section that you might have to take care of, as well as a stubby third paragraph in the intro. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Well-cited and comprehensive. However, images are fair use (although that can't really be avoided in this article) and prose needs work to meet 1a. Various paragraphs are stubby and the prose is choppy, full of passive voice, and alternates between present and past tense at random. The article relies way too much on quotations, especially those that add little content value to the article and those that could easily be summarized. The latter part of the article reads more like a feature story in a magazine rather than an entry in an encyclopedia. Specific comments:
Agreed, fair use images can't really be avoided in this article. In my opinion, alternates between present and past tense are sometimes necessary. I can't talk about the present in past tense. As for the latter part, I could not include that information inside the other parts that treat his acting career. I have to say, several FAs on actors rely on quotations (see Katie Holmes, etc) Lauds and criticism have to be included. Nat91 05:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well I'm a fan of quotations if they add flavor to the text. But quotations like "I've been a working actor since age 8." could easily be summarized into prose no? See my recent edits in that section (Personal). Gzkn 07:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw. Even if I don't get your support, thank you very much for the useful edits. I'm not a native English speaker, it's hard for me to copy-edit. The article had 2 peer-reviews. Nat91 07:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, his performance as “the grandest geek of all” Microsoft’s Bill Gates in the Emmy-nominated 1999 film Pirates of Silicon Valley put him back into the spotlight. Needs source for "grandest geek of all"; otherwise, delete it. Also, "put him back into the spotlight" suggests he fell out of the limelight, which the previous sentences make no allusion to.
    • He is now best known for his starring role in the popular USA Network series The Dead Zone, which has aired since 2002. Avoid unqualified usage of the word "best". He's best known to me as Brian in the Breakfast Club. :) He is now starring in... is just fine.
    • Starting his career at a very young age, Hall states, "I've been a working actor since age 8..." There are better ways to transition into a quotation...
    • and novel with audio Novels with audio?
    • Personal section in general is choppy and full of stubby paragraphs.
    • "I didn't play him with 100 pens sticking out of his pocket," he said in his defense. No one's making an accusation, so in his defense should be deleted..
    • He was cast as Brian Johnson, the brain,... Might want to source and put in quotation marks "the brain", as people unfamiliar with the movie will have little clue about that nickname.
    • Working so well under the direction of John Hughes, there were those who assumed that Hughes was treating the young actor as an alter ego, reliving his own misfit high school years. Dangling modifier alert! Also, who assumed? Furthermore, this does not transition into the next sentences at all. Finally, this paragraph is stubby and really only filled with quotations.
      • Well, people assumed. The paragraph is more about the Hall/Hughes working relationship. Nat91 05:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry should have clarified. I meant more along the lines of "there were those" = "some people" which is fairly "weasily". :)
    • Hall plays a high school teacher who gets into a car accident and falls into a coma for six years. Blech, avoid using forms of "to get".
    • Having begun drinking in his early teens,[2] by the time he was 18, it became a serious issue.[2] Dangling modifier alert! Also, since it's the same source, won't the one [2] at the end of the sentence be enough?
    • Even though Hall is being recognized as much for The Dead Zone as for the work he did in the 1980s, it is impossible to ignore his stint as an 80s teen icon. Avoid phrases like "it is impossible".

Gzkn 08:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • Well it looks like consensus is support. I still think the quotations are overused, but I guess that's just personal preference. I would like to see the stubby paragraphs beefed up. And the prose still isn't "brilliant" enough for me :). Gzkn 07:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at home right now, but I will make some changes and reply to your comments soon. Nat91 16:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Changes were made and my reply is above. Nat91 05:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support looks good Mad Jack 22:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object—Not what I'd call a "professional" writing job (as required). Things picked out at random:
    • "He later went on to appear in the Lincoln Center Festival's production of St. Joan of the Microphone, and a play with Woody Allen." Remove "later"; inserting "in" before "a play" would be kinder to the readers.
    • "After a year and a half, they returned to the East, eventually moving to New York City, where Hall grew up." "Eventually", IMO, is not an encyclopedic word. Fuzzy. Can you be more precise about years? If not in a WP article, where?
      • My sources say he moved to the West Coast when he was 3, and returned to the East after a year and a half. Yes, I can do the math and say he moved to NY circa 1973 (when he was 5 years old), but it wouldn't be a fact according to the references. I don't see what's wrong with that sentence. Any suggestions would be welcome. Nat91 20:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Working so well under the direction of John Hughes, there were those who assumed that Hughes was treating the young actor as an alter ego, reliving his own misfit high school years.[18] Hughes called Hall a natural.[3]" Is this what they call a dangling clause? Unsure, but it's ambiguous as to who was working so well: Hall or those who assumed ...? Audit sentence lengths, please; the second one here is a real stub.
      • Since that paragraph was giving me so many problems, I deleted it. I reworded a couple of sentences and added them at the end of the previous paragraph. Nat91 20:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inconsistent numerals and spellings out of single-digit numbers: it's simple—single digit spell out, double digits and above, use numerals (unless good reason to do otherwise).
    • Why on earth are the simple years blue? Please delink these nuisance colourings. Tony 14:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the simple years are not in blue. All the years linked are those that go to, for example, 1985 in film or 2002 in television. Nat91 20:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Something else I'd like to add. I have realised I will never be able to write a "professional writing job," simply because my first language is not English. Even though the University of Cambridge qualified my writing as "outstanding" for a non-native English speaker, it will never be good enough for some native speakers, especially for a professional editor like you. I feel I have already given everything to this article, and even though the consensus is support, I'm pretty sure it's not going to pass considering the 2 objects. It looks like I'll always have problems with the "brilliant prose." This is probably the first and last FAC I'll nominate. I think that some FAs on actors like Julia Stiles and Katie Holmes seriously need a review then. Nat91 20:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, don't be too glum. Your English is certainly far better than any of my other languages. :) If you'd like, I can take a look at any future articles and comb through it to get it up to native-English level if you feel it's not there yet. Just let me know on my talk page. Unfortunately, I'll be a bit busy the next few days mediating a case, however, so I won't be able to run through Anthony Michael Hall again for a little while. Gzkn 02:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is why it's so important to forge strong collaborations on WP. That's the way we all improve our skills—not just our writing skills, but the others that are necessary to create good articles. Please don't be disheartened. Tony 07:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I had my own doubts so I looked it up before including the Youtube reference Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Youtube. In conclusion (I stand by what SlimVirgin and others said), the source is the clip, not the site hosting the video itself. Nat91 19:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah you're right. I think what I meant is that it's a link to a potential copyright violation. But his appearance is certainly verifiable. Gzkn 02:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My copy edit is done. Here's the old version, the new version and the diff. Since there were just too many changes to list my rationale here, I think I'll just leave it up to you to ask about which ones you have questions about. I deleted a few paragraphs I thought were unnecessary (mostly those quotations near the end) and I created a subhead that I thought might better label the paras on his recognition. Of course, I may have made errors myself in this copy edit so feel free to disagree with any of my edits. The stuff I bolded is a question for you: are those plot descriptions really necessary? In my view, they kind of break up the flow of the paragraph, and trying to summarize movies in one sentence almost inevitably makes for awkward prose (I tried to fix some of them, but it's pretty hard). Also, I'm not sure whether the plot summaries should be in present (the film follows five high school students) or past tense (The accident triggered a side of his mind that grants...), but it's best to make them consistent. I find past to be better, but that's just my opinion. Gzkn 09:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you very much for the copyedit! I don't really have many questions, I think it's better the way it is now. As for the sentences you bolded, I checked the Diane Keaton FA and I think you're right, the plot descriptions are not really necessary. I deleted all of them except for one: The following year, he played a gay man who teaches down-and-out Will Smith to dupe rich people in the critically-acclaimed film Six Degrees of Separation. Since the following sentence reads Hall claimed that it was "the hardest role [he] ever had", I think it is necessary to include it. After reading parts of the FA I mentioned above, I think the tenses used in that sentence are ok, but if you feel it needs to be reworded feel free to do it. Nat91 19:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, the Six Degrees one is probably crucial. Do you think you'd be able to find other sources for those two IMDB trivia refs? Wikipedia:Reliable sources says that IMDB trivia is generally not a reliable source. Anyway, changing to support. I wonder what Tony thinks of the article now? Gzkn 02:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The before and after are great... the suggestions on this nom page are very high caliber and the additions and changes are excellent. Good job, all! JazzyGroove 07:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Anthony_Michael_Hall/archive1&oldid=1062126558"