Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sebastian Shaw (actor)

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:35, 28 February 2009 [1].

Sebastian Shaw (actor)

edit
Nominator(s): --Hunter KahnTalk
previous FAC (01:15, 11 September 2008)

I think the concerns from my last FAC, namely the structural concerns, have been addressed, so I'm hoping this one is now ready to go! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns as follows:

  • File:Shaw in It Happened Here.jpg is a copyviolation (and I have tagged it as such). The trailer of It Happened Here is copyrighted 1965 to Rath Films Limited. Hence it does not qualify for {{PD-US-no notice}}.
  • File:Sebastian shaw 1979.JPG is nothing more than a decorative image. There is no commentary or criticism in the article over Shaw's role in Rumple of the Bailey. Neither is there a particularly strong rationale for why this image should be included as an encyclopaedic content for the subject. Is it a universallly recognised role for him? Is this role a career breakthrough?
    • I don't believe it is, but is that a rationale for removing it? Especially given the IHH image had to be removed and there are very limited images now, I would think this one should stay in the article. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a non-free image appears in the body of the text without a strong rationale, other than to "just display the subject", it is simply decorative and fails as fair use. This 1979 image could be moved to the Infobox per your suggestion above, and given a strong rationale for identification of the subject, who is dead and unlikely to provide an image for free use. Jappalang (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either File:800px-Anakinredeemed.jpg (which also should be reduced in size) or File:Sebastian Shaw as Anakin Skywalker.jpg could qualify for fair use if a strong rationale is provided. I believe his role as Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker is an internationally recognized portrayal, albeit minor in comparison to the other characters. A strong rationale that describes why a picture of him in this role should be in the article would establish the fair use. Currently neither one qualifies (both current rationales are nothing more than "to show this character"). Even if strong rationales are provided, I think one of these two images would have to be deleted since they portray him in the same role (hence serving the same purpose).

Certain images should be removed, and strong rationales should be provided to bolster a fair-use cause for the rest that are chosen to illustrate the subject. Jappalang (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll work on these later on. Thanks! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In an attempt to address all these concerns, I dropped the It Happened Here picture, added the 1979 one to the infobox, then dropped the Anakin/Luke picture (the other ROTJ one is a better representation of him anyway) and added some rationale to the image description. (I'm not so great with working on images, so if I haven't done a good job with the rationale, let me know). Does this do the trick? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The standard "list" approach might work for the identifying shot in the Infobox, but more is required for the Anakin image in the text. The key is that the rationale must state why removing the picture would be detrimental to the article. Jappalang (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry to be a nuisance, but could you give me a bit of guidance as to what specifically I should write. It seems to me the rationale would be that his brief time in Star Wars is by far what he is the most recognized for, especially in the U.S., and that having the image in the article will be extremely helpful in helping people recognize who he is. I think this is partially explained by #12, but could probably use more explanation. Can you give me any suggestions? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image concerns are resolved. Jappalang (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query - Siblings Hi Hunter, that was an interesting read. There are two gaps that it would be nice to resolve if the sources cover it. Firstly his siblings, "sisters Susan Bonner-Morgan and Penelope Harness; and his sister-in-law Olga Young" are mentioned as surviving him, it would be nice to mention these two sisters his brother and any other siblings in the section that covers his childhood. Also the WWII bit would be worth expanding, is there any info on where he served and with which unit? WereSpielChequers 17:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the suggestions! Fortunately for me, some info about his military service was gathered by one of the users in the discussion page; I've added those in and I think they've improved the article. As for the sisters, I've thought about this in the past and I could add a reference to them in the early life section, but since there is no other info about them in any of the other sources, it feels to me like its just dropped in and doesn't add much to the article. For example, I can place it between the mention of where Shaw started his education and his uncle, but I find that it disrupts the flow a bit. But, if it's going to prevent the article from reaching FA status, I'm willing to add it in. Let me know what you think. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hunter, I doubt if by itself this would stop it reaching FA status, but any biography should cover issues like relatives if the info is available. So if your sources cover the number and spacing of the siblings I would suggest something along the lines of "Sebastian Lewis Shaw was born at Holt, Norfolk in England on 29 May 1905, the eldest/youngest/second/third of four children." If you know it his mother's name would be normal to include. Thanks for adding the ranks to the WWII bit, if you have the info it would be good to quote where he served and what he actually did in the RAF. WereSpielChequers 20:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reference to his two siblings in the beginning that I don't believe disrupts the flow. As for the mother and more info on his military service, there are no further references to it in any of my sources, and I've also looked through all the journalistic sources available on Lexis Nexus and found nothing. :/ --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments This is pretty good overall, and fixing it is probably not a huge task. Some prose and other problems listed below, along with an overall concern about the sourcing of some of the Return of the Jedi section.
    • Linking problems. First, the article is overlinked. Please don't wikilink common terms like "film", "detective", and "painter". Also, some oddities like "Holt" being linked to "Holt, Norfolk" and "Norfolk" being linked on its own.
    • "... raised in Holt" and "born at Holt"; which is correct, in or at?
      • In. Fixed.
    • "... his family's love of music heavily influenced Shaw's future career path." As opposed to his current career path?
    • "Highly regarded"; to hyphenate or not to hyphenate?
    • "The interpretation was criticised at the time but, years later, was seen as the standard approach to the character." Hm.. "was seen" implies that it is not now seen? If it is still seen as the standard approach, I would prefer "... years later, became the standard approach ..."
    • "... one half of a duo of homosexual murderers" Ew. Murderers who are homosexual or murderers of homosexuals?
      • The former. Although sources I've referred to indicate the sexuality is of some importance, others I'm looking at don't indicate so; Wikipedia's own entry on it doesn't even mention it. So I dropped it altogether for now. Also did some minor rewording (dropped the duo thing). --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Shaw was making about 300 pounds a week during this stage of his career." Can we also provide this figure in 2009 pounds for perspective?
    • "... in later years Shaw would describe himself as "a rotten actor" in the 1930s ..." The phrase "in later years" is ambiguous. Do you mean at that time, when he returned from the war? Or much later? If so, when?
      • The source says: "Shaw matured late. He admitted that he had been "a rotten actor" when young, employed on the strength of his obvious heterosexuality." The source is even more ambiguous on this point than I am, but I don't think that means we should cut it altogether. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The mixture of "he would play" and "he played" is rather jarring.
    • Please no easter-egg links like "Mario Puzo's novel of that name" where you have to click or hover to see what it is.
      • I made this change even though I don't agree with it; I had clearly referred to The Godfather earlier, and by removing the "of that name" reference, I'm now repeating it twice in the same sentence. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two paragraphs where you deal with The Christening are oddly organized. You have an intro, half a plot summary, a paragraph break, the other half of a plot summary, and a conclusion. The plot summary should be its own paragraph, at least.
    • The first paragraph of the Return of the Jedi heading only has one citation... is it meant to cover that entire paragraph? You have some statements in there such as "brief but crucial role" and "arguably the emotional climax" that need to be backed up by sources. And they need to be sources better known for film criticism than "Starlog".
      • That source is intended to cover the entire paragraph, although much of it is pretty basic info on the ROTJ role in general. The two citations you refer to are covered by the Starlog source, which states the filmmakers sought a specific actor for what they considered "a climactic moment;" the article also quotes Shaw as saying: "The point was, they decided that they needed a very experienced actor to play that very difficult scene. It wasn't easy to bring off." I know Starlog isn't exactly The New York Times, but I think it sufficiently covers that paragraph. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Some, however, defended the movie; although author and pop culture expert Will Brooker ..." Who defended? Reliable source needed.
      • Brooker, for one, although I probably didn't make that clear enough. Both sources (Brooker and Ebert) also make it clear that the move had its defenders and critics, although it doesn't name too many specific ones. I did some minor rewording and changes with the sources, please let me know if you think that is sufficient. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here. There is a disambiguation page for Sebastian Shaw, which I thought was correct since there is a separate Sebastian Shaw page about the fictional X-Men character. Should I change it so Sebastian Shaw only relinks to this page? Also, with regard to the date formats, are you referring to the fact that the "Retrieved on" dates are different than the other dates in the citations? I was under the impression that was the correct way to do it, but if it isn't, could you let me know how I should change it? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Sandy means are the disambiguations in the article as found by the disambiguation tool (accessed by going directly to the FAC subpage for this article, and not at the FAC main page). They were Brewster's Millions (film) (removed as there is no such article), Pound (currency) (changed to Pound sterling), and The Force (changed to Force (Star Wars)). I have corrected them but you might want to double-check. Jappalang (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks guys. I'm still fairly new to all this so I appreciate the help. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - can't honestly think of anything else to improve - I reduced a couple of repetitious 'Shaw' s and I suspect one or two others could go, but I think we're well over the line with this one. Nice work. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - my issues have been addressed and I'm now satisfied that this is of FA-quality. Comment - The article quite often uses other tenses when the past tense would suffice. While saying "Shaw would do X" is appropriate when X is temporally removed from the current discussion, there are some cases in this article where it doesn't serve that purpose at all: "Shaw would return to the works of William Shakespeare in 1931...", "Shaw's Royal Air Force experience would be put to good use...", "Significant theatre roles that decade would include..." Other sundry prose issues:
  • "...who said although George Lucas "totally Stalinized"[20] Shaw by removing him from the scene," The "although" implies that there's something relevant to follow ("...it was necessary for the sake of continuity", for example), there doesn't seem to be here.
  • There are several occasions in which Shaw is referred to by name when a pronoun would be sufficient and provide better flow.

This isn't a complete review; I'll try to get to one later but, if I don't, I at least wanted to raise these issues. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note En dashes (–), not em dashes (—) should be used for page ranges in the refs. Dabs look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suport. The article was quite interesting and provides a good look at an influential actor. Karanacs (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Oppose for now by karanacs. Overall, I found this a very interesting article, but I am a little concerned over how it balances the various events in his life.[reply]

  • The quote in the lead needs a citation in the lead (I know it's cited in the text)
  • Need a source for "Since the scene was arguably the emotional climax of the film, the casting crew wanted an experienced actor for the role"
    • The source for this one is the Starlog source (which, as of now, is #7 in the references). The exact text comes from both Shaw ("The point was, they decided that they needed a very experienced actor to play that very difficult scene. It wasn't easy to bring off") and the prose of the article ("When you're looking for an actor to play a climactic moment in movie history, you don't choose just anybody"). I placed the citation at the end of that paragraph in order to identify it as the source. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is too much detail on Shaw's performance as Anakin Skywalker. This is only 2 minutes and 24 words of dialogue, out of an entire career, yet it has its own very large section. I think it does deserve to have some level of detail, due to the publicity it brought him, but the current level of detail seems too much.
    • I made some cuts to the ROTJ section. I still think it warrants its own section altogether, especially since this is the single piece of work he's best known for, but I do agree with you that I probably overdid the detail. Take a look and let me know if it works now. (If it's still too long, we could cut the Ian McDiarmid quote, but I really like it and would perfer to keep it in, if at all possible.) I also shortened the ROTJ re-release changes by cutting some of the specifics from its defenders and critics, and just left in the fact that some people opposed it and others didn't. Let me know if you think that will suffice.--Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a bit of repetition to some of the prose. For example, Although he made 20 films before World War II and had already began to develop a reputation as a strong leading man before the war began - this sentence twice mentions "before <war> began"...perhaps it could be reworded just a bit. I noticed a few others like this - it's not everywhere; hopefully one last look-through can catch all those.
  • I think it might be worthwhie to have a section or subsection devoted to his Shakespearean work. He seems to have made quite an impact in these roles, and I suspect that could be developed a bit more than is currently here.
    • I was trying to think about how to do this without disrupting the chronology of the movie, and I thought maybe the best way to do it would simply be to start a new section called Royal Shakespeare Company. This would serve a number of purposes including breaking the up the long World War II and post-war career section and emphasizing the importance of Shakespeare in his career; plus, the Royal Shakespeare Company was a major part of his career, so its own section would be warranted. I went ahead and tried this, let me know if you agree. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think this works well as its own section. The second half of my question (which I didn't really make clear), was whether there is more information that we could include on his Shakespeare work? The text implies that he was quite influential in these roles, and I would like to see a bit more detail on that. Karanacs (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any reviews or other information about his book? How was it received? I don't trust a book cover quote to be neutral
    • As I said below, I found nothing else on the book. I thought the description on the book cover flap would be OK to include since I'm specifically identifying it as the book cover flap, which will means readers can take it with a grain of salt. I thought this was better than nothing, given the lack of information available. What do you think? --Hunter Kahn (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on these objections tonight. Unfortunately, I've found absolutely nil on reviews and info to his book; a Lexis Nexus search for "Sebastian Shaw" and "The Christening" results in only two sources, which are obit I have used as sources already, and they only make passing mention. Perhaps I can revise what's there in such a way that it won't be objectable. Either way, I'll get back to you with these tonight. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is very close. Some prose quibbles:

  • "and Filmer Jesson, MP in Arthur Wing Pinero's His House In Order at New Theatre in 1951." - need a comma after MP.
  • "During the 1980s, however, Shaw also in a brief relationship with Harriet Ravenscroft," - missing a verb here.
  • "on a four-day rotation basis to which both women consented." - why a noun modifying a noun? Either 'rotation' or 'rotating basis'.
  • "as Sir Oblong Fitz Oblong in Robert Bolt's children's play, The Thwarting of Baron Bolligrew." - no need for a comma here.
  • "in Jonathan Miller's productions of Anton Chekhov plays Three Sisters and Ivanov." - of the Anton Checkhov plays.
  • "He lent his voice to several radio performance," - several radio performances.
  • "so he instead describes his most intimate thoughts into his diary." - describes...in, not into.
  • I would link 'pederast', especially given that you've linked things like 'director' and 'Christmas'.
  • A funeral service was held 15 February 1995 at St Paul's, Covent Garden, commonly known as The Actors' Church due to its long association with the theatre community, in Covent Garden, London." - surely it's not necessary to say Covent Garden twice?
  • I'd like you to review your usage of the word 'admit'. It has a bit of a confessional tone which doesn't sit well with me in these cases:
  • "he described himself as a "rotten actor" as a youth and admitted his success was primarily due to his good looks" - why not 'and attributed his success to'?
  • "Although Peel got along with Shaw and said he made his mother happy, he admitted that he did not feel comfortable with the arrangement and felt it disrupted his mother's friendships and prospects for a more stable relationship." - why not just drop 'he admitted that'?
  • "he wrote many of his own lines, which the filmmakers would later admit "gave his dialogue an individual slant which enhanced his performance"" - 'would later admit' here really gives this a confessional tone, as though they were opposed to it but later recognized its value; is this appropriate?
Glad to see this back here again. Maralia (talk) 23:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I have a bit more Internet access than I expected, and since these were mostly quick fixes, I addressed them. I believe I got them all Maralia, but feel free to contact me if I didn't. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this isn't an oppose, Hunter Kahn is away, and these look to be easy fixes, I'll probably put this through and trust that these adjustments will be completed when Hunter Kahn returns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Hunter Kahn (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he is not exactly away as he is contributing to Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/Spring 2009‎ and reviewing GAs so I am assuming this is a service provided all FAC nominators. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sebastian_Shaw_(actor)&oldid=1138471006"