Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James Nesbitt/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 by SandyGeorgia 23:13, 18 April 2009 [1].
James Nesbitt[edit]
- Nominator(s): Bradley0110 (talk)
Article about Northern Irish actor with Remarkable Performing Eyebrow. Surprisingly, we don't have any featured articles on Northern Irish actors. This article has been through expansion and sculpting over the last two years, passed through GAN last July, had a peer review last month and has had general comments from members of WP:ACTOR. I'd also like to see an FA star put on this article as a "seal of approval", as derivative versions of it have been appearing on high-profile websites. Bradley0110 (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TEcH. Review -- Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS script), dabs and external links (respective link checker tools) are all found up to speed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 01:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Supportpending image review (although I don't suppose 3 FU iamges is excessive).
Support Well written and engaging. Sources look ok, although hellomagazine.com? Hmm. Ceoil (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm not too pleased with using Hello either but it does satisfy WP:RS. Unfortunately, he's not listed on ancestry.co.uk so it's probably just matter of waiting for a... less icky source to turn up; he might get another profile published in a national newspaper when Five Minutes of Heaven is broadcast. Thanks for the copyedits you've done on the article. Bradley0110 (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure there is much vigorous fact checking there is all, though in this instance it surely seems fine. If you could find another source, great. Ceoil (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only other thing I can suggest is a "born on this day" newspaper entry (like this one in Metro) but I doubt that's any more reliable than Hello (they probably just look them up on IMDb) Bradley0110 (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Say what you want about Hello!, but I'd imagine they would be sound with fact checking profiles, espically when it comes to auld Remarkable Performing Eyebrow. He gives good copy to them to be fair to the man. Ceoil (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh. Very well, in future, I shall think before I mock that fine periodical! ;) Bradley0110 (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Say what you want about Hello!, but I'd imagine they would be sound with fact checking profiles, espically when it comes to auld Remarkable Performing Eyebrow. He gives good copy to them to be fair to the man. Ceoil (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let this be a warning. Ceoil (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only other thing I can suggest is a "born on this day" newspaper entry (like this one in Metro) but I doubt that's any more reliable than Hello (they probably just look them up on IMDb) Bradley0110 (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure there is much vigorous fact checking there is all, though in this instance it surely seems fine. If you could find another source, great. Ceoil (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm not too pleased with using Hello either but it does satisfy WP:RS. Unfortunately, he's not listed on ancestry.co.uk so it's probably just matter of waiting for a... less icky source to turn up; he might get another profile published in a national newspaper when Five Minutes of Heaven is broadcast. Thanks for the copyedits you've done on the article. Bradley0110 (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - excess of copyright images which are unjustified under WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you like to expand your comments to include why you think each of the three images fails the NFCC and what can be done to justify them, or are you just passing through the FAC with no intention of returning? Bradley0110 (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bradley, you have 3 images under FU, I'd expect that cutting 1 would bring you in line with the FA and NFCC criteria. I strongly recommend though that you choose to keep the Murphy's Law image. Ceoil (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, that's the one I believed was the most expendable; the Bloody Sunday image shows him in what has been near-universally perceived to be his greatest role and it would be detrimental to the section to remove it. As for the Jekyll image, it seems silly to have a paragraph discussing the prosthetics and wig used on him and then not have an image. All the Murphy image shows is Nesbitt with a handlebar moustache. OK, so there are no free on-set images but there are probably some of him off-set with it in casual Murphy-esque clothes (although I don't recall Murphy ever going undercover as an after-dinner speaker!). Bradley0110 (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, fine, that makes sence. He just looks hard as rocks in the Murphy's Law image, kind of how I see myself in my minds eye. If you remove, it might be worth pinging Fasach, s/he is good and knowledgable on this area and might be able to advise. Ceoil (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to but s/he never replies to people's requests for help or even comes back to FACs. I'll remove the Murphy image for my own piece of mind. Bradley0110 (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, fine, that makes sence. He just looks hard as rocks in the Murphy's Law image, kind of how I see myself in my minds eye. If you remove, it might be worth pinging Fasach, s/he is good and knowledgable on this area and might be able to advise. Ceoil (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, that's the one I believed was the most expendable; the Bloody Sunday image shows him in what has been near-universally perceived to be his greatest role and it would be detrimental to the section to remove it. As for the Jekyll image, it seems silly to have a paragraph discussing the prosthetics and wig used on him and then not have an image. All the Murphy image shows is Nesbitt with a handlebar moustache. OK, so there are no free on-set images but there are probably some of him off-set with it in casual Murphy-esque clothes (although I don't recall Murphy ever going undercover as an after-dinner speaker!). Bradley0110 (talk) 20:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bradley, you have 3 images under FU, I'd expect that cutting 1 would bring you in line with the FA and NFCC criteria. I strongly recommend though that you choose to keep the Murphy's Law image. Ceoil (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Article now has 2 images that fall under FU, and one free.[2] Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:FU is not about quantity, it is about significantly increaseing the readers understanding of the subject in a way that cannot be done with free content, As far as I can tell neither of the two non-free images significantly increase the readers understanding. Fasach Nua (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What you are saying -I'm trying to hard to tell cause its vague- is no images allowed, at all? O wait no is a quantity. So what was that again. I had thought Bradley made a good case at least for Jekyll, how ever a seems not from your criptic one sentence explination. Ceoil (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for returning, Fasach Nua. I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that the images do not significantly increase readers' understanding of the content, as that is an individual opinion. I have made my case for the use of the images and until a better reason for their removal can be made, they should stay. Bradley0110 (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't believe I'm saying this, seeing as I've disagreed elsewhere with Fasach Nua's strict stance on NFCC, but I think he's probably right that the rationale for the Bloody Sunday image is insufficient. There's a case for the inclusion of the Jekyll image (though a grab that shows the prosthetics more prominently might be better), but what the Bloody Sunday image needs to demonstrate is that it adds to the reader's understanding in a way that a text description alone would not. Saying that is was one of Nesbitt's most significant roles doesn't cut it; we know what the actor looks like via the infobox image, and a plain description of the part tells us everything we need to know without the image. The best route open to you is to perhaps craft a rationale that reflects upon the emotions of the part and its associated imagery. I had a similar experience recently with an image I'd uploaded, where my original rationale, which pretty much said "this illustrates what the article says", was deemed insufficient, so I crafted a new one that used secondary sources in the accompanying article text to stress the emotional intent, something that would be difficult to convey using words alone. A similar route may be open to you if you can find critical commentary to this effect. All the best, Steve T • C 22:17, 18 April 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.
