Talk:Roger Ebert/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Mr. Ebert's medical problems

It's not encyclopaedic (in the Wikipedia sense of the term) to give a blow by blow account of Mr. Ebert's struggle with cancer. Most of that type of stuff needs to be removed, if not sooner, then later. IMHO. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

In carefully reviewing the Health section in its entirety, I have to agree with you. It's far too detailed and should be significantly reduced. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, don't look at me—I'm an inclusionist. But, someone else will have to do the paring. There's no rush. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't look at you?? Uh, you're the one who started this thread. Stating a problem takes no effort. Fixing it does. ;) --76.189.111.2 (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

My brilliant analysis of the problem was indeed effortless, thank you. I think we should leave the info in for a few weeks until the rubber-neckers get their fill of the gory details. Then, we can start to whittle it down. For the time being, we can build "consensus" by agreeing that it needs to be whittled down. (Effort? "A strong back is a terrible thing to waste"!) --108.45.72.196 (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A brief summary of his health should suffice in the personal life section. I don't want to play down the cancer or the other health issues he has had but these were really only relevant in a blow-by-blow account while he was alive. Thanks. JW_Trooper_AA (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

In looking at the health section yet again, it's really amazing to see how incredibly long and detailed it is. So as I said previously, I agree that it needs to be trimmed significantly. Of course, it'll be important to first establish clear consensus here - first on the basic decision to trim and then on precisely what and how to trim - to prevent a huge edit war from breaking out. I think achieving this consensus will be easy. Finally, In terms of whether the content should be presented in it's own health section or in the personal life section, I'm undecided right now. My hunch is to agree with Trooper that it should simply be merged into the personal life section, but I'm open to hearing arguments about keeping it in its own section. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Add my voice to those who feel the health section is overblown. Ebert's health was a matter of public discussion several times, and him losing his voice was obviously a big deal, but we can't possibly cover everything written about him - that would take books. As it currently stands, the health section gives UNDUE weight to that aspect of his life. The precise amount of trimming necessary is difficult to quantify ahead of time. The best thing to do is just start removing details that seem less important, while maintain the core "message" and see where that goes. Consensus is usually easiest to achieve by actual editing: someone writes a bunch of stuff about his health, others chop some stuff, someone objects and restores a few lines, someone else changes a few things, the original editor says "well that's not how I would have done it, but I'm ok with it", and so on. Consensus is (hopefully) achieved when all interested parties look at a version and say "I'm fine with it now." --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thaddeus, thanks for the very helpful input. It's always great to hear the perspective of a very experienced editor (who happens to also be a top notch admin). Great point about WP:UNDUE clearly being violated. Perhaps I'm worrying too much about a potential edit war, but I'm willing to support your suggested path; I'll just cross my fingers and hope things stay peaceful. Haha. Fortunately, there are no objections to reducing the section at this point. Do you think the content should remain in its own health secton, or should it be merged into the personal life section? On a somewhat related note, do you think it's appropriate to have Ebert's political and religious views as a subsection of the personal life section? It not only seems very odd to me, but the content also appears to violate WP:UNDUE because it's so long and detailed. I don't understand why there is so much content about the political and religious views of someone who is neither a politician nor a religious (or anti-religious) leader. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

For health, either a subsection of "personal life" or a stand-alone section is probably OK. The more it is trimmed, the less sense it makes as a top level header. An alternative would be to make death a subsection of health. The material about political/religious views doesn't need a section heading, but the amount of material doesn't seem too excessive to me. It is best to be careful about covering such things since they are sensitive issues which don't always lend themselves to a brief summary. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thaddeus's comments regarding the health content make good sense to me. Also, it's been five days since this discussion was started and there have been no objections to trimming the content. I think it would be best to allow the Health section to remain, but remove all the subsections (sub-headers). I'm confident that the current dozen or so paragraphs could be trimmed down to just one or two solid paragraphs that include only the really important/necessary content. So, while we have this interest and consensus I feel the changes should be made now. I'm all for Thaddeus making the edits (or any other editor who feels comfortable doing it if Thaddeus would prefer that instead). Whomever makes the changes should of course refer to this discussion in their edit summary. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I am too nervous to do it. I really want to take on the challenge of condensing the wall of health text but even with the 'be bold' recommendation, it's a bit beyond my experience level. I agree with the above user that Thaddeus should have the first opportunity to edit it. JW_Trooper_AA (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, you twisted my arm. ;) I'll give in a stab tomorrow --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Great! Trooper's comment made me laugh because he said precisely what I was feeling; I'd also be too nervous to take on the task of reducing such a large section. I really appreciate his honesty. Three cheers for Thaddeus for accepting this important mission! I have total faith in his judgment on how to trim the content. And of course alterations can always be made if necessary. After all, perfection isn't the goal; making a significant improvement is. :) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

DRAFT: Condensed Roger Ebert "Health" section

In early 2002, Ebert was diagnosed with papillary thyroid cancer which surgeons successfully removed. He underwent surgery in 2003 for cancer in his salivary glands followed by radiation treatments. Cancer surgery again in mid-2006 left him unable to speak, eat or drink so that he had to use a feeding tube. After losing his voice, he adopted a computerized voice system to communicate. The 2006 surgery and rehabilitation kept him from reviewing films for months and he did not resume until May 2007. Ebert underwent further surgery in January 2008 to address the complications from his previous surgeries. During his various surgeries, doctors carved bone, tissue and skin from his back, arm, and legs, and transplanted them in an attempt to reconstruct his jaw and throat, though these transplants would each be unsuccessful, and eventually removed. In April 2008, he fractured his hip in a fall, a result of the weakening of his body following the unsuccessful tissue transplants. In December 2012, he was hospitalized with a new hip fracture. On April 2, 2013, he announced that he would be taking a "leave of presence" from his duties because the hip fracture was cancerous and he would be receiving radiation treatment.

Regarding his death, he stated in 2010:

I know it is coming, and I do not fear it, because I believe there is nothing on the other side of death to fear. I hope to be spared as much pain as possible on the approach path. I was perfectly content before I was born, and I think of death as the same state. What I am grateful for is the gift of intelligence, and for life, love, wonder, and laughter. You can't say it wasn't interesting. My lifetime's memories are what I have brought home from the trip. I will require them for eternity no more than that little souvenir of the Eiffel Tower I brought home from Paris.

Draft Response

I know my opinion doesn't mean much but I just wanted to leave a message to say that I fully agree with this draft and I think you've done a fantastic job of condensing the original text. Thanks. JW_Trooper_AA (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You're much too modest, Trooper, and, thank you for the compliment. Be bold and feel free to modify as you see fit. I posted a similar version on ThaddeusB's talk page yesterday. IP 76 commented there that he didn't think Ebert's musings about his death (the block quote) were encyclopedic. The quote may not belong in the "Health" section, but in my humble opinion, it gives insight into Ebert's beliefs. What do you think? --108.45.72.196 (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to see both sides of it. On one hand, it is on the very boundaries of encyclopaedic material but on the other, I quite agree with you, it lends perspective and insight into Ebert's thoughts on death. I think you are better placed than me to decide on whether it should be included. Thanks. JW_Trooper_AA (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the comment I posted on Thaddeus's talk page yesterday: "I think it's an excellent draft. Wow, you reduced a dozen paragraphs down to just the essentials. We'll see what Thaddeus thinks. Btw, I really think the long 2010 quote about his impending death should definitely be removed. While it's a nice quote, it's fluffy and not encylopedic. It's simply unnecessary IMO. On the other hand, the last two sentences of the current health section should not be removed; you don't have them included above. They say: "He said, "I'll be able at last to do what I've always fantasized about doing: reviewing only the movies I want to review." He added an assurance that he was "not going away".". Those lines are a very appropriate add-on to the April 2, 2013, announcement about the cancer recurrence, and a perfect way to end the paragraph and section. Just my two cents. :)" Let me know what you think about my suggestion to remove that long quote (that begins with "I know it is coming"). When the edits are made, please be sure in the edit summary to refer readers to this thread and indicate that there is consensus for the changes. Perhaps Thaddeus should be the one to actually make the edits since he's a named account and an administrator; unfortunately, some edtiors may unreasonably challenge these significant edits solely because they see it's an IP making them. Great job on the draft. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I just want to expand and clarify my thoughts about the block quote about death. Overall, I feel that it's simply not encylopedic. It's very nice, but I think clearly can be catergorized as unnecessary fluff. But even if it were to be included, it absolutely should not be in the Health section, and should be shortened significantly; it's almost 50% the size of the entire health content that IP 108 drafted. ;) Again, I think the entire block quote should be eliminated, but if there is consensus to keep it, it should be trimmed a lot and relocated to the "Personal life" section, where there is currently similar content about his beliefs and feelings. Btw, there are three other quotes in the article (in the "Early life" and "Critical style" sections) that I believe should also either be removed or trimmed. Of particularly concern is the extremely long block quote he made at the 2001 Sundance Film Festival, which begins with the words "I was on a panel today with Chris Eyre". Wow, that quote really needs to go. It can simply be replaced with a quick sentence summarizing what Ebert said. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have taken my own stab at trimming the health material down. I don't necessarily object to the proposed trimming, but would prefer to start out with a less radical trimming and so left more stuff behind. (I still cut roughly 10% of entire article's text!) In particular, Ebert's loss of voice was a big deal (he was on TV after all) and shouldn't be cut to a single sentence IMO. I think the "death quote" is good material because it shows his perspective on life in a way only his own words can, but moved it to the death section where it made more sense (to me). Comments and/or further editing are welcome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the entire second paragraph (which starts with "Ebert made his first public appearance since mid-2006...") should be removed; it's just unnecessary filler. And the block quote in the death subsection is out of place because it's not about his actual death, but rather his thoughts years ago about death in general; but I think that entire block quote shouldn't even be in the article. Finally, I think having a combined health/death section, along with a separate death subsection, is quite odd. They should just be two separate sections - Health and Death - because the health conent definitely stands on its own because of all the major health issues he had. Overall, though, it's certainly better than the monstrosity it used to be. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm going to have to disagree on the second paragraph comment. As I previously stated, Ebert's loss of voice is pretty significant IMO. The death section would seem to be the best place to puts someone's thoughts on death (if they are included). I knwo you don't like the quote much, but I think it ties up things rather nicely. It could be trimmed some I suppose. I have changed the sectioning to make "health" & "death" both parts of personal life, but not subsections of each other. [I also largely killed one of the other blockquotes earlier]. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't expect you to agree since you're the one who put it there. (smile) The parts in the health section about Ebertfest, three of his reviews being published, and the Oprah show appearance, should all go bye bye. As far as the block quote, I actually really do like it; it's just that I don't think it belongs in the article. It's just a bunch of fluff that's not encylopedic, not to mention that the quote is sooooooooooo long. I appreciate all your hard work. Although I think more can be removed, you did a really great job in cutting down the content. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thaddeus's re-write is a great improvement over what it replaced and I approve it. My only recommendation at this time would be to remove more concerning his loss of speech. Good work, Thad. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the quote of his thoughts on his own death: He was a writer. It does not seem unreasonable to have a bit of his work in the article, giving the reader a sense of his style and philosophy. What better way to communicate that than with the author's own (rather eloquent) words? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Why did Ebert believe marrying Hammelsmith would displease his mother?

Under "Personal life", the article says:

At age 50, Ebert married trial attorney Charlie "Chaz" Hammelsmith (formerly Chaz Hammel-Smith) in 1992. He explained in his memoir, Life Itself, that he "would never marry before [his] mother died," as he was afraid of displeasing her.

Why did Ebert believe marrying Hammelsmith would displease his mother? Because Hammelsmith is black? Because she had previously married and divorced? Because Ebert's mother didn't like her personally? Because she didn't endorse marriage? Or some other reason? Without some reference to this, the line is rather devoid of significance. Can anyone expand on this supported by a suitable reference? —sroc (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a relevant page in the book. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to the book, Wraith. Sroc, in his autobiography Roger admits to being afraid of his mother, especially of her over-emotional reactions to things she didn't like. He knew she took a hard line regarding "mixed marriages". (A mixed marriage in Roman Catholic parlance means a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic and has nothing to do with race.) His mother's attitudes toward race may also have been a factor in his fear of her reaction—one of Roger's relatives mentions Chaz's race when he lets them know he intends to marry her. Chaz's previous marriage and divorce would also have been a consideration in Annabel's mind—Roger mentions a previous divorce as a reason for not marrying at least one of his earlier girlfriends. I've only read some of the autobiography that's available as a preview on GoogleBooks so I may not have the full picture. (I don't even know the chronology well enough to know if Annabel ever met Chaz!) --108.45.72.196 (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Roger reveals worst movie ever

He said "Machete Kills suck." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.173.110 (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Pro-life

I really think, despite what he might have said before on the matter, Roger Ebert clearly indicates that he was now pro-life in the source given: "I support freedom of choice. My choice is to not support abortion, except in cases of a clear-cut choice between the lives of the mother and child. A child conceived through incest or rape is innocent and deserves the right to be born." If he was pro-choice, he certainly wouldnt say that his choice wasnt to support abortion, and he really seems to indicate legal abortion. His scrupulous statemements concerning the right to life of children, and he says children, not embryos, born of rape or inceste as deserving to live only make sense from a pro-life perspective.85.244.178.21 (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Problem with Fristoe ref

Problem solved. Replace pipe | in url with &7c and the link works now, no error message. I did not realize that with the error message was also given a link to the solution, duh. But another editor did. --Prairieplant (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Roger Ebert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.horrorreview.com/essay/egebertsax2007.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060908200137/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com:80/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041215/COMMENTARY/41215001/1023 to http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041215/COMMENTARY/41215001/1023
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080605081213/http://www.cbc.ca:80/arts/film/story/2008/01/25/ebert-roger-surgery.html to http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2008/01/25/ebert-roger-surgery.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Better image?

Hye guys would this be a good image of Ebert? This image is three years after the current main image. It depicts Ebert's cancer stage. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

However, his best known appearance is the one in the IB, with a full jaw and speaking capability. The one in the IB is also a better image, because it is a three-quarter shot, the one you provided is more profile-esque. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Roger Ebert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141216070113/http://www.suntimes.com/17320958-761/roger-ebert-dies-at-70-after-battle-with-cancer.html to http://www.suntimes.com/17320958-761/roger-ebert-dies-at-70-after-battle-with-cancer.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081228051048/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/nm/20081217/film_nm/us_ebert to http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081217/film_nm/us_ebert
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110823172045/http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/December-2005/A-Life-in-the-Movies/index.php?cp=1&si=0 to http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/December-2005/A-Life-in-the-Movies/index.php?cp=1&si=0#artanc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150311235020/http://www.filmthreat.com:80/festivals/737/ to http://www.filmthreat.com/festivals/737/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130404205528/http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/specialachievement14.php to http://www.webbyawards.com/webbys/specialachievement14.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070521015959/http://rogerebert.suntimes.com:80/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage/ to http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/frontpage
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141029235043/http://www.suntimes.com:80/entertainment/22482627-421/story.html to http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/22482627-421/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Siskel began co-hosting

The article says Siskel began as co-host 3 years after 1975, in 1978, but there is a YouTube video of Siskel and Ebert reviewing One Flew Over The Cookoo Nest which came out in 1975. So was it 1978 or 1975? BashBrannigan (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Roger Ebert/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Icebob99 (talk · contribs) 19:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article for GA status. I'll start off by checking for immediate failure, then I'll review by going through the criteria one by one, and I'll finish with a few suggestions that are entirely optional for GA status but may be useful for the progression of the article.

Immediate failure check

No cleanup banners present. No edit warring. No copyvios present. Earwig's detector did give a 54.5% confidence, but I think that was because of quoted material from Ebert and official names such as University of Colorado at Boulder. Going on to the full review.

Review

(1a): perhaps you mean revaluation in the first prose paragraph of "Best Films of the Year" section as reevaluation? Revaluation is changing the price of a good, a movie critic seems a lot more likely to evaluate than measure the monetary value of something. Everything else looks good.

 Done

(1b): On the citations in the lead: The ones adjacent to quotes should stay, but I think it would be a good idea to give the others a home in their respective portion of the article.

 Done

For the statement about Ebert's reviews being syndicated to over 200 newspapers: That needs a citation and it needs to be somewhere in the body of the article.

 Done

Everything else, namely layout, words to watch, and list incorporation meets MoS.

(2a): Reflist present.

(2b): Each phrase in the sentence starting with "Ebert occasionally accused" needs a citation, as well as the next sentence about films passed off as art.

 Done

Each clause in the paragraph starting with "Ebert revisited and sometimes revised his opinions" needs a citation. Seeing as the only citation in the paragraph is a listing, the other content is original research until shown otherwise.

 Done

The part about founding his own film festival in the "Film and TV Appearances" section needs a citation.

 Done

Citation needed for white parasol monologue recitation in the same section as above.

 Done, although I'm not happy with the source I ended up using. It seems that Abby Singer is such a small film, marred by an array of release delays, that by the time it came out (5+ years after it was shot), there was no press coverage of it.

Citation needed for the last paragraph of that section.

 Done

Citation needed for the third paragraph of "Memorials and Legacy" section stating that Ebert was an avid supporter of Toronto International Film Festival from the beginning.

 Done

Reliability of the sources is alright. One is from a blog, and a lot are from his reviews or website, but that attributes to quoted material in the article.

The next couple dozen issues are going to be tedious. They were tedious for me to find them as well, but according to (2a) of the GA criteria, editors can use whatever style they want. That statement links to WP:CITEVAR, which states that only one citation style should be used, and as the article starts off with mainly cite web, cite news, or cite book template formats, that is going to have to be the citation style for this article. Thus, all citations need to use those templates. This is also supported in the essay Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not, the essay that tries to keep the standards as minimal as possible. The system of ref numbers that I'm using is based on this revision. So here's the list:

The bare link that is currently ref#9, a Google Books link, needs to be in the {{cite book}} template to follow the citation style of using those templates.

 Done

Ref#12 needs to go into cite news or cite web format to be consistent.

 Done

Same for ref#13.

 Done

Ref#15 should either be in the cite news format or be a footnote.

The sentence was arguably redundant, so I just removed it.

Ref#17 should be in cite book form.

 Done

Same for Ref#18

 Done

Same for ref#19. You could consider using the {{sfn}} template and put the action book citation down in a works cited section.

 Done

Ref#21 needs to be in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#22 in cite book or sfn template form.

 Done

Same for ref#23.

 Done

Ref#24 in cite news format.

 Done

Ref#25 in cite book.

 Done

Ref#26 in cite web.

 Done

Ref#29 in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#34 should be in cite book format or cite magazine format.

 Done

Ref#35 in cite web format.

 Done

Same for ref#36.

 Done

Ref#42 in cite web format.

 Done

Same for ref#43.

 Done

Ref#56 in cite web format.

 Done

The sentence starting with "Ebert commented on films using his Catholic upbringing" has a citation (currently #11) that is duplicated earlier. Consider using the named form to avoid ref duplication.

 Not done Can't find any duplicate citation for that.

Ref#59 in cite web format.

 Done

Same for ref#61.

 Done

Same for ref#68.

 Done

Same for ref#69.

 Done

Same for ref#70.

 Done

Same for ref#77.

 Done

Same for ref#78.

 Done

Ref#79 in cite book format.

 Done

Ref#83 in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#86 in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#87 in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#88 in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#90 in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#93 in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#99 in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#105 in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#107 in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#118 in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#119 in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#120 in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#121 in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#122 in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#129 in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#130 in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#136 in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#144 in cite web format.

 Done. All fixes done. "Tedious," as you described it, turned out to be a colossal understatement, but I think I took care of everything on the list. Thanks for the review, @Icebob99:! --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

(2c): See points above about where citations are needed to satisfy the no original research criterion.

(3): Main aspects of the topic addressed, lots of detail, stays focused. The article meets this criterion.

(4): Neutrality looks good, so the article meets this criterion.

(5): No edit warring going on, so the article meets this criterion.

(6): Images are relevant, contain good captions, and are suitably licensed, so the article meets this criterion.

Suggestions

In the fourth paragraph of the Death section, Oprah Winfrey is wikilinked for the second time.

Same for Barack Obama in the same paragraph.

I usually give more suggestions, but I think that there are quite enough things to be done without worrying about going beyond GA standards.

Alright, I can't pass this article, so I'll put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the nominator to fix the issues mentioned above. If the issues aren't fixed by 10 January 2017, I will fail the article. Good luck! Icebob99 (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Last few

Thanks for covering everything! A few refs slipped through the cracks, so I'll list them, from this revision.

Ref#6 should be in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#12 in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#44 in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#58 in cite web format.

 Done

Ref#59 in cite web format.

 Done

Other than that, it's all good. Icebob99 (talk) 14:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Icebob99: Finished the last set. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the collaboration and your hard work! This article passes the GA criteria to become a good article. Icebob99 (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Article about Wikipedia editing

Here's an article about Ebert's Wikipedia editing:

https://www.guernicamag.com/roger-ebert-wikipedia-editor/

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Roger Ebert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2013/02/what_was_my_aunt_martha_trying.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/who_killed_bambi_-_a_screenpla.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/09/whats_your_favorite_movie.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20041215%2FCOMMENTARY%2F41215001%2F1023
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/December-2005/A-Life-in-the-Movies/index.php?cp=1&si=0
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20060219%2FANSWERMAN%2F602190302%2F1023
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/08/dminus_for_3d.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/07/okay_kids_play_on_my_lawn.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116015207/http://www.newsmeat.com/media_political_donations/Roger_Ebert.php to http://www.newsmeat.com/media_political_donations/Roger_Ebert.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/09/the_longest_thread_evolves.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/12/new_agers_and_creationists_sho.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/04/how_i_believe_in_g.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/01/nil_by_mouth.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/08/finding_my_own_voice.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2011/01/after_surgery_i_studiously_avo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Roger Ebert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161229103019/http://www.ebertfest.com/about.html to http://www.ebertfest.com/about.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20060219%2FANSWERMAN%2F602190302%2F1023

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roger Ebert. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160130005857/http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/entertainment2/56107300-223/ebert-movie-siskel-chicago.html.csp to http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/entertainment2/56107300-223/ebert-movie-siskel-chicago.html.csp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Page preview text

Does anyone know how to edit page preview text? Just noticed that the preview text when hovering over links directing to this page says:

Roger Joseph Ebert was a self- important, snobbish American film critic, historian, journalist, screenwriter, and author. He was a film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times from 1967 until his death in 2013. In 1975, Ebert became the first film critic to win the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism.

I've no idea how to edit page preview text so just letting anyone else know.

--58.173.129.80 (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

It is automatically pulled from the lede paragraph - i.e. the first few sentences of the article. That is a piece of vandalism that occurred yesterday and was quickly reverted, the fact that you still see it in the preview is no doubt a caching issue that will resolve itself in time. --Krelnik (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Ahh ok thanks, didn't think of trying to clear the cache. --58.173.129.80 (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)