Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aaron Eckhart/archive1


 * 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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:32, 5 October 2008.

Aaron Eckhart

 * Nominator(s): --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 

I'm nominating this article for featured article because this article has come a long way from where it was a couple months ago. Since then, I've taken it through to GA, and the article has been peer reviewed and copyedited by several other editors. I look forward to any feedback that arises out of this process --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  20:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Links check out with the link checker.
 * Is http://www.filmreference.com/film/84/Aaron-Eckhart.html reliable?
 * Have no clue, but ended up replacing the ref. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise sources and references look good.


 * Comment: Image:Aaron-Eckhart-Traveling.jpg - The Flickr source claims all rights are reserved. What is the basis for the GFDL claim?  Эlcobbola  talk 20:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked the author for the usage of the image and told me to distribute it with the GFDL license, see here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * From that page:
 * Shelby: Is there anyway to license the image so it can't be used commercially?
 * Zerorules677: Yes there is a way, you would have to change the license of the image to "Some Rights Reserved" to comply with the GFDL licensing
 * Absolutely not true; GFDL does not allow for non-commercial use. I'm concerned the author received misinformation.  Was this correspondence sent to OTRS?  Эlcobbola  talk 20:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I provided a link to the author of the GFDL page and agreed to distribute the image with that license. I forgot to send one when I added the image, but I just sent one right now. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, if OTRS clears it there is no problem. Эlcobbola  talk 21:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, if not, then I'll replace the image with the ones available at commons. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not entirely sure what's expected of an article of this type, so I'm not gonna support or oppose it. In my opinion it's a bit weak on biography, and ends up being a long summary of his various roles. Anyway, here's some copy-editing I did:
 * "his father's job relocated the family to England when he was 13" - his father?
 * "Five years after parting ways, Eckhart…" – Eckhart is the subject of this sentence, and one person can’t part ways
 * Would "Five years after they parted ways" work? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Lampman (talk) 12:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have fixed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "collaborate" – used in two consecutive sentences, a bit repetitive
 * "the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – it doesn’t seem right to repeat the "the" here
 * "This led to him taking a few years off…" – did earning his diploma lead him to take a few years off?
 * Yeah and later getting his diploma with a correspondence course. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "made-for-television" is normally hyphenated, see e.g. the Television movie article
 * "who was "cured" by surgery" – quotation marks should be used for quotations
 * "fourth and last collaboration with LaBute" – they’re both still alive, how about "latest"?
 * "The film was met with mixed reviews and was number three at the box office after the film's release." – is three bad? I guess that depends on how much money went into production and marketing; if it’s not bad then it should be "but" rather than "and", to denote a contrast between critical reception and commercial success. In any case, it goes without saying that the box office position came "after the film's release"
 * I really hope I got this, if not, do you think it might be best to remove it? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "did not meet the expectations of Dick's adaption of the story." – don’t quite get this one, did Dick’s adaptation generate expectations? I’m guessing it was rather his original story that created expectations, Dick did not even write the movie adaptation. (PS: spelling of "adaptation")
 * The main reason the film received the negativity was because it didn't "live up" to the book's story. Again, I think its trivial to include, but I would like to know if it is important to include or not. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "At first it looks as if no more will be demanded of Eckhart than to be the stalwart good guy in pursuit of the deranged genius bad guy." – this is just the first part of a sentence, and makes little sense on its own. Then again, including the whole sentence might be a bit excessive. How about: "Eckhart is a classically handsome leading man…but Merhige demands of him…complexity and anguish"
 * "In his theatrical debut he starred on the London stage in David Mamet's Oleanna opposite Julia Stiles, which ran in mid 2004." – 1.) "theatrical debut" – you already said that LaBute cast him "in several of his original plays", 2.) I’d switch it around: "In his theatrical debut he starred on the London stage opposite Julia Stiles in David Mamet's Oleanna, which ran in mid 2004", she’s not the one running, 3.) "mid 2004" – hyphen
 * "he plays Sergeant Leland" – you’ve been using past tense till now
 * "he, along with Josh Hartnett's character, try to investigate" – this should be singular form of the verb, I’m pretty sure
 * Hope I got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "the real 1947 crime" – you could link this to Black Dahlia
 * "did not top Mostly Martha" – in what way, box office, critically? The way it's written now it looks like an unsupported POV statement
 * No, the film, No Reservations, was the adaptation of Mostly Martha. Hope that made sense. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand this, but it seems like a subjective statement. Lampman (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, after reading the sentence quite a few times, I don't think its relevant to include with the sentence. Do you think it might be a good idea to remove it or... --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Try "and was unfavouably compared to the original", and put the ref at the end. Also, you should write "Dick's original short story" instead of "Dick's adaptation of the story". The adaptation was written by Dean Georgaris, not by Dick. That's all. Lampman (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Added your suggestions. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the main things I could find. Lampman (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hope I got your concerns. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Better, but not quite; there's still a few things that weren't addressed. Look at what I wrote about "after the film's release", "Dick's adaptation" and "try to investigate". Also, the second sentence of the lead can mean that they moved to England when his father was thirteen. This was clearly not the case, but the sentence needs to be unambiguous. "when Aaron was 13" would be better (first name to distinguish him from his father). The discrepancy between "Neil LaBute...cast Eckhart in several of his original plays" and, later, "his theatrical debut" needs to be addressed. Lampman (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—The writing needs scrutiny throughout, preferably by someone new to the article.
 * Please audit throughout for the massive overlinking, so that your high-value links are no longer swamped. Are our readers so ignorant of English that they don't know what "photography", "film" (twice at the top), and "poet" mean? Spell out "United States" at the top, and please don't link the names of commonly known countries.
 * Never wanted the readers to feel "ignorant" and you ended up fixing the overlinking problem. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "he participated in school plays"—what, as stage hand?
 * Clarified. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "He left the school without graduating, but earned his diploma via a correspondence course." False contrast: "and"; and drop the comma now.
 * Got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Readers forced to code "BYU" for only one subsequent usage. "while at Brigham Young".
 * Fixed it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unsure the last two sentences are appropriate in the lead.
 * I was told to summarize the entire article in the lead. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Down from lead: the "nee Lawrence"—place after Eckhart. Tony  (talk)  04:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * His father's job moved to England; did his father follow it, or was he just made redundant?
 * His father's job forced the family to move to England, since the company were relocating over there. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Rejoinder:
 * Overlinking: no, I fixed it just at the start. The whole text needs auditing for overlinking, although the lead was probably the most glaring example. Very few readers click on links, anyway: it has nothing to do with their self-perceptions of ignorance, and more to do with editors' toys, I'm afraid.
 * Alright, I just went through the article and un-linked the terms that don't need to be linked. If I missed any, I'll make sure that they are un-linked. Also, I meant no harm to make anyone look like an ignorant, if that was the case being made. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Job moving": the wording implied the wrong thing; I hope I got across that it needs to be tweaked.
 * Yes, but I'm having trouble coming up with something to replace the sentence with. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I got it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The last two sentences are too detailed for an overview—they're out of step with the broad sweep of the rest of the lead.
 * I see what you mean, Tony, but in your opinion how should the "Personal life" section be summarized? Per WP:LEAD, shouldn't something from his section be mentioned included? (p.s., I helped copy-edit the article, but I hope that ThinkBlue took my advice to get further help?) María ( habla  con migo ) 15:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * All of these were just examples of why the writing needs to be worked on throughout. Do you have new collaborators organised? Tony   (talk)  15:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have left requests on user's talkpages for this particular reason. I have yet not heard if they will accept/decline the request. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The article feels incomplete with such a short "personal life" section. It also is not at the end of his career/life so this article will change significantly. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that is the only available information that has been found with reliable sources. If I were to include information without the verifiability of the sources, that would have be challenged to be removed from the article. True, that it is not the end of his film career, but when would it be the right time to nominate an article? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Its only a comment, not an oppose, and it would be good for someone to state such a thing and bring it to attention during the FAC in order to mitigate any future problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, that's what I meant with all due respect. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, good. I hate when there are disputes with my comments, when they are only comments and not opposes. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, I didn't see it that way. I always keep a cool head. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per 1(a). Note that these are merely representative examples; fixing these few problems is highly unlikely to induce me to change my !vote:
 * "Now, Eckhart performs" When is now? Unencyclopedic prose.
 * "and makes out with Osborn" unencyclopedic prose
 * "Eckhart has given up the habit of drinking and smoking. He has also recently developed an interest in photography. While in London performing in the play Oleanna, Eckhart did a lot of street photography, often taking pictures of people without them acknowledging he was photographing them. " See WP:NOT regarding trivia. Also "did a lot of" clumsy prose.
 * "via a correspondence course. This led to him taking a few years off" The correspondence course caused him to go on holiday?

Oppose: As with above, I think there are many prose issues, as well as other confusions, of which these are examples:-
 * Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 04:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Link to Cobham Hall School: This goes to an English country house/girls' boarding school. What was Eckhart doing there?
 * Aaron in the first line, thereafter Eckhart. "Eckhart" is over-repeated in first part of second paragraph.
 * "pony-haired"? Pardon my not knowing, but is this Am-Eng for "ponytailed"?
 * "Now Eckhart performs..." When is "now"?
 * "children's book author and poet" doesn't need "book". If "children's" only applies to the books, you could call him "poet and children's author..."
 * A senior year in Australia, another senior year at Cobham Hall?
 * I don't understand how a correspondence course diploma "led to" his taking a few years off. "This was followed by..." would be better. Also, "taking a few years off" is vague (how many years - two? three?) and informal-sounding.
 * Do you "land" agents? Or do you employ them or perhaps sign up with them? Also, when (in what year) did this happen?
 * Date of TV debut?
 * "What is a "guest starring role", or a "guest role"? How do they differ from normal roles?

I could go on, but there are rather too many problems. I'm sorry to say that the article is not ready for FA yet, and needs rather a lot of work to bring it up to scratch. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.