Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chloë Sevigny/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 SandyGeorgia 05:16, 10 March 2010.

Chloë Sevigny

 * Nominator(s): Ashton 29 (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because a lot of dedication and work has gone into it since it initially received a Peer Review and Good Article Review. Since failing its initial Good Article review, a lot of work has gone into the article and it has not since been re-nominated for Good Article, I however, think that instead of re-nominating it for Good Article, that it now deserves Featured Article status. It has scope; it is well-written and contains genuine sourcing for all of its information. It is also illustrated with insightful images. Ashton 29 (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments Dab links, external links, and alt text fine. Oppose. No alt text present, as required by criterion 3. See WP:ALT for advice on alt text. Also, links to six different disambiguation pages; see the box to the right. Several links are dead, and marked as such; have you tried finding archived versions of these links (for example, via http://www.archive.org)? (I will strike this oppose when these issues have been resolved.) Ucucha 12:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I repaired the disambiguation links and pruned the dead links out; I was able to find one un-archived replacement for one of the references (Girl with the thorn in her side article), but a few of the others were impossible to find in any official archived form (i.e., the Interview Magazine publishing conducted in 1995; not available in its original state on the internet), so I replaced and/or removed the information. Also gave the images alt text. Youshotandywarhol (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Alt text done; thanks. The alt text is present (thanks), but it contains information that is not obvious to a non-expert who is looking only at the images. Please reword so that it describes only appearance. Please see WP:ALT, WP:ALT, and WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re-worded alt text to be more visually descriptive (avoiding technical words and names surrounding the photo) as seen in links. Hopefully the re-phrasing is as it should be. Youshotandywarhol (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, better, and I the storefront alt text a bit, but there's still one problem: the alt text for the lead image doesn't say what Sevigny looks like. The main point of the lead image is to show the sighted reader what she looks like, and the alt text should substitute for that. Please see WP:ALT for advice (sorry, I didn't mention that earlier). Eubulides (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Never thought of that, though it makes perfect sense. Altered the text to make it more descriptive of its subject in question. 76.115.18.11 (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. All aforementioned issues with the article (alt text, disambiguated links, archived references) have been acknowledged, replaced and/or repaired. Aside from this, significant work has been put into the article, sourcing is all verifiable and effective, and the article as an entire piece is fluid and nails all general facets of the subject's life and career, with input from the subject herself (quotes, interviews) and others (film critics, fellow filmmakers, etc). Pictures are used appropriately, and captioning is well-worded; information is evenly divided using headings and subheadings as well. The article also holds a solid introduction, as well as a fairly well-rounded conclusion applicable to the current point in the subject's career. I have been overlooking this article for months and have done a fair amount on improving the article one step at a time, and feel it has grown into a worthy article with mine own work and the work of other editors. Youshotandywarhol (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. Per above. I think the article is very well written, structured (it includes a detailed and well flowed out section on her iconic fashion style), it is researched and referenced. It is devoid of tabloid fodder and includes a lot of well sourced information including sources from the article's subject (as mentioned above). The film career is also writen very well and is extremely comprehensive. Chaelee (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * — Chaelee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   Pyrrhus  16 ''' 10:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The only pic of Sevigny in the article is a less than ideal presentation of her appearance. I would recommend at least trying to contact her agent about this. It might be in their best interest to provide Wikipedia with a decent pic of her, even if it's only medium or low res. Alternatively, you could try scouring the net for okay photos taken by people who might realistically be willing to release them. And considering the very low quality of the infobox pic, there should be at least one fair use pic in the article showing Sevigny in one of the more famous films she's starred in, like Kids or Boys Don't Cry, or maybe something from Big Love. Peter Isotalo 22:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did upload a good picture of Sevigny from Big Love (promotional photo, released to TV Guide), and when I applied it to this page, it was removed because apparently it is not permissible to use a non-free image of a person if there are free ones available (even though the main photo is poor quality). The photo is on the wiki article for Nicolette Grant, but other editors kept removing it when I added it to this page; I had a detailed rationale for using it on both Nicki Grant's article as well as Chloë Sevigny's, but it wasn't good enough apparently. Anyone able to clear this up maybe? Youshotandywarhol (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Referring to a free picture with such a poor likeness to remove fair use images sound pretty silly. I'm not up to date on how we deal with this, but to me it almost smacks of ruleslawyering. I think you should try to argue the case again. Again, though, have you tried contacting copyright holders about releasing decent pics? I would imagine that it would be very much in Sevigny's (and her agent's) interest to release at least one medium resolution photo. Peter Isotalo 15:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It seemed silly to me as well, and the photo fits all Wikipedia criteria, except for being used as a main profile photo, apparently. It seems impossible to contact Sevigny's agency over the internet (have hunted for an email address and failed) to get permission from them (or have them release a photo to Wikipedia, perhaps). I have looked on websites such as Getty Images (which hosts thousands of photos of her from different photographers), but it seems it's impossible to get to them unless you are a company wanting to promote/sell material. I'm not experienced with this sort of thing; anyone else know a way/place we could get a good photograph?Youshotandywarhol (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Question. It is unusual to see relatively new editors turn up at FAC, and here there are three&mdash;, and . I am curious: is there any particular reason for this? Ucucha 23:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted (and the article recently failed GAN). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. True, this account is rather recent, but I have worked on Wikipedia quite often without logging in (I often forget to when I make edits). So I have edited this page numerous times without being logged into my account. As for any reasons, none in particular. I learned the language of Wikipedia a year or so ago, and I started working on it from then on in my spare time. In terms of this article, I have always been fascinated by Sevigny's career and films, so I figured I'd put my writing abilities to use and help collaborate for the piece, and I've watched it evolve into a well-structured, nicely written article; I have done a fair amount of editing on it, while logged in and not. Does the editors' history make a vast difference in becoming a FA, even if the article is well-composed enough/fits the criteria? Youshotandywarhol (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that conflicts of interst (such as working) significantly on the article should be noted at the time of a declaration. Uninvolved opinions are needed. Karanacs (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct. Which one of the accounts here is  from Oregon?  Unless that is Ashton 29, the involved editor needs to declare such when supporting.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * User - that is me I believe; I am from Oregon, so those edits were from done by myself when I was not logged in. Sorry about that. Youshotandywarhol (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did Ashton29 nominate the article then, if you are the main contributor? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why Ashton29 did; I have frequently edited things on Wikipedia, but I've never gone about nominating an article for anything before. I do know that Ashton29 did review the article and do a fair amount of editing though, when it was first nominated as a GA. Youshotandywarhol (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It failed GAN, like mentioned above, BEFORE all the work was put into it. Chaelee (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. A very well written and informative article. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 23:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Why has it been archived? I have been working on Wikipedia for a while before I acquired an account, and I have also been working on the subject's article quite often, hence why I decided to nominate it. Ashton 29 (talk) 05:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.