Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ethan Hawke/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 Karanacs 15:44, 13 October 2009.

Ethan Hawke

 * Nominator(s): -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  19:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for featured article status because I have expanded the article and have brought it to GA status and one peer review process and has since been copy-edited. I look forward to any feedback that arises out of this process. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  19:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review - No issues. NW ( Talk ) 01:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Source comments What makes this reliable?
 * http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Actor&id=ethanhawke.htm Source is reliable. RB88 (T) 22:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The website keeps track of box office records. With this link, it keeps track of Hawke's and other actor's film earnings.
 * Ideally, we would like notable and reliable third-party publications to have used or commented on the website's content as accurate. At the very least, the page needs an About Us page which shows an editorial or specialist background or how it proceeds to form data stat-wise. Have a look at this: Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. If you cannot fulfil any of the criteria, then it has to be removed. RB88 (T) 07:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's gonna be a tough one. But, I'll see if I can find some sources.
 * The source has been removed. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You can put the information back. The source has been proven reliable. RB88 (T) 22:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Re-added the source. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  14:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Current ref 80 deadlinks
 * Replaced with cite journal.
 * Current ref 75 is cited to "The Broadway League" when it is imdb.
 * Removed.


 * Current refs 8, 62, 70, 79, 84, 93, 94, 99, 100 have a different citing convention to the others, i.e. they make use of "p." to show page number.
 * I'm not sure what you're saying. Can you explain?
 * So, instead of "The New York Times: p. 2" for example, they need to be "The New York Times: 2" like all the other ones. Basically remove the "p." in all the above. RB88 (T) 07:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. I got you. Check.
 * Fixed two remaining ones. RB88 (T) 15:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, snap. I don't know how I missed those. Thank you for fixing it. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  18:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Current refs 36, 56, 62, 73, 77, 80, 83, 92 have a publisher citation whereas all the other ones don't. Pick one style and stick to it throughout for uniformity, especially since all works are notable.
 * I removed the publisher stuff for consistency.

RB88 (T) 07:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider merging refs 99 and 100 into one citation, using page number "1–2"
 * Wouldn't that be a problem when trying to find the cited info?
 * This one is up to you. It was just an idea for more compactness. RB88 (T) 07:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would rather leave it as it is.
 * Having Hawke's bibliography above the references section is a bit ambiguous. I initially thought it was books used in the article. Consider moving it or naming it something different like "Writings".
 * Done.

 Comments, leaning to support Support: This is probably the best of the actor biogs from this editor. It seems to be comprehensive, the tone is neutral and the writing is clear. I have a few points for consideration:-
 * In the lead, second line, we have "the supporting appearance". Surely this must be "a"?
 * Done.
 * Henry IV could be pipe-linked to Henry VI Part I. Hawke played Hotspur, who doesn't appear in Part II, having been killed in Part I
 * Done.
 * There are five very recent photographs of Hawke (three for 2007, one from 2008 and one from 2009), which produces a lack of variety in the images. The fact that photographs are available doesn't mean we have to use them; are there any possible replacements, perhapd from earlier in his career?
 * I searched, but came up empty.
 * I guess I could sacrifice some images. Well, maybe one; the one in the Critical success section. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  23:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In response to an earlier reviewer the "p." from page numberings have been removed. Unfortunately, with the proliferation of numbers in the reference section it is now very difficult to establish what are page numbers and what might be something else.
 * So, I have to undo my edits? I guess. I'll work on this.
 * Okay, I fixed the page parameter in the sources. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  23:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In earlier actor biographies I have complained that too many critics' comments have been quoted verbatim, when some could easily be paraphrased. There is a tendency towards this fault in this article, too. Where the reviewer's language is original and striking we need the quote to get a proper feel for what was said, but when the comment is pretty ordinary it should be briefly paraphrased.
 * Like in Kirsten Dunst, Brad Pitt, and this one, I still have trouble summarizing the quotes. Can you help me?
 * I've done a few paraphrases, don't have time for more! Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for them. :) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  20:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to use the occasional synonym for "mixed" in "mixed reviews"? Could some be "varied", "assorted" or even "ambivalent"? It would be nice to see some alternative to this stock phrase which appears over and over again in film, book and music articles.
 * I'll try to work on this, too.
 * I replaced some "mixed" with the suggested words, I hope that's alright. If not, please let me know. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  23:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Altogether, however, an attractive and informative article which I don't think requires massive work to get into the top category. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm half-way with getting your concerns, but I'll get them. Thanks for taking the time to read the article over. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  18:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You've dealt with most of my concerns and I have upgraded my comment to support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments I found the structure of this article somewhat repetitive, particularly in regards to Hawke's film appearances. However, each presentation is clear and succinct.


 * I'm wondering if there is any information on Hawke's theory of acting. For example, some actors are method actors. Do we know anything about Hawke's ideas about acting?
 * I've read interviews and he doesn't seem to mention any kind of acting method. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  20:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Though Hawke aspired in high school to be a writer, he developed an interest in acting. - This sentence does not make much sense. I'm not sure why it begins with "though" - there does not seem to be a connection between the two facts in the sentence such as "Though Hawke aspired to be a writer, he gave up his dreams to pursue acting".
 * I've reworded it. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  20:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hawke later described the film's popularity as critical to his decision to continue acting: "I didn't want to be an actor and I went back to college. But then the [film's] success was so monumental that I was getting offers to be in such interesting movies and be in such interesting places, and it seemed silly to pursue anything else." - Is it the popularity of the film that prompted him to keep acting? The quote seems to suggest that it was the intriguing opportunities that prompted him to continue acting.
 * He says that after filming it, he didn't want to continue being an actor and wanted to go back to school. Following the release of the movie, he was getting offers and believed that being an actor would be the way to go. I don't know if I answered your question. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  20:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not a fan of separate "Personal life" sections. It separates connections that otherwise would be clear, such as how Hawke met Thurman. However, I did recognize that this is a common practice in these articles. I do think that we should mention the Thurman/Hawke connection earlier in the article.
 * I don't understand. Can you explain? -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  20:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Thurman/Hawke connection is mentioned in the infobox. If it is thought necessary, a brief sentence could be added to the lead, e.g. "Between 1998 and 2004 Hawke was married to actress Uma Thurman."  Brianboulton (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Added. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  15:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a little worried that some of the material in the "Personal life" section is verging on the trivial.
 * Do we need to say he is a fan of the NY Knicks?
 * Removed.
 * How important is it that Hawke endorsed Democratic presidential candidates?
 * I believe it's important that it be mention of his endorsements. Just mentioning that he supports the Democratic party seems dull. But, if you further see this as an issue, I'll remove it. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  20:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph of "Personal life" seems like an assemblage of random facts about Hawke's family.
 * I removed some of the info. in the paragraph, but kept the last sentence.


 * I'm unconvinced of the need of the "Further reading" section - if these sources provide so much helpful information that we need to recommend them to readers, shouldn't they be used as sources for the article?
 * Angelina Jolie and Maggie Gyllenhaal, both FAs, have the Further reading section. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  20:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not particularly good reasoning. Do you have a rationale for the inclusion of these items in a further reading list for this article? I imagine that there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of magazine articles about Hawke that could be on the list; did you have reasons for choosing these particular ones?  If not, it might be best to drop the list as unnecessary. Brianboulton (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason for including those links were because of the interviews he gave. I'll admit that all the sources talked almost about the same thing in his film career, sources that are used in the article, but there was info. he gave toward his roles. I thought it would be helpful to have the section. But seeing how it's a problem, I've removed it. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  15:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Can we get updates here from BrianBoulton and Awadewit please? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just posted my review a few hours ago - I'm not sure what update you would need from me. Awadewit (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry :) Just scanning on first pass, didn't check dates :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've updated Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.