Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jason Voorhees


 * 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 promoted 07:15, 4 September 2007.

Jason Voorhees
Undoubtedly the best fictional character article I have seen on Wiki. It's already a GA, and it meets all the criteria for featured. It has just the right amount of images, no redlinks, and a whopping 112 sources. If that's not a great page, I don't know what is. Belgium EO 03:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. Belgium EO 03:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I do not know if it is ready. I still have two more books to pick up and go through for the characterization and popular culture sections hope to be able to expand on the pop culture info more some, which, in my opinion, is a little weak at the moment.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: It is an incredibly good article. Sure, it'll have to be heavily maintained as Jason returns in films and literature to kill again, but I wholeheartedly believe this article should be featured. Alientraveller 17:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments "He first appeared in Friday the 13th (1980) as the child of Mrs. Voorhees, who drowned in Crystal Lake when two camp counselors were supposed to be watching him, but were having sex instead." First of all, is the latter half of this sentence ("who drowned in...") really necessary in the lead? There's not much context provided, and it seems somewhat peripheral. Second, to whom is the "who" referring: Mrs. Voorhees or Jason? If the latter, please consider instead "Mrs. Voorhees' child", as placing the modifying clause immediately after Mrs. Voorhees is confusing. Also, that would mean that you would have to devote more words in the lead to explaining how Jason "survives" if he has drowned (for those unfamiliar with him, such as myself). Otherwise, we'll be going through the entire lead thinking, "wait, if he drowned...then..." 69.202.63.165 18:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I went with the "Mrs. Voorhees' child," and trimmed the bit about drowning (it's better explained in the film appearances section) and the repetative use of the films title in the second sentence.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Kirzinger thinks his experience on Part VIII helped him land the part, as Kirzinger doubled for Hodder on two scenes for the film,[69] but also believes he was simply sized him up and handed the job.[70] The end of the sentence is awkward. LuciferMorgan 12:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll have to be a bit more specific to what you think is awkward. It's a summarization of two statements that he made in an interview. One was about how he felt his stunt doubling in the one film helped him give off that prescence, and the other is about how it seemed all he had to do was walk into the audition room and they handed him the role.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would work better as two separate sentences? Paul730 16:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do when I get home (which will be in about 5 hours), since the source material is in the book at my house.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  16:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The phrase but also believes he was simply sized him up and handed the job.[70] doesn't make sense to me at all. Read it, say it out loud. If you cannot tell if the sentence is awkward by reading it out aloud, no amount of comments from myself will. LuciferMorgan 17:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh right, lol. Didn't notice that unnecessary him. It's fixed now, thanks for pointing it out. Paul730 18:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice it either, I was reading it the way it was meant to be read. Thanks for fixing it Paul.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - I'm going to go ahead and give my support. The article is already rather comprehensive--the books may add something, but they may not add anything...I won't know till I get them. I'm not going to say it isn't comprehensive based on the fact that there are a couple more books that I'd like to get, but have no clue if there is anything viable in them. Without them, I think the article is still FA quality.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - This article is, without a doubt, the best fictional character article I've seen on Wikipedia. I have used it as an example of how character articles should be written on several occasions.  It is extremely comprehensive and well-referenced - everything is supported by a variety of reliable sources.  The images are relevant for an encyclopedia, and not just eye candy to brighten up the article.  If the article can be imporved further, brilliant, but that does not change the fact that it is already FA quality.  Paul730 23:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.