Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Josh Hutcherson/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 Ian Rose 15:58, 9 April 2014.

Josh Hutcherson

 * Nominator(s):  Gloss •  talk  18:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is about an American actor, currently in the off-season of his current major film projects. The article has received a major facelift over the past two months or so, and I'm nominating it because I believe it's well-written and well-researched, as it covered every notable aspect of Hutcherson's life and career. I attempted to bring this to peer review before it's GAN, but it received no comments after a few weeks. Since then, it's passed its GAN and appeared on the main page for a DYK, where a few other editors lent a hand in further improving the article. Any and all criticism is welcome!  Gloss •  talk  18:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:JoshHutchersonSep09.jpg: source link is dead, author is not named, and the licensing given suggests that that link was not the original source. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe I've fixed the problem.  Gloss •  talk  17:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Eisfbnore
 * "Along the way, he picked up four Young Artist Award nominations for Best Leading Young Actor, two of which he won." – the phrasing is a bit informal.
 * "In 2011, Hutcherson landed the leading role of Peeta Mellark in The Hunger Games film series, based on an adaptation of Suzanne Collins' novel series." – tautology
 * "Hutcherson's passion for entertaining people began developing at the age of three when he would watch television and think "how cool it would be to be like them." – 1) a bit verbose. Consider rephrasing. 2) to be like whom?
 * "For six years his parents had ignored his requests to pursue acting, however they realized that it could be something worth pursuing for Hutcherson and was not just a phase" – ortography: "; however, (at one point) they realized... [semicolons to separate independent clauses]
 * "In the animated film Howl's Moving Castle, he voiced the character of Markl alongside Christian Bale and Billy Crystal." – Presumably Bale and Crystal voiced other characters in the same movie, whilst Markl's voice was provided solely by Hutcherson. The sentence says otherwise.
 * "He also performed in 2004's The Polar Express." – really? Wasn't that an animated film? Suggest changing the verb.
 * "the reception was not nearly as positive as his previous films" – HUh? The sentence currently says that his previous films had been more positive than the reception for Red Dawn. Makes no sense. Perhaps something like "Later in 2012, he appeared in Red Dawn, a remake of the 1984 film of the same name. The film was panned by critics, achieving only a 12% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, the lowest score of any film Hutcherson has appeared in.
 * "The day following the films' United States release," – misplaced apostrophe
 * "In 2013, Hutcherson voiced the character, Nod, in the animated action-adventure film Epic, alongside Beyoncé and Colin Farrell." –excessive use of commas
 * " He also has cited actor Jake Gyllenhaal as an inspiration." – word order

As you may see, the prose clearly needs some work, and I really think the article should have gone through peer review before landing here. However, English is not my mother tongue, so some of the above comments may be misguided. I wish you good luck. Eisfbnore (会話) 17:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries about the language barrier, your comments were helpful and I've made all of your suggested changes. Also, I did bring the article to peer review back in December, but it received zero feedback and was archived by a few weeks later. See the page's history. Thank you,  Gloss •  talk  18:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Before becoming a FA, here are some things I would do:
 * Comments from XXSNUGGUMSXX
 * Early Life
 * Second sentence is rather lengthy. Try something like "He is a son of United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) analyst Chris Hutcherson and former Delta Air Lines employee Michelle (Fightmaster) Hutcherson." and add "Mother Michelle now helps with Josh's career" right afterwards.
 * Last sentence is also lengthy, and would read better as something like "After ignoring his requests to pursue acting for six years, his parents started to listen and allowed him to pursue it."


 * Continued success through The Hunger Games
 * In the first sentence of the first paragraph, just use ref#28 (Los Angeles Times).
 * I know your opinion of The Huffington Post, but consensus is that it can be used as a reliable source.  Gloss •  talk  21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ref#40 (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis) should be outside of the parentheses (second paragraph)
 * The reference is part of the template, and out of my control. See Template:Inflation  Gloss •  talk  21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's something you could use: ($0 in 2024 dollars).


 * The last sentence of the second paragraph should have spaced out from the ref's, and just use ref#43 (Rolling Stone)
 * See two comments above.  Gloss •  talk  21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Personal Life
 * Info on brother should be in "Early Life" section, right after bits on parents.
 * If including ethnicity, that should also be in early life section. Try to find a better source than EthniCelebs or remove altogether, as admins Acalamari and Kww have informed me that the site is known for having questionable-at-best reliability.
 * The info on Jake Gyllenhaal inspiration would probably be better in early life section, or perhaps make a section dedicated to his acting inspirations and styles with that in it.
 * Justin Timberlake info is trivial, I'd remove that
 * Regarding this comment and the one above it, there isn't enough information here to create it's own section. So combining it with his personal life seems like a reasonable compromise. And I disagree that the Timberlake info is trivial. He was a fan of his growing up, essentially the same as an influence (like Gyllenhaal)  Gloss •  talk  21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If he was an influence, that should be included rather than stating he was a fan.
 * Hobbies info is also trivial and should be removed
 * Favorite sports teams are also trivial and should be removed
 * Biographies are not simply supposed to be about the person's career. Personal life information has always included information like this. If anyone else has a concern with it, we can discuss it further.  Gloss •  talk  21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For his relationships, find better sources than Us Weekly, Huffington Post, and People, or remove altogether
 * Again, I understand you dislike these sources but they're all considered reliable on Wikipedia.  Gloss •  talk  21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not so much me disliking as it is me often noting poor support for basis (i.e. a recurring example of poor support they use is where a quote is followed by "according to sources" or "sources say" without giving the names of these "sources") and frequent inaccuracy
 * This is all your preference and I do understand that. But I cannot go with your opinion and go again an established Wikipedia consensus.  Gloss •  talk  21:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In the instance provided on poor support, what I neglected to mention is how they would have more merit if the names of the "sources" were provided rather than simply stating "according to sources" or "sources say". Also, unless I'm mistaken there are always accepted sources and sources that are considered to be even better. In this case, try to go with those deemed to be in the "even better" range (i.e. Boston Globe, Entertainment Weekly, New York Times, Rolling Stone, Washington Post).
 * There is nothing wrong with the sources the article has provided. Please stop pushing you personal opinions.  Gloss •  talk  04:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It was meant as more of a recommendation than pushing, though I'm sorry if it came off as pushing.
 * Remove the red link to "Straight But Not Narrow"
 * See WP:REDLINK  Gloss •  talk  21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting..... most times I've seen users avoid them whenever possible.....
 * Per WP:OVERCITE, just use ref#57 (E!) at the end of the second-to-last sentence.
 * There are only two sources there, and that does not violate WP:OVERCITE.  Gloss •  talk  21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What I meant was, you don't need to include ref#57 twice in a row.
 * I see. Taken care of!  Gloss •  talk  21:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Find a better source than People (ref#59) or remove altogether
 * See above comment.  Gloss •  talk  21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Only use one image if any of him with Vanessa Hudgens. I'd personally recommend the one of them on the beach if any as it gives a clearer view of their faces.
 * Why only use one image? There are two good images of them, no harm at all in using both.  Gloss •  talk  21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In this case, because one image doesn't provide a very good view of the faces.
 * I respectfully disagree. Again, if anyone else has an issue I'll remove it. But for now it's just a matter of preference.  Gloss •  talk  21:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Awards and nominations
 * Find a better source than ref#62 (IMDb) or remove altogether
 * Remove the red link to "Chlotrudis Awards" and "Best Cast"
 * Again, see WP:REDLINK  Gloss •  talk  21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Find a better source than ref#76 (Huffington Post) or remove altogether
 * Again, see my comments above.  Gloss •  talk  21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this should've gone through a peer review before being nominated for FA after it got GA status, but wish you luck, Gloss! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The comments I did not leave a reply to have been completed.  Gloss •  talk  21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- The nominator has done the right thing attempting PR, as well as GAN, before FAC and has responded in a timely manner to comments raised. Unfortunately this review has been open almost 6 weeks without attracting any support for promotion, and it doesn't look like it will any time soon, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.