Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Katie Holmes old

Katie Holmes
''Obviously not going to pass, so I'm withdrawing the nomination. PedanticallySpeaking 14:46, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)'' Self nom. A life of the Buckeye actress (Dawson's Creek) with illustrations, bibliography, external links. Was previously on peer review here. PedanticallySpeaking 19:01, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, OK, somebody can draw well, but it sure would be nice to have a real picture of her, at least at the top. Everyking 19:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Not expansive enough for a featured article, and needs a photo. --Tothebarricades.tk 19:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's about as long as Julia Stiles, which was voted in as featured a couple weeks back. PedanticallySpeaking 16:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Object.
 * The image is horrible for an FA, a photograph is far more appropriate (with the drawing further down).
 * The Dawson's Creek title image could use a caption.
 * The headings should have only one uppercased word (unless proper noun, which none are).
 * Sentences like "At 5'9" (some sources say 5'7"), the tall brunette enchanted the press" scream POV.
 * (Minor) It reads like a teen magazine article, and should have less inline quotes and informal writing style.
 * [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|30px|]] plattopusis this thing on? 19:32, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. I agree with plattopus. Phils 20:00, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Object: I think the drawing is quite good, very talented. Good reference section, but with 20 references there must be more to write on her than this, for instance the section Lesser success on the silver screen seems to be more a list, a more detailed  appraisal of what she was actually doing right or wrong in these films could perhaps be written. The written style sould be a little more serious. Giano | Talk 08:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply by the nominator:
 * The drawing I neither composed nor posted. I listed this on requested photos and this is what someone posted.  If someone can do better, please do so.
 * Once an appropriate photo has been added I will withdraw that objection, but I'm not the one trying to get the article featured. :P [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|30px|]] plattopusis this thing on? 16:19, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, I do not have the ability to add photos. PedanticallySpeaking 16:56, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you mean you can't find a promotional image of her? A quick Google Image Search should produce some results, and promotional pictures have their own image tag since they should be fair use. [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|30px|]] plattopusis this thing on? 17:24, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I work at the public library and do not have the ability to download and upload pictures. PedanticallySpeaking 17:39, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah. I'll dig around for something then. [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|30px|]] plattopusis this thing on? 17:42, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|30px|]] plattopusis this thing on? 17:59, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Someone has changed the capitalization in the headers per the comment above.
 * A caption has been added to the title card image.
 * The sentence cited for POV summarizes the direct quotes which follow.
 * It is still an example of the POV throughout the article. [[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|30px|]] plattopusis this thing on? 16:19, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

--PedanticallySpeaking 14:59, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object for the moment. I'm actually OK with the tone which is fitting for an essentially light subject; not everything in Wikipedia has to be grey goo, and all the praise seems to be well-referenced from reputable sources.  That first sentence is a bit much, though -- I think "hoydenish girl" is actually redundant (aren't all hoydens girls)?  The "movies" section is a bit of a muddle of random tidbits; if this were reworked effectively I'd move to support.  Jgm 03:54, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak object. Nice pictures.  I just think that the text could be POV-cleaned up some and maybe expanded a bit.  For example, I too dislike the "hoyden" bit.  Thanks, PedanticallySpeaking, for giving me a chance to comment on this FAC.  -- M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) 19:36, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Object I have to agree with Giano's comments above. While it isn't a bad article, it just doesn't have that Midas touch that makes it "pop" out that it is a FA. I also share the same opinions as Merovingian (above). Either way, if the article is improved, I'd be happy to reconsider as I have respect for you built up. --Lan56 05:16, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Object - (but I'm close to supporting). The lead paragraph - "hoydenish etc" I agree is out of place, and I also think "titular waterway" looks odd. I'd rather see straight forward  language that is either encyclopedic or conversational, but these examples are neither.  The section about "enchanting the press" - I would leave the section as it is because if you are quoting critics, as we are encouraged to do, and they are all positive (are there no negative comments to be found?), then you should not be accused of demonstrating POV.  However the section header is another story.  It's clearly POV, firstly because it's not taken directly from a quote, but even if it was, using it in a heading is placing a spotlight on it, and the decision to place that particular spotlight is POV.  Once again, I'd rather see a heading that is straight to the point, even at the risk of being bland.  The section about her film career is very well presented - however I'm not crazy about the title.  Once again the inclusion of the word "lesser" implies POV.  It implies that everything that follows is of lesser importance than everything that preceded it.   Please note, I'm objecting to the headings and not the body of the text which I think is fine, apart from the lead paragraph.  I admire your intention in trying to elevate "fansite" articles into something more intelligent and substantial and I think this one is almost there. Rossrs 10:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)