Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philip Seymour Hoffman/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC).

Philip Seymour Hoffman

 * Nominator(s): ♦ Dr. Blofeld  and  Loeba  (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Philip Seymour Hoffman was one of the most widely respected and admired actors of his generation. In an industry obsessed with looks, he made his way to the top on pure acting merit alone, usually playing losers or contemptible people, roles which mostly received considerable critical attention for their believability and graphic portrayal. Sadly, like many creative people, he was a drug user, and died in February this year from an overdose. Loeba and myself have researched this article to the best of our ability and we believe it is a sound insight into the nature of his performances and career. I think I've seen all but a couple of his early 90s films, Loeba I believe has seen something similar, so we have a particularly good understanding. Bear in mind that unlike "Hollywood superstars" like Tom Cruise or Tom Hanks, Hoffman had a lower profile throughout most of his career and is not an actor who to date has a tremendous amount of biographical information written about him, no biographies or detailed book coverage to date that we can see anyway so I think we've managed to scrape together something particularly comprehensive at the moment. We'd very much like to see this promoted and to appear as TFA on the first anniversary of his death on February 2. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
Support – At Loeba's request I gave this article an informal peer review on the talk page, given the tight timetable if the nominators' ambition for 2 Feb front page appearance is to be achieved. I had few quibbles then, and they were minor and were thoroughly dealt with. The article seems to me to be comprehensive and balanced; it is widely sourced and referenced, and is a good read. I believe it meets all the FA criteria, and I am happy to support its promotion. –  Tim riley  talk    13:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thankyou Tim for making the effort to look at this at Christmas!♦ Dr. Blofeld  13:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Really appreciate the help and support Tim -- Loeba (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto
Support – My time here is complete. Congratulations on a great article here. I would suggest that you quickly go through and swap some "Hoffman"'s with the pronoun alternatives; there did seem to be quite a lot. He was, it appears, not everybody's cup of tea, and I'm sure as the years emerge, others will come out and say so. I think the lack of negative praise is a direct ramification of someone who has only recently died. In my view, obituaries are a bit biased and are crammed full of praise, to the extent that they sound almost sycophantic at times. I think, as the years roll on, others will come out and say "do you know what, I didn't rate him at all", and only then can we tip the scales on the other side and make it a bit more neutral. I think though, under the circumstances, this is as neutral as your going to get.  Cassianto Talk   12:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much! For such a close review and for giving your support. You may be right that in time negative comments will arise, although, as Blofeld says, even when PSH was alive reviews of his work were extremely positive (other than some of his stage work, which has been added to the article). So I don't personally think the obituaries were overreacting in their enthusiasm. Ultimately, the article is an accurate reflection of third-party sources and I appreciate you recognising that. But yes, if a "backlash" does begin, we'll include that as and when it happens. Thanks again -- Loeba (talk) 12:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, many thanks for your time and effort and understanding the neutrality issue!♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Carioca

 * Support. Looks great and it is very well-referenced. --Carioca (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thankyou, yes I think I pretty much ransacked Highbeam and google books!♦ Dr. Blofeld  23:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! -- Loeba (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat

 * Support - (Sorry, slightly belated because of the festivities!) - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks! -- Loeba (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, your comments and support as always are much appreciated!♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Krimuk90
Support: An excellent, well-sourced, and well-written article on a great actor. Having conducted its GA-review a few months back, I'm happy to see this at the FAC and am happy to support it with no added concerns. Also, I don't see any problems with neutrality with the article, especially since Hoffman was such a universally adored actor. Negative reviews on his acting prowess no doubt represent the minority view and shouldn't be picked up for representation. Great job guys! -- KRIMUK  90  ✉  14:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thankyou Krimuk!♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And from me, much appreciated -- Loeba (talk) 14:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Philip_Seymour_Hoffman_Flawless.jpg should use non-free film screenshot and should explicitly identify the copyright holder. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Blofeld has dealt with this. -- Loeba (talk) 11:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I know some people can be really uptight on fairuse images in film articles, let alone biographies on wikipedia, but I think we agreed it was very valuable to at least have one image representing him as an actor, and one in a particularly "delicate" role opposite somebody as big as De Niro I thought about as definitive as you could get, perhaps aside from him masturbating in Happiness! Perhaps one of these days wikipedia can make some agreements with film companies to use images, after all, I can't see such images in wikipedia articles as seriously damaging to them, if anything it will raise reader interest and make them want to buy the DVD. The problems might arise from the fact that wikipedia can be used by others for commercial gain though. ♦  Dr. Blofeld  16:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "perhaps aside from him masturbating in Happiness!" - Hahahahahaha, oh man, imagine! -- Loeba (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you imagine :-)!♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

, would you perhaps be able to do a source review for this FAC? I wouldn't normally be "pushy" about it, heh, but we are eager to get this scheduled to appear as TFA on February 2, which would mean getting it to TFAR pretty soon. I went through all the sources very closely, so hopefully you won't find much! No worries if you'd rather not, I can try asking someone else. -- Loeba (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Sock
Support: Dr. Blofeld, Loeba, I can not give the two of you enough kudos. This article is fantastic. The research put into it shows, and the sources are great. The prose is excellent with few exceptions (which I will address), and despite some itchy necks involving neutrality, I don't see much of an issue. If nothing negative is written on Hoffman (which appears to be the case), how can you source anything negative? I'm sure when a biography about him is released, this article will grow and improve even more than it has since the GA review in March.

I'm sure all of these issues will be addressed promptly, given the behaviour I've seen throught this FAC, so I have no issue maintaining my support before my issues are addressed. Despite my extensive nitpicks (apologies for the sarcasm in some of them, I can't do these reviews too straight-faced), this article is looking absolutely fantastic. Sock  ( tock talk)  19:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for your review and kind comments ! Yes, I think if you're very familiar with his career you can see that we understand him and it does him justice I think. Will address you points tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Doc! I replied to some of your comments above, hopefully I've explained myself a little better. Sock   ( tock talk)  05:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You comments made me very happy, thanks Sock! You're very kind. Thanks so much for taking the time to read through and review. -- Loeba (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I do my best, Loeba! Happy to help review. I don't usually do a whole lot at FAC, but Hoffman is one of my favourite actors of all time, and seeing an article done this well deserved as much support as it can get. Hopefully my replies to your comments help clarify my points a bit, and you may have even convinced me to drop a few of them :) Happy New Year! I'll be back on Friday to look at any further responses. Sock   ( tock talk)  13:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * x3 Happy new year to you too, and thanks for being flexible. Oh, and go and watch The Master, NOW! -- Loeba (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda
Late in the line of admirers of this article, only few comments (and I made minor changes).


 * Infobox: link to the two dedicated articles mentioned in filmography?
 * I've added the awards link, but I don't know what parameter could be used for the link of credits? -- Loeba (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You could add it under occupation, years active or misc, but I would try to first get rid of the tags. ---GA


 * Lead
 * Perhaps a bit more character of roles rather than types? Some of "No modern actor was better at making you feel sympathy for fucking idiots, failures, degenerates, sad sacks and hangdogs dealt a bum hand by life"?
 * I've genuinely just spent 20 minutes looking at/playing with the lead to think about how this could work, but it's difficult when its already long. One option would be to completely remove the descriptions of the characters, which would make way for some comments on how he made his roles sympathetic..? I don't know. ? The descriptions are quite nice, as they show that he played a range of interesting characters... -- Loeba (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Problem is there's so many roles you could talk about which would bloat it I think. I think the role summaries display his range of acting work without going into detail.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No torture intended, it was just an idea. ---GA
 * Think about the conclusion "an unexpected event that was widely lamented by the film and theater industries." - End on industries? What about the fans?
 * "by the film and theater industries and fans"? Hmm, not sure about that. I don't really think we need to mention fans (it goes without saying that his fans would be sad). -- Loeba (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not the word fans. It probably goes without saying also that the industries would be sad, - after emotions were raised so far, the term leaves me on the cool side ;) ---GA
 * delink U.S.?
 * Done -- Loeba (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Early life
 * age twelve (not 12)?
 * Non-nominator response: WP:NUMERAL says that numbers higher than nine can be expressed either numerically or in words, and WP:NUMNOTES says that ages are generally written in number form. In my opinion, this is okay. Sock   ( tock talk)  15:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Personal life
 * Children's names in brackets?
 * Not good? -- Loeba (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As all comments: just asking. To me, something in brackets looks like of second-rate importance. May be it's only me to feel that way. ---GA


 * Categories
 * Do we need director from New York and same from New York City?
 * Removed the NYC one -- Loeba (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Can the overlong one be renamed (for the benefit of all recipients)?
 * Maybe it can, not really something that this FAC needs to deal with though, I'd say? -- Loeba (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks strange on my screen, that's all. ---GA

That's it for now, moving story, will there be a movie on him? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha, unlikely I'd say but I guess you never know! Thanks very much for commenting. Just so you know, I've added back "Roman Catholic" as this clarification was requested during Tim's review (and it is good to be specific). -- Loeba (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Tim: I don't think Catholic is ambiguous once it's linked. Our article is NOW Catholic Church (used to be Roman C C), - I believe our articles using the term should follow, slowly slowly. Thanks, Loeba, for thinking and acting! ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, thanks for acting on my comments. I would still like one sentence in the lead about his way of making strange characters likable, and the lead not end on "industries", but it's no prerequisite for FA ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It says "Remembered for his fearlessness in playing reprehensible characters, and for bringing depth and humanity to such roles..." which I think covers it. Thanks very much Gerda! -- Loeba (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Source review
- spotchecks not done
 * Per MOS:ACCESS, don't use semicolons to create bolded headings in References - either use level-three headings or just normal bolding
 * Fixed
 * Where is this link meant to go?
 * Fixed
 * When citing sources accessed via databases like HighBeam, try not to combine the database and the original publication details in a single parameter - see the example citation at WP:HighBeam for one method to avoid this
 * All fixed -- Loeba (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sites like Rotten Tomatoes are typically not accurate representations of critical response for pre-2000 films. They also aren't generally appropriate for judgements like "more mainstream". Suggest reviewing use of these sources
 * The three pre-2000 films that had RT references have been changed to a different source (and the one I added for Patch Adams supports the comment that it was a mainstream film).
 * FN34 needs publisher (AP is agency)
 * Fixed
 * Sometimes you combine two sources in a single citation, other times have two citations - why?
 * I combined sources whenever possible (I think), but if the references are used more than once and have a "ref name" this isn't possible.
 * FN70 is incomplete
 * Fixed
 * Fn88, 104, 143, 156 should italicize publication
 * Fixed
 * Compare FNs 100 and 109
 * Fixed
 * FN111 doesn't match other similar sources, nor does FN116
 * Fixed
 * FN115: Hornaday is missing publication name
 * Fixed
 * FN151 is not a reliable source for what it's citing
 * Usually I'd agree that it's not a quality source, but I think it has some use for what it is referencing? We're trying to show that PSH wasn't a major movie star, and that's a website where regular people vote for their favourite actors. It was added after Ssilvers suggested we incorporate this point.
 * Perhaps there are lists from more reputable film sources like AFI or Empire or something, I couldn't find any at the time though, and as Loeba says it's just an example of polls without Hoffman in it rather than claiming something important.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been searching but can't find any reputable lists online. I've found Premiere magazine's list of the "Greatest performances of all time", but that one does include Hoffman! (at #35, for Capote) I actually wondered if it was worth including? -- Loeba (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Definitely mention that somewhere!♦ Dr. Blofeld  19:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Not with this source, I'm afraid - not being a "favourite" doesn't in itself mean they weren't a major star. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * FN153 doesn't match other newspaper sources
 * Fixed
 * Hischak: why are you italicizing SUNY?
 * Fixed
 * Don't include cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the last one, it's a detailed chronological coverage and might prove very useful for the reader who might not see the source among the many cited. It's there for convenience, and if some rule tells you that you shouldn't then I say ignore it in this case!♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ^Agreed-- Loeba (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that Nikki, amazing that I looked so closely (more than once!) and there were still inconsistencies. You have some sharp eyes. -- Loeba (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Indopug comments
This is very good.
 * What's the need to quote the opinions of tabloids (Daily Mirror) and conservative rags (Washington Times)?
 * Which citations are those?♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * CTRL+F is your friend, Doc :P FN97 for the Times and FN111 for the Mirror. Sock   ( tock talk)  18:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Both sources were added in response to another reviewer's concern about neutrality. Negative reviews of Hoffman are extremely difficult to find, and I think they're important for neutrality.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "American actor, director, and producer"—he's directed and produced two films. He isn't at all independently notable in those fields, so there's no need to mention them in the first sentence.
 * I think there is. And he wasn't just a film director and producer, he did a lot for theatre. I'm sure had he continued living he'd have focused more on the directing as he got older.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "In 2012, Hoffman expressed his appreciation for Anderson"—abrupt; why is this in a 1996 para?
 * Because it's where we talk about him forming the partnership with PTA, but I've tweaked it to "Hoffman later expressed..." -- Loeba (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reception and acting style is excellent, the best part of the article (and what a beautiful quote to end it with!). Can more of it be incorporated into the lead? The kind of actor he was, the type of roles he got etc. The lead doesn't even mention that Hoffman primarily played character-actor roles. You'll find that having this stuff in the lead will summarise Hoffman and capture his spirit much better than listing out the names of his movies.—indopug (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We do mention quite a few different roles he played which reveals a lot about his character work. I'm not sure we can really say a lot of what is said in the reception without bloating the lede. ", typically playing losers or degenerates in small but significant roles; notably a conceited student in Scent of a Woman (1992), a hyperactive storm-chaser in Twister (1996), a 1970s pornographic film boom operator in Boogie Nights (1997), a smug assistant in The Big Lebowski (1998), a hospice nurse in Magnolia (1999), a music critic in Almost Famous (2000), a phone-sex conman in Punch-Drunk Love (2002), and an immoral preacher in Cold Mountain (2003)." I think tells you that he was primarily a character actor and covers it.♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , I've altered the lead so that it discusses his typical roles etc a bit more, and reduces the amount of films/plays that are mentioned. Please take a look and see what you think. -- Loeba (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Late comment

In some places you have "publisher=Rotten Tomatoes" (which it isn't); "work=Rotten Tomatoes |publisher=Flixster" is the correct version. You also have a couple of others that need looking at, such as "publisher=Belfast Telegraph" (it isn't: "work=Belfast Telegraph|publisher=Independent News & Media" is correct. (Ditto "publisher=The New York Times": it isn't - that's the work. If you're using the cite web template, you don't need to use italics to get the correct version, so that's the easiest way to check. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's considered okay to only mention the specific company, without its "main publisher" (ie Rotten Tomatoes without Flixter) so long as you're consistent with it? ? And I know that sometimes the paramater isn't technically correct, but when I was going through and formatting, I just made some of them italic text because it was quicker than changing the parameter...surely that's fine so long as it is rendered correctly? Thanks though! -- Loeba (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Rotten Tomatoes is an interesting one in that it could be described as either a work or a publisher - Flixster is more accurately described as the owner, and need not be included. Schro is correct that you should be consistent in whatever choice you make, though. I also agree with him regarding italicization - the visible output might be correct, or it might not depending on the circumstances, and the metadata isn't correct. It oughtn't be hard to change the parameter name. Also, while I'm here, it seems a citation needed has appeared? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it seems hyper-nitpicky to me, to be honest, but I went through and fixed all the parameters. I can't see a citation needed tag? -- Loeba (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't either. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

, : I know it's considered imprudent to nudge you to look at an FAC, but I'm going to shamelessly do it in this instance..! As stated at the outset, the goal here was to get the article on the main page for February 2. I just looked at TFAR, and "officially" we need to nominate there by Monday - eek. We're at 7 supports and have had an image and a source review. Hoping you'll be able to look in here soon :) Cheers -- Loeba (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine, it was on my list for attention this weekend and I think we can safely close now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and thanks to all who contributed to this!♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.