Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Monahan


 * 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 16:41, 26 March 2007.

William Monahan
Self-nomination: Hello. This article is about the recent Academy Award winning American Screenwriter for Best Adapted Screenplay, William Monahan. It's a GA currently. I have previously brought the Aaron Sorkin article to featured status. I hope to do the same with this article. They follow a similar template, so you may find making comparisons between them useful. My hope is that Monahan's previous career as a man of letters will receive more attention if this article reaches featured status and appears on the main page. He has had an interesting career and I have enjoyed researching it. So let me know what you think. This article is also a part of the nascent Screenwriters Wikiproject.-BillDeanCarter 19:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's discouraging to see an article come straightaway to FAC from passing GA; four hours before your nomination, the reviewer who passed the article GA recommended a thorough and independent copyedit.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Many articles need a copyedit, but I believe this article has reached the quality of a featured article. I hope that the reviewers here at FAC, will help give the article a copyedit if they feel it needs it.  Other than User:Fvasconcellos suggestion that it receives a copyedit, all his others suggestions were met and appreciated.-BillDeanCarter 20:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1a, 2. In addition to the copyedit concerns, the section Further information is a jumble having no relation to WP:LAYOUT.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you for your comments and taking the time to read the article. I addressed your concern about the "Further information" section, but I'm not sure exactly what your concerns are in accordance with the rest of criteria 2.  I think I took care of 2c and 2b by modify the "Further information" section to be a clearer "Further reading" section.  How specifically does the article not meet criteria 2?-BillDeanCarter 02:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On 1a - The article has to date been improved according to many independent copyedits at this point but as more criticism comes in I plan to make further improvements. All the facts are there though.  Are there any sentences that jump out at you?  Maybe one or two that you could point out?-BillDeanCarter 02:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It is well referenced, so I don't think there is any trouble about unsourced material on a living person. I'm not an english major, so I cant say it has 'amazing prose' or whatever the criterion says but it wasn't stop and go or abrupt; rather all the sections seemed to go in a logical order. KeepOnTruckin Complain to me 03:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 15:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Quick comments
 * The lead still needs improvement, particularly stylistic. Also, a redlink in the lead immediately throws me off; IMHO, mentioning an ongoing event in the lead is not a very good idea, but if you want to keep it, it would look better if you delinked the film title and added a little bit of context (e.g., "He is currently working on the screenplay for Penetration, an adaptation of...in collaboration with director Ridley Scott.")
 * ✅ I did a copyedit of the lead and removed mention of the ongoing event.


 * The article has improved, but more copy editing is the way to go here. After another read, I find this article to be nicely comprehensive, but the overall style is still lacking; the first criterion to define a Featured Article is "the prose is compelling, even brilliant."
 * It's true. I'm running out of vocabulary for this article.  That's what I've enjoyed seeing from other editors, the addition of words that I know but wouldn't have chosen.  I hope others can continue to help me out in this area.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The amount of redlinks bothers me, especially since they are to terms I would like to see explained! Production write-through contract, turnaround deal... I can infer meanings from the context, but readers shouldn't have to infer anything.
 * I removed many of the other redlinks, because they will most likely never be filled in and probably shouldn't be. As for the two redlinks you would like to see explained.  I would too.  But they're entertainment lawyer-like terms, which I've notified WikiProject Law about, and they filled in one of the redlinks: first-look producing deal.  The two remaining entertainment lawyer contracts will possibly remain in the red for a while.  I don't want to de-link them, but I also can do little to fill them in.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Well, done as in the amount of redlinks is no longer an eyesore.  I put together a stub for production write-through contract.  The other one will hopefully be forthcoming over time.-BillDeanCarter 22:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In "Becoming a producer": "Scorsese had originally hired in 2001 former Rolling Stones writer..." don't you mean Rolling Stone magazine? :) Also, the prose in this sentence is a pretty good example of what needs work here.
 * Thanks. I corrected the spelling of Rolling Stone magazine.  This paragraph is basically about deals, and Monahan's production company.  I'll work on it.  I think the solution might be to condense the last two paragraphs into one, and improve the prose from there.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ I completely rewrote the section.  It's significantly improved.  Hopefully up to par with the rest of the article.-BillDeanCarter 22:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are some pretty unnecessary links in the "Writing process" section, such as to screenwriter, motion pictures, film director, etc.
 * ✅I de-linked some of the terms, especially motion pictures, but the other two you mention are very important terms for the section. The writing process section is about screenwriters and how they work with film director and studios.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There's more, but I'll have to read the article again more thoroughly. I'm very busy today, so I'll see what I can do later. Fvasconcellos 13:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks for your many comments.  The problems seem to remain in the prose.-BillDeanCarter 17:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment The nominator of this article asked me to look over its prose. I would suggest that this article be sent to the League of Copyeditors or that the editors find a trusted wikipedia editor to copyedit for them. The prose needs a lot of work. I will give detailed examples from the lead and the first sections only.
 * Monahan moved to New York City to pursue a career as a journalist, writer and critic. He went on to contribute to the New York Press, as well as the magazines Talk, Maxim and Spy. - These two sentences suggest that Monaham went to NYC to be a jounralist and then moved on to write for these particular magazines - that doesn't quite make sense. Didn't he write for them because he was a journalist?
 * This was someone else's copyedit. I changed it to "After graduating from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, where he studied Elizabethan and Jacobean drama, Monahan moved to New York City to pursue a career as a journalist, writer and critic.  He wrote for the New York Press, as well as the magazines Talk and Maxim.  He was also a writer and editor at Spy magazine in its final years."
 * A lead is supposed to summarize, so how about: ""After graduating from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, where he studied Elizabethan and Jacobean drama, Monahan moved to New York City to pursue a career as a journalist, writer and critic. He wrote for the New York Press, Talk, Maxim and Spy magazine."
 * ✅ Okay. I put exactly that in there.  He was also an editor at Spy but I guess that's for the text.-BillDeanCarter 17:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Monahan broke into Hollywood in 1998 - "broke into" is too colloquial for an encyclopedia
 * I changed the sentence to "Monahan went to work in Hollywood in 1998, when Warner Bros. bought the film rights to Light House: A Trifle, which had not yet been published, and contracted him to adapt it to the screen."
 * How about: "Monahan moved to Hollywood in 1998 when he was hired by Warner Bros. to adapt his novel, Light House: A Trifle, for the screen." (if that is still correct)
 * ✅ I don't know that he moved to Hollywood. He may have been living in a hotel, and commuting back to the North shore.  I believe he lives in MA still.-BillDeanCarter 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * released to theaters in 2005 - "released in theaters"?
 * ✅ Okay. It's consistently "released in theaters" throughout the article now.  Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * His second realized screenplay was The Departed, a film which earned him a WGA award and an Academy award for Best Adapted Screenplay. - "realized" is unfamiliar diction for many people; also was it the film that earned him the award or the screenplay?
 * "realized" was someone else's copyedit. I reverted to "produced screenplay".  I mention how he won the award for Best Adapted Screenplay.  Both awards were for Best Adapted Screenplay.  Is it not clear?  Does the WGA award seem to stand alone?-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is implied that he won for the screenplay, but the sentence actually states "a film which earned him..." - should it not say, "a screenplay which earned him..."? By the way, is there another word for screenplay? It appears a lot in this article. Nothing is coming to me at the moment, but perhaps you know of something. Is a script different from a screenplay?
 * "Shooting script" is good, "first draft", "rewrite", but screenplay is the best word to use when the script is over and done with. Maybe there is a synonym.  I can't think of one.  You never know.-BillDeanCarter 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Monahan strongly believes that writing should be authored and is not a fan of the collaborative model in which multiple screenwriters write competing drafts for a film. - doesn't quite make sense; all writing is authored; try starting the sentence with "Monahan strongly believes that screenwriting should not be collaborative but rather..." or something like that
 * ✅ Okay. I did the reversal.


 * He had a Catholic upbringing and lived all over the North Shore of Massachusetts with his mother and sister. - how about simply, "He was brought up Catholic" and what does "lived all over" mean?
 * ✅ Okay, I changed to "He had a Catholic upbringing. Over the years he frequently moved, living in many of the suburban communities of the North Shore of Massachusetts with his mother and sister."
 * How about "his family frequently moved" (then you can cut the mother/sister stuff out)
 * But what is the family? Is his sister and mother, because he wasn't living with the father.  It's also more informative.  Now you know he has a sister.-BillDeanCarter 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Early Years" section is choppy - some sentences could be joined together in order to make the narrative of his life flow more seamlessly.
 * Could you point out an example of two sentences that could be joined? I guess these two sentences, "His interest in movies began at age seven, when it occurred to him that a screenwriter was behind the story in Lawrence of Arabia.  Monahan wrote his first screenplay at age twelve." could be tied together, but it doesn't quite work for me.  What do you think?-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How about these: "He regularly visited his father's home in West Roxbury, and would read frequently from his father's extensive library. Monahan particularly enjoyed reading Shakespeare." into "He regularly visited his father's home in West Roxbury, where he would immerse himself in his father's extensive book collection; Monahan particularly enjoyed reading Shakespeare's plays." (might change meaning a little - be sure it is accurate)
 * ✅ No, it's accurate. Okay, I put it in.  Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 17:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * After graduation, Monahan's ambition was to be a man of letters, which required a commitment to essays, criticism, reviews, novels, poetry and biographies. - "which required a commitment to" is vague - what about something like "which would have required him to master the genres of the essay, the review, the novel, poetry and the biography" or something like that
 * ✅I word for word put in your copyedit. It reads better.  Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * six months later, he wrote another article at the alternative weekly newspaper that has distinguished him as the only person to solve the Unabomber's lexically-based targeting methodology before the bomber was caught - verb is awkward - perhaps "distinguishes him as"? although "distinguish" is not really the right word here
 * I changed it to "distinguishes". Classified him, marked him, came to mind but they don't quite fit as well.  It has distinguished him.  No one else, not even the FBI figured out what he did.  Do you have a better verb?-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "establish"? is a good online thesaurus (you mentioned you were running out of words)
 * ✅ I've been using a thesaurus here and there. Establish doesn't work for me.  I would use "marked him" but to me it sounds like he got involved in witchcraft.  From my adventures through the thesaurus "distinguish" seems to be the most apt word.-BillDeanCarter 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The next year, Monahan wrote a provocative article at the Press on heroin. - what made it provocative?
 * I changed this to "The next year, Monahan wrote an article at the Press on heroin that provoked a rash of letters from readers."
 * This still doesn't explain why it was provocative. What were the readers writing in about?
 * Probably pro and con the article. This is a secondary source that mentioned his article.  I'd love to read it, but atm it's not available.-BillDeanCarter 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like you don't do justice to his novel. A novel, especially a "critically acclaimed" one, as you say this one is, is difficult to write. It is not on the same level with magazine stories.
 * I later on mention more about the novel in Screenwriting career, how it got delayed, and later in writing process I talk about how he prefers movies to novels because you have a cultural effect. His novel was acclaimed but probably had the readership of one of his magazine articles.  He eventually took the novel off the market.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw that, but I still feel it is downplayed. Perhaps a quote from a review?
 * ✅ Okay. That's a good idea.  I changed the sentence to this: "In 2000, Monahan's first novel Light House: A Trifle was published and garnered critical acclaim; The New York Times wrote that "Monahan's cocksure prose gallops along," and BookPage Fiction called Monahan "a worthy successor to Kingsley Amis."  I'm unfamiliar with the proper use of a semicolon so I hope I got the sentence right.-BillDeanCarter 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to have copied sentences directly from the article into the lead - try to summarize in the lead.
 * Okay. I'll see what I can do.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please integrate his marriage into the chronology of his life rather than relegating it to a little line after his list of works.
 * This was done in the Aaron Sorkin article and it wasn't me but another who thought it was the way to go. I've since followed that style, and I want to keep the layout of my trilogy of articles on screenwriters similar.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get into a big feminist debate here, but it is awfully condescending to relegate his domestic life to this little line at the end of the article. If this were an article about a female screenwriter or director, I have a feeling that her marriage(s) would not be placed so inconspicuously (I have noticed a strong trend in biographies of nineteenth-century dead, white men to do this same thing but in biographies of dead, white women, to prominently feature their marriages). If you don't agree with this argument, at least consider that, structurally, it breaks the continuity of the article (which is strongly chronological).
 * The thing is that his family life doesn't fit in with Screenwriting career. I would have to pop in with comments like "he got married this year," and "first baby here", and "second baby here".  There isn't much to say about his Personal life.  It comes together better if you can read it all in context in a section.  I can't see how women or men are slighted by having the family stuff gathered into a section, or brought up in the other sections organically.-BillDeanCarter 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See Johannes Kepler for a good example. My point is, women's biographies do not usually separate their careers from their families while men's biographies often do. That's what makes it sexist - the overall pattern. Awadewit 07:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But Kepler is then an exception to this overall pattern? The thing is with Kepler there's 2 marriages, and there's a lot to be said.  Monahan's wife's name is unknown, and all that's known is that he has two kids.  I will give this some more thought.-BillDeanCarter 18:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please say that I am hearing you wrong. Please tell me that you didn't mean that you want to follow the sexist pattern just because it is a pattern. Just because there is not very much information does not mean you cannot work it in. Awadewit 19:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am coming to a method in which I could include this marriage stuff. His daughter was born during the production of Kingdom which I talk about at length.  His son was born during his man of letters years, and he got married before or after the deal for Kingdom which might have had to do with achieving that success.  But am I against newborns?  Am I against wives?  No.  And saying that this is sexism is a huge generalization.  I would like to hear what others think about whether this should or shouldn't be done before I make these modifications.-BillDeanCarter 21:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I'm generally in favor of including it in the body, especially if you can connect the events to changes in his life and not just as standalone facts, though I understand that it can seem out-of-context to talk about children when we're discussing someone's life in terms of their stylistic periods. MarkBuckles (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There are 4 facts that would have to be weaved into the body. The 1998 birth of his son, which would be out of place in the list of articles, novels, etc... he did in his man of letters years. Then the 2001 wedding, which could go in many places. His daughter's birth, is the only fact that has a place, alongside the production of Kingdom. The fourth fact, is where he resides, which I can't quite position anywhere in the text yet. Is it really worth it to break up the family of facts, and haphazardly spread them around the article? I mean, Awadewit talks about a kind of sexism, but what about breaking up the family? This way, you see in an orderly and contextual fashion exactly what kind of people he has around him; his family. I have tried briefly to put together an edit that works, but it seems clumsy. If it is really a simple matter of style then I won't do it. But if there really is something wrong here, with writing up a section about his family then I'll change it. What's the general consensus among Wikipedians?-BillDeanCarter 23:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ I incorporated his family into the body of the text. Let me know if it flows, and if it doesn't and you can help please edit the article with choice words you think will help.  It really does improve the article.  Whether or not the article was ever sexist is still up for debate.  The facts were placed as neatly as I could, but I remain unable to place where he resides.  I kept the "Family life" section, because why not?  It has a bit more information, and it's interesting.  Brings everything together.-BillDeanCarter 05:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, let's not continue with this debate. We can continue with it on talk pages, if you wish. I happen to think it is important. Let's make it a debate about style. Sections with two sentences? I do not think that sections with two sentences have been making a go of it here at FAC. A section has to have a better reason to exist than that. The section looks wimpy, if you will. Awadewit 11:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On a side note, what do you think of including still frames from the movies?Awadewit 06:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I couldn't justify it. I did what you're talking about in the Aaron Sorkin article and during FAC I had to remove 10 images down to 0.  Eventually User:ShadowHalo and I found free use images and the article is as it is now.-BillDeanCarter 16:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps ShadowHalo could help you again. I'm not quite sure why single frames are not fair use. I mean what percentage of the movie are they? How many thousand/million frames are there in a movie? Anyway, I thought that it would add to the page. Are movie posters fair use? At least that would add some color. The quotation boxes are a nice addition, by the way. (Insert rant on copyright law here.)
 * I don't think it would improve the article. It would only make the article look pretty.  And I'm scared of the "fair use" debates that would flare up.-BillDeanCarter 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw my name, so here's my input. I think ten images was excessive, but I think it would be easy to justify using one or two.  For example, there is more than sufficient critical commentary on The Departed to use a cover (or film poster, I'm not sure how films are usually treated).  I'll go ahead and write up a fair use rationale for the image if you'd like to add it.  ShadowHalo 08:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. That would be good.  I guess the quote in the section "Working scripts through production and after" would move to the "Writing process" section to make room for the poster or whatnot.-BillDeanCarter 17:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like there's room there. I added it in to show what I mean; if you'd rather put it or the quotation somewhere else, feel free.  ShadowHalo 01:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

✅ It looks good. I didn't think there would be room, but there is. Thanks once again for the help.-BillDeanCarter 18:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Made some minor copyedits myself. It looks to me llke this has been pretty heavily copyedited since some of these comments were made. It's starting to look like a FA. I'd still like to be able to have stubs for any redlinks - it won't make main page with those there.MarkBuckles (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ I filled in the last two remaining redlinks which were turnaround deal and Penetration (film). I like the "Family life" section.  It's an improvement, as were the copyedits.  Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 01:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * More comments on the language.
 * Tragically, the theatrical release of Kingdom of Heaven was pared down from Ridley Scott's original 3-hour cut after a preview screening convinced Scott the film was too long. - is it really "tragic" that a movie was cut down? tragedies usually involve death (in the theater, as I am sure you are aware, tragedies end with death and comedies end with marriage)
 * ✅ Tragic can be used to describe a sense of tragedy, and in the most dramatic of terms it was a tragedy that a good film was butchered by it's own director. Clearly not encyclopedic so I did a copyedit that clarifies things.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The film was poorly received by critics when it was released in theaters in 2005. - can you find some other place to put the date and tell us what the critics said?
 * ✅ part of the copyedit.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ridley Scott would later remark that he got carried away with cutting the film in the editing room and learned that "the enemy is previews" because it's tantamount to asking an inexperienced group of people to be film critics. - I think you need to add the word "screening" into Scott's quotation or outside the quotation or something because the general reader thinks of previews as the little trailers before the movie
 * ✅ I clarify that "the enemy is previews" because these test screenings are tantamount to...


 * Kingdom later got a reappraisal on DVD, in the form of a director's cut that contained an additional 45 minutes of material that came from Monahan's shooting script. - "got"?
 * ✅ Kingdom was reappraised on DVD...
 * perhaps Kingdom was reappraised by critics when it was released on DVD? Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ I reworded to, "Kingdom was reappraised by critics when it was released on DVD in the form of a director's cut that contained an additional 45 minutes of footage previously shot from Monahan's shooting script."-BillDeanCarter 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The director's cut earned the critical acclaim that the truncated version was denied. - odd use of the passive here - you act as if it was entitled to the critical acclaim (but of course if it was truncated and crappy, why should it have been praised?)
 * ✅ I paraphrased a critic.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Critics can still write poorly. :) Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Monahan's second produced screenplay was The Departed. Monahan never watched the Hong Kong thriller Infernal Affairs that he was adapting, and instead opted to work from an English translation of the Chinese script in order to create an original interpretation. - I have no idea what you are talking about here. I have not seen this movie, read about it or heard about it (I live in a bubble). Why are we now talking about Interal Affairs? How is it connected to The Departed?


 * Jack Nicholson, who played the part - "who was going to play the part"?
 * ✅ made the change


 * post-sexual - is that a word? find it somewhere and I'll retract my objection
 * ✅ it's a word. it's used all over the internet but I changed it to "jaded with sexual intercourse".-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Monahan gives credit to Nicholson's notes for improving the character of the mob boss Costello by sexualizing him. - awkward - most important part of the sentence is "sexualizing him" - make it more prominent
 * ✅ Monahan credits Nicholson's notes for sexualizing the character of the mob boss Costello.-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As of 2007, Monahan is working on a film treatment for a follow-up to The Departed, which may be a prequel or a sequel. - sentences requires the "either...or" construction - "which may either be a prequel or a sequel" OR, if you don't like to split infinitives "which may be either a prequel or a sequel"
 * ✅ used the split infinitive.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * which gives the studio the first right of first refusal on any films produced by Henceforth - is the first "first" necessary? it seemed confusing
 * ✅ I thought it was confusing too, but it's saying the first ROFR. You can have second ROFRs and third ROFRs.  It's more accurate this way.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How weird. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Monahan is passably familiar with the various stages of the filmmaking process - "passably familiar" is something you say when you want to deprecate someone - is that what you want to do? perhaps "has some familiarity"
 * ✅ I see no evidence that "passably familiar" is used in a deprecating sense. In fact all my google searches show that it's used in exactly the context I've used it.  But "has some familiarity" sounds less stuffy.  I made the change.
 * Well, there are a lot of poorly written webpages out there. I've would've been more convinced if you had said The New York Times uses it this way or something like that, by the way. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * raising the finances - there is a better way to phrase this, but I can't think of it right now
 * There may be, but it's a common phrasing and I even found it used in this exact context.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Monahan will be the one adapting - "will also"?
 * ✅ sure.


 * Monahan will executive produce and write the - is this a verb? why not just "produce"? or "will be the executive producer and writer for.."
 * Executive produce is a verb, and it's different than produce. He's writing the adaptation and executive producing the film.  The sentence sounds best as it is.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, it just sounds weird to a reader not familiar with filmspeak. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is Monahan's second adaptation of a Hong Kong film. - is this typical filmspeak? is it like saying Bollywood film?
 * Hong Kong films are in a league of their own. It's more familiar filmspeak than Bollywood film.-BillDeanCarter 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wikilinked into the FA on Hong Kong action cinema. As further proof there are stubs for Hong Kong film actors/ HK film directors / HK film producers.  There's even a nice article on the Cinema of Hong Kong which with a little work could be an FA as well.-BillDeanCarter 16:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Long Play is the creation of Mick Jagger, the lead singer of the popular English musical group The Rolling Stones. - "the popular English musical group"? even I who know NOTHING about popular music AT ALL know that the Rolling Stones is one of the most popular bands in history; this seems to be underselling them
 * ✅ retitled them the influential British Invasion group.


 * that the entire second half of Monahan's shooting script was based on the first 105 pages of his book, as well as noting that Kingdom of Heaven is the title of the second chapter in his book - awkward
 * ✅ broke it up some.-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you know why Reston didn't file a lawsuit? I saw this story when it came out. You make it sound as if Monahan and Fox were not at fault and that is why no suit was filed. But I remember reading that Reston decided not to file, not because he believed that Reston and Fox were not at fault but because he believed he couldn't win.
 * I couldn't find any mention that he came to some decision. He simply didn't pursue the matter.  He never filed charges.  Reston made his claims, and 20th century fox made their counter-claims.  I searched and found nothing.  Reston doesn't talk about it in subsequent interviews.  What can you do?-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * he ended up in Hollywood to adapt his first novel into a film - "ended up"?
 * ✅ "went to"


 * His perception is that a writer can retain the authorship of their screenplay if a powerful film director supports the writer, and if at the same time the writer has strong enough ideas that he can successfully advocate his vision, even in the face of the inevitable influences of actors, directors and producers. - "perception" seems a bit odd, how about "view" or "opinion"; also, sentence is a bit long and convoluted - make it strong and clear
 * ✅ changed sentence to "Monahan's view is that a screenwriter can retain the authorship of their screenplay if they have the support of a powerful film director and successfully advocate their ideas, even in the face of the inevitable influences of actors, directors and producers."-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He prefers writing screenplays over other forms of writing - how about "He prefers writing screenplays over other genres" - gets rid of repetition of "writing"
 * ✅ as you worded.


 * he has reached a level of ability where he is no longer self-conscious about his writing - "level of ability" is odd - in fact, this whole idea is strange - the quote from him would be nice
 * The quote is, "As far as getting notes is concerned, I‘ve spent thirty-odd years studying English drama, so I’m personally at a point where I’m post-conscious about craft, but that’s a pricey personal evolution, that’s a thing I chose to do, and you have to remember not everyone’s had time for it, any more than you can expect some other guy off the street to know kung fu or biochemistry." I'd like to summarize how he no longer second guesses his writing decisions.  Is there a traditional way of describing such?  I'd like to not paraphrase or quote.-BillDeanCarter 20:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would include at least the word "post-conscious" - that is an odd word. Hard to paraphrase that. Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ I reworded to, "He has studied English drama for over thirty years and has stated that because of those efforts he has reached a level of ability where he is "post-conscious about craft." I find level of ability is apt.  I considered skill level, but it doesn't sound right.-BillDeanCarter 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * These words prefixed with post- are his style of writing. He uses that and some other words quite often.  So probably in this article any post- prefixed word should be paraphrased henceforth.-BillDeanCarter 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would move the "List of writings" back over - the list is not that long yet.
 * The list is 3x - 10x as long. The hope is that some will derive a measure of pleasure from adding to the list.  It's a mess atm, and my idea is to make it a featured list eventually.-BillDeanCarter 15:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Perhaps list it as an imcomplete list, then? Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ I did what other incomplete lists do, I put expand_list templates where the part of the list is incomplete. Actually, the practice has been to put one incomplete template in the article and be done with it, but I placed a few of them in the sections that were incomplete, so that at least it's apparent which parts are complete.  If there were a expand_list-sect template I'd use it instead.  Anyways, I was looking for a way to do exactly that.  So it's good now.-BillDeanCarter 02:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole piece is getting better. Revision is hard work. Awadewit 11:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. All comments addressed.  I'm going to take a small wikibreak of a day or so and then check back in with this article and its nomination to see how it actually looks.-BillDeanCarter 04:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Support This article's prose has greatly improved since its first appearance here due to the editor's tireless efforts to revise it for clarity and accessibility. I cannot speak to the page's comprehensiveness since I do not know about the subject, but there is certainly a lot of detailed information here about Monahan's films and theories regarding screenwriting. While this article does not reference any scholarly sources, I do not see that as a reason to object to this article becoming an FA there are no scholarly sources yet on this person (I did a search of all of the major databases, JSTOR, MUSE, MLA, etc.) It will be a few years before scholars have a chance to publish on these films. The information is thus well-sourced from the sources available. (There does not seem to be a policy to wait for the research to come out or anything like that.) Awadewit 18:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Support Phew, that was a tough one. Kudos on your work—the article has improved a lot. I still think the prose could use more work, but I can't put my finger on anything specific. Perhaps a final once-over by the League of Copyeditors would be a good idea? Anyway, after a more thorough read, I found all my concerns have been addressed, and one thing is undeniable about this article: its comprehensiveness. I think we can safely say that, despite its (now very minor) shortcomings, this article has become an excellent resource. Fvasconcellos 16:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments. Some remarks to a generally very nice article:
 * Thanks for the comments Yanni.-BillDeanCarter 05:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "He had a Catholic upbringing." This too short sentence in the middle of longer ones makes the prose a bit choppy there IMO.
 * ✅ I reworded to, "Monahan was born in Dorchester, Boston to an Irish-American family and was raised Irish Catholic." Irish Catholic... maybe the Irish sounds redundant but it's in fact a specific thing.-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "six months later, he wrote another article at the alternative weekly newspaper that distinguishes him as the only person to solve the Unabomber's lexically-based targeting methodology before the bomber was caught." I'm not a native English speaker, so I may be wrong, but I'm wondering: is there a mixture of tenses here or am I wrong? And why "the" alternative weekly newspaper? Is there just one alternative weekly newspaper? Or is New York Press an alternative newspaper? And why don't you say that in the previous sentence?
 * ✅ This was brought up above by User:Awadewit and so the tenses were changed. I could write it with either tense, so I'll let someone else chime in here.  Originally I used alternative weekly newspaper just to spice up the language.  I reworded it so that alternative weekly newspaper goes in the previous sentence as information, and replaced it with the shorthand Press.  So here it is, "He moved to New York City and contributed to the alternative weekly newspaper New York Press and the magazines Talk, Maxim and Spy.[3][4] In 1995, Monahan wrote a cover story for the New York Press that used the crimes of John Salvi to attack the Catholic Church's teachings; six months later, he wrote another article at the Press that distinguishes him as the only person to solve the Unabomber's lexically-based targeting methodology before the bomber was caught."-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Monahan ended up winning two Best Adapted Screenplay awards for The Departed from the Writers Guild of America and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences." "Monahan's second produced screenplay was The Departed, an adaptation of the Hong Kong action film Infernal Affairs." I have a sense of repetition here. You tell us exactly the same things in the previous section, and with almost the same wording. One section is not seperated from the other. Alltogether constitute the same article, and they must interweave and co-exist in harmony.
 * Hmm, tricky. It was a previous suggestion that I mention his awards in the previous section.  It was a word-for-word copyedit from the talk page for the article.  It has to be in the section 'Working scripts through production and after'.  Should I remove it from the previous section then?  It was Fvasconcellos who made the request.  The previous section is meant to reflect the workload he picked up before any of his movies were made.  So it's not necessary to mention his awards, or reflect on how things turned out in the future.  I could remove them.  What's the consensus?-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would leave them in the previous section, and not repeat them again in "Working scripts", but this may just be a personal preference.--Yannismarou 15:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would be most relevant in the working scripts through production and after. You get to see how he hired a publicist to ensure he got those awards.. or at least had the best chance of getting those awards.  And then voila!, he gets them.  Without the voila! the paragraph becomes significantly neutered.  So I would have to remove them from the previous section, if at all.  I'm ambivalent about this.-BillDeanCarter 21:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "In return Henceforth received the film rights to produce John Pearson's true crime novel The Gamblers, which Warner Bros. had acquired the rights to." Maybe a bit repetitive the prose here, but not a big deal of course.
 * I'm working through the many possible permutations of this sentence. I'll get back to you on this.-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "The project originated at Mick Jagger's production company Jagged Films.[52] Martin Scorsese became involved while the film project was at Disney. In 1999, Jagger and Scorsese hired Rolling Stone magazine writer Rich Cohen to research and write the first drafts for the Rock and Roll story.[53] In the intervening years Matthew Weiss did several rewrites of the original drafts. Scorsese recently negotiated a turnaround deal to bring the The Long Play from Disney to Paramount.[52]" IMO the prose is getting a bit choppy here.
 * ✅ I reworded to, "Monahans' other assignment is to rewrite a screenplay about the history of the rock music business called The Long Play. The Long Play is the creation of Mick Jagger, the lead singer of the influential British Invasion group The Rolling Stones, and was nurtured at Mick Jagger's production company Jagged Films. Martin Scorsese became involved while the film project was at Disney but recently negotiated a turnaround deal to bring the The Long Play to Paramount.[52] In 1999, Jagger and Scorsese hired Rolling Stone magazine writer Rich Cohen to research and write the first drafts for the Rock and Roll story.[53] In the intervening years Matthew Weiss did several rewrites of the original drafts, and Monahan will now do a rewrite of his own."
 * I'll see what I can do here.-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Personal life": I don't like this section. For the following reasons: 1) It is toooo stubby. 2) It is incomplete, and its purpose is not clear; you repeat the same personal info spread in the previous sections about his personal life (marriage, children). By this spreading you initially gave the sense to the reader that he will not have to read a "personal life" section (actually, while reading I was thinking: "why doesn't he makes a proper "personal life" section, and spreads the info around?). But suddenly, the reader sees the section with partial repetitive information he already read, and wonders: why didn't the writer collect all the info about his personal life here, and spread it around, and then to repeat it here again? At least, this is what I wondered!--Yannismarou 21:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on which position you take. Should I remove the information from the body of the article and place it only in the "Personal life" section?  Or should I kill off the "Personal life" section altogether?  If I kill off the "Personal life" section I am contemplating summarizing it very briefly as a last sentence in the lead.  What do you think?-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ I went ahead and did this. Check out the edited clearly labeled "I could be reverted"-BillDeanCarter 02:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

QUESTION: When I talk about his writings in the "Man of letters" section does it sound like these were the only articles he wrote? Or does it sound like I'm only mentioning the notable ones?-BillDeanCarter 05:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I get the impression that you are mentioning the notable ones, and he may have written more of them.--Yannismarou 15:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh! And I support. I think that despite some minor issued still open, this is a very nice article.--Yannismarou 15:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support since this article is well-written and well-referenced; it's a job well done. Cliff smith 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I was reading the article, and I thought "this should be nominated"... then I checked the talk page.--Orthologist 15:22, 24 March 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.