Wikipedia:Featured article review/Aaron Sorkin/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 12:03, 2 October 2008 [1].

Aaron Sorkin[edit]

Notified: WP Biography, WP Actors and Filmmakers, WP Screenwriters. Top contributor and FAC nominator BillDeanCarter has not edited since February 2008 and 2nd top contributor, Bwith, has left Wikipedia. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article needs a lot of work, despite its remarkableness as a source of information on Aaron Sorkin. I have removed the section "Controversies" and placed its subsections within the article in almost appropriate places, for the sake of narrative flow. A serious copyedit is now in order and was already in order due to several stubby sentences and paragraphs throughout. Additionally, Thomas Fahy's book listed in the "Further Information" section, Considering Aaron Sorkin: Essays on the Politics, Poetics and Sleight of Hand in the Films and Television Series should most definitely be used as a reference throughout the article. How unfortunate that it is not used! One section it could help improve would be the "Writing process and characteristics" section. There is also an interview in GQ listed in the "Further information" section that is not used but could be used in the "Writing process and characteristics" section.

The "Personal politics" section should be expanded (Again, use Fahy's book). The "Returning to the theatre" section should be rewritten and expanded. The "Castle Rock" section should be shrunk, and the business about "Kyle Morris vs. Castle Rock" should be better sourced and put into context. The "West Wing" section is crap, should be rewritten, with the "Rick Cleveland" controversy mentioned--this is a legitimate controversy unlike the Kyle Morris one--but with a better narrative flow. There is very little criticism of the shows and films, good or bad. In my opinion, the best sections are the "Early years" section and the "Writing process and characteristics" section. It also disturbs me that Sorkin's personal life is unevenly handled; his dating life and his politics should have a part to offset his drug use, because he is not really wholly a drug addict. Let's show he's human. Also, is there anything good that can be used in the "Castle Rock" section from the 2001 "From Stage to Screen with Aaron Sorkin and Rob Reiner, A Few Good Men" documentary, that is listed in the "Further information" section? Homely Features (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have found many more problems:

  • I have added my own 'citations needed' tags to certain facts, but there were already many such tags in the article. Is the separate "Awards and honors" section necessary? Shouldn't it maybe be incorporated into relevant sections? As in, yes, and then he won the award for that show or that film, whilst critics said this and that too. There is a weird tendency to be very listy in this article. It results in a badly written article with little narrative.-Homely Features (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this sentence from the Studio 60 section: "The seething anticipation that preceded the debut was followed up by a large amount of thoughtful and scrupulous criticism in the press, as well as largely negative and feverish analysis in the blogosphere." But why isn't it followed up with examples of such criticism?-Homely Features (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what is the nature of Sorkin's relationship to the Obama Campaign? There is an interesting question on the talk page from Agrant33074. Did he really help with a campaign ad in 2004? Do we know everything about these political works by Aaron Sorkin?-Homely Features (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As well, why are different formats used for the quotations? In the "Sports Night" section it's one style, and throughout another style.-Homely Features (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there a "Screenplays written in the 21st century" section? Is it really important to make such a strange difference known? The only thing I can think of here, is that maybe Sorkin had returned to film after doing TV shows for a while so that is being highlighted.Homely Features (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I retitled this section as "Back to writing for film".Homely Features (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry to say this but the "Personal politics" section is a disaster. Many paragraphs just do not have a clear purpose. Is the first paragraph in "Personal politics" about the politics in The West Wing? Is the second paragraph about his contributions, both money-wise and film/writing-wise, to the Democratic party? Say so then!-Homely Features (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I killed off this section.Homely Features (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a "Personal politics" section really necessary? Shouldn't the information maybe go into the "Personal life" section? It seems like Sorkin's personal politics are being played up simply because he is known for The West Wing, although whenever he does say something it manages to get pretty wide media exposure, making him a little more important than Matt Damon and that "actuary tables" reading he did on John McCain's life expectancy.Homely Features (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundant information about awards received: "As a writer, Sorkin received an Emmy Award for Outstanding Writing in a Drama Series (The West Wing)." from the "West Wing" section is later repeated in the "Awards and honors" section.Homely Features (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate the effort that was involved in writing this article and what an accomplishment that is, but I must point out where the article can be improved. I'll help out where I can, but the job is big.Homely Features (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notification Request Please notify relevant wikipedia projects and significant editors and place these notifications at the top of this FAR (as per instructions on the top of WP:FAR). Thanks! --Regents Park (one for sorrow) 13:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone sophisticated in these policy matters take the necessary action?Homely Features (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that hard, but it is a lot of elbow grease. Post {{subst:FARMessage|Aaron Sorkin}} to the talk page of each WikiProject listed at Talk:Aaron Sorkin, the original nominator on the FAC, and any other sigificant contributors. Then list them back at the top of the FAR here, following the example at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Felix the Cat. We're all busy; when you nominate an article, it helps if you try to learn to do this bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but if I don't do this could we still de-list this article when we all agree it is not up to par?Homely Features (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could benefit from reading the WP:FAR instructions yourself. We're not here to "delist when we all agree it's not up to par"; we first try to enlist all the help we can find to bring it up to par. That's why you do the notifications. You are seeking to improve Wiki articles, right? And if you don't do the notifications and someone appears at the last minute, willing to work on the article, then the FAR can last two or three months. Please do the notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I may have to read the WPFAR. I think it *might* take months to fix this article so if that is alright then alright. It will cost about 35$ to read the Considering Aaron Sorkin book, and the other book about The West Wing will cost money too, unless you have one of those good libraries with copies of these rather obscure books. I can't promise to get these notifications done this weekend, but maybe next week.Homely Features (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I will not notify all Wiki people who were involved in this article. It is terrible. I don't think they would be of any help if they were originally involved in this article. It should never have been an FA and it will take much much much work to ever achieve FA. There is no criticism of any of his works. There is a lot of quirky bits here and there... God damn strange article if you ask me. Time to roast this article and let it earn its way to the top.Homely Features (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dabomb87 for notifying everyone. I believe I am going to have a heart attack if I read anymore of this article. It's terrible. There was an anonymous Yahoo biography used as a source. I'm not sure why a Bartlett4America News Archive is used for Reuters wires of all things. Those are pretty easy to come by. I am finding shockingly abysmal prose throughout. I am beginning to think a rewrite from scratch is needed.Homely Features (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The absolute outrageousness of it all

This article is so bad that I am shocked at what I'm finding. According to a Variety article [2] The Farnsworth Invention began in 2003 as a commission for a play! Not a screenplay first in 2005, and later rewritten as a play. Erroneous information is everywhere. Jizz magazine was being used as a source for this erroneous fact. How much of this article is wrong I wonder now.14:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homely Features (talk • contribs)

Why am I the only one finding these errors? They are blatant.-Homely Features (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Remove This article isn't even a Good Article. Start the process over again, from scratch. Let this article earn its way to the top.-Homely Features (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a "Speedy remove" option at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Homely, I'm concerned about the editing you've done to the article, as you've removed a large amount of text and a large number of citations. I've asked others to look in here, and I'm wondering if a revert to the September 6 version and rebuilding from there a bit more slowly might be in order. The article appears to have been in better shape then than it is now, and improving sources or seeking new sources, is preferable to deleting citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SandyGeorgia. A very substantial amount of damage seems to have been done to this article Since September 27. References were removed, and then 'cite needed' tags were added! I am trying to WP:Assume good faith, but it appears that the changes reflect a political WP:Point of view. I returned the article to the September 27 state for now. Instead of replacing the language in this article with which you disagree, HF, I suggest that you prepare a statement of why you think the references that you removed are incorrect and let editors here discuss it and reach a consensus before making the changes. Thanks! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To cover all of these edits, I think you'd have to go all the way back to September 6th, when the Obama-related edits began. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with SandyGeorgia and Ssilvers on this as well - the edit summaries alone are enough to raise serious questions about this editor's agenda - see this one in particular. I completely agree with the revert to earlier version and recommend that some action be taken regarding this SPA who seems to have quite an agenda. Tvoz/talk 05:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now reverted back to Feb 2008, which was the last date the FAC nominator edited the article, and begun restoring from there. I'm not sure we'll be able to save this star unless someone takes over this article, but I hope we can at least repair the damage that has occurred since the nominator left Wiki in Feb 2008. We will need many people to start going through as I don't know what all needs fixing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no Obama-related edits. Let's not be ridiculous.Homely Features (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you're doing a disservice to the article. Read my edit summaries. There will blatant errors throughout the article. I removed the terrible references and added more reliable references. Homely Features (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many facts(can you even call something a fact when it is wrong?) were untrue and in some cases the exact opposite to what Sorkin had said in the given source. Some sources I replaced with others because they were either rinky-dinky or were actually not about the film. I have been trying to excise the sickness and have left a mostly correct article, with less redundant information, and citation needed tags everywhere so that these facts can be sourced. I have still not been able to find a source that states that 40 out of 45 Sports Night episodes were written by Sorkin.Homely Features (talk) 07:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is also a very very badly written article. It severely needs a copyedit unlessly badly written articles are de rigueur here at Wikipedia?Homely Features (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My agenda is to fix this article. It is ranked #1 in a Google search which is unacceptable considering how many errors are in it. I can't stress enough how much fixing this article needs. Too many liberties taken. His years at Castle Rock were supposedly "formative" according to this article but nowhere could I find such a fact. Nowhere could I find many other facts, and often I discovered the opposite, that they were in fact untrue.Homely Features (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem, Homely. Three editors above have agreed to revert the article so it can be restored more systematically, and you just reverted against consensus. That's edit warring; please see WP:3RR. Some of your edits were surprisingly good for a newly registered editor, but your edit summaries are problematic, you've deleted some text unnecessarily, and you've removed some citations unnecessarily, leaving the text littered with tags. And some of your edits or edit summaries appear to be agenda-based. Restoring the article is going to take some sustained effort, but edit warring and leaving the article in a damaged state such as it is in now, regardless of whether it retains featured status, are not viable options. Your edit summaries, and attitude on this FAR (about not notifying other editors and insisting that the article be defeatured rather than addressing issue) don't indicate that your primary goal is to produce a quality article; while some of your edits are good, others appear to be dismantling the article rather than fixing it. Collaborating with other editors will be necessary to restore the article; edit warring against consensus will only get you blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous state of the article was ridiculous. Pieces of information about The West Wing were spread out into every section needlessly. I have moved them all into The West Wing section. The "Controversies" section was very evil. The "Cleveland" controversy was legitimate but belonged in The West Wing section. The "Morris vs. CAstle Rock" controversy was a small fiasco, proven wrong, and if you have noticed is never mentioned in the mainstream media, because it was probably one of many such lawsuits, this being the loudest. It does not make for a standard reading of Sorkin's career to include such a controversy. Also, the treatment of his drug addiction was evil too. It does not have to be mentioned in every section and then separately in the Controversy section.Homely Features (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, in the "Writing charcteristics" section, aside from the redundant information I removed, many facts were flatly wrong. In fact, I was disgusted to learn in the given source that Sorkin had actually said the opposite.Homely Features (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not removed a single source that was reliable and useful. There were blogs, ummmm..... and some other bad sources. It was quite shocking. I'd have to go through and see exactly what those bad sources were again. Why aren't any of the books that I have put in a "Themes and recurrent motifs in Sorkin's works" section being used?Homely Features (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a very new Wikipedia editor, although I have been reading it for a long time. I don't think this deserves to be considered a Featured Article in its present state. It's badly constructed and badly written. The introduction seems overly long. The section about The West Wing is far too long considering the program has its own article and much of the information here pertains more to the program than Sorkin himself. IMHO, I think this article needs a lot of work. LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Someone making sense. Yes, I have thought that too, that the West Wing section should be restricted to Sorkin anecdotes (not all flattering) and maybe more about the awards he won, rather than what the show won. In Jason Buchanan's bio at All Music Guide he sums up Sorkin's awards won succinctly I think. Will have to re-read that. But with regard to Ssilvers note: I can no longer look at that old FA. I have done enough of that and I believe rooted out all the misinformation and placed appropriate citation tags where facts that appear to be true need to be verified.Homely Features (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I don't think this article will make it because there really should be a "Common themes and motifs in Sorkin's works" and of course based on those two books of essays that I've placed in this stub-section. Without that, you can't really call this "best work" can you? And that section will take time to write.Homely Features (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid more wikidrama, I am shutting this review down. Editor has been blocked and there is active discussion at AN/I. Marskell (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Aaron_Sorkin/archive1&oldid=1078809758"