Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Emma Watson/Happy-melon

Musings
Just a couple of thoughts on this version so far, with more to come later. The Ballet Shoes picture is something I never meant to cut in my version, so I obviously have no objection to that staying in. I also have no problem with the bit about her uncertain commitment to acting staying in, as I see how that is relevant. As in the original FAC, I still do not see any reason to include Watson's opinion on nudity. If she is ever offered a role involving nudity, then her opinion on the matter will be important, but until then, this is nothing more than idle speculation, even if it comes from the actress' own mouth. I do not see a need to talk about her reaction to the flashback sequence, though in the spirit of compromise I will not object to that, though I will add it to my version with a little rewording I think. More as I think on it and have time. I definately feel we are getting close. Indrian (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the nudity paragraph - I had a bit of a battle with myself when considering to cut it at first, but the conservative side of me won at that point. Happy‑melon 15:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, back for a little more. I am pretty unhappy with the personal section on several levels.  First a minor point I think we can agree on.  There is no reason to start the last paragraph with the phrase "on her official homepage" because the reference already indicates where the material is coming from.  In compromise, we can keep in that stuff about whom she admires though I think that is irrelevant, but I cannot support the article with that last sentence in about her greatest wish because that really feels kind of wrong as a statement in an encyclopedia article.  I agree that I cut too much info from the Ballet Shoes section and feel that can all stay in, but I prefer my organizational scheme for the article, which I believe allows it to flow better.  With your permission, I would like to rearrange this version of the article in the same way I did mine as a test.  We can always revert later.  I will not cut anything when I do that, but once it is reorganized I would like to take a more careful look at the text in the Harry Potter section.  All I can think of for now. Indrian (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! I have made the changes you suggested to the 'personal life' section, but doing a rough comparison of your version and mine, I can't see much organisational difference.  Please do feel free to poke around with the prose in this version, but at the moment I can't see where the difference lies.  So yes, go for it!  Happy‑melon 19:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)