Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christopher Reeve/archive2

Christopher Reeve

Self Nomination. Sourced, accurate, and complete. Gunkyboy 06:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - while it is a good article, the section titles should not be capitalised for each word - for instance, Films, Family and Political Involvement should be changed to Films, family and political involvement. Other than that, you've got my vote! SergeantBolt (t,c) 10:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I fixed them myself. SergeantBolt (t,c) 11:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. The article as a whole I feel is complete. If there are little things that need tweaking, please point them out. Gunkyboy 13:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, overall very good, I'm still unsure of Superman being the infobox pic, but nonetheless very good job, and verifiable. Wiki-newbie 13:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that ideally the infobox picture would be of Reeve outside of the costume, but with all of the fair-use restrictions, I felt that this was the best choice. The only other option would be to use the Time Magazine cover. What do you think about that? I feel like it wouldn't look quite as good, but if there is agreement then we can certainly change it. Gunkyboy 15:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that picture of him in a wheelchair is in the Public Domain, even if it doesn't really fully encaspulate his whole life. Wiki-newbie 20:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first sentence of the section called "Rehabilitation": "On June 28, 1995, Reeve was taken to Kessler." Based on this single sentence, I could probably oppose. Nowhere in the article does it state what Kessler is (a series of rehab centers) nor where Kessler is (Reeve was taken to the Kessler in my hometown of West Orange, NJ), and the interwiki link of Kessler goes to a British television series of the same name. Not only does no article on the Kessler in question exist, but the Reeve article does not even give its full name, which is the Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation. I've barely read any of the rest of the article, but when so many things are wrong with a single sentence, who knows what else could be messed up? -- Kicking222 17:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's official. More than 45 citations come from Reeve's autobiography; there are less than ten total sources referenced. In addition, some paragraphs and/or statements are unreferenced (random examples: how much the Christopher Reeve Foundation has given; Reeve's quote about running for Congress; ). In addition, the paragraph "On June 7, 1992, Will Reeve was born to Dana and Christopher. In October, Reeve was offered the part of Lewis in The Remains of the Day. The script was one of the best he had read. The film was deemed an instant classic and nominated for eight Academy Awards." is completely disjointed. Finally, the article as a whole is a bit too POV (i.e. too congratulatory toward Reeve). -- Kicking222 17:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Haven't read it fully to oppose, but I have the same problems as Kicking222. Also, several images are just unnecessary:
Why do we need a picture of Cornell in Reeve's article when we can just go to the Cornell article itself?
There are two images of Superman in the article, and I suggest replacing the one in the infobox.
What is the picture comparing Clark Kent and Superman? It's just the same image of Reeves except one has glasses.

Also, the lead should probably be expanded.--Dark Kubrick 21:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the entire article in the span of a few days a few weeks ago, so there are bound to be a few tweaks that can be made. And if you find any, by all means do the honors and make the necessary tweaks. This is not my article, this article belongs to all of us. Here's the thing: it seems like when an article is a Featured Article Candidate, people will find any excuse to tear it down. Let's get some perspective here. Ideally, every article on wikipedia should be featured. This is an article that is damn close to being of that quality. So why can't we work together to push it over the hill, then give it a rest and move onto the next article? I think that's how wikipedia should work.67.161.26.190 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone else believes that "this is an article that is damn close to being of featured quality". We're not trying to "tear the article down", we're offering suggestions on how to improve it so it can conform to the featured criteria. Personally, I don't like implementing my own suggestions (unless they're insignificant things, like fixing a comma or something) because the nominator might come up with a reasonable counterargument, or because they know more about the topic than me and are better suited to correct the problem.--Dark Kubrick 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that simply because the article mostly references Reeve's autobiography it should be failed. It means it simply is verifiable enough: to be frank I feel many overestimate the importance of that. Oh, and I like the double picture of Superman: shows Reeve's range as both Clark Kent and Kal-El. Wiki-newbie 11:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reeve's autobiography is certainly a necessary and reliable reference, but to have so few secondary sources does not help the article's verifiabilty. And if you're referring to the picture of Clark Kent and Kal-El juxtaposed in one image, I still don't see much difference between the two besides the glasses. A picture of Clark Kent and Superman together would be great, though.--Dark Kubrick 17:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I know they're all the same guy.--Dark Kubrick 19:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As per Kicking222. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 11:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of Clark with and without the glasses won't make sense if you haven't seen the film. In the scene, he is in Lois' apartment and is slouched over as Clark. She goes to the bathroom, and he takes off his glasses, stands 3 inches taller, deepens his voice, and almost reveals his identity to her. It's a famous scene from the movie. I could add a one-sentence explanation to the article if necessary. The other complaint seems to be that it is biased towards Reeve. I don't know about that. Give me an example from the article if you can. Maybe you're getting that impression because the article lists all of the accomplishments of the man, and they are all admirable. The third thing I'm getting is that there aren't many sources outside of his autobiography. Well, the problem is that there aren't a ton of biographies about him since he only died 2 years ago. That's the only hard reference you'll find. No other reference will be as complete as the book, and no other reference will be as reliable. Still, there are more than 10 different references now, I believe. If you are unsure of the article's verifiability, don't be. I thought I did a pretty complete job of referencing. If there are some paragraphs without a reference to them, that's because the info from that paragraph came from a previous source. I'll note that in the article. Gunkyboy 07:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence is part of my point. How are people who have never read or seen anything related to Superman or Reeves going to know what that picture represents? They will wonder what the hell the difference is besides his glasses, as I did. As for your claim that the article is unbiased, take a look at this sentence from the lead (which still needs to be expanded, by the way):

"He did more to promote research of spinal cord injury and other neurological disorders than anyone in history.[1]"

If you insert the words "Many believe..." at the beginning, the sentence is fine, but as it is it sounds like that statement is fact. I'm also confused by "Well, the problem is that there aren't a ton of biographies about him since he only died 2 years ago." What difference does it make when he died? And I'm convinced there are many more reliable sources, if not in books, then in magazines and online.--Dark Kubrick 02:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the intro. BTW, if this article was not about Chris Reeve, a guy who went under the same ridiculous criticism that Michael J Fox is going through, I doubt you'd have a problem with bias. It's no more biased than any other biographical article out there. Also, I was under the impression that the very best sources are actual books, not websites, which is why I went out and bought his autobiography so I could accurately write this article. If it needs more websites as sources, I'll add some. This article IS verifiable, but in order to verify it would require you to get off your ass and go to the library. :-) Gunkyboy 07:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article should mention the 'controversy' regarding Reeve, his wife and the episode Terms of Endearment of Drawn Together. More generally, I think there should be a section of 'references in the media on Christopher Reeve'--BMF81 19:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think a mention in Drawn Together is significant enough to be put into an encyclopedic article. Reeve has been mentioned countless times in the media. BTW, someone added cquotes for all of the quotes in the article. What do you think of this? I'm undecided...I feel it might make the article easier to read by emphasizing the most important parts of each section, but some might find it awkward looking. 70.132.31.115 08:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the cquotes always look dreadful, and in this case are not necessary. From what I read in the wiki style thingie, they are recommended only if the quote is 4 lines or more. Some of these quotes are less than one full line.

- I got rid of the cquotes and the unlicensed images. People are going to have to learn not to edit this article so much. 70.132.22.226 00:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]