Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cillian Murphy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 04:25, 4 November 2007.

Cillian Murphy

[edit]

previous FAC

A followup nomination for this A-class/GA article. In the last round, many issues were identified and addressed, particularly sourcing issues and copyediting, and we left off with 8 supports and 3 opposes.

I'll start things off here by pasting in my response to the previous round's last reviewer -- I got cut off at the pass by the bot and didn't get to respond to the commenter officially. Thanks, Melty girl 01:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • "...and a heroic turn as a 1920s Irish revolutionary" - I understand that you've already addressed this, and that it refers to his turn as a heroic character; however, at first glance it seems to read as comment on the brilliance of his performance. Addition: actually, having read a summary of that film's plot, it is unclear what is meant here. Does it refer to the quality of his performance? Because if it doesn't, that may violate WP:NPOV for some.
 Done I thought that the previous discussion of "hero" was in regard to 28 Days Later. Yes, the instance of "heroic" was meant to refer to his turn as the hero character in The Wind That Shakes the Barley. (If you are referring to the current WP synopsis, I can understand your confusion. It has POV problems right now.) I see what you mean though -- I removed the word. (Melty girl)
  • In the lead, instead of "London stage", I suggest delinking London (placing elsewhere), and wikilinking the entire phrase to West End theatre (the play was at the Ambassadors in the West End).
Question: is your issue with the use of the wikilinks on "London" or with the term "London stage" itself? If it's the latter, here's my two things about your suggestion. 1) The sentence reads, "2007 saw Murphy on the London stage in Love Song and onscreen in science fiction film Sunshine." The new sentence would be a little awkward (note emphasis): "2007 saw Murphy in the West End theatre in Love Song and onscreen in science fiction film Sunshine. (I don't think you can say "on the West End theatre.") With this change, you lose the nice contrast between "on ... stage" and "onscreen" as two locations. A whole rewrite would be needed to use "West End Theatre," and it would be longer than this purposely concise sentence. 2) Sorry if my Americanness comes through here, but the theater world is much less familiar to the average reader than the film world is, and I think there's really only one theater district that is identifiable to a broad cross section of English speakers without its city being mentioned, and that's Broadway. I'm afraid that "West End theatre" as a phrase divorced from city or country just doesn't give enough information for enough of our audience. It hasn't been memorialized in the larger pop culture memory the way Broadway has. So for both of these reasons, I think "the London stage" is a better way to put it. And it's a nice phrase, -- "the New York stage" is often used too, despite Broadway's fame, because the phrase is visual/locating. The West End is mentioned later, in the body of the article. (Melty girl)
  • Section title, New roles and the future - suggest rename to Recent roles and the future as it discusses projects which are perhaps not quite recent enough to be classified as "new" and adds slight future-proofing to the content.
 Done Good way of putting it. Erik will appreciate that. (Melty girl)
  • "In April 2007 (mid-summer in North America), he starred as a physicist-astronaut charged with reigniting the sun in the 2007 sci-fi movie Sunshine." - suggest rewording; at first glance, it's not clear that it's meant that the film was released in April elsewhere, then the US in June. Also suggest removing duplicate "2007" from the end of that sentence.
 Done Nice catch. (Melty girl)
  • Jane - suggest full link to Jane magazine to combat potential confusion. I'm in two minds whether the quoted comment from Murphy (saying he'd most like to "make out with" Maggie Gyllenhaal) is too much of a triviality for inclusion, but hey, who wants every article to be dry and lifeless?!
 Done Yes, I thought the fun outweighed the triviality, especially from an actor with zero celeb-type life details to relate. I don't think it hurts. (Melty girl)
Hope these help. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very much! Thanks, Melty girl 05:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for taking notice of my suggestions; I'm happy with your explanations and changes. I'll just clarify one thing; when I referred to wikilinking "London stage" to the West End theatre, I meant you should perhaps consider keeping the same wording, so the sentence would read: ""2007 saw Murphy on the London stage in Love Song and onscreen in science fiction film Sunshine." However, having had a glance at the guidelines, I now see that such use of the pipe trick is frowned upon, so I was wrong, wrong, wrong! Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 07:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after the nominator addressed my suggestions (as seen in the previous archive). The article is comprehensive, well-written, and thoroughly referenced. I am happy to support the article, and I hope that it will continue to evolve with the same standards as the actor progresses with his career! —Erik (talk • contrib)
  • Support as before. I helped a bit with sourcing and made some edits for tone. I think this one is across the line now. --JayHenry 02:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, of the previous 8 Supports, 3 Opposes, I was one of the Opposes. All of my objections (most importantly, reliability of sources) have been resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - and now happy to do so; it's a well-written, well-cited, distinctive article deserving of FA status. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 07:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - well written and structured, treads the very fine line between being comprehensive and being succinct with great success, is informative, remains focussed on its subject, and is amply supported by sources and quotations. Rossrs 09:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as before. Ceoil 16:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much. About the tables for works, I know that many people favor tables, but I'm in a persistent minority who often favor list formats. I actually started a table for this article a while back, but it took up so much more space on the page that I decided the list format was superior. Please see the discussion in the previous FAC for a fuller discussion of the filmography table issue. Thanks for your support! --Melty girl 17:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're not forced to do that, just entitled to that. And if you feel this version is better, it's your right. Nevertheless, the most important aspect here is the content, and it's very well written. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 22:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

  • On the basis that it's fine.

Remark: We don't need four citations for one point: [4][5][6][7] on blue eyes. Select the most reliable one if possible and cite that one. Leranedo 03:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! There are four citations because the fact has been challenged in the past, so backup is needed. Please refer to the previous FAC and the article's talk page for the full history, and see what you think. I think we need at least two citations to support the fact that many critics make special note of his eyes in his work. A previous reviewer felt that more were needed and added two more; some editors didn't believe the assertion when only two citations were present. (BTW, that reviewer's Nexis search turned up 128 good sources.) --Melty girl 06:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would be fine with the sources being cut back down to two. I personally don't believe it needs four and just added them to try to help satisfy other reviewers. If we cut back down to two I think we should use The Los Angeles Times and The New Yorker as they're the best sources of the four. --JayHenry 02:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done... except that now I'm thinking that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article might be a better reference than the LA Times one, since it spends more time on his eyes, talks about both their general fame and role in his work, and has a comment from him about his eyes. Was there a reason you didn't like this article? -Melty girl 03:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just glanced over the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and I think you're right. I read them awhile ago but they weren't fresh in my mind when I made the comment. I had suggested the LA Times because it's very authoritative on the entertainment industry, but since the MJS talks more about the eyes let's do what you suggest. --JayHenry 03:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --Melty girl 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I passed the GA for this and was very please with the article then, and it's only gone from strength to strength since. I do have to comment on the broadness of the references relating to the eyes. I'm sure you're all aware of this, but you can actually put more than one source within an individual footnote tag like this:
<ref>
Smith, Jones, [http://www.smith.com The Smith Report], published by Smith Enterprises on 31 October, 2007. Retrieved 31 October 2007.<br>
Brown, Thomas, [http://www.jones.com The Jones Report], published by Jones Family Corp on 31 October, 2007. Retrieved 31 October 2007.<br>
Banks, Steve, [http://www.banks.com The Banks Report], published by Banks and Company on 31 October, 2007. Retrieved 31 October 2007.
</ref>
To me, it's not an issue with the eyes as the two cited make enough of a fuss and are reputable enough to be valid, but in future, you can umti-cite, if every instance of the reference being needed in the article needs all of the references in question. Well done guys. You've done a great job of improving an article from being a Good Article to a very comfortable example of a Featured Article. --lincalinca 07:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I didn't know you could do that. The only thing I don't like about it is that it would repeat certain citations -- it wouldn't know about the other instances of them within the article. But it is a neat strategy... might have to use it in the future. Thanks for your support and previous help with this article! --Melty girl 15:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I supported it before, and it sure as hell doesn't look worse. -- Mike (Kicking222) 07:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sorry for the delay, I just saw the renomination, I have many things going on these days and rarely get a chance to check here. I supported before as the article already met all the WP:FACR and with the incorporation of feedback items from reviewers it looks much better. Definitely one of the finest articles on Wikipedia, well done Melty girl. --Kudret abiTalk 16:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cillian_Murphy&oldid=1146551408"