Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cillian Murphy/archive1

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 not promoted 04:16, 23 October 2007.

Cillian Murphy

This is a self-nomination. I've brought this article successfully through GA and WikiProject Biography A-class reviews and a peer review, each time improving it, and I feel the article is ready for FAC. I've worked pretty exhaustively to meet the FA criteria. Thanks for your consideration. --Melty girl 19:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well-written, well-cited, and comprehensive. My only problems are that 1) many of the references for web sites don't have access dates (these are not an incredibly big deal, but should be included whenever possible- IMDb pages can change), though all of the refs are formatted properly otherwise; and 2) I don't think three fair-use images are needed for the same section- no, three images aren't a lot, but they're also bunched so closely together as to make all three unnecessary. Of course, in terms of the big picture, these are very small issues- and ones that others could clearly make arguments against- that would not detract me from supporting a great article. -- Mike (Kicking222) 20:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the case of extremely stable reference sites like IMDb did I not document access dates, but I certainly could do so if reviewers feel it's crucial. About the images, if I had to remove one, it would be the Red Eye image, but like you say, I'll wait to see how other reviewers feel about this issue, because I feel that all three do elaborate on the prose and show three different and important aspects of Murphy's acting career. Thanks! --Melty girl 21:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not one to frequently argue against consensus, but if the consensus was that all three images should stay, then believe me, that's one I really wouldn't argue against. -- Mike (Kicking222) 03:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object The article may be GA, but it isn't up to FA standards yet. Adoring fansite language such as "notable for his blue eyes" is simply absurd, and needs to have an inline citation (who has said his eyes are notable, in general and in comparison to his other attributes?). Also, the article has an extra requirement to meet in that it is a biography of a living person. In it s current incarnation, the article blatantly violates the strictures of the BLP in multiple places. Example: it fails to reliably attribute the statement that "has no desire" to live in Hollywood. Not providing an inline citation to passages that assert the opinion of a living person is a most egregious error. VanTucky ^Talk 22:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say that this article is not up to FA standards, but you only offer two ways in which it isn't, and you're only half-accurate in your criticisms. The half that's accurate is easily fixed, and for the other half I will demonstrate how you are in error. I'll tackle your second criticism first.

~~Doing...~~ Done You raise two instances of assertions that aren't inline-cited. Well, both the assertions in question are in the lead section. Your criticism makes me question whether you carefully read the entire article beyond the lead, because if you do, you will find that not only is the body of the article exceptionally well-sourced, but that both disputed assertions are verified, just not in the lead section. There are multiple inline citations to support both facts you dispute. Here's why: the section on WP:LEAD regarding citations in the lead is dispute, and I went with the style of not inserting citations in the lead for facts that are cited below. So that means two things: first, that your criticism re inline citations is only valid for the lead (as a careful read would quickly reveal), meaning that there is no systemic problem with the article, AND second, that this is easily remedied. In the instance of the two assertions you dispute, I have now inserted ample citations, and I will continue to add citations for everything mentioned in the leadY -- it's easy to do, because they are all expanded upon below (as per other parts of WP:LEAD), all cited.
Done You accuse the article of having "adoring fansite language" but only offer one example (also from the lead), and your example is a misquote. The article said Murphy is "noted for his distinctive blue eyes," not that he is "notable" for them, and that's a crucial distinction: it is amply verifiable that critics and other have consistently "noted" him for his eyes, and that's a very different thing from the voice of the article declaring him to be "notable" for his eyes. Still, the fact that you confused the words made me think that the language could be clearer, so I changed the phrase to, "He is often noted by critics for chameleonic performances in diverse roles, as well as his distinctive blue eyes." I think this makes it clear who's doing the noting -- and it is easily verifiable (as I noted above, I've added citations) since most of the articles and reviews about him mention his big blue eyes, if not say outright that he is famous for his eyes. Many of the critics not only remark on the startling nature of Murphy's eyes, but how he uses them as an actor, and there are several quotes about this in the "Acting career" section. Actors' eyes are not just a mark of beauty, they're part of their instrument as artists, so it is not a frivolous thing to mention for an actor, especially a leading man. Would it be inappropriate to say that Paul Newman is famous for his "distinctive blue eyes"? I don't think so. Newman may be much more famous than Cillian Murphy is, but nonetheless, of the things that Cillian Murphy is noted for by critics and the industry, his eyes are definitely at the top of the list. It's so pervasive that it's absolutely verifiable -- check out the sources I've added. Or for that matter, simply read the titles of the articles in the References section!

I ask you respectfully to please read the entire article carefully and bring any other such "fansite" phraseology or missing citations to my attention, because I would be happy to address them, and because I honestly believe that you have wrongly attributed issues in the lead to the whole article when that simply is not accurate. ~~In the meantime, I will finish up moving up duplicate citations to the lead.~~

Thanks. --Melty girl 02:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must also note that Jake Gyllenhaal and Eric Bana, both FA articles for living persons, are written in the aforementioned style of leaving the lead sections largely citation-free. --Melty girl 06:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC) ... and FA John Frusciante's lead has only one citation too! --Melty girl 04:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done The citation issue has been resolved slightly differently due to other reviewers' input, still keeping your concerns in mind. (See below... if you ever honor the FA guidelines and return, that is.) --Melty girl 17:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support The article definitely meets all WP:FACR: it is well written with a great professional sounding prose, includes everything significant on the actor with a huge number of diverse references with inline citations. There are no POV issues whatsoever and no ongoing edit wars as I can see from the history. The lead highlights the major points and is of appropriate length compared to the rest of the article. No problems about the headings or table of contents. Non-free images are not overused and all have well written fair use rationales. The article is entirely focused and does not drown the reader in unnecessary detail.

Thank you for considering the article carefully against WP:FACR. I also really appreciate your giving the whole article a thorough read -- it was frustrating to be accused of not providing inline citations by the previous reviewer when the article has 90+ distinct references. I'll respond to your suggestions below. --Melty girl 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have some minor comments and suggestions:

There are some words that trouble me but it could be just me since I am not a native. One in particular is "near miss", I think this is used when a negative situation is narrowly avoided but I cannot relate to how it is used in "after a near miss with the music industry...". Perhaps a different wording could make this clearer?

Murphy nearly made it in the music industry, but missed the mark. In a way, perhaps the phrase "near miss" here is too POV, because maybe it casts the music industry in a negative light -- as you said that you interpreted it. Murphy has said that in hindsight he is glad he didn't make it in music, because he thinks the music industry is more cutthroat than the film industry, and perhaps that opinion influenced how I wrote the sentence. A replacement doesn't quickly come to mind, but I will give it some thought over the next few days. Please let me know if there are any other phrases that similarly give you pause. (Melty girl 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I spoke to a few people about this issue and they did not feel that "near miss" has a negative connotation. Also, I turned up this, [1], which includes the definition, "an attempt that falls just short of success," and that's precisely what's intended here. I think the usage is actually fine. (Melty girl 03:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Yes you are right. In the link you gave, I believe the first meaning is the more common one and that was the one that I was familiar with as a non-native. But again that is my shortcoming and not the article's so I also think now that it is fine the way it is. --Kudret abi^Talk 23:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"But Murphy's best known roles are as villains in two 2005 blockbusters: the Scarecrow in Batman Begins, and Jackson Rippner in the thriller Red Eye." Here I think it creates asymmetry when you specify the genre for one film but not the other.

I inserted "superhero film." (Melty girl 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"His father, Brendan, works for the Irish Department of Education and his mother is a French teacher." This is also asymmetric, I am not sure why his father's name is included but not his mothers, is it because it's not known?

Yes, I have been unable to find his mother's name anywhere. I could only find his father's name in one article. I figured in the interest of being encyclopedic, it should be included along with his siblings' names even though it is asymmetric. (Melty girl 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I agree, since these are factual information they should be in an encyclopedic article. I was just curious that's all :) --Kudret abi^Talk 23:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Murphy attended the Catholic school Presentation Brothers College, Cork, where he did well academically, though he was not keen on sport, a major part of life at PBC." maybe better to say "Presentation Brothers College in Cork" and also introduce the acronym PBC right after, since you use it later in the text.

I replaced the acronym "PBC" with "the school." (Melty girl 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

About the image captions, the roles "Pig" and "Kitten" appear in quotes but Jackson Rippner does not, so perhaps better to make these consistent.

The reason that "Pig" and "Kitten" are in quotation marks is because they are not the characters' given names (Darren and Patrick, respectively), they are nicknames. When you see the roles listed/discussed, especially the transgendered "Kitten" role, it is often put in quotation marks, in the manner I have it written in the filmography: Patrick "Kitten" Braden. Given this information, do you think there's a way that I could make this distinction more apparent? Or should I just drop the quotation marks outside the filmography? (Melty girl 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I believe I've solved this one by specifying the characters' given names alongside the nicknames in quotation marks. (Melty girl 03:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Great! I was actually thinking of suggesting that but you came up with the fix faster. --Kudret abi^Talk 23:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The acronym IRA appears a few times but I think it sometimes appears as I.R.A. with the dots, so maybe these can be made consistent too.

Thanks for catching that! (Melty girl 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Finally, I recommend a wikilink for the phrase "indie film".

Done. (Melty girl 05:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I also had a look at the objections and comments provided by the earlier reviewers, and although they provide useful guidelines and suggestions that can be taken into account to improve the article, none of them point out any violation of WP:FACR. I therefore recommend that this fine article be promoted to FA status. --Kudret abi^Talk 22:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Melty girl once again for this fine article and also considering all of my humble suggestions and attending to them promptly. I hope that your efforts are rewarded and the article receives its well deserved FA status soon.--Kudret abi^Talk 23:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you! And thanks again for your review and very helpful copyediting suggestions! --Melty girl 23:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: While I generally am not a fan of citations in the lead, I think the article is comprehensive and well-cited. Alientraveller 15:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of citations in the lead either, but the policy is disputed, and I felt like the second reviewer's seeming failure to read beyond the lead -- because how else can you say that an article with 90+ inline citations isn't sourced? and reading further would have yielded the relevant citations -- left me with no choice but to add citations to the lead. Anyway, thank you for your support. --Melty girl 16:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Citations in the lead have been cut back down to near pre-FA levels. See below for further discussion and solution. --Melty girl 03:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "They did not sign the contract, partly because Pádraig was still in secondary school, so their parents did not approve, and partly because the contract offered little money and would have ceded the rights to Murphy's compositions to the record label" "Murphy's" is ambiguous here. Is it referring to Cillian or Pádraig? --Carabinieri 09:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Murphy's" refers to Cillian. As per WP:NAMES in the MoS, throughout I refer to the subject of the article by surname and to his brother by first name: "To disambiguate between siblings or other well-known relatives with the same surname, use the surname of the article header to indicate that person, and use first names or complete names to indicate siblings or others." This means that Pádraig would never be referrred to by just his last name, so "Murphy's" cannot refer to him. I don't see a way to further disambiguate without using Cillian's first name, which would violate the MoS. Do you have an alternate suggestion? (By the way, I'll just note that the songs may well have been co-written by his brother, but I cannot verify that, probably because there are no articles on the web about their band [or available recordings]. That means that all the articles that refer to the band are articles about the famous sibling, so the tiny subset of those that actually mention the contract's copyright issues refer to the songs as solely Cillian's... which they very well might have been, of course, and that's all that's verifiable anyway.) --Melty girl 15:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NAMES: "After the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only", "May", not "must". In this case I think the best solution might be to use the first and the last name. There also wouldn't be much harm in only using Murphy's first name.--Carabinieri 00:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's an important distinction, "may". I've observed editors being so strict about using surname only for the subject, not first name, so it's good that you point that out. Still, the instruction on disambiguating siblings with the same last name, which is the issue here, does not qualify things with "may": it straightforwardly instructs us to use only surname for the subject, and to use the first name or first-last for the sibling. This is a style common in the press, not just Wikipedia, so many readers are familiar with it. In this article, Cillian is firmly the subject of this article, is the "he" of almost every sentence, and is the only person ever directly referred to as being a Murphy. By the time the reader gets to the sentence in question, Cillian has been referred to ten times as "Murphy," and his relatives have always been referred to by first name only, never as "Murphy." So I think suddenly referring to Cillian by his full name or first name right there would be a stylistic departure that would only add awkwardness to the phrase, and would be very likely to be copyedited soon by another editor. So let's see what you think of this alternate strategy (the changes are in italics):

In his late teens and early twenties, Murphy worked toward a career as a rock musician, playing guitar in several bands alongside his brother Pádraig. The Beatles-obsessed pair named their most successful band The Sons of Mr. Greengenes, after a 1969 song by another idol, Frank Zappa. Murphy sang and played guitar. He has said the band "specialised in wacky lyrics and endless guitar solos." In 1996, The Sons of Mr. Greengenes were offered a five-album record deal by Acid Jazz Records. They did not sign the contract, partly because Murphy's brother was still in secondary school, so their parents did not approve, and partly because the contract offered little money and would have ceded the rights to Murphy's compositions to the record label.

I think it's now very clear here who "Murphy" is. What do you think? --Melty girl 02:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that sounds good.--Carabinieri 00:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Excellent. Thanks! --Melty girl 02:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until has had a thorough copyedit. Other suggestions:
- Do not put a footnote for his name in the lead; you can put it in the body of the article if needed, but that is really distracting. I would even recommend that you incorporate the pronunciation in the body of the article rather than as a note, but only if you can cite it. (Discussion of this point continues below, under the reviewer's subsequent comment.)
- Overall, I think you should trim the citations in the lead. If these facts are adequately cited in the body of the article then you don't need 7 citations in the lead as well for his "distinctive blue eyes". (Discussion of this point continues below, under the reviewer's subsequent comment.)
- The article needs major copyediting. I made a first pass at the Early life and music section, but there is lots more work to be done. Many of the sentences are written with more informal language, and some of them are quite convoluted. (Discussion of this point continues below, under the reviewer's subsequent comment.)
- After you've introduced a person, refer to them only by their surname (Kiernan instead of Pat Kiernan) (Discussion of this point continues below, under the reviewer's subsequent comment.)
- There are too many wikilinks in the early work section. Keep the ones for productions, people, and places, and lose the ones that are more for vocabulary purposes.

Done --Melty girl 05:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks better, but I'd still remove the wikilinks to short films and sleeper hits. I don't think they provide much value beyond offering a definition. Karanacs 18:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Melty girl 02:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been through a GA, peer and A-class review, so it's already had a great deal of copyediting. It would be very helpful if you could be more specific about the things that you feel need addressing in terms of the language. Could you please cite examples of "convoluted" sentences and explain why they seem off to you? I don't have time until later to fully address your other comments, but I certainly will do so later today or early tomorrow. For now, I will ask clarifying questions. First, for your second and fourth comments, you contradict two other reviewers above -- I ask your guidance in how I can meet everyone's demands. The lead used to have very few citations, because everything was cited below, but I got an "Object" for that (see above). Likewise, another reviewer contradicts you, pointing out that WP policy states that one "may" refer to a person by their surname upon subsequent mentions, but that you do not have to; in this case, for a non-famous person, I felt it might be more helpful for the reader to see their whole name again lest they forget who Kiernan was. Last, one more clarifying question; can you point to Wiki policy for your first instruction re the pronunciation footnote? Also, please see FA article Jake Gyllenhaal for an example of a pronunciation footnote. I thank that this type of information more befits a footnote, not prose in the article, but certainly, the mispronunciation is so common that it can't be left out entirely. OK, thanks for the review, and I will return with a more detailed response very soon... Melty girl 17:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just took a quick look at your copyedits in the "Early life" section, and sorry to say it, but I'm a bit baffled. In some cases, you actually weakened the sentences with repetition and at least one grammatical error, or you altered sentences that were perfectly fine for no apparent reason. You broke down a connection of meaning between two sentences, and in at least one case, you changed the factual information and made things less accurate, and I have no idea why -- he was working as a rock musician, so why do you want to change this to "musical interests"? It's factually weaker. What on earth can the copyediting objection be to stating that he was working as a rock musician? Anyway, I will have to return to this later, but you've left me rather concerned. --Melty girl 17:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For pronunciation, I am following the lead of J.K. Rowling. I really think that having a footnote in the middle of the person's name on the first line of the lead is distracting. If you insist on the footnote, put it in the body of the article instead when you first begin discussing him. Karanacs 21:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done I asked above that you produce a WP policy for this point, but you have not done so. Therefore, I must note that this seems to be your personal preference, rather than a community value (much less a WP:FACR issue), and I think it's relevant to point out this distinction. None of the other FA, GA or peer reviewers had a problem with this footnote. Nonetheless, I will engage your concern and explore a simpler compromise.

Your example, J.K. Rowling (which is not FA, btw), does not really apply, because there is a whole stand-alone section on her name, and that's not appropriate in this case -- there isn't material beyond the correct pronunciation of "Cillian" that would justify a stand-alone section. Further, your suggestion that the pronunciation information should go in the body of the article rather than the lead contradicts the practice of many bio articles with pronunciation info that I've seen -- here are but a few examples: Jackie Chan, Karen Dotrice, Satyajit Ray, John Frusciante, Jake Gyllenhaal (all FA). Clearly, many WP editors hold that pronunciation info should be in the lead section, and I believe the reasoning is that when readers first encounter the subject's name, they should know how to properly pronounce it in as they read on. I think you would have to acknowledge that pronunciation info is perfectly acceptable in the lead. So that leaves us with your objection with placing the footnote between the first and last names. Therefore, I've implemented this alternate solution: I've simply moved the footnote past his last name so it doesn't interrupt. I think this satisfactorily addresses your concern about the footnote's placement being distracting. (BTW, I seem to be coming down with a cold and am crashing early tonight, so I can't address much else until tomorrow.)--Melty girl 05:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, moving the footnote satisfies my main objection, which was that it was distracting. Karanacs 18:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for naming convention, the section does say that you "may" address someone by surname, but then immediately goes on to explain when to use another form of reference. Karanacs 21:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done I'm not clear on what you mean here, and you are in conflict with another reviewer. But I think you already made the edits you wanted, right? --Melty girl 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the number of lead citations, you can easily address my objections and the objections above by having one citation instead of seven for the notability of his eyes. That way you have a citation but it isn't too distracting. Karanacs 21:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done I still feel like I'm getting conflicting responses about citations in the lead, but I've culled them back down almost exactly to where they were before this FA review began. I left it at two citations for items where it is asserted that multiple sources exist, and I also left in the new citations for the things which the disappeared objector above says must be cited as per WP:BLP (even though the citations are also there in the body of the article). Even so, you will still find the citations in the lead 95% cut, and I believe that all concerns on regarding this issue are now satisfied. --Melty girl 06:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! Karanacs 18:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update Because of a long debate over the "distinctive blue eyes" clause, another reviewer inserted two additional citations. See below and the article's talk page for details... --Melty girl 05:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For copyediting, I'll address what I changed as examples for improvements needing to be made throughout the article.

from eldest brother to three siblings: a brother, Pádraig, and two sisters, Sile and Orla to eldest of four children, with a younger brother, Pádraig, and two sisters, Sile and Orla. because the original wording makes it seem as if he could have sisters older than him (he is the eldest brother; is their an elder sister?), and I got rid of the colon, mainly because I don't like colons.

Done Your interpretation of this sentence is extreme, and your personal dislike of colons is not a valid reason to make a copyedit of a sentence that is grammatically correct, especially when your change opts for a weaker prepositional phrase and you've added the superfluous word "younger." I have changed the wording to a third alternative, the tighter sentence, "Born in Douglas, County Cork in Ireland, Cillian Murphy is eldest sibling to a brother, Pádraig, and two sisters, Sile and Orla." The grammar is correct. --Melty girl 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from Not only are his parents educators, but his aunts and uncles are also teachers, to Many of his aunts and uncles are also teachers, because the article just mentioned that his parents were teachers, so that seemed repetitive. I wasn't sure from the text if all of his aunts and uncles were teachers or just some of them, hence the many.

Not done Your copyedit is inferior. First, "Not only are his parents educators..." builds the narrative, emphasizes an important point, connects the first sentence to the second for the reader. The point is that he comes from a family of educators, but chose something different. Your change eliminates this narrative conceit -- and with no need and nothing engaging put in its place. The original version is not overly repetitive -- it served to quickly make a point in but six words, and it is part of the narrative flow of the paragraph, which goes on to say that music is the other thing that runs in the family. Second, "many of" is a guess on your part: the cited source reads, "Murphy is from a line of educationalists: his mother and father are teachers, as are his aunts and uncles, as was his grandfather." The source doesn't say that only some of his aunts and uncles are teachers, but that's what your insertion of "many of" implies. We must go with the source. Therefore, because there was no copyediting problem in the first place, and because your change had weaker prose and veered from the source, I have reverted your change. --Melty girl 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from But it was there that Murphy got his first taste of performing, when at 16, to There Murphy was first exposed to performing, when because the sentence has no need to begin with a conjuncion, and "got his first taste of" seemed quite informal to me.

Done Once again, your edit is weak and nonspecific. You wrote, "There Murphy was first exposed to performing...", which is an awkward, inaccurate phrase. Whose performing was he exposed to? I daresay, he probably was first exposed to performing as a very young child watching TV! The point here is that this is when he first performed for others, and your sentence does not say this. Your edit is not correct. Now, back the phrase you eliminated: the reason it starts with the conjunction "But..." is because the previous sentence states a way in which Murphy did not enjoy school and this new sentence is going to tell of something positive that happened for him at school. Using "But..." is the most economical way to shape the narrative and seque from one idea to the next. I am fine with using "There..." though, if you prefer it. I must correct you, however, on the assertion that saying "he got his first taste of performing" is too informal. It is not slang, and I would guess it is a very old metaphor, since taste is central to human experience. Dictionary.com's definition #4 of the noun "taste" states: "a brief experience of something; "he got a taste of life on the wild side". This usage is perfectly acceptable AND it gets across the point that Murphy was doing the performing. Therefore, I have reverted your changes to this sentence, other than the "There". --Melty girl 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from Murphy sang and played guitar. He has said the band "specialised to Murphy sang and played guitar in the band, which he described as "specialise[ing] because a) this not emphasizes that he sang and played in the band, and changed the bland "said" to "descrived"

Done I have no idea what you're talking about in your explanation of your edit, because your writing here is so garbled, but I've looked at the edit in question. What you did was connect two sentences into one sentence, with no change in the meaning of either clause, and this combining is a perfectly fine idea. The problem is that you changed the verb (from "described" to "said") when you didn't need to, and this repeats the same wording of three sentences before. Also, you changed the tense from past perfect to past, and this required you to adjust the quotation with brackets and is a subtly inaccurate usage anyway. Therefore, I restored the original verb and the original tense, but kept the sentences combined. In summary, combining the sentences was a fine idea, but once again, your change created a problem where no real problem had existed in the first place. --Melty girl 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from partly because Murphy's brother was still in secondary school, so their parents did not approve, and partly to partly due to the displeasure of their parents because Murphy's brother was still in secondary school, and partly because the original sounded very awkward to me

Not done Once again, I think the original reads more clearly than your change. And the original reads perfectly fine and has no copyediting mistakes -- but even so, if your change truly tightened the phrasing, I would welcome it. But it doesn't -- it's a more confusing read, introducing a longer phase where two shorter, clearer ones had been. Reverted, until such time as a superior option is proposed. --Melty girl 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Your change didn't shorten this sentence (it simply flipped the phrases around), but since Erik felt it was awkward too, and his criticism was that it was too long, I broke the sentence in two. I think you'll find it improved now. --Melty girl 05:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the next paragraph, several sentences began with "Also", so I rewrote the transitions enough to vary those.

Done There were only two incidences of "also", so only one needed removing to end the repetition. Your first edit, from "Also in 1996" to "That same year" is OK. But you removed BOTH "also"s, and one of them was crucial, because it was in a list of two sentences which gave exposition to another sentence. Here's the restored wording: "...but he failed his first year exams because, as he put it, he had "no ambitions to do it." Not only was he busy with his band, but he has admitted that he knew within days after starting at UCC that law was the wrong fit for his artistic personality. Also, after seeing Corcadorca's stage production of A Clockwork Orange, directed by Kiernan, acting had begun to pique his interest." This "Also," is needed for specifying that the third reason why he failed law school is about to be presented. AND using "Also" here is not a problem of repetition because you already eliminated the only other "also." Therefore, I reinserted it. --Melty girl 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change noted Erik disagreed with the change to That same year, and I agreed with him, so Also in 1996 was restored. To avoid the repetition of "also" that you didn't like, I then changed the second Also to Furthermore, which does the intended linking better. --Melty girl 05:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from his primary motivation then was to party and meet women rather than to start an acting career to Murphy, his primary motivation was not to begin an acting career, but to party and meet women. because the latter version seemed to flow better.

Not done Once again, your edit is not better, and there was no copyediting problem in the first place. Your change states a negative first -- "his primary motivation was not" -- and that is simply more awkward for a reader. The original phrase was fine and reads better. Reverted. --Melty girl 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like either the original or second version of this "began to transition away from working as a rock musician, about which he later ". "Transition away from" is redundant, anhd it doesn't flow well, but I agree that the new version isn't much better.

Not done Why did you implement a change that you admit was poor? And what is the copyediting problem with the phrase "began to transition away from working as a rock musician" anyway? You don't specify, and I don't see a problem with it whatsoever. More troubling, your wording change alters the factual meaning of the sentence. The point is that he was working as a rock musician, but he began to spend time acting. Why water down the fact that he was a working musician to say that he had "musical interests"? There is no logic for such a change. And you also broke the sentence in two, even though the two ideas were directly related, with the opening phrase introducing the quote. Reverted. --Melty girl 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I think the article often uses too many words (often more informal words) to get its point across. The prose could definitely be tightened. Karanacs 21:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It pains and worries me to say this, but due to the off-the-mark edits that you've made to the article (you yourself admit that one of the edits is poor), due to the inaccurate grammatical assessments you've made in many of the examples above, and due to the numerous errors in your writing on this very page, I don't have complete confidence in your assessment that the article's prose has serious copyediting problems. You are, of course, welcome to your opinion (and your opposition), and certainly I am not infallible. I value the review process -- I've engaged each reviewer from B-class to GA to peer review to the article's current A-class status to this FA candidacy. Each step of the way, reviewers have helped improve the article in ways that I was not able to effect on my own. My record of collaborating with others is clear. But my allegiance is to the quality of the article, and your assessment seems at least partially off-the-mark. I do not know what you're referring to in this final paragraph, and I've seen that even while you made some valid points in this review (links, citations, etc.), your insights about the prose seem rather ill-informed. So, if you want to give me specific examples of where the prose is too "wordy" or too "informal", I certainly will discuss examples with you. But if you don't have any specifics to offer with this final pronouncement that the article needs tightening, I'm at a loss for where to make changes. I honestly think the writing in this article is commensurate with other actor FAs, and that the majority of the copyedits you've made thus far have been either wrong or so minor as to be unnecessary. Please support your argument with specifics. Thank you. --Melty girl 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I feel this meets all criteria to a high standard. It's well structured, has a very good flow, and covers all major points comprehensively but without delving into irrelevant detail. It's very well supported by quotes in relation to Murphy and his work, and is well sourced. Like all articles it should continue to evolve, especially in view of the fact that Murphy is a current performer, but I think it is already at the required standard, and compares well with other FA's for entertainers/performers/actors. Well done. Rossrs 11:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. --Melty girl 16:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, sourcing needs attention. ~~About.com is not a reliable source;~~ anyone can write for them, and there is no fact checking or editorial oversight. IMDb is not a reliable source, all websources need last accessdate. All sources should be verified for reliability. Pls see WP:MOSBOLD and fix throughout. I'm not convinced the prose is FA quality (concur with VanTucky about ~~unencyclopedic phrases like "rave review" and don't know what a "near miss with the music industry" is or why it's in the lead),~~ but the sources need attention first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You raise several issues, and I'll respond to them below, one by one. In several cases, I ask for clarification. Thanks. --Melty girl 23:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you say, "All sources should be verified for WP:RS", your statement seems to target the entire article as unreliably sourced. I'm very familiar with WP:RS, and I have already worked for months on verifying all the sources for every single statement of fact in the article. I think the onus is on you to point to specific problems. If you see any other particular citations that you question (in addition to the specific things you did already mention), I'd be happy to respond. Otherwise, I must respond to the general suggestion that I verify all sources for reliability that I've already done that, and all that remains is to debate said reliability of specific publications with editors like you. OK, on to that very task...
Done About.com was used for only one citation, and I've removed it.
Done IMDb issue #1. I thought that IMDb is considered a reliable source for filmographies, and that is by far the primary thing I used it for here. (There is NO biographical information sourced to IMDb, unlike FA Eric Bana.) In contrast to my article, many other FA actor articles (i.e. Jake Gyllenhaal, Angelina Jolie, Eric Bana) don't offer ANY sources to verify which films the actors made. Do you mean to suggest that IMDb cannot even be used as filmography verification? And would you then suggest that I remove all citations for verifying filmography like the aforementioned FAs do? Or do you mean to say that I must find an individual magazine article or movie sales site to verify every film that Murphy has made? And what alternate source would you allow as reliable for information such as whether a film was English/Irish language, etc.? Please advise as to what your intention is here regarding sourcing for which movies Murphy made. You confirmed below that IMDb is acceptable for filmography references.
IMDb issue #2. One IMDb citation is for the soundtrack listing for the indie film Disco Pigs, because the soundtrack itself was not released. This citation was used to verify the fact that Murphy composed and performed a track for the film. If IMDb must be eliminated as you assert, I will likely have to cite the film itself as the source. The closing credits list it with all the other music, and the film is a published piece of media that can be viewed by people the world over for verification. But I thought it preferable to list an online resource where one existed, so I used IMDb. Would you hold the film itself preferable to this IMDb page as a source?

Follow-up question Now that you have confirmed that IMDb as acceptable for filmography, the question remains: do you consider this one citation to be filmography-related and thus reliable?

Done ~~IMDb issue #3. In one case, I used IMDb for box office information. What alternative source would you find acceptably reliable?~~ JayHenry replaced this one instance with Variety.
Done IMDb issue #4. The last thing I used IMDb for: awards references where I could not find an alternative. Do you feel that IMDb is too unreliable to use as a source for awards information? Again, I must point out that other FAs do not offer any sources whatsoever for awards information, and this article is therefore more carefully sourced. Please advise. All IMDb awards citations have been replaced.
Done You say that all sources need last access dates. Well, the only references to web pages in this article that don't give access dates are to extremely stable reference sites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, where the pages have been where they are for years and will be there for years. To me, it seemed unnecessarily long and not particularly helpful to provide the access dates in these cases, and WP:CITE does not say that access dates are required. Can you please point me to the Wikipedia policy that requires last access dates for all web citations? If it must be done, I can certainly add them, but I'm not yet convinced that it's helpful or necessary in all cases. I still don't interpret WP:CITE as requiring web access dates, but it was easier to just add them for all web sources, so I did.
Continued below You say, "Pls see WP:MOSBOLD and fix throughout." I am familiar with these rules, and do not know what problems you refer to; no other editors who've participated in the many reviews this article has had has caught any mistakes regarding these very fundamental style rules. So would you kindly be more specific as to what style violations you see? I'd be happy to fix whatever we've all missed.
Done Prose issues. You say you agree with VanTucky on this, but I must point out that in one case, he misquoted the article, and that his other issues have been addressed already. OK, back to your specific concerns. You mentioned two phrases you found problematic. In the first case, I changed "rave review" to "review." On to the more complicated instance of "After a near miss with the music industry...". You question why it's in the lead, but I think it should be clear why, as per WP:LEAD, if you read the section "Early life and music," which details his work as a rock musician. As for the phrasing, I have reduced it to more simple language: "After turning down a record deal..." OK, that covers your specific concerns with the prose; I'd appreciate your bringing any others to my attention.

I would not say you had addressed my issues, you simply attacked them. So what if I said "notable for" instead of what is exactly in the text? The point is: mentioning his baby blues in the first sentence is the kind of informal language and information that stinks of a fan site. The FA-class Eric Bana article is good example of what you should and should not be including. That bio sticks to his career and accomplishments in a serious way, rather than reading as a star-struck adoration. VanTucky ^Talk 23:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really saying that you should be exempt from reading the text accurately when you oppose it? Misquoting the article as the basis for opposition leaves you open for criticism, as does saying two things weren't inline cited when they were. I did not "simply attack" you; I took the time to clearly elucidate a complex response, which both incorporated some of your suggestions with many time-consuming edits to the article, and outlined reasons for where I disagreed with you. Yet for weeks you neglected to return to finish the review process you started, and now you still haven't engaged with my response to your review. Your assertion now that I simply attacked you seems like a violation of WP:FAITH, and is belied by what I took the time to carefully write above. It would have honored the process if you had engaged in the discussion that I attempted to have with you weeks ago with my above Paul Newman's eyes example. Instead, you finally return to accuse me of attacking you. Everything I wrote included supporting reasons based in the text, whether you agreed with my perspective or not. My stating that I disagree with you and my attempt to point out errors on your part, does not constitute an attack -- and what about where I made changes to the article based on your comments? I did engage with your ideas and I did address some of them by making changes, but you are ignoring those facts here.

Of what you say here about the eyes phrase... you are welcome to assert that mentioning his eyes in the first sentence (it's the second, BTW) is informal language. But I am free to point out that the article does not state, "Cillian Murphy is notable for his gorgeous baby blues," which would be POV and informal. It says, in perfectly formal language and with ample verification, "He is often noted by critics for chameleonic performances in diverse roles, as well as his distinctive blue eyes." You are welcome to say that this reads as star-struck; I stick by my belief that those editors who believe that any language to do with physical attributes of performers must be stricken from an article, no matter how it is written, are in denial of how the entertainment industry works in the real world or how performers use their bodies in their art, and thus do Wikipedia a disservice. It is a classic failing of Wikipedia that an article on Britney Spears can't even engage with the fact that her career is built on her perceived sex appeal -- this whole huge, verifiable social reality is ignored, and WP is not the better for it. And in the case of this article, critics' years of focusing on Cillian Murphy's eyes is mentioned in the lead because it's what he's known for (WP:MOSBIO) and his eyes are mentioned throughout the article (WP:LEAD) in quotes from The New Yorker on down. Are David Denby and Manohla Dargis fansite-ish to write about how Murphy's eyes figure in his work, work in which his body is his instrument? Why is it "informal" to acknowledge the reality that almost every single article about the actor dwells on his eyes, if not states outright that he is famous for them? Why should this encyclopedia omit one of the things that the actor is best known for? Because many editors have a kneejerk response against acknowledging the role of looks in acting and fame? --Melty girl 00:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back for second look; I typed five sentences, and now there's about ten times that amount. No, IMDb is not a reliable source for things like box office figures; it can be used to cite filmography. It's not clear to me that Mania.com is a reliable source either (hard to get through all the ads); more info on reliable sources can be found at WP:V#Sources. (Do you really want to use something like this as a source?) Regarding WP:MOSBOLD, the article has entire lines about awards won bolded. I can't find any guidelines that contradict WP:MOSBOLD, although Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers does suggest bolding the word Won (I'm not sure that's a style guideline, though). They also, suggest, however, a format for filmography which isn't used here. Do you see the example at the bottom of WP:CITE with accessdates? Why would you leave off accessdates of cites with changing information like IMDb? There is some overlinking of words commonly known to most English speakers, for example hero; pls review throughout per WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT. (I'll be traveling until next Tuesday, so won't be able to check back until then.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of your previous concerns have now been addressed, as noted above. There is also a pending clarifying question above. I've responded to your new comments below. --Melty girl 07:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done About your two new reliability issues... JayHenry provided an alternative citation for Mania.com, so I removed the Mania.com citation. Like Playboy, SuicideGirls.com does credible interviews; but anyway, JayHenry provided an alternative for that one citation, so that's resolved too.
See below for conclusion I believe your reading of WP:MOSBOLD is incorrect in regard to the awards list showing wins in bold. The first two paragraphs of the policy cover prose and headings, neither of which applies here, since this is clearly a list. The final paragraph of the policy offers exceptions to the rule against using bold for emphasis, and one of the three exceptions is for definition lists. I would submit that because this is a list, not prose, this latter rule is more appropriate to apply in this case, meaning that my use of bold is just fine. The same awards list format is in use elsewhere, most notably in the FA Diane Keaton, and I simply don't think it violates WP:MOSBOLD. I would appreciate it if you would please read the policy again and then respond to the argument I've made here about list formats (please don't dismiss this without giving a reason). (Additionally, I want to note that there is no set awards format or suggested format from the WikiProject, and that a significant number of the subgroup of actor/filmmaker FAs with awards sections use different list and table formats. See Diane Keaton, Abbas Kiarostami, Satyajit Ray, Bette Davis, Angelina Jolie, Henry Fonda, Miranda Otto.)
I am aware of my WikiProject's suggested filmography table format. Actually, back on August 4th, I attempted to initiate discussion about this on the WikiProject's talk page:

The project page now suggests that Filmography lists should be in tables. I just want to register my dissent. I feel that tables take up a lot of space on the page; lists are more compact. Additionally, not all actors appear only in films. Some appear in features, shorts, videos, TV shows and plays. Putting all of that in one table is rather unwieldy; I prefer separate, more compact lists in one Stage and Screen Roles section. I'm all for working toward consensus on a list format, but I'm not pro-table in all cases. Anyone with me?

(Unfortunately, no one responded.) I feel strongly that it's more reader-friendly to separate Murphy's many shorts from his feature film work in two compact lists rather than to put them all in a big table together. And as you noted, the WikiProject's suggestion is not really an official style guideline anyway.

Done As noted above, all web sources now have access dates.
Done I removed the wikilinks on "hero," "villain," and many, many other such words. (If you feel I have missed any stragglers, it would be great if you'd simply remove them, since that kind of minor edit would probably would take less time to do than returning here to ask me to do it. Thanks.)

New comment I'm still traveling and won't be able to thoroughly review for a few more days. From subsequent comments here, it sounds like you've gotten most of it (thanks JayHenry and Ceoil!). It's unfortunate that no Project has dealt with how to present awards lists, but no, I don't agree with your interpretation of WP:MOSBOLD. This is the example they give of a list; you are using bolding not as a list but for emphasis, to highlight an entire line (rather than enumerating points in a list), which looks chunky and unprofessional. If you used the recommendation per Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, and highlighted only the word "Won", it wouldn't look quite as unprofessional. Bold fonts for emphasis are usually ugly, and emphasis is usually provided by WP:ITALICS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done I see it as a list format, with wins in bold -- and I didn't invent the list format. I took the format from other articles, including the FA Diane Keaton, among others. But it's not important enough to be a stumbling block to FA, so I've changed it.

~~Oppose~~ - I'm going to have to Echo Vantucky here. The addition of the sentence that he is "noted by critics for his distinctive blue eyes" isn't encyclopedic language. Firstly, I don't see anything notable about his blue eyes. Why is he notable for his blue eyes? What makes them notable? What makes them "distinctive"? This is very odd phrasing. The Eric Bana article doesn't say that he's "notable for his distinctive brown eyes" does it? I'm sure I could find a few reviews of Bana's mentioning his brown eyes. The article could for instance mention that specific people SAY that he is noted for his "distinctive blue eyes", quoting them directly, but otherwise it won't work. There are other major problems with the article but at this point that needs to be fixed before anything else, then perhaps we could discuss the other aspects of the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude, but it seems like you read VanTucky's criticism, not the article, when you say, "The article could for instance mention that specific people SAY that he is noted for his "distinctive blue eyes", quoting them directly, but otherwise it won't work." Well, shall I count all these quotes in the article for you? Here they are: director Christopher Nolan says his eyes are "extraordinary" and that they affected how he shot Batman Begins. New York Times critic Manohla Dargis talks about how his ice-cold "baby blues" help make him a "picture perfect villain." New Yorker critic David Denby says that he has "attained his mystique as an actor by staring at people with baby-blue eyes." Scotland on Sunday says he has a "doe-eyed sensitivity." And I could add so many more quotes to the article -- if it would help, I could write a paragraph about the trend, citing 20+ articles AND give his reaction from when he's been asked how he feels about the press talking about his eyes so much. I thought that that would be overkill though -- I think enough quotes are already there, though somehow you missed them. Please read the article more thoroughly. And read the titles of the articles about him in the References section and you'll see the eyes trend there too.

Despite this oversight, I will take a stab at answering the questions you raise:

"Why is he notable for his blue eyes?" The article doesn't say he is "notable" for his blue eyes -- please refer to the article, not VanTucky's misquote. The lead section actually says (emphasis mine), "He is often noted by critics for ... his distinctive blue eyes." In other words, the sentence reports the fact that the press is constantly writing about the actor's eyes. The article goes on to discuss how he has been noted for both their general appearance and how he uses them as an actor. So, "why" say in the lead that the press constantly says this about him (to rephase your question in a way that's accurate to the text)? Because it is something significant that he is well-known for (WP:MOSBIO).
"What makes them [his eyes] notable?" Again, the article does not say that his eyes are notable. It asserts that critics often talk about his eyes, and that this is one of the attributes he is most well-known for. It does not say that people should note his eyes, and it does not say that his eyes are beautiful. It says that critics often discuss his unusual blue eyes, and documents that as a verifiable trend. He is an actor, and eyes are something that actors use in their craft; additionally, lead actors are often famous for their physical attributes.
"What makes them 'distinctive'?" Now this is the closest thing I've seen to someone concerned about this issue actually grappling with the language as it's written. Why use the word "distinctive"? While I firmly believe that the critics' (and a director's) focus on his eyes merits mention as per WP:MOSBIO and to accurately summarize the content of the article as per WP:LEAD, I'm not 100% sure "distinctive" is the best adjective to get the idea across. I do like it though, I must say. I think something along the lines of "unusual" is called for. The phrase needs to get across what the subject of the sentence -- the critics -- keep saying about his eyes. They usually say things like "unusual," "big," "enormous," "startling," "scary," "intense", etc. I feel "distinctive" or "unusual" are less POV than the other options, and get the idea across that there's something out-of-the-ordinary that the critics feel is worth mentioning so often. I suppose the simplest way to say it would be to remove all adjectives and merely say "He is often noted by critics for ... his eyes," but I think that would be a little strange. The point is if you do any reading about him, you will find this theme that his eyes something big he's known for.
Why doesn't Eric Bana's lead mention his brown eyes? That's really besides the point. More to the point, is Paul Newman often noted by the press for his blue eyes and how they affected his performances? Yes. Was Frank Sinatra often noted for his blue eyes? Yes. Was Ann Miller often noted for her long legs and how she prominently showcased them when dancing? Yes. The woman was best known for her legs, and that's something that should be included in an encyclopedia, even though it's about her body. It's not POV, it's a verifiable thing, and speaks to her place in film history, whether you like her legs or not. Do most film writers discuss Cillian Murphy's eyes? Yes. Is it something that the press refers to him as being famous for? Yes. Does the article in question mention how his eyes figure in his performances and how he was cast? Yes, many times, and could do so more if necessary. Is it appropriate to discuss what a performer is best known for, even if it relates to physical attributes? I would say, yes, depending on how it is written. I think that in this case of this article's lead, it is clear who is doing the noting: the press is doing the noting, not the voice of the encyclopedia. And that's the crucial distinction. --Melty girl 04:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence in question states "He is often noted by critics for chameleonic performances in diverse roles,[2][3] as well as his distinctive blue eyes.[4][5]" This phrasing makes it seem like his blue eyes ARE distinctive. Where did the term "distinctive blue eyes" even come from? It's not in either one of the sources cited and is thus also Original research. If you can find a specific person who uses the wording "distinctive blue eyes" then you could quote them directly and attribute it to them, otherwise not only do I see no need for the phrasing "distinctive blue eyes", I also see no relevancy to it. What % of the critics mention his eye color? Is he actually "often" noted for his eyes? How Often? This also seems to be a weasel word as it's far too vague. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot to mention that I edited the sentence as per your criticism above. It now reads, "He is often noted by critics for chameleonic performances in diverse roles, as well as for his distinctive blue eyes."

Wow. You don't even address the fact that you said above that no one in the article remarks on his eyes, and then I pointed you toward all the cited examples that are right there in the article, but you still maintain it's original research! What more can I do, if reading the article to you doesn't show you it's not original research to say that critics often discuss his eyes? The exact phrase "Distinctive blue eyes" need not be quoted directly; it's a paraphrase or summing up of what critics and directors have noted about the actor, just as so many other phrases in articles are. If there are 20 feature stories that discuss the unusual quality of his eyes, do they all need to use the exact phrase "distinctive blue eyes" to support the supposition? NO! As far as percentage of critics that mention his eye color, I'll tell you that it's very high, as evidenced right in the quotes I used and the referenced articles, but at this point, I doubt you'll accept the evidence that's right there. I can't believe that I spent so much the time writing what I wrote to you above, and you still ask me "Is he actually 'often' noted for his eyes?" That's what I've been saying and demonstrating! I could put in twenty citations for it, but I get asked to remove them when I provide more. If you actually read this entire FAC page and view the history of the article, you'll see that at one point I put in seven citations for this. All I can do at this point is repeat myself that you should read the article carefully and read the material in the References section. What else can I do except continue to point to what's there on the page and in the sources? It's one thing to discuss what the language should be; it's quite another to say that sourced material is original research. Wow. I'd put a full list of cited quotes on his eyes here, but I don't know if its presence would even be acknowledged. --Melty girl 04:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. If you're going to use terms such as "distinctive" to refer to a bodypart then you probably need to quote it directly. Otherwise get rid of the word "distinctive" and just say "blue eyes". 2. The word "often" itself is vague and is considered a Weasel word for that. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, with all due respect to everyone involved, I think we're being a bit unfair to Melty Girl. Mentioning Cillian Murphy's blue eyes is about as controversial as mentioning the yellowness of bananas. You would harshly criticize somebody for not doing their homework on something that's not a pop-culture topic, and yet I don't think you're doing your homework here. Melty Girl is right, he's really well known for those blue eyes, they are incredibly and obviously distinctive, and more importantly, many of her sources support the claim. There's absolutely no good reason that this be stricken from the lead. It is, indeed, his most distinctive physical characteristic; removing the mention would be akin to removing mention of Charlie Chaplin's moustache. I ask people to kindly show a little bit of deference to the editor who has done the research. Especially since, in this case, she's quite right. --JayHenry 04:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not advocating striking it from the lead, only putting it in proper context without weasel words. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would you rewrite it? I see no problem with the word "distinctive" and if they weren't distinctive there would be no need to mention them at all. In any case Meltygirl has linked to 2 sources in regards to the eyes. Also, taking into account that the lead is meant to be a summary of the article, within the article director Christopher Nolan is quoted as saying his eyes are "extraordinary" and that he looked for opportunities to film them in close-up. Also have a look at the references. There are articles used with titles "Cillian Murphy more to offer than pale blue eyes" and "The steely blue-eyed charm of Cillian Murphy". His eyes are definitely discussed as being something notable. "Often" could perhaps be dropped. It is kind of weaselish depending on how it's used, and in a lot of articles it's used unsupported. In this case it is supported, but it isn't vital that it be retained. It seems to me that too much is being made of two words that are used with reasonable justification. If it was rewritten without the "often", would that be satisfactory? Rossrs 21:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the weasel words, and the fact that "distinctive" isn't mentioned once in any of those sources. If the "Often" is removed then it says that he is noted by critics for his distinctive blue eyes? What critics? How many of them? I would get rid of the word "distinctive" and rephrase the sentence to perhaps at least partially quote someone discussing his eyes. I would also move the sentence mentioning his eyes to perhaps the second paragraph. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word "distinctive" doesn't need to be used specifically by any of the critics etc, because as a word it paraphrases/summarises the fact that his eyes are often discussed or mentioned. "Distinctive" is a generic word. The very fact that his eyes get mentioned at all is because they are distinctive/notable/unusual/uncommon etc. If they weren't distinctive they wouldn't be mentioned. Also WP:LEAD is intended to summarize points contained in the article, so to get into more than a general reference to his eyes in the lead would be inappropriate. To quote anyone in the lead in regards to his eyes, would be horrendously POV in my opinion, because of all the critics or commentators who have mentioned his eyes in one way or another, how can we choose one phrase or quote as definitive? There are two compelling quotes in the article to support the mention of the eyes in the lead - one linking it to his "mystique" and the other describing them as "extraordinary". Surely "distinctive" is a suitable way to paraphrase. Rossrs 12:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update Following this discussion, JayHenry kindly documented the overwhelming nature of the press's focus on Murphy's eyes at the article's talk page. He used Nexis and turned up 128 reliable press mentions focusing on Murphy's eyes and offered 50 specific quotations. The evidence is overwhelming, and another editor chimed in there to agree with leaving the eyes mention in. Wikidudeman, are you now willing to let go of your suggestion that this isn't either sourced or significant? --Melty girl 06:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support This satisfies the FA criteria. The objection about the eyes is patently unreasonable. Quibbling over such a minor detail is exactly the sort of thing that makes so few editors want to participate at FAC. The statement is attributed to The New Yorker, not some fan site, The New Yorker. I'm sorry, but when The New Yorker says that an actor has attained his mystique by staring at people with his baby-blue eyes, then it's perfectly reasonable to paraphrase that as distinctive. --JayHenry 01:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, but even more so for your reasonable attitude and acknowledgment of the sourced material and for restoring a bit of my faith in the community. Whatever the outcome, I'm enormously grateful for your recognizing that I have done my homework where this subject is concerned, amidst a rather disheartening and often unproductive (for the article) process. --Melty girl 17:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this nomination has been productive, even if you didn't hear what you wanted to hear, I think that this information provided could be properly used to improve the article, Even if you disagree with it. It's important to remember that some of the editors that you are arguing so harshly against have a lot of experience with Featured Articles, including myself. I think that simply dismissing our input simply because you disagree with it would only hurt the article, not help it. As Sandy has mentioned above, There are issues with Reliable sources, As I and Vantucky have mentioned, there are issues of Tone and Weasel words. There also seem to be issues with citations not matching the statements that they are being cited for. The article is clearly GA criteria, but I think that these things need to be improved before it can be Featured Article material. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the process often being productive -- I was frustrated when I wrote that. Much of this process has been productive, even as it's been frustrating. I'm not looking for people to agree with me on everything -- I'm looking for people to engage with the article as written and engage with what I've actually said here. But surely you can understand my frustration with people who misquote the article, who say there are no citations when there are, who say that the article needs "serious copyediting" without being able to produce valid examples, or who say I'm attacking them when I've actually taken action at their prompting but also dared to disagree with them. It was very frustrating to be told by you that the article has "major problems" but have none of them specified, because there's no action I can take on that and no discussion that I can have with you about that. That feels unproductive. I must commend you for sticking around after making criticisms, but it was frustrating when I responded to your comments in detail but didn't receive the same courtesy from you. Perhaps it was just a misunderstanding, but when I recopied out all my sources to point them out for you, and you still said that the eyes phrase was original research, I felt at a complete loss. I have no idea why you are saying that; when critic David Denby says (to cite but one example) that Cillian Murphy has attained his mystique as an actor via his baby blue eyes, how is that not a valid source for saying that critics remark on his eyes? It is also extremely frustrating to dither over ONE phrase and have that be extrapolated into the whole article supposedly having a tone problem -- but how come no other examples of a tone problem have been cited on this page? (OK, there was one other specific -- I had referred to an 8 out of 10 star film review as a "rave review"; it seemed like an accurate characterization to me, but I deleted it nonetheless.) If you could cite multiple examples of a tone problem, then maybe it would feel reasonable that the whole article was painted with this brush -- but you have only mentioned ONE phrase, and the same goes for the other editor you cite. So that seems out-of-proportion and feels unproductive -- and sorry, but you can't use reviewers' "experience" to justify cavalier exaggeration, oppose-and-run reviewing, or nonspecific criticism that's unactionable. You guys are not senior editors. --Melty girl 02:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have time to argue about this so I'm just going to Support it's nomination. I still think that the odd paraphrasing and weasel words need to go though and other improvments made, but I'll support the FA nomination. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and for working through this process. --Melty girl 07:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Read this during the week, and though the phrase "distinctive blue eyes" would usually bother me, and though I'm a straight male, it's worth mentioning in the the second sentence of this article. Well done. Ceoil 09:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Melty girl 17:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few suggestions (from Erik):

In the lead section, change "hero" to "protagonist", as his character was not a hero in the conventional sense

Actually, I think a character who comes to the rescue of two female characters to save the day in the final act of a movie is absolutely a hero "in the conventional sense". Also, I'm using "hero" to contrast directly with "villain" in the next sentence. I don't think this should be changed. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Can "2007 saw..." be rephrased? It seems too personified for an encyclopedia.

I was trying to use variation in the prose so it's not a boring read. It's formal language. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

In "Early life and music", can his birth date be placed in the first sentence for the sake of completeness?

WP:MOSBIO says birthdate goes in the lead sentence, and I don't think it is appropriate or necessary to repeat his birthdate twice in the article. None of the FA bios that I've looked at do this -- they all use the same format I've used here. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"Not only are his parents educators, but his aunts and uncles are also teachers, as was his grandfather." This seems like an awkwardly-written sentence -- is it necessary at all? Did education running in the family do anything for Murphy? I can understand the musicianship influence later.

The point is that he veered from the family path. Should that point be stated more explicitly? About the sentence's structure, it is grammatically proper and is comprised of three clear short phrases. It is not brilliant writing (to quote the FA criteria) to make every sentence structured exactly the same way. Variation in the phrasing, even when correct, seems to trigger you. I'm a firm believer that WP writing can be as interesting as magazine writing while still upholding the standards of an enyclopedia. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"There, Murphy got his first taste of performing..." This use of slang may not be clear to the entire readership; I suggest more specific and neutral wording.

This is NOT slang or non-neutral. It is one of the definitions of "taste" in the dictionary, and is an old usage -- please see the above discussion about this. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"They did not sign the contract, partly because Murphy's brother was still in secondary school, so their parents did not approve, and partly because the contract offered little money and would have ceded the rights to Murphy's compositions to the record label." This is a run-on sentence. Can you break it up into two or three sentences for easier reading?

Done Grammatically, this is NOT a run-on sentence -- it is simply a LONG, grammatically correct sentence. I have, however, broken it in two, since you are not the only one to feel it is too long. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"That same year" -- since it's a new paragraph, you may want to repeat the year (which I assume is 1996) to re-establish context

Done That's what it used to read until a reviewer above changed it! And I had it that way for the very reason you state. I've changed it back. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"Also, after seeing Corcadorca's stage production..." Remove "Also", the sentence is fine without it.

Done Actually, the reader needs to know that they're about to hear another reason why he failed law school. I've changed it to "Furthermore". See above discussion for full explanation. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"Murphy hounded Pat Kiernan..." More slang which may not be clear to all; can alternative phrasing be pursued?

This is not slang. The verb "hound" means to pursue: "to hunt or track with hounds, or as a hound does; pursue." WP does not need to be dumbed down. This is a very concise way to express the idea, and is perfectly correct. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"...his first agent caught a performance..." Replace slang with clearer phrasing.

This is not slang either. Catch is a word with many formal definitions, among them "to see or attend: to catch a show." (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"...his acting career began to take off." See above.

This is not slang. It is concise and correct. If you can propose an alternative that is not unnecessarily long and belabored, please do, but this phrase is correct and highly familiar to use regarding entertainment careers. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"Murphy's onscreen performance as "Pig"..." You may want to mention Disco Pigs again, as it is a paragraph after its last mention with a whole paragraph in between discussing other aspects of his career.

Done (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I would suggest not citing IMDb for the awards -- just find separate citations for Best Newcomer and Best Male Breakthrough Performance.

Done All IMDb awards citations have been replaced. (Unluckily, that meant losing one of his wins, because the page for that year was faulty on the film festival's web site!) (Melty girl 00:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"In late 2005 (early 2006 in Europe)..." Is the statement in parentheses necessary?

The idea is to not be American-centric, particularly since this is an international topic, and most of the world didn't get the film until 2006. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"...and won the Irish Film and Television Academy Best Actor Award." Can you make this a separate sentence?

The new sentence would be a bit stubby. It's correct as it is. The sentence is about awards for a role, and states, "He was nominated for X and won X." Not sure why it is a must to break up the idea. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Done I took out the parenthetical clause that preceded the clause you mentioned (it was about Joaquin Phoenix's Globe win). Now the sentence is shorter, and my guess is that you'll like it better. (Melty girl 04:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"In 2006 (2007 in North America)..." Again, is the statement in parentheses necessary?

Same reasoning. The movie came out a full year later in North America. Why not speak globally? (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The section "New roles and the future" does not seem very static-sounding -- by 2010, the content will have to be shifted. Can the section heading(s) be re-adjusted to be more "timeless"?

Actually, the section will be needed until Murphy retires, which may not happen for 30-50 years, so that's pretty static in terms of the section's title. As for shifting content, that's a given. For example, right now, he's shooting Hippie Hippie Shake, but in 2010, that movie will be a known quantity, and thus will have to be written about differently, and new films will shift it up the page. This kind of shifting content is a given for any encyclopedia that includes living persons. By 2010, the lead paragraph itself may have changed, because he might be known best for some big role from 2009 -- and that's just fine. Because the works in the "New roles" section are mostly unseen and not much written about yet, there isn't a better title for the section; the overriding theme about the work in this section is its newness. In one to two years, there will probably be an additional section above the "New roles" section, but the section itself will be needed so long as he is a working artist. Therefore, I think the section is entirely appropriate. The section's content cannot be static until Murphy stops working, but the title certainly can. (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"...and Liam Neeson, and looks up to the latter..." Re-word to say, "...and Liam Neeson, looking up to the latter..." so the "and" doesn't have to be used.

Done (Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I feel that the "Awards and nominations" section may be too long and have too much undue weight. There's an overabundance of nominations that did not pan out, considering he's only won four out of 23 listed nominations. Can this be trimmed down at all?

Done I have trimmed it down again. The list is now one-third shorter than it was this FAC began, and the last two subsections have been combined. I am loathe to trim it any further, because nominations are meaningful to careers, and this encyclopedia should be encyclopedic -- if we reduce any further, IMDb and fansites will offer overwhelmingly more info than WP. (Melty girl 00:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Let me know if there's any issues with any of my suggestions! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS! --Melty girl 19:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support due to suggestions above being addressed -- I understand the reasons for suggestions not implemented. Otherwise, this article is well-referenced, well-cited, and comprehensive. I am happy to give it my support, and I hope that it can continue improving in the course of Murphy's career! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing such a careful read of the article and offering so many suggestions. And thanks for your support. --Melty girl 22:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and suggestions (from Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)})

"...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.
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).
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.
"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.
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?!

Hope these help. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 21:18, 22 October 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.