Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jake Gyllenhaal/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jake Gyllenhaal

[edit]

The article has made GA and has been considerably worked over several months to produce a comprehensive, flowing article. I think it is worthy of FA. Dev920 20:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Conditional Support. I agree that it is pretty good, but there are a couple things that are necessary for me to support it:

  • Most importantly, the formatting of the references is insufficient. For example, it seems the very first referenc just sends you to entertainment.tv.yahoo.com and not a particular article. None of the references contain information about article title name, date of publication, or date it was accessed on the web. ALL of them need to be corrected.
I will see what I can do. Bearing in mind there are 66 references, this may take some time, however.
Yeah, but it will be necessary for FA.

:::Agreed. Needs major work. See Free will or Hilary Putnam. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Update: the references are almost all properly formatted. There are still a few to go. But this one is basically addressed. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11 to go! Dev920 12:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've upgraded from Comment to Conditional Support, on the condition that you finish the job with the references.--DaveOinSF 23:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'll finish that off today. It's only been delayed because, as mentioned before, my computer keeps crashing, so I'm doing it on my school computers. (Thankyou, Lacatosias as well). Dev920 07:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
References are all done now.Dev920 16:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you just make sure the references are standardized? In most cases, the name of the journal precedes the link to the article, in some cases it follows it.--DaveOinSF 19:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what the References guideline says to do if you cannot find an author. The references where that happens are ones that we couldn't find a source for. Dev920 08:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh...there's some references (#12, for example) where there is an author, and the name of the periodical follows the link to the article. Then there are a whole bunch (#70, for example) where there is an author, but the name of the periodical precedes the link to the article. And in perusing the references, some are missing access dates, some are improperly titled. For example, #21 is titled "About Movies". THat is incorrect. THe title of the article is "Jake Gyllenhaal and Brad Silberling Talk About 'Moonlight Mile'". The name of the publication is About.com. I'm reinserting my "Conditional" support until these things are corrected.--DaveOinSF 16:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm....it might kill you to try to make those tiny little adjustments yourself, eh?? Did somone call this a collaborative project. I did 99% of the references. I was actually trying to help the kid. Instead of sitting around and whining about miniscule formalities, I tried to do something about them. I object to your nonsense. This is not my article. DO IT YOURSELF!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 16:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with this: both I and Lacatosias have been through every reference and edited them to make them compky with guidelines, yet you took the time to examine the references in detail but not to correct them: I have gone half-blind correcting every single reference, why don't you fix them for a change? Dev920 18:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord. This is not the talk page of the article where different editors are discussing how to improve the article. This is the page where you have asked people to review the article and discuss whether or not this article should be promoted to FA status. If you are unwilling to do the work that different reviewers are, in good faith, telling you is necessary for the article to achieve FA status, then withdraw the nomination.--DaveOinSF 18:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the fact is you are sounding imperious. I can understand giving criticism and not doing it yourself because we all have other things to do, hence our changing the references, improving the article, but you took the time to examine the references you had previously given your support for and insisted we give access dates for article in newspapers where access dates are not required, and actually checked article titles, claiming we got them wrong without changing them yourself. Which is, quite frankly, wrong. Dev920 20:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for the tone. I realized after looking at the article again that I was a bit hasty in signing off on it. I based it on your statement that the references had been fixed and a quick glance rather than my own careful investigation. That was my mistake. I'll correct a few later today when I have the chance, to further demonstrate my good faith.--DaveOinSF 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. With the critical commentary I've added, the references objection seems to be the only outstanding problem. If we're all editing it, this should be perfect within a day. Dev920 21:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out, however, that I never provided access dates where the article was from a newspaper or magazine and dated; reference policy says only to provide access dates for internet based sources, which a newspaper is not. Dev920 21:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've now changed every single reference I could find that needed changing (and added access dates to newspaper articles I probably shouldn't have). Should you find anymore, I hope you will change them yourself. Dev920 16:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Filmography" and "Awards" contain essentially redundant information.
I've deleted filmography, since we've added everything to his article anyway, but the awards I think still need to be in a block.
Improvement.
I don't see this as an improvement at all. A filmography is pretty much a must. Not everybody wants to read the entire article just to find out what films an actor was in. Sloan21 22:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Sloan21's concerns have been addressed. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reinsert the filmography. It is essential to an actor's biography. Never Mystic (tc) 02:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is mostly minor stuff. I have deleted the Awards section and I hope noone now isnsist that it is "essential....". the alternative was to remove the column on awards in the filmography. Since I don't know how to this, I deleted the Awards. If Awards is required or something, please fix it yourselves.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, centre it? That's what the photo looks like - the fan was a bit hasty in her shot. I can't do anthing about that without editing it and uploading it and I think that copyright infringement somewhere... Dev920 21:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The photo was uploaded under the WP:GFDL license in which: "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document..." as long as you refer back to the original photo and use the identical license.--DaveOinSF 21:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you do it then; my attempts at photo editing have all gone horribly wrong to date. :( Dev920 11:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it. I saved it under a different name (my first attempt at overwriting went horribly wrong, to borrow your phrase). If you decide to use it, could you please go to the image description page and enter all the details from the other page about being allowed to use it etc. It's a good photo - it would be great if you could upload both the original and the cropped images to Commons. Rossrs 12:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the information to the cropped image as well. Dev920 11:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    • The prose in "Personal life" is not very convincing, it is only a list of several very short paragraphs.
"Convincing"? What do you mean? The paragraphs are five to ten sentences linked by a common theme; there's nothing else to add and adding all the pragraphs together will not make compelling prose. Dev920 11:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The artilce appears pretty short overall. While I'm not an expert on the subject, I would suspect there is more information available about him.
    • The text seems a bit unbalanced at times, e.g. "2005 has been described as "unquestionably Jake Gyllenhaal's year"" which is a rather bold statement and the only source for it is an online biography. Sloan21 22:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral until the writing is improved. Oppose for the following reasons:
  1. The first paragraph is one sentence.
    addressed--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks okay now, but doesn't mention much of his earlier work. Never Mystic (tc) 22:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because, as with many actors, Jake Gyllenhaal's early work is fairly rubbish. Dev920 21:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't make any sense; an actor's earlier work is what helps make them break into Hollywood. Never Mystic (tc) 23:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It could be considered POV to introduce him as "Academy Award-nominated", which emphasizes his recognition before career.
    If it's a fact, it's a fact. I don't understand how that could be POV.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's POV to introduce them as "Academy Award-nominated" because it stresses their achievements. Please remove these from the lead section and replace them somewhere more appropriate. Never Mystic (tc) 22:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is ridiculous. The lead should include the highlights of the article, and should most certainly include a mention of the highlight of Gyllenhaal's career. I would certainly expect the lead of Marie Curie to tell me that she was a Nobel prize winner.--DaveOinSF 23:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You would like the first sentence to be even shorter? Dev920 11:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Longer. Never Mystic (tc) 00:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Image:Donniedarkoskelcostume.jpg lacks fair use rationale.
    Will remove.
    The article lacks images now; you should upload new ones and add proper fair use rationale. Never Mystic (tc) 00:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Image:Brokeback mountain.jpg lacks fair use rationale.
    Will remove.
    The article lacks images now; you should upload new ones and add proper fair use rationale. Never Mystic (tc) 00:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This would help, but, as you know, images are not required for FA candiates. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right, but the fair use rationale could be supplied and the images could be used in the article. It's really quite simple and I see it's been done. Good job! Never Mystic (tc) 20:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "Although not initially a box office success, Donnie Darko has become a cult favourite": because Gyllenhaal is American, favourite should be spelled favorite. Moreover, there is a lot of clunky and unusual writing such as "The film, set in 1988, is about the bright but troubled teenager Donnie Darko played by Gyllenhaal, who, after narrowly escaping death, has repeated visions of a 6-foot tall rabbit named Frank who tells him that the world will end in 28 days".
    Addressed.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. There are many redundant sentences throughout the career section, such as "However, Maguire recovered and the sequel was shot". If Gyllenhaal was not cast as Spiderman because Maguire suffered injuries, readers will assume that Maguire made a full recovery.
    Not sure I understand this one. Not a follow of films.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many sentences that are short and choppy; either expand, merge or remove them altogether. Never Mystic (tc) 22:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The awards section is unnecessary; merge its content into the article.
    addressed.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Why is there no filmography? All featured articles on actors have one, including non-FAs. A list of nominations is far less notable than the actor's film appearances.
    addressed--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please reverse the filmography so that it's chronological. Never Mystic (tc) 20:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    addressed
  9. References are not formatted appropriately.
    addressed.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. According to Wikipedia:External links, fansites shouldn't be linked to.
    WP:EL says a major fansite should be linked to or a site which provides greater information that cannot be added to the article. Nothing in Jake's external links contradicts this.
    You're right. It looks good, after all. Never Mystic (tc) 00:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Most of the writing is awkward and needs to be rewritten.
  12. The information box currently has POV. It's not up to us to decide which of Gyllenhaal's roles were "notable".
    addressed--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 09:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Include critical commentary.
    I can't address these broader concerns. YOU have to do that, Dev. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I said I would, as I did with everything else. I can't help if you keep beating me to it. ;) Dev920 14:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Never Mystic (tc) 23:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Filmography is definetely needed. It's a quick reference for a person who wants to know essential information quickly without having to read the article. Infoboxes are used for the same reason. - Tutmosis 23:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support now since I think most issues have been resolved. I still have an issue with the prose per 1a of FA criteria. But it's not really a major issue for me so I will give my support. What I mean is its "Comprehensive" but not "compelling". It's not one or two sentences but how the whole article is written. In other words its written like class notes; simple sentences of facts. Maybe try to get a someone who majored in english to reword the article a bit to make it more intresting to read. Everything else seems good. - Tutmosis 23:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what I think is happening then is that I do not understand the concept of compelling prose. From my perpective, I am writing an encyclopedia, and therefore my sentences are immediately to the point and contain nothing but the facts. Compelling prose is...what? I cannot add adjectives, as that is subtle POV, I cannot add minor asides as this is besides the point and unencyclopedic. What is needed here? Dev920 15:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't major in english so I wouldnt have an idea how to improve it. Like I said its not an issue for me but the prose didn't seem too intresting. It wasnt anything specific but overall feeling of reading the article. I think its about word selection and arrangement, not about adjectives. I wouldn't worry about it unless you know someone who majored in english and/or writes novels for living. - Tutmosis 18:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will return add the filmography. Seeing as I removed the filmography under request and was immediately criticised for it, I will not remove the awards list. The first lead paragraph is concise and comprehensive, what more exactly do you want? The references, as mentioned above, are numerous and I am working on it (However, my computer crashed as I had finished half of them and I am reluctant to do it all over again).
And it seems to me that everyone who has commented on this FAC so far believes that there is more information out there on Jake Gyllenhaal. Please, go and look him up. There isn't. Dev920 11:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was never requested that you remove filmography. I just pointed out that the Awards section and Filmography section are essentially redundant, especially since all the information in Awards is listed on the Filmography chart. Since you have returned filmography, get rid of the list of Awards, or remove the awards column from the filmography graph. As for the Brokeback Mountain and Donnie Darko images, I don't think you needed to remove them, just write a fair use rationale on the respective image pages. I think a strong case can be made to include them.--DaveOinSF 15:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fair use rationale IS needed. But you could have explianed to her how to do that!! I will go and find the link.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link on how to include fair use rationales and the various sorts of fair use that are allowed. Hope that helps. I don't know anthing about the pics, so you'll have to write your own rationale. Take your time and don't panic. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. In which case, I won't make any changes whatsoever to the article unless at least two people agree on them here. (So I will change the references). Dev920 17:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm afraid this article is not even close to FA quality at the moment, in fact it might need some re-writing as pointed out above. Also, it contains no critical commentary at all; opinions from noted film critics are almost mantatory in a FA for a modern day actor. -- EnemyOfTheState 20:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that so? Eric Bana, Uma Thurman, and Julia Styles have no critical commentary whatsoever. Does not seem mandatory to me. Additionally, I suspect if I were to remove bits of "poor writing" that others were complaining about, I would be immediately told it is not comprehensive enough or "has holes". Please compare the articles, all FA, above with Jake Gyllenhaal, and make your decision from that, because you all seem to have the bar set far beyond the Wikipedia policy on FA. The article is referenced, it flows, and it covers everything that may be discovered about Jake Gyllenhaal's life. All criticism received cannot agree on what is wrong with it; could you please agree on stuff I need to change? Dev920 06:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, if you have an objection to a single sentence, could you please rewrite it? Not only does it take pressure off me trying to know what you want, failing, being corrected etc., it provides a useful example to follow for more complex rewrites. Thankyou. Dev920 07:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all three of the articles mentioned above do have critical commentary. They all cite magazines/newspapers and film critics at least four or five times; I'm not sure why you think there is no critical opinion "whatsoever". -- EnemyOfTheState 15:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You definitely need to address substantially whatever professional criticism exists of his acting career, both good and bad. This is absolutely essential to an article on an actor -- if a man is notable for producing art of any kind then the critical reaction to that work is necessary for a comprehensive article. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. But how am I to do that without incurring accusation of POV? See above "It could be considered POV to introduce him as "Academy Award-nominated"" and "The text seems a bit unbalanced at times, e.g. "2005 has been described as "unquestionably Jake Gyllenhaal's year"", both critical analyses rejected as POV. What to do? Dev920 16:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please incorporate critical commentary. I think it should be done too. Never Mystic (tc) 20:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but I don't want to get pounced on because I'm using useless or biased critics. I'm guessing Ebert, anyone else quite good, or shall I just hop around and find what I can? Dev920 11:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah hah!! Now I get it it. It's her IDOL, for heaven's sake!! Take it easy on the poor kid (;. Seriously, Dev920, I would create a sub-section called "criticism" an include both pro and con views on the various films, on the actor's takent, etc.. Whatever you can find, as long as (I have to say it!!) there is some negative, unfavorable stuff in their. This is part of the policy of Neutral Point of View. We have to make it seem like we're neither for nor againts the subject of the article. All critics are biased, I think. Don't woory about that. That's what they do. Major critics are obviously better than unknown people, but all that's really necessary is sources and balance.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 12:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think a subsection wouldn't disrupt the article's flow? It occurs to me that we do actually have references to reviews n the article already, would quoting from them be OK? Dev920 07:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It might. But, sometimes, introducing criticism directly into the body of a text (espcially quotes) can be even more tricky. BTW, if you do it that way, don't just use all quotes. Paraphrase some of the points in your own words as well. Otherwise, it might end up looking like a list of blockquotes just added at random. Use your best judgment and I'll try to help you out with the flow if I can. Copyediting, except for basic issues of grammar, punct and so on, is not really my forte though.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism has now been added for October Sky, Donnie Darko, This is Our Youth, Bubbly Boy and Moonlight Mile. Bubble Boy is negative and Moonlight Mile is mixed. All ok now? Dev920 15:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because her partner was Jake's co-star in Jarhead and he is very close to both of them. Dev920 07:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the only reason, I'd get rid of it. At the very least move it to the sister's article or the boyfriend's article; it isn't about the subject of this one. Jkelly 16:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Jake is almost certain to be the child's godfather. Dev920 18:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not completely certain, it should be removed or at least strongly sourced. Never Mystic (tc) 01:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not actually on there. It's just that, with the fact that he knows both and there are regularly pictures of the three together, it seems best to leave it up until the child is born (a few months). Dev920 07:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment As the user who passed it as a GA I think it is very good, however there is one thing i'd like to know before I give it my support, is that a total or selected filmography.

†he Bread 04:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selected. The really small, obscure films he did are in the article, but the ones anyone has heard of are in the filmography. Dev920 07:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sweet As you have my Support as long as all the image mumbo jumbo is cleared up

†he Bread 19:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it has been. :D Dev920 07:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lead image is fairly low-quality and not at all flattering. I understand why we're using it (it's free), but has anyone considered contacting Gyllenhaal's agent or fanclub or whatever and asking them to release a higher-quality promotional photo under the GFDL or a compatible Creative Commons license so we can replace the current image? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have contacted the fanclub to ask for a photo - that was what we got back. Do publicity agencies have a history of giving out free high quality photos? Dev920 15:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When it benefits them to do so. There's some boilerplate floating around to make a request, and the worst that can happen is that they say no. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support the article is extremely well-referenced, accurate, and very nicely, concisely written. (It's not Tolstoy, but I don't think we should be holding up quite that high a standard). I've gone through and done some copyediting and I have seen no serious grammar or other such errors. Moreover, I will ask a few people who have done good work on many featured articles and who I respect to see if they can look it over and adress some of the prose issues that people are objecting to. I would STILL like to see a bit more critical commentary. But it's definitely going in the right direction.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 16:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticising what? Virtually every film has commentary now. Dev920 16:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For example: the thing that probablt caught my interst the most is the so-called "gay cowboy" film. Surely, this must have caused come controversy and provoked some very hostile reactions from Christian conservatives in the US, if not elsewhere. Could you tell me a little more about that. You have several comments from Gyllenhaal, but....what was the reaction from the right, counterreaction from the left and all that kind of thing. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely though, that belongs on the Brokeback Mountain article. The critical response to Jake's performance within the film is evident by the number of awards he got for it. Surely how people reacted to the film is irrelevant, and there is already stuff on Jake's part within it. Dev920 17:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How people react to the film is irrevelant, eh? You're probably right. I've never edited an article on an actor. But that makes sense. Howevere, I notice that some of the criticims that you HAVE recently added to the article are precsily about the film and not about his performances. Are you trying to have it both ways? In any case, you ought to add more criticism of his performaces, I think. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 18:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did that for two films, Moonlight Mile and Bubble Boy. And that was because I couldn't find a critic to say that Jake's acting in them was rubbish! Everyone loves him! Please, give me an paragraph that I could put another critic in without disrupting the flow of the article: all of Jake's major films have been covered. Do you want criticism for naff films like Lovely and Amazing? Dev920 18:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. I'm afraid I've gotten involved in a discussion about content on a subject I dont know anything about. I'm just trying to help you get past the objections that some others have lodged about "lack of criticism" and so on. I don't know, for example, wether criticism about Lovely and Amazing is appropriate or not. But you shouldn't be making your case with me. I have defer to the "experts" (that is, anyone who knows more about films and articles about films than I do) on this one. If they are satified that it's thorough, comperhensive, etc., then so am I. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 18:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll throw this one out to every editor who looks here: Can any more commentary be added without damaging the flow and conciseness of the article? All Jake's significant films have criticism; is it necessary to add it for the obscurer films? Dev920 19:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jake_Gyllenhaal/archive1&oldid=1128606625"